Why do apologists feel the need to change the story? Dude made a stupid promise and held himself accountable to it. Isn’t that the point of the story? “Don’t be an idiot, look what happened to Jepthah.”
If one of the Good Guys (TM) is sacrificing a child, it makes it really hard for them to justify the wiping out of the Canaanites (I think that's the one) for doing evil things like sacrificing their children (to the wrong god).
@@flowingafterglow629 that’s makes sense. I guess I see that as precisely Jeptha’s problem - he wanted to do the “good” thing by any (potentially “evil”) thing necessary, and it bit him in the butt
Because their main argument for Christianity is how "loving" their God/God's is/are. So when you confront them with those bible passages, it hurts their argument and feelings. But they totally forget, that their "loving" father sacrificed his son too. Jesus asked God to take the cup away, but God did it anyways. Btw a real father would sacrifice himself instead of his innocent son and in the Torah God can forgive sins without blood, just by the fact that the believers repent (Isaiah 55 7 for example). The human sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense at all
@@Cornelius135 Yes I did, i am also the opinion that Jesus died as a Moral example was the earliest view, he suffered like Ezekiel as a sign. Those who see them/him suffering, repent and keep the law and do good deeds. But at the end of the day, God still sacrificed his son in the gospels and Jesus prayed at least twice to God to take the cup away but was not heard.
What a great dad Jephthah was, he might not have been happy about sacrificing his daughter but he still wasn’t going to take her place for his selfish bargain with God and he still gets to be the hero of the story because he kept his promise to God which is what we are sopposed to learn from this, apart from also not making rash bargains with God.
@@CharlesPayet Yes it is sarcasm, Jephthah was just as big a coward and sh*t father as Abraham was for going along with sacrificing Isaac because that was what God wanted and I've just noticed I spelt 'supposed' wrong in my comment.
The efforts of biblical apologists to retrofit modern ideas of morality, ethics, science and scholarship onto ancient texts are perfect examples of why the term "apologetic scholar" is an oxymoron. True scholars are led by facts and logic, and accept the conclusions they lead to, regardless of the outcome. Sure, academics often disagree about the results of that scholarship, but not about the scientific method itself,and often they find common ground over time, which leads to consensus. Apologists, on the other hand, engage in begging the question - ie, circular reasoning - in an attempt to "prove" their pre-held beliefs. It's no wonder then why the nemesis of religion isn't sin, but knowledge. And it's no wonder why conservatives, who are most likely to be religious, are always railing against institutions of higher learning. This is especially the case in America, where the stats show that a slowing increasing number of people are describing themselves as non-religious. Christian nationalists are responding by working to turn the US into a theocracy. Won't be long until the witch and blasphemy trials (and burnt offerings?) recommence. Because, hey, nothing is wrong if God commands or accepts it.
Hero to the author of Hebrews 11:32-33, because Jephthah is included among those who conquered via faith. So at least that passage of the Christian Bible glorifies child sacrifice. Oh and there was that Jesus guy.
I made this argument to apologists many times. Besides the test that god used for Abraham, burnt offerings always resulted in the offering being killed, so using the apologetic that she was offered into service that included no more sex makes no sense at all. Apologists would do anything in order to justify that god is all good...
@@Christian_Man Scholars are assumed to be making honest inquiry. Apologists are assumed to be trying to "apologise" for god's unethical behaviour, and have him seen in the best possible light Frequently, they are neither scholars nor honest
What I don't get is why on earth anyone would make such a stupid promise. It's blatantly obvious that this could end in tragedy. What was he thinking ; that a goat would greet him first ? It makes no sense to me, except perhaps as a cautionary fable.
I think it IS meant as a cautionary fable, about making rash promises. As for WHY, I would guess (not being a scholar on how people thought back then, admittedly) that it was meant as a symbol of overwhelming gratitude. "I'm so grateful for this victory, Lord, that I'll give you anything, it doesn't even matter what it is!"
Just waiting for the apologists tap dance around the obvious truth that God was okay with Jephthah killing and burning his daughter (a third party not involved in the Vow to God and an innocent child and God knowing it was going to happen and not telling Jephthah " you might want to make another type of vow...or you might regret this one" or intervening in anyway...unlike with that luckier mental case Abraham)....the only response to reading the bible with any intellectual honesty is that the god of the old testament is a morally bankrupt narcissistic rather stupid and ineffectual god, one of many apparently around at the time.
@@Maicon-b1b are you really that stupid? God knew who would walk out of the door first so God knew the sacrifice would be a young girl and instead of saying... maybe reconsider your promise Jephthah or just saying actually Jephthah no need for the sacrifice this time since it means killing your daughter horribly and as a tri-omni God with unlimited power... I really don't actually need a child killed as payment for anything.... but no your immoral god went yes go ahead and kill your child as a sacrifice for me. Religion enables good people to do terrible things without even realising it. Something to think about.
@Maicon-b1b If you read the passages, it says the spirit The Lord came upon him, and then he made a vow. And then God kept his end of the bargain. Hence, God agreed to the vow. This story bothers me greatly. If you can help me understand, I would much appreciate it
I personally think that He could have avoided it because God just wanted to test Abraham at that time and therefore he told him not to harm Isaac, but here Jephthah made a promise himself and mind you, he also lives with " worthless men" judges 11:3 so he didn't even know what kind of sacrifices God takes which are never humans but once someone makes a vow he has to fulfill it aWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin.Eccelesiastes 5:4-6 See how he said donot let your mouth lead you to sin? Jephtha's story just tells us to be mindful of what we say even though the whole army and nation is under us and respects us, let us not be fools @@dannytinney384
The best joke in the 70's movie "The North Avenue Irregulars" is when the pastor is in a hurry so he stands up to give a sermon and says "Jepthah was a man of might valor , and it would be all well if we would follow his example, let us pray" and that's it that's the sermon. And then he leaves the building. 😂
That reminds me of a story I saw on Reddit. An evangelical asked a Quaker what version of Jesus's birth story they prefer. The Quaker replies 'The version in Mark'
Jeptha was immoral from start to finish in this story. The promise is itself immoral in so many ways, then keeping the promise is immoral in it's own right.
I've seen apologists say this story was what you should not do. For example, you should never make a vow so open. The problem, though, is that God accepted the vow and granted Jeptha victory. If he is all knowing, he would have known exactly what would come out of Jeptha's house first. This vow and sacrifice was 100% endorsed by God.
@@Rhewin that's circumstantial. God could have granted the victory for other reasons known only to God, and may well have granted victory even had the Judge not made the vow. What you learn from the story is up to you, but I've never heard anyone even suggest that making let alone keeping such a vow was a good thing.
@@MusicalRaichu Right, the deity upheld the vow. The deity literally upholds both sides of a vow because it is the deity. This is what the deity tells us anyway.
@@PrometheanRising put yourself in the position of the original readers. that's not what they would have taken from the story, that's something you made up to trash something you've taken a dislike to.
@MusicalRaichu The fact that people who were willing to kill their children for their bloodthirsty God, and that their God was willing to accept that is right there in the story. The fact that the deity was willing to accept such people as followers is a sign that the deity was evil. The fact that people who would do such a thing can't grasp the significance of their own story is not a surprise. People from the past frequently tell on themselves because they are confident in the rightness of their stories.
My 3rd grade teacher said that the moral of the story is that you should not keep foolish vows. According to her, when Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first one to come out, he should have repented of making rash vows and not sacrificed his daughter. However, instead he kept his vow. I am not sure if this is a common interpretation.
@@ANCIENTWARRI0R Since Jewish theology implies that we don’t really know anything about God, they often use the Bible stories to analyze and criticize the behaviors of its characters. For instance, for some Abraham was given a test when told to sacrifice Isaac, and he failed it (meaning that he should have stood up to God). And Noah is also sus, since unlike Abraham in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he didn’t try to talk God out if it. And so on. The bottom line is, for most Jewish people the interpretation of the stories of the Bible is not fixed in stone. Of course, YMMV.
Dang, the Hermeneia commentary only goes up to the chapter before that. I don't have the resource handy, but I do recall a number of scholars saying the story of Jephthah's daughter may have a Greek origin (possibly via the Philistines, who were Greek). The entire episode feels like it belongs in a Greek tragedy. If my memory is correct, Thomas Römer is one such scholar.
Yes, the story of Agamemnon is similar. It is not obvious that Agamemnon was earlier. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is not actually in the Iliad, but only in the works of Euripides, who definitely wrote later than Judges. Even if the story does go back to the Iliad, that is probably the 8th century which is not clearly older than Judges. Even if the sacrifice of Iphigenia is older, in some oral tradition or lost text, that's not evidence that the Bible copied it (just like if it's newer, that's not evidence that the Greeks copied the Bible). The most likely situation is that the two stories originated independently. Since we're talking Greek, the pathos is the same - a hero must sacrifice his daughter but he doesn't want to - but the rest of the story and the theological purpose are different. It's not an obvious copy like Noah's Flood.
Another obvious example of something in Judges that kind of superficially looks Greek is the story of Samson. Just like Heracles, the setup is "here's a really strong guy who's not too bright" but the rest of the story is quite different.
A God with dignity would not punish an innocent daughter for bad deeds of her father and on top of that wouldn't sacrifice his innocent son for sinners. Blood cult
Vow or no, if Jeptha was doing something God didn't like, God would have handed him over to his enemies as we see time and time again. Instead, God knows exactly what will happen, and yet grants Jeptha victory anyway. The Deuteronomistic histories are genuinely the worst depictions of God possible.
The problem with Chapter 11 of the Book of Judges are the questions that follow the narrative. For example: (1) Did the Israelites practice human sacrifice prior to the prohibition in Deuteronomy 12:31 ? That is to ask, would the community of Japhtha be shocked and morally outraged or understand as his daughter seem to accept it? (2) When a judge like Jephthah make a vow of a burnt offering, how is it legally accomplished? Is there paperwork, that is, scrollwork? (3) What is the infrastructure required? Is the altar that would be employed for an animal sacrifice suitable for this vow? (4) Is the community and witnessses involved? Do family and friends attend the sacrifice as one might in a celebration or funeral? (5) Does Jephthah perform the ritual or is this delegated? (6) How is the sacrifice honored after death in terms of memorial as we might with headstones in burial? (7) Is God satisfied with the sacrifice? Afterall, an angel of the Lord could have saved her with a substitution. We all know this protocol has been used before.
Those are quite interesting questions. Before them, though, as someone else has questioned, I would pose that the first inquiry to be pursued should be the one about the historicity of the text. That is to say, is it depicting a factual event of some sort or is it building a narrative to be used symbolically?
@@ziltonf.salgado9974 let us assume that the account is fictional, a drama composed for performance and entertainment. Would Judge Japhtha's dilemma be logically reasonable and would the consumers of this fiction understand how the particulars should unfold? Could Japhtha's contemporaries imagine the process steps required to accomplish his vow? Is the arc of the story a community event or a crime committed peripheral to the community's consent and knowledge. We know Japhtha is illegitimate because of his mother's status and cannot inherit property as his brothers. What else can he do or not do in the sociological limitations of this narrative? Was the story conceived to create a character for whom the audience has sympathy or hate? My assumption is this: whether the narrative is fiction or history, the features of the narrative speaks to the attitudes of the people toward this kind of burnt offerings --and someone as knowledgeable as Dr Dan understands how Talmudic scholars would explain what is not in the verse before us. However, consider what is before us, ". . . And it was the custom in Israel." (Judges 11:39, last sentence.) לט וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וַתָּשָׁב אֶל-אָבִיהָ, וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ, אֶת-נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָדָר; וְהִיא לֹא-יָדְעָה אִישׁ, וַתְּהִי-חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Thank you loads for the reply. The questions you're raising seem to be compelling, indeed. I do like the notion of questioning the scope of the validity of the character's action in terms of both its understanding and social acceptance by the community that consumed this narrative.
Over the years, I'd heard so many (mostly christian) apologists try to mangle this text to be less horrific. Those apologists made it clear why a god would want people incinerated.
I have three questions: 1) Is this account historical? 2) What could YHWH or Israel hope to gain by including it in their scriptures, whether historical or not? 3) How does the age of this text's origins compare in time with the Abraham/Isaac story?
1) probably not. 2) to teach some rhetorical point about the futility of human sacrifice is my guess. Unfortunately I can't answee the 3rd question because I don't know.
Regarding 2) to my knowledge the modern Jewish view of the point of the story is "don't do that! Don't make reckless vows! Don't do that in haste, in anger, in grief, just don't!" "Oh, and if you do and realize later the folly of what you did, it's ok, G-d understands, G-d can nullify it, that's between you and him, it's fine, really." Though that last part was explicitly added after Spanish forced conversions, where people converted under duress then got out and weren't comfortable returning to Judaism because they had sworn an oath.
@@huttj509 yeah this first one sounds right. It might also be meant as an origin story for these aforementioned days of mourning. (This is entirely speculation on my part)
...Something tells me that, whatever she promised, J's daughter's maidenhood was also "sacrificed" after *2 months* of partying in the woods with her friends! And good on her, although she really shouldn't have bothered coming back. What the hell did he *expect* to happen?? Maybe he was hoping his wife, who he may have been having marital difficulties with, would come out instead? Or someone expendable, like a slave or servant? Come to think of it, what would have happened if NO ONE had come out of the house before he went in?? You can only return home from a specific war once, maybe that's a loophole that meant he wouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone! Too bad he wasn't smart enough to write ahead and warn them not to come out to greet him on his return...
Though this event occurred... it is important to include the full context of the book. if you continue reading the book, you will reach chapter 13:1 where god punishes the Israelites for doing things that offend god. This was an active response to Israel's actions in the previous chapters ( which includes the child sacrifice ). Another note here, is that god did not ASK for this sacrifice, nor is there any indication he wanted it. this was all done through the free will of Jephthah.
Isn't YHWH used to broken promises? How many times has he heard "I swear that if you get me out of this mess I will never _____ again, AND THIS TIME I MEAN IT" 😛
Thanks for the info. Apologist are always trying to edit this story. It's very explicit. Human sacrifice was part of the Israelite culture just like all the other Canaanite nations. Abraham was ready to kill Issac with very little pushback. God spoke to him in a vision. Leviticus 27:29 says literally "no person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, they must be put to death".
Abraham was a terrible person. Only a terrible person would consider killing their own child in a situation like this. Not only was he a terrible person. His deity was immoral both in making the request of a child-sacrifice, and in rewarding Abraham for his willingness to go through with it. Any deity that would accept as a true follower someone who would kill their child is clearly evil.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Why can God forgive like we do. We go through terrible things like rape, killing of loves one and more. We don't ask for blood just a simple sincere apology. The god of the bible needs blood for some reason. Nobody sin against him. He not even on earth he is in heaven.
Hey guys, i think i have the answer. 1. The Jephthah daughter was a burnt offering. Jephthah said it is in judges 11:31. And abraham putting Isaac on the altar was the shadow of the things to come pointing to Jephthah putting his human child on the altar too. 2. God allow it because the burnt offering can be to HIM and HIM only because HE is the Great Master, the creator of the souls; the soul returns back to HIM. human child burnt offering or a sacrifice it can not be done to false gods. And it can not be done while we under the second testament/ grace. 3. satan mimics GOD, so his celebrity human sacrifice is a carbon copy after reading this story.😅😅
There are many theological points being made in this story, and none of them condone human sacrifice : 1) God empowered Jephthah (Judges 11:29) *before* Jephthah made the vow. When God calls you to a mission, you go, and you must trust that God will give you what you need. When you entreat God for favor or forgiveness, you are only asking. No interaction with God is transactional. 2) When a person finds favor with God, no matter how much power God gives them and how wisely they try to use it, they are still likely to screw it up somehow. If there's one recurring theme in Judges, it's that. 3) Jephthah made a vow to God, and breaking it would therefore violate the commandment against taking God's name in vain. The rules of sacrifice are laws, but the Ten Commandments always take precedence. 4) Corollary, human sacrifice is unlawful, but it is not murder. "Don't be an idiot and make foolish vows" is a good life lesson, but it's not theologically important.
*Missed one thing, Dan?* Start at Judges 11:29, where the spirit of YHWH came over Jephthah. It seems that YHWH inspired Jephthah to make the pledge. And what did Jephthah expect to emerge first? A teenager or young adult would have the fastest reaction and best eyesight. Judges 12:3 confirms that YHWH honored the sacrifice by giving the Ammonites into Jephthah’s hand as requested in the vow in 11:30. But another good video 👍
So the text is as it reads he killed his daughter and put her body on an alter made of large stones and burned her body as a litteral sacrifice? Did I get this right?
@@jasonsmall5602 Jason the text is very clear he killed her put her body on an alter to be burned. That is what you do in order to have a burnt offering..... Seems like you want to spin this like the apologist do Is that what you are implying.... Personally I don't think it never happened!! its just allegorical to teach to be careful in what say when you make vow to God.
Seems like a pretty straightforward story. Who would be trying to spin this into... Wazzat? Apologists, you say? No way! They wouldn't so something like that to make the Bible seem sensible to modern readers, would they? Oh, they do? Regularly? Wow!
You see, the bible is simple to read, it’s literal and clear… Until it’s makes me uncomfortable, then we start making up bs by reading between the lines. 😂
Thanks, Dan. Could you please say something about Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's take on child sacrifice in the state cult. Unlike Jeremiah - who denies that child sacrifice was practiced in the YHWH cult (Jeremiah 7:30) - Ezekiel admits it, but turns the implied accusation around and blames the Israelite/Judahite nation (Ezekiel 20:25).
I'm pretty sure Dan's already talked about this (assuming you refer to Ezekiel 20:25-26). Might have been in the 'Data Over Dogma' podcast. Can't give you a reference sorry.
Think I might have found it. You can watch Dan's short video called " Exodus historicity & a child sacrifice commandment on Monday’s episode of@dataoverdogma" which will point you to the podcast.
@@Christian_Man I quote from your answer: "While Jeremiah denies that child sacrifice was practiced in the context of the worship of YHWH, Ezekiel acknowledges its existence but places the blame on the rebellious actions of the people." You have Ezekiel admitting it (with caveats, but an admission nonetheless). They done it
@@Christian_Man Ezekiel tells God commanded them to do it. And it tells why. It is an apologetic explaining why they used to engage in the practice. And now apologists make apologies for that apology. The irony is tasty.
While some opinions are that the story is as it seems, others read וְהַעֲלִיתִ֖יהוּ not as *and* I will bring it up, but *or* I will bring it up, as the vav can be read either way (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235). Not that offering her as dedicated to god is good either, though she does agree to whatever it is that will happen. Others, such as Samuel, or Samson did not get the choice. The talmud does not look very kindly upon Jephtah, saying that 1) Even if he assumed it was an animal, what if a non-kosher animal came out the door, would he have (improperly) sacrificed it? 2) He could have had the vow annulled but was too proud to do so. It does go on to give supporting statements from Jeremiah and Kings implying that yes, he did sacrifice her.
Part of the point of latter Judges is the degradation of religion into formalism, so fulfilment of vows and personal compliance overcome the exercise of justice. This becomes full-blown satire by the epilogue involving Micah and the Danites.
Jephthah's vow originally *follows* adonai's commitment to give him victory, rather than coercing it. God's hand isn't forced and he doesn't choose Jephthah's sacrifice. It's all Js own in-house deal that God doesn't intervene to resolve (unless you count provisions in the law to repent of a foolish vow)
Most people now know that eye witness testimony is the MOST unreliable source of data. And the next is writings about those unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The stories are valuable, interesting, questionable, mean, etc., but that’s to be negotiated by the reader.
Jephthah never thought it would be his own child that would come out of the door. But honestly the similarities of sacrifing your child is reminiscent to Jesus.
*Jephthah's daughter became a servant of the tabernacle. Her life was dedicated, not destroyed.* The very thought that Jephthah's daughter died miserably in a flaming pyre on some altar in the desert, as a reward for her father's valor in saving God's people, is so stupid and such a grotesque misreading that it goes far beyond the mere stretching of reason, beyond the realm of absurdity, all the way into outright stupid satanic suggestion. First off, according to Levitical law, every burnt offering was to be a male without blemish, and each step of the sacrifice was a sacred sequence designed solely for bulls, sheep, goats, doves, and pigeons. Contrarily, snakes, spiders, unicorns, and little girls who love their daddies were not allowed to be sacrificed under any circumstance whatsoever. Mankind was and is made in the image of God Himself. Consider, if you will, the explicit and precise nature of the burnt offering ritual. The animal, once brought to the altar, was slaughtered, its throat slit to ensure a complete draining of blood-'for the life of the flesh is in the blood,' as Leviticus states (Leviticus 17:11). No flesh could be consumed without this sacred release of life. Afterward, the priests would carefully flay the animal, stripping off its skin, then parting and dissecting it. The entrails and legs were washed thoroughly to ensure ritual cleanliness. Its flesh, head, fat, and other parts were meticulously separated and arranged upon the altar, piece by piece, until the entire animal was wholly consumed by fire. What person would dare to suggest that Israel's priests-guardians of God's holy ordinances-would commit such a vile act, subjecting a young woman, her family, themselves, and the people of Israel to the grisly spectacle of a burnt human offering? I'll tell you who. 1. Gross sinners who have consciously chosen their sin over God and have entered into an open rebellion. 2. Those with a deep misunderstanding or willful distortion of Israel's faith would even entertain such a notion. 3. Those who harbor anti-Semitic bias, seeking to portray ancient Israel's worship as cruel or barbaric, might resort to such an accusation, aiming to denigrate what was, in fact, a system founded on reverence for life and God's holiness. 4. Luciferians and Satanists, who pervert Christian symbols and principles, could project such heinous practices onto Israel's worship, attributing to it their own abhorrent values in an attempt to degrade the purity of God's commands, which strangely is part of their own cherished anti-value system. These accusations ignore the entire spirit and true meaning of the holy arrangement that is Judeo-Christianity. For God Himself decreed in Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 12:31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 that human sacrifice is an abomination that is categorically forbidden and abhorrent to Him. Merely suggesting that Jephthah's daughter was ritually slain insults not only the divine Law but also God's faithful worshipers, who fear and revere the sanctity of life as instructed by God Himself. In truth, her life was consecrated, sanctified in service and a living commitment to God, not a life destroyed. To suggest that Jephthah's daughter was sacrificed in a burnt offering is to ignore the profound cultural and religious identity rooted in the Law given by Moses. This Law was far more than a set of rules, it was the heartbeat of Israel's national identity, their covenant with God, and a daily guide that touched every facet of life. Just as every true American knows who they won their independence from, every Israelite knew the history and commands delivered through Moses a mere 300 years, or three long generations, earlier. These divine instructions shaped not only their relationship with God but also the very fabric of their society. And although you may not remember the first or second amendment, their life wasn't so saturated with endless nonsense. They remembered all 613 mitzvot and you could walk down the street and ask almost anyone to recite them back to you with a 95% success rate. These laws are not to them what they are to you. They took them serious. They counted their laws with even more love than you count your hard-earned paper money. Jephthah calling out a burnt offering was like saying 'the whole enchilada '. Every single part, nothing withheld. When we say `the whole enchilada‘, we're not actually talking about an enchilada, and neither was Jephthah's oath intended to be taken absolutely literally. Jephthah's vow was never intended as a literal burnt offering of his daughter but as a declaration of total consecration. '100% God's,' set apart without reservation. If a male lamb without blemish had run out, I'm sure it would have hit the altar. But if a slave came out, he or she would have gone into tabernacle service. But it was his own daughter. Not to be mutilated and consumed in flames, but to serve honorably and respectfully in the temple, so honorably and respectfully that she requested two months to lament her virginity. Let's be honest, when you're staring down death's door, you're hardly worried about not having known the rod of Jacob or having embraced the scepter of Solomon or having your vineyard tilled. These priests, descendants of Aaron and the only ones authorized to perform sacrifices, appointed as custodians of God's holiness, would know beyond any doubt that God expressly forbids human sacrifice. Jephthah is not a descendant of Aaron and, therefore, would have no authority to perform any sacrificial ritual-certainly not in secret, if that's the next wild, absurd suggestion the devil whispers to your peabrain. Only priests from the line of Aaron were ever permitted to conduct sacrifices, and their work was bound by the highest standards of holiness, visibility, and adherence to God's explicit commands. The Law, as given to Moses, is unwavering on this matter. In Leviticus 18:21, God commands, 'You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God.' In Deuteronomy 12:31, He declares with clarity, 'You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.' Again, in Deuteronomy 18:10, He reinforces this command, 'There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.' Numbers 8:11-16 reminds us that the Israelites did indeed consecrate individuals to God-offered up as a living sacrifice, not in death, but in lifelong devotion. The Levites were set apart and presented as a 'wave offering,' symbolizing their dedication to God's service, not as lifeless sacrifices but as living servants wholly given to Him. This act of consecration demanded purity and total commitment of life, not death. Even within the sin offerings, where blood symbolized atonement, human life was never offered up in death, for every sacrifice preserved the sacredness of life. Each type of offering held its purpose and meaning, and none of these-burnt, sin, peace, or otherwise-permitted the slaughter of human beings as a sacrifice to God. God's Law would never allow such an abomination among His people. Thus, in every way, Jephthah's daughter's consecration would reflect a living offering, a life wholly set apart in service to God, not a life destroyed upon the altar. And look, too, to Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of sacrifice, who, while offered for sin, accomplished it in a way far removed from ritual slaughter. Unlike any sacrifice before, Christ's was voluntary, transcending the limitations of law-bound offerings. He gave His life willingly, submitting to death yet transforming it into an eternal, perfect sacrifice that fulfills every law-bound offering of old. Thus, when Jephthah's daughter went to the mountains to mourn her virginity, it was no dirge for impending death but a lament for the life she would surrender in lifelong service. She grieved not because she was to be killed, but because she would know no husband, no children. To interpret her story otherwise is to impose upon Israel the customs of pagan nations, to forget God's abhorrence of human sacrifice, and to ignore His unwavering commands against shedding innocent blood. Israel was uniquely called, as part of their covenant, to abolish these pagan practices, eradicating the very customs that desecrated life. Her offering was one of holy devotion, an enduring service, the kind of sacrifice God desired-a life set apart, not a life destroyed. Her fate was consecration, not combustion.
@@benroberts2222 At that time it was not uncommon to keep lifestock inside of the same house you were living in, so maybe he expected it to be a sheep/goat. But yes, this wasn't thought through at all, because he would have to consider the possibility for it to be a member of his family.
"You shall take them from their hands, and offer them up in smoke on the altar on the burnt offering for a soothing aroma before the LORD; it is an offering by fire to the LORD." Now. Did the aroma of Jephthah's daughter soothe YHWH? Did he like it? That is the question I want to know, because damn, that's extremely disturbing.
This is a cautionary tale not about making silly vows, but about how believing in fairy tale religions will always get you in deep shit sooner or later. I know daughters were not especially valuable in thos days, but really - making a bet where she might actually die! Stupid games, stupid prizes
Ye-ah this story was set up from the beginning. It’s a narrative that intended the end result. I mean, I’ll sacrifice the first thing that comes to greet me?? It’s clearly some sort of story about maidenhood or maybe to explain some get together girls did in the hills before they married.
Conclusively the story is incomplete; so long as the response of God is omitted,it quite obvious that conclusion cannot be drawn whether or not God approved his offering
It’s amazing that God intervened to keep Abraham from sacrificing his son but didn’t intervene to keep Jepthath from sacrificing his daughter. Hmm, maybe because God specifically commanded one but a person willingly vowed the other? Or is it more obvious, like a female can afford to be sacrificed, where if the sacrifice is male, it’s just a test? Or both?
God also lead the Wise Men to Jerusalem (before then leading them to a specific house), knowing it would cause the great Baby-Stabbing of 5 BC. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs!
I don’t see the need to try to make scripture more palatable, it is what it is as far as I’m concerned, and God’s choices will always be the correct ones even if we don’t understand them. But to take the view that Jephthah killed his daughter we would have to ignore the fact that child sacrifice was something forbidden by God (Lev. 18:21, 20:3; Deut. 12:31, 18:10). Jephthah would have been well aware of this law which was punishable by death by stoning. So there’s that for a start. And to be fair There are a few points that support the “life of “celibacy” idea for example the 2 months of mourning her virginity - doesn’t really make a lot of sense for a person about to die to mourn the fact that she would never be with a man rather than to mourn for her actual life. Granted, there may not be a huge amount of evidence to prove that jephthahs daughter spent her life devoted to God, but the text doesn’t say he killed her either so there’s a bit of give and take needed here as it’s lacking concrete evidence either way.
Ex 22 30 *“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep.* Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, *but give them to me on the eighth day"* It depend on which author. Human sacrifices are part of the bible, but it depends to which God.
"doesn’t really make a lot of sense for a person about to die to mourn the fact that she would never be with a man rather than to mourn for her actual life." It does if she's born into a patriarchal society where marriage and childbearing are her only allotted function, and this passage was likely written by a man who believed that.
@@JopJio It’s important to understand what “give to me” means and to do so we must go back to earlier passages of exodus where God gives specifics about the terms of how this is to be done as exodus 22:29 doesn’t tell us. So if we go back to exodus 13:12-13 we read; “you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the LORD’s. 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.” This is repeated again in exodus 34:20 - “You shall redeem all the first borns of your sons.” God has never required human sacrifices in fact He hates it. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 makes this very clear; “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?” You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”
@@Sojourner-ambulareinspiritu Deuteronomy 12 29 speaks of sacrifices to other Gods and Exodus of human sacrifices to God. Numbers 3:13 for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal Exodus 12:29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner
@@digitaljanus I get what you’re saying, but with respect, it still wouldn’t really make sense. What would make sense is for her to mourn her life now being effectively over because she would be unable to function as part of that “patriarcal society” being unable to get married and have children etc. as is explained to us in the text and as you pointed out. But what doesn’t make sense is to ignore the rest of scripture (that completely forbids child sacrifice) and conclude that her being sacrificed to God is what the passage means. There are ambiguous texts in the Bible - verses that are open to more than one interpretation. If a verse can be interperated more than one way it can’t be used (alone) as a proof text. To resolve the ambiguity of a text we have to back it up with other areas of scripture. When we do this with this passage we are unable to come to the conclusion that God accepted a child sacrifice because He directly and specifically forbids it as an abomination and something He hates earlier in the Bible. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?” You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”
And so the question concerning this story is it a real story or something else. The first warning sign is the YHWH, which likely was not a god within the early Israelite confederation. "His father's name is also given as Gilead, and, as his mother is described as a prostitute, this may indicate that his father might have been any of the men of that area." But I find it more than likely that his mother was a temple prostitute and the name Gilead has replaced the name of the Temple. Judging by the name, its likely a morphing of a theophoric to Anath, but Beth Anath is not in Gilead, while the bible does not make it clear there is a kind of phantom beth anath eluded to in the text. Thats why when I mention Anath I say one or two sites. Anath was the goddess of the god Hadad (Ba'al) who was a high god in Aram. So this might be referring to another site that Arameans considered part of Aram. As for many of the theophic names in early judges the Ethmology is lost, we neither have a complete name of gods or the theophoric suffixes and prefixes. The only sanctioned names ended with 'el. We see ba'al, but that just means lord, and toward the end of judges the theophorics to Yahu pickup (as the storyline moves from the south to near Yehudah, whose tutelary god, IMO, was Yahu) And so then what rights do virgins perform, while this might seem strange to us, within the cult of Ishtar followers of the cult are indoctrinated by going to the temple and performin a sex act with a stranger, the priest(ess) setting the price. This is a way for the temple to make money. In addition fathers could hand over their daughters to the temple and they would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, its unclear what the father got back. And so what we see in this story is kind of a scrubbing job. The first sign of the scrubbing is the confederation era gods have been scrubbed out of the text and YHWH label has been stamped onto it. The story mentions a prostitute with several children, but the support system which would have been a temple. When should note Jephtath is a judge, but his mother was a prostitute, previously mentioned Shamgar was a judge and his father was Anath, obviously this is refering to Beth Anath and so we have a precedence. This story differs in that we dont know the name of the temple but I am guessing Ishtar/Astarte. And so we have all the identifyers in place that the story was morphed and so the primary function is why. Now its likely that there was a celebration, and this was likely a prelude to some temple rite and it was popular. So one function of the story for deuteronomist is to shift the meaning of the right because they need to get rid of temple sacrifices (e.g. sacrificing ones virginity to the Ishtar temple was a way of enriching its priestess and this then decentralized the authority of the Jerusalem temple). The second point of the story is a taboo against oath taking. So lets review some of these stories. Shamgar of Anath, probably a zedek of Anath Deborah under the plam tree outside of Bethel. Deborah a zedek of Asherah outside of Luz (almond tree, literally sacred almond tree🕎 is Asherah - intepret as Ashera pole of Bethel) So these officials represent patterns of the early israelite judges that later Yehudite religion needs to deal with in crafting the deuteronomistic text. Theres a point to be made here. Certain sects claim other religions don't have idols, but what we see here is those sects are using the imagry of idols drafted both into their texts and there traditional symbols, just repurposing those symbols in an effort to steer the next generations into the preferred theology. While the claim is those symbols are markedly different in function than the symbols of say the orthodox church, the only real difference is the amount of time the evolving sects have had to refactor the symbols. The songs and dances are also magical symbols of extinct religion, and they may have played a role in ecstatic experience and ritual associated with a rite of passage for indoctrinees, making them very compelling. If we remember Jeremiah and the women of Egypt, they are reminding him how things were better when they were allowed to offer cakes to the Queen of Heaven. And the temple at Elephantine retained Anath as a Goddess. So these traditions persisted. Margerat Barker has proposed these notions persisted even into the time of Jesus and may have persisted in some of the mystical Jewish cults that later evolved into the Kaballah. I find the idea intriguing in essense but in detail weak.
interesting that the story has parallels to Abraham sacrificing his son. but was allegedly told not to, right at the last teeny weeny second. Wonder why the all powerful master of the universe would not repeat that behaviour. strangely when a Gid says something, he can change the decision last minute, but when a man says something, then he has to stick with it no matter what. so who is moral, the one who changes his words or the one who keeps his word if the word includes killing another human being??
Numbers 8:11-16 pretty much destroys this "scholar's" ridiculous assumption. She was given to be a servant of the temple. Another batch of "C's for degrees" has hit the earth kids, brace yourself.
The very text of Judges 11 destroys your ridiculous apologetics. And citing another passage that contradicts it shows nothing except that the Bible is self-contradictory.
That's a very poor biblical study on your part. The Scriptures are full of instances where a surface level reading comes to the wrong conclusion. Not everything explicit is explicit; it often depends on the reader. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "and" can be translated as "or" and the text can also mean "I will dedicate it to the Lord, and offer "a" sacrifice to the Lord." So, one has to dig deeply into the original Hebrew and also let scripture interpret scripture (Jephthah is listed as one of the Heroes of Faith in Hebrews.). You're explanation is that of a child.
What annoyed me about the story is the only worth the young lady had was her virginity. Never learn her name nor God made an attempt to saver her like he did to Isaac. Again, because she was a female & not worth god's time.
Her virginity certainly wasn't her only worth, stop playing victim. Giving up being married was giving up her normal life; she traded falling in love, sporting, children, a future, lineage, etc... to live in the temple serving God, prophesying, healing, and teaching. Mentioning that she mourned her own virginity is proof against the absurd view that she was killed, quartered, cooked, and eaten by the priests. Think about how Jesus would respond to such a suggestion. WWJT, What Would Jesus Think? Isaac's story is also a piece of proof that she wasn't literally sacrificed on an alter. God doesn't like human sacrifice at all, one of the Ten Commandments is "don't kill". Numbers 8:13-14 Leviticus 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31 Deuteronomy 18:10 Jeremiah 7:31 Christ uses women in almost half of the parables that he tells, women followed him constantly and were healed by him, gentile women were helped by him (the woman at the well and the woman who's daughter had a devil), the adulteress who would have been stoned without Christ's input and forgiveness, etc... The first people to see him after his resurrection were two women both named Mary who thought that he was the gardener, and God brought Jesus into the world via Mary rather than letting him float out of the sky like the Holy Spirit did as a dove. Lately there is this strange trend where women seem to think that God doesn't love them as much as men or that women don't have a significant, positive role in the grand story, but it's a lie and we all know that the devil is the father of lies. Stop making yourself the victim. This perception might have sprouted up from pride, a desire to be like a god on earth, worshiped and perfect in the eyes of all no matter what you do and everyone has to feel bad for you because people didn't recognize your godship sooner. It will never be that way. All glory goes to God Who's son is Jesus Christ, and nobody gets through this life without some hardships. If Jesus had hardship to the point of sweating blood, then you're going to have some.
@@TiddlyBlinx Whose playing victim? How did you come up with that? Now you are just being an ass. No one said she was quartered, cook, and eaten by priests. How did you come up with that? But she was sacrificed to god as the bible clearly indicates. Jewish accept the girl wad sacrificed to god as.That it didn't happen are apologetic Christian recently twisting word to comfort their sensibilities that god did nothing to stop the sacrifice of a girl. Women were not allowed to work in the temple as they are seen naturally impure. But that girl was understood she was sacrificed as far as I have heard that story. It's just recent some are trying to change it. Yes, god did command not to kill, then he ordered his followers to kill and loot the land of Canaan. Hypocrisy at its finest. That story of Jesus resurrection is full of contradiction, your. Your example means diddly squat. There's no strange trend, women are treat nothing but property by men. All you have to do is read the bible. It has been used to oppress women, & today priest & pastors are advising women to be submissive. You are the only one that it doesn't. Making myself the victim? Of what or who? What the heck are you talking about? Are you confusing me with someone else? You sound confused? No one is saying anyone want to be god on Earth, that is a very idiotic thing to say. That is a red-herring. The better question is how did you come up with that notion? Are you trying to be the victim here?
Acts 16:14-15; A business woman named Lydia who loves the Lord and makes fancy clothes has her whole house, meaning her close family, baptized, and then made Paul and his companions hang out for a while. She loves the Lord Who loved her first, was named, successful, kind, and not a "victim" of "patriarchy". Worth God's time too, He sent His apostles there to baptize her and her family. Virginity wasn't mentioned. Acts 17:4; Mentions many chief Greek women believing on Jesus Christ. "We love him, because he first loved us." - 1 John 4:19
@@OverlordShamala How can you not see that this is in relation to your question and what was bothering you? I don't understand how those scriptures could be irrelevant all because the women were converts. The things that made you sad, like the women not being named, is actually just the devil saying mean things to you and it turns out that God does love us very much, women were often named, and God saved them. I was reading the Bible today and found another verse where a woman is saved and named. "Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." - Acts 17:34
Israelites aka Hebrews are nothing more than Canaanites and Phoenicians. Offering up human sacrifices was the norm. Also it’s very interesting that this YHWH god demand virgins as a sacrifice.. study the Bible completely as well as contexts and cultures at that time and what was the many translations and the original word and meaning. Even the words for gods or god Elohim, Eloah actually means POWERFUL ONES. Hebrews Canaanites were Polytheists they worshipped many gods… that’s why there was the incident when Sarai/Sara took her “ gods “ …. Idols of different gods and hid them on her. The Bible is not what you think it is
To anyone that thinks that Jepthah was surprised that this was to be a human sacrifice, 1. It should be noted that the word translated as "whatever" could be and was used in other parts of the Bible as "whoever". The translators specifically chose "whatever" to soften the account. 2. The wording is specific and couldn't apply to an animal - does anyone seriously think one of his cows or goats was going to open the front door, walk out and say "Hey Jephthah, welcome back, how did the war go?" And of course, if someone does believe in God of the Bible, it wasn't coincidence that Jephthah's daughter walked out, it was all part of God's plan that it happened. If God wasn't happy with human sacrifice (after all he says over and over again in the Old Testament how much he LOVES that burnt blood smell), well then he COULD have made a cow or goat open the front door, walk out and greet him. God had no problem making Balaam's ass have a chat with him.
Christian missionaries usually bring up Judges 11 to prove the sacrifice of Jesus was acceptable. Judaism begins and ends with Moses to the point that a Torah scroll consists of the Pentateuch only.
I dunno. It demonstrates mans authority over the law by appointing a time. That would be similar to the act of confession these days I suppose. Christianity did not begin with the birth or death of our Savior and Lord. The Messianic Jews watched for and attest to the Lord. And Rosicrucianism predates and authored (both subjects authored) our current cannon. This was the anticipated marriage of Cleopatra and Octavian.
What a load of bullocks. Rosicrucianism did not predate "our current canon" -- whatever that's supposed to mean. The Order of the Rosy Cross originated in the early 17th century.
Sounds like you're talking of the Normans. Rosecrucians are a masonic order that predate Jesus's birth by about a hundred and fifty years. Information is obscure and may be identified differently... I'll see what I can find online....
I personally think that He could have avoided it because God just wanted to test Abraham at that time and therefore he told him not to harm Isaac, but here Jephthah made a promise himself and mind you, he also lives with " worthless men" judges 11:3 so he didn't even know what kind of sacrifices God takes which are never humans but once someone makes a vow he has to fulfill it aWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin.Eccelesiastes 5:4-6 See how he said donot let your mouth lead you to sin? Jephtha's story just tells us to be mindful of what we say even though the whole army and nation is under us and respects us, let us not be fools.
If you dive a little deeper you would find that the Spirit of the Lord gave him victory not a vow. That the word “and” in Hebrew can mean or that she mourned her virginity (with friends)not death , and for years “year after year” (while she was alive) for 4 days this would happen. His sadness was her being given to the Lord for temple service. And she would never give him a grandchild. Do you think the town would allow your idea to happen. Would a father be exhaled for child sacrifice (abortion ) … she had 2 months to escape or be delivered by the Lord or a hero. OR (not and) is the main reason why the story gets messed up. Look up waw or vav.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12 Occult Practices 9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.
You open this and say you're a Bible scholar, and then you give no representation to the careful arguments of the "Devotion view" of this passage that Jepthah's daughter was devoted to the tabernacle service. In the meantime, when the Bible says that Jepthah vowed to give whatever comes out of his house to the Lord AND give it as a burnt offering, the Hebrew word for "and" can also be translated as "or." There is also the fact that his daughter mourns her virginity, not for her life. The passage ends emphasizing her virginity and not her death. You can have your reasons not to go this route, but saying there's no reason to take it this way, to shrug it off as "nonsense," is very overstated.
This is just crazy that people actually believe this. So you’re saying that the most High God sanctioned a human burnt offering on his holy altar. and that the priest of the Lord did this offering on his altar and everything was just okey-dokey… You have to redeem unclean animals if you vow them to the Lord but if it’s your daughter then she gets burnt on his holy altar that MUST be clean 🤦🏾♂️.
This isn't the first time that the devil tried to use scripture to mislead people. He even tried it on Jesus in the wilderness. Look closely, people, Jesus probably saw a very similar face in the wilderness.
@TiddlyBlinx What part is misleading? The story says the spirit of the Lord came upon him, and then he made this vow. God is also sovereign over all things why did one of his elect judges, make such a vow, and why did God cause it to be his daughter that came to the door first? I don’t understand this story. If you could help me understand, I would really greatly appreciate It.
Human sacrifice is totally eschewed, avoided, and shunned in the Torah, in the law of the Lord. Throughout the Jewish Bible, every clean and good literal sacrifice/offering was either of an animal or some inanimate object, like flour or grain. Sacrifices for sin were done in very specific ways in very specific places, and always by the command of Deity. The animals had no blemish. The blood was only spilt on a specific altar by specific people: the Levitical priests. After the giving of the Law in completion, it could not be added to or diminished.
@@BluStarGalaxy Maimonides identified Abraham's ten tests. One of them was God's request that he offer Isaac, his most beloved son, as a sacrifice to Him. It was only a test.
@hrvatskinoahid1048 So yahweh was testing him to see if he was faithful. Since he is supposed to be all knowing wouldn't Yahweh know that Abraham would be faithful no matter what he was asked. Also Abraham be willing to sacrifice his son shows that Abraham is not a good person, because any sane person would say no and saying no would be passing the test.
"Did you defeat the Ammonites?"
"Yes."
"What did it cost?"
"Everything."
Nah, just a daughter. More of a ‘leg’ rather than ‘an arm and a leg’ in this patriarchal society.
Why do apologists feel the need to change the story? Dude made a stupid promise and held himself accountable to it. Isn’t that the point of the story? “Don’t be an idiot, look what happened to Jepthah.”
If one of the Good Guys (TM) is sacrificing a child, it makes it really hard for them to justify the wiping out of the Canaanites (I think that's the one) for doing evil things like sacrificing their children (to the wrong god).
@@flowingafterglow629 that’s makes sense. I guess I see that as precisely Jeptha’s problem - he wanted to do the “good” thing by any (potentially “evil”) thing necessary, and it bit him in the butt
Because their main argument for Christianity is how "loving" their God/God's is/are. So when you confront them with those bible passages, it hurts their argument and feelings. But they totally forget, that their "loving" father sacrificed his son too. Jesus asked God to take the cup away, but God did it anyways. Btw a real father would sacrifice himself instead of his innocent son and in the Torah God can forgive sins without blood, just by the fact that the believers repent (Isaiah 55 7 for example). The human sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense at all
@@JopJio have you also considered Christus Victor, Moral Exemplar Theory, or Ransom Theory?
@@Cornelius135 Yes I did, i am also the opinion that Jesus died as a Moral example was the earliest view, he suffered like Ezekiel as a sign. Those who see them/him suffering, repent and keep the law and do good deeds.
But at the end of the day, God still sacrificed his son in the gospels and Jesus prayed at least twice to God to take the cup away but was not heard.
What a great dad Jephthah was, he might not have been happy about sacrificing his daughter but he still wasn’t going to take her place for his selfish bargain with God and he still gets to be the hero of the story because he kept his promise to God which is what we are sopposed to learn from this, apart from also not making rash bargains with God.
That’s sarcasm, right? Please tell me that’s sarcasm.
@@CharlesPayet Yes it is sarcasm, Jephthah was just as big a coward and sh*t father as Abraham was for going along with sacrificing Isaac because that was what God wanted and I've just noticed I spelt 'supposed' wrong in my comment.
@@terryriley8963 whew, thanks! 😁
The efforts of biblical apologists to retrofit modern ideas of morality, ethics, science and scholarship onto ancient texts are perfect examples of why the term "apologetic scholar" is an oxymoron.
True scholars are led by facts and logic, and accept the conclusions they lead to, regardless of the outcome. Sure, academics often disagree about the results of that scholarship, but not about the scientific method itself,and often they find common ground over time, which leads to consensus. Apologists, on the other hand, engage in begging the question - ie, circular reasoning - in an attempt to "prove" their pre-held beliefs.
It's no wonder then why the nemesis of religion isn't sin, but knowledge. And it's no wonder why conservatives, who are most likely to be religious, are always railing against institutions of higher learning. This is especially the case in America, where the stats show that a slowing increasing number of people are describing themselves as non-religious. Christian nationalists are responding by working to turn the US into a theocracy.
Won't be long until the witch and blasphemy trials (and burnt offerings?) recommence. Because, hey, nothing is wrong if God commands or accepts it.
Hero to the author of Hebrews 11:32-33, because Jephthah is included among those who conquered via faith.
So at least that passage of the Christian Bible glorifies child sacrifice. Oh and there was that Jesus guy.
Here lies Jephthah's daughter. She never scored.
Return to sender, unopened.
I made this argument to apologists many times. Besides the test that god used for Abraham, burnt offerings always resulted in the offering being killed, so using the apologetic that she was offered into service that included no more sex makes no sense at all.
Apologists would do anything in order to justify that god is all good...
@@Christian_Man Scholars are assumed to be making honest inquiry.
Apologists are assumed to be trying to "apologise" for god's unethical behaviour, and have him seen in the best possible light
Frequently, they are neither scholars nor honest
That is not what apologist means
@@fluffysheap To quote the Oxford: a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial
God
Is good subjective?
What I don't get is why on earth anyone would make such a stupid promise. It's blatantly obvious that this could end in tragedy. What was he thinking ; that a goat would greet him first ? It makes no sense to me, except perhaps as a cautionary fable.
Lucky goat. People back then seem to have had no problem with the abominable practice of blood sacrifice.
I think it IS meant as a cautionary fable, about making rash promises. As for WHY, I would guess (not being a scholar on how people thought back then, admittedly) that it was meant as a symbol of overwhelming gratitude. "I'm so grateful for this victory, Lord, that I'll give you anything, it doesn't even matter what it is!"
if you deliver the m&m's to my hands...
Just waiting for the apologists tap dance around the obvious truth that God was okay with Jephthah killing and burning his daughter (a third party not involved in the Vow to God and an innocent child and God knowing it was going to happen and not telling Jephthah " you might want to make another type of vow...or you might regret this one" or intervening in anyway...unlike with that luckier mental case Abraham)....the only response to reading the bible with any intellectual honesty is that the god of the old testament is a morally bankrupt narcissistic rather stupid and ineffectual god, one of many apparently around at the time.
Why are you blaming God for the decisions of a man
We make our own decisions
If I commit a heinous crime against you don't blame God
@@Maicon-b1b are you really that stupid? God knew who would walk out of the door first so God knew the sacrifice would be a young girl and instead of saying... maybe reconsider your promise Jephthah or just saying actually Jephthah no need for the sacrifice this time since it means killing your daughter horribly and as a tri-omni God with unlimited power... I really don't actually need a child killed as payment for anything.... but no your immoral god went yes go ahead and kill your child as a sacrifice for me.
Religion enables good people to do terrible things without even realising it. Something to think about.
@Maicon-b1b
If you read the passages, it says the spirit The Lord came upon him, and then he made a vow. And then God kept his end of the bargain. Hence, God agreed to the vow.
This story bothers me greatly. If you can help me understand, I would much appreciate it
@@dannytinney384 it sounds like God entered the human to guide him but I'm not exactly sure
I personally think that He could have avoided it because God just wanted to test Abraham at that time and therefore he told him not to harm Isaac, but here Jephthah made a promise himself and mind you, he also lives with " worthless men" judges 11:3 so he didn't even know what kind of sacrifices God takes which are never humans but once someone makes a vow he has to fulfill it aWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin.Eccelesiastes 5:4-6 See how he said donot let your mouth lead you to sin? Jephtha's story just tells us to be mindful of what we say even though the whole army and nation is under us and respects us, let us not be fools @@dannytinney384
The best joke in the 70's movie "The North Avenue Irregulars" is when the pastor is in a hurry so he stands up to give a sermon and says "Jepthah was a man of might valor , and it would be all well if we would follow his example, let us pray" and that's it that's the sermon. And then he leaves the building. 😂
That reminds me of a story I saw on Reddit. An evangelical asked a Quaker what version of Jesus's birth story they prefer. The Quaker replies 'The version in Mark'
@@squiddwizzard8850 That's the version I prefer, too. It contains no flaws.
@@DoloresLehmann😅 honestly, part of why I appreciate it is that I am Quaker. Just somehow makes it funnier.
Jeptha was immoral from start to finish in this story. The promise is itself immoral in so many ways, then keeping the promise is immoral in it's own right.
I've seen apologists say this story was what you should not do. For example, you should never make a vow so open. The problem, though, is that God accepted the vow and granted Jeptha victory. If he is all knowing, he would have known exactly what would come out of Jeptha's house first. This vow and sacrifice was 100% endorsed by God.
@@Rhewin that's circumstantial. God could have granted the victory for other reasons known only to God, and may well have granted victory even had the Judge not made the vow.
What you learn from the story is up to you, but I've never heard anyone even suggest that making let alone keeping such a vow was a good thing.
@@MusicalRaichu Right, the deity upheld the vow. The deity literally upholds both sides of a vow because it is the deity. This is what the deity tells us anyway.
@@PrometheanRising put yourself in the position of the original readers. that's not what they would have taken from the story, that's something you made up to trash something you've taken a dislike to.
@MusicalRaichu The fact that people who were willing to kill their children for their bloodthirsty God, and that their God was willing to accept that is right there in the story. The fact that the deity was willing to accept such people as followers is a sign that the deity was evil. The fact that people who would do such a thing can't grasp the significance of their own story is not a surprise. People from the past frequently tell on themselves because they are confident in the rightness of their stories.
My 3rd grade teacher said that the moral of the story is that you should not keep foolish vows. According to her, when Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first one to come out, he should have repented of making rash vows and not sacrificed his daughter. However, instead he kept his vow. I am not sure if this is a common interpretation.
At least she doesn’t excuse Jephthah’s actions. But that doesn’t let a good and all knowing deity off the hook either.
I had a Jewish rabbi explain it the same way.
Its still unjust, the daughter had nothing to do with taking the vow. A just God would have punished the father instead of the daughter.
Couldn’t an Almighty God have stopped him? Seems like God was like “proceed…”
@@ANCIENTWARRI0R Since Jewish theology implies that we don’t really know anything about God, they often use the Bible stories to analyze and criticize the behaviors of its characters. For instance, for some Abraham was given a test when told to sacrifice Isaac, and he failed it (meaning that he should have stood up to God). And Noah is also sus, since unlike Abraham in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he didn’t try to talk God out if it. And so on. The bottom line is, for most Jewish people the interpretation of the stories of the Bible is not fixed in stone.
Of course, YMMV.
Does the story of "Iphigenia", daughter of Agamemnon predate the story of Jephthah's daughter? They are very similar.
So is Beauty and the Beast.
It's a very old motif in many stories, in different iterations, also present in fairy tales like "Rumpelstilzchen".
Dang, the Hermeneia commentary only goes up to the chapter before that. I don't have the resource handy, but I do recall a number of scholars saying the story of Jephthah's daughter may have a Greek origin (possibly via the Philistines, who were Greek). The entire episode feels like it belongs in a Greek tragedy. If my memory is correct, Thomas Römer is one such scholar.
Yes, the story of Agamemnon is similar. It is not obvious that Agamemnon was earlier. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is not actually in the Iliad, but only in the works of Euripides, who definitely wrote later than Judges. Even if the story does go back to the Iliad, that is probably the 8th century which is not clearly older than Judges.
Even if the sacrifice of Iphigenia is older, in some oral tradition or lost text, that's not evidence that the Bible copied it (just like if it's newer, that's not evidence that the Greeks copied the Bible).
The most likely situation is that the two stories originated independently. Since we're talking Greek, the pathos is the same - a hero must sacrifice his daughter but he doesn't want to - but the rest of the story and the theological purpose are different. It's not an obvious copy like Noah's Flood.
Another obvious example of something in Judges that kind of superficially looks Greek is the story of Samson. Just like Heracles, the setup is "here's a really strong guy who's not too bright" but the rest of the story is quite different.
Amen, God will hold you to a vow , that's why it is better not to make vows
A God with dignity would not punish an innocent daughter for bad deeds of her father and on top of that wouldn't sacrifice his innocent son for sinners. Blood cult
Vow or no, if Jeptha was doing something God didn't like, God would have handed him over to his enemies as we see time and time again. Instead, God knows exactly what will happen, and yet grants Jeptha victory anyway. The Deuteronomistic histories are genuinely the worst depictions of God possible.
And the god of the Israelites said to Jephthah "Cool, big mouth! We have a deal. There you go, buddy"
Good to know God works on the law of surprise
The problem with Chapter 11 of the Book of Judges are the questions that follow the narrative. For example:
(1) Did the Israelites practice human sacrifice prior to the prohibition in Deuteronomy 12:31 ? That is to ask, would the community of Japhtha be shocked and morally outraged or understand as his daughter seem to accept it?
(2) When a judge like Jephthah make a vow of a burnt offering, how is it legally accomplished? Is there paperwork, that is, scrollwork?
(3) What is the infrastructure required? Is the altar that would be employed for an animal sacrifice suitable for this vow?
(4) Is the community and witnessses involved? Do family and friends attend the sacrifice as one might in a celebration or funeral?
(5) Does Jephthah perform the ritual or is this delegated?
(6) How is the sacrifice honored after death in terms of memorial as we might with headstones in burial?
(7) Is God satisfied with the sacrifice? Afterall, an angel of the Lord could have saved her with a substitution. We all know this protocol has been used before.
Those are quite interesting questions. Before them, though, as someone else has questioned, I would pose that the first inquiry to be pursued should be the one about the historicity of the text. That is to say, is it depicting a factual event of some sort or is it building a narrative to be used symbolically?
@@ziltonf.salgado9974 let us assume that the account is fictional, a drama composed for performance and entertainment. Would Judge Japhtha's dilemma be logically reasonable and would the consumers of this fiction understand how the particulars should unfold? Could Japhtha's contemporaries imagine the process steps required to accomplish his vow? Is the arc of the story a community event or a crime committed peripheral to the community's consent and knowledge. We know Japhtha is illegitimate because of his mother's status and cannot inherit property as his brothers. What else can he do or not do in the sociological limitations of this narrative? Was the story conceived to create a character for whom the audience has sympathy or hate? My assumption is this: whether the narrative is fiction or history, the features of the narrative speaks to the attitudes of the people toward this kind of burnt offerings --and someone as knowledgeable as Dr Dan understands how Talmudic scholars would explain what is not in the verse before us.
However, consider what is before us, ". . . And it was the custom in Israel." (Judges 11:39, last sentence.)
לט וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וַתָּשָׁב אֶל-אָבִיהָ, וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ, אֶת-נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָדָר; וְהִיא לֹא-יָדְעָה אִישׁ, וַתְּהִי-חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Thank you loads for the reply. The questions you're raising seem to be compelling, indeed. I do like the notion of questioning the scope of the validity of the character's action in terms of both its understanding and social acceptance by the community that consumed this narrative.
Well, that seems like a pretty explicit explanation. Let the apologetics begin!
And not that it makes the story ANY better, but he was expecting (or hoping) to only have to offer up one of his slaves.
You put your hero’s on a pedestal, you find something dirty, you apologetics your way around the story.
Over the years, I'd heard so many (mostly christian) apologists try to mangle this text to be less horrific. Those apologists made it clear why a god would want people incinerated.
I have three questions:
1) Is this account historical?
2) What could YHWH or Israel hope to gain by including it in their scriptures, whether historical or not?
3) How does the age of this text's origins compare in time with the Abraham/Isaac story?
1) probably not. 2) to teach some rhetorical point about the futility of human sacrifice is my guess. Unfortunately I can't answee the 3rd question because I don't know.
Regarding 2) to my knowledge the modern Jewish view of the point of the story is "don't do that! Don't make reckless vows! Don't do that in haste, in anger, in grief, just don't!" "Oh, and if you do and realize later the folly of what you did, it's ok, G-d understands, G-d can nullify it, that's between you and him, it's fine, really."
Though that last part was explicitly added after Spanish forced conversions, where people converted under duress then got out and weren't comfortable returning to Judaism because they had sworn an oath.
@@huttj509 yeah this first one sounds right. It might also be meant as an origin story for these aforementioned days of mourning. (This is entirely speculation on my part)
So much for being a "Judge" amirite?
Let the dance competition commence
...Something tells me that, whatever she promised, J's daughter's maidenhood was also "sacrificed" after *2 months* of partying in the woods with her friends! And good on her, although she really shouldn't have bothered coming back. What the hell did he *expect* to happen?? Maybe he was hoping his wife, who he may have been having marital difficulties with, would come out instead? Or someone expendable, like a slave or servant? Come to think of it, what would have happened if NO ONE had come out of the house before he went in?? You can only return home from a specific war once, maybe that's a loophole that meant he wouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone! Too bad he wasn't smart enough to write ahead and warn them not to come out to greet him on his return...
I was thinking he expected an animal to come out, like one of his pets or a farm animal.
It might just be because I am myself queer; but her and her 'friends' seems vaguely sapphic
Though this event occurred... it is important to include the full context of the book. if you continue reading the book, you will reach chapter 13:1 where god punishes the Israelites for doing things that offend god. This was an active response to Israel's actions in the previous chapters ( which includes the child sacrifice ).
Another note here, is that god did not ASK for this sacrifice, nor is there any indication he wanted it. this was all done through the free will of Jephthah.
gods silence says it all
Isn't YHWH used to broken promises? How many times has he heard "I swear that if you get me out of this mess I will never _____ again, AND THIS TIME I MEAN IT" 😛
He should have repented for making a foolish and sinful vow and then should have immediately withdrawn his oath. And God would have forgiven him.
Thanks for the info. Apologist are always trying to edit this story. It's very explicit. Human sacrifice was part of the Israelite culture just like all the other Canaanite nations. Abraham was ready to kill Issac with very little pushback. God spoke to him in a vision. Leviticus 27:29 says literally "no person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, they must be put to death".
Abraham was a terrible person. Only a terrible person would consider killing their own child in a situation like this. Not only was he a terrible person. His deity was immoral both in making the request of a child-sacrifice, and in rewarding Abraham for his willingness to go through with it. Any deity that would accept as a true follower someone who would kill their child is clearly evil.
@@Christian_Man Claudine Gay, is that you?
@@Christian_Man you share in common a proclivity for lying about context.
I remember reading this and thought what a tragic story. What type of god has to be continually be bribed with blood sacrifices.
There is no place in the Hebrew Bible that says that only blood can be used to gain forgiveness for sins from God.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Why can God forgive like we do. We go through terrible things like rape, killing of loves one and more. We don't ask for blood just a simple sincere apology. The god of the bible needs blood for some reason. Nobody sin against him. He not even on earth he is in heaven.
@@freespiritpearl89 Who told you He needs blood?
Hey guys, i think i have the answer.
1. The Jephthah daughter was a burnt offering. Jephthah said it is in judges 11:31. And abraham putting Isaac on the altar was the shadow of the things to come pointing to Jephthah putting his human child on the altar too.
2. God allow it because the burnt offering can be to HIM and HIM only because HE is the Great Master, the creator of the souls; the soul returns back to HIM. human child burnt offering or a sacrifice it can not be done to false gods. And it can not be done while we under the second testament/ grace.
3. satan mimics GOD, so his celebrity human sacrifice is a carbon copy after reading this story.😅😅
I heard one Christian say Jepthah was an idiot who thought he made his sacrifice for God, but God did not approve.
If God didn’t approve, wouldn’t God stop him?
Yeah, but in the New Testament, Jephtah is explicitly mentioned among the "heroes of faith", whose example should be followed.
@@anastasiavalieva2268 In Hebrews, 11:32
There are many theological points being made in this story, and none of them condone human sacrifice :
1) God empowered Jephthah (Judges 11:29) *before* Jephthah made the vow. When God calls you to a mission, you go, and you must trust that God will give you what you need. When you entreat God for favor or forgiveness, you are only asking. No interaction with God is transactional.
2) When a person finds favor with God, no matter how much power God gives them and how wisely they try to use it, they are still likely to screw it up somehow. If there's one recurring theme in Judges, it's that.
3) Jephthah made a vow to God, and breaking it would therefore violate the commandment against taking God's name in vain. The rules of sacrifice are laws, but the Ten Commandments always take precedence.
4) Corollary, human sacrifice is unlawful, but it is not murder.
"Don't be an idiot and make foolish vows" is a good life lesson, but it's not theologically important.
One who swears about a prohibition he is commanded in has uttered a vain oath, since it is forbidden for him to keep his words.
*Missed one thing, Dan?*
Start at Judges 11:29, where the spirit of YHWH came over Jephthah.
It seems that YHWH inspired Jephthah to make the pledge.
And what did Jephthah expect to emerge first? A teenager or young adult would have the fastest reaction and best eyesight.
Judges 12:3 confirms that YHWH honored the sacrifice by giving the Ammonites into Jephthah’s hand as requested in the vow in 11:30.
But another good video 👍
Indeed. Any child will usually rush out because "Daddy's home!"
God did not inspire Jephthah to make the vow, he empowered him to launch his military campaign. Jephthah made the vow all on his own.
@@fluffysheap God accepted it...
@@fluffysheap Judges 11:29 seems to indicate otherwise
@@stephenlitten1789permissive will vs an active will. God does allow us to fail miserably at our own hand. Always with purpose.
Early morning horror.
Fortunately, this is from the legendary/myth portion of the Bible stories. It was a parable told to discourage vows.
So the text is as it reads he killed his daughter and put her body on an alter made of large stones and burned her body as a litteral sacrifice? Did I get this right?
Yes.
No, the text does not say any of that. Just that he did as he vowed.
@@jasonsmall5602
Jason the text is very clear he killed her put her body on an alter to be burned. That is what you do in order to have a burnt offering.....
Seems like you want to spin this like the apologist do
Is that what you are implying....
Personally I don't think it never happened!! its just allegorical to teach to be careful in what say when you make vow to God.
Good job, thank you for letting God's word speak and not trying to spin it to make it fit what feels more comfortable to us.
Seems like a pretty straightforward story. Who would be trying to spin this into... Wazzat? Apologists, you say? No way! They wouldn't so something like that to make the Bible seem sensible to modern readers, would they? Oh, they do? Regularly?
Wow!
You see, the bible is simple to read, it’s literal and clear…
Until it’s makes me uncomfortable, then we start making up bs by reading between the lines. 😂
Thanks, Dan. Could you please say something about Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's take on child sacrifice in the state cult. Unlike Jeremiah - who denies that child sacrifice was practiced in the YHWH cult (Jeremiah 7:30) - Ezekiel admits it, but turns the implied accusation around and blames the Israelite/Judahite nation (Ezekiel 20:25).
I'm pretty sure Dan's already talked about this (assuming you refer to Ezekiel 20:25-26). Might have been in the 'Data Over Dogma' podcast. Can't give you a reference sorry.
Think I might have found it. You can watch Dan's short video called " Exodus historicity & a child sacrifice commandment on Monday’s episode of@dataoverdogma" which will point you to the podcast.
@@Christian_Man So, short answer, "They done it"
@@Christian_Man I quote from your answer: "While Jeremiah denies that child sacrifice was practiced in the context of the worship of YHWH, Ezekiel acknowledges its existence but places the blame on the rebellious actions of the people." You have Ezekiel admitting it (with caveats, but an admission nonetheless). They done it
@@Christian_Man Ezekiel tells God commanded them to do it. And it tells why.
It is an apologetic explaining why they used to engage in the practice. And now apologists make apologies for that apology.
The irony is tasty.
While some opinions are that the story is as it seems, others read וְהַעֲלִיתִ֖יהוּ not as *and* I will bring it up, but *or* I will bring it up, as the vav can be read either way (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235).
Not that offering her as dedicated to god is good either, though she does agree to whatever it is that will happen. Others, such as Samuel, or Samson did not get the choice.
The talmud does not look very kindly upon Jephtah, saying that 1) Even if he assumed it was an animal, what if a non-kosher animal came out the door, would he have (improperly) sacrificed it? 2) He could have had the vow annulled but was too proud to do so.
It does go on to give supporting statements from Jeremiah and Kings implying that yes, he did sacrifice her.
Part of the point of latter Judges is the degradation of religion into formalism, so fulfilment of vows and personal compliance overcome the exercise of justice. This becomes full-blown satire by the epilogue involving Micah and the Danites.
Jephthah's vow originally *follows* adonai's commitment to give him victory, rather than coercing it. God's hand isn't forced and he doesn't choose Jephthah's sacrifice. It's all Js own in-house deal that God doesn't intervene to resolve (unless you count provisions in the law to repent of a foolish vow)
Amen!
Most people now know that eye witness testimony is the MOST unreliable source of data. And the next is writings about those unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The stories are valuable, interesting, questionable, mean, etc., but that’s to be negotiated by the reader.
Jephthah never thought it would be his own child that would come out of the door. But honestly the similarities of sacrifing your child is reminiscent to Jesus.
*Jephthah's daughter became a servant of the tabernacle. Her life was dedicated, not destroyed.*
The very thought that Jephthah's daughter died miserably in a flaming pyre on some altar in the desert, as a reward for her father's valor in saving God's people, is so stupid and such a grotesque misreading that it goes far beyond the mere stretching of reason, beyond the realm of absurdity, all the way into outright stupid satanic suggestion.
First off, according to Levitical law, every burnt offering was to be a male without blemish, and each step of the sacrifice was a sacred sequence designed solely for bulls, sheep, goats, doves, and pigeons. Contrarily, snakes, spiders, unicorns, and little girls who love their daddies were not allowed to be sacrificed under any circumstance whatsoever. Mankind was and is made in the image of God Himself.
Consider, if you will, the explicit and precise nature of the burnt offering ritual. The animal, once brought to the altar, was slaughtered, its throat slit to ensure a complete draining of blood-'for the life of the flesh is in the blood,' as Leviticus states (Leviticus 17:11). No flesh could be consumed without this sacred release of life. Afterward, the priests would carefully flay the animal, stripping off its skin, then parting and dissecting it. The entrails and legs were washed thoroughly to ensure ritual cleanliness. Its flesh, head, fat, and other parts were meticulously separated and arranged upon the altar, piece by piece, until the entire animal was wholly consumed by fire.
What person would dare to suggest that Israel's priests-guardians of God's holy ordinances-would commit such a vile act, subjecting a young woman, her family, themselves, and the people of Israel to the grisly spectacle of a burnt human offering? I'll tell you who.
1. Gross sinners who have consciously chosen their sin over God and have entered into an open rebellion.
2. Those with a deep misunderstanding or willful distortion of Israel's faith would even entertain such a notion.
3. Those who harbor anti-Semitic bias, seeking to portray ancient Israel's worship as cruel or barbaric, might resort to such an accusation, aiming to denigrate what was, in fact, a system founded on reverence for life and God's holiness.
4. Luciferians and Satanists, who pervert Christian symbols and principles, could project such heinous practices onto Israel's worship, attributing to it their own abhorrent values in an attempt to degrade the purity of God's commands, which strangely is part of their own cherished anti-value system.
These accusations ignore the entire spirit and true meaning of the holy arrangement that is Judeo-Christianity. For God Himself decreed in Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 12:31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 that human sacrifice is an abomination that is categorically forbidden and abhorrent to Him. Merely suggesting that Jephthah's daughter was ritually slain insults not only the divine Law but also God's faithful worshipers, who fear and revere the sanctity of life as instructed by God Himself. In truth, her life was consecrated, sanctified in service and a living commitment to God, not a life destroyed.
To suggest that Jephthah's daughter was sacrificed in a burnt offering is to ignore the profound cultural and religious identity rooted in the Law given by Moses. This Law was far more than a set of rules, it was the heartbeat of Israel's national identity, their covenant with God, and a daily guide that touched every facet of life. Just as every true American knows who they won their independence from, every Israelite knew the history and commands delivered through Moses a mere 300 years, or three long generations, earlier. These divine instructions shaped not only their relationship with God but also the very fabric of their society. And although you may not remember the first or second amendment, their life wasn't so saturated with endless nonsense. They remembered all 613 mitzvot and you could walk down the street and ask almost anyone to recite them back to you with a 95% success rate. These laws are not to them what they are to you. They took them serious. They counted their laws with even more love than you count your hard-earned paper money.
Jephthah calling out a burnt offering was like saying 'the whole enchilada '. Every single part, nothing withheld. When we say `the whole enchilada‘, we're not actually talking about an enchilada, and neither was Jephthah's oath intended to be taken absolutely literally. Jephthah's vow was never intended as a literal burnt offering of his daughter but as a declaration of total consecration. '100% God's,' set apart without reservation. If a male lamb without blemish had run out, I'm sure it would have hit the altar. But if a slave came out, he or she would have gone into tabernacle service. But it was his own daughter. Not to be mutilated and consumed in flames, but to serve honorably and respectfully in the temple, so honorably and respectfully that she requested two months to lament her virginity. Let's be honest, when you're staring down death's door, you're hardly worried about not having known the rod of Jacob or having embraced the scepter of Solomon or having your vineyard tilled.
These priests, descendants of Aaron and the only ones authorized to perform sacrifices, appointed as custodians of God's holiness, would know beyond any doubt that God expressly forbids human sacrifice. Jephthah is not a descendant of Aaron and, therefore, would have no authority to perform any sacrificial ritual-certainly not in secret, if that's the next wild, absurd suggestion the devil whispers to your peabrain. Only priests from the line of Aaron were ever permitted to conduct sacrifices, and their work was bound by the highest standards of holiness, visibility, and adherence to God's explicit commands. The Law, as given to Moses, is unwavering on this matter. In Leviticus 18:21, God commands, 'You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God.' In Deuteronomy 12:31, He declares with clarity, 'You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.' Again, in Deuteronomy 18:10, He reinforces this command, 'There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.'
Numbers 8:11-16 reminds us that the Israelites did indeed consecrate individuals to God-offered up as a living sacrifice, not in death, but in lifelong devotion. The Levites were set apart and presented as a 'wave offering,' symbolizing their dedication to God's service, not as lifeless sacrifices but as living servants wholly given to Him. This act of consecration demanded purity and total commitment of life, not death. Even within the sin offerings, where blood symbolized atonement, human life was never offered up in death, for every sacrifice preserved the sacredness of life.
Each type of offering held its purpose and meaning, and none of these-burnt, sin, peace, or otherwise-permitted the slaughter of human beings as a sacrifice to God. God's Law would never allow such an abomination among His people. Thus, in every way, Jephthah's daughter's consecration would reflect a living offering, a life wholly set apart in service to God, not a life destroyed upon the altar. And look, too, to Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of sacrifice, who, while offered for sin, accomplished it in a way far removed from ritual slaughter. Unlike any sacrifice before, Christ's was voluntary, transcending the limitations of law-bound offerings. He gave His life willingly, submitting to death yet transforming it into an eternal, perfect sacrifice that fulfills every law-bound offering of old.
Thus, when Jephthah's daughter went to the mountains to mourn her virginity, it was no dirge for impending death but a lament for the life she would surrender in lifelong service. She grieved not because she was to be killed, but because she would know no husband, no children. To interpret her story otherwise is to impose upon Israel the customs of pagan nations, to forget God's abhorrence of human sacrifice, and to ignore His unwavering commands against shedding innocent blood. Israel was uniquely called, as part of their covenant, to abolish these pagan practices, eradicating the very customs that desecrated life. Her offering was one of holy devotion, an enduring service, the kind of sacrifice God desired-a life set apart, not a life destroyed.
Her fate was consecration, not combustion.
Wow, he didn't really think that through, did he?
Yeah what did he expect to come bounding out of his house, a wild boar or something?
@@benroberts2222 At that time it was not uncommon to keep lifestock inside of the same house you were living in, so maybe he expected it to be a sheep/goat. But yes, this wasn't thought through at all, because he would have to consider the possibility for it to be a member of his family.
@@benroberts2222 Hahaha! "Dinner time!" 🐗
"You shall take them from their hands, and offer them up in smoke on the altar on the burnt offering for a soothing aroma before the LORD; it is an offering by fire to the LORD."
Now. Did the aroma of Jephthah's daughter soothe YHWH? Did he like it? That is the question I want to know, because damn, that's extremely disturbing.
Maybe she should have took off and never look back.
This is a cautionary tale not about making silly vows, but about how believing in fairy tale religions will always get you in deep shit sooner or later.
I know daughters were not especially valuable in thos days, but really - making a bet where she might actually die! Stupid games, stupid prizes
I wouldn’t have never offered something like that to start. I feel he bit more than he could chew and ended up having to pay for it later.
Ye-ah this story was set up from the beginning. It’s a narrative that intended the end result. I mean, I’ll sacrifice the first thing that comes to greet me?? It’s clearly some sort of story about maidenhood or maybe to explain some get together girls did in the hills before they married.
Conclusively the story is incomplete; so long as the response of God is omitted,it quite obvious that conclusion cannot be drawn whether or not God approved his offering
Tbf.. there is a strong implication that the author of Judges doesn’t actually approve of what Jeptah did
It’s amazing that God intervened to keep Abraham from sacrificing his son but didn’t intervene to keep Jepthath from sacrificing his daughter.
Hmm, maybe because God specifically commanded one but a person willingly vowed the other? Or is it more obvious, like a female can afford to be sacrificed, where if the sacrifice is male, it’s just a test?
Or both?
God also lead the Wise Men to Jerusalem (before then leading them to a specific house), knowing it would cause the great Baby-Stabbing of 5 BC. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs!
I'm not the best businessman in the world but that there is a terrible deal
I don’t see the need to try to make scripture more palatable, it is what it is as far as I’m concerned, and God’s choices will always be the correct ones even if we don’t understand them.
But to take the view that Jephthah killed his daughter we would have to ignore the fact that child sacrifice was something forbidden by God (Lev. 18:21, 20:3; Deut. 12:31, 18:10). Jephthah would have been well aware of this law which was punishable by death by stoning. So there’s that for a start.
And to be fair There are a few points that support the “life of “celibacy” idea for example the 2 months of mourning her virginity - doesn’t really make a lot of sense for a person about to die to mourn the fact that she would never be with a man rather than to mourn for her actual life.
Granted, there may not be a huge amount of evidence to prove that jephthahs daughter spent her life devoted to God, but the text doesn’t say he killed her either so there’s a bit of give and take needed here as it’s lacking concrete evidence either way.
Ex 22 30 *“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep.* Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, *but give them to me on the eighth day"*
It depend on which author. Human sacrifices are part of the bible, but it depends to which God.
"doesn’t really make a lot of sense for a person about to die to mourn the fact that she would never be with a man rather than to mourn for her actual life."
It does if she's born into a patriarchal society where marriage and childbearing are her only allotted function, and this passage was likely written by a man who believed that.
@@JopJio
It’s important to understand what “give to me” means and to do so we must go back to earlier passages of exodus where God gives specifics about the terms of how this is to be done as exodus 22:29 doesn’t tell us. So if we go back to exodus 13:12-13 we read; “you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the LORD’s. 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.”
This is repeated again in exodus 34:20 - “You shall redeem all the first borns of your sons.”
God has never required human sacrifices in fact He hates it.
Deuteronomy 12:29-32 makes this very clear; “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?” You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”
@@Sojourner-ambulareinspiritu Deuteronomy 12 29 speaks of sacrifices to other Gods and Exodus of human sacrifices to God.
Numbers 3:13 for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal
Exodus 12:29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner
@@digitaljanus I get what you’re saying, but with respect, it still wouldn’t really make sense. What would make sense is for her to mourn her life now being effectively over because she would be unable to function as part of that “patriarcal society” being unable to get married and have children etc. as is explained to us in the text and as you pointed out.
But what doesn’t make sense is to ignore the rest of scripture (that completely forbids child sacrifice) and conclude that her being sacrificed to God is what the passage means. There are ambiguous texts in the Bible - verses that are open to more than one interpretation. If a verse can be interperated more than one way it can’t be used (alone) as a proof text. To resolve the ambiguity of a text we have to back it up with other areas of scripture. When we do this with this passage we are unable to come to the conclusion that God accepted a child sacrifice because He directly and specifically forbids it as an abomination and something He hates earlier in the Bible. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?” You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”
And so the question concerning this story is it a real story or something else.
The first warning sign is the YHWH, which likely was not a god within the early Israelite confederation.
"His father's name is also given as Gilead, and, as his mother is described as a prostitute, this may indicate that his father might have been any of the men of that area." But I find it more than likely that his mother was a temple prostitute and the name Gilead has replaced the name of the Temple. Judging by the name, its likely a morphing of a theophoric to Anath, but Beth Anath is not in Gilead, while the bible does not make it clear there is a kind of phantom beth anath eluded to in the text. Thats why when I mention Anath I say one or two sites. Anath was the goddess of the god Hadad (Ba'al) who was a high god in Aram. So this might be referring to another site that Arameans considered part of Aram.
As for many of the theophic names in early judges the Ethmology is lost, we neither have a complete name of gods or the theophoric suffixes and prefixes. The only sanctioned names ended with 'el. We see ba'al, but that just means lord, and toward the end of judges the theophorics to Yahu pickup (as the storyline moves from the south to near Yehudah, whose tutelary god, IMO, was Yahu)
And so then what rights do virgins perform, while this might seem strange to us, within the cult of Ishtar followers of the cult are indoctrinated by going to the temple and performin a sex act with a stranger, the priest(ess) setting the price. This is a way for the temple to make money. In addition fathers could hand over their daughters to the temple and they would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, its unclear what the father got back.
And so what we see in this story is kind of a scrubbing job. The first sign of the scrubbing is the confederation era gods have been scrubbed out of the text and YHWH label has been stamped onto it. The story mentions a prostitute with several children, but the support system which would have been a temple. When should note Jephtath is a judge, but his mother was a prostitute, previously mentioned Shamgar was a judge and his father was Anath, obviously this is refering to Beth Anath and so we have a precedence. This story differs in that we dont know the name of the temple but I am guessing Ishtar/Astarte.
And so we have all the identifyers in place that the story was morphed and so the primary function is why. Now its likely that there was a celebration, and this was likely a prelude to some temple rite and it was popular. So one function of the story for deuteronomist is to shift the meaning of the right because they need to get rid of temple sacrifices (e.g. sacrificing ones virginity to the Ishtar temple was a way of enriching its priestess and this then decentralized the authority of the Jerusalem temple). The second point of the story is a taboo against oath taking.
So lets review some of these stories.
Shamgar of Anath, probably a zedek of Anath
Deborah under the plam tree outside of Bethel. Deborah a zedek of Asherah outside of Luz (almond tree, literally sacred almond tree🕎 is Asherah - intepret as Ashera pole of Bethel)
So these officials represent patterns of the early israelite judges that later Yehudite religion needs to deal with in crafting the deuteronomistic text.
Theres a point to be made here. Certain sects claim other religions don't have idols, but what we see here is those sects are using the imagry of idols drafted both into their texts and there traditional symbols, just repurposing those symbols in an effort to steer the next generations into the preferred theology. While the claim is those symbols are markedly different in function than the symbols of say the orthodox church, the only real difference is the amount of time the evolving sects have had to refactor the symbols. The songs and dances are also magical symbols of extinct religion, and they may have played a role in ecstatic experience and ritual associated with a rite of passage for indoctrinees, making them very compelling. If we remember Jeremiah and the women of Egypt, they are reminding him how things were better when they were allowed to offer cakes to the Queen of Heaven. And the temple at Elephantine retained Anath as a Goddess. So these traditions persisted. Margerat Barker has proposed these notions persisted even into the time of Jesus and may have persisted in some of the mystical Jewish cults that later evolved into the Kaballah. I find the idea intriguing in essense but in detail weak.
Now the question is, what valuable moral message is anyone suppose to take from this??
Why would not God let a goat or a sheep or any other animal come out first? Then again, it just could be Jewish folklore 🤷♂️…
interesting that the story has parallels to Abraham sacrificing his son. but was allegedly told not to, right at the last teeny weeny second. Wonder why the all powerful master of the universe would not repeat that behaviour. strangely when a Gid says something, he can change the decision last minute, but when a man says something, then he has to stick with it no matter what. so who is moral, the one who changes his words or the one who keeps his word if the word includes killing another human being??
Isnt god against the shed of innocent blood? I read that verse in the bible somewhere.
Yep, but making a vow in the name of YHWH is more than you think in Jewish
The lesson is there. Making a vow is not bad but you can say Yes or No
According to the logic of apologists, Jesus is responsible for that. Its a hard pill to swollow for their hippie-love made up faith😂
Hello
Man of his word. Thank god it never happened 😂
Numbers 8:11-16 pretty much destroys this "scholar's" ridiculous assumption. She was given to be a servant of the temple. Another batch of "C's for degrees" has hit the earth kids, brace yourself.
The very text of Judges 11 destroys your ridiculous apologetics. And citing another passage that contradicts it shows nothing except that the Bible is self-contradictory.
That's a very poor biblical study on your part. The Scriptures are full of instances where a surface level reading comes to the wrong conclusion. Not everything explicit is explicit; it often depends on the reader. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "and" can be translated as "or" and the text can also mean "I will dedicate it to the Lord, and offer "a" sacrifice to the Lord." So, one has to dig deeply into the original Hebrew and also let scripture interpret scripture (Jephthah is listed as one of the Heroes of Faith in Hebrews.). You're explanation is that of a child.
Gret thanks
The maidens didn't more her life but they mourn her virginity
What annoyed me about the story is the only worth the young lady had was her virginity. Never learn her name nor God made an attempt to saver her like he did to Isaac. Again, because she was a female & not worth god's time.
Her virginity certainly wasn't her only worth, stop playing victim. Giving up being married was giving up her normal life; she traded falling in love, sporting, children, a future, lineage, etc... to live in the temple serving God, prophesying, healing, and teaching. Mentioning that she mourned her own virginity is proof against the absurd view that she was killed, quartered, cooked, and eaten by the priests. Think about how Jesus would respond to such a suggestion. WWJT, What Would Jesus Think? Isaac's story is also a piece of proof that she wasn't literally sacrificed on an alter. God doesn't like human sacrifice at all, one of the Ten Commandments is "don't kill".
Numbers 8:13-14
Leviticus 18:21
Deuteronomy 12:31
Deuteronomy 18:10
Jeremiah 7:31
Christ uses women in almost half of the parables that he tells, women followed him constantly and were healed by him, gentile women were helped by him (the woman at the well and the woman who's daughter had a devil), the adulteress who would have been stoned without Christ's input and forgiveness, etc... The first people to see him after his resurrection were two women both named Mary who thought that he was the gardener, and God brought Jesus into the world via Mary rather than letting him float out of the sky like the Holy Spirit did as a dove.
Lately there is this strange trend where women seem to think that God doesn't love them as much as men or that women don't have a significant, positive role in the grand story, but it's a lie and we all know that the devil is the father of lies. Stop making yourself the victim. This perception might have sprouted up from pride, a desire to be like a god on earth, worshiped and perfect in the eyes of all no matter what you do and everyone has to feel bad for you because people didn't recognize your godship sooner. It will never be that way. All glory goes to God Who's son is Jesus Christ, and nobody gets through this life without some hardships. If Jesus had hardship to the point of sweating blood, then you're going to have some.
@@TiddlyBlinx Whose playing victim? How did you come up with that? Now you are just being an ass.
No one said she was quartered, cook, and eaten by priests. How did you come up with that? But she was sacrificed to god as the bible clearly indicates. Jewish accept the girl wad sacrificed to god as.That it didn't happen are apologetic Christian recently twisting word to comfort their sensibilities that god did nothing to stop the sacrifice of a girl. Women were not allowed to work in the temple as they are seen naturally impure. But that girl was understood she was sacrificed as far as I have heard that story. It's just recent some are trying to change it.
Yes, god did command not to kill, then he ordered his followers to kill and loot the land of Canaan. Hypocrisy at its finest.
That story of Jesus resurrection is full of contradiction, your. Your example means diddly squat. There's no strange trend, women are treat nothing but property by men. All you have to do is read the bible. It has been used to oppress women, & today priest & pastors are advising women to be submissive. You are the only one that it doesn't.
Making myself the victim? Of what or who? What the heck are you talking about? Are you confusing me with someone else? You sound confused?
No one is saying anyone want to be god on Earth, that is a very idiotic thing to say. That is a red-herring. The better question is how did you come up with that notion? Are you trying to be the victim here?
Acts 16:14-15; A business woman named Lydia who loves the Lord and makes fancy clothes has her whole house, meaning her close family, baptized, and then made Paul and his companions hang out for a while.
She loves the Lord Who loved her first, was named, successful, kind, and not a "victim" of "patriarchy". Worth God's time too, He sent His apostles there to baptize her and her family. Virginity wasn't mentioned.
Acts 17:4; Mentions many chief Greek women believing on Jesus Christ.
"We love him, because he first loved us." - 1 John 4:19
@@TiddlyBlinx Okay... and? this is a story of a women that converted. So many stories about that. So what?
@@OverlordShamala How can you not see that this is in relation to your question and what was bothering you? I don't understand how those scriptures could be irrelevant all because the women were converts. The things that made you sad, like the women not being named, is actually just the devil saying mean things to you and it turns out that God does love us very much, women were often named, and God saved them.
I was reading the Bible today and found another verse where a woman is saved and named.
"Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." - Acts 17:34
Israelites aka Hebrews are nothing more than Canaanites and Phoenicians. Offering up human sacrifices was the norm. Also it’s very interesting that this YHWH god demand virgins as a sacrifice.. study the Bible completely as well as contexts and cultures at that time and what was the many translations and the original word and meaning. Even the words for gods or god Elohim, Eloah actually means POWERFUL ONES. Hebrews Canaanites were Polytheists they worshipped many gods… that’s why there was the incident when Sarai/Sara took her “ gods “ …. Idols of different gods and hid them on her. The Bible is not what you think it is
To anyone that thinks that Jepthah was surprised that this was to be a human sacrifice,
1. It should be noted that the word translated as "whatever" could be and was used in other parts of the Bible as "whoever". The translators specifically chose "whatever" to soften the account.
2. The wording is specific and couldn't apply to an animal - does anyone seriously think one of his cows or goats was going to open the front door, walk out and say "Hey Jephthah, welcome back, how did the war go?"
And of course, if someone does believe in God of the Bible, it wasn't coincidence that Jephthah's daughter walked out, it was all part of God's plan that it happened. If God wasn't happy with human sacrifice (after all he says over and over again in the Old Testament how much he LOVES that burnt blood smell), well then he COULD have made a cow or goat open the front door, walk out and greet him. God had no problem making Balaam's ass have a chat with him.
Christian missionaries usually bring up Judges 11 to prove the sacrifice of Jesus was acceptable. Judaism begins and ends with Moses to the point that a Torah scroll consists of the Pentateuch only.
completely wrong. No where in scripture has God ever accepted a human burn offering. You need to defend this radical idea with 2 or 3 'witnesses'
I dunno. It demonstrates mans authority over the law by appointing a time. That would be similar to the act of confession these days I suppose. Christianity did not begin with the birth or death of our Savior and Lord. The Messianic Jews watched for and attest to the Lord. And Rosicrucianism predates and authored (both subjects authored) our current cannon. This was the anticipated marriage of Cleopatra and Octavian.
Correction. Mark Anthony.
What a load of bullocks. Rosicrucianism did not predate "our current canon" -- whatever that's supposed to mean. The Order of the Rosy Cross originated in the early 17th century.
Mess. J.. is a missionary organization of Xtians not even 100 years old. They are not the hebrews of the first century and mostly are gentiles😂
The sheppard fold was full of believers. The messiahs mission was the lost sheep of Israel. Period.
Sounds like you're talking of the Normans. Rosecrucians are a masonic order that predate Jesus's birth by about a hundred and fifty years. Information is obscure and may be identified differently... I'll see what I can find online....
is this a true story
I personally think that He could have avoided it because God just wanted to test Abraham at that time and therefore he told him not to harm Isaac, but here Jephthah made a promise himself and mind you, he also lives with " worthless men" judges 11:3 so he didn't even know what kind of sacrifices God takes which are never humans but once someone makes a vow he has to fulfill it aWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin.Eccelesiastes 5:4-6 See how he said donot let your mouth lead you to sin? Jephtha's story just tells us to be mindful of what we say even though the whole army and nation is under us and respects us, let us not be fools.
If you dive a little deeper you would find that the Spirit of the Lord gave him victory not a vow. That the word “and” in Hebrew can mean or that she mourned her virginity (with friends)not death , and for years “year after year” (while she was alive) for 4 days this would happen. His sadness was her being given to the Lord for temple service. And she would never give him a grandchild. Do you think the town would allow your idea to happen. Would a father be exhaled for child sacrifice (abortion ) … she had 2 months to escape or be delivered by the Lord or a hero. OR (not and) is the main reason why the story gets messed up. Look up waw or vav.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12
Occult Practices
9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.
You open this and say you're a Bible scholar, and then you give no representation to the careful arguments of the "Devotion view" of this passage that Jepthah's daughter was devoted to the tabernacle service. In the meantime, when the Bible says that Jepthah vowed to give whatever comes out of his house to the Lord AND give it as a burnt offering, the Hebrew word for "and" can also be translated as "or." There is also the fact that his daughter mourns her virginity, not for her life. The passage ends emphasizing her virginity and not her death.
You can have your reasons not to go this route, but saying there's no reason to take it this way, to shrug it off as "nonsense," is very overstated.
Is it possible there was a physical process of burning that made sexual intimacy impossible?
This is just crazy that people actually believe this. So you’re saying that the most High God sanctioned a human burnt offering on his holy altar. and that the priest of the Lord did this offering on his altar and everything was just okey-dokey… You have to redeem unclean animals if you vow them to the Lord but if it’s your daughter then she gets burnt on his holy altar that MUST be clean 🤦🏾♂️.
It's like the Law of Surprise in The Witcher.
Also, his daughter had two months with her friends. She could have got laid in that time. Ah well.
This isn't the first time that the devil tried to use scripture to mislead people. He even tried it on Jesus in the wilderness. Look closely, people, Jesus probably saw a very similar face in the wilderness.
@TiddlyBlinx
What part is misleading?
The story says the spirit of the Lord came upon him, and then he made this vow. God is also sovereign over all things why did one of his elect judges, make such a vow, and why did God cause it to be his daughter that came to the door first? I don’t understand this story. If you could help me understand, I would really greatly appreciate It.
Human sacrifice is totally eschewed, avoided, and shunned in the Torah, in the law of the Lord. Throughout the Jewish Bible, every clean and good literal sacrifice/offering was either of an animal or some inanimate object, like flour or grain. Sacrifices for sin were done in very specific ways in very specific places, and always by the command of Deity. The animals had no blemish. The blood was only spilt on a specific altar by specific people: the Levitical priests. After the giving of the Law in completion, it could not be added to or diminished.
I'll ask again, why are you hanging out here?
@@toniacollinske2518 What a rude question. No response to my argument, huh?
What about yahweh ordering abraham to sacrifice his son isaac?
@@BluStarGalaxy Maimonides identified Abraham's ten tests. One of them was God's request that he offer Isaac, his most beloved son, as a sacrifice to Him. It was only a test.
@hrvatskinoahid1048 So yahweh was testing him to see if he was faithful. Since he is supposed to be all knowing wouldn't Yahweh know that Abraham would be faithful no matter what he was asked. Also Abraham be willing to sacrifice his son shows that Abraham is not a good person, because any sane person would say no and saying no would be passing the test.
God is truly evil. I'm glad I deconstructed my belief.