Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

acquainted with this law, he must have known that for ten, or at most for thirty, shekels of silver he could completely exonerate himself from his vow, and his plea that he could not go back would have been altogether untrue. What, then, has all this show of argument about the law of a Nazarite, and of the singular vow, to do with the case of Jephthah and his daughter? The statement of Dr. Kitto stills remains unrefuted: "To live unmarried was required by no law, custom, or devotement among the Jews; no one had the right to impose so odious a condition on another, nor is any such condition implied or expressed in the vow which Jephthah uttered."* The hypothesis that Jephthah's daughter was devoted as a nun, says Stanley, "is eontrary to the plain meaning of the text, contrary to the highest authorities of the Church, contrary to all the usages of the old dispensation." +

The exposition of Louis Cappel, that Jephthah devoted his daughter to the Lord, according to the law of the cherem, (ban or "devoted thing," Lev. xxvii, 28, 29,) demands no extended attempt at refutation. The fundamental idea of the cherem, as applied to persons, was that of a forced devoting to destruction of those who obstinately refused to devote themselves to Jehovah; and the impossibility of connecting such an idea to Jephthah's case is thus forcibly shown by Hengstenberg:

(1.) The cherem necessarily supposes in its objects impiety, decided enmity against God, and moral corruption; but Jephthah's daughter was a virtuous, pious young woman. (2.) Sacrifice and cherem are in direct opposition. The vow of a sacrifice could never be fulfilled by the presentation of a cherem. (3.) The cherem, according to its idea, was a divine prerogative, and appears as such every-where, both in the law and the history. Men are only instruments in performing it, to fulfill the mandates of the divine will. The cherem was never any thing devoted arbitrarily by man, or without express divine direction. Otherwise every murderer might shelter himself under the injunctions respecting it. §

A passing notice must also be taken of the hypothesis of Bush, who supposes that during the two months the affair be

*Article Jephthah, in Kitto's Cyclopedia.

"Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church," page 397.

De Voto Jephtae in the Critici Sacri. Tomus II, pages 2076-2086.

§ Hengstenberg on the "Genuineness of the Pentateuch," Dissertation IV.

[ocr errors]

came the subject of discussion and lamentation throughout the whole nation. He imagines that when the vow passed Jephthah's lips it" partook more of the character of the cherem than the neder, and that he was subsequently instructed by "the authorized expounders of the law" that a burnt-offering was incompatible with the nature of a cherem, "and that the law having made no provision for the latter being substituted for the former, he was, even according to the very terms of his vow, rightly understood, not only released, but prohibited from performing it." Accordingly he conceives that Jephthah executed his vow by devoting his daughter to perpetual celibacy -"a mode of execution which did not, in the first instance, enter into his thoughts."*

We doubt if this hypothesis ever clearly satisfied its ingenious author, or any body else. The one and all-sufficient answer to it is, that from beginning to end it is a tissue of conjectures, and can claim no support whatever from the sacred narrative. It may do for poets and romance writers to weave such fancies around the facts of Scripture history, but for a grave commentator sagely to give us such conjectures for exposition is to begin a new era in sacred hermeneutics.

But Bush inquires: "If she were really put to death, is it not strange that the fact of her death is not once spoken of?" The fact of her death, we answer, is sufficiently indicated in the statement, "He did to her his vow which he had vowed;" and as for the silence of other parts of Scripture on the subject, that surely is no more strange than its silence on a hundred other things, on which many would prefer to have had more of detail. With far more show of reason may we ask, How is it, if she was not slain, that we have no mention of her after life? The marginal reading, "The daughters of Israel went yearly to talk with the daughter of Jephthah," that is, to comfort her in her solitude, is altogether untenable. If that were the meaning to be conveyed, not, but or n would have been employed. If with the English version, and all the ancient versions, (Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic,) we render to lament, we may well remark with Kitto, "People lament the dead, not the living." But if we render to commemorate or celebrate, as is undoubtedly the cor*Notes, page 164.

rect translation of the Hebrew, the same remark will still apply, for people are not wont to go at stated anniversaries to commemorate or celebrate a living person. It was natural for the daughters of Israel to go yearly and celebrate the sublime devotion and lofty heroism that haloed round the memory of the saintly maiden; but if the maiden were still living in the mountains were they went to praise her, it is inexplicably strange that no intimation of that fact is given.

Some have been puzzled to know by whose hands Jephthah's daughter could have been sacrificed. It would have been unlawful, they urge, for Jephthah to have done it, for to offer burnt-offerings was the prerogative solely of the priests, and surely the priests at Shiloh would not have polluted the tabernacle with a human sacrifice. This difficulty is all imaginary. A reference merely to chapter vi, 19, 20, 26, 27, and chapter xiii, 19, of this same Book of Judges is sufficient to show that in that age it was no uncommon thing for persons to offer burnt-offerings without the presence or aid of priests, and also at places remote from the tabernacle. And the man who, like Jephthah, supposed that a human sacrifice would be pleasing to Jehovah, would not be likely to scruple over forms. Ignorant of the law against human sacrifices, he would be still less likely to know the customs and regulations of the Levitical priesthood; and to suppose that between the time he was made judge and the time he did his vow he must have learned much of the law of Moses, is to suppose what has no evidence in the Scriptures.

Finally, it is said that our exposition enables the oppugners of divine revelation to urge a capital objection against the morality of the Bible. But how is this possible when the Bible nowhere approves or sanctions Jephthah's vow? Must we accept as divinely sanctioned every action in Bible history that is not specifically condemned by some sacred writer? Amazingly shallow are they who presume to oppugn divine revelation with such logic, or they who seriously fear the attacks of such oppugners. As we have said before, we shudder at Jephthah's ignorance and superstition. Our Christian instinct revolts from his bloody deed. But, with the daughters of Israel who lived in that darkest of historic ages, we

cannot but commemorate and extol the mighty faith and zeal of Jephthah, and the subline devotion of his daughter.

We may appropriately close this essay with the words of Stanley:*

As far back as we can trace the sentiment of those who read the passage, in Jonathan the Targumist, and Josephus, and through the whole of the first eleven centuries of Christendom, the story was taken in its literal sense as describing the death of the maiden, although the attention of the Church was, as usual, diverted to distant allegorical meanings. Then, it is said, from a polemical bias of Kimchi, arose the interpretation that she was not killed, but immured in celibacy. From the Jewish theology this spread to the Christian. By this time the notion had sprung up that every act recorded in the Old Testament was to be defended according to the standard of Christian morality; and, accordingly, the process began of violently wresting the words of Scripture to meet the preconceived fancies of later ages. In this way entered the hypothesis of Jephthah's daughter having been devoted as a nun; contrary to the plain meaning of the text, contrary to the highest authorities of the Church, contrary to all the usages of the old dispensation. In modern times a more careful study of the Bible has brought us back to the original sense. And with it returns the deep pathos of the original story, and the lesson which it reads of the heroism of the father and daughter, to be admired and loved, in the midst of the fierce superstitions across which it plays like a sunbeam on a stormy sea.

ART. VL-THE POSITION OF CALVINISM. + THERE has been put into my hands a late number of the "Methodist," with a leading editorial entitled "Schaff on American Theology." I propose to make some observations.

"Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church." First Series, page 397. The paper which follows was originally designed as a communication for the columns of the "Methodist," in answer to a leading article from a source unknown to me. This will account for its familiar tone, and for portions which may seem less fitting to the pages of a solid Quarterly. But it grew upon the hands of the writer to its present size, and, being placed in the hands of one of my distinguished Methodist Episcopal brethren of Madison, was by him designated to its present place, where, by the courtesy of the Editor, it appears. It was written several months ago, as its readers will perceive, but its publication has been unavoidably delayed until now.-R. A.

We cheerfully insert the communication of our respected contributor, under condition of our making free but respectful annotations.-EDITOR.

upon this article. Audi alterem partem is the only principle by observing which we arrive at clear light. While I do not mean to be understood as agreeing with other parts of the article, yet I design to look at one or two special statements, which are statements of facts, and facts in regard to which, it seems to me, Calvinists ought to be the most competent witnesses.* The following extracts are the portions to which I refer: "The Arminian revolution of opinion, which has nearly eliminated the Augustinian theology." "It (Methodism) has leavened all American Protestantism. Few, if any, American divines would now acknowledge Calvin's Institutes as their theological standard. Calvinism, whether Sublapsarian or Supralapsarian, is now seldom uttered in American pulpits. The general religious consciousness of the country recognizes it as effete."

These are surprising assertions. I almost held my breath as I read them. If you should read in any of our most highly accredited Presbyterian papers the statement that Calvinism had nearly eliminated the Arminian theology, you would be as much astounded as we are; and if you respected the author of the statement as much as we respect the "Methodist," you would very likely pause, and take a fresh breath, to know whether you really were alive or not.

Permit me to premise, that what I shall say will be from the Presbyterian stand-point. There are other Calvinistic bodies of power in the land. The Protestant Episcopal Church in its seventeenth article of the "Thirty-nine" asserts the clearest Calvinism. The whole article might well have come from Calvin's own pen. The Confession of the (Dutch) Reformed Church is identical with the "Thirty-nine Articles;"

* However intelligent or honest, men are not always "competent witnesses " in their own case. In the present issue Calvinists are rather the parties than the witnesses. If Calvinists can testify how fast they have held to Calvinism, those who have for a century stood at issue with them may be quite as good witnesses how much they have yielded and how far they have retreated.

Trust not yourself, but your defects to know,
Make use of every friend and every foe.-POPE.

And yet we suspect that many, we know not how many, Calvinistic preachers would confirm the statement of the " Methodist."

+ Lord Chatham said that "the English Church had a Popish liturgy, a Calvinistic creed, and an Arminian clergy." It is very possible that an American Church may have a Calvinistic clergy and an Arminian laity.

« IndietroContinua »