certainly was very real to him! Besides, do we not read that ‘Jehovah’s spirit came upon Jephthah’ shortly before he made this vow? It is therefore reasonable to conclude that what Jephthah vowed was entirely in harmony with God’s holy spirit.

It, therefore, does not seem reasonable to conclude that Jephthah intended to offer up literally whoever came out to meet him as a burnt offering. Such a course would go against God’s law about the sanctity of human life and would be the only instance in the whole Bible where a human was actually sacrificed by another person who had God’s approval. Rather, it seems reasonable to conclude that what Jephthah intended, and what he did, was that whoever came out to meet him was to be dedicated to God’s service and that he used the expression “burnt offering” merely as a figure of speech.—Gen. 9:6.

He could not have thought that some animal would come out to meet him, as some claim, for he said that “the one coming out . . . of the doors of my house to meet me” he would offer up, and the Israelites did not keep lower animals in their houses—not even dogs, which some people today keep as pets! So he must have had in mind either a servant or a relative and that it might even be his only child, his beloved daughter. But regardless of the cost, he was willing to pay it if Jehovah would only grant him the victory!

Further, far from Jephthah’s being an uncouth and ignorant man, we can see from his dealings with the Ammonites and the Ephraimites that he was a reasonable man, not impetuous, but one who approached a difficult situation calmly. More than that, he showed that he was very familiar with Israel’s history and therefore must also have been familiar with God’s commands forbidding the offering up of one’s offspring as burnt offerings: “There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire.”—Deut. 18:10; Jer. 7:31.

Then again, the very submissive attitude of his daughter speaks eloquently in favor of Jephthah. She did not think the vow foolish nor did she censure her father for making it. However, had she been facing certain death, would she have wanted to mourn merely her virginity? Thus we also note that, after the record states that her father carried out his vow regarding her, it says: “As for her, she never had relations with a man.” Would that have been the outstanding thing about her if she had been the only human that had ever been actually sacrificed as a burnt offering on an altar by one of God’s servants? That comment does not seem to make sense unless we understand that she kept on living, but as a virgin.—Judg. 11:39.

Also there is the statement: “It came to be a regulation in Israel: From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in the year.”a Could these give her commendation if she were dead? Besides, there is nothing said about this regulation elsewhere in the Scriptures. Why not? No doubt because it only lasted as long as she was alive, after which it ceased.—Judg. 11:39, 40.

PROPHETIC PATTERN

This correct understanding of the matter puts Jephthah in the right light and is consistent with the rest of the record about him. It also fits the facts that pertain to God’s people in our day, of which it was a prophetic pattern, for it is part of all the things written for our instruction.—1 Cor. 10:11.

Yes, even as with so many other ancient events recorded in the Bible, we find parallels in our day. As was Jephthah, so God’s organization, as represented on earth by the dedicated and anointed footstep followers of Jesus, is a mature fighter for God’s cause, these serving as the “faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) As Jephthah devoted his choicest possession to God’s service, so these have a daughter class, as it were, the “great crowd” of “other sheep” whom they have devoted to Jehovah’s service, wanting no reward for themselves but only that these serve Jehovah even as they themselves are doing.—Rev. 7:9; John 10:16.

Here, then, is the lesson of Jephthah and his vow for all servants of Jehovah God today: Take notice of Jehovah in all your ways, put the triumph of his causes above everything else, pay what you have vowed and devote to Jehovah and his cause what fruits you may receive from his service.

Questions From Readers

● After the Deluge, Noah sent out from the ark a dove that later returned with “an olive leaf freshly plucked in its bill.” (Gen. 8:10, 11) Would not the trees have been ruined by the Flood? Where did the dove get the olive leaf?—C. J., U.S.A.

While the waters of the Flood undoubtedly did adversely affect many plants and trees, it does not seem improbable that an olive tree might survive them. The olive tree is quite hardy. It has been said of it that “an old stump will continue to send up new stems, as if its vitality were indestructible.” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume IV, page 404) It is also noteworthy that the Greek philosopher and scientist Theophrastus and the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder have stated that the olive has grown under water in the Red Sea, retaining its verdure there. So the olive tree might well have remained submerged under water for some months during the Flood without dying. With the abating of the waters an olive tree that had been covered thereby would again be on dry ground and could put forth leaves, so the dove could easily obtain a leaf. The return of the dove with the freshly plucked olive leaf in its bill was of significance to the ark’s human occupants. In that way “Noah got to know that the waters had abated from the earth.”—Gen. 8:11.

● Would it be proper for a Christian married couple to adopt a child?—J. W., U.S.A.

Whether to adopt a child is a matter to be decided by the individual married couple. The situation is similar to determining whether to have a natural child, in cases where that is possible. The decision made by one married couple in such matters would not be the criterion on which others must base their decision. Nor would it be fitting to criticize persons for the course they choose to follow in these respects.

The Watch Tower Society has no arrangements for assisting persons in arranging child adoptions. It does not maintain a list of names and addresses of individuals who desire to have their children adopted by others. Nor can the Society furnish legal aid in such matters.

If marriage mates legally adopt a child, they become responsible for that child in a manner that is comparable to the responsibility resting upon natural parents. Hence, Christians who adopt a child will wish to care for that child properly, giving attention not only to the child’s physical needs but also to the child’s more important spiritual needs. The adopting father, who is the head of the household, is Scripturally required to shoulder the principal responsibility for both the child’s material and spiritual welfare.—1 Tim. 5:8; Isa. 38:19; Eph. 5:21–6:4.

Some Christians have viewed childlessness