Jephthah's daughter

‎Jephthah’s Daughter
‎THE question of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is one that is perpetually exercising Bible students. Seeing that divergent views are current, some correspondents wish to have the pros and cons briefly placed before them.
‎It has been remarked by one that he thinks the matter has been treated in the Christadelphian in divergent ways at different times. This is quite correct. In 1875 the late brother J. J. Andrew wrote a brief article (pp. 236–7) intended to show that the fate of Jephthah’s daughter was not sacrificial death but devotion to the service of the Lord in perpetual virginity.
‎But in 1898, a few months before his death, the late editor of the Christadelphian briefly referred to the matter, accepting the idea of literal sacrifice (page 202). He said, in answer to a correspondent:—
‎“There is no need for the trouble you feel about the view that Jephthah’s daughter was devoted to death. You need not hold that view if you think another sounder. There is no principle involved. It remains to be remarked, however, that it is only artificial views of the importance of man and the rights of God that have led to the unnatural efforts of orthodox criticism to strain an explicit statute (Lev. 27:28–29) and a simple narrative (Jud. 11:34–40). The moderns profess to be shocked at the drowning of the antediluvians and the slaughter of the Canaanites on humanitarian grounds, without perceiving that a higher law sometimes overrides humanitarianism. And the infidels deride the sacrifice of Christ and the command to offer up Isaac on the ground you lay down that it is barbarous to think that a human sacrifice would be acceptable to God under any circumstances. The fact is, none can say to God, ‘What doest thou?’ Nor can we say that anything He does is inconsistent with His declared character. We cannot sit in judgment upon God. Our part is simply to ask, What are the facts, and wait for understanding if we do not feel we have it in any particular case. Many things that shock youth cease to shock when the mental horizon is expanded to the full knowledge that can only come with a sufficiently extended experience.”
‎For our own part, we were at first inclined to the former alternative; but further study has compelled us to accept the narrative in all its literality. The stern view, if we may so speak, was never called in question either by Jew or Christian until the time of the Kimchis, about 1200 a.d. The translations of the Septuagint and the Vulgate had always conveyed the idea of literal sacrifice; the alternative was only an endeavour to get rid of the force of this on ethical grounds.
‎It was alleged, (1), That human sacrifice was contrary to the divine law, and therefore Jephthah would not have slain his daughter; (2), That the reading now appearing in the Authorised Version margin (Judges 11:13), “or, I will offer it” was a permissible alternative; (3), Further, that the record did not say that Jephthah really put his daughter to death; (4), That the word “lament” in verse 40, might equally well be rendered, as in the margin, “talk with.”
‎The answers to these allegations are as follows:—1. It is admitted that the sacrifice was contrary to divine law; but the time of the judges was conspicuous by the absence of scruple for the divine law, and the sacrifice does not touch the question of Jephthah’s faith. 2. With reference to the margin of the Authorised Version, it will be observed that it has been dropped in the Revised Version, and this is entirely in harmony with the grammatical facts of the case as revealed in the translation of the Septuagint, the understanding of the incident according to Josephus, and the later rendering of the Vulgate. The “or” involves an unusual, and in this case, unjustifiable translation of a particle. Josephus says Jephthah promised that if he came home in safety, he would offer in sacrifice whatever living creature should first meet him, and in recording how Jephthah “did with her according to his vow,” he says:—“Accordingly when that time (the two months) was over, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering; offering such oblation as was neither conformable to the Law, nor acceptable to God, not weighing with himself what opinion the hearers would have of such a practice.” 3. This is obviously a fair and simple construction of the scriptural record. It might be supposed that Josephus, as an orthodox Jew, would not have admitted the idea of actual sacrifice unless the scripture really necessitated it. 4. So with the record of the word “lament,” the Revised Version substitutes “celebrate” in the text, and puts “lament” in the margin. But the idea is the same; both the Septuagint and Vulgate translations bear it out, and it is abundantly illustrated in later times in the memorials of the Christian martyrs. It is altogether a strain to suppose an annual celebration of four days of the dedication of a virgin to the service of the Lord; even if such a thing were known in Israel at the time, which is questionable. Human sacrifice, on the other hand, was known in the land at the time. The reference in Hebrews, it will be remembered, is not to Jephthah’s daughter, but to Jephthah himself. The example of his “faith” remains, irrespective of his rash vow, and its sad consequences.
‎The literal view is that which is now for the most part accepted in standard works of reference; see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopædia Biblica, Kitto’s Bible Encyclopædia, and Encyclopædia Britannica. If the other view is mentioned, it is only as a late piece of apologetics which has not sufficient foundation in fact. It therefore seems a pity to follow that lead, inasmuch as it lays one open to the allegation of special pleading on behalf of the Bible. There is really no ethical difficulty at all, as the late editor pointed out in the extract quoted above.—Ed.
‎

. Vol. 46: The Christadelphian: Volume 46. 2001 (electronic ed.) (4–5). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.

What Jephthah did does not change the fact that child sacrifice is wrong, if anything it shows even more that it was wrong. Another lesson is be mindful of what you say.
To me there is no question to answer, That is a perfect lesson to show us not to do child sacrifice, Jephthah's daughter was a total innocent and it was wrong to to burn her.

The following is an extract from Law of Moses by brother Roberts, which we may find useful.

"But there were circumstances in which the law of redemption was suspended. 'No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.  None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.' (Lev. 27:28-29).

"This at first sight appears to be inconsistent with the liberty of redemption provided in the other cases.  The inconsistency disappears when the difference between the two words -- "sanctify" or consecrate and "devoted" -- is realized.  They are different terms in the Hebrew -- KODESH (sanctify), meaning to separate or set apart; and CHARAM (devote), to hand over without reservation.  It would seem as if a man, in the ardour of his loyalty, was at liberty, if he chose, to surrender the option of redemption, in the act of giving a thing to God.  This appears to be the difference between sanctifying and devoting a thing to God.  A separated thing might be redeemed, but a devoted thing was God's for ever.  Samuel was an illustration of the two combined (1 Sam. 1:26-28).  He was "lent to the Lord" and therefore could not be taken back, but he was not a "devoted thing", and therefore the law requiring death was not applicable.  In the case of Jephthah's daughter, it was a case of utter devotion (Jud. 11:31), and came under the law of Lev. 27:29, as Jephthah recognized in the verse referred to."  (Law of Moses, Chapter 31 - "Gifts to God", pages 289-290).  [Emphasis added by BN.]