You are right about what you say about Jephthah's idiotic vow. That vow was the thing that made the poor girl's death happen.
Suppose, though, that Jephthah's child had been a boy. Would God just have accepted that Jephthah killed his son just so that he could fulfill his vow to God? Frankly, I don't believe it. There are many passages in the Bible that most strenuously forbid the sacrificing of sons. Yes, there are also passages that forbid the sacrificing of sons and daughters, but there are no passages that single out the sacrificing of daughters as forbidden in itself. To me, there is no doubt that the Bible speaks with more vehemence when it forbids the sacrificing of sons than when it forbids the sacrificing of daughters.
I just don't believe that the Bible would have allowed Jephthah to kill his son in the same way and under the same circumstances that he killed his daughter. Remember that Jephthah is not given any sort of punishment for killing his daughter, and God makes no sort of comment whatsoever to argue that it would have been better to let the girl live. And Jephthah does not try to plead with God to spare his daughter's life. If the child had been a son, surely Jephthah would have asked God for mercy, and surely God would have granted it. And if Jephthah hadn't tried to plead with God, but had carried out the sacrifice of his son anyway, surely God would have punished him one way or another. Because the Old Testament does not allow fathers to kill their sons. It is far less obvious that it forbids fathers to kill their daughters.
Ann
