Chapter in the Old Testament

[Mute]

I don't know how many people are familiar with the old testament. I remember I had a lot of difficulty understanding it the first time through but there were also a lot of scriptures in the old testament that greatly bothered me. I recently learned of a chapter that talked about human sacrifice. I at first thought they were talking about Abraham being ready to sacrifice his son but they listed a different chapter. Here a young girl is offered up as a burnt offering to the Lord. I didn't remember reading this the first time through the old testament but I've only ever read the old testament one time all the way through from start to finish.

JUDGES

CHAPTER 11

29 ¶ Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30 And Jephthah avowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

32 ¶ So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.

33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

34 ¶ And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.

36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Now I'm sure many of us would agree that the Mayan's offering humans as sacrifice to the Sun God would be appalling regardless of whether or not they did it to improve their crops or what ever their reasons may have been. So my question is, how do you see this as different? Is there a belief in any faith that says this is a mistranslation and that he did not offer his daughter up as a burnt offering? What is your view point on this?

[estradling75]

In the commentary I read it says that verse 31 needs abit of adjustment do to translation errors

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and/OR I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

Its a subtle thing but it clarifies Jephthah's promise if the first thing to come through the door is a Person or other thing unsuitable for burnt offering then it get dedicated to the Lord. Like Samuel's mother promised her son would serve the Lord if he granted her a son. However if it was an animal or other suitable thing for a burnt offering then that it what it would be.

Basically Jephthah promised that his daughter would become the Jewish equal to a nun. With that understanding her request to bewail her virginity makes alot more sense... Because if you where about to die I would think other things would become a priority.

[Mute]

Hmm. Do you remember the commentary you looked at? I would find it interesting to look into.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't only the Catholics believe in celibacy? Was Samuel ever told that he couldn't get married? I honestly can't remember but I'll try to look it up.

To me, I still think she was most likely sacrificed because it says the daughters of Israel lamented her 4 days of every year. To me that seems more like something people would do over the death of someone.

[rameumptom]

Samuel had sons, so he obviously was married. It was Bullinger that suggested the And/or. You can read more about it here:

Jephthah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[volgadon]

Samuel had sons, so he obviously was married. It was Bullinger that suggested the And/or. You can read more about it here:

Jephthah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullinger's solution is a way of making the text more palatable. It is hard to understand the grief and horrified reactions presented in the text if all we were talking about was a lifetime of cultic worship.

[rameumptom]

And I personally agree with you, Volgadon. There are early versions of the Akedah (Abraham sacrificing Isaac), wherein Abraham actually slays Isaac. The Lord then comes and raises Isaac back to life. So it isn't like human sacrifice is unknown to Israel in its early period.

[volgadon]

And I personally agree with you, Volgadon. There are early versions of the Akedah (Abraham sacrificing Isaac), wherein Abraham actually slays Isaac. The Lord then comes and raises Isaac back to life. So it isn't like human sacrifice is unknown to Israel in its early period.

There is actually more in both chapters which supports the notion of sacrifice.

[Vort]

I don't know how many people are familiar with the old testament. [...] What is your view point on this?

This is a prime example of the weakness of those who claim the so-called sola scriptura position, holding that the Bible is the perfect Word of God, and that anything and everything we will ever need to know is contained therein.

The Bible is a collection of ancient writings, many or most of them inspired of God. But not all Biblical writings are divinely inspired (note Joseph Smith's comment about Solomon's Song), and those that are inspired are not all of equal reliability or worth.

Many things were common among ancient pagan religions; for example, circumcision. In this case, God apparently used an existing practice -- one that many clear-thinking persons today consider utterly barbaric -- to impress the importance of a covenant on his chosen people. While I do not for a moment believe that the true and living God ever required and accepted the blood of an innocent as a sacrifice to him, I can easily believe that stories, real or invented, that show the importance of covenant-keeping among God's people were used to establish this truth, even if the stories were somewhat overboard in portraying innocent girls being killed and cut up.

I may be wrong, but I rather suspect the ancients mostly understood this. I would guess that, when they heard the story you reference, they didn't think, "Hey, lookie there! God sometimes requires is to slit our children's throats and cut various organs out of their dead bodies!" Rather, I would guess their takeaway was, "When you make a covenant with God, it is a holy and binding thing, and we must fulfill our covenant regardless of the personal cost to us." (Remember that children were considered an extension of the parents, especially the father, and that sacrificing your child would not have been viewed so much as a brutal, vicious, and probably psychotic crime as it would have been seen as the ultimate sacrifice a person can make.)

[Guest]

Now I'm sure many of us would agree that the Mayan's offering humans as sacrifice to the Sun God would be appalling regardless of whether or not they did it to improve their crops or what ever their reasons may have been. So my question is, how do you see this as different? Is there a belief in any faith that says this is a mistranslation and that he did not offer his daughter up as a burnt offering? What is your view point on this?

Mute, this story is used by Catholic nuns to teach about the folly of making "bargains" with God. It is also used to teach the sinfulness of vengeance. This doesn't differ from LDS teaching in my understanding.

In the story, Jephthah was the illegitimate son of a harlot that got rejected by his family and ejected from his homeland. This is serious business in that time as familial clan protection is vital to one's survival. As you follow the story, Jephthah did not lead a good life - he led a band of vain men in Tob. Because of the war with the Ammonites, his family urged him to come back to be their prince and lead them in battle. Verse 7 gives us a glimpse of Jephthah's reaction to this.

Therefore, when he made the vow to God to offer up for a sacrifice the first to come out the door to meet him, he was offering his family who rejected him. This offering can be seen as a way for Jephthah to pay back his family for ejecting him from the homeland and at the same time bargain with God for a victory. Follies that caused him the price of a daughter.

The juxtaposition here with Abraham/Isaac is that God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac whereas there is no indication in Judges 11 that God ever requested Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter - Jephthah made the offering on his own. There is also no indication that God accepted that sacrifice.

You might point out that God gave Jephthah victory over the Ammonites which might be construed as approval/acceptance of the sacrifice, but this is not so. God's plan goes forward regardless of man's inequities. We see this all throughout the Bible and the restored gospel, a notable example of which is God allowing Joseph Smith to give the translated book of Lehi to Martin Harris which caused the book to be lost to us.

[Mute]

Mute, this story is used by Catholic nuns to teach about the folly of making "bargains" with God. It is also used to teach the sinfulness of vengeance. This doesn't differ from LDS teaching in my understanding.

In the story, Jephthah was the illegitimate son of a harlot that got rejected by his family and ejected from his homeland. This is serious business in that time as familial clan protection is vital to one's survival. As you follow the story, Jephthah did not lead a good life - he led a band of vain men in Tob. Because of the war with the Ammonites, his family urged him to come back to be their prince and lead them in battle. Verse 7 gives us a glimpse of Jephthah's reaction to this.

Therefore, when he made the vow to God to offer up for a sacrifice the first to come out the door to meet him, he was offering his family who rejected him. This offering can be seen as a way for Jephthah to pay back his family for ejecting him from the homeland and at the same time bargain with God for a victory. Follies that caused him the price of a daughter.

The juxtaposition here with Abraham/Isaac is that God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac whereas there is no indication in Judges 11 that God ever requested Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter - Jephthah made the offering on his own. There is also no indication that God accepted that sacrifice.

You might point out that God gave Jephthah victory over the Ammonites which might be construed as approval/acceptance of the sacrifice, but this is not so. God's plan goes forward regardless of man's inequities. We see this all throughout the Bible and the restored gospel, a notable example of which is God allowing Joseph Smith to give the translated book of Lehi to Martin Harris which caused the book to be lost to us.

Hmm. I can see your point and it's a interesting way of looking at it. It seems like it could be possible.

In my personal opinion I would not have considered him a bad person in the eye's of the Lord according to the Bible. The reason is because all through the chapter he obviously cares about what the Lord thinks. He wasn't seeking to do wrong against the Amorites.

I don't see why the spirit of the lord would come upon him if he wasn't trying to do what was right in the eyes of the lord and if what he was doing was not considered right in the eyes of the lord.

When you say he lead a band of vain men, are you referring to verse 3?

3 Then Jephthah fled from his brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob: and there were gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.

It does not say he lead a band but that vain men were gathered to him. Though it does not say he was vain himself.

To me, if Jophthah was as close to the Lord as it seems, he would feel it was a bad idea to sacrifice someone as a burnt offering if it was not something God was ok with. It would not make sense to me that he would offer his daughter up if his plan was simply to kill a family member that he may have not liked (though it does not say he did not like them but only that he was cast out from them). I don't see why he would honor that vowe if he only meant to murder someone.

I can see your point about it not saying God accepted the offering or that God told him to do it but I would tend to look at the victory as a form of a sign of acceptance/approval.

I'm not sure I understand your point about God's plan going forward regardless of inequities. What was God's plan despite Joseph Smith's inequities? To bring about the Book of Mormon?

This is only my opinion and I do value other peoples feed back. However, I do see your point you made and I think it is a well thought out one.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mute
spelling

[Guest]

Hmm. I can see your point and it's a interesting way of looking at it. It seems like it could be possible.

In my personal opinion I would not have considered him a bad person in the eye's of the Lord according to the Bible. The reason is because all through the chapter he obviously cares about what the Lord thinks. He wasn't seeking to do wrong against the Amorites.

I don't see why the spirit of the lord would come upon him if he wasn't trying to do what was right in the eyes of the lord and if what he was doing was not considered right in the eyes of the lord.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that Jephthah was a bad person. He is one of the 12 judges (although he was not shown as exercising his capacity to judge like Deborah but only as a leader/deliverer) and therefore, incurred special favor.

But, like the entire Book of Judges, he was not perfect. That period of the Old Testament has always been a saga of righteousness to inequity to chastisement to repentance and back to righteousness with the cycle repeating itself over and over.

From chapter 11 going into chapter 12, Jephthah continued to lead the Israelites and won more victories. We see in these 2 chapters that he had periods of his life where he was bad but, of course, as evidenced by his sacrifice of his daughter (the repentance part), he didn't stay that way the entire time.

When you say he lead a band of vain men, are you referring to verse 3?

3 Then Jephthah fled from his brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob: and there were gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.

It does not say he lead a band but that vain men were gathered to him. Though it does not say he was vain himself.

What I was saying is that - Jephthah struggled at the onset. All my readings of his time in Tob has always been a negative time of his life. Granted, I studied this section of the Bible as a Catholic and not so much as an LDS (too much time in Primary, I tell ya!).

In the Catholic Bible, verse 3 states:

So Jephthah had fled from his brothers and had taken up residence in the land of Tob. A rabble had joined company with him, and went out with him on raids.

I have not found a reason to change this interpretation in LDS reading.

To me, if Jophthah was as close to the Lord as it seems, he would feel it was a bad idea to sacrifice someone as a burnt offering. It would not make sense to me that he would offer his daughter up if his plan was simply to kill a family member that he may have not liked (though it does not say he did not like them but only that he was cast out from them). I don't see why he would honor that vowe if he only meant to murder someone.

Jephthah made the grave error of making a rash vow. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He made the vow that the first one to meet him gets to be sacrificed (whether a spiritual sacrifice as the institute manual teaches or physical death that I was taught as a Catholic does not matter in the context). It happened to be his daughter. He had no choice but to follow through with the vow he made to God. This section of the chapter is Jephthah's repentance process.

I can see your point about it not saying God accepted the offering or that God told him to do it but I would tend to look at the victory as a form of a sign of acceptance/approval.

I'm not sure I understand your point about God's plan going forward regardless of inequities. What was God's plan despite Joseph Smith's inequities? To bring about the Book of Mormon?

Mute, the Israelites are God's people. If you look back to the time of Moses - Moses sure wasn't the perfect leader. He committed errors as he leads the people to the promised land. Yet, God continued to protect them time and time again. It has always been that way all throughout church history - in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and even the LDS Church. God works his plan through man's weaknesses.

When Joseph Smith continued to insist on "saving face" by asking God over and over again to allow him to give Martin Harris the transcripts, God told him to go ahead and do it. And we lost an entire book because of it. Would you then say God approved of the loss? I wouldn't say that. God's plan moves forward regardless. The Book of Mormon is going to be brought to light, the gospel is going to be restored, rebuking Joseph Smith over and over in the process. Therefore, the loss of the Book of Lehi is a consequence of Joseph Smith's error. Just like the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter is a consequence of Jephthah's error. God allows these things to happen as He continues to bring His plan forward.

This is only my opinion and I do value other peoples feed back. However, I do see your point you made and I think it is a well thought out one.

It's one of those things that is not talked about in class. We went through the Book of Judges in Sunday School in one day and never touched on Jephthah. The lesson discussed Deborah, Samson, and Gideon only. Therefore, besides the short discussion on the institute manual, I really haven't had much study on it outside of my Catholic schooling.

Edited May 12, 2011 by anatess

[rameumptom]

Jephthah was a man of his times. Most of the Judges were not great people. Most of them reflected the attitudes and disbelief of the Israelites. Gideon had to be convinced several times of the things he was supposed to do. Samson literally broke every single requirement of being a Nazarite: murder, adultery, marrying outside of Israel, touching the dead, cutting his hair, etc. Even at the end of his life, he sought power to kill the Philistines, not to save Israel or promote God, but to avenge the loss of his own eyesight.

So, with the exception of Deborah and Samuel, we really should not be talking very highly of the Judges.

[Guest]

Bullinger's solution is a way of making the text more palatable. It is hard to understand the grief and horrified reactions presented in the text if all we were talking about was a lifetime of cultic worship.

And I personally agree with you, Volgadon. There are early versions of the Akedah (Abraham sacrificing Isaac), wherein Abraham actually slays Isaac. The Lord then comes and raises Isaac back to life. So it isn't like human sacrifice is unknown to Israel in its early period.

There is actually more in both chapters which supports the notion of sacrifice.

Can we discuss this part a bit more?

It seems like LDS interpretation of this chapter uses "spiritual sacrifice" instead of "physical sacrifice".

I can understand the spiritual sacrifice part. The 2-month forray into the mountain to "lament her virginity" can support a spiritual sacrifice scenario. At the same time, it seems like this daughter is the only offspring of Jephthah. This would have meant that she has become the "end of the line" with nobody else carrying Jephthah's progeny.

I can see how this can lead to the kind of grief alloted in the book.

I really have no sway one way or the other. I don't think the spiritual versus physical sacrifice takes anything away from the Bible story.

[Mute]

I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that Jephthah was a bad person. He is one of the 12 judges (although he was not shown as exercising his capacity to judge like Deborah but only as a leader/deliverer) and therefore, incurred special favor.

But, like the entire Book of Judges, he was not perfect. That period of the Old Testament has always been a saga of righteousness to inequity to chastisement to repentance and back to righteousness with the cycle repeating itself over and over.

From chapter 11 going into chapter 12, Jephthah continued to lead the Israelites and won more victories. We see in these 2 chapters that he had periods of his life where he was bad but, of course, as evidenced by his sacrifice of his daughter (the repentance part), he didn't stay that way the entire time.

What I was saying is that - Jephthah struggled at the onset. All my readings of his time in Tob has always been a negative time of his life. Granted, I studied this section of the Bible as a Catholic and not so much as an LDS (too much time in Primary, I tell ya!).

In the Catholic Bible, verse 3 states:

So Jephthah had fled from his brothers and had taken up residence in the land of Tob. A rabble had joined company with him, and went out with him on raids.

I have not found a reason to change this interpretation in LDS reading.

Jephthah made the grave error of making a rash vow. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He made the vow that the first one to meet him gets to be sacrificed (whether a spiritual sacrifice as the institute manual teaches or physical death that I was taught as a Catholic does not matter in the context). It happened to be his daughter. He had no choice but to follow through with the vow he made to God. This section of the chapter is Jephthah's repentance process.

When you say he was bad, are you going solely off the Catholic Bible? I'm not seeing where it says he committed any sins in chapter 11 or 12. I understand some of the Judges may not have been great people but it never mentions a sin Jephthah did in the old King James Version that I can see. It doesn't imply that him sacrificing his daughter was a means of repentance in chapter 11 or 12. In chapter 12 he dies.

However, from what you've said the Catholic Bible reads, then I could understand why you would say that. The words appear to be different for different Bibles. I asked a Jehovah Witness friend of mine what the words say in their Bible and it changed everything entirely. Instead of saying the girls of Israel went 4 days a year to lament the daughter of Jephthah, it says Jephthah's daughter was visited "from year to year" by her companions to "give her commendation"

This would appear to be a perfect example that all Bibles translate things differently. Whole meanings can change depending on the Bible one uses. It would seem that not only do some Bibles read that Jephthah's daughter did not die (the Jehovah Witness Bible) but that multiple faiths also interpret it as such. It does answer my question though.

I will have to look at the institute manual as well for the lds faith. I was not aware the lds faith as a whole taught it was a spiritual death. I don't know what a spiritual death is though or what they mean by that. It's interesting that the Catholic faith teaches it is a physical death.

So the lds faith teaches it was a spiritual sacrifice in the institute manual, the Catholic faith teachers it was a physical death for the sacrifice and the Jehovah Witness teach his daughter never died at all but was simply made to stay a virgin as a servant to God. I'm guessing they also think it was a spiritual sacrifice but I don't understand what a spiritual sacrifice is yet so I'm not sure. I wonder what the protestant faiths take on it is or if they all agree with each other on it.

To me, it just wouldn't make sense unless she was physically sacrificed because Samuel was not a virgin after being dedicated to the Lord. So I can not understand why Jephthah's daughter would have to be if it was the same type of thing.

Can you explain to me what a spiritual sacrifice is? The only time I've heard of a spiritual death brought up is mentioning the after life and a person being with out God.

Mute, the Israelites are God's people. If you look back to the time of Moses - Moses sure wasn't the perfect leader. He committed errors as he leads the people to the promised land. Yet, God continued to protect them time and time again. It has always been that way all throughout church history - in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and even the LDS Church. God works his plan through man's weaknesses.

When Joseph Smith continued to insist on "saving face" by asking God over and over again to allow him to give Martin Harris the transcripts, God told him to go ahead and do it. And we lost an entire book because of it. Would you then say God approved of the loss? I wouldn't say that. God's plan moves forward regardless. The Book of Mormon is going to be brought to light, the gospel is going to be restored, rebuking Joseph Smith over and over in the process. Therefore, the loss of the Book of Lehi is a consequence of Joseph Smith's error. Just like the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter is a consequence of Jephthah's error. God allows these things to happen as He continues to bring His plan forward.

It's one of those things that is not talked about in class. We went through the Book of Judges in Sunday School in one day and never touched on Jephthah. The lesson discussed Deborah, Samson, and Gideon only. Therefore, besides the short discussion on the institute manual, I really haven't had much study on it outside of my Catholic schooling.

I see your point. It's not the way I would look at it but I can see what you mean. Always good to see different points of views. I'll have to think about it more.

[JohnnyRudick]

Jephthah was a man of his times. Most of the Judges were not great people. Most of them reflected the attitudes and disbelief of the Israelites. Gideon had to be convinced several times of the things he was supposed to do. Samson literally broke every single requirement of being a Nazarite: murder, adultery, marrying outside of Israel, touching the dead, cutting his hair, etc. Even at the end of his life, he sought power to kill the Philistines, not to save Israel or promote God, but to avenge the loss of his own eyesight.

So, with the exception of Deborah and Samuel, we really should not be talking very highly of the Judges.

This is something I have said repeatedly.

Just because the Bible tells us someone did something

even if it be a prophet, does not mean that it is a good thing to do.

People are people. Even prophets are people too:cool:

[Guest]

When you say he was bad, are you going solely off the Catholic Bible? I'm not seeing where it says he committed any sins in chapter 11 or 12. I understand some of the Judges may not have been great people but it never mentions a sin Jephthah did in the old King James Version that I can see. It doesn't imply that him sacrificing his daughter was a means of repentance in chapter 11 or 12. In chapter 12 he dies.

However, from what you've said the Catholic Bible reads, then I could understand why you would say that. The words appear to be different for different Bibles. I asked a Jehovah Witness friend of mine what the words say in their Bible and it changed everything entirely. Instead of saying the girls of Israel went 4 days a year to lament the daughter of Jephthah, it says Jephthah's daughter was visited "from year to year" by her companions to "give her commendation"

This would appear to be a perfect example that all Bibles translate things differently. Whole meanings can change depending on the Bible one uses. It would seem that not only do some Bibles read that Jephthah's daughter did not die (the Jehovah Witness Bible) but that multiple faiths also interpret it as such. It does answer my question though.

I will have to look at the institute manual as well for the lds faith. I was not aware the lds faith as a whole taught it was a spiritual death. I don't know what a spiritual death is though or what they mean by that. It's interesting that the Catholic faith teaches it is a physical death.

So the lds faith teaches it was a spiritual sacrifice in the institute manual, the Catholic faith teachers it was a physical death for the sacrifice and the Jehovah Witness teach his daughter never died at all but was simply made to stay a virgin as a servant to God. I'm guessing they also think it was a spiritual sacrifice but I don't understand what a spiritual sacrifice is yet so I'm not sure. I wonder what the protestant faiths take on it is or if they all agree with each other on it.

To me, it just wouldn't make sense unless she was physically sacrificed because Samuel was not a virgin after being dedicated to the Lord. So I can not understand why Jephthah's daughter would have to be if it was the same type of thing.

Can you explain to me what a spiritual sacrifice is? The only time I've heard of a spiritual death brought up is mentioning the after life and a person being with out God.

I see your point. It's not the way I would look at it but I can see what you mean. Always good to see different points of views. I'll have to think about it more.

I'm truly grateful you started this discussion, Mute. I haven't studied this chapter in-depth since Catholic school so I'm relearning this thing through LDS lenses.

I cut and pasted the entry from the Institute Manual below. What do you think?

(22-28) Judges 11:29–40 . How Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter As a Sacrifice?

Many have supposed that Jephthah offered his daughter as a human sacrifice, and a literal reading of the text may support that view. But if that is true, some difficult questions are raised. Jephthah was regarded as a great hero and deliverer of Israel, and even his sacrifice of his daughter is treated in a way that suggests the author of Judges viewed it as a commendable act. In Hebrews 11:32–35 Jephthah is used as one of the examples of great faith. Would this case be true if he had engaged in human sacrifice, an act viewed as one of the greatest of abominations in ancient Israel? Why does Jephthah’s daughter “bewail her virginity” ( Judges 11:37 ) rather than mourn the approaching loss of her life? After Jephthah had fulfilled his vow of sacrificing his daughter, the text states that “she knew no man” ( v. 39 ). Bible scholars have suggested an explanation that adequately answers these questions.

“Jephthah was compelled by his vow to dedicate his daughter to Jehovah in a lifelong virginity. . . . The entreaty of the daughter, that he would grant her two months’ time, in order that she might lament her virginity upon the mountains with her friends, would have been marvellously out of keeping with the account that she was to be put to death as a sacrifice. To mourn one’s virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin. But even if we were to assume that mourning her virginity was equivalent to mourning on account of her youth. . . . ‘it would be impossible to understand why this should take place upon the mountains. It would be altogether opposed to human nature, that a child who had so soon to die should make use of a temporary respite to forsake her father altogether. It would no doubt be a reasonable thing that she should ask permission to enjoy life for two months longer before she was put to death; but that she should only think of bewailing her virginity, when a sacrificial death was in prospect, which would rob her father of his only child, would be contrary to all the ordinary feelings of the human heart. Yet, inasmuch as the history lays special emphasis upon her bewailing her virginity, this must have stood in some peculiar relation to the nature of the vow. . . .’ ( P. Cassel, p. 473). And this is confirmed by the expression, to bewail her virginity ‘upon the mountains.’ ‘If life had been in question, the same tears might have been shed at home. But her lamentations were devoted to her virginity, and such lamentations could not be uttered in the town, and in the presence of men. Modesty required the solitude of the mountains for these. . . .’ ( P. Cassel, p. 476). And so, again, the still further clause in the account of the fulfilment of the vow, ‘and she knew no man,’ is not in harmony with the assumption of a sacrificial death. This clause would add nothing to the description in that case, since it was already known that she was a virgin. The words only gain their proper sense if we connect them with the previous clause, he ‘did with her according to the vow which he had vowed,’ and understand them as describing what the daughter did in fulfilment of the vow. The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e. he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt-offering, in a lifelong chastity. . . . And the idea of a spiritual sacrifice is supported not only by the words, but also most decisively by the fact that the historian describes the fulfilment of the vow in the words ‘he did to her according to his vow,’ in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that he regarded the act itself as laudable and good. But a prophetic historian could never have approved of a human sacrifice.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:1:392–93.)

Compare the wording of Jephthah’s vow (see vv. 30–31 ) to Hannah’s vow (see 1 Samuel 1:11 ).

[Mute]

I'm truly grateful you started this discussion, Mute. I haven't studied this chapter in-depth since Catholic school so I'm relearning this thing through LDS lenses.

I cut and pasted the entry from the Institute Manual below. What do you think?

I would tend to disagree with most of what that quote says in the institute manual. It is a matter of opinion though. The way I interpret it definitely isn't the same as the instute manual.

You can always find contradictions to just about everything in the Bible. The Bible says thou shall not kill but entire ethnic cleansings are ordered by God (NUMBERS CHAPTER 31). These are not seen as wrong according to the Bible.

Being sad that you're never going to have children because you know you're going to die does not seem unreasonable to me by any means. You'll never be married. You'll never experience life like others. I have 9 nieces and I know a common thing they all dreamed about was getting married. That's a big thing to them. If Jephtah's daughter died, she wouldn't be able to do this.

Of course this could also be something she would be sad about if she was to be made a "nun" or something similar for the rest of her life. I just don't believe that is the correct interpretation because Samuel was dedicated to the Lord and not made to be a virgin. Also only the Catholic faith believes in celibacy so to me it wouldn't make sense for anyone to hold that view unless they were Catholic and the Catholics are the only ones from what I can tell who don't believe it is celibacy but a physical sacrifice.

I don't find it unlikely at all that if a person was going to die that they would want to walk around in the wilderness. When I'm upset or sad about something, I generally want to go on a walk. It gives me time to think and sort out my thoughts. I don't think it's unnatural or out of the ordinary for someone to be feeling sad about only having a short time to live.

It's a matter of interpretation but different faiths seem to look at it differently. I find all their view points interesting. My personal view point is that she died and that Jephthah was a good man and that it was seen as right in the eyes of the Lord according to the Bible. That is my opinion.

However the LDS view point (according to the institute manual) does sound very similar to the Jehovah Witness's take on it. It seems like they hold the exact same view point on it. Here is an email my Jehovah Witness friend sent me regarding the subject.

Did Jephthah have in mind human sacrifice when he vowed to present as a burnt offering the first one coming out of his house?

Some critics and scholars have condemned Jephthah for his vow, having the view that Jephthah followed the practice of other nations, offering up his daughter by fire as a human burnt offering. But this is not the case. It would be an insult to Jehovah, a disgusting thing in violation of his law, to make a literal human sacrifice. (see Deuteronomy 18: 9-12) Jehovah would curse, not bless, such a person. The very ones Jephthah was fighting, the Ammonites, practiced human sacrifice to their God Molech.

When Jephthah said "It must also occur that the one coming out , who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me.... must also become Jehovah's," he had reference to a person and not an animal, since animals suitable for sacrifice were not likely kept in Israelite homes, to have free run there. Besides, the offering of an animal would not show extraordinary devotion to God. Jephthah therefore knew that it might well be his daughter who would come out to meet him. It must be borne in mind that Jehovah's spirit was on Jephthah at the time; this would prevent any rash vow on Jephthah's part. How then, would the person coming out to meet Jephthah "become Jehovah's" and be offered up as "a burnt offering" ?

Persons could be devoted to Jehovahs exclusive service in connection with the sanctuary. It was a right that parents could exercise. Samuel was one such person, promised to tabernacle service by his mother Hannah. As soon as Samuel was weaned, Hannah offered him at the santuary. Along with him.. Hannah brought an animal sacrifice. (1Samuel 1:11, 22-28, 2;11)

When Jephthah brought his daughter to the sanctuary, he undoubtedly accompanied his presentation of her with an animal burnt offering. According to the Law, a burnt offering was slaughtered, skinned, and cut up, the intestines and shanks were washed, and its body, head and all was burned on the alter (Leviticus 1:3-9) The wholeness of such offering represented full, unqualified and wholehearted dedication to Jehovah, and when it accompanied another offering, it constituted an appeal to Jehovah to accept that other offering. (as for example, when the burnt offering followed the sin offering on the Day of Atonement - Leviticus 16)

It was a real sacrifice on the part of both Jephthah and his daughter, for he had no other children. (Judges 11:34) Therefore no descendant of his would carry on his name and his inheritance in Israel. She wept, not over her death, but over her "virginity", for it was the desire of every Israelite man and woman to have children and to keep the family name and inheritance alive.

Barrenness was a calamity. But Jephthah's daughter "never had relations with a man". Had these words applied only to the time prior to the carrying out of the vow, they would have been superfluous, for she is specifically said to have been a virgin.That the statement has reference to the fulfilling of the vow is shown in that it follows the expression "He carried out his vow that he had made toward her". Actually, the record is pointing out that also after the vow was carried out, she maintained her virginity. (hence it stands to reason she can not have been sacrificed.)

Moreover, Jephthah's daughter was visited "from year to year" by her companions, to "give her commendation". The Hebrew word 'tanah', used here, also occurs at Judges 5:11, and in that text is variously rendered "recount", "rehearse", "repeat". At Judges 11:40, the King James version renders the term "lament".. but the margin reads "talk with".

Copied from "Insight on the Scriptures".. published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

But here is an interesting thing I thought about. Lets assume that Joseph Smith was a prophet. To me it would make sense that he would change this chapter (in Judges 11) if it was not intended to be taken the way it is. The reason I say this is because he changed the entire meaning in other chapters. An example is Genesis 19.

Here is what Genesis chapter 19 reads according to the Old King James version

GENESIS

CHAPTER 19

4 ¶ But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12 ¶ And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you bout of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15 ¶ And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Now here is the Joseph Smith translation

Joseph Smith Translation

Genesis 19 9-15

9: And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him

10: And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11: Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12: Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

13: And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14: For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15: And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

In this, not only did he reword the chapter but he also renumbered the verses and took some of which was said out. So not only did Lot not offer his daughters in the Joseph Smith translation but he also says the angels were holy men which I would interpret as meaning not actually "angels from heaven" but just righteous men.

Either way, it sounds like the LDS and the Jehovah Witness have the same opinion on Judges 11 and the Catholics hold a different view. I don't know the protestant view point yet though but I do find this topic very interesting.