Typical history of Joshua through Samuel: Four OT books typify first and second advents of Christ, and our duties:

• Joshua: First work of “Joshua/Jesus”: making it possible for others to enter Land of promise: Josh 24:31; typical of Heb 2:14; Eph 1:11.

• Judges: No visible king, wicked society, failure of many.

• Ruth: A small remnant (both Jew and Gentile) remain faithful in the midst of wickedness and indifference.

• Samuel: “David” establishes kingdom at Jerusalem: Typical of 2nd coming, judgment, reward, reign of Christ and saints: Rev 5:9,10.

There is one thing which makes the study of prophecy of such immense practical importance. It is, that we shall be on earth when God’s judgments are executed.

Our scriptural hope is to be caught up to meet the Lord, and so to come with him when he comes to execute judgment on the wicked. But we are surrounded by those principles, influences, and systems, which are ripening to that maturity of evil which mankind will reach before those judgments come. God will judge them at the coming of Christ when they are fully ripe.

But has acquaintance with these subjects no tendency to keep us apart from such evils now? Surely it has; and that we might be so sanctified, or kept apart from evil, is one object God has in view in revealing these things to us.

It is not by exciting applications of prophecy to passing events that true edification is secured. The natural mind may feel the deepest interest in prophetic inquiries conducted in this way; but Scripture was not designed merely to instruct us as to what transpires in the arena of political factions, or to occupy our souls with such subjects. “Our citizenship is in the heavens.” “Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth.” It is not with such contentions that God’s revelation of the future concerns itself.

It forewarns us, in general terms, that wars and rumors of wars may be expected, till the scepter of universal dominion shall be wielded by the Prince of peace. But it is God’s judgment, and the approaching climax of iniquity which renders it inevitable, about which prophecy instructs us.

And even as to this, it is because the church will be on earth, amid the desolations of the crisis which is so rapidly approaching, that she receives those revelations respecting it. The church is thus enabled morally and spiritually to judge those things now, which in their maturity of evil God will judge by the righteous retributions of His wrath.

There are three very distinct spheres on which the judgments will fall when the Lord cometh out of his place “to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity”: Israel, the nations, and professing Christendom.

If we are to understand why judgment comes upon Israel, we must know what Israel’s calling and testimony is, and how it has failed therein.

If we are to discern the grounds of God’s righteous judgment upon the Gentile nations, we must be acquainted with His past and present dealings with them, and with their conduct under their special responsibilities.

So also, to understand the guilt of professing Christendom, we must know what the calling of the true church is, what is its testimony, and in what respects Christendom, while assuming the place and claiming the responsibilities of the church, has acted contrary thereto.

There are solemn subjects of inquiry. May our hearts be prepared for them. Much that is brighter remains beyond.

John Thomas (1805-1871)

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF PETER,

TO ALL PREACHERS AND RULERS OF CONGREGATIONS, A Looking Glass for the Clergy.

One of the best proofs that a prophecy is what it purports to be, is its exact fulfilment. If this rule be adopted in relation to the “Third Epistle of Peter,” there can be no doubt that it was written in the true spirit of prophecy. We thought it worthy of being preserved, and have therefore given it a place in this work.

PREFACE.

How the following epistle came to be overlooked by the early saints of christendom and by all the Fathers, or whether it was purposely suppressed by the Council of Nice, and why it was at last destined to be found with other old mss among the ruins of an ancient city by a miserable wandering monk, are all circumstances which my limited knowledge of these subjects does not enable me to explain. I am answerable only for the accuracy of the translation from a French copy presented by the monk himself. Neither can I prove the authenticity of the original, unless it be on the strict correspondence of the actual state of the church with the injunctions contained in the epistle, a correspondence which seems to hold with as much veracity as that which is found in the fulfilment of any prophecy with the prediction itself.

TRANSLATION.

CHAPTER 1. The Style and Manner of Living.

Now ye who are called and chosen to go forth to all nations and among all people, in time present and time to come, to preach the word, see ye take unto ourselves marks, nay many outward marks, whereby ye shall be known of men.

Be ye not called as men are called; but be ye called Pope, Archbishop, Archdeacon, or Divine, or Reverend and Right Reverend or some like holy name; so may you show forth your honor and your calling.

And let your dwelling places be houses of splendor and edifices of cost; and let your doors be decked with plates of brass and let your names, even your reverend titles be graven thereon; so shall it be as a sign.

Let your garments in which you minister be garments not as the garments of men, neither let them be “seamless garments woven throughout,” but let them be robes of richest silk and robes of fine linen, of curious device and of costly workmanship; and have ye robes of black and robes of white that ye may change the one for the other; so shall ye show forth wisdom and humility.

Let your fare be sumptuous, not plain and frugal as the fare of the husbandman who tilleth the ground; but live ye on the fat of the land, taking “good heed for the morrow and wherewithal ye shall be fed.”

And drink ye of the wines of the vintage brought from afar, and wines of great price; then shall the light of your spirits be the light of your countenances, and your faces shall be bright, even as the morning sun shall your faces glow in brightness thus shall ye show forth your moderation and your temperance in all things.

Let the houses in which you preach be called churches, and let them be built in manner of great ornament without, and adorned with much cost within: with rich pillars and paints, and with fine altars and pedestals and urns of precious stones, and cloths and velvet of scarlet, and vessels of silver.

And let there be rooms for the changing of robes, and places for the precious metals and mitres.

And let the houses be divided into seats for the congregation, and let every man know his own seat; and let the first seats in front of the altar be for the rich that pay by thousands, and the next for the poorer that pay by hundreds; and the last for those that pay by tens. And let the poor man sit behind the door.

And let the seats be garnished with cushings and crimson cloth, and with fine velvet; for if the houses of players and vain people who deal in idle sayings and shows of mockery, be rich and gorgeous, how much more so should be the houses that are dedicated to him “that is meek and lowly of spirit.”

CHAPTER 2. The Choosing of Ministers.

When ye go out to choose holy ones to be of your brethren, and to minister at the altar, choose ye from among the youth, even those whose judgments are not yet ripe, and whose hearts know not yet whether they incline to God or Mammon.

But ye are wise, and ye shall know the inclining of their future spirits, and ye shall make them incline to the good things which the church hath in store for them that are called, even those that shall be called of you.

Then shall ye have them taught exceeding many things. They shall not be as “ignorant fishermen,” or husbandmen, or men speaking one tongue, and serving God only by the knowledge of this law.

Nay, ye shall make them wise in the things of your wisdom; yea exceedingly cunning in many mysteries, even the mysteries which you teach.

Then shall they be fitted for the “laying on of hands”, and when the bishop hath done his office then shall they be reverend divines.

But if any man believe that he is called of God to speak to his brethren “without money and without price,” though his soul be bowed to the will of the Father, and though he work all righteousness, and “speak as with the tongue of an angel” — if he be not made a Divine by your rulers and by the hands of a bishop, then is he not a divine, nor shall he preach.

He that is chosen of you shall give you honor, and shall be honored of men, and honored of women; and verily he expects his reward.

CHAPTER 3. The Performance of Preaching.

When ye go to the church to preach, go not by the retired way where go those that would shun the crowd, but go in the highway where go the multitude, and see that ye have on the robes of black, and take heed that your pace be measured well, and that your march be stately.

Then shall your “hearts be lifted up,” even as the hearts of mighty men shall they be lifted up. And ye shall be gazed upon by the multitude, and they shall honor you; and the men shall praise you, and the women shall glorify you, even by the women shall ye be glorified.

And when you go in, go not as the ordained, prepared only with a soul to God and with a heart to men, and a spirit filled with the Holy Ghost; but go ye with your pockets full of papers and full of divine words: even in your pockets shall your divinity be.

And let your sermon be full of “the enticing words of man’s wisdom,” and let it be beautiful with just divisions, with tropes, and with metaphors, and with hyperbole, and apostrophe, and with interrogation, and with acclamation, and with syllogisms, and with sophisms, and throughout let declamation be.

And take good heed to your attitudes and your gestures, knowing when to bend and when to erect, when to lift your right hand and when your left, and let your motions be graceful, even in your attitudes and in your gestures let your grace be. Thus shall ye be pleasing in the eyes of the people and graceful in their sight.

Let your voice at times be smooth as the stream of the valley and soft as the breeze that waves not the bough on its bank; and at times let it swell like the wave of the ocean, or like the whirlwind on the mountain top.

Then shall ye charm the ears of your hearers and their hearts shall be softened, and their minds shall be astounded, and their souls shall incline unto you; and the men shall incline unto you, and likewise the women; yea unto your sayings and unto your persons shall they be inclined.

And be ye mindful not to offend the people; rebuke ye not their sins; but when ye rebuke sin, rebuke it at a distance: and let no man apply your sayings to his own case; so shall he not he offended.

If a brother shall raise up the banner of war against a brother, and christians against christians, rebuke them not; but he some of you on the one side and some on the other; and tell the one host that God is on their side, and the other host that he is on their side; so make them bold to kill. And even among swords and lancets let your black robes be seen.

Preach ye not “Peace on earth and good will to men,” but preach ye glory to the victor and victory to the brave.

If any man go into a foreign land and seize upon his fellow man, across the great deep into bondage; nay, if he tear asunder the dearest ties of nature, the tenderest leagues of the human heart, if he tear the wife from the husband, and force the struggling infant from its mother’s bleeding breast, rebuke him not!

And although he sell them in foreign slavery to toil beneath the lash all their days, tell him not that his doings are of Antichrist: for lo he is rich and giveth unto the Church: and is esteemed pious, so shall ye not offend him, lest peradventure he withdraw himself from your flock.

Teach them to believe that you have the care of their souls and that the saving mysteries are for your explaining; and when you explain your mysteries, encompass them round about with words as with a bright veil, so bright that through it no man can see.

And lo! ye shall bind the judgments of men, (and more especially of women,) as with a band of iron; and ye shall make them blind in the midst of light, even as the owl is blind in the noon day sun; and behold ye shall lead them captive to your reverend wills.

CHAPTER 4. The Clergy’s Reward.

“In all your gettings” get money! Now, therefore, when ye go forth on your ministerial journey, go where there are silver and gold, and where each man will pay according to his measure. For verily I say ye must get your reward.

Go ye not forth as those that have been sent, “without two coats, without gold or silver, or brass in their purses; without scrip for their journey, or shoes, or staves;” but go ye forth in the good things of this world.

And when ye shall hear of a church that is vacant and hath no one to preach therein, then be that a call unto you, and be ye mindful of the call, and take ye charge of the flock thereof and of the fleece thereof, even of the golden fleece.

And when ye shall have fleeced your flock, and shall know of another call, and if the flock be greater or rather if the fleece be greater, then greater be also unto you the call — Then shall ye leave your old flock, and of the new flock shall ye take the charge.

Those who have “freely received” let them “freely give,” and let not men have your words “without money nor without price,” but bargain ye for hundreds and bargain for thousands, even for thousands of silver and gold shall ye bargain.

And over and above the price for which ye have sold your service, take ye also gifts and be mindful to refuse none saying, “Lo! I have enough!” but receive gifts from them that go in chariots, and from them that feed flocks, and from them that earn their morsel by the sweat of their brow.

Yea, take ye gifts of all, and take them in gold and in silver, and in bread; in wine and in oil; in raiment and in fine linen.

And the more that the people give you the more will they honor you; for they shall believe that “in giving to you they are giving to the Lord;” for behold their sight shall be taken from them and they shall be blind as bats, and “shall know not what they do.”

And ye shall wax richer and richer, and grow greater and greater, and you shall be lifted up in your own sight, and exalted in the eyes of the multitude; and lucre shall be no longer filthy in your sight. And verily ye have your reward. In doing these things ye shall never fail. And may abundance of gold and silver and bank notes, and corn and wool, and flax, and spirits and wine, and land be multiplied unto you, both now and hereafter. Amen.

Christian Baptist.

THE APOSTOLIC ADVOCATE. June 1835, ed JT

A Few First Principles of Common Sense

Addressed to those who possess this sense common only to the few.

God is power. All power in the universe emanates from Him. Two kinds of power may be said to operate all its diversified effects — physical and moral. Physical force of power splits rocks, overturns mountains, engulfs cities, etc, and is always subordinate to, and executive of, moral or legislative power.

All power exercised by men is vested, and administered only by the permission of God. The fact that God permits a thing to be done is no proof that He approves it. Thus He permits men to legislate, but does not approve their legislation. The original, underived right of giving laws to mankind is the sole and absolute prerogative of Jehovah. Moses and Jesus are the only two persons in whom He has vested the authority of promulgating codes of law; all other lawgivers, “sacred and profane” are rebels, traitors, and usurpers of the rights of these two. Hence no man, though permitted, has any right to introduce a single law, custom or regulation into society in general, much less into the church of Jesus Christ in particular.

God, being omnipotent, can impart as much power, and to whom, as He pleases. No community of men can of right exercise, or impart to others, more authority than is vested in themselves. No exercise of authority is just or right, which is not sanctioned by God.

The commands of Jesus are authentic, and ought to be obeyed, because they are attested by God; and so ought those of the Apostles for the same reason. The decrees of Popes, Councils, Archbishops, Patriarchs, General Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, or Associations of any kind; — or those of Reverends of whatever title, ought not to be obeyed, because they are not attested by God. They are all apostate and antichristian.

All legitimate power or authority is vested in the congregation of the true believers. “The Church is the pillar and the support of the truth.” It has been transmitted, not by clerical succession, but from Jehovah to Jesus, from Jesus to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the faithful, who have retained it to this day.

Though vested with Divine Authority, the faithful can only of right exercise it in conformity with the letter and spirit of the written word. Before an assembly of believers can spiritually or legitimately administer the affairs of the body, the many must individually understand the scriptures concerning those affairs. If the persons, who compose the many, or majority, of a church be ignorant of what the scriptures teach concerning the government of the congregation, their proceeding will be unwarrantable, and therefore not binding on the few who may be enlightened.

As the power, or authority, is vested in the whole church, no individual can of right do anything in said congregation unless called upon so to act by those in whom the power resides; that is, by the many. If every member knew the will of God and would do it, all appointments would necessarily be unanimous. The cause of differences is two-fold; first, ignorance, and secondly, an indisposition to obey the truth when known. Unity of practice is sure to ensue from a knowledge of, and disposition to obey the truth. The means, therefore, that ought to be adopted to attain this desirable end, is to study the scriptures diligently with an honest determination to do whatever they require to be done. The truth is ascertained by testimony. All honest men who think can judge of testimony: if then, two adverse propositions be maintained, the one by this side, the other by that, that should be received, which is sustained by the most testimony — evidence, not votes, should decide; for by two or three witnesses, not by votes, shall every thing be established.

A vote is a voice, affirmatively or negatively given. To decide by vote is to decide by the numbers for or against a proposition. Numeration cannot determine truth; it can determine the strength of parties. To rule by numbers is to substitute the authority of men for that of God. It is the stratagem of the Anti-christ — a scheme of the devil to supersede the wholesome and efficient monarchy of Jesus. A vote may convey authority, but it cannot administer laws — it may make them, but in no instance can it apply them.

The Mediatorial Institution is a Kingdom. Its laws and ordinances were appointed by the Monarch. Nothing remains now but to administer them. No assembly of believers can of right say, that these laws shall not be enforced; no vote of a majority can of right impede their administration. To introduce republican maxims and principles into a monarchial institution, and especially that of the Kingdom of Jesus, is to set up rebellion against the authority of the King. Monarchism and Republicanism are incompatible — one or other must succumb.

Seeing that the many, or majority, cannot en masse administer the laws, and knowing from precepts and examples that some must, upon the principle that a body without discipline cannot long exist, certain of that body must be invested with administrative authority. This authority can only legitimately be conveyed by the many, appointing persons answering to the apostolic description as near as can be, to the offices ordained of God through the apostles of Christ. Persons appointed to the deaconship have a right to all authority necessary for the discharge of the functions thereof; and so in respect to those who are chosen to the administration of the laws.

To entrust power or authority to others, is to surrender to them the right of doing all that the many could of right do; always reserving to itself the privilege of its resumption. Power delegated, or entrusted to others, can no longer be independently exercised by the many, until it be by them resumed. This power when entrusted to a plurality of persons, can only be legally exercised by or with the consent of the majority of those to whom it is conveyed. When the majority of the elders of a church do an act in the presence of the congregation, according to scripture, precedent or rule, it is the majority of said church that acts; for the majority of all assemblies acts through its constituted authorities.

No eldership or executive, can have power enough, that does not possess sufficient to acquit itself of the responsibilities imposed upon it by the Legislative organ. In a congregation of Christians, the elders do not possess as much power as the scriptures entitle them to, who cannot effect the expulsion of a factious, a drunken, or otherwise disorderly member, contrary to the vote of a majority. No organization of a church can be scriptural, which prevents the carrying into effect the precepts of the Apostles.

They who are empowered by the many, according to the scriptural rule, are authorized by God; because constituted according to His appointment: and to them, therefore, it is the duty of all to submit themselves, as to those who watch for their souls and must give an account: that they may do this with joy, and not with mourning; for that would be unprofitable.

“Beloved brethren, human nature is always tending to extremes and transcending what is written. As the saying is, it will strain at gnats and swallow camels by the herd. It set up the Inquisition and is incessantly prying into matters beyond its jurisdiction. It is very fond of playing the judge and of executing its own decrees. It has a zeal but not according to knowledge, and therefore its zeal is intemperate and not the zeal of wisdom or knowledge rightly used. It professes great zeal for the purity of the Church, and would purge out everything that offends its sensitive imagination. But it is not a good thing to have a church without tares, black sheep, or spotted heifer? Yea, verily, it is an excellent thing. But then it is a thing the Holy Spirit has never yet developed, and cannot be developed by any human judiciary in the administration of spiritual affairs. There are certain things that must be left to the Lord’s own adjudication when he comes…” (John Thomas).

“Wherever there is intolerance, wherever we find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian, or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from them or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a portion of the spirit of Antichrist, which has so long opposed itself to the benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of mischief, instead of benevolence. “Alas, how much of this spirit remains amongst us all!! How few have learned that ‘In Christ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God’ ” (John Thomas).

Rules for Bible Study

First: In any doctrine taught by types or shadows, the anti-type must always correspond with the type, and the shadow with the substance.

Second: In studying the Scriptures, consider that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old.

Third: Never be afraid of results to which you may be driven by your investigations, as this will inevitably bias your mind and disqualify you to arrive at ultimate truth.

Fourth: Investigate everything you believe – if it is the truth it cannot be injured thereby; if error, the sooner it is correct the better. 

Fifth: Pursue this course with as much independence as if you were the only one concerned.

Sixth: Rely on no authority less than divine in so momentous an undertaking.

PROVE ALL THINGS: HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD.

AUTHOR: Either Judas the apostle (Luk 6:16) or Judas the half-brother of the Lord (Mat 13:55). The first of these is ruled out by most commentators on the ground that one who was himself an apostle would not write: “Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v 17). But why shouldn’t he? There is a very close parallel in 2Pe 3:2: “…that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of our Lord and Saviour through your apostles”. If Peter could write about “your apostles”, why should not one of his fellow apostles do the same? There is also the consideration that if this Jude were the apostle, then all the epistles of the NT came from apostolic pens. (The strength of the case for regarding the Epistle of James as written by the son of Zebedee is not to be set aside.)

On the other hand, this Jude is explicitly “brother of James”. But by analogy with “Judas Iscariot of Simon” (Joh 6:71), “Judas of James” (Luk 6:16) appears to mean “son of James”, and not “brother of James”. If it can mean “brother of James”, the point is settled.

What grounds are there for identifying Jude with the son of Mary and Joseph (Mat 13:55)? Exactly none, except that he appears to be the only alternative to the Judas just discussed. There is, of course, the possibility of the writer being some other Judas of whom nothing is known, but the likelihood of this is mighty small.

DATE: The date of the epistle has to be inferred from the slight incidental indications which the text affords. It is surely a valid argument that Jude wrote before the troubles of AD 70, for had he written after that date, he could hardly have let the destruction of the temple go unmentioned. Indeed, there seem to be several prophetic hints in the epistle of impending judgement. God destroyed His saved people “who believed not” (v 5). A judgement of being “plucked up by the roots”, such as Jesus foretold regarding Jewish opposition to the gospel, is implied (v 12). “Wandering stars, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness of the ages” (v 13) seems very appropriate to the dispersion of Israel.

Peter’s prophecy concerning evil men “in the last days” (2Pe 3:3) is picked up by Jude as having a fulfillment in the corrupt movement he excoriated: “These be they…” (vv 18,19). What “last days” if not the last days of the temple?

PURPOSE: The great enemy of the gospel in the first century was neither Jewish nor Roman persecution, but the systematic infiltration of the ecclesia, as part of an insidious Judaistic campaign, by unscrupulous Jews who were set on wrecking this new movement from within. The methods employed were, in the main, threefold:

1. The insidious corruption of Christian morals: “lasciviousness… fornication… defiling the flesh… they corrupt (the ecclesia)… twice dead” (vv 4,7,8,10,12).

2. Abrupt rejection of the authority of the apostles, and the exaltation of other leaders in their place: “speak evil of dignities…. hard speeches… murmurers, complainers… having men’s persons in admiration” (vv 8,15,16).

3. One part of the campaign which does not come in for mention in Jude, but which caused Paul much trouble elsewhere, was an insistence that faith in Christ must be bolstered up with observance of the Law of Moses.

One has the impression that the recipients of the letter were Jewish believers, and probably Jews of the Holy Land. Some of the phrases seem to take on special meaning from this point of view. But there is not enough to go on regarding this.

OUTLINE:

• Introduction: vv 1,2
• Godless men — their sin and ultimate doom: vv 3-16

• Exhortation to perseverance: vv 17-23
• Doxology: vv 24,25

For more than one hundred years this question has been before the Brotherhood: Did Jephthah actually sacrifice his only daughter, or did here merely dedicate her to a celibate service, perhaps at the Tabernacle? The earliest discussion of the subject of which I am aware occurs in the 1875 Christadelphian, in a brief article by JJ Andrew (Vol 12, May, pp 236,237). It is a measure of the “popularity” of this debate that there are no less than 32 separate articles — and these in the Christadelphian and Testimony magazines along — over the intervening 105 years. A fuller index of other periodicals would surely increase this number considerably. (One is tempted to inquire if a like number of words have been written on many other subjects of far more importance).

There has never been a Christadelphian “party line” on the question. In such respects as this our community compares very favorably with others, such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses” — who make a great show of devotion to individual Bible study, but who scarcely, if ever, deviate from the official interpretation of “headquarters” on any subject? A review of our writings on Jephthah’s vow, just as one minor example, reveals a great stress on private, personal, independent thinking along Scriptural lines. Surely it is a small price to pay for our community’s freedom from “learning by rote” that, once in a while, a question of secondary importance is allowed to overlap the bounds of “cut-and-dried”, canned (or “potted” — for the English) reasoning.

Robert Roberts is first on one side, then the other, of this subject. [His last thought on the subject favors the death of Jephthah’s daughter (Law of Moses, 1984 edition, pp 290,291) — but his argument is very brief and far from air-tight.] And CC Walker follows him in the same course — first favoring a dedication and then vacillating between the two and finally expressing “no doubt that Jephthah’s daughter was really slain in sacrifice” [Xd 64 (Jan 1927), p 28]. But his defense of that view seems curiously flippant, as, for example, his question: “What is a daughter more or less?” (Ibid, Feb, p 77) — certainly not designed to win the sisters over to his view, to say the least! Then, “making all due allowances”, as he expresses it, he reproduces a portion of a Tennyson poem which catches the “spirit of the maiden” — in which the poet sees her coming in a vision and then returning “toward the morning star”! (Ibid, p 86). Not much “proof” in that, certainly!

The next editor of the magazine, John Carter, weighs in on the other side of the issue, with an article by G. Buckler to the effect that the girl’s life was not taken — to which he appends his own note of approval [Xd, Vol 78 (June 1941), pp 260,261].

The Testimony Magazine also presents, at different times, both views. PH Adams, for years the editor of “First Stages” and then the “Problems” sections, has a real “problem” with this question! Issue after issue, he advances and repeats arguments for sacrifice instead of devotion — but his readers (if one may judge by the printed response) are overwhelmingly of the other school of thought. So, patiently and with good humor, he answers as best he can their objections. Reading these exchanges (In Volumes 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 27) is certainly a good lesson in the fine art of “disagreeing without being disagreeable”, something most of us could do with more of!

One of the most curious contributions on the subject is a “Trial in the Court of Historical Research” — before “Lord Penetrating Impartiality” (in the style of Robert Roberts’ “The Trial: Did Christ Rise from the Dead?”). Both sides of the question are argued out at length by counsels with such names as “Noble Acceptor-of-all-Truth”, after which the reader is left to decide for himself (Testimony, Vol 28 (April, 1958), pp 121-127).

What are the arguments, pro and con? The following is a summary of the more cogent points in favor of each side, for the benefit of those who do not have access to back numbers of our periodicals:

First, in favor of the theory that Jephthah did indeed offer his daughter as a burnt offering:

1. We cannot say that anything God does or allows is inconsistent with His declared character. It is not for us to sit in judgment of Him.

2. This view was never called in question by Jew or Christian until about 1200 AD. The Septuagint and Vulgate — and Josephus — have always conveyed the idea of a literal sacrifice.

3. Just because Jephthah is elsewhere described as a righteous man does not mean everything he did was righteous! To believe that he offered up his daughter does not require believing that he was right in doing so!

4. The AV text (if not the margin), RV, RSV, and most other versions favor the “and” in v 31 — giving strong support to the idea that the vow called for the burnt offering of whatever or whoever came out first, since (no matter how we understand its terms) it is beyond any doubt that Jephthah did perform his vow (v 39).

5. Would Jephthah’s sorrow have been so overwhelming, and would an annual memorial have been called for, if the only “fate” his daughter suffered was perpetual virginity and service at the Tabernacle?

And, secondly, for the alternate theory:

1. Human sacrifice was expressly forbidden by God (Deu 12:30,31; Psalm 106:37,38; Isa 66:3; Jer 32:34,35).

2. Jephthah, being one who “wrought righteousness” and “obtained a good report through faith” (Heb 11:32,33-39), can hardly be expected to have been so seriously ignorant of what was and was not acceptable to God in this matter. It is very improbable that a man like that would make a vow that would likely call for him to do something which the Law expressly forbade.

3. The “vow” Jephthah made (Jdg 11:30) was a “nadar” — for which the Law allowed the possibility of redemption upon payment of money. (Lev 27:1,8). Considering this, it is almost unthinkable that the distraught father would not have availed himself of this “escape” if the vow had meant death for his daughter. (The Hebrew for “devoted” things, which could not be redeemed, was “cherem”, as in Lev 27:29, but that word does not appear in this narrative.

4. “Whatsoever” of v 31 can be translated “whosoever”, as applying to persons. This is a reference, probably, to the custom of women coming out to meet victorious warriors, with timbrels and dancing (v 34). The women who met David returning from battle (1Sa 18:6) and Miriam also (Exo 15:20) were following this custom. It seems very unlikely that Jephthah would have been vowing to put to death “whomsoever” of the young men or women came out first, as he would surely have realized beforehand how likely it would have been for a human rather than an animal to come out first!

5. “I will offer it up” (v 31) can be translated “I will offer Him (ie, God) a burnt offering” — making the pronoun masculine, with God the One to whom the offering was to be made.

6. “And I will offer it up”: The AV margin suggests “or” (though the preponderance of translations favors “and”), so that Jephthah may be expressing an alternative; ie, If a person comes out first, he or she shall be dedicated to God, or if an animal comes out first (and if it possesses the suitable qualities) it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering.

7. If there had been any illegality in the vow, that is, if in fact the outcome had been a human sacrifice, then someone like Jephthah — who feared God — would have had good reason to forbid the breaking of His law.

8. The burnt offering of the damsel, if such it was, would have to be carried out be a priest at the Tabernacle — who would then be knowingly participating in an improper offering and a criminal act!

9. Furthermore, the specific rules of the burnt offering (Lev 1:1-17,7:8) provided that a male be offered, the skin to belong to the priests, and the blood to be sprinkled round the altar!

10. In lamenting her misfortune, Jephthah’s daughter did not bewail the loss of life; she simply bewailed her “virginity”. This deprivation of the opportunity to bear children was considered a great calamity among Jews, and would be especially hard to bear for Jephthah also — since he was an important man in Israel and she was an only child. The word “lament” (Hebrew “lethanoth”) in v 40 is not the common word for such, which would have been most appropriate if the grief of death were intended. Instead, it is a word which can have the meaning “to rehearse” or “to talk with” — as the margin shows. It is used only here and in Judges 5:11, where the daughters of Israel retell and celebrate the righteous acts of God. The young women evidently went up to the Tabernacle to talk with Jephthah’s daughter year by year.

11. “She knew no man” (v 39) seems foolishly redundant if she were put to death. It rather seems to express her entering upon a state of complete dedication to Yahweh — in some special service. (Compare Hannah offering Samuel during the same period). Though similar to Roman Catholic nuns and “holy orders”, such a dedication should not be objected to on that score alone, since this would be a dedication in truth, not error. Paul says that the unmarried may more easily care for the things of God (1Co 7:34). Such an order of virgins devoted to Tabernacle and Temple service is at least implied in such passages as Lam 1:4 and Exo 38:8.

12. It is not explicitly stated that she was actually offered — which is rather remarkable in so singular a case. This seems so unusual an omission that even the commentators who favor the idea of sacrifice are compelled to admit that a “veil” is drawn over the actual bloodshedding. But is it not more reasonable to assume that there was nothing in the narrative so embarrassing to Jephthah’s character that a veil was even needed?

***

A quick reading of the points compiled above might seem to favor one opinion over the other by sheer weight of numbers. But no doubt much could be said in rebuttal of various points on either side. It is possible that this writer’s leanings are by now obvious, but he has made a conscious effort to state fairly the arguments for both sides. This is of course not a matter of “first principle” consequence, so perhaps the best conclusion is this:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.

As [Jephthah] approached his home [following his great victory] the maidens of the town came forth, according to the custom of the time, to greet the mighty man of valour with songs and dances. In this way, Miriam and the women of Israel had celebrated the destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea (Exo 15:20); and later, David’s victories over the Philistines were acclaimed in the same fashion (1Sa 18:6).

But now, to his consternation and grief, Jephthah beheld amongst them his own daughter, and he who should have been enjoying the victor’s triumph rent his clothes: “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.”

However Jephthah’s vow be understood, that last phrase shows what a sterling character he was. “I cannot go back!” Come what may, his vow to God must be performed. Jephthah swore to his own hurt, and changed not. “He that doeth these things shall never be moved.” For this Jephthah’s name is inscribed in the Lord’s “roll of honour” in Hebrews 11 amongst those who glorified God by their faith.

The question of the fate of Jephthah’s daughter as a result of the vow he made unto the Lord is probably the most discussed problem in the Book of Judges. Traditionally the vow of Jephthah has been taken as meaning exactly what it says. Nevertheless there are those who believe that Jephthah’s daughter was not slain and burnt on an altar, but that she was dedicated to life-long service of God in connection with the tabernacle. This latter conclusion has the weight of evidence behind it. It is those who believe that the maiden became a burnt offering who are faced with difficulties.

First, it is tolerably clear that Jephthah was expecting to have to give to God, in fulfilment of his vow, a PERSON and not an animal; or to be more precise, BOTH a person AND a burnt offering. His words were: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me… shall surely be the Lord’s.” There is no point in stressing “whatsoever (as distinct from whomsoever) cometh forth”: the word “whatsoever” is a Hebrew masculine, for in such a sentence the masculine would cover all genders.

But what animal might come to meet Jephthah? The only animals that might be offered as a burnt offering were sheep, goats, bullocks, and (for the very poorest of the people) pigeons. Would Jephthah be expecting to be met by any of these? The only animal that might conceivably go out to meet him would be a favourite hound, and that would certainly not make an acceptable offering to the Lord.

In any case, Jephthah’s vow manifestly signified something of considerable value in his eyes — a real sacrifice, in the modern sense of the world.

Since, from the very nature of the vow, it must refer to someone over whom Jephthah had full control, the possibilities are limited to two: a favourite slave, or servant, or his only daughter.

Consequently, the conclusion becomes inevitable that Jephthah was vowing unto God someone for whom he would have real affection, someone whose loss he would mourn bitterly. His vow was a vow worth making. It honoured God by an offering that was by no means inconsiderable.

Once this vow is thus seen in its true perspective, all other details begin to fall into place.

It has already been seen [from his astute handling of Scripture earlier in Jdg 11] that Jephthah was no uncouth desperado, but — like the outlaw David — a devout man well-schooled in the Scriptures. He would therefore be no stranger to such passages as the following: “Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev 18:21).

“Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods” (Deu 12:30,31).

“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch” (Deu 18:10).

Then is it possible that such a man as Jephthah would even consider making a human sacrifice? Is it likely that having just returned from the slaughter of the Ammonites (whose god had been unable to deliver or prosper them), he would then proceed to imitate the rites of Molech, the god of Ammon, which were utterly forbidden to Israel?

Again, let it be supposed that Jephthah had sought to offer his daughter as a burnt-offering. This could be done only at the altar of the Lord, and through the ministration of a priest — and what priest would condone or assist such a flagrant breach of Levitical precept?

And, if the maiden were to die as a sacrifice, would it not be an intensely unnatural thing for her to spend the last two months of her life away from her father who loved her so much?

It needs to be recognized also that the vowing of persons to God was a perfectly normal matter in the life of Israel; the Law made provision for such acts of exceptional piety: “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” (Lev 27:2). A commutation price, differing for males and females and according to the age of the person vowed unto the Lord, might be paid. In the case of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty, this payment was fifty shekels (for a working man, more than a year’s wages?).

Evidently then, the vow took the form of consecrating, in effect, the labour value of the person vowed. The practical result, in most instances, would be for the commutation price to be paid and the life of the individual concerned would proceed normally.

But, it has been claimed, the same scripture REQUIRES the actual sacrifice of such as Jephthah’s daughter: “Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold, or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; abut all shall surely be put to death” (Lev 27:18,19).

To apply these words to the question under discussion is to confuse two very different things, namely (1) that which is vowed; and (2) the devoted thing (Hebrew “cherem”; eg, Josh 6:17,18 same word).

Whereas there was always optional redemption of a vow by means of a money payment, the “cherem” — nearly always associated with what was taken in war — normally meant utter destruction (something akin to whole burnt offering). Jephthah’s vow was the former of these. Lev 27:18,19 describes the latter.

There were instances, like Hannah’s vowing of her son unto the Lord “all the days of his life”, when advantage of the commutation arrangement was not taken. This is what Jephthah meant when he said: “I cannot go back.” His daughter was to be given to the Lord all the days of her life. So completely did Jephthah feel his indebtedness to the Lord that there was to be no suggestion of taking an easy way out. He would pay his vow in the fullest sense, by giving his daughter from that time forward for permanent service in the precincts of the tabernacle. (WJR).

Author: Jeremiah and Baruch

Time: 630 – 575 BC

Summary: Jeremiah warns of the impending military force of Babylon that would destroy Jerusalem and enslave the Jews. He urges Jerusalem to turn from its wicked ways, but there is no response. He further warns of the false prophets who are leading the people astray with deceptive doctrines and falsehoods. He urges the Israelites to submit to the Babylonian authority as the instrument of God’s judgment. They do not heed his warnings and the people are carried away to Babylon. He predicts that the captives will return after 70 years to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.

Outline

1.	The prophet’s call: Jer 1
2.	Prophetic oracles against Jerusalem and Judah: Jer 2-35
	a)	Early discourses: Jer 2-6
	b)	Temple message: Jer 7-10
	c)	Covenant and conspiracy: Jer 11-13
	d)	Messages concerning the drought: Jer 14-15
	e)	Disaster and comfort: Jer 16:1-17:18
	f)	Command to keep the Sabbath holy: Jer 17:19-27
	g)	Lessons from the potter: Jer 18-20
	h)	Condemnation of kings, prophets and people: Jer 21-24
	i)	Foretelling the Babylonian exile: Jer 25-29
	j)	Promises of restoration: Jer 30-33
	k)	Historical appendix: Jer 34-35
3.	Sufferings and persecutions of Jeremiah: Jer 36-38
	a)	Burning Jeremiah’s scroll: Jer 36
	b)	Imprisoning Jeremiah: Jer 37-38
4.	The fall of Jerusalem and its aftermath: Jer 39-45
	a)	The fall itself: Jer 39
	b)	Accession and assassination of Gedaliah: Jer 40:1-41:15
	c)	Migration to Egypt: Jer 41:16-43:13
	d)	Prophecy against those in Egypt: Jer 44
	e)	Historical appendix: promise to Baruch: Jer 45
5.	Prophecies against the nations: Jer 46-51
	a)	Against Egypt: Jer 46:1-28
	b)	Against Philistia: Jer 47:1-7
	c)	Against Moab: Jer 48:1-47
	d)	Against Ammon: Jer 49:1-6
	e)	Against Edom: Jer 49:7-22
	f)	Against Damascus: Jer 49:23-27
	g)	Against Arabia: Jer 49:28-33
	h)	Against Elam: Jer 49:34-39
	i)	Against Babylon: Jer 50-51
6.	Historical appendix: Jer 52
	a)	Judah’s fall and captivity: Jer 52:1-30
	b)	Jehoiachin’s liberation: Jer 52:31-34

---

Jeremiah’s chapters in chronological order

1-6; 11; 12; 26; 7-10; 14-20; 35; 36; 45; 25; 46-49; 13; 22-24; 27-29; 50; 51; 30-33; 21; 34; 37-39; 52; 40-44.