Evangelion

Mageth -

Firstly, there have been no "theatrics."

Secondly, I've been busy.

Thirdly, if you'd read Leviticus 27, you would have had it all worked out by now.

Mageth

Honestly, I don't know why you're still going on about this. It's a complete non-issue.

Honestly, I don't know why you brought the whole "idiom" thing up in the first place. Can you, in one hopefully short post, summarize what your point is??? I don't have the time or inclination to read and try to decipher it from the long, laborious post you made to DP above, if it's there, or to try to guess what your point is by reading Lev. 27.

Mageth

Firstly, there have been no "theatrics."

OK, I'll rename it "a couple of pages of beating around the bush."

Evangelion

Look, this is very simple.

If you hadn't wasted all that time on the alleged "sanitisation" thing, we could have been finished by now.

And that's without mentioning the additional comments from DP and others, which I've since been asked to address...

I don't live on the Net; I have a job and a mortgage; I'm busy in real life, just as you probably are. I came back to this thread as soon as I had some time for it.

Now if you'll just give me a minute and stop jumping in with irrelevant comments, perhaps we can get somewhere for a change?

Evangelion

Let's take a closer look at Leviticus 27, and see what it has to say about the man who makes a vow concerning (a) his goods, (b) his livestock, or (c) his family:

• Leviticus 27:1-8.
  And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.
  And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
  And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
  And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
  And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
  And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
  But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.

The KJV is somewhat obscure; Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) clarifies the passage:

• Lev 27:2-3 -
  Rather, When a man makes a special vow which concerns thy valuation of persons to Yahweh, if thy estimation shall be of the male, etc. The expression “thy estimation” is addressed either to Moses or to the priest Lev_27:12 : it denoted a legal valuation.
  
  The vow of a person was perhaps most frequently made in cases of illness or danger, under the impulse of religions feeling, either in the way of thankfulness for blessings received, or of supplication for something desired. A man might dedicate himself, his wife, his child, or his bondservant.
  
  This might have been an old custom; but the Law ordained that he who had taken such a vow should pay a sum of money to the sanctuary, determined according to the age and sex of the person.

Clarke's Commentary elaborates:

• Lev 27:2 - When a man shall make a singular vow -
  The verse is short and obscure, and may be translated thus:
  
  "A man who shall have separated a vow, according to thy estimation, of souls unto the Lord; which may be paraphrased thus:
  He who shall have vowed or consecrated a soul, i. e., a living creature, whether man or beast, if he wish to redeem what he has thus vowed or consecrated, he shall ransom or redeem it according to the priest’s estimation;
  for the priest shall judge of the properties, qualifications, and age of the person or beast, and the circumstances of the person who has vowed it, and shall regulate the value accordingly;
  and the money shall be put into his hands for the service of the sanctuary."
  
  A vow (says Mr. Ainsworth) is a religious promise made unto the Lord, and for the most part with prayer, and paid with thanksgiving, Num_21:2, Num_21:3; Psa_66:12, Psa_66:14.
  
  Vows were either of abstinence, such as are spoken of Numbers 30, and the vow of the Nazarite, Numbers 6; they were to give something to the Lord, as sacrifices, Lev_7:16, or the value of persons, beasts, houses, or lands, concerning which the law is here given.
  
  A man might vow or devote himself, his children, (Lev_27:5, Lev_27:6), his domestics, his cattle, his goods, etc. And in this chapter rules are laid down for the redemption of all these things.
  
  But if, after consecrating these things, he refused to redeem them, then they became the Lord’s property for ever. The persons continued all their lives devoted to the service of the sanctuary; the goods were sold for the profit of the temple or the priests; the animals, if clean, were offered in sacrifice; if not proper for sacrifice, were sold, and the price devoted to sacred uses.
  
  This is a general view of the different laws relative to vows, mentioned in this chapter.

Coffman's Commentary adds:

• Except in rare instances, persons who were devoted to God were expected to be redeemed by the payment of certain money. The amount of money required for persons of different age and sex is the subject of the first paragraph.

OK. So here we have the vow of Jephthah, spelled out nice and clearly, with all the legal disclaimers and qualifiers.

Essentially, Jephthah's vow was not unusual; it was, in fact, quite permissible under the Law of Moses. He vowed to dedicate the first thing which came out of his house, to God (that is, if God granted him the victory in battle.)

Under the legislation of Leviticus 27, Jephthah could dedicate anything in his possession - including himself or members of his family. In such a case, the individual offered was symbolically "redeemed" by a proportionate sum of money (as we see in verses 2-7.) They were not given to God at all; they remained in their household, and a sum of money was paid to the priests. (This went towards the upkeep of the temple.)

Any human who had been "dedicated" in this way, became a servant of the temple and its grounds. They assisted the priests and the Levites in their maintenance of the Jews' holy place. In some cases, they actually became priests themselves.

We have an example of this in the boy Samuel, who was dedicated to the service of God by his mother, Hannah:

• I Samuel 1:9-11.
  So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the LORD.
  And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore.
  And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

Hannah prayed for a son, and vowed that he would be dedicated to God if she received him. Now, under the legislation of Leviticus 27, it was in her power to redeem her son, and so retain him for herself. But we know from the record that Hannah did not redeem Samuel.

Thus:

• I Samuel 1:20-28.
  Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bore a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.
  And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow.
  But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide forever.
  And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.
  And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.
  And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.
  And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the LORD.
  For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him:
  Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshiped the LORD there.

Samuel became a priest, and served in the temple. Later, he became a prophet of God. But at no time did he return to his family; he had been dedicated to God, and his mother had chosen not to redeem him.

Jephthah's case is virtually identical; he had vowed to dedicate whatever it was that first came out of his house to meet him. He had vowed that whatever it was, it would not be redeeded, but would be given wholly to God. This meant that he would have no recourse if he was met by a member of his family, since his vow clearly states that he was giving up his right to redeem that which was dedicated.

Jephthah's language is very strong:

• Judges 11:30-31.
  And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
  Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

The burnt offering carried special significance under the Law of Moses; it was an only offering which was wholly dedicated to God, with no part being taken by the priest (as was the custom for most other sacrifices.) The symbolism of the burnt offering was that of total dedication; it represented the unswerving dedication of one's own life in service to God; a "sacrifice of self", if you will.

The "sacrifice" of Isaac by Abraham was symbolic of this self-dedication. Abraham obeyed God in this regard because he trusted that God would spare his son by some supernatural means; Isaac obeyed his father because he trusted in his words: "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering."

The calamity of Jephthah's vow was that he had already declared that he would not redeem whatever it was that came to meet him. This is why he wept when he saw his daughter (his only child.) By surrendering his right to redeem her, he had left himself with no escape clause, and his family line would not be continued. This was the end of his posterity - a great disgrace for an Israelite family.

By contrast, Elkanah (Hannah's husband) had no such qualms about her dedication of Samuel, for he had another wife who had already borne him sons and daughters. But Jephthah (already a social outcast) had now precluded any chance of redeeming his family name by continuing it through his daughter. She would remain a virgin for the rest of her life.

The Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament provides an excellent summary of the case:

• As this fact teaches that what God demands is not a corporeal but a spiritual sacrifice, so the rules laid down in the law respecting the redemption of the first-born belonging to the Lord, and of persons vowed to Him (Exo_13:1, Exo_13:13; Num_18:15-16; Lev_27:1.), show clearly how the Israelites could dedicate themselves and those who belonged to them to the Lord, without burning upon the altar the persons who were vowed to Him.
  
  And lastly, it is evident, from the perfectly casual reference to the women who ministered at the tabernacle (Exo_38:8; 1Sa_2:22), that there were persons in Israel who dedicated their lives to the Lord at the sanctuary, by altogether renouncing the world.
  
  And there can be no doubt that Jephthah had such a dedication as this in his mind when he uttered his vow; at all events in case the Lord, to whom he left the appointment of the sacrifice, should demand the offering up of a human being.
  
  The word òåìä does not involve the idea of burning, like our word burnt-offering, but simply that of going up upon the altar, or of complete surrender to the Lord. òåìä is a whole offering, as distinguished from the other sacrifices, of which only a part was given up to the Lord.
  
  When a virgin, therefore, was set apart as a spiritual òåìä, it followed, as a matter of course, that henceforth she belonged entirely to the Lord: that is to say, was to remain a virgin for the remainder of her days.

And of course, we see from the record that she "bewailed her virginity", not her (impending) loss of life.

Hence Young's Literal Translation:

• Judges 11:38-40.
  And he saith, `Go;' and he sendeth her away two months, and she goeth, she and her friends, and she weepeth for her virginity on the hills;
  and it cometh to pass at the end of two months that she turneth back unto her father, and he doth to her his vow which he hath vowed, and she knew not a man; and it is a statute in Israel:
  from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.

Mageth

Evangelion, that entire post is another example of you "beating around the bush."

If you hadn't wasted all that time on the alleged "sanitisation" thing, we could have been finished by now.

LOL! Thanks for the laugh. From my first post, after you asked if I was familiar with "biblical idioms":

Rather than playing "20 questions", I'd prefer if you just made your point. You can start by defining "Biblical idiom" if you wish.

You then made a post describing what you meant by idioms, in which post you did not make your point as I had asked, and to which I asked if you were confusing "idiom" with "euphemism".

Did you reply "no", and then make your point as I had asked? No, you made a long post arguing why I was wrong about euphemisms. I replied to this post, and at the end of my post, I said:

Did you take my advice? NO - another long post about euphemisms and idioms, and in the post, in response to my above-quoted request that you "get to the point", you said:

We're getting there. All in good time.

You then cryptically recommended we read Lev. 27. (I have no requirement, desire or inclination to try to figure out what your point is. Just tell us already.)

Then you made another long reply to a relatively short earlier post I had made, again not getting to the point as I had asked you to do in my first post and at the end of which you ironically said:

Honestly, I don't know why you're still going on about this. It's a complete non-issue.

which point I had made in my second reply on this issue when I said:

Whatever, this is one big sidetrack. Why don't you go ahead and make your point about the text in question? ...This is true whether the words are "idioms" or "euphamisms". So please get to the point.

Later, you claim that there have been no "theatrics" on your part, and comment:

Thirdly, if you'd read Leviticus 27, you would have had it all worked out by now.

To which I reply:

Can you, in one hopefully short post, summarize what your point is??? I don't have the time or inclination to read and try to decipher it from the long, laborious post you made to DP above, if it's there, or to try to guess what your point is by reading Lev. 27.

which is pretty much what I asked you in the first post I made - MAKE YOUR POINT.

And then you respond with your latest "beating around the bush" post, in which you try to lay the blame for your obtuseness on me:

Now if you'll just give me a minute and stop jumping in with irrelevant comments, perhaps we can get somewhere for a change?

%#$&*#@, that's what I asked you to do in my very first post and even more directly in my second post - get to the friggin point and quit beating around the bush. Two pages later and I still have no idea what the hell you're getting on about. :banghead:

Evangelion

For Mageth, the executive summary:

• Jephthah's vow was legitimate under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 27.) He wasn't breaking the Law; in fact, he was scrupulously adhering to it, despite the pain that this obviously caused him.
  
• Jephthah was entitled to redeem anything that he dedicated to God in this vow, but...
  
• ...in his fervour, he promised that he would relinquish this right.
  
• Consequently, he was forced to surrender his daughter, thereby resulting in (a) the loss of his daughter and (b) a premature end to his family line...
  
• ...by which two losses he was sorely grieved (as we might expect.)
  
• Jephthah's use of the term "burnt offering" is idiomatic; he refers only to a life of complete dedication and service, and not to a human sacrifice.
  
• This interpretation is vindicated by (a) the nature of the vow, (b) the various qualifiers provided in Levitucus 27, and (c) the example of Abraham & Isaac (a purely symbolic sacrifice, with the redemption of that which was promsied), and (c) the example of Hannah & Samuel (a purely symbolic sacrifice, without the redemption of that which was promised.)

Mageth

Crosspost, so I've edited it:

Jephthah's use of the term "burnt offering" is idiomatic; he refers only to a life of complete dedication and service, and not to a human sacrifice.

Why the $#@% didn't you just say that in the first place?

And I don't buy it. It doesn't fit with a plain reading of the text, and there is no indication (other than your rather roundabout explanation) that a "burnt offering" sacrifice is not just what it says.

Elsewhere in the OT, a burnt offering means a burnt offering. Usually goats and sheep, with the occasional bullock. I don't remember any livestock becoming nuns.

It appears that Jephthah expected god to provide a goat or a sheep (the scripture doesn't say he expected a human to come out the gate). If one of those would have come out, would he have required the livestock to live a life of "complete dedication and service"?

Evangelion

Two points:

• I wasn't the one who made a big song and dance over Biblical idioms. I simply referred to them and defined what I meant by "Biblical idiom"; you made an unnecessary digression into the topic and wasted a considerable amount of time on something that wasn't even relevant.
  
• I have now answered your question twice, in two different ways: (a) the long answer (complete with commentary to support my argument) and (b) the short answer (executive summary.)

So there you have it. Feel free to disagree; it's no skin of my nose.

Next time, try to realise that it's not always possible to explain a passage of Scripture (particularly one which turns upon a somewhat obscure piece of legislation in the Law of Moses) in a few short sentences.

yguy

The KJV says the daughters of Israel "went yearly to lament...", not "talk to" her. Why is your translation more credible than that of the KJV?