If you have read it, you doubtless remember the story of Jephthah, the Old Testament leader (Judges 11) who vowed to sacrifice the first thing that walked out of his house when he returned home if God would grant him success in battle.  Sadly, as you know, Jephthah returned to be greeted by his daughter who happened to be the first person to come out of the house to greet him (Judges 11:31).

Reading this story, it is hard not to wonder about the apparent stupidity of Jephthah’s vow.  Why would anyone play “Russian roulette” with their family’s lives in that way? What were the chances that it would not be one of his family members who would walk out of their home?

Actually, there is a fairly simple reason why the man’s vow was perhaps more understandable. Today, many homes in the Middle East are no different from those in the rest of the world, but even now many traditional homes of poorer people living on the land have not changed in thousands of years and are essentially the same as those of the Old Testament period.

In the simple homes of the ancient Near East, the family lived in a large “living room” which was the main, and often only, room of the house. That room frequently had a sunken area at one end that functioned as a stall where the family’s livestock were brought at night to protect them.  With this living arrangement, each morning someone in the house would open the door at the animals’ end of the house – from within, of course –  and drive the animals out to freshen the air in the home while the women prepared the first meal of the day.
 
There is no reason to doubt that Jephthah’s home was any different from this basic house plan. Jephthah was not rich.  As the son of a prostitute he was scorned by his half-brothers and driven from the family home, so his own dwelling was more than likely of the poorer type.

Now, if Jephthah knew he would travel in the cool night hours (as much travel was conducted in that time), he might well have known that he would return home in the early morning about the time the animals would be driven out of the house.  Such a situation would mean, of course, that Jephthah would expect it to be one of his animals that would be the first thing to meet him, in which case his vow was perhaps not as foolish  –  at least in its intent –  as it might seem at first.

Although the conclusion of the story may indicate Jephthah’s unfortunate daughter was sacrificed (Judges 11:38), the matter may have had a better outcome.  If we look closely at Jephthah’s vow, we find that what he said was: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:31, emphasis added). Notice the word “and” emphasized in this passage.  The Hebrew connective particle “v” that is translated as “and” can also mean “or.” We see this, for example, in 1 Kings 18:27: “… Perhaps he is deep in thought, OR busy, OR traveling,” where the word translated “or” is the Hebrew “v.”

This means that Jephthah’s vow should perhaps be better translated: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, OR I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”   Thus, many scholars believe that Jephthah’s daughter was  “dedicated” to God in that she was made to live a life of virginity. This would agree with the end of the story which tells us that the young woman requested: “… Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry” (Judges 11:37), and that:  “After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin” (Judges 11:38).  
​
But whether his daughter was dedicated or sacrificed, the fact that she was the first out of the house was clearly not a possibility Jephthah expected – as we see in the fact that on seeing her, he tore his clothes and cried out in anguish (Judges 11:35).  So Jephthah’s vow was perhaps not as blatantly foolish as it might seem at first and the result obviously unintentional, but the vow was unwise, nevertheless, and the story can remind us all of the extreme care we should utilize in making promises so that they do not end up hurting us or others.   

​“The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God. All his laws are before me; I have not turned away from his decrees. I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight” (Psalm 18:20-24).

At first sight, verses such as these might appear to show a self-righteous attitude and perhaps that the warrior-king David was proud of his own goodness.  If you were to say the same things to your friends, you know how they would react! But there are two factors to consider in looking at verses like these and understanding what David meant:

1) What righteousness means in the Old Testament.   First, we must understand that the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament is somewhat different from what we find today and in the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible the word sedek which is often translated as “righteousness” literally means “straightness” as opposed to “crookedness,” but it is usually used of the status of relationships rather than as an abstract measure of perfection. Under the Law of Moses one could be righteous by simply maintaining one’s relationship with God and others according to basic legal norms –  the term did not denote some kind of perfect purity or spiritual perfection.

Anyone who did not murder, cheat, lie to, or otherwise harm other individuals maintained a proper relationship with them and was therefore “righteous.” This is different, of course, from the deeper expectations of the New Testament, which more frequently stress the importance of other things such as right motivation and attitude behind the behavior.   As a result of the earlier concept of righteousness seen in most of the books of the Old Testament, when a person fulfilled the basic demands of a relationship he or she could be said to be “righteous,” and many of the times that David uses the term sedek, it is from this perspective.  David was righteous in Hebrew terms simply because he lived within the expectations of the covenant and the community of God’s people. 

2)  What David also says regarding sin and righteousness.  Even though David could see himself as being righteous in terms of how his society used the term, we find plenty of evidence that he was not proudly self-righteous.  We know that David sinned and knew that he sinned (Psalm 51, etc.), so it is clear he did not imagine himself perfect in our modern sense of righteousness.  We also know that David earnestly asked God to help him walk in the way of righteousness, as we see, for example, in Psalm 19: “Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, and I shall be innocent of great transgression” (Psalm 19:13).

Finally, we know that beyond asking God’s help to walk righteously, David openly gave God the credit when he did do what was right.  In Psalm 18 –  the same psalm we quote above regarding David’s expressions of righteousness –  we also find: “It is God who arms me with strength, and makes my way perfect” (Psalm 18:32).  This same attitude of humbly crediting God with his righteousness is frequently confirmed in other psalms, as when David says: “You are my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2b)

So, there is no indication in the psalms of David, or elsewhere, that David was self-righteous or proud of his own goodness. While it is clear that David knew that at most times he did walk righteously according to the use of this concept in his own culture, it is equally clear that he asked God’s help to do so and gave God credit when he succeeded.
 
* For further understanding of the psalms of King David, download our free e-book Spotlight on the Psalms here.

Scripture in Focus  Ruth 3:1-15

​In the Book of Ruth, the heroine’s mother-in-law, Naomi, tells the widowed Ruth:

​“My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for.  Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor.  Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking.  When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do” (Ruth 3:1-4).

This may sound like strange advice, and it is a part of the story that often troubles readers –  especially because even some Bible commentaries have attempted to see sexual innuendos in what is said.  But, as we will see, there is really nothing in the language used or in our knowledge of Hebrew culture of the time to suggest anything sexual was involved. Ruth’s distant relative Boaz is shown to be an honorable man throughout the book, just as Ruth herself is shown to be honorable at every point.    According to the law of Moses (as Naomi doubtless explained to Ruth), when a man died leaving his wife without children, the man’s nearest relative was bound to take her as a wife and provide a child for her (Deuteronomy 5:5-10).  This situation helps us understand what happened next.

The story continues by telling us that when Ruth went to the threshing floor where Boaz had been working and had gone to sleep: “Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down.  In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet! “Who are you?” he asked. “I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family” (Ruth 3:7-9).

To understand this part of the story we need to realize that in the Ancient Near East servants often slept crossways at the feet of their master when working outdoors and were allowed to pull any available blanket over themselves in order to keep warm.   That is why Ruth told Boaz that she was his servant – and thus eligible to lie at his feet – and that he was her guardian-redeemer (Hebrew goel) who bore a responsibility to marry her to provide a son to perpetuate the name of her deceased husband – so he should “cover her with his garment” or marry her (Ezekiel 16:8, etc.).

But why uncover his feet?  Certainly this caused him to eventually awaken in the dark, but Ruth could simply have woken Boaz to talk.  The “uncovering” of Boaz’s feet was necessary because it relates to what she tells him – and in the culture of that time a shoe would be removed to signal a responsibility or to seal a contract.  We see this signaling in Deuteronomy in exactly this situation when a man would not fulfil his responsibility to his brother’s wife: “his brother’s widow shall go up to him …. take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line’”(Deuteronomy 5:9).

We see the same act of uncovering the foot to seal an agreement later in the story of Ruth when Boaz cleverly persuades Ruth’s actual nearest of kin to forgo his responsibility and allow Boaz to marry her: “(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.)” (Ruth 4:7).

So Ruth’s uncovering of Boaz’s feet on the threshing floor has nothing to do with the uncovering of any other part of the anatomy (the Hebrew is literally “uncover the place of his feet,” which is never used euphemistically).  Rather, it fits into what we see specifically in this part of the story –  the signaling of a responsibility on the part of Boaz to marry Ruth and provide children for her.  This was a responsibility that this ancient story shows Boaz was more than happy to fulfill – without ever experiencing “cold feet” again!

*You can download a free copy of our book on Ruth here.

Scripture in Focus: ​
​
“This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement”  (1 John 5:6-8).

These words of the apostle John are some of the most argued over verses in the Bible. What exactly do they mean?   There have been many suggestions as to exactly what the water and blood are by which Christ came, but the most agreed upon are the following two explanations:

The Sacrifice of Jesus

The blood and  water that flowed from Jesus’ side when his body was pierced by a Roman soldier after his death on the cross (John 19:34).    Understood this way, the water and blood of which John spoke would symbolically represent the blood and water involved in some of the Old Testament sacrifices (Leviticus 14:52:  “He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn.”  Hebrews 9:19:  “he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.” etc.). 

However, although the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side may have symbolically fulfilled the blood and water aspect of the physical sacrifices, how would this apply to what John says in 1 John 5:6-8?  We should note that the order John gives in those verses is water and blood – not blood and water as in all the sacrificial related scriptures. Second, if this were the meaning John had in mind, why would he write that  Jesus “came” by the water and blood? In what sense could he have “arrived” after his death? And why would John add “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood.”?

The Baptism and Death of Jesus

The other major interpretation of what John wrote argues that the “water and blood” refer to the water of Jesus’ baptism in the River Jordan and the blood of his sacrifice on the cross. In this sense, the Son of God  could certainly be said to have “come” through these two events as they framed Jesus’ ministry from beginning to end. Remember that at both points Christ was declared to be the Son of God – by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Matthew 3:17), and by the testimony of the centurion at his death (Matthew 27:54).  Also, as John states, the Spirit of God testified to Jesus being the Son of God (1 John 5:7-8) a fact that applies far more to his complete ministry than to an isolated point after his death.

This understanding fits the order of words that John used – the water then the blood – and there is a historical reason why it is likely correct.  The epistle of John was written partly to combat emerging heretical ideas that taught the Son of God descended upon and entered the man Jesus at his baptism and then left him at the time of his arrest, so that it was only the physical Jesus who died.  John argues against these early gnostic teachings in many verses of his first epistle and his statement that Jesus came by water and blood makes total sense in this regard.

​John seems to argue that the work of the Son of God spanned the whole of his life from baptism to death – which is why he would stress: “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood” (vs. 6b). John’s point is that, contrary to false teachings, it was the Son of God who was baptized and who was crucified. In saying this, John counters the gnostic stress on “knowledge” of this false Jesus – which is why the apostle (stressing both knowledge and idols) concludes:

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:20-21).