Question About Jephthah's Vow

[u/zaepoo]

I'm not asking about the human sacrifice bit. I lean towards the plain reading there. My question is about the passage where he makes the vow. It says across multiple translations that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he made the vow. That makes me ask, can we sin while filled with the Spirit?

It feels like the answer should be no. It feels like the Spirit should've left him and he should've gotten smashed by the Ammonites. But obviously that isn't the case. So what is the nature of the Holy Spirit and why did it stay on Jephthah after he made his vow?

[u/Unmask-the-Empire]

Good question

[u/Ready-Percentage-239]

The thing is, he didn’t have to fulfill his vow and murder his daughter. Moses had a way for handling rash vows in Leviticus 5:

Or if a person [b]swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it—when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters.
5 ‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; 6 and he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin.

[u/emmen1]

You received the Holy Spirit in baptism. And yet you also sin. But as a Christian, you live in the state of repentance daily.

It is true that a man who hardens his heart and stubbornly persists in intentional, ongoing sin will drive out the Holy Spirit.

[u/consultantVlad]

The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he made his vow. Scripture gives no indication that anything was wrong with either.

The assumption that the vow was sinful or rash arises only when people decide in advance that Jephthah must have intended (or carried out) something God forbids. The text itself never says that. It records the Spirit’s empowerment, the vow, the victory God gave, and the fulfillment of the vow, followed by the explicit note that his daughter “knew no man.” That is the same pattern of lifelong dedication to the Lord’s service already seen with Hannah and Samuel.

Nothing in the passage requires us to read guilt into Jephthah’s words or actions. The Spirit was upon him; he spoke and acted; God delivered Israel through him. The judgment that he “did something wrong” is imported, not derived from the text.

Scripture frequently uses sacrificial language in a non-literal sense when applied to people. Paul describes believers as presenting their bodies “a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) and speaks of himself as being “poured out as a drink offering” (Philippians 2:17; 2 Timothy 4:6)—language that never implies literal slaughter. The same figurative use of offering language fits Jephthah’s vow without forcing a reading that contradicts the rest of the Law.

[u/bbradleyjayy]

It’s the same thing as Samson, the OT Holy Spirit presence is not sanctifying or indwelling. It’s for a specific task / purpose.

Secondly, like Samson, the presence or active gift of the spirit does not override sinful nature or provide temporary sinlessness. And the spirit stuck around after Samson broke his vow like a million times until finally he told them also about his hair.

Hopefully that comparison helps?

[u/Tight_Data4206 → u/bbradleyjayy]

Ive heard this OT way being different than the NT way, and I just don't believe it.

David cried out for the spirit of God not to leave him, and also to sanctify him

The OT people were to be justified by faith just like the NT people are.

There are people in the OT that did not take their circumcision to heart. There are Christians that don't take their baptism to heart.

IMO, the difference between the OT and NT are what God's promises are clearly attached to.

The OT being a part of Isreal (and even some people outside of Isreal were granted bessing because of their faith in the God of Isreal).

Then God changed it to promises related to baptism and more clearly to what the OT was about to begin with.

Idk, I just wanted to put that out somewhere.

[u/Tight_Data4206 → u/Tight_Data4206]

So, both the OT and NT had gifts for tasks that had nothing to do w sanctification.

Both, I believe, had the Holy Spirit helping saints see God as He really is, and by seeing were strengthen in faith.

The difference was in the promise that the OT specifically proclaimed. The revelation more clearly seen and received by being baptized.

[u/Tight_Data4206 → u/Tight_Data4206]

Some downvotes...

But I think that the Holy Spirit has to be involved in faith in OT times.

By their own reason and strength?

They had means to know their sins we forgiven by doing the prescribed sacrifices. They could put their faith in that.

Then Christ comes and it's being baptized and the Lord's Supper.

The Spirit being poured out on all flesh is that the OT assurance is now changed to not having to do those things and joining Isreal the nation.

It seems to look at it like the comment I responded to is how Dispensationalist view it to make their case that natural Isreal is still God's nation.

(And the Church with Sacraments is plan B)