All posts by randymccracken

I am a teacher at Calvary Chapel Bible College York and the author of "Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel".

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

Has Jesus’ Home Been Found?

February 16, 2016 randymccracken Leave a comment

Has Jesus’ Home Been Found?

Jesus' home in Nazareth is located only a few miles away from the Sea of Galilee where a major portion of his ministry occurred. — Jesus’ home in Nazareth is not far from the Sea of Galilee where a major portion of his ministry occurred.

It sounds like a title to simply grab headlines doesn’t it? Throughout the centuries claims have been made to have pieces of the cross of Christ, or an actual nail used in crucifying Jesus. On and on the claims go. During the Byzantine and Middle Ages pilgrimages were frequently made to see such so-called “relics.” So when someone claims that Jesus’ home in Nazareth may have been discovered, it is quite natural to expect that claim would be met with a great deal of skepticism. However, when a reputable magazine like BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) lists Jesus’ home as one of the top ten discoveries of 2015, it’s at least worth investigating.

The Original Discovery of What May Be Jesus’ Home

Sisters of Nazareth Convent where Jesus' home may have been discovered. — Sisters of Nazareth Convent where Jesus’ home may have been discovered.

Although the discovery has only made headlines this past year (see the article by the Daily Mail here), the story actually begins in the 1880s when an ancient cistern was accidentally discovered at the Sisters of Nazareth Convent. The nuns and others associated with the school began excavating the area and uncovered a number of ancient features including Crusader period walls and vaults, a Byzantine cave-church, Roman period tombs and other structures. The nuns created a small museum from the coins, pottery, glass, and other objects that were uncovered. Previously, construction on the convent had revealed a large Byzantine church which included mosaic floors and marble fittings, rebuilt during the Crusader period. Jesuit priest Father Henri Senès carried out further work in 1936, including making detailed drawings of the discoveries.

Recent Excavations in Nazareth and the Evidence for What May Be Jesus’ Home

The exterior of the house that may have been Jesus' home, showing a doorway which is still preserved to its original height. — The exterior of the house that may have been Jesus’ home, showing a doorway which is still preserved to its original height.

The Nazareth Archaeological Project which began in 2006, is the first professional archaeological excavation to take place on this site, although discovered long ago. This recent excavation project has revealed “a lengthy chronological sequence of well-preserved structures and features” (Ken Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?,” BAR, Mar/Apr. 2015). These include the features mentioned above plus “a rectilinear structure with partly rock-cut and partly stone-built walls” (Ken Dark, BAR). Further investigation confirmed that this structure was a house from the earlier Roman period, built in either the 1st century AD or shortly before. A doorway survives to its original height and part of the original chalk floor is still visible. The date is confirmed by cooking pottery and other items (including a spindle whorl) which also date to this period. The discovery of limestone vessels also suggests that this was a Jewish home, since limestone was not considered subject to impurity.

The forecourt of the tomb can be seen in this photo. Note the stone on the right and the two niches inside for bodies. These tombs cut right through the house

The age of the house is further confirmed by a curious feature. Two Roman period tombs cut through the house. Archaeologist Ken Dark confirms that the tombs are 1st century AD but were made after the house had already been built. Of course no Jew would have had a tomb in their house while the house was being occupied. It is interesting to speculate why the tombs were built. If this was the boyhood home of Jesus, were the tombs built by unbelievers to desecrate what had come to be considered a sacred place? Or, what seems to me less likely because of the uncleanness associated with tombs, would some zealous believer have wanted to be buried in the boyhood home of Jesus? These are questions that cannot be answered, but the presence of the tombs further confirms the date of the house.

This map taken from Ken Dark's article in BAR shows the site of the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, as well as other significant sites in Nazareth. — This map taken from Ken Dark’s article in BAR shows the site of the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, as well as other significant sites in Nazareth.

But what evidence connects this with possibly being Jesus’ home? The churches that have been built on the site are strongly suggestive of this being considered a sacred area. In fact, Ken Dark notes that great efforts were made by both the Byzantine and later Crusader churches to completely encompass the house, thus protecting it from further destruction. Why build a church on this site and why go to the trouble to protect an old house? The most obvious answer is that the house was considered to be a special place. What house in Nazareth could be considered more special by future generations of Christians than the house of Jesus? Of course, this involves making some intuitive leaps, but there is one other piece of historical information that is intriguing. An ancient pilgrim text written in 670 AD by abbot Adomnàn of Iona known as the De Locus Sanctis, speaks of making a pilgrimage to Nazareth and seeing two churches. One can be identified as the Church of the Annunciation (well known in Nazareth). The other church is said to be built over vaults that contain a spring and two tombs. Between the tombs Adomnán says there was a house in which Jesus was raised. The church is called The Church of the Nutrition, meaning, “the upbringing of Christ.” Adomnán’s description is clearly speaking about the same house that has been uncovered and now sits in the Sisters of Nazareth Convent. Is the tradition reliable? Who can say? But the fact that a church had been established on this site before Adomnán’s trip in 670 AD suggests that the house had a long tradition of being identified as Jesus’ home.

Is the House in Nazareth Jesus’ Home?

Another 1st century house has been discovered in the recent excavations in Nazareth.

The best answer to this question is given by Ken Dark himself when he states, “Was this the house where Jesus grew up? It is impossible to say on archaeological grounds. On the other hand, there is no good archaeological reason why such an identification should be discounted. What we can say is that this building was probably where the Byzantine church builders believed Jesus had spent his childhood in Nazareth.“

Besides the house that may be Jesus’ home, archaeologists have uncovered another 1st century house in Nazareth across from the Church of the Annunciation (see photo on the left). I’ve made a number of trips to Israel, but I have only been to Nazareth on one occasion and even then, we were just passing through on a bus. I inquired why tours never seemed to stop in Nazareth and was told that there was simply “nothing to see.” I asked that question back in 2006, the same year that the Nazareth Archaeological Project began. Thanks to the recent efforts of archaeologists, our knowledge of ancient Nazareth is slowly being transformed. I imagine if I were to ask the question again, the answer would be quite different!

(For another informative article on the archaeological excavations on Jesus’ home, see the Bible Blender by clicking here. Of course, if you have a subscription to BAS library you can see the original article by clicking here.)

Biblical Sites

Where Will the Battle of Armageddon Be Fought?

February 9, 2016 randymccracken 13 Comments

Where Will the Battle of Armageddon Be Fought?

The battle of Armageddon is pictured in the Book of Revelation as the final battle where God defeats evil.

Although the word Armageddon comes to us via the Bible, it has entered the modern vernacular as a term that refers to doomsday, or a cataclysmic event. Biblically speaking, it is the final battle to end all wars when evil is dealt a decisive blow. In the Book of Revelation, the apostle John describes it this way: “And the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth, and of the whole world to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty….And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon” (Rev. 16:12-14, 16).

Tel Megiddo and the surrounding valley is frequently identified as the site of the battle of Armageddon.

Most bible scholars and commentators preoccupy themselves with when Armageddon will occur, based on their understanding of Revelation and end-time events. When asked where the final battle of Armageddon will take place, the usual answer is the valley of Megiddo in Israel. This identification is based on breaking the word “Armageddon” into its two parts. “Ar” is the English equivalent to the Greek and Hebrew rendering which is “Har.” “Har” in Hebrew means “mountain.” The second part of the word “magedon” (one “d” in the Greek, not two) is usually thought to refer to the city of Megiddo. Because the ancient city of Megiddo was built and rebuilt many times over the centuries, a tell or small mound has developed. This is the result of the ancient practice of building one city on top of another. Thus Megiddo has the appearance of being a small hill or mountain as can be seen in the photo to the left. Armageddon, or Harmageddon is thus interpreted to mean “the mountain of Megiddo.”

Could the Equation of Armageddon with Mountain of Megiddo Be Wrong?

In his recent book The Unseen Realm, Bible scholar Michael Heiser argues that Armageddon should be equated with Jerusalem, not Megiddo. (If Heiser is correct, this means I need to revise one of my statements in my post entitled: Tel-Megiddo!) Heiser makes the following points to advance his argument:

Megiddo is a tell, it is not a mountain.

2. Zechariah 12:9-11 pictures Jerusalem as the place where the final battle against the nations will take place. Interestingly, Megiddo is also mentioned in this passage. Heiser states, “It is crystal clear that the final conflict occurs at Jerusalem, not Megiddo. Megiddo is referenced only to compare the awful mourning that will result.” He continues by also noting, “verse 11 tells us explicitly that Megiddo is a plain, not a mountain!” (p. 370, all italics are the author’s).

3. Heiser’s third point is more complicated and involves knowing a little Hebrew as he attempts to show that the word “magedon” does not come from Armageddon, but from a different Hebrew expression. He points out that there are 2 letters in the Hebrew alphabet that are transliterated with a “g” in Greek and English. Transliteration means writing the letters of another alphabet in the equivalent forms of our alphabet. One of those letters is the Hebrew letter ‘ayin (ע). An ‘ayin is pronounced in the back of the throat like a hard “g” but it is represented in English transliteration as a backwards apostrophe (‘). Heiser notes that the transliteration of the city Gomorrah is ‘amorah. I would add, the same is true for the city Gaza which also begins with an ‘ayin and is transliterated as ‘aza. If the letter “g” in “magedon” is an ‘ayin, then, Heiser argues, that the Hebrew expression would be har mo’ed which means “mountain of assembly.” If you’re unfamiliar with Hebrew, I know that going from “Armageddon” to “har mo’ed” seems like a stretch. But trust me, it works. Heiser notes that this expression is found in Isaiah 14:13. This is a passage usually attributed to Satan’s defiance of God and Heiser treats it fully elsewhere in his book. To fully appreciate his point, it is necessary to read the book. For the full argument on this particular point see pages 370-373.

4. “Jerusalem is a mountain–Mount Zion” (p. 373). Heiser’s point is that when John uses the word Armageddon, he is meaning the mountain of assembly which every one who knew Hebrew would equate with Mount Zion, or Jerusalem.

Megiddo or Jerusalem?

Since David conquered Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, it has been the center and hearbeat of Israelite life. Something rings true to me about the final battle taking place in Jerusalem. After all, even today, Jerusalem remains the focal point of controversy and contention when it comes to the Middle East. Even if it can’t be proven that Armageddon means “mountain of the assembly,” Heiser’s other arguments make sense of an important biblical event that all Christians long to see take place. For more of Heiser’s arguments regarding Armageddon or his book, The Unseen Realm, check out his website at moreunseenrealm.com.

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts

Bulla of Hezekiah Discovered in Jerusalem

December 11, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

Bulla of Hezekiah Discovered in Jerusalem

A bulla of Hezekiah of Judah. It reads "Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah — A bulla of Hezekiah of Judah. It reads “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah

It was recently announced that a clay bulla of Hezekiah King of Judah (727-698 B.C.) was discovered during excavations in the Ophel area of Jerusalem. Although found in 2009, the discovery has only recently been made known to the public. While previous bullae (plural of “bulla”) of Hezekiah are known, this is the first one discovered in an archaeological context (others have appeared on the antiquites market and in the collections of antiquities dealers). A bulla is a small piece of clay, which has been impressed by the owner’s seal. Bullae were used to seal papyrus documents that were rolled and tied with a string (see picture below). In the middle of the bulla of Hezekiah is a picture of a two-winged sun disk. The wings of the sun disk point downward and it has six rays of light projecting from it (3 from the top and 3 from the bottom). On either side of the sun disk (the one on the right is most clearly visible) are ankh symbols from Egypt known as “the key of life.”

Example of an ancient papyrus (from the 5th century B.C.) still rolled and tied with strings. The back of the bulla shows the imprint of the papyrus grain. Image taken from http://www.archaeological-center.com/en/monographs/m13/

Given Israel’s aversion to symbols, especially by a King known for his sweeping religious reforms (2 Kgs. 18:1-6; 2 Chron. 29), it is somewhat surprising to find this iconography on King Hezekiah’s seal. The use of Egyptian symbols may also surprise many. As far as current knowledge tells us, Hezekiah seems to be the first king of Judah to use a royal emblem with an icon on it. It is also known from other bullae that Hezekiah adopted the use of the two-winged scarab (dung beetle), known in both Egypt and Phoenicia. Thus, we are now aware of two different images that were employed on the royal seals of Hezekiah. There are several passages which suggest a dependence on Egypt by Hezekiah, and this may be why the king’s seals show Egyptian influence. For example, when Sennacherib is laying siege to Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (an Assyrian official) rebukes Hezekiah for trusting in Egypt (Isa. 36:4-6). Although Hezekiah is not specifically mentioned in Isaiah 30, this passage condemns Judah’s leadership for trusting in Egypt for military aid. As far as the imagery on the seal itself, given Hezekiah’s aversion to idolatry, Robert Deutsch’s conclusion seems correct. He states, “Although winged sun disks and scarabs had originated in foreign lands, by the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, when they appeared on Hebrew seals, they were already quite old and bereft of any religious significance. They were used solely for their decorative value and their connotation of power – and should be regarded as Israelite/Judahite. When Hezekiah adopted the two-winged scarab and the two-winged sun disk with six rays as royal emblems, he was simply appropriating generally accepted icons of royal power and not importing meaning from either Phoenicia or Egypt” (Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian-Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals–the whole article is worth reading).

The Bulla of Hezekiah and the Ophel

The bulla of Hezekiah was found in the Ophel which is the area circled in the photo above..

As noted above, the bulla of Hezekiah was discovered during excavations of the Ophel in Jerusalem. The Ophel is the area between the Temple Mount and the City of David (see the picture on the right). The bulla was found in an ancient refuse dump near a royal building that dates back to Solomon’s time (mid-tenth century B.C.). I had the opportunity of exploring this area last Spring (2015). The bulla was discovered through a process known as wet-sifting. Wet-sifting is a process utilized by Dr. Gabriel Barkai and Zachi Dvira at the Temple Mount ever since the illegal dumping of tons of soil bull-dozed on the Temple Mount in 1999 by the Waqf. These archaeologists realized that “this discarded earth represented a treasure trove of information relating to the Temple Mount’s history” (see Temple Mount Sifting Project). Since Barkai and Dvira implemented this system of searching through the dug up soil, it has become a staple of archaeological excavations. Many smaller items, like this bulla of Hezekiah, would easily go undiscovered if this method were not employed.

Wet-sifting continues at the Temple Mount and thousands of volunteers participate each year.

Well known Israeli archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar was in charge of the excavations at the Ophel. You can watch a very interesting video here showing Dr. Mazar’s explanation of the discovery, and of the bulla of Hezekiah. The same video with an accompanying article can be found at phys.org. The bulla of Hezekiah is not only one of several bullae that exist of the Judean King, it is also one among a number of other bullae that have been discovered that refer to people mentioned in the Bible. Bullae of several of Hezekiah’s court officials have also been discovered (see the link to Deutsch’s article above). We also have a seal impression of King Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, as well as several Judean officials from the time of Jeremiah. Whether archaeological discoveries in Israel are big or small, they continue to help us better understand the ancient world of the Bible.

Bible Backgrounds

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

December 4, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

Did the Exodus happen? Many leading archaeologists and Bible scholars today say, “No.” Others argue that there may have been a small group of slaves that escaped Egypt, but the historical events didn’t happen the way they are described in the Bible. Even among evangelical scholars who accept the biblical account as historical, there is a debate regarding the date of the Exodus (this article from Wikipedia is an example of the skepticism of most regarding the Exodus). All of this confusion surrounding the Exodus led filmmaker Timothy P. Mahoney to begin a 12-year quest to discover if the Exodus really happened as it is told in the Bible, or not. The result of his investigation is a book and film entitled Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. Mahoney explains that his original reason for going to Israel and Egypt was to do a documentary about the route of the Exodus and the location of the real Mount Sinai. However, when he arrived in the Middle East, he was asked why he would want to make a documentary about an event that never happened. You can see his interview with Fox News here where Mahoney explains how this question changed the direction of his project and eventually led to the making of Patterns of Evidence: Exodus.

Patterns of Evidence: The Initial Quest

The ancient city of Avaris which has been excavated over the past 30 years shows evidence for an ancient Semitic/Canaanite people.

Mahoney’s initial quest led to disappointment. He was introduced to the most popular theory regarding the date of the Exodus, which is the time of Ramesses II (13th century B.C.). As the film points out, one of the bases for this proposal is Exodus 1:11, which mentions that the Israelites built the city of Ramesses. The city has a narrow history of 200 years (1300-1100 B.C.). The problem is, there is no evidence for a settlement of Israelites, or an exodus from Egypt during this period. Mahoney began to wonder if there was a city that showed archaeological evidence for a group of ancient Israelites. He heard about the excavations going on at the ancient city of Avaris, which happens to lay underneath the southern sector of the later city of Ramesses in the Nile Delta. There he was told by the director of excavations, Manfred Bietak, that a large group of ancient Semitic people (25-30,000) had been discovered. According to Bietak, these people were originally a free people who enjoyed a special status and were shepherds. This sounded to Mahoney like the biblical account, but Bietak discouraged that interpretation because he holds to the Ramesses II date for the Exodus and this settlement was much to early to qualify as an early settlement of Israelites.

Searching for Patterns of Evidence

Patterns of Evidence focuses on 6 major events recorded in the Bible visualized by a timeline wall, and proposes that these 6 events can be found in Egyptian history. However, some suggest that the current chronological timeline used by scholars needs to be adjusted.

Although discouraged at first, Mahoney decided that his search should proceed along the scientific lines of searching for patterns of evidence, wherever that evidence might lead. Mahoney chose 6 important events in the biblical chronology: 1) Israelites descent into Egypt; 2) the multiplication of the population; 3) slavery; 4) a judgment on Egyptian society; 5) a massive and sudden exodus; and 6) the conquest of Canaan. Was there a time period in Egyptian history that corresponded to these 6 events? According to Mahoney, and other scholars he interviews, the answer is “Yes.” Mahoney, along with such scholars as David Rohl, Bryant Wood, and John J. Bimson, contend that the period of Ramesses II is the wrong period to look for the Israelite exodus from Egypt (thus it is no surprise that evidence is lacking for this time period). Some of these scholars would contend for an earlier date of around 1450 B.C., which is traditionally the date accepted by some evangelical scholars. This date is based on 1 Kings 6:1 which states that Solomon began building the Temple 480 years after Israel left Egypt. It’s generally agreed that Solomon’s reign began about 970 B.C. and the construction of the Temple began around 966 B.C. Adding 480 years to these dates takes one back to around 1450-1440 B.C. Mahoney introduces a massive amount of evidence to demonstrate that there was a time in Egyptian history that corresponds with the 6 major events mentioned in the biblical account (I’ll leave it to you to watch the video. It is a fascinating and informative investigation whether you agree with the conclusions or not). There is still a problem, however. The problem is that even the early date of 1450 B.C. does not appear to be early enough. The pattens of evidence that Mahoney discusses take one back into the period known in Egypt as the Middle Kingdom, and this is a full 200 years earlier than the 1450 B.C. date!

Is Egyptian Chronology Correct?

This chart is one example of a change in the current Egyptian timeline employed by scholars. For an explanation of this timeline see the following link at ancientexodus.com.

Patterns of Evidence points out that all chronologies of the ancient world are based on Egyptian chronology. Egyptian chronology has been considered established for a long time and many (including many noted evangelical scholars) refuse to consider that there could be major errors in it. However, there is a growing number of scholars looking into a “revised” Egyptian chronology (see the example above and the link for an explanation). The current chronology that is used, not only creates problems for the biblical account, but it also requires gaps of time to be inserted into the chronologies of other ancient nations in order to make them synchronize with Egyptian history. This suggests there may be a problem. David Rohl and John J. Bimson, among others, are convinced that Egypt’s chronology needs an overhaul. Others are convinced that an early date for the Exodus (i.e., 1450 B.C.) is still the best explanation (see Bryant Wood’s arguments against Rohl’s chronology here).

An Evaluation of Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

For more information on Patterns of Evidence: Exodus see the website at patternsofevidence.com

Mahoney is up front about coming from a Christian family and growing up believing in the historicity of the Bible. However, he admits that when he began his investigation into the evidence for the Exodus, it created some doubt and concern. But, as he says at the end of the film, he was determined to go wherever the evidence led. Although one could accuse Mahoney of entering this project with a biased point of view, as archaeologist Bryant Wood points out in his interview with Mahoney, “everybody in the field is biased.” Not only is it impossible for a human being to have no bias, but in my small exposure to the world of archaeology I have learned that conclusions are often heavily motivated by theological or political agendas. Therefore I find Wood’s next point even more important when he states, “I can not make up the evidence, I can not plant it in the ground,” and he encourages everyone to look at the evidence and make a decision based upon it. This is what Mahoney seeks to do in the film. The film interviews scholars, archaeologists, and Egyptologists of all persuasions. Some believe the biblical story is reliable and some do not. I find Mahoney’s treatment fair, although he is clearly coming from an evangelical perspective. In the end, he does not firmly endorse one view over another, but the film does indicate, as the title suggests, that there are some strong Patterns of Evidence for believing the biblical story of the Exodus.

Character Studies

Jephthah’s Daughter (Part 2): Was She Sacrificed?

November 25, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

Jephthah’s Daughter (Part 2): Was She Sacrificed?

Was Jephthah's daughter offered up as a burnt sacrifice? — Was **Jephthah’s daughter** offered up as a burnt sacrifice?

In my last post entitled “Jephthah’s Vow: What Did Jephthah Do to His Daughter?,” I noted that there are two views regarding the fate of Jephthah’s daughter: 1) He offered her as a burnt offering; or, 2) She became a lifelong virgin. In that post, I argued that he really did offer his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, and I sought to show the weaknesses of the arguments for the other interpretation. In this post, I will examine the strengths for the first proposal, which also happens to be the view of ancient interpreters.

Jephthah’s Daughter Was Offered as a Burnt Offering

The theme of Judges, not only a cycle, but a downward spiral, supports the reading that Jephthah's daughter was offered as a burnt sacrifice. — The theme of Judges, not only a cycle, but a downward spiral, supports the reading that Jephthah’s daughter was offered as a burnt sacrifice.

Context–The interpretation that Jephthah’s daughter was offered as a burnt offering best fits the context of the Book of Judges. Judges 2:11-19 sets forth the theme of the Book which involves, not just a cycle of apostasy, but a downward spiral of apostasy. This is clearly conveyed in Judges 2:19 which states, “And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers….” Those, like Hugenberger, who take a more positive view of the Judges, note that it is the people who are portrayed as corrupt, not the judges themselves, in this opening statement. While there is some truth to this observation, especially with the earlier judges, the later judges clearly show evidence of both spiritual and moral degeneration. I will illustrate this degeneration in the character of the judges by noting important parallels and contrasts between Gideon and Jephthah in my second argument below.

The characters in the Book of Judges should be compared and contrasted to understand the message of the book.

Character parallels and contrasts–This is actually a subcategory of Context, but I have set it apart to illustrate one of the techniques used by the inspired author in showing the degeneration of the judges themselves. Using Jephthah as an example, the reader is clearly expected to compare Gideon’s treatment of the Ephraimites (Judg. 8:1-3) with Jephthah’s (Judg. 12:1-7). Each of these passages share a number of similarities including, the theme of contention, the fact that it is the tribe of Ephraim which confronts the judge/deliverer in both instances, and the importance of the expression “the fords of the Jordan.” When Gideon’s diplomatic response is compared to Jephthah’s savage treatment of the Ephraimites, it becomes obvious that Jephthah is no Gideon. Of course this does not mean that Gideon is any model of morality. Gideon also kills Israelites, but instead of nearly wiping out whole tribes, he only wipes out towns! (Judg. 8:14-17). Ironically, the towns that Gideon wipes out are in the territory that Jephthah will later exercise leadership over, thus making another connection between the two. The upshot of this comparison is: if Gideon’s actions were bad, Jephthah’s were much worse.

Jephthah's daughter by Rombout Van Troyen (1643) — Jephthah’s daughter by Rombout Van Troyen (1643)

In spite of the good that both men are capable of, they not only show the effects of moral degeneration, but also of spiritual degeneration. When Gideon is first called by the Lord, he destroys the altar of Baal and the Asherah in his hometown (Judg. 6:25-32). However, toward the latter stages of his judgeship, he leads Israel back into idolatry (Judg. 8:27) and by the time of his death, Israel has come full-circle and is once again worshipping the Baals (Judg. 8:33). This same pattern can be found in Jephthah’s story. Jephthah’s deliverance from the Ammonites begins with a stirring rendition of Israel’s history, demonstrating that he has a good grasp of what God has accomplished for His people. However, Jephthah’s vow to offer “whatever comes out of the doors of my house” (Judg. 11:31–see below for more on this), shows that he has been influenced by the religious ideas of his enemies. The Ammonites and Moabites (both mentioned in Jephthah’s historical recital), whose gods were, respectively, Molech and Chemosh, were well-known for offering up human sacrifice (e.g., Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kgs. 3:26-27). Just as Canaanite culture rubbed off on Gideon, leading him back into idolatry, so, it appears, Ammonite/Moabite culture had an effect on Jephthah. Both Gideon and Jephthah worshipped Yahweh, but both allowed their worship of Him to become corrupted by the influence of the surrounding culture.

Although the language is ambiguous, the words "to meet" more likely suggest a person, than an animal. — Although the language is ambiguous, the words “to meet” more likely suggest a person, than an animal.

Human more likely than animal–Since animals were usually kept on the bottom floor of Israelite houses, it has been asserted that Jephthah was thinking of an animal when he stated, “Whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me…shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judg. 11:31). While it is true that “whatever” is ambiguous and can refer to an animal or human being, a number of scholars note that the words “to meet me,” are “more applicable to a human being than an animal” (Barry Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT, p. 329). Furthermore, it was customary in the ancient world for people to greet the returning victors. In Israel this was frequently done with song (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 18:6-7). McCann sums up the content of Jephthah’s vow when he writes, “While animals may have lived in the house in those days, so did people! Jephthah, the smart and skilled negotiator of 11:12-28, surely should have foreseen all the possibilities. Thus, given the literary context, the attempt to give Jephthah the benefit of the doubt only makes him look worse–stupid and thoughtless, as well as unfaithful” (J. Clinton McCann, Judges, Interpretation Commentary, pp. 82-83). In my previous post, I have dealt with the argument that Jephthah’s statement might be translated with the conjunction “or” rather than “and.” In other words, Jephthah says “and I will offer it up,” not “or I will offer it up” (Judg. 11:31–see the link above to my previous post for a fuller discussion). Therefore, on no level whatsoever can Jephthah’s vow be thought of as innocent, virtuous, or perfect (contrary to the post “Jephthah’s Perfect Vow“) .

Language, repetition and syntax–A careful examination of the language of the vow and the subsequent events that follow, show that the author uses repetition to drive home the tragic point that Jephthah offered his daughter up as a burnt offering. If we render the first part of Jephthah’s vow literally, he says, “The one going out who goes out of the doors of my house to meet me…” (Judg. 11:31). When Jephthah returns from the battle, we are told, “Look, his daughter was going out to meet him…” (Judg. 11:34). The repetition of words is the first clue that the daughter has become the object of the vow. Part of Jephthah’s response to his daughter is, “I have opened my mouth to Yahweh and I cannot take it back” (Judg. 11:35). Jephthah’s daughter responds saying, “My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth” (Judg. 11:36). This repetition further confirms the wrong-headed nature of his vow and the horror it has led to. Through the use of repetition, the biblical author communicates a horrible truth in the most delicate way possible. As Phyllis Trible states, “The ambiguity of Jephthah’s vow disappears. His daughter is his sacrifice; she must die for his unfaithfulness” (Trible, Texts of Terror, p. 100).

It has been argued that the author never explicitly states that Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering. Instead the author states, “he did to her, his vow which he had vowed” (Judg. 11:39). First, we have already noted above that the author treats the outcome of Jephthah’s vow as delicately as possible. Should we have expected the author to say, “And Jephthah slit the throat of his daughter and burned her body as a sacrifice to the Lord”? It would seem that the inspired author had no desire to speak so blatantly of an Israelite leader offering up a human sacrifice. To speak of such an unspeakable act is to give it a voice that it does not deserve. But perhaps the most important observation is in regards to the syntax of the sentence, “he did to her, his vow which he had vowed.” This is a common way of expressing in Hebrew that someone did what they were expected to do. For example, this same sentence structure is found in Genesis 21:1: “And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken.” Another example, from the Book of Judges itself reads, “So Gideon took ten men from among his servants and did as the Lord had said to him” (Judg. 6:27). Therefore, the syntax itself clearly communicates that Jephthah offered his daughter without the author having to state it so bluntly.

Jephthah’s attitude–Finally, I would argue that Jephthah’s attitude, when his daughter comes out the door, betrays his self-absorbtion, which further suggests the wrongness of his vow. As many have noted, rather than Jephthah being concerned for his daughter, his reaction is “Alas my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot go back on it” (Judg. 11:35). Notice the “you” and “me/I” language in these statements, demonstrating Jephthah’s egocentricity. “You are among those who trouble me”…really? It seems like it’s the other way around! The negative comparisons with Gideon, along with this selfish outburst, clearly portray Jephthah as the kind of person who could make such an incredibly foolish vow.

Conclusion: Jephthah’s Vow / Jephthah’s Daughter

When one adds up the weaknesses of the one position (celibacy), versus the strengths of the other position (burnt offering), it seems that the only correct conclusion can be that Jephthah did indeed offer his daughter as a burnt offering.

What happened to Jephthah’s daughter is more than an academic question. It involves the very purpose of the inspired writer which was to show that when God’s people forsake Him and compromise with the culture around them, chaos and violence are the results. The problem with those who want to redeem the reputation of Judges like Jephthah and Samson is that it distorts one of the powerful messages of the Book of Judges. Along with God’s mercy, the Canaanization of Israel (to use Daniel I. Block’s term), is the main theme of the book. This is a message that is much needed in our world today. The world revels in the idea that everyone should “do what is right in their own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). The church in many places has compromised the message of the truth. It has bowed to the culture and has decided that living among the Canaanites is not so bad. Consequently, the distinct message of the church that there is one true and living God has also been compromised. Ethics, and morality, both in and outside of the church, have also taken a severe hit. The result is a world that continues to become more and more violent and chaotic. Like the Levite’s concubine (Judg. 19), we are no longer safe at home. We are living out the Book of Judges in our own day. This is why we dare not water down its message just because that message makes us uncomfortable with some of its heroes. There are plenty of Gideon’s, Jephthah’s, and Samson’s in the leadership of the church today and all of God’s people need to hear what the outcome of such leadership will be–both good and bad. Like the days of the Judges, we would do well to humbly submit to God’s correction, repent, and seek his forgiveness. Thank God that the Book of Judges also teaches that He is incredibly patient and merciful toward His people!