Christians: Jephthah?

[coelacanth]

Clarify what you mean by lesson.

That which can be taught or learned

What do you mean by absolute morality? And why can the Bible not be a source of said morality?

A very good question. For now, let's go with the idea that "certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act" unless there is an alternate definition you would rather work with. Expansion on an answer to your question may require several pages of typing, but if you request I will have to do it at a later point in time. Basic thesis here:

The morality in the Bible is self contradictory and petty, but on a separate level is contingent on the whims of God. Absolute morality means it is not contingent on anything.

(Side note: Some things that you could call "mainstream" beliefs in Christianity are themselves something I would call fundamentally immoral, even based off Christian morality)

 

[Guest]

Clarify what you mean by lesson.

That which can be taught or learned

This doesn't help. I am seeking to understand what you mean by a "moral lesson" as a category which does not include a value judgment on the lesson itself.

For now, let's go with the idea that "certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act" unless there is an alternate definition you would rather work with.

I presume, given the context of the discussion (i.e., the Christian faith), you can point me to Christian sources which present and/or adhere to this definition which can be seen as representative of the Christian faith. I wouldn't want anyone drawing definitions from Wikipedia articles about moral absolutism without proper attribution and claiming that's what Christian mean when they say "absolute morality."

The morality in the Bible is self contradictory and petty, but on a separate level is contingent on the whims of God. Absolute morality means it is not contingent on anything.

This can be dealt with in turn, if needed. However, we must first until a representative Christian definition of the term "absolute morality" is provided.

(Side note: Some things that you could call "mainstream" beliefs in Christianity are themselves something I would call fundamentally immoral, even based off Christian morality)

Opinion noted.

 

[coelacanth]

Clarify what you mean by lesson.

That which can be taught or learned

This doesn't help. I am seeking to understand what you mean by a "moral lesson" as a category which does not include a value judgment on the lesson itself.

For now, let's go with the idea that "certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act" unless there is an alternate definition you would rather work with.

I presume, given the context of the discussion (i.e., the Christian faith), you can point me to Christian sources which present and/or adhere to this definition which can be seen as representative of the Christian faith. I wouldn't want anyone drawing definitions from Wikipedia articles about moral absolutism without proper attribution and claiming that's what Christian mean when they say "absolute morality."

The morality in the Bible is self contradictory and petty, but on a separate level is contingent on the whims of God. Absolute morality means it is not contingent on anything.

This can be dealt with in turn, if needed. However, we must first until a representative Christian definition of the term "absolute morality" is provided.

(Side note: Some things that you could call "mainstream" beliefs in Christianity are themselves something I would call fundamentally immoral, even based off Christian morality)

Opinion noted.

My apologies for the lack of attributing the quote. I put it in quotes so I'd remember, but made a mistake in the omission. Since I have seen you are very particular about definitions, let’s try to hammer one out. Please offer your take on what “moral lessons†means when dealing with the Bible, or what “absolute morality†means in the context of Christianity. Such definitions might be better coming from a Christian who believes that absolute morality can be gleaned from the Bible and wants to defend that particular definition. Like anything else in religion, such a definition may vary from person to person. Therefore, if you disagree, your definition would be the most valuable one if we are to discuss it.

I'm offering these two, tentatively, as definitinos that can be amended as needed before advancing:

“moral lessons†in the Bible here refers to portions of the Bible that teach about proper conduct; what is “right†and “wrongâ€Â.

Let’s try this one for beginning with absolute morality coming from the Christian Bible: “There are eternal absolute truths or unchanging rules of what is “right†and “wrong†that exis, and the Bible teaches such truths.â€Â

What is your input to these tentative definitions, minn?

 

[coelacanth]

1) God's active participation in the violent slaughter of the Ammonites

The Israelites wiping out other nations was done under the pretext of their evil accumulating to a certain point that God decided something must be done. The Israelites were an instrument in achieving this.

So is genocide morally justifiable under certain circumstances? (ie when a threshold of evil is met?) Please expand on this one :crazy

 

[handy]

I'm not Minn, but I've been watching this thread since it's inception and been following the discussion. As a Christian I find your tentative definitions to be sound.

“moral lessons†in the Bible here refers to portions of the Bible that teach about proper conduct; what is “right†and “wrongâ€Â.

Yes, there are such moral lessons in the Bible. The story of Jephthah is a story which would teach a moral lesson of the tragedies that happen when one makes rash vows and follows one's own concepts of religious duties rather than following what God's clear commandments are, ie absolutely no human sacrifice, no rash vows etc. I know of no Christians that point to Jephthah as a model of a positive moral lesson. His entire story is a negative lesson of what is "wrong".

And, I see that you have responded to a question regarding genocide. God will rain judgment down upon mankind. Often He uses wars to do so. His judgments are righteous because He is God.

This discussion is becoming quite similar to the one about whether or not Jesus contradicted the Old Testament. If you haven't read through that thread, you might want to do so.

 

[coelacanth]

I believe this link will help shed light on the points I was making earlier: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320

That article is a sorry and unconvincing attempt to make it look like Jephthah's daughter lived. I think this has been adequately dealt with already. She died as a burnt offering, Cap'n.

 

[Guest]

Such definitions might be better coming from a Christian who believes that absolute morality can be gleaned from the Bible and wants to defend that particular definition.

Is this what I believe? Is this my goal?

“moral lessons†in the Bible here refers to portions of the Bible that teach about proper conduct; what is “right†and “wrongâ€Â.

Thank you.

Let’s try this one for beginning with absolute morality coming from the Christian Bible: “There are eternal absolute truths or unchanging rules of what is “right†and “wrong†that exist, and the Bible teaches such truths.â€Â

Though I consider myself a Christian, I do not pretend to speak for the whole of the Christian faith. Thus, I provided specific guidelines through which a Christian definition of "absolute morality" can be established.

 

[Guest]

The story of Jephthah is a story which would teach a moral lesson of the tragedies that happen when one makes rash vows and follows one's own concepts of religious duties rather than following what God's clear commandments are, ie absolutely no human sacrifice, no rash vows etc. I know of no Christians that point to Jephthah as a model of a positive moral lesson. His entire story is a negative lesson of what is "wrong".

Does the story have a moral?

 

[Paidion]

It is interesting that Jephthah, who did this horrible deed, is listed among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11 (verse 32), apparently because of his success in war.

 

[handy]

The story of Jephthah is a story which would teach a moral lesson of the tragedies that happen when one makes rash vows and follows one's own concepts of religious duties rather than following what God's clear commandments are, ie absolutely no human sacrifice, no rash vows etc. I know of no Christians that point to Jephthah as a model of a positive moral lesson. His entire story is a negative lesson of what is "wrong".

Does the story have a moral?

The story of Jephthah is simply an account of the man and what he did. As Paidion pointed out, he does get a nod in the book of Hebrews for his success in war. It was as a leader of the Israelite army that God's Spirit came upon him, then and only then. God enabled Jephthah to lead the Israelites in victory over Ammonites and thus protect the nation. That's it. God didn't call Jephthah to be a judge in Israel. God didn't command Jephthah to make his foolish vow, as a matter of fact, that vow went totally against what God had commanded. God had already told His people that they were in no way to participate in human sacrifice nor to make foolish vows.

One can look at this account in two ways: It's either a made up tale, a fable, or it's an accurate historical account.

If it is a made up tale, an Hebrew fable to give an explanation for a ritual that Jewish girls participated in, then the moral of the story is, don't make foolish vows.

If it is an accurate historical account, (which I believe it is), then that's it. That's what Jephthah did. He didn't do it because God called him to do it, anymore than David committed adultery with Bathsheba because God told him to, which is another sinful act that a man committed that was against God's commands. We can be just as angry at God for the fact that Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan or that Bill Clinton dallied with Monica Lewinsky. People do all kinds of things. The Bible records them. But in this case, the Scriptures in no way condone Jephthah's vow or his actions.

I'm not exactly sure why coelacanth seems to think that this story is somehow an indictment against God or a proof that Christians look at the Bible as a buffet line of morality. If Christians were strong in justifying Jephthah's actions, then I could see it. But I've never seen anything but condemnation for Jephthah in what he did to his daughter. While I do see some justifying of the whole account in the interpretation that Jephthah's daughter remained a virgin, rather than was burned to death, that particular interpretation is outside of mainstream Christian commentary. I can understand the kind of exegesis of original languages that lead to that kind of interpretation, but I think the conclusion that Jephthah's daughter remained a perpetual virgin is simply wrong. The text clearly states that Jephthah did as he said he was going to do, and what he said he was going to do was to make a burnt offering. It was no offering that God commanded or accepted though.

 

[coelacanth]

Riddle me this, handy:

What are your thoughts on divine support for genocide in the modern day? Would you participate in such a systematic extermination of a people?

 

[handy]

As far as I can tell, the Lord isn't working His will upon nations in this way anymore. The genocides of the Old Testament were usually wars which kept the nation of Israel preserved, either physically, spiritually or usually both. According to Revelations, there will be more wrath poured upon the world at the end of days, but not in the sense of Jephthah leading the Israelites against the Ammonites. The nation of Israel were not only God's chosen vehicle for bringing about His plan of redemption, they were also a nation in a very hostile environment. Take God completely out of the picture, and the Israelites would have still gone to war, or face extinction themselves as a nation.

So what is truly your question here, coelacanth? Is it whether or not Christians partake of "pick and choose" morality, with Jephthah as an example? Or is it that the genocide that Jephthah perpetrated upon the Ammonites, under God's authority and within His will is in of itself immoral and therefore an adequate reason to reject God altogether?

If your question is either the former or a matter of both, shall we consider the matter of Jephthah and his daughter closed? Because there really isn't any basis whatsoever to believe that Jephthah's vow or his execution of that vow were in anyway ordered or condoned by God and I have yet to see any Christian apologist, scholar or just plain schmo like me condone Jephthah's action. As to whether or not Christians "pick and choose" pet texts to propound and others to ignore, OK, I think any honest Christian will have to admit that happens all the time.

But if it's more the second question, or if you're in effect asking both, then we seem to have come to the same question discussed in the "Did Jesus Contradict the OT", that is, who gets to say what is moral and what isn't.

You might say that genocide is the worst possible immorality mankind is capable of. I might say, no, I think abortion is, because babies in the womb are the most vulnerable of humans. We could argue this all day long and in the end, how can you say your moral choice is any more correct than mine? The Hun who raped and pillaged in the 5th century might say that his moral view of the world is the correct one and that he was totally within his rights and even responsibilities to murder, maim and rape as he followed good old Attila. Certainly the Taliban feel that they are exercising the moral high ground when they stone a woman for speaking to a man she isn't related to.

Again, who gets to say what is moral and what isn't.

As a Bible believing Christian, I believe in God and I believe that God is the final arbiter of what is good and what is evil and who is acting morally and who isn't. And, the God of the Bible is very much a "You do as I command, and I will do as I please" kind of God. He commands what we are to do or not do, and He works His will as He sees fit.

Do you have to accept that? No. However, if God is Who He says He is, it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it or not. All humans can and do reject God for being Who He says He is.

But, if He is Who He says He is, and we reject Him, then we have to live with the consequences of such rejection. It can be compared with someone rejecting the law of gravity. Anyone can choose at any time to reject the law of gravity and decide that since birds, insects and other creatures can fly, it's unfair, even immoral to say that humans can't fly and therefore throw oneself off of the Empire State Building. Such a person can enjoy the freedom that flight provides and the exhilarating rush of air. However, there will come a time (rather quickly) when that person will face the consequences of their rejection of something that is what it is.

There are ways that one could disprove the God of the Bible. For instance, if we could see an instance in which the God of the Bible acted totally contrary to His own Person. Now, I know that atheists and other unbelievers like to pull out instances of genocide, or whatever to prove that God is acting contrary to His own Person, but unfortunately full study of the Scriptures always seem to be able to reconcile God's actions to Who He has revealed Himself to be.

For instance, the Scriptures tell us that God is love. However, the Scriptures also tell us that God is wrathful and vengeful. If the Scriptures only told of us the one aspect of God, that He is love, then there could be a case made for rejecting the veracity of the God of the Bible on the basis of the genocides that are described as happening under His will. But, sense the Scriptures also tell us of yet another aspect of God, that He is vengeful and wrathful, then there is no surprise when we see Him enacting vengeance and wrath upon a person or people.

 

[handy]

Took a quick break for some lunch. Now I want to finish a thought from my previous post on whether or not God is violating Who He says He is by His actions.

I had said, "the Scriptures also tell us that God is wrathful and vengeful. If the Scriptures only told of us the one aspect of God, that He is love, then there could be a case made for rejecting the veracity of the God of the Bible on the basis of the genocides that are described as happening under His will. But, since the Scriptures also tell us of yet another aspect of God, that He is vengeful and wrathful, then there is no surprise when we see Him enacting vengeance and wrath upon a person or people."

I also wanted to say that if God was only vengeful and wrathful, then He would be violating the fact that He states He is love. But, since we see that God so loves man that He came to take upon the sin of the world and provide a means for all who desire to be saved from His vengeance and wrath and promises that all can live in harmony not only with Him, but with all of creation for all eternity, then we see that He acts also upon His love.

 

[coelacanth]

I will answer your post in full if you respond to the second question above (unless I missed it, if so, sorry)

It was:

Would you participate in such a systematic extermination of a people?

 

[handy]

Here was my answer:

As far as I can tell, the Lord isn't working His will upon nations in this way anymore. The genocides of the Old Testament were usually wars which kept the nation of Israel preserved, either physically, spiritually or usually both. According to Revelations, there will be more wrath poured upon the world at the end of days, but not in the sense of Jephthah leading the Israelites against the Ammonites. The nation of Israel were not only God's chosen vehicle for bringing about His plan of redemption, they were also a nation in a very hostile environment. Take God completely out of the picture, and the Israelites would have still gone to war, or face extinction themselves as a nation.

So no. The genocides of the OT were done for specific reasons at a specific time. That time is done and that reason is now moot. The Bible reveals how God will now continue to work until the end of days, up to and including His pouring out of His wrath. Genocide isn't in the picture.