原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 30023,
  "id": "5c0841abdd6412fd4157eb160f10437af3fcfee07484b291b86c2bfa6d6870fc",
  "pubkey": "b7274d28e3e983bf720db4b4a12a31f5c7ef262320d05c25ec90489ac99628cb",
  "created_at": 1778122567,
  "tags": [
    [
      "title",
      "Jephthah's Vow"
    ],
    [
      "published_at",
      "1778089291"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "longform"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Longform._"
    ],
    [
      "summary",
      "Did Jephthah really commit such a heinous deed as literally sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering? If he did, how then is he included in the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11? Is there another biblically faithful interpretation, and does it get Jephthah off the hook? This paper explores the arguments put forward by scholars who hold to the figurative interpretation of this passage from Judges 11:29-40 and considers whether they are convincing."
    ],
    [
      "image",
      "https://relay.brightbolt.net/18d42620afae1c3bf36754b8e3800e96946e2c74a04036307e9f104aea95217a.png"
    ],
    [
      "d",
      "Jephthah-s-Vow-fo8867"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "Christian"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "Reformed"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "catholic"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "seminary"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "Judges"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "Jephthah"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "# **Introduction**  \nThe book of Judges contains many troubling examples of men, such as Samson, Gideon, and Barak, who were used by God for his purposes, yet simultaneously displayed deep character flaws and carried out grievous sins. Perhaps the judge in whom this pattern is displayed most vividly is Jephthah, who made his infamous vow to offer whatever or whomever came out from his door to greet him as a burnt offering when he returned home victorious over the Ammonites. *“Perhaps”* is a particularly appropriate word in this case, as there remains some amount of debate concerning the exact nature of his vow and how he followed through on it. While a surface-level reading of the text seems to indicate that he offered his daughter as a burnt offering to God, especially in certain English Bible versions, there are strong arguments made for an alternative view that he instead dedicated her to God, and therefore to life-long celibacy. This paper will examine the arguments made for both interpretations of the text of [Judges 11:29–40](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/29-40/s_222029), and come to a conclusion concerning which one is faithful to the original author’s intent.  \n\nOne might be inclined to ask, *“Could there be a third option that is actually what the author meant?”* It is highly improbable that a biblically faithful third option exists. The text does not leave any room for it. Keil and Delitzch mention that a third option has been put forward, namely that Jephthah *“put his daughter to death in honour of the Lord according to the law of the ban, because human beings were not allowed to be offered up as burnt-sacrifices.”*[^1] However, this is referring to when something is set apart as *ḥērem* (חֵרֶם), often translated as *“devoted to destruction”* ([Lev 27:29](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/lev/27/29/s_117029); [Deut 7:26](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/deu/7/26/s_160026); [Josh 6:17–18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jos/6/17-18/s_193017); [1 Sam 15:21](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1sa/15/21/s_251021)), and when it is used in reference to a human being, it is applied only to enemies, criminals, and idolaters who ***must*** be put to death. This being the case, Keil and Delitzsch quickly dismiss this view as having no foundation in the text, since verse 39 states that *“he did to her his vow which he vowed,”* which *“cannot be understood in any other way than that he offered her as עולה, i.e., as a burnt-offering”* either in a literal or figurative sense, rather than as a thing *“devoted to destruction.”*[^2]   \n\n# **Burden of Proof**  \nAnother question arises regarding who has the burden of proof and therefore the obligation to provide convincing evidence for their understanding of the text. Should it be those who would charge one of God’s chosen judges with pedicide, or those who would introduce a figurative sense into the text in order to clear his name?  \n\nIn my estimation, the burden of proof belongs to those who promote the figurative interpretation, since both sides of the debate agree that the plain reading of the text would support the literal interpretation,[^3] and since it was the universally accepted view of both Jewish and Christian scholars until the Middle Ages.[^4] As a principle, the most novel interpretation should always bear the burden of proof against the long established and generally held interpretation.  \n\nWith this in mind, the bulk of this paper will present the arguments commonly put forward in favor of the figurative interpretation and consider whether they are strong enough to justify abandoning the literal view, especially in light of the latter’s counter-arguments.  \n\n# **The Expected Sacrifice**  \nThe first argument I want to explore is occasionally made by both sides of the debate, though for different reasons, indicating that it is not a deciding factor for either. This is the argument that Jephthah likely expected it would be an animal that came to meet him upon his victorious return, thus explaining his distress when it was his daughter instead.  \n\nThose holding to the figurative view will make this case when noting that the *waw* conjunction in verse 31 could be translated as “shall be the LORD’s, ***or*** I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” instead of “***and*** I will offer it up.” This would make the vow have two possible outcomes based on whether it was an animal or a human who came to meet him: If a human, he or she would be dedicated to the Lord, and if an animal, it would be offered as a burnt offering.  \n\nThose holding to the literal interpretation will make this argument in an attempt to preserve Jephthah’s good name, by explaining that he did not expect his vow bind him to make his daughter a human sacrifice. Instead, he expected it to be a goat, or some other clean animal, but the vow once made could not be broken, and so he was bound against his will to sacrifice his daughter.  \n\nNone of the commentators I reviewed held to this argument. They all agreed, though on opposite sides of the debate, that Jephthah expected to be met by a human member of his household, though perhaps by a servant rather than his daughter. Archer notes, *“The Hebrew text excludes the possibility of any animal serving as a candidate for this burnt offering since the phrase rendered ‘whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house’ is never used of an animal.”*[^5] Howard, though holding the opposite view, agrees, *“the phrase ‘to meet me’ refers more appropriately to a human than to an animal.”*[^6] In addition to this, Barrett notes that, *“If he had in mind that a sacrificial goat or lamb would be the first to greet him, the vow would be rather empty and void of gravity.”*[^7] His counterparts, Davis and Whitcomb, agree, *“It is also extremely doubtful that Jephthah had an animal sacrifice in mind at all, for such a formal vow was quite unnecessary to bring an animal sacrifice after a great victory.”*[^8]  \n\nGiven this consensus among opposing views, and the strength of their arguments, I conclude that neither interpretation would be bolstered by any presumption that Jephthah had an animal in mind. The figurative interpretation must therefore wrestle with Jephthah’s intentional use of the term *“burnt offering”* in relation to a human being, and the literal interpretation must wrestle with what this implies about Jephthah’s character, that he would knowingly vow to make a human sacrifice.  \n\n# **Jephthah’s Character**  \nThe appeal to Jephthah’s character, and to the fact that he was counted among the heroes of the faith in [Hebrews 11:32](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/heb/11/32/s_1144032), is one of the strongest arguments the figurative view has in its favor. It is difficult to imagine that anyone who could follow through on so heinous as a deed slaying his own daughter, could ever have been included in a list of paragons of the faith; a point that is made with some force by both Barrett[^9] and Archer.[^10]  \n\nAdditional grounds are often listed to support the claim that Jephthah was a man of high moral character, including that he was obviously well acquainted with the Pentateuch, and *“human sacrifice was sternly and repeatedly forbidden by God in his law (see [Lev. 18:21](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/lev/18/21/s_108021); [20:2–5](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/lev/20/2-5/s_110002); [Deut. 12:31](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/deu/12/31/s_165031); [18:10](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/deu/18/10/s_171010)).”*[^11] The evidence of Jephthah’s knowledge of God’s law is found earlier in the narrative, when he makes the history of Israel known to the king of the Ammonites ([Jdg 11:14–27](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/14-27/s_222014)). The detail with which he rehearses how the tribes of Israel came to possess the land is suggestive of a competent knowledge of the writings of Moses, at least covering that period.  \n\nKeil and Delitzch also commend Jephthah for his attempt at a diplomatic resolution, saying, *“He does not take to the sword at once, but waits till his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites have been without effect.”*[^12] This would be inconsistent with the idea that Jephthah was prone to making rash decisions, such as a vow to sacrifice *“whatever comes out from the doors of my house,”* without due consideration of the consequences. This makes Howard’s argument that Jephthah *“was rash, foolish, and sinned in doing this,”*[^13] fall somewhat flat in the face of the same judge’s prior restraint.  \n\nThere are at least four counter-arguments that may account for this incongruity:\n\n1. Even if Jephthah had a competent knowledge of God’s law, it does not preclude him from disobeying it. While affirming that *“Jephthah was acquainted with the Pentateuch,”* Davis and Whitcomb rightly separate knowledge from obedience, saying, *“that would by no means guarantee that he would not violate the law.”*[^14]\n2. It is quite possible that Jephthah was not as acquainted with the law as might be supposed. The narrative attributes the messages sent to the Ammonite king to Jephthah because he had been made the leader of the Gileadites, and certainly must have approved the content of said messages. Yet, it is probable that they were not composed by Jephthah alone, but with the help of advisors. Additionally, if Jephthah had been so well acquainted with the law, he would have known that he could redeem his daughter from his vow under the terms of [Leviticus 27:1–8](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/lev/27/1-8/s_117001). \n3. We know that heinous sin is not a bar from inclusion in the list of the faithful in Hebrews 11, which also includes David, though he committed adultery and murder, and Samson, though he broke every prohibition of his Nazarite vow and whose lust for foreign women was his downfall. As Daniel Block notes, *“Although the view of the persons named is uncompromisingly favorable, strictly speaking the author of Hebrews makes no comment on their character.”*[^15] Howard concurs, *“If the Scriptures were to withhold commendation of people because of some sinful aspects to their lives, no commendations would ever have been issued, except in the case of Jesus.”*[^16]\n4. Jephthah’s character may not have been as upright as some ascribe to him. According to verse 3, after being driven out of his home, Jephthah attracted to himself a band of *“worthless men,”* which many interpret as indicating he became the leader of a group of brigands or freebooters, as even Archer acknowledges to have been the case.[^17] He had apparently developed a reputation as a *“mighty warrior”* ([Jdg 11:1](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/1/s_222001)) in this vocation, as that is the reason the Gileadites sought him out; not due to any high moral character he had displayed. Indeed, when they first approached Jephthah, he was unwilling to help them ([Jdg 11:6–7](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/6-7/s_222006)), and only agreed after they offered to make him their leader ([Jdg 11:8–9](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/8-9/s_222008)).  \n\nThe nature of Jephthah’s vow, regardless of whether he intended it to be figurative or literal, also calls his character into question. It cannot be contested that Jephthah framed his vow as a *quid pro quo* to secure God’s assistance in battle against the Ammonites by means of promising some form of sacrifice. Manipulation of a deity for one’s benefit by means of sacrifice was ***entirely foreign*** to the sacrificial system established by God in Leviticus, but sacrifice used to purchase a deity’s favor was a regular feature in the heathen religions of Jephthah’s day, which we know had corrupted the worship of God’s people ([Jdg 10:6](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/10/6/s_221006)). For this reason, Block concludes that in his vow, *“Jephthah was neither rash nor pious (in the orthodox Yahwistic sense)—he was outrightly pagan. Rather than a sign of spiritual immaturity and folly, like Gideon's ephod, his vow arose from a syncretistic religious environment.”*[^18] \n\n# **God’s Respect for the Vow**  \nAnother strong argument in favor of the figurative interpretation is the assertion that God apparently respected the terms of Jephthah’s vow by giving him decisive victory over the Ammonites ([Jdg 11:32–33](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/32-33/s_222032)), something he certainly would not have done if he knew it would result in Jephthah killing his daughter. Archer makes this case forcefully, saying, *“The [literal] understanding of the event involves an intolerable theological difficulty, for it hopelessly compromises the integrity of God Himself.”*[^19] Indeed, the commentators I reviewed made no counter-argument against this point, and though Davis and Whitcomb acknowledged the argument, they did not answer it, saying, *“Space will not permit a discussion of this particular problem, but it is one which the student should consider.”*[^20]  \n\nI will here endeavor to offer a counter-argument without the benefit of wiser men who have gone before me. It is not clear that God was specifically honoring Jephthah’s vow when he gave the judge victory over the Ammonites. The narrative suggests that Jephthah ***already had God’s support*** before he made the vow in verses 30–31, as evidenced by God placing his Spirit upon Jephthah in verse 29. Indeed, following the pattern of apostasy, judgment, repentance, and rescue in the rest of the book of Judges, God had already determined to deliver his covenant people from the hand of the Ammonites when they cried out to him ([Jdg 10:10](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/10/10/s_221010)), and then repented and *“put away the foreign gods from among them”* ([Jdg 10:16](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/10/16/s_221016)). From that point through the end of chapter 11, the narrative is simply explaining how God providentially accomplished their deliverance. Thus, Jephthah’s vow was not only sinful, but superfluous. God was not honoring Jephthah’s vow when he gave victory over the Ammonites, but honoring his covenant with Israel. The question should not be, *“Why would God honor a sinful vow to offer a human sacrifice?”* but rather, *“Would God have been right withhold deliverance from his covenant people who had cried out to him and repented, just to keep Jephthah from following through on his sinful vow?”*  \n\n# **Emphasis on Virginity**  \nThe proponents of the figurative view consistently make the argument that the emphasis of the text is on Jephthah’s daughter’s virginity, and not on her impending death. Archer notes this emphasis appearing in both verses 37–38 and verse 39, and he argues that this indicates she was not literally sacrificed as a burnt offering, but was instead *“set apart for tabernacle service”* where *“she would never become a mother”* due to the requirement she remain a virgin.[^21] Barrett makes a similar case, saying, *“It is a bit odd that if the daughter was sentenced to a sacrificial death, her virginity was the reason for her mourning rather than the loss of life that loomed over her.”*[^22] This would explain why her period of mourning was conducted in seclusion in the mountains ([Jdg 11:37](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/37/s_222037)), rather than spending her final days with her family, as would have been more fitting if she was anticipating her death.  \n\nThere are two significant difficulties with this argument. First, service at the tabernacle, or service to God of any other kind, is never mentioned in the text surrounding Jephthah’s vow or its fulfillment. It appears the entire idea that Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to this form of service is based ***solely*** upon the repeated mention of her virginity, which is then connected with the passing mention of women serving at the tabernacle in [Exodus 38:8](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/exo/38/8/s_88008) and [1 Samuel 2:22](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1sa/2/22/s_238022). There is a distinct lack of detail given in those passages concerning the nature of this tabernacle service. As Davis and Whitcomb point out, *“The women referred to in [1 Samuel 2:22](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1sa/2/22/s_238022) and [Exodus 38:8](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/exo/38/8/s_88008) are not clearly associated with the tabernacle as permanent residents. Also, there is no evidence in this text, or any other text in the Old Testament, of an ancient equivalent of the modern-day nun.”*[^23] In fact, the women serving at the tabernacle in [1 Samuel 2:22](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1sa/2/22/s_238022) certainly were ***not*** virgins, because Eli was there rebuking his sons for fornicating with them. Matthew Henry goes further in his criticism of this argument, saying, *“We do not find any law or custom in all the Old Testament which suggests in the slightest that being unmarried was a religious act, or that any man or woman was looked on as more holy, more of the Lord’s, or more dedicated to him for being unmarried. It was not a part of the Law either of the priests or of the Nazarites.”*[^24] Rather, the Nazarite vows only required abstaining from the fruit of the vine, from touching a dead body, and from cutting one’s hair ([Num 6:1–5](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/num/6/1-5/s_123001)). There is no mention anywhere that celibacy was required for service at the tabernacle, even for the priests, who were expected to marry ([Lev 21:7, 13–15](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/lev/21/7-15/s_111007)). This leaves the figurative view with no warrant whatsoever for supposing that the emphasis on her virginity indicates she was specially dedicated to the Lord.  \n\nHow then is this emphasis on her virginity to be explained? The chief problem for Jephthah, when his daughter was the one who came to meet him upon his return, is that she was his *“only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter”* ([Jdg 11:34](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/34/s_222034)). Dying a virgin would mean Jephthah’s line would be extinguished. Moreover, she would never know the joy of marital love, of childbearing, or the hope of all Israelite women: the possibility of bearing the promised seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head ([Gen 3:15](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/3/15/s_3015)). The concept of mourning one’s virginity when facing certain death is not uncommon, but spans across both time and culture. For instance, the Trojan princess Polyxena of Greek mythology is said to have lamented her virginity when she was to be sacrificed to the ghost of Achilles with these words: *“No bridegroom, no wedding song for me.”*[^25] This desire to fulfill the purpose of being a help-meet too a husband ([Gen 2:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/2/18/s_2018)), paired with the end of the family line, is ample reason for Jephthah’s daughter to have been more concerned about her virginity than about her death.  \n\n# **Other Arguments**  \nThere are various lesser arguments brought to bear in support of the figurative interpretation. While they should not be considered decisive in determining the biblically faithful view, they also should not be left unstated or unanswered.  \n\nKeil and Delitzsch argue that Jephthah could not have literally offered his daughter as a burnt offering, because such sacrifices *“could only be offered upon the lawful altar at the tabernacle, or before the ark, through the medium of the Levitical priests.”*[^26] However, if Jephthah was willing to violate the prohibition against human sacrifice, it should not surprise us that he was willing to violate the regulations concerning where and by whom such burnt offerings were permitted, particularly since he lived so far from the tabernacle in the land of Tob ([Jdg 11:3](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/3/s_222003)).  \n\nBarrett contends that the daughters of Israel did not go out year-by-year to *“lament”* Jephthah’s daughter’s death, as many English versions translate it, but to *“rehearse the situation.”*[^27] The Hebrew word here is *tanah* (תָּנָה) which is found only in [Judges 11:40](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/40/s_222040) and [Judges 5:11](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/5/11/s_216011), where it is translated *“repeat”* in the ESV. Other English versions, such as the NASB, translate the word in [Judges 11:40](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/40/s_222040) as *“commemorate”* rather than *“lament,”* which also fits with [Judges 5:11](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/5/11/s_216011) and is probably closer to its meaning. This in no way settles the case, though, as it leaves room for either a celebratory or mournful commemoration of Jephthah’s daughter by the daughters of Israel. Even so, the *“year by year”* aspect of this commemoration is more fitting of a mourning motif.  \n\nBarrett also makes much of Jephthah’s vow being *“his first act immediately following his being empowered by the Holy Spirit.”*[^28] However, Davis and Whitcomb push back, saying, *“It is true that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, but we cannot be sure that this event immediately preceded the vow which he made unto the Lord, for it appears in verse 29 that there was a considerable amount of travel between that event and the time when he made a vow unto the Lord.”*[^29] Jephthah’s first act upon being empowered by the Holy Spirit was not his vow, but his passing through Gilead, Manasseh, Mizpah, and finally to the Ammonites ([Jdg 11:29](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/29/s_222029)). Block notes that this appears to parallel Gideon’s sounding of the trumpet to rally troops to the cause in [Judges 6:34-35](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/6/34-35/s_217034), which also immediately followed God placing his Spirit upon Gideon.[^30]  \n\nFinally, Keil and Delitzsch argue that, unlike the incident of Gideon making himself a golden ephod ([Jdg 8:22–27](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/8/22-27/s_219022)), *“which was only a very small offense in comparison,”* but which the narrator of Judges clearly denounces as *“a snare to Gideon and to his family”* (Jdg 8:27), he never makes a similar denunciation of Jephthah’s vow, but rather *“describes the fulfilment of the vow in the words ‘he did to her according to his vow,’ in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that he regarded the act itself as laudable and good.”*[^31] Yet, Block sees an implied denouncement of Jephthah’s actions in the structure of the narrative itself, saying, *“The narrator's disposition is explicitly expressed by the location of the Jephthah cycle within the ‘Book of Deliverers,’”* since it is placed *“immediately after the story of Abimelech [which] invites a negative comparison with this man.”*[^32]  Moreover, the book of Judges as a whole depicts this period as a downward spiral of further and further Canaanization of both the people and their judges, of which Jephthah is among the last.\n\n# **Conclusion**  \nAfter examining the strongest arguments offered by those promoting the figurative interpretation of Jephthah’s vow, it must be acknowledged that they are not entirely without merit. Neither is there any doubt that those holding to this view have a desire to be faithful to the biblical text. Nevertheless, the view is heavily reliant upon the assumption that virginity was a necessary aspect of dedication to the Lord, support for which can be found nowhere in Scripture. Additionally, there is no indication that *ʿōlâ* (עָלָה), *“whole burnt offering,”* is ever used in anything but a literal sense. Barrett suggests precedent can be built upon other sacrificial language that  ***is*** used in a figurative sense,[^33] but examples of this are predominantly found in poetic and prophetic literature, where figurative language is expected ([Ps 50:14](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/psa/50/14/s_528014), [51:17](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/psa/51/17/s_529017), [141:2](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/psa/141/2/s_619002); [Isa 66:20](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/isa/66/20/s_745020)), and the example he gives of the Levites, set apart as a wave offering ([Num 8:13, 15–16](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/num/8/13-16/s_125013)), makes sense given they were substitutes for the first-born of every tribe and their service would be *“waving”* before the face of God at his tabernacle. A case can therefore be made that they were a ***literal*** wave offering, and not a figurative one.  \n\nFinally, Block points out that the Jephthah narrative has strong comparative connections to the account of Abraham, who was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac ([Gen 22:1–19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/22/1-19/s_22001)), and which lose their force if Jephthah’s offering of his daughter was merely figurative.[^34] Just as Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his *“only child,”* Jephthah’s daughter was also his *“only child,”* but he bound himself to offer her ***against*** the explicit command of God. In both cases their children were to be made *“burnt offerings,”* but in Abraham’s case God intervened to provide a substitute, while in Jephthah’s case God remained silent. The purpose of God’s command was to prove Abraham’s faith, while the purpose of Jephthah’s vow was to purchase God’s support; where God tested Abraham, Jephthah tested God. Abraham was called out of his home by God ([Gen 12:1](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/12/1/s_12001)), while Jephthah was cast out of his home by his brothers ([Jdg 11:2](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jdg/11/2/s_222002)). Isaac was Abraham’s divinely named offspring ([Gen 17:19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/17/19/s_17019)), while Jephthah’s daughter remains nameless. These and other comparative parallels pointed out by Block offer significant support for the literal view.  \n\nIn summary, the arguments for the figurative view are not compelling enough to abandon the literal interpretation that Jephthah sinfully sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.  While Jephthah is counted as a man of faith, it is not on account of having made this sinful vow. He had faith that God alone could give him victory, but had been so influenced by the idolatrous practices of the pagans around him that he thought God's favor could be bought with promises of sacrifice. That's not how God operates. He is faithful to his covenant people because of the promises he made to them and to their fathers.\n  \n---  \n[^1]: C.F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, (Montana: Kessinger Publishing Company, 2010), EPUB 14.61.  \n[^2]: Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, 14.61.  \n[^3]: Keil and Delitzsch admit that the surface reading of the text “[appears] to favor the actual sacrifice so strongly, that Luther’s marginal note, ‘some affirm that he did not sacrifice her, but the text is clear enough,’ is perpetually repeated with peculiar emphasis.” (Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, 14.61)  \n    Howard agrees, saying, “The plain meaning of the words is that Jephthah did exactly what he had vowed to do, namely, he offered his daughter as a burnt offering.” See David M. Howard Jr., *An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books*, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 134.  \n[^4]: Keil and Delitzsch note that the view that Jephthah put his daughter to death “which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both Rabbins and fathers of the church.” (Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, EPUB 14.61)  \n    Davis and Whitcomb agree, saying, “Until the Middle Ages the interpretation of this vow seems to have been fairly consistent. It was generally regarded as involving human sacrifice.” See John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb, *Israel: From Conquest to Exile*, (Winona Lake: Brethren Missionary Herald, 1989), 124.  \n[^5]: Gleason Archer Jr, *New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), EPUB 15.5.  \n[^6]: Howard, *Introduction to the Historical Books*, 134.  \n[^7]: Michael P.V. Barrett, *Old Testament Introduction: Back to Basics*, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2025), EPUB 32.77.  \n[^8]: Davis and Whitcomb, *Israel*, 126–127.  \n[^9]: Barrett, *OT Introduction*, EPUB 32.76.  \n[^10]: Archer, *Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*, EPUB 15.11.  \n[^11]: Archer, *Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*, EPUB 15.6.  \n[^12]: Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, EPUB 14.63.  \n[^13]: Howard, *Introduction*  *to the Historical Books*, 134–135.  \n[^14]: Davis and Whitcomb, *Israel*, 126.  \n[^15]: Daniel I. Block, *The New American Commentary: Judges, Ruth*, Vol. 6, (Brentwood: B\u0026H Publishing, 1999), EPUB 12.465.  \n[^16]: Howard, *Introduction*  *to the Historical Books*, 134–135.  \n[^17]: Archer, *Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*, EPUB 9.265.  \n[^18]: Block, *Judges, Ruth*, EPUB 21.144.  \n[^19]: Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 15.9.  \n[^20]: Davis and Whitcomb, *Israel*, 128.  \n[^21]: Archer, *Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*, EPUB 15.10.  \n[^22]: Barrett, *OT Introduction*, EPUB 32.78.  \n[^23]: Davis and Whitcomb, *Israel*, 126.  \n[^24]: Matthew Henry, *The New Matthew Henry Commentary*, ed. Martin H. Manser, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), EPUB 2.23.1.1.2.  \n[^25]: Euripides, *Hecuba*, ed. W. Arrowsmith and H. Golder, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 42.  \n[^26]: Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, EPUB 14.65.  \n[^27]: Barrett, *OT Introduction*, EPUB 32.78.  \n[^28]: Barrett, *OT Introduction*, EPUB 32.76.  \n[^29]: Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 126.  \n[^30]: Block, *Judges, Ruth*, EPUB 21.140.  \n[^31]: Keil and Delitzsch, *Commentary on Judges*, EPUB 14.65.  \n[^32]: Block, *Judges, Ruth*, EPUB 22.92.  \n[^33]: Barrett, *OT Introduction*, EPUB 32.77.  \n[^34]: Block, *Judges, Ruth*, EPUB 22.32–22.73.  ",
  "sig": "58c997d88a79f749936dcd218194e7242cbfb2e90b68bd1c01c555d9644ce92cf8a0e1a7d8b2b5dd8714e508e2f533b4061860fcdc89792bee8cca34a564638b"
}