Sacrifice Controversy

[neo-x]

Guys what is your take on Jephthah sacrificing his daughter after defeating the Ammonites as The Book of Judges describe. i know it is a clichéd kind of question, I know for a fact the God is not responsible for such actions. but Jephthah is listed in Faith Heroes in Hebrews 11. I have read online about it as to how the "sacrifice" or "burnt offering" could mean consecration but I must say I am still curious as to before the 18th century this view did not exist (if i am not wrong).

[PaulSacramento]

I have read a few interpretations of this event and it depends if one views it as a literal and factual event that happened or if one may view it as a lesson, a parable like those of Jesus.
A lesson to be very careful in offering things to God.
Of course the story doesn't say that his daughter as burnt as a sacrifice but would be offered AS a "burnt sacrifice", which could simply be symbolic language for her being given up as a servant to YHWH, a temple servant perhaps.
There are many views, including that perhaps the daughter KNEW of his vow and wanted to make sure no one else suffered ( I don't think so).
One wonders if YHWH would not have stopped him as he did Abraham when in reality NO sarcifice was needed.
It seems to be more probable that it is a parable and a warning.

[jlay]

The bible consistently condemns human sacrifice (killing),particularly by fire. so, his vow likely did not involve theactual killing of his daughter, no matter how inclined we are to interpret it in such a way. Like a burnt offering, she was likely turned over to the priesthood and never allowed to marry.

[neo-x]

The reason I pondered more Jlay and Paul is that if it was like what you say (i myself hold the same view). Why not write it so. why use the wrong words which give the wrong implication.

[Canuckster1127]

That assumes we in our time and our culture are God's primary target. Culture and language were different at that time and elements of language such as idioms part and parcel of the communication as it was given and received. We're not the center of the universe (although that's our perspective.) When we recognize that and try to put ourselves instead into the context of the time, culture and language then, often many of these issues resolve.

[neo-x]

thank you for the replies.

[PaulSacramento]

The reason I pondered more Jlay and Paul is that if it was like what you say (i myself hold the same view). Why not write it so. why use the wrong words which give the wrong implication.

To echo what Canuckster said, when we read ANY ancient writing we need to remember who it was written too and i was most certainly not to us, LOL !
A hebrew with clear knowledge that God does not permit human sacrifice would NOT view this story as implying such.

[ROBE]

I believe the confusion has been caused by a mistranslation he didn't promise to offer to God and sacrifice he promised to offer to God or sacrifice.
His daughter was offered to God the same way Samuel was given. If your going to die you don't weep for your virginity.

[messiahette]

The sacrifice was a literal sacrifice.
What Jephtah did was keep his word to Jehovah, he gave the one person that meant the most to him on earth to the one that means the most to him.

The Bible means what it says. It doesn't mean that we must now sacrifice people, but the OT is only a shadow of the New.

[neo-x]

messiahette » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:04 pm

The sacrifice was a literal sacrifice.
What Jephtah did was keep his word to Jehovah, he gave the one person that meant the most to him on earth to the one that means the most to him.

The Bible means what it says. It doesn't mean that we must now sacrifice people, but the OT is only a shadow of the New.

O.T does not condone human sacrifice,

Guys, also I stumbled over this in Leviticus 27:1-8

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the LORD by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e]; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels[h] and of a female at ten shekels. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford.

You think his daughter could have been redeemed this way later. To me it made kind of sense, you know.

[neo-x]

The sacrifice was a literal sacrifice.
What Jephtah did was keep his word to Jehovah, he gave the one person that meant the most to him on earth to the one that means the most to him.

And is that supposed to be good? You do realize what this means

[Canuckster1127]

The sacrifice was a literal sacrifice.
What Jephtah did was keep his word to Jehovah, he gave the one person that meant the most to him on earth to the one that means the most to him.

And is that supposed to be good? You do realize what this means

When one is more committed to making the written word reliable to the point of ignoring the impact of translation, culture and idiom, then these type of harsh (and grossly inaccurate) portrayals of God and God's character are par for the course.

[Murray]

Perhaps this a lesson not to make oaths to the lord.

James 5:12 NIV

"god if you give me this I swear to do this" type thing


Also Matthew 5:34 NIV

"But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven.........."

[ROBE]

It is simply a case of bad translation like bats being refered to as birds instead of flying creatures.
The hebrew word used can be translated as either AND or OR.
In the context of the sentence it should have been OR.

[Murray]

It is simply a case of bad translation like bats being refered to as birds instead of flying creatures.
The hebrew word used can be translated as either AND or OR.
In the context of the sentence it should have been OR.

What?