figuer

But they had Judges, the Law, and their "god", wasn't this enough? The Bible indicates that "god" was against the institution of the monarchy, and favoured the continuation of the system of judges. He then "changed his mind" and gave the Hebrews what they wanted. So why should a lack of kingship be taken as indicative of disapproval of the time of the Judges, if it was the system favoured by "god". I don't understand how people can be so lacking in intellectual self-respect that they feel the need to justify such obvious contradictions.

Gundulf

Well, I wouldn't argue that the apologetic for the monarchy is the whole story... But insofar as it is even part of the story - the author of Judges is including these negative examples as part of his argument. I have little doubt that he included some of the better stories too, to show the positive side of strong leadership.

Whether Gideon was a positive example.... God shows up and promises a guy that he will use him to destroy the enemies... And this guy requires not one, but two miraculous signs to prove to him that this is 'really God's will.....'

Not exactly the most shining example of faith.


Well, like I said before, if we are stretching the definition of 'human sacrifice' (beyond almost any recognizable form) to include the 'devotion of people to the Lord' as was practiced and condoned, then sure, I'd agree that 'human sacrifice' in this particular sense, was condoned.

But ask 10 people on the street what comes to their mind when they hear the term 'human sacrifice', and I doubt many will suggest 'a "take no prisoners" form of warfare....'

Gundulf

Did I ever even give a hint that I disagreed with the idea that the remission of sins required a violent act? I consider the crucifixion of the son of God a particularly violent act, after all.

I don't suppose you would give even an ounce of credence to the idea that the pagan religions were mimicing the one true God's means of forgiving sins...

Gundulf

I acknowledge that Jephthah offered a human sacrifice because he is recoreded as offering his daughter as a burnt offering - exactly as was prohibited in Deuteronomy.

(Also, I would not agree with Lawrence Boadt's definition of it - not by a long stretch. Who is he, anyway?)


Look - no argument from me here, if you want to use the term 'human sacrifice' to describe these actions of 'devoting' humans to the Lord during warfare, etc., you're welcome to - I just think this adds confusion since this is not what typically comes to people's minds when you hear the term 'human sacrifice.' I'll even go around and ask 20 people today what comes to their mind when they think of 'human sacrifice' - I doubt many will say 'take no prisoners warfare' or anything close. If you go around saying, "The Bible condones human sacrifice" - honestly - what will most people imagine upon hearing that? Babies and women tied up on an alter being burned, no? THIS the Bible doesn't condone, and repeatedly condemns. And this WAS the practice of the surrounding nations, and probably was practiced in Israel in a syncratistic fashion (otherwise they'd never have had to repeatedly condemn it, no?) If you want to stretch the typical meaning of 'human sacrifice' to include the 'take no prisoners' warfare that was practiced, you're welcome to; but I still fear there is a bit of academic dishonesty involved.

My point is that we don't refer to instances like Agincourt as an example of "human sacrifice" - Although King Henry V ordered the 'sacrificing' of 'humans', no? If you are using a definition of human sacrifice that includes the stuff we're talking about here that the Bible condones, that's fine - but I'm going to start talking about how the medieval English also practiced human sacrifice under King Henry V....

John Kesler

So killing people for a deity's use via burning equals human sacrifice, but killing with a sword or spear for the same purpose isn't. Gotcha.

He's only Professor Emeritus at Washington Theological Union with, and I quote, a "master's degree in religious studies from St. Paul's College in Washington, D.C., and a master's degree in Semitic languages, a licentiate in Sacred Scripture: The New Testament, and a doctorate degree in Sacred Scripture: The Old Testament from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Italy." But other than this, he's an unqualified hack. And it isn't just Dr. Boadt who refers to herem victims as human sacrifices. Look at my quotes from Dr. Niditch's book.

What does it matter what "comes to people's minds" when there are academics who say without reservation that herem is a form of human sacrifice to a deity--whether that deity was Yahweh, Chemosh or whoever?

Perhaps you'd like to inform Drs. Niditch and Boadt et al that they are engaging in "academic dishonesty."

Lugubert

Do you mean that he originally was named Immanuel after all?

He was בר-אבא, Bar-abbâ, "son of the father" all the time.

Cege

The story of Jephthah appears to illustrate that a vow to God must be kept even if it involves sacrificing a child as a burnt offering. Jephthah's completion of his vow was more important than the life of his daughter, and followed the direction given by God in Leviticus.

- Leviticus 27:28-29:
28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death. (NIV)

The lesson: be careful what oaths you make with God because God demands the oath be fulfilled.

Jephthah might have been an idiot, but he was anointed by the Spirit of God when he made the vow, as the story is told in Judges 11:29-40:

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

I think most Christians are familiar with animal sacrifices demanded by God in the OT but few are familiar with human sacrifice allowed/condoned/ordered by the same God in the same OT.

Gundulf

OOooo! There are Academics!

There are Academics who have written books about how the Holocaust is made up, too... Not that I'm putting Dr. Boadt in that category - I know nothing about him, nor have ever read him. But just the fact that someone who is an 'academic' claimed something, and I'm supposed to accept it without question?

Well, do you want me to go to a library and find all the evangelical authors that also have PhDs and have written books, and teach at Oxford and the like, who disagree with him on whether or not this was the same kind of human sacrifice? I don't think that would convince you of the correctness of their view, any more than Dr. Boadt's degrees convince me.

That these are understood, biblically, as entirely different categories, (albeit both for religious purposes, I'll grant), should be clear for the purposes of each - e.g., when King Saul spared the sheep from being 'devoted' to the Lord - "in order to sacrifice them to the Lord...."

In fact, as I think about this instance - Saul was almost trying to convince Samuel that they were, more or less, the same thing - "Hey, what's the difference? So what if I didn't 'devote' them to the Lord - I was going to sacrifice them. Same thing, right?"

An argument with which Samuel was not impressed....




If they truly believe that these devotions to the Lord were really understood religiously in the same category as those things described in the Bible as 'sacrifices' (you know, two entirely different Hebrew words were probably used for a reason.... ) - If they really think these were more or less the same as the 'sacrifices', then they are terribly confused.

If they are aware that they are two entirely different categories of action, but want to use the term 'human sacrifice' because of what it implies when people hear it, in order to generate more interest/distaste/reaction - then yes, this is academically dishonest - stretching the term beyond what it is implies to the general population for reasons that are not simply educational.

In a similar way, I could go around and start referring to atheists who did, in fact, believe in the historicity of Jesus as a man - "Christians", since they believe in Christ. Hey, they do believe in Christ - they believe that he really existed. So, by strict definitions, they are "Christ-believers," or "Christians." Technically, literally correct, but obviously dishonest.

Gundulf

And, as I mentioned, he flagrantly disobeyed Deuteronomy 12 - "You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sarifices to their gods."

The Spirit of the Lord also came upon Gideon in 6:34 - at which point he promptly doubted God and had to request not one, but two miraculous signs that God would actually do what God had just promised him. I don't think this is supposed to be 'condoning doubting God' or 'condoning putting God to the test.' Or the Spirit of the Lord moving in Samson, at which time he went and married a godless Philistine...? I think the message is that God still works in people who aren't all that the should be, but that this situation still needs fixing.

You'd have to convince me that Judges was written in order to condone prostitution, gang rape, idolatry, intermarriage with the ungodly Philistines, kidnapping, putting God to the test, and various other things before I would agree that the book of Judges demonstrates anything resembling God "condoning human sacrifice."

Cege

That puts Deuteronomy 12 in direct contradiction with Leviticus 27:28-29, which I don't think helps your argument one bit.

But Gideon isn't Jephthah and Gideon didn't take a vow while influenced by the Spirit of God to offer the first thing that walked out of his house as a burnt offering to God. Jephthah didn't doubt God and God didn't intervene in the fulfillment of Jephthah's vow, maybe because Leviticus sets the rules for dedicating an offering and carrying through on the dedication because of vow.

What God condoned in the instance of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering to God to complete a vow to God doesn't mean that the entire book of Judges was written in order to condone other acts by other people or to singularly observe what happened when vows were taken and the results of those vows whether fulfilled or broken.

God made no objection to Jephthah's burnt sacrifice and did not intervene to prevent it (as he did in the case of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac). Just in those instances when God became angry with mankind or an individual and was ready to destroy them, the instance with Jephthah was one where God condoned human sacrifice of a child in order for a solemn vow taken under the influence of the Holy Spirit to be fulfilled.

It's sure painful to read about, but it's there plain and simple.