Amaleq13

Even if it were true that no Christians treat this story as a parable, how would that be relevant to the absence of any rational defense of God's depicted inaction?

Nothing you wrote directly addresses the problems specific to the story. God's obligation in the story is the direct result of God's intervention on behalf of Jepthah both before and after Jephthah's offered deal. God's actions resulted in Jephthah's misunderstanding, therefore, God has at least some responsibility for the results. This specific set of circumstances requires a specific defense unique to the story that none of your general responses to the PoE contains.

I looked for examples of the general arguments you have offered and the following are all I could find. I will respond to each by identifying specifically why they fail to address the problems unique to this story. If you feel I have missed any that are important, please restate them.

1. This particular "bad thing" is the direct result of God's intervention. That makes it different from "bad things" that do not involve God's intervention and calls into question the relevance of appealing to his alleged non-intervening nature.

2. God could prevent the murder of the girl without violating natural law (ie God could directly or indirectly via an angel correct Jephthah's misunderstanding).

In this story, it is God's intervention that is responsible for Jephthah's mistaken belief that murdering his own child is what God expects him to do.

God is culpable because the mistaken belief is the result of God's intervention.

Jephthah makes a deal with the elders of Gilead and God is specifically made a witness to it. God intervenes and Jephthah is victorious in battle over the Amorites. This establishes a precedent for Jepthah that God is not opposed to involvement in bargains nor to intervention in battles.

Jephthah offers a deal directly with God in exchange for intervention in the coming battle. God intervenes. Given the precedent established above, Jephthah is entirely justified in assuming the deal has been accepted.

God's interventions are the direct cause of Jephthah's belief that God expects him to murder his own daughter and that should require any moral being to feel obligated to prevent her death.

Done. This story is unique in that the "something bad" is about to occur as the result of God's intervention.

Let's take God out of it and see what you think.

LP has some friends who are getting picked on by bullies. They come to LP and ask him (my apologies if I picked the wrong gender) to kick their ass for them and promise to make him their leader if he does. LP brings them to Amaleq's house and has them restate their deal in front of him. LP then goes out looking for the bullies. Amaleq steps in and kicks their asses for LP but lets LP take the credit with his friends. They, in turn, mention that an even tougher bunch of bullies awaits him. LP calls Amaleq and leaves a message on his answering machine: "Dude, if you help me out again, I will kill the first person to walk out of my apartment building". Amaleq listens to the message but doesn't call LP back. LP shows up at the tougher bullies hang-out and there is Amaleq whooping ass like nobody's business. He walks away without saying a word to LP who, assuming that the deal has been accepted, proceeds to await the next person to leave his building so that he can kill them.

In my opinion, Amaleq is morally obligated to prevent LP from carrying out the murder. He is obligated because both his action (interventions in battles) and inaction (failure to deny the deal and to prevent the faulty assumption) are ultimately the cause of the murder. That the murder is actually being committed by LP does not eliminate Amaleq's responsibility because it would never happen except for the combination of action/inaction on his part. That makes the murder at least partially his responsibility.

I hope that helps make my position more understandable.

Jack the Bodiless

When will you do this, and what form will this "dismissal" take?

...Because I honestly can't see why the notion that God required Jephtah to sacrifice his own daughter is inconsistent with God's nature as depicted in most of the Old Testament. He basically doesn't seem to care about hurting innocent bystanders: in addition to the examples already given, I could also add Lot's wife and numerous other examples of "collateral damage" when God exerts his power.

There is also the Abraham/Isaac precedent: willingness to sacrifice your offspring is seen in the OT as a positive thing, a demonstration of the parent's faith in God. Jephtah is portrayed as being perhaps incautious in making such an open-ended deal with an entity that DOES kill innocent bystanders, but God gave him the chance to prove his devotion, and he passed the test.

LP675

Right now.
Sure, and here it is: Deut 12:28-32:

“28 Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God.
29 The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land,
30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
31 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 sacrifices to their gods.
32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.�


The Israelites were not to worship or serve God in the ways those they were about to invade served their gods. The reason for this was that in worshipping their gods they do all sorts of detestable things the LORD hates. An example of a manner in which these people worship their gods, and of something that is detestable which the Israelites are commanded not to do, is “burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods�.

It seems to apply in this case. Jephtah burnt his daughter in the fire as a sacrifice to his God.

LP675

It wouldn’t be. It was just a passing comment on treating this story as a parable before I drew your attention to the rational defense I had already outlined above.
Because there are no problems in this story that are unique or are not addressed in the answer to the problem of evil question. I think we both agree you arguments only hold any water if you can establish this incident is somehow unique. You attempt to do so by arguing it is a result of Gods ‘intervention’.
It is in fact not the direct result of God’s intervention. Let’s have a look at the argument you give:
Firstly, God is involved in no bargain here with Jephthah. God had decided in 10:16 that he would intervene. The deal is before the LORD, as I suspect most or all such oaths in that culture would have been, and the bargain is between the elders of Gilead and Jephthah.

“9 Jephthah answered, "Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me--will I really be your head?"
10 The elders of Gilead replied, "The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say."
So God is not involved in this bargain regarding the headship of Israel in return for victory in battle, it is Jephthah and the elders of Gilead.

Secondly, you have made a mistake in assuming after this alleged deal that Jephthah was victorious against anybody (which therefore “establishes a precedent�). To be any sort of precedent it must precede that which it is meant to be a precedent for. It doesn’t. Jephthah doesn’t fight or have any victory over the Amorites (you just invented their involvement in the story somehow), or the Ammonites, from the point this first alleged deal is made to the second. Judges 10:17 says “When the Ammonites were called to arms and camped in Gilead, the Israelites assembled and camped at Mizpah�. Then in 11: 29 it says “He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites.�

THEN this second ‘deal’ is made:
30 “And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands…etc�

So there is no establishment of “a pattern of intervention�, because God was not involved in the deal, and even if he were involved it can’t possibly be a precedent.

For one to be party to an agreement there must be ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’. There obviously is no acceptance. And there is no precedent, so Jephthah is justified in holding no such view (especially considering God's express prohibitions of such conduct).
By now you should realize you are mistaken. Therefore this story is NOT unique.

Your analogy fails obviously because there are not two bunches of bullies. Also, its not that nothing was said, it was just ignored. The story would be similar if Amaleq had given a letter to LP stating explicitly that under no circumstances would he ever want LP to kill people coming out of his apartment building, and if you had mentioned the fact that Amaleq had before any of this had started already decided regarding the “tougher bullies� to engage in some “whooping ass like nobody's business�.

Thank you, it has. I think your elaboration has also helped to account for my prior allegedly disingenuous behavior and confusion.

Amaleq13

God is identified as being involved as both a witness and the means by which Jephthah intends to obtain victory. What God decided earlier is irrelevant since Jephthah has no way to know this.

You are correct that I have misinterpreted the text to indicate that Jephthah was victorious over the Amorites but you are incorrect in denying that the precedent of God intervening in battle is established. In fact, Jephthah explicitly invokes that historical precedent in his letter to the Ammonites and concludes:

"...So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." (11:24)

Jephthah's knowledge of God's prior intervention in the battle with the Amorites clearly establishes a precedent for his expectation of future intervention. That Jephthah was not personally involved in the prior battle is not actually relevant to the existence of the precedent.

As I have already explained, God's intervention clearly implies acceptance to Jephthah.

This is clearly not made obvious to Jephthah and that is precisely where God has failed to behave morally.

Unfortunately for your argument, my error is irrelevant to the unique situation described in the story.

Jephthah's expectation of divine intervention is based on the historical precedent of God's intervention in the battle against the Amorites.

Jephthah's assumption that God has accepted his deal is based on God's subsequent intervention which was consistent with the expectation created by the precedent.

There is no evidence in this story that Jephthah agrees with your interpretation of other parts of the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore, God can be considered morally responsible for the murder of the girl.

God could clearly prevent the murder of the girl without violating anyone's free will or natural law. Do you have any other reasons that eliminate God's apparent responsibility to prevent the murder?

JEST2ASK

Judges 10: 15 And the Children of Israel said to the Lord, "We have sinned Do to us whattever seemd best to You, only deliverus this day we pray" (16) So they put away the forgign gods among them and served the Lord. and His soul could no longer endure the misery of Israel
Judges 11 : 9 - 11*Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord in Mizpah

Judges Chapter 12 : 6 There fell at that time forty-two thousand Ephraimites*
(7) and Jephthah judged Israel six years ...

Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah also of David and Samuel and the prophets (33)Who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, (34) Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens ...


General question regarding the date of authorship of Judges and that of Deut. , & Levit.

why is it assumed that the (IMO) the older oral traditions are after the more developed legalistic writtings ... :huh:

I am disappointed that Christians never wish to discuss the process of how the bible came to be ... and look at the other forces involved ...

Sorry for the interuption (back to the shadows)

Jack the Bodiless

This is essentially similar to the verses I mentioned on the previous page (post #37). From the context, it appears to relate to the Caananite custom of routinely sacrificing the firstborn child (by tossing the child into a fire): a duty that YHWH no longer requires of the Hebrews.

Of course, you may interpret it differently: from the wording, it COULD cover Jephtah's sacrifice of his adult daughter. My point, however, is that Jephtah could legitimately have interpreted this as a specific ban on Caananite-style burning of firstborn infants.

And Jephtah would presumably have been aware of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice his son, but God intervened (actually, there is some doubt about this: in the original version of this story, Isaac may actually have been sacrificed). Jephtah was leaving the decision up to God, by allowing God to determine who or what came out of his house: but it was plainly likely to be a human being, and even a family member.

LP675

I think you have a lot of work to do if you want to convince anyone that “You must not burn your daughter as a sacrifice� = “It is ok to burn your daughter as a sacrifice�.
So you are saying Jephtah made the unsolicited 'deal' knowing full well it would result in human sacrifice, which was a practice explicitly forbidden by God? What you are describing is just willful rebellion. And you are wanting to implicate God in the act somehow? Doesn’t make sense to me.

LP675

Sorry, I don't think I understood your question.

Jack the Bodiless

No more work than you'd have to do, to convert "don't toss your first baby into a fire" to "don't let a priest cut the throat of your adult daughter". Where does it say that Jephtah had his daughter killed by burning? Apparently, in Caananite child-sacrifice, fire was the cause of death, which was not the case in Hebrew sacrifices (even though the remains were cooked or burnt afterwards).
Human sacrifice was a practice specifically endorsed, and occasionally even commanded, by God.
God is implicated because the story is in the Bible.

There is a big difference between the Biblical world and the world in which we actually live. In the Biblical world, God is not only real, but he does not hide himself. When a Biblical character invokes God, God answers (even if the answer is "NO").

Where in the Bible does God fail to respond, with no reason/excuse given?