Judges 31 - Jephthah and the question of human sacrifice

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I am wondering about Jephthah in the OT Book of Judges. Did his promise to to make "a whole-burnt-offering" of "whosoever shall first come out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon" (vs. 31), really result in his daughter being slaughtered as a human sacrifice? Could such a sacrifice have been acceptable to God, even if only to hold Jephthah at his word?

I have come across interpretations which suggest the "sacrifice" was in fact not slaughter, but dedication to a life of virginity in the temple: see here (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/qa2.htm). On the other hand, I have also read that the Fathers interpreted the text as implying a real human sacrifice.

This is an issue which neo-pagans seem to have picked up on, too, to suggest that God in the OT is accepting of human sacrifice (they seem to have forgotten Moloch). I would be grateful if someone could clarify this issue with the standard Orthodox teaching on the story.

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Two weeks have passed since I posted the question about the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, and no response yet. Shall I assume none know an answer, or is it merely uninteresting?

As it is, the Book of Judges seems to have furnished my mind (or perhaps it is the other way around) with yet another question:
The old man who provided hospitality to the innocent travelers was ready even to offer his virgin daughter, but the Levite made a terrible choice to save the maiden by
"[laying] hold of his concubine, and [bringing] her out" to the crazed
mob of Gibeah (Jdgs 19:25). Both the old man and the Levite respected
the sacred and inviolable character of hospitality. Can someone clarify by what reasoning the "sacred character of hospitality" was respected by offering a concubine up for rape by a lusting mob? The evil nature of the mob's impulses is clear; but how could the old man even think of offering them his virgin daughter, or 'even' his concubine to assuage their lust? Isn't this also a culpable act?

Any further information on Jephthah's daughter will also be welcomed!

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Stickles]

Byron,

Not at all uninteresting, just difficult. I actually spent some time researching your question about Jephthah's daughter, but couldn't find any conclusive answer - there seemed to be about even numbers of voices either way, and none were what I would call "authoritative". I didn't post earlier because I was hoping somebody who knew more than I do would step in with an answer.

The story of the mob and the concubine isn't much easier. My personal thought is that, for the old man, allowing the rape of his daughter was a lesser evil than allowing the violation of the persons to whom he had offered hospitality (the "sacred and inviolable character" you mentioned), while the Levite saw the violation of his concubine (who had already known a man) to be less evil than the violation of a virgin. Apparently both of them saw no hope of avoiding somebody being violated.

The morality is pretty muddled, but remember the oft-repeated statement in Judges: "every man did what was right in his own eyes".

In Christ,
Mike

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your response. If the general silence wrt these questions may be deemed significant, then they are difficult questions indeed! I was helped by your post, because you seem to have reached similar conclusions to me through your own research (i.e. "the answer is: we don't know"). Both stories seem less than edifying (to say the least), except perhaps as demonstrations of
"every man did what was right in his own eyes" But surely, in a sacred text, there must be more to it?! I'd like to get an answer, especially to be able to respond to those vociferous critics of the Bible and everything Christian who delight in the inscrutable ethics of such passages from the OT. I also wish the Orthodox OT project would be finished soon, so we can rush out to get our copies!

In Christ
Byron

[Seda S.]

One could ask many other such questions on the themes of OT. For example, I'm scandalized by what Moses did with that old man who gathered firewood on Saturday. Moses commanded to kill him, according to his (or God's) command, that no one had right to do work on Saturdays and and whoever didn't observe it would be punished.

Generally, as far as I myself can understand from the writings of the Fathers, such violations were permitted by God because human race of those times was, allegorically, still a child, then a teenager, who were "beaten" because they didn't yet have the mind of a mature person. And when they reached their full stature and had the mind to understand words of education and not scourge, the Divine Logos was incarnate to educate us and He didn't need to use scourge any more. I mean, we cannot really understand both the Lord's and the humans words and deeds of those times, because we can measure only through the mind of the "sixth age" in which we are. This is what I remind myself when reading the OT. Besides, though God is love, yet we understand that love in our small measure, while God, being Love, is beyond love, since He is God.

I don't know if I could explain in my poor English what I wanted to.

With love in the Lord,

S.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Seda,

Thank you for your interesting comments and perspective on history. Modern psychology and sensibility teaches us not to hit children or use corporal punishment in their discipline. I find it strange, speaking as a modern person, that God would allow such brutality for educational purposes. Nonetheless I sense it is correct to suggest that God is profoundly outside the range of human understanding, and therefore indeed His Love may appear nothing like our human love. Doesn't it seem arrogant though on our own behalf, to believe that we are 'wiser' today than we were back then? That Moses ordered the old man killed because he didn't know any better? Of course, people in the OT didn't yet know the incarnated Logos; but were they dumb even to human justice?

You mentioned the writings of the Fathers on the OT. I wonder if you or others might suggest some patristic texts which may answer - or at least address - some of these troubling questions...

In Christ
Byron

[Kosta]

I consider the situation of Jephthah's daughter to be one where she preserved her virginity and dedictaed herself to the Lord. After she lamented her virginity with her friends for 2 months, verse 39 says "....Did with her according to his vow which he had vowed; and she knew no man......"

If he literally sacrificed her why would the author add the phrase "she knew no man" in verse 39? Talk about overkill on the aspect of her virginity!

I would say most Fathers did indeed believe she was given as a burnt offering but what counts is what the church worships. In the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete we sing;
"Offer the sacrifice of praise, my soul, offer action as a daughter purer than Jepthah's and slay your carnal passions as a sacrifice to the Lord".

In my personal opinion in the Great Canon, the belief is she made a vow of chastity. it urges the believer by deeds (offer action) that are "purer" than Jephthahs daughter and to slay the "carnal passions" (as she did).

While one can say the above verse is inconclusive or can imply the contrary the entire canon uses analogies, comparing things which are "alike" in order to mimick them. This is why i added the phrase;(as she did).

As an example here is another verse from the Great Canon, "Knowing my wretched soul, how Isaac was mystically offered to the Lord as a new sacrifice and holocaust, imitate his resolution.

We all know Isaac was never sacrficed and burnt. The point about Isaac is to imitate him, another words imitate the complete obedience and trust in God (like Isaac's Father Abraham did).

[Seda S.]

Dear Seda,

Thank you for your interesting comments and perspective on history. Modern psychology and sensibility teaches us not to hit children or use corporal punishment in their discipline. I find it strange, speaking as a modern person, that God would allow such brutality for educational purposes. Nonetheless I sense it is correct to suggest that God is profoundly outside the range of human understanding, and therefore indeed His Love may appear nothing like our human love. Doesn't it seem arrogant though on our own behalf, to believe that we are 'wiser' today than we were back then? That Moses ordered the old man killed because he didn't know any better? Of course, people in the OT didn't yet know the incarnated Logos; but were they dumb even to human justice?

You mentioned the writings of the Fathers on the OT. I wonder if you or others might suggest some patristic texts which may answer - or at least address - some of these troubling questions...

In Christ
Byron

Dear Byron

There are commentaries on the books of OT, by the Fathers of the Church, for example, by Saints John Chrysostom and Ephraim the Syrian. But those commentaries are not so full and having answers to many questions, as those on the Gospels. And not all the commentaries of the Fathers have reached us. If you could find the volumes of "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" (edited by Joseph T. Lienhard; general editor - Thomas C. Oden; InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois), which is a modern catena, you could read the answers of some of your questions, though not of all of them.

As for the thought that the mind and understanding of humanity in OT times was not so educated and high and needed some kind of education until the coming of the Lord Jesus, I can bring now only some words by St Cyrill of Alexandria, because I could read about it in more detailed explanation by one of the Armenian Fathers. Of course, you cannot read it, and perhaps you don't need it, since he is not one of the EO Fathers.

When speaking about the OT commandment, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etc, St Cyrill says, "The law of retaliation was a temporary dispensation and part of a process of education". And again, "It was even given to those of old time as a schoolmaster, accustoming them little by little to a fitting righteousness and leading them on gently toward the possesson of the perfect good". These quotations are found in his explanation on the Gospel of Luke. I took them from the III vol. (OT) of the aforementioned book-catena (pp. 111 & 113).

With love in the Lord,

S.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Seda and Kosta,

Thank you both for your well-articulated and informative responses to my difficult questions. It appears that events in the OT have puzzled Christians since the earliest days of our faith; furthermore, Kostas' post suggests that even where the Church has no definitive Traditional account of what actually took place in a passage like the one concerning Jephthah's daughter, it may still glean important moral and even (I suppose) doctrinal conclusions from the Scriptural narrative. Jephthah may (or may not) have sacrificed his daughter, but the message we as Christians may draw from this must be formulated in the context of what the NT teaches regarding the importance of sacrifice. Even if the daughter was physically killed (which I agree is far from certain in the text), what matters is that this could of course never be condoned by Christian standards today, and that Jephthah's and her own readiness to offer everything - virginity, life itself if called upon - to God is what matters to the Christian reading this passage.

Once again, many thanks for the help. Seda, I thought Cyril of Alexandria is also an EO saint. Anyway, even if he isn't, one could waste one's time reading literature much less helpful than this!

In Christ
Byron

[Seda S.]

Dear Byron

St Cyrill is one of the common saints both for the "various" Orthodox (:-)) , and the Catholics, that is why I brought his words. I didn't bring the words of an Armenian Father who wrote on that subject, because he is Armenian and not EO (how I hate all the abbreviations for Christians, really, they are like trademarks on our bodies and souls. That's why I never use for myself any OO, MOO, POO :-). Sorry for such an openness.

With love in the Lord,

S.

[Kris]

It appears that events in the OT have puzzled Christians since the earliest days of our faith; furthermore, Kostas' post suggests that even where the Church has no definitive Traditional account of what actually took place in a passage like the one concerning Jephthah's daughter

I had a look at the rabbinical interpretation of Jephthah's actions and there is an equal amount of uncertainty and difference of opinion - both as to whether or not he did in fact kill his daughter, and whether or not his vow to God had any validity.



It is proper for a person to undertake a vow to perform a good deed....Jephthah's vow, however, was improper. He said he would make an offering of the first thing to emerge from his house - but how could he be sure that the first animal to greet him would be acceptable as an offering? Indeed, his daughter rushed out to him, and human sacrifice is forbidden (Taanis 4a).....

....According to R'Yochanan, he was required to set aside the monetary value of his daughter for the purchase of offerings...It is clear from the narrative that Jephthah did not know the halachah, and considered his vow to apply; indeed, the Sages ciricize him harshly for being too proud to seek halachic guidance, and use him as an example of the danger of piety without knowledge of the Torah (Tanachuma, Bechukosai 5)....

...Many commentators, among them Ibn Ezra, Radak; Ralbag, and Abarbanel, hold that since human sacrifice is forbidden, Jephthah carried out his vow by building his daughter a house where she lived in solitude and seclusion, devoting herself to prayer, except for the four days a year when her friends would visit her to bemoan her fate. Thus, she was figuratively an "offering," and he fulfilled his vow in that manner.
The Prophets: Joshua to Judges, Artscroll Mesorah, pp.189-191



(By the way, I am not quoting this to suggest we should appeal to the Pharisees in order to discern the mind of God. I simply wished to illustrate that even for those who do not have the New Testament, these passages are a source of equal confusion and controversy.)

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Kris,

Thank you for posting this, it's also useful to know, and refreshingly open-minded; after all, Sts Gamaliel and Nicodemus were Pharisees too. Obviously the Bible is not a book of easy answers, or even of simple questions! It is a strange state of affairs that has led many people to think a religious mindset is identical with a black-and-white world-view.

Seda, although I'm not an expert and I do wish to be respectful of denominational distinctions, it does also seem to me to be true to say that, if Christianity is anything, then it is one thing, one basic life and teaching taught by the Lord to his apostles and sent out to the world for its salvation. The various "trademarks" you mention are the result of painful historical processes which we pray time and human effort in cooperation with God will heal. But whichever "trademark" one is sadly branded or lumped with, it's still about the Cross and Resurrection, isn't it? I'm not suggesting of course that our traditions are not worth preserving and exploring in their cultural and spiritual particularity, but only that I cannot see any sense in having 'traditions' when these do not ultimately rest on one, ultimate integral Christian Tradition.

In Christ
Byron

[Seda S.]

You are right, brother. But do not take very seriously what I'm writing with smilies.

Sometimes when I want to write something very wise and serious, I look at myself and seeing that wisdom does not suit me, I laugh at my "wisdom" and present it in an unserious way. I think, this suits me better.

S.