Jehovah's Witnesses and Jephthah's daughter

[Justin108]

What exactly happened to Jephthah's daughter according to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Reading Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation in the link below,
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -daughter/

....it seems as though they believe Jephthah's daughter, instead of being sacrificed as a burnt offering, simply spent the rest of her life in service to God.

Judges 11 seems very clear on this, however.

Judges 11:30 Then Jephʹthah made a vowg to Jehovah and said: “If you give the Amʹmonites into my hand, 31 then whoever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Amʹmonites will become Jehovah’s, and I will offer that one up as a burnt offering.�

Judges 11:34 Finally Jephʹthah came to his home in Mizʹpah, and look! his daughter was coming out to meet him, playing the tambourine and dancing!

Judges 11:39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father, after which he carried out the vow he had made regarding her.


Does Judges 11 not clearly state that Jephʹthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering?

[2timothy316]

The fire isn't the real focus of the offering but the giving of the whole life and body. It never leaves the alter and nothing is kept by the offerer.

These two sentences doesn't refute the claim that the daughter was ritualistically killed. Neither do the verses from Leviticus.

"There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer,...For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you." Deut 18:10, 12

It can't be clearer than than that. I am pretty sure someone has already pointed these scriptures out. Jephthah was a righteous man. He would have known the law. Not only that, Jehovah would be guilty of entrapment if Jephthah was given a victory and yet Jehovah knew that he was going to burn his daughter.

Read Heb 10:5-10 closely. The sacrifices of the bodies of animals pointed forward to Jesus. This would include 'burnt offerings' (verse 6). The passage closes with "By this “will� we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time." Jesus' body is an offering. The word is even in the text. The text is pointing out the limitation in the lack of approval of animal sacrifices that only Jesus with his perfect body could cover. This cost is what Adam ruined. The only similarity between the animal burnt offering and Jesus was that the whole life along with the body was given to God. A million daughters of Jephthah couldn't cover what Adam gave up and what Jesus paid. Every human and animal on Earth couldn't cover this. Exodus 21:23 says "life for life". An animal can't cover an eternal perfect life nor can an imperfect human life. So to kill a girl in fire as a sacrifice would be pointless.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by 2timothy316]

"There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer,...For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you." Deut 18:10, 12

It can't be clearer than than that.

As I explained with my analogy of the lame husband cleaning the gutters being detestable to the wife, this doesn't mean that killing the daugher in a ritual didn't happen.

Jephthah was a righteous man. He would have known the law.

As would plenty of other named individuals in the Old Testament, yet these laws were violated. Take King David for example, and his conduct regarding Bathsheba.

Not only that, Jehovah would be guilty of entrapment if Jephthah was given a victory and yet Jehovah knew that he was going to burn his daughter.

So rather than follow where the evidence leads and come to that conclusion, are you going to reject it a priori because well...it means Jehovah is guilty of some wrong?

Read Heb 10:5-10 closely. The sacrifices of the bodies of animals pointed forward to Jesus.

I disagree.

Jesus' body is an offering. The word is even in the text. The text is pointing out the limitation in the lack of approval of animal sacrifices that only Jesus with his perfect body could cover.

Whether burnt or not, we still have this religion and its God approving of human sacrifice.

So to kill a girl in fire as a sacrifice would be pointless.

I don't see where in the Jephtha story that his daughter was meant as a sacrifice so as to pay the cost of Adam.

[Justin108]

The fire isn't the real focus of the offering but the giving of the whole life and body. It never leaves the alter and nothing is kept by the offerer.

These two sentences doesn't refute the claim that the daughter was ritualistically killed. Neither do the verses from Leviticus.

"There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer,...For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you." Deut 18:10, 12

It can't be clearer than than that.

Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

The fact that human sacrifice was illegal is nullified by Judges 21:25. They had no king. They had no-one to enforce the laws. People did as they saw fit. In this instance, Jephthah saw it fitting to sacrifice his daughter.

Jephthah was a righteous man. He would have known the law.

Did none of the other righteous Biblical figures ever do wrong? Did God not kill countless people because David messed up one time and took a census? Did Lot not offer up his daughters to be raped by a mob? All of these were "righteous men" as far as the Bible's concerned.

Not only that, Jehovah would be guilty of entrapment if Jephthah was given a victory and yet Jehovah knew that he was going to burn his daughter.

And putting Adam and Eve in close proximity to the forbidden fruit, knowing they will eat it, is not entrapment? How is this any different?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 37 by onewithhim]

I look at it as what I get from the NWT and Other sources about Jepthah's daughter....they harmonize with Young's, and to me this shows that the meaning that I find acceptable warrants respect.

http://biblehub.com/judges/11-40.htm

If you go to that page, you will see that what Justin said is correct. Young's is the ONLY one that says "talk".
Every other translation says either "commemorate", "mourn", "lament", "celebrate", none of which carry a necessary connotation of communicating directly with the person being mourned, etc.
Heck, even the NWT itself is like that.

From year to year, the young women of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jephʹthah the Gilʹe·ad·ite four days in the year.

Another question is one I don't think has been answered in this thread (not entirely sure)

What exactly did Jephtha mean when he made his vow? When Jephtha makes his vow to give up that which comes out of his house as a burnt offering to Jehovah, how is it that that is NOT a reference to setting it on fire, as previous generations of Hebrews did with their offerings to God?
Even Young uses burnt offering.

And Jephthah voweth a vow to Jehovah, and saith, `If Thou dost at all give the Bene-Ammon into my hand -- 31 then it hath been, that which at all cometh out from the doors of my house to meet me in my turning back in peace from the Bene-Ammon -- it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it -- a burnt-offering.'

Since when has 'burnt offering' meant in either Hebrew or English offering something up and NOT setting it on fire?

Basically, from what I'm seeing, pointing to Young's doesn't really solve this dilemma over whether or not the daughter was killed in a sacrificial ritual. The text, even translated literally, is unclear. There's mention of a burnt offering, but there's also mention of the daughter weeping for her virginity (and not for being killed). Then there's mention that her father did as he vowed.

EDIT:
I also found this on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_offering_(Judaism)
No mention of not killing and not burning what is being sacrificed.

Why would the daughter's friends "go and give commendation" to her if she was dead? Commendation is afforded to people who are alive to receive it. The word has the connotation of someone being worthy of trust and confidence. It does not compute in reasonable minds to be something that a dead person would receive.

Referencing Young's was, as I explained, done specifically to show that JWs are not the only ones who understand it the way we do.

You are to be commended for conceding that it is "unclear" as to what the text means, upon first reading. Therefore why would anyone be adamant about the daughter being literally burned?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 44 by onewithhim]

Why would the daughter's friends "go and give commendation" to her if she was dead?

For staying true to her father's vow (whatever exactly it was) to God.

Commendation is afforded to people who are alive to receive it.

Is that what the word means? Is it a rule? Would it be wrong/incorrect to say Private Johnson was commended for his bravery in stopping the attack at the bridge, and yesterday was awarded the Medal of Honour posthumously?

The word has the connotation of someone being worthy of trust and confidence.

I'm checking out several dictionaries online and I'm not seeing those two things.

It does not compute in reasonable minds to be something that a dead person would receive.

So I'd imagine you'd want to edit news articles like this one?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/ ... 59896.html

A beauty teacher who died from a brain haemorrhage at 32 has been posthumously commended after her organs saved six lives.

Referencing Young's was, as I explained, done specifically to show that JWs are not the only ones who understand it the way we do.

The point I made was to show that Young's is the ONLY translation (at least that Biblehub shows) that translates that particular verse as the young women of the area
literally talking to the daughter of Jephtha every year.
ONE translation. Now of course, it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong simply because it is the only one that says so...but it does raise the question of just why every other translation on that list used words that do not necessarily mean two (or more) living people talking to each other.

for conceding that it is "unclear" as to what the text means, upon first reading.

Not just first reading. Notice how I have (at least in my own mind) successfully rebutted each and every point raised by those like yourself against the idea of the daughter being killed in a ritualistic sacrifice, burned or not.

Therefore why would anyone be adamant about the daughter being literally burned?

Apologies if I came across that way. I will admit that some of my earlier posts do sound like I think the daughter died as a result of fire.
No. My point, just to make it clear, is that this story is unclear. The Bible is unclear, as to whether or not the daughter was ritualistically killed, and as to whether or not that killing involved fire.
I can appreciate the points you and others have raised, such as that God would have disapproved, but as I have said before, this does not in and of itself mean that the thing God disapproves of therefore did not happen. After all...God disapproved of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Still happened (at least, according to your religion).

I can't remember. Was it yourself who said there was a zero chance that the daughter was killed?

[Justin108]

Why would the daughter's friends "go and give commendation" to her if she was dead? Commendation is afforded to people who are alive to receive it.

commendation
NOUN
mass noun
1Formal or official praise.

‘the film deserved the highest commendation’
‘the book gives commendations for initiative’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... mmendation

Notice the examples given by the definition.
"the film deserved the highest commendation"
‘the book gives commendations for initiative’

Is the film alive to receive the commendation? Is initiative alive to receive the commendation?

Therefore why would anyone be adamant about the daughter being literally burned?

Because the term "burnt offering" has never been used in a metaphorical sense before or since. There is therefore no indication that it was meant as a metaphor. If the author meant "a lifetime of servitude", why did he not simply write "a lifetime of servitude"? Why use an unclear metaphor, one that has never been used before or since, when a clear literal account would be far less confusing?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 44 by onewithhim]

Why would the daughter's friends "go and give commendation" to her if she was dead?

For staying true to her father's vow (whatever exactly it was) to God.

Commendation is afforded to people who are alive to receive it.

Is that what the word means? Is it a rule? Would it be wrong/incorrect to say Private Johnson was commended for his bravery in stopping the attack at the bridge, and yesterday was awarded the Medal of Honour posthumously?

The word has the connotation of someone being worthy of trust and confidence.

I'm checking out several dictionaries online and I'm not seeing those two things.

It does not compute in reasonable minds to be something that a dead person would receive.

So I'd imagine you'd want to edit news articles like this one?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/ ... 59896.html

A beauty teacher who died from a brain haemorrhage at 32 has been posthumously commended after her organs saved six lives.

Referencing Young's was, as I explained, done specifically to show that JWs are not the only ones who understand it the way we do.

The point I made was to show that Young's is the ONLY translation (at least that Biblehub shows) that translates that particular verse as the young women of the area
literally talking to the daughter of Jephtha every year.
ONE translation. Now of course, it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong simply because it is the only one that says so...but it does raise the question of just why every other translation on that list used words that do not necessarily mean two (or more) living people talking to each other.

for conceding that it is "unclear" as to what the text means, upon first reading.

Not just first reading. Notice how I have (at least in my own mind) successfully rebutted each and every point raised by those like yourself against the idea of the daughter being killed in a ritualistic sacrifice, burned or not.

Therefore why would anyone be adamant about the daughter being literally burned?

Apologies if I came across that way. I will admit that some of my earlier posts do sound like I think the daughter died as a result of fire.
No. My point, just to make it clear, is that this story is unclear. The Bible is unclear, as to whether or not the daughter was ritualistically killed, and as to whether or not that killing involved fire.
I can appreciate the points you and others have raised, such as that God would have disapproved, but as I have said before, this does not in and of itself mean that the thing God disapproves of therefore did not happen. After all...God disapproved of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Still happened (at least, according to your religion).

I can't remember. Was it yourself who said there was a zero chance that the daughter was killed?

Yes it was me.

So, we agree that there may be more than one opinion based on the text as it appears. It is ambiguous to most. (And I still say that it is ambiguous because the individual reading it has not familiarized himself with what God is like throughout the entirety of the Scriptures.) But...the fact remains that it is unclear to most folks.

My dictionary used the term "trust" when defining "commendation." The word "commend" comes from a French word commendare---com + mandare [to entrust]. The first definition is "to ENTRUST for care or preservation. The second definition is "to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice." These definitions, to me, would most sensibly apply to a living individual.

The dictionary I referred to is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991.

[brianbbs67]

I don't see how the text is ambiguous . It says what Jep vowed. It says he fulfilled that vow. I think the problem is, you guys can't beleive God allowed it??

Umm, we have free will. That means we do as we wish regardless of anything else. So, God never asked for, or required, but Jep did it anyway. Simple.

If we are truly free, we are truly free to fail. Or disappoint or chose poorly.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by onewithhim]

Yes it was me.

So, we agree that there may be more than one opinion based on the text as it appears. It is ambiguous to most. (And I still say that it is ambiguous because the individual reading it has not familiarized himself with what God is like throughout the entirety of the Scriptures.) But...the fact remains that it is unclear to most folks.

So I have to ask you why you describe it as being a ZERO chance, as in zero percent, no chance at all, none, nadda, that Jephtha ritualistically killed his daughter (either with fire or without), when here you seem to be agreeing with me that the story is unclear as to whether he did or did not?

My dictionary used the term "trust" when defining "commendation." The word "commend" comes from a French word commendare---com + mandare [to entrust]. The first definition is "to ENTRUST for care or preservation. The second definition is "to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice." These definitions, to me, would most sensibly apply to a living individual.

I used multiple dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commend
MW's first definition is indeed the same as yours but I notice the same cannot be said here
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/commend

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/commend

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commend

Basically, my point, my argument is that the story is unclear. That to go with one (he did not kill her) and say there is a zero chance of the other (he did kill her) is, for lack of a better word, bogus.

A question I asked you about before - do you remember the example of the newspaper article I gave before? Here, I'll repost it.
A beauty teacher who died from a brain haemorrhage at 32 has been posthumously commended after her organs saved six lives.
Is that sentence incorrect grammatically, should it NOT have said posthumously commended? Is it not possible to commend someone after their death, should some other word have been used there?