Judges: the attack on rash vows

[Olddad]

In Judges 1:12, Caleb promises to give his daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who captured Kiriath-sepher. Caleb's brother captured this area, so the girl was given to her uncle. What is more, it was the Negev, a waterless area. The woman then asked for Gulloth-mayim - where there was water (verse15). So Caleb ended up giving his daughter to his own brother, and he would have given her a desert if she had not had the sense to speak up for the basins of water at Gulloth-mayim.

In Judges 11:13, Jephthah vowed to make the first thing that he saw when he returned victorious from battle an offering to the LORD. The first one he saw was his beloved daughter, his only child (verse 34). He carried out his vow (verse 39). The sacrifice of this woman was lamented by Jewish women for generations (verse 40).

In Judges 21:1, the Israelites had sworn that they would not give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamin man. This led to another mass slaughter at Jabesh-Gilead (verses 8-12). When this did not provide enough women, the Israelites arranged for the young girls of Shiloh to be captured (verses 20-24).

In each example, making such vows was shown to be foolish and damaging.

How do others see it?

[Duane Morse]

Ec 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
Ec 5:5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

And the payment may be more than you originally thought.
Be carefull what you wish for... as the saying goes.


Mt 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mt 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mt 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mt 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mt 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Swearing in just another form of vowing. And it usually backfires on the one doing the swearing or vowing.

"In each example, making such vows was shown to be foolish and damaging."

Quite correct.

[tango]

It's not just in Judges, Herod did a similar thing in the book of Mark:

Mar 6:22 And when Herodias' daughter herself came in and danced, and pleased Herod and those who sat with him, the king said to the girl, "Ask me whatever you want, and I will give it to you."
Mar 6:23 He also swore to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom."
Mar 6:24 So she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the Baptist!"
Mar 6:25 Immediately she came in with haste to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter."
Mar 6:26 And the king was exceedingly sorry; yet, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he did not want to refuse her.


Open-ended vows are typically very foolish, because the person making them has no idea what the price might ultimately be.

[apothanein kerdos]

In Judges 1:12, Caleb promises to give his daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who captured Kiriath-sepher. Caleb's brother captured this area, so the girl was given to her uncle. What is more, it was the Negev, a waterless area. The woman then asked for Gulloth-mayim - where there was water (verse15). So Caleb ended up giving his daughter to his own brother, and he would have given her a desert if she had not had the sense to speak up for the basins of water at Gulloth-mayim.

In Judges 11:13, Jephthah vowed to make the first thing that he saw when he returned victorious from battle an offering to the LORD. The first one he saw was his beloved daughter, his only child (verse 34). He carried out his vow (verse 39). The sacrifice of this woman was lamented by Jewish women for generations (verse 40).

In Judges 21:1, the Israelites had sworn that they would not give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamin man. This led to another mass slaughter at Jabesh-Gilead (verses 8-12). When this did not provide enough women, the Israelites arranged for the young girls of Shiloh to be captured (verses 20-24).

In each example, making such vows was shown to be foolish and damaging.

How do others see it?

Judges is a descriptive text that is merely describing the events that occurred during this time. The purpose of the author is to show how evil these people were ("and everyone did what was right in his own eyes").

So yeah, these things were pretty evil and pretty stupid to do on their part.

[Tanya~]

In each example, making such vows was shown to be foolish and damaging.

How do others see it?

I see it the same way. The fact that they followed through with their vows though, actually shows that they had integrity, that they understood the seriousness of making a vow. Too often people will make rash vows and then when the reality of it sets in, they welsh on it.

[Olddad]

I see it the same way. The fact that they followed through with their vows though, actually shows that they had integrity, that they understood the seriousness of making a vow. Too often people will make rash vows and then when the reality of it sets in, they welsh on it.
Tanya, please consider which would show more integrity, breaking a vow and saving a life or keeping a vow and killing an innocent? In this situation I would support the one who chose life.

[Tanya~]

I can understand why you would think that way, but she was not killed. Any person dedicated to the Lord by a vow had to be redeemed according to the law. You can read about it in Leviticus 27. This means she could not be offered as a burnt offering, nor would the priests have offered her, nor would God have accepted such an abomination. But the fact that Jephthah did pay his vow does mean that he gave her to the LORD and the rest of her life was dedicated to Him. That's why she mourned her virginity. She would never be able to marry a husband.

[Olddad]

The vow Jephthah made:
And jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return victgorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD'S, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering."
Judges 11:30-31, NRSV
Jephthah's lament:
When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the LORD and I cannot take back my vow."
Judges 11:35, NRSV
Jephthah's vow fulfilled
At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made.
Judges 11:39, NRSV
I can't see any wiggle room. Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. Jephthah felt he could not take back the vow. Jephthah "did with her according to the vow he had made".

[Tanya~]

I understand your view Olddad, and what you're trying to do with this. But the problem is, he could not have made this offering to the LORD. To make an offering to the LORD a person had to take the offering to the priest, who would do the actual work of killing and burning the offering. When he brought his daughter to the priest, they would not have killed her because it was against the Law. Did you read the passage I referenced? It's Leviticus 27. Here's part of that chapter:

Lev 27:1-13

Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, 3 if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels; 5 and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels; 6 and if from a month old up to five years old, then your valuation for a male shall be five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver; 7 and if from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

8'But if he is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall set a value for him; according to the ability of him who vowed, the priest shall value him.

9'If it is an animal that men may bring as an offering to the LORD, all that anyone gives to the LORD shall be holy. 10 He shall not substitute it or exchange it, good for bad or bad for good; and if he at all exchanges animal for animal, then both it and the one exchanged for it shall be holy. 11 If it is an unclean animal which they do not offer as a sacrifice to the LORD, then he shall present the animal before the priest; 12 and the priest shall set a value for it, whether it is good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be. 13 But if he wants at all to redeem it, then he must add one-fifth to your valuation.
NKJV

The only sacrifices that would be accepted for a burnt offering would be clean animals as stipulated by the law. A human being does not qualify any more than a pig, a dog, or a donkey. That kind of offering had to be redeemed -- exchanged for money. The person was redeemed, and dedicated to the service of the Lord, not killed and burned. She bewailed her virginity. Not her life. That means she would have to live as a virgin the rest of her life.

I don't expect that you will accept this, but Biblically speaking, this is a perfectly reasonable response. I still agree with you that making a rash vow is foolish, and this story in Judges illustrates that. But the idea that he burned his daughter as an offering to the Lord is misguided, because the law specifically provided for her redemption. No priest or person would have killed and burned her on the altar of the LORD. That would have been an abomination.

[Olddad]

Dear Tanya,

Firstly, I accept your right to interpret the Bible the way you see fit. I thank you for directing my attention to the 27th chapter of Leviticus, which I read.
Leviticus 27:29 says:

No persons devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death. (TNIV)

As Jephthah vowed to make a burnt offering (Joshua 11:31), it would appear that this was the provision of the law that applied.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Bible says:

Jephthah was recalled to Gilead by the elders and persuaded to lead an expedition against the marauding Ammonites. He accepted the responsibility but made a vow that if successful he would sacrifice to Yahweh whatever or whomever emerged first from his house to meet him (Judg. 11: 30-1). This proved to be his daughter. The vow took priority over his humanity and the girl was sacrificed after a delay of two months for lamentation for her virginity. The story is related as a rather shocking incident, which perhaps implies that human sacrifice practised amongst Israel's neighbours was normally unacceptable in Israel. (page 196)

I do not wish to imply that this is the only view of the passage. However, it does point to the fact that your interpretation is not the only one.

Finally, I noticed you began your posting with this:
I understand your view Olddad, and what you're trying to do with this.
Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by this sentence. It sounds like a veiled accusation.

[Tanya~]

Dear Tanya,

Firstly, I accept your right to interpret the Bible the way you see fit.

I'm glad to know you acknowledge that there are ways of understanding some of these difficult passages that differ from your own yet still maintain the integrity of our faith and our God.

Leviticus 27:29 says:
No persons devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death. (TNIV)

These are persons under "the ban" which means they are cursed, doomed to destruction. Jephthah's daughter was offered as a vow, not put under the ban as "cherem." An example of Cherem is Joshua 7, the "accursed thing." Because Achan took an item that was under the ban, he became accursed, and all Israel with him. Achan had to be destroyed. He wans't offered as a burnt offering to the Lord. Jephthah's daughter was vowed as a burnt offering and as such, she had to be redeemed.


As Jephthah vowed to make a burnt offering (Joshua 11:31), it would appear that this was the provision of the law that applied.

Jephthah did not put whatever met him under a curse or under the ban. He vowed it as an offering to the Lord. So for that reason, the provision at the beginning of the chapter applied. And the fact that she bewailed her virginity rather than her life bears it out. She was redeemed and then served the Lord the rest of her life, as a virgin.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Bible says:

Fausset's Bible Dictionary says:

JEPHTHAH
...Lev 27:28-29 is not in point, for it refers to a forced devoting of the wicked to God's glory in their destruction; God alone could so devote any.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998, 2003 by Biblesoft)

We could trade commentaries and dictionaries all day I suppose, but I do hope you can recognize that Christians aren't making up interpretations because we are blinded by our faith. There are difficult passages, but there are reasonable ways of understanding them that retain the integrity of our God and our faith.

God would not have accepted Jephthah's daughter as a burnt offering. No priest would have made such an offering without being condemned for it. It would have defiled the altar, because a human being is not a "clean" animal. We are unclean in our sin, and to offer a human being as a burnt offering to the LORD would have been an abomination.

The Canaanites practiced human sacrifice, offering their children in burnt offerings to the god Molech. This was an abomination to the Lord.

Jer 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
NKJV

I do not wish to imply that this is the only view of the passage. However, it does point to the fact that your interpretation is not the only one.

Every difficult passage has different interpretations. I think if we go back to the OP and your original question, everyone agreed that making a rash vow was a foolish thing to do, and that it was not commanded by God. The problem seemed to come in with the idea that vows are taken seriously by God, and that people are held accountable for the vows they make.

Finally, I noticed you began your posting with this:

Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by this sentence. It sounds like a veiled accusation.

It was more a response to this comment you made than anything else:

Because I am not a committed Christian I am free to consider possibilities that you, as Christians, would not entertain. However, I see this as an advantage rather than a problem.

I have the impression that your purpose in bringing out these passages is not to seek out and understand the Christian viewpoint, but rather to show us how silly, closed-minded and blind we are because we believe.

[Olddad]

Dear Tanya,

I thank you for the information you have provided, but I could have done without some other comments. I make every effort to treat you and your ideas with respect, and I expect the same courtesy in return. For example, when I quoted the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible it was to show that there are other interpretations than the one that you have provided. I am not in the position of trading commentaries.

When I said that the point of view of someone who is not a committed Christian was an advantage rather than a defect that was because a different point of view offers different perspectives. You said:

I have the impression that your purpose in bringing out these passages is not to seek out and understand the Christian viewpoint, but rather to show us how silly, closed-minded and blind we are because we believe.

I said a different point of view is an advantage rather than a defect. I also deal with passages in the Bible you find challenging. You interpret my purpose is to attack on your point of view as "silly, closed-minded and blind"! I find that interpretation quite hostile. I never said or implied anything of the kind. Please do not make unfounded accusations. I find them offensive.

[Tanya~]

I apologize for offending you Olddad, thank you for your comments.

[Olddad]

Dear Tanya,

I accept your apology. None of us are perfect, and it's not always easy to exchange views harmoniously when people see things differently. I'm sure we can learn to get on well together.

Best wishes,

Olddad

[Levin]

In Judges 11:[31], Jephthah vowed to make the first thing that he saw when he returned victorious from battle an offering to the LORD. The first one he saw was his beloved daughter, his only child (verse 34). He carried out his vow (verse 39). The sacrifice of this woman was lamented by Jewish women for generations (verse 40).
...
In each example, making such vows was shown to be foolish and damaging.


Just a thought on the vow of Jephthah. The author of Judges did not paint his vow in a way that was simply "foolish and damaging," though those are good words to describe it partially. I read much deeper theological things going through the narrative. In Jephthah's message to the King of Ammon he declares that I AM will decide the battle (11:27), then the text informs us that the Spirit of I AM was on Jephthah (11:29), and he followed this Spirit towards the Ammonites (11:29). It is at this point that Jephthah makes his tragic vow. The author has made it clear that Jephthah knows that I AM is on his side and therefore so is the victory. Rather than trusting I AM for this victory, Jephthah instead makes his vow, hoping to invoke his God to his aid. Jephthah's vow, more than just being tragic in itself, is illustrative of his inability to trust I AM. He does not think that God will do as He promised, but just like Gideon and the fleeces Jephthah decides to deal with I AM as if His word is not true and His covenant is not sure.

Some thoughts,
Levin