Did Jephthah sin at the moment when he sacrificed his daughter?

Upvote:1

If you vow to commit a sin, it remains a sin.

Saul went to the high priestΒ and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Then on the way he was converted and thus did not if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Saul went back on his word, but this was not a sin.

If you promise to commit a sin, the promise itself was a sin and it is best to break your sinfull promise than to commit to another sin.

Upvote:1

If Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, I will argue that it was an "unclean" sacrifice, by the implications of the law. There is no evidence that he took advice from any priest or prophet on the way that he should proceed.

The case that human flesh is unclean for sacrificial purposes will be based on the parallel case about the ass.

The starting point is the dietary law of Leviticus ch11. Israel is allowed to eat whatever animal "parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud" (v3). Parting the hoof and chewing the cud are both necessary. Animals which fail the test on either point are unclean. Biology tells us that the ass does not chew the cud, so the ass would be an unclean food. We know from Exodus ch34 v20 that the ass cannot be offered in sacrifice. In other words, it is unclean also for sacrificial purposes.

There is a reasonable connection between the two verdicts. A survey of the laws and practices of sacrifice will show that the sacrifices of Israel were fundamentally the offering of food, normally including, as Paul observes (1 Corinthians ch10v18) a participation in the meal. Therefore the rules for food and sacrifice will necessarily coincide. What is unclean as food will be unclean as sacrifice.

From Exodus ch34 v20 and Leviticus ch27 vv11-13 and v27, we know that if an unclean animal is "owing" to the Lord, e.g as firstborn, it must be "redeemed". A substitute must be found and offered instead. In Exodus, the owner offers a lamb. Or he may break the neck of the ass, by which at least he deprives himself of its use, while avoiding the sin of putting it on the altar. In Leviticus, the owner "buys back" the animal with a payment of 120% of its value.

By the rules of Leviticus ch11, human flesh is also an unclean food. The point is normally too obvious to be discussed, but it is relevant here because it defines human flesh as an unclean sacrifice. If Jephthah thought his daughter was "owed" to the Lord, then he should have redeemed her, just as he would have redeemed an ass or a firstborn son.

In fact he would have fallen under the condemnation of Deuteronomy ch18 v0; "There shall not be among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering..." This form of offering is the first item in a list of abominable practices, and "whoever do these things is an abomination to the Lord" (v10).

It would have been an unclean sacrifice, against the commands of the Lord, It would have been sin.

P.S I don't think the oath itself was necessarily sin, because it could have been fulfilled in a different way. The fault would have been in the interpretation of the oath.

More post

Search Posts

Related post