The phrase “cut off from” in the Old Testament

 There it was again, in Proverbs 2:22: “But the wicked shall be cut off”, in this case, cut off from the earth.  Other verses in the Bible say things like “from among this people” , or just “cut off”.  So what does it mean?

From https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1946/what-does-the-old-testament-phrase-cut-off-from-their-people-mean

we find this answer, which is rather interesting.

“according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareth:

The Hebrew term kareth ("cutting off" Hebrew: כָּרֵת‎, [kaˈret]) is a form of punishment for sin ... In the Talmud, kareth means not necessarily physical "cutting off" of life, but extinction of the soul and denial of a share in the world to come. ... 

In the Hebrew Bible, kareth is a form of punishment which may mean premature death, or else exclusion from the people.[3][4] According to Richard C. Steiner, the phrase "to be cut off from one's people" is an antonym for "to be gathered to one's people" (e.g. Genesis 25:8), and thus kareth in the Bible means to be deprived of the afterlife.[5]
Examples of sins making a person liable to kareth include eating chametz on Passover,[6] sexual violations,[7] ritual impurities, and a man's refusal to be circumcised.[8] The Book of Numbers states that anyone who sins deliberately or high-handedly receives kareth.

Rabbinic interpretation:

Kareth is the punishment for certain crimes and offences defined under Jewish law (e.g. eating the life blood of a living animal, eating suet, refusing to be circumcised, etc.), a punishment that can only be given at the hand of heaven unto persons of the Jewish faith who are bound to keep the Jewish law, rather than made punishable by any earthly court. In some cases of sexual misconduct and in breaking the laws of the Sabbath, such as where there are witnesses of the act, the court is able to inflict punishment. By definition, kareth does not apply to non-Jews. Kareth can either mean dying young (before the age of 50 or 60[10]), dying without children, or the soul being spiritually "cut off" from your people after death.[11] According to Nachmanides, both definitions are accurate.

You can look up the footnotes on that website.

One thing that intrigues me in that definition is the possible definition of  “being spiritually cut off from your people after death”.  In an LDS perspective that might be seen as a reference to the division between prison and paradise in the post mortal/pre-resurrection life, or to the (grossly oversimplified) understanding of post-resurrection life.  I tend to think it fits better with what the scriptures say about the former than what they say about the latter.  

This phrase, “cut off” comes up in Leviticus a number of times when a particular sin is mentioned, with the immediately following verse stating that sin is punishable by death. Some tend to think that this means that being “cut off” means being killed.  I tend, rather, to think that they are two separate consequences, not the same consequence being stated twice.  The Rabbinic interpretation seems to support that; referring to being “cut off”  as a consequence that comes from heavenly action or the eternal power of God, not a physical consequence carried out by humans on earth who are trying to carry out His will in regards to consequences on earth.

C.S. Lewis, in one of his books, portrayed the misery of hell not as a fire and brimstone suffering, but instead as an existence typified by one’s antipathy, anger, bitterness, resentment, and one’s self-justfication for sin, which caused one to isolate oneself further and further (both physically and relationship-wise) from others and from God.  It strikes me as something to consider as a possible example of the essence of what the biblical references to “being cut off” might be referring to in the eternal scheme of things.

Psalm 61 So will I sing praise unto thy name for ever, that I may daily perform my vows.

 A relationship between my praising God and my ability to daily remember and keep the covenants I have made with God?

In my religious culture we speak of and practice thanking God, and petitioning God, and confiding in God, and confessing to God in our prayers.  But we tend to relegate our praising Him to our hymn singing:

“Oh God our Help in Ages Past…”  “I Stand All Amazed…”  “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow”

And realize, thinking about it, that when I think about praise in prayer I tend to remember expansive public prayers by evangelical friends, or quiet recitation by Catholic friends, or the strong words of the Imam I listened to in the local Mosque, but I cannot remember the last time I heard a member of my faith praise God in prayer;  humble, faithful, loving, trusting, petitioning, thankful prayers? yes.  prayers of praise?  not so much.

Why?  Perhaps it is because the perceived boisterousness or high energy of evangelical praise does not fit the tenor of the prayer we are trying to pray, or the solemnity and tradition of the quiet more formal Catholic prayer seems too different, or the declarations of the Imam seem too unfamiliar for us to incorporate into our own prayers. Or perhaps it is because we cannot find in our vocabulary words that express our  awe and understanding of the nature of our God. But that should not preclude us from praising in prayer.  Particularly since there are so many admonitions in the scriptures to “praise the Lord”.

What I am finding is that yes, when I praise God in prayer, I am fully and uncomfortably aware that the words I use, no matter how carefully and respectfully chosen are woefully inadequate.  And I don’t like that feeling.  

On the other hand, when I do try to praise him in prayer, verbally or just with my heart because words are so inadequate, and do so before I speak to him of the help I seek for others or myself, or of the good I want to do that day, (acknowledging consciously or subconsciously, in that process, the covenants that I want to keep that cause me to seek to do effectuate and do good), my power to keep those covenants and do that good is increased.  My confidence to be able to do and work for good actually increases as I articulate the power and majesty and amazing grace of my God to whom I am both expressing thanks and petitioning for assistance.

It seems that there is something about praising God in prayer that reminds me of the nature of God and of His ready, willing (full of grace) inclination to help.  And that increases my hope and faith as I move forward, which in turn opens my mind to more communication from Him; extra bits of holy determination and vision that empower me to live, more consistently, the covenants (vows) I have made.

When I Am Tempted to Think Highly of My Own Enlightened Insights: Miriam and Aaron and Numbers chapter 12

"When we have spiritual ego[tism] we have an over inflated sense of our own spiritual ability and understanding. We begin to think that we are somehow unique, that God has told us or given us something that others don't have....We don't ask questions sincerely desiring an answer or direction. Instead we ask a question, already thinking that we know what the answer should be. The problem is that, when the answer comes and it isn't what you were expecting, it can be really hard to humble yourself and accept [it].

"In Numbers 12 it tells how Miriam, and her brother Aaron,  both spoke out publicly against Moses for his marriage of an Ethiopian woman. This Ethiopian woman has a fascinating story...and there are several possible reasons for why Miriam and Aaron confronted him about her. I won't go into all of them in this post, but suffice it to say that the real issue wasn't his marriage but deeper doubts that Miriam and Aaron had about his role as the prophet and his ability to receive revelation from God.

"Miriam and Aaron had both been blessed with spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of prophecy. In fact, Miriam's gift was so powerful that she was known as "the prophetess".  She had the ability to speak with power and with authority. So when Moses did and taught something that she didn't like she questioned his ability to receive revelation, saying, "Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?" (Numbers 12:2)"

You can read the rest of Heather Farrell's essay on  Miriam here:  http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2014/09/miriam-leprosy-and-bad-case-of.html

What is this, thou hast done?

I have learned that clearly articulating past events is essential to my ability to repent, to forgive and to move forward

If I do not write down or speak my innocent mistakes as well as my on-purpose sins, I do not face them.  I may try to make myself believe that simply my cognizance of them is sufficient to be a true catalyst for change, but, I have learned that for me such is insufficient.  By not speaking them I can pretend that they are taken care of, or not important, or sufficiently addressed.  But in reality  I must fully face them and speak them in order to truly learn and make the necessary changes in my life and move on to a better way of living.

If I do not articulate the sins against me, I do not know them well enough to fully forgive them.  I may try to make myself believe that because I choose not to dwell on them, I have forgiven and that is enough. But I have learned that I must fully write or speak them in order to see the damage they did as well as see them for what they are and what they are not.  And it is only when I see them fully that I can begin to fully forgive those who sinned and hand that pain up to God.

I am not always ready to articulate either of those.  It takes honesty and courage and vulnerability, more, sometimes, than I have at the time.  But with time and distance, persistence, and faith in Christ's love and willingness to take me under his wing, I can arrive there as needed.

Which gives me a new perspective on God's questions to Adam and Eve, "Who told thee?",  "Hast thou...?",  and "What is this thou hast done?"

Painting by Lucas Cranach der Altere, 1472-1553

God obviously already knew what had happened and what they had done.  Why, then, would He ask?  I believe it is because He already knew something that I have learned, that articulating a past action is a crucial step towards learning and change.  And certainly both Adam and Eve were facing an imminent need to be prepared for both.  Giving them the opportunity to articulate what had happened and what they had done was a blessing.

And if God was asking the question with the intent of assisting them to be better prepared for the changes that were coming, I believe also that the words he spoke about briars and thistles and sweat and sorrow and childbearing were not words of cursing or punishment, but rather words of instruction (severely edited in the extant versions) and education, preparing them for the changes that would occur in their newly telestial world (as he said, "for thy sake", facilitating their future growth) as well.

Abimelech, Genesis 20, Noble Generosity of Spirit in the Face of Dismay

"Abraham Receives Sarah from Abimelech", by Nicolaes Pieterszoon Berchem (1620-1683)

In Genesis 20, Abraham tells an untruth and, believing that what Abraham said is accurate, Abimelech acts upon that information. And then God comes to Abimelech in a dream and explains that the information is not true.

Abimelech's Response When a Prophet Says Something That is Not True

He does not lose faith. However he understands that the prophet has said something that is not true and that if he had acted upon that untruth doing so would have caused himself to sin. So he chooses not to act upon it.

It is notable that Abimelech comes to recognize the error after God comes to him in a dream. This determination is not just something that he just assumed based upon his own personal experience. His understanding comes from personal revelation.

Even if the prophet had continued to declare the falsehood he personally would not have lived as though it were truth. He would choose to act according to the personal revelation that he had received.

He was dismayed by the prophet's pronouncing something untrue, but not dismissive or rejecting. He does not accuse. He does, however, seek an explanation.  

When the explanation is revealed and it becomes apparent that there isn't even an inspired reason, but that the prophet has based his declaration upon false assumptions Abimelech treats Abraham generously and hospitably in spite of those false assumptions and the lie and, even more impressive, he values the prophet's subsequent prayers on his behalf.

This is a classic example of a noble and appropriate response of a well-intentioned imperfect, good person to a well-intentioned, good,and imperfect prophet (or other ecclesiastical leader).when an erroneous statement by the latter is perceived by the former, by divine revelation, to be damagingly wrong.

Abimelech calls it like he sees it without malice or faith crisis, seeks to understand why the untruth was stated, recognizes the sin that he might have been led to commit if he had assumed that the information was correct, and avoids committing that sin. And he is generous to the prophet and willing to continue to work with him in spite of the prophet's error and he welcomes the prophet's prayers on his behalf.

This is kindness, truth, calm and brotherhood amidst the initial dismay and recognition of error.

In this case that is particularly impressive because the erroneous assumptions Abraham made which led to the lie were about Abimelech himself, something that in most cases would serve to exponentially increase the sense of offence.

Abimelech's response to Abraham is sober and serious but it does not cause him to reject Abraham's prophetic mantle. And his response to his recognition of prophetic error is, ultimately, the moral high ground of kindness, generosity, and hospitality in spite of the error made as well as continued, realistic, appreciation for God's continued calling for Abraham and continued seeking to work with him, rather than against him.  (See Genesis 21)

The passage in Genesis 20 refers to God telling Abimelech that Abraham will pray for him after Sarah is returned to her home.  And it is clear that those prayers are healing for Abimelech and his household.  I have a feeling that after all of this revelation and discussion that Abimelech probably prayed for Abraham too.

In the ensuing months and years both ruler and prophet would benefit from each other's prayers, dignity and desire to do right in spite of Abraham's failure to always do it perfectly then and Abimelech's failure to do it perfectly (he failed to be aware enough of the misdeeds of his bullying servants at a later date) in the future.

Peaches and Walnuts: An allegory

Luke heard about the new high tech company, “Peach”, that was starting up.  He was among those invited to organizational meetings and the business outlined there and the groundwork already laid was exciting to him.  The potential for great success was evident and the market demand for the product, a new device with huge potential in the education market was going to be amazing.  Not only that, he knew the president of this new start up.  He was known for treating his employees well, sponsoring their further education, allowing much room for their creativity and offering excellent profit-sharing plans.  

He was thrilled at the prospect.  He knew that he had found his dream job: CEO of this new start up.  He loved organizing grand projects.  He loved the feeling that comes from successfully effectuating an outstanding business plan.  He loved the feeling that comes from being the mover and shaker, the MVP as it were, in a business.  He let the president of Peach know that he would be interested in having his resume added to the ones being considered for the position of CEO.

Accordingly his resume was considered and he went through the interview process.  His application made it all the way to the final group of candidates.  But, ultimately, he was not offered the job.

Luke was deeply disappointed but he was undaunted.  He still dreamed of being the mover and shaker in this new business.  He purchased stock in the new company and began attending stockholders meetings.  He wrote to and canvassed the other stockholders, outlining concerns about the business plan most recently outlined by the president of the company and urging that they join him in voting in new members of the board of directors, men and women who he knew would put pressure on the company to hire him on as CEO, or at least, COO.  He was intelligent and persuasive.  Peach was forced to mount a major campaign to contradict the inaccurate information Luke disseminated.   In spite of that, many stockholders responded positively to Luke’s efforts and at the next stockholders meeting wrote in the names of the people he proposed for the board during the voting.  Unfortunately for Luke, however, they were not a majority.

Luke’s application had been rejected and his efforts to gain what he desired through persuasion and campaign had failed.  He was not daunted.  He decided to try embedding himself and his influence in the company.

The company’s new product, the “Peach”, was being released to selected markets.  Luke headed to the company’s New Jersey regional offices, a new market where the Peach had not yet been released but where he knew it would be in great demand.  That office was under the direction of two young recent business school graduates who were setting up the office and awaiting further instructions and training before directing the release of the Peach in the New York/New Jersey market.  

Luke presented himself at that office as the son of the president of Peach and mentioned that he had attended the same university as the two regional managers as an undergraduate himself and that he actually remembered meeting them briefly at a Phi Kappa Phi banquet there.  Over the next few days, by spending hours and hours in their offices making himself helpful and engaging and employing his excellent skills at management and some very clever half-truths he was able to persuade those two young regional managers that the Peach needed to be released under his direction.  Luke was placing his money on the belief that an excellent execution of an important market release would prove to the company how vital and important his skill set and involvement would be to Peach.

The Peach was released in that market with far reaching and ultimately profound and positive effect.  However, to his great disappointment, the president of Peach, rather than being impressed or pleased was the opposite.  He arrived at the regional offices in person, ordered Luke out of them and the two young regional managers were sent off to be store managers in small towns in Nevada where they subsequently spent years training endless numbers of young transient employees and updating their knowledge at regional training seminars, being recognized and supported and eventually promoted as all good employees at Peach are, grateful that they had not been fired.  (Peach really is a good company to work for.)

Nursing his hurt pride and his disappointment over his expulsion from the regional office, Luke took some pride in the fact that he had, in his opinion, been the author of the release of the Peach in that regional market and that its release had, indeed,  drastically affected and improved education and learning in that market.  The Peach quickly became an essential component of education that was in great demand and rapidly became “the only game in town.”

Luke liked the idea that the highly successful release he had masterminded had been his brain child and had thoroughly cowed any competitors.  That sense of control and success was awesome.  He wanted to experience it again.

He flew to Nevada to see if he could enlist the cooperation of the two young managers that he had worked with in New Jersey, but, understandably, they didn’t trust him and refused.

He reviewed his options.  He’d applied for a top position at Peach and had not been hired.  He’d tried political maneuvering to get that position and had failed.  And he’d tried moving in uninvited and, though the success of those efforts had been thrilling they had been short-lived, and he was pretty sure he had permanently alienated the president of the company.  He’d been told in no uncertain terms that he was to stay out of company affairs.

That, he decided, was the clue for his next plan of action.  If he wanted to experience the heady aura of being the admired force behind a successful venture, and he couldn’t do in Peach, he'd do it out of Peach.  Even better, he’d do it against Peach.  He’d launch a competitor.

His new company, “Walnut”, made a huge splash when it launched its new device.  Shinier and faster than the Peach, with louder volume and more sparkles and a harder shell, it also was less expensive.  The cost cutting done to reduce the price resulted in the Walnut being less well made than the Peach; (the calculator app on it often malfunctioned and the device had a tendency to explode after a few years of use) but Luke’s degree in communication and his years of debate team championship and his business degree and experience made his direction of the advertising wildly successful.  There have also been campaigns that mail users coupons for prizes simply for logging certain numbers of hours on the devices that have kept sales strong.  Soon the Walnut was giving the Peach a run for its money.

Luke still runs Walnut.  And the Walnuts are still less expensive than the Peaches and sell well and they still, unfortunately, have that calculator glitch and they still explode.  But they are, incontrovertibly, an exciting device to own and use.

Luke’s resentment about his experience with Peach and the thrill he gets from running a successful company that is totally under his control keep him energized and focused.  Each time he recruits an employee away from Peach his sense of victory is sky high.  Each Walnut he sells is a personal dig at Peach and a reason to celebrate.  (One of his favorite stories to tell is that of the teenage son of one of those two Nevada store managers who used his birthday money to buy a Walnut.)  His dream is control of the market, reducing Peach’s market share to as close to zero as he can, showing Peach its mistake in not hiring him, that he really is the best man to run a company.

Peach and Walnut are still both powerhouses in the marketplace.  Walnut’s stock sells well these days.  Fortunes have been made with it.  

Walnut’s employees give the company mixed reviews.  Luke throws fabulous employee parties but his use of pyramid schemes in the company sales department leaves some employees unhappy.  The health benefits and retirement plans offered are not great.  And some complain that the organization is too top-down and controlling.  But the parties are amazing, often including cruises, and are geared to fostering company pride and camaraderie.  And they do that well.  Luke knows they keep his employees thinking twice before looking somewhere else for work.  When one actually does so, his co-workers generally think he’s foolish to leave.

So Luke lives on, working to live his dream of being the essential, irreplaceable leader, the mover and shaker who totally dominates the market, whose product is in great demand, and who is unquestionably the one who deserves and receives the credit for it.  It’s heady stuff.

Would he go back to Peach if he was offered the CEO position there now?

No, not likely.  He feels like the track he’s on is more likely to give him what he seeks than Peach would and he enjoys the management style that he employs at Walnut, which he knows would be resisted strongly at Peach.

And, of course, the longer you compete against another company the less you wish to be employed by it.  The blow to one’s pride would be nearly unbearable.

Buy out Peach with a hostile takeover?  That would be awesome, thinks Luke, but, unlike when he first started this journey, he’d never want to be employed there.

Luke may not be completely happy.  The rejection at Peach still sticks in his craw and he personally despises the president of Peach for that.  But the thrill of the battle and the sense of control and essentialness that he’s created for himself at Walnut are awesome.  He intends to stay the course.

Jephtha and his Daughter

In the last two hundred years there have been multiple scholarly responses to the story of Jephtha and his daughter found in the book of Judges.  In a nutshell, Jephtha, was a military leader among the Israelites in a period of time when they, "again did what was evil in the eyes of God...they abandoned God and did not worship him. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites ..." (Judges 10:6-7).

Jephthah lived in Tob, east of Gilead where he, "there gathered around him some worthless ["empty"] men, and they went out with him." (Judges 11:3) The elders of Gilead asked him to be their leader in the campaign against the Ammonites, but he held out for a more permanent and a broader position, and the elders agreed that, provided Jephthah succeeded in defeating Ammon, he would be their commander permanently. So, Jephthah challenged the Ammonites and after the campaign began to be successful and the Lord began to help him, he made an oath:

"Whatever/whoever emerges and comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be God’s, and I shall sacrifice him/her/it as a burnt offering

The victorious Jephthah was met on his return by his daughter, his only child. Jephthah tore his clothes and cried, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low!" but is bound by his vow: "I have given my word to God, and I cannot go back on it" (Judges 11:35). The girl asks for two months' grace, "... that I may go down on the mountains ... and bewail my virginity" (Judges 11:37). And then Jephthah "carried out his vow with her which he had vowed" (Judges 11:39). The story ends by recounting how "the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite" (Judges 11:40).

Contrary to popular understanding of many modern Christians of the inerrancy of the Bible, the accuracy of the Bible translations was frequently doubted by believing scholars in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.  The most well known of these might be Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) perhaps the leading English Old Testament scholar of the period, who agreed with the deists, such as Voltaire who used the story of Jephtha as a catalyst for their arguments against the veracity of the Bible, that the Hebrew text was corrupt and unreliable, although he and the deists drew different conclusions from this shared realization.  His decades of work in collecting, translating and comparing ancient biblical texts to compare with modern translations was legend.

Scholars of the Christian tradition, both believers, and unbelievers, (as well as Jewish ones before them) have debated this story of Jephtha for centuries, mostly centering their arguments on the etymology and translation of the text.  Some declared that Jephtha actually sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.  Others disagreed.   For example, there was much debate in the 17^th and 18^th centuries on what should be the translation of verse 31: “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 as a burnt offering.”

One key to the scholarly, believing revisionist reading was that “and” (in “and I will offer it up”) could be translated as“or.” Robert Jenkin (1656–1727) who was a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, for instance, wrote that, “it is well known” that the word “which they translate and in the Text, often signifies or.”

Addressing the problem of why, if Jephtha’s daughter had not been killed, it should have become the custom to “lament” her, Jenkin suggests a better translation than “lament” would be “to rehearse or speak”: “From whence it has been supposed, that she was not put to Death, but was obliged to live in a State of Virginity and Solitude.”  She would have been required to live the life of a Nazarite.

Samuel Humphreys, similarly arguing against the sacrifice in "Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament" (pub. 1735–39), also suggests that “or” is a better translation than “and” in verse 31 and criticizes the Vulgate’s reading “whoever” as inferior to the King James’s “whatsoever.”

Humphreys concludes that if the creature greeting Jephtha is human, “he or she shall be consecrated to the service of God as some sort of Nazarites were; or if it prove a beast, it shall be offered up for a burnt-offering.”

Whichever translation is most accurate, however, and whatever the ultimate fate of Jephtha’s daughter, the story still feels problematic to many readers.  As a teenager, in my first encounter with the book of Judges my response was “What!!??”   What was I supposed to make of this book full of stories of people who were ostensibly of God’s chosen house of Israel but who continually undertook, what seemed to me at best, stupid, and at worst, depraved actions.  In the years of Sunday school and seminary that followed I heard Jephtha held up as an example of the virtue of being willing to sacrifice anything to the Lord as well as the explanations brought forth about mistranslations, stating that his daughter bewailed her virginity because she was about to commence a life of nazarite vows.  The former sounded barbaric and the latter like a senseless imposition of submissive though misguided obedience to parental authority.  Neither sounded like an example of enlightened Godly life to me.

I have come, however, to believe that the book of Judges is best approached as a fine example of what can happen to people in a culture that has a history of belief in God, but who have lost their sense of a direct connection to God and for whom their religious orientation has become, at most, a part of their tradition and culture (and in some cases, see the last couple of chapters for example, is totally abandoned), instead of a breathing, living, daily communication with God.  The stories of Samson, Gideon, and Jephtha all contain examples of this slide into a sense of God as a formula or tradition or a force to make bargains with instead of a divine, loving, intimate, personal daily guide.  As such it is good to look at elements in the story of Jephtha one by one and then look at our own modern culture and relationship with God to see if we find parallels to be wary of.

First, Jephtha’s desire for a powerful position.   The man is asked to assist in the war against the Ammonites.  He refuses, holding out for a more permanent position of power beyond the immediate task at hand before he will join in the war.  His interest is not in the completion of the task being asked of him, but instead in the power and career it will afford him if he participates.  My question:  what are my motives when deciding whether or not to assist in an undertaking?

Second, having procured a conditional bargain with the elders of Gilead (“if you are successful, then we will give you the position you want’) he is willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to be successful.  My question: am I making the mistake of becoming the sort of person who will sacrifice anything, no matter what, in order to become “successful” in the eyes of those in power or those who will determine the course of my career?

Third, the Lord inspires Jephtha once he undertakes the work (yes, God does help further causes even when the leaders thereof are stupid) (vs. 29) and Jeptha’s response is not humilty or gratitude, but rather, bargain-making.  My question:  Do I fail to recognize God as a loving, daily, helpful, awe-inspiring guide, but instead see him as another political ally that I can make intermittant powerful contractual bargains with in order to achieve the good things that I want to have happen?

Fourth, once Jephtha makes an oath, he keeps it even when he discovers that doing so will be destructive.  We see this sometimes masquerading in modern culture as “honor”.  My question: When I make a promise and I later discover that it would be destructive to keep it, does my traditional sense of pride and “honor” prevent me from being humble enough to admit my mistake and do what is kindest and best?  Does my sense of pride and honor take precidence over my commitment to charity and justice?  Does it prevent me from communicating with God about making a change in my declared course of action?

Fifth, (and I realize that some will take issue with this, because it concerns the victim in this case and the phrase in question can have layered meanings) when Jephtha’s daughter realizes that she faces being sacrificed (either literally killed or given over to a Nazarite life) and that there is no recourse for her, the focus of her mourning is her virginity. I guess that this part of the story particularly jumps out at me because of the increasing and erroneous notion expressed in media for young people that, of all things that it would be tragic to die (or to live) without experiencing, the most tragic would be to not have experienced sex.  My question: If I were facing a medical diagnosis with a short estimated time of life left, or if I came to realize that I would be single all of my life, what would I mourn not having the opportunity to do?   Would my sorrow be selfish or selfless?  And would my faith in the recompense and mercy of God carry me through that sorrow?  

Sixth, if we assume the interpretation that Jephtha did in fact sacrifice his daughter we realize that he has offered a sacrifice that is, according to the descriptions given by God, repugnant to God.  God’s descriptions of acceptable sacrifice are very clear in the book of Leviticus.  Human sacrifice of one’s children was forbidden.  Sacrifice of one’s child was, on the other hand, a type of sacrifice that was acceptable in the worship of the god Moloch, a Caananite god worshiped at the time.  Thus we find that Jephtha has dictated the bounds of the sacrifice he will make, using parameters set forth in an aspect of society that does not worship God, instead of following the direction of the Lord as to what an acceptable sacrifice is.   My question:  How often do I determine what is acceptable to the Lord by looking to what the society around me sees as most noble or heroic, rather than seeking to find what the Lord asks of me?

Whatever interpretation of the story of Jephtha and his daughter one takes as most accurate, the questions are good to ask.


Bibliography:
The Holy Bible KJV
Susan Staves, "Jephtha's Vow Reconsidered", Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp 651-669, University of California Press 2008.

"And the Lord hath performed his word..."

"Whatever good we do, we must look upon it as the performance of God's promise to us, rather than the performance of our promises to him.  The more we do for God the more we are indebted to him; for our sufficiency is of him and not of ourselves."

~Matthew Henry (1662-1714) commentary on 1st Kings, 8:20