Turned up about a small hot accident 23Dec85 bonds leash value. Remains one of the finest treatments extant. A must for the expositor. And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail virginity, I and fellows Judges 11 Then he said, Go. he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. Judges 11 And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a Thus it became a custom did with That Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, but consecrated her to the service of God the tabernacle, a state of celibacy, we imagine be evident from the following consideration:--1. Human sacrifices were ever abomination to Jehovah, of which Jephthah could not be ignorant; and consequently he would neither have made such a vow, nor carried it into execution. 2. We are expressly told that Jephthah was under the influence of the Spirit of God, which would effectually prevent him from embruing his hands the blood of his own child. 3. He had it his power to redeem his daughter, and surely his only child must have been of more value than thirty shekles. 4. Besides, who was to perform the horrid rite? Not Jephthah himself, who was no priest, and whom it would have been most unnatural and inhuman; and the priests would certainly have dissuaded him from it. 5. The sacred historian informs us, that she bewailed her virginity, that she knew no and that the Israelitish women went yearly to comfort or lament with her. Jdg 11 Lev 27,29 Dt 12 66 view of the divine commands the Mosaic law against human sacrifice a question has been raised about Jephthah's action here. As discussed above, there is debate as to what he actually did. Those who think that he slew his daughter no divine approval of the act, but rather attribute it to his rash vow. Others do not believe that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, but that he set her apart to perpetual virginity. The latter view emphasizes the unusual expression be the LORD's, and the stress upon virginity instead of death Inrig points out the real tragedy was Jephthah's ignorance of the Word of God even at this point, Jephthah's ignorance was pernicious. He could not take back his vow. He was committed before God. But there were other options. First, he could have ignored the vow and taken the consequences on himself, making himself the victim of his own folly. Or, more appropriately, he could have carried it out biblically. You God had clearly spelled out a solution to Jephthah's problem Leviticus 27. It explains that when a person is committed to the Lord, that person's life can be redeemed by the payment of a certain amount of money. If only Jephthah had known God's Word, if only someone had taught him God's Word, his daughter need never have died! He could have paid the ransom price and spared her. One Jewish commentary on Judges tells us that the reason they held the annual mourning for Jephthah's daughter was order that none should make his or daughter a burnt offering, as Jephthah did, and did not consult Phineas the priest. Had he done he would have redeemed her with money. Do you how devastating ignorance of the Word of God is? Jephthah's daughter died because he did not know the Word of God. Our ignorance not have such tragic consequences, but there be tragic consequences. Ignorance of God is the greatest ignorance of all. Bush Did with her according to his vow. Heb. ויעש לה את נדרו vayaas lâh eth nidro, did to her his vow. The original, if we mistake not, affords some more latitude of construction, respect to the mode of executing the vow, than is allowed by our present rendering. According to the latter, we are required to believe that he adhered to the very letter of the vow, and actually offered her as a burnt offering, which we have endeavored to show is the unforced legitimate sense of the vow itself. According to the former, which is more general and indefinite, we are not, we conceive, absolutely shut up to the adoption of this sense. The phrase, ‘he did to her his vow,' strikes us as not specifying the precise manner which the vow was performed, but as leaving us at provided the exigency of the case requires it, to understand the writer as saying, that he did to her what was equivalent to his original vow, what was accepted lieu of it, instead of the identical thing which the vow contemplated. The verisimilitude of this rendering be just proportion to the probability, derived from other sources, that he did not actually put his daughter to death; that the interval of the two months' respite which she besought, he had come to a different view of the demands of duty the case, the amount of which was, a clear conviction