Nostr notes by th2tran

Doesn't look right. Nostrverse feels alot bigger than this ...

2026-07-07T20:42:12Z

Doesn't look right. Nostrverse feels alot bigger than this based on my experience with the Fediverse....
Or maybe I had been using the wrong Fediverse client for the past 3 years. 🤣

Woohoo!!! I've joined the Vector Community Nostr group chat. ...

2026-07-07T18:46:40Z

Woohoo!!! I've joined the Vector Community Nostr group chat. Thanks JSKitty (nprofile…0de8) for the invite.

Wow. Many years ago I hosted my blogging site fro my basement. ...

2026-07-07T04:05:28Z

Wow. Many years ago I hosted my blogging site fro my basement. This looks like your bedroom. 😅

quoting
nevent1q…tfwg
This is crazy. Buy a server off eBay for $2,000 and it will cost pennies to host from then on. Ditto Relay / Ditto Blossom / Shakespeare AI / Mostr Bridge is set up like this.

nevent1q…laxd

Monsignor Eric Barr of the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois, ...

2026-07-07T03:36:08Z

Monsignor Eric Barr of the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois, comments on the SSPX Ex-communication.
He has some strong words about the Society in the end. But I agree with him.
#Catholicsm

I agree with this #nevent1q…qtc8

2026-07-07T00:59:48Z

I agree with this

quoting
nevent1q…qtc8
I get muting spam, but generally the mute/block button is not good because it’s really necessary to engage in dialogue with people that you do not agree with, because they’re the ones who will tell you things that you don’t know.

Google is now reminding me when the next World Cup game is being ...

2026-07-06T18:43:48Z

Google is now reminding me when the next World Cup game is being played. Geesh!

lol I think I saw this dog last week in Jamaica! 🤣 ...

2026-07-06T05:30:54Z

lol I think I saw this dog last week in Jamaica! 🤣

quoting
nevent1q…m407
Some people asking for zaps on nostr

💯% #nevent1q…54jl

2026-07-06T05:23:02Z

💯%

quoting
nevent1q…54jl
How do know media brainwashing is real?
Obama's ICE Chief received an award for
removing over 900,000 illegal aliens.
Trump's ICE chief was called a Nazi.

It is the same person Tom Homan.

The only difference?
What the media told people to believe.

Searching for #vietnamesenostr on here seems to be like searching ...

2026-07-06T04:15:17Z

Searching for #vietnamesenostr on here seems to be like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Tìm cộng đồng Việt trên Nostr thật là như mò kim dướI đáy biển ấy nhỉ! 😢

England vs Mexico 3-2 Not a no-brainer as I had thought. No ...

2026-07-06T03:12:44Z

England vs Mexico 3-2
Not a no-brainer as I had thought. No shame, Mexico! You played well. England was just better.

Duh England 🙄 #nevent1q…6rap

2026-07-06T02:16:14Z

Duh England 🙄

quoting
nevent1q…6rap
England or Mexico? 👀

Wow they delayed his funeral the or 4 months. Poor guy! ...

2026-07-06T02:08:43Z

Wow they delayed his funeral the or 4 months. Poor guy!

quoting
nevent1q…pmwq
Iranian Commander Warns U.S., Israel Against Attacks as Khamenei Funeral Preparations Underway

From Natural News

(NaturalNews) Iran Issues Warning to U.S. and Israel Ahead of Khamenei FuneralA senior Iranian commander has warned the United States and Israel against carrying …

Jul 5th 2026 2:00am EDT

Source Link: https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-07-05-iranian-commander-warns-against-attacks-khamenei-funeral.html

Share, promote & comment with Nostr: https://dissentwatch.com/boost/?boost_post_id=1155583

Lol 50DONG! 🤣 ...

2026-07-05T20:39:24Z

Lol 50DONG! 🤣

This is a great program to remind the America and the world why ...

2026-07-05T18:20:35Z

This is a great program to remind the America and the world why the US of A is the greatest country in the world and that there are still a majority of intelligent people that will prevent it from being destroyed by the few loudmouthed crazies.

https://www.ewtn.com/programs/10513-holding- these-truths-again:-reclaiming-our-founding- principles

This is pretty awesome! ...

2026-07-05T15:43:43Z

This is pretty awesome!
https://youtu.be/BFVe2vKhwRw?si=BO5UC65lDiY11vhh

Updated avatar ...

2026-07-05T03:30:43Z

Updated avatar

Happy Independence Day, America! ...

2026-07-05T03:04:48Z

Happy Independence Day, America!

https://momostr.pink/ Trying this follow all my friends on ...

2026-07-05T02:24:53Z

https://momostr.pink/
Trying this follow all my friends on Minds.com. So far it's hit-and-miss...

Lolz 😅 #nevent1q…mapy

2026-07-05T02:09:43Z

Lolz 😅

quoting
nevent1q…mapy
Now I can make decisions that affect the Bitcoin network and nobody can stop me.

nevent1q…0nl2

Nostr event nevent1qqsthf7h39exvxk8msuukqm3gha2zw473jm3cvtkw4x38jrfj8caesgzypljdxmm7g6wcqp0zswmaqdxn69tqvnpj8utwgt5hfhkhkl4a7j9gf3xvpz

2026-07-05T01:44:17Z

Test #2 nostr->fediverse sync

Nostr event nevent1qqsfrmhmma8rh39laytlm8c84g3zzh3e45fvqw5ddrmjjl85pd5lsvszypljdxmm7g6wcqp0zswmaqdxn69tqvnpj8utwgt5hfhkhkl4a7j9gm5xafq

2026-07-05T01:39:32Z

Test nostr->fediverse sync

Lol funny! 🤣 #nevent1q…n7ay

2026-07-05T01:25:05Z

Lol funny! 🤣

quoting
nevent1q…n7ay
I basically solved everything.

Nostr event nevent1qqs2tflusa32jn3qy8lzyh7ajljpyc2sskx4wduch3t5403a6q572uczypljdxmm7g6wcqp0zswmaqdxn69tqvnpj8utwgt5hfhkhkl4a7j9g7jwkkt

2026-07-04T22:10:04Z

😢

Lol social media should enrich my knowledge and my love of ...

2026-07-04T20:44:19Z

Lol social media should enrich my knowledge and my love of neighbors. If I ever feel that it is destroying my soul, I would change my social media platform. 🙂

quoting
nevent1q…emd9
How does social media make you feel?

This is a good (but very long 🙂) read. The Church Tradition ...

2026-07-04T20:23:01Z

This is a good (but very long 🙂) read. The Church Tradition has long supported the literal interpretation of this event. Saint John Chrysostom commented that Jephthah "fell into the snare of child-murder; … for his daughter first meeting him, he sacrificed her and God did not forbid it." Then he adds that God’s later "not forbidding" is not approval but providential restraint: God “put a stop” to further similar vows by allowing this one to be fulfilled—yet Chrysostom also insists that this was not according to God’s delight: "they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God … for in that case He would not have permitted [the sacrifice]".
Source: Homily 14 on the Statues |John Chrysostom | 0387 https://archive.org/details/the-complete-ante-nicene-nicene-and-post-nicene-church-fathers

quoting
naddr1qq…38g6

Introduction

The book of Judges contains many troubling examples of men, such as Samson, Gideon, and Barak, who were used by God for his purposes, yet simultaneously displayed deep character flaws and carried out grievous sins. Perhaps the judge in whom this pattern is displayed most vividly is Jephthah, who made his infamous vow to offer whatever or whomever came out from his door to greet him as a burnt offering when he returned home victorious over the Ammonites. “Perhaps” is a particularly appropriate word in this case, as there remains some amount of debate concerning the exact nature of his vow and how he followed through on it. While a surface-level reading of the text seems to indicate that he offered his daughter as a burnt offering to God, especially in certain English Bible versions, there are strong arguments made for an alternative view that he instead dedicated her to God, and therefore to life-long celibacy. This paper will examine the arguments made for both interpretations of the text of Judges 11:29–40, and come to a conclusion concerning which one is faithful to the original author’s intent.

One might be inclined to ask, “Could there be a third option that is actually what the author meant?” It is highly improbable that a biblically faithful third option exists. The text does not leave any room for it. Keil and Delitzch mention that a third option has been put forward, namely that Jephthah “put his daughter to death in honour of the Lord according to the law of the ban, because human beings were not allowed to be offered up as burnt-sacrifices.”¹ However, this is referring to when something is set apart as ḥērem (חֵרֶם), often translated as “devoted to destruction” (Lev 27:29; Deut 7:26; Josh 6:17–18; 1 Sam 15:21), and when it is used in reference to a human being, it is applied only to enemies, criminals, and idolaters who must be put to death. This being the case, Keil and Delitzsch quickly dismiss this view as having no foundation in the text, since verse 39 states that “he did to her his vow which he vowed,” which “cannot be understood in any other way than that he offered her as עולה, i.e., as a burnt-offering” either in a literal or figurative sense, rather than as a thing “devoted to destruction.”²

Burden of Proof

Another question arises regarding who has the burden of proof and therefore the obligation to provide convincing evidence for their understanding of the text. Should it be those who would charge one of God’s chosen judges with pedicide, or those who would introduce a figurative sense into the text in order to clear his name?

In my estimation, the burden of proof belongs to those who promote the figurative interpretation, since both sides of the debate agree that the plain reading of the text would support the literal interpretation,³ and since it was the universally accepted view of both Jewish and Christian scholars until the Middle Ages.⁴ As a principle, the most novel interpretation should always bear the burden of proof against the long established and generally held interpretation.

With this in mind, the bulk of this paper will present the arguments commonly put forward in favor of the figurative interpretation and consider whether they are strong enough to justify abandoning the literal view, especially in light of the latter’s counter-arguments.

The Expected Sacrifice

The first argument I want to explore is occasionally made by both sides of the debate, though for different reasons, indicating that it is not a deciding factor for either. This is the argument that Jephthah likely expected it would be an animal that came to meet him upon his victorious return, thus explaining his distress when it was his daughter instead.

Those holding to the figurative view will make this case when noting that the waw conjunction in verse 31 could be translated as “shall be the LORD’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” instead of “and I will offer it up.” This would make the vow have two possible outcomes based on whether it was an animal or a human who came to meet him: If a human, he or she would be dedicated to the Lord, and if an animal, it would be offered as a burnt offering.

Those holding to the literal interpretation will make this argument in an attempt to preserve Jephthah’s good name, by explaining that he did not expect his vow bind him to make his daughter a human sacrifice. Instead, he expected it to be a goat, or some other clean animal, but the vow once made could not be broken, and so he was bound against his will to sacrifice his daughter.

None of the commentators I reviewed held to this argument. They all agreed, though on opposite sides of the debate, that Jephthah expected to be met by a human member of his household, though perhaps by a servant rather than his daughter. Archer notes, “The Hebrew text excludes the possibility of any animal serving as a candidate for this burnt offering since the phrase rendered ‘whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house’ is never used of an animal.”⁵ Howard, though holding the opposite view, agrees, “the phrase ‘to meet me’ refers more appropriately to a human than to an animal.”⁶ In addition to this, Barrett notes that, “If he had in mind that a sacrificial goat or lamb would be the first to greet him, the vow would be rather empty and void of gravity.”⁷ His counterparts, Davis and Whitcomb, agree, “It is also extremely doubtful that Jephthah had an animal sacrifice in mind at all, for such a formal vow was quite unnecessary to bring an animal sacrifice after a great victory.”⁸

Given this consensus among opposing views, and the strength of their arguments, I conclude that neither interpretation would be bolstered by any presumption that Jephthah had an animal in mind. The figurative interpretation must therefore wrestle with Jephthah’s intentional use of the term “burnt offering” in relation to a human being, and the literal interpretation must wrestle with what this implies about Jephthah’s character, that he would knowingly vow to make a human sacrifice.

Jephthah’s Character

The appeal to Jephthah’s character, and to the fact that he was counted among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11:32, is one of the strongest arguments the figurative view has in its favor. It is difficult to imagine that anyone who could follow through on so heinous as a deed slaying his own daughter, could ever have been included in a list of paragons of the faith; a point that is made with some force by both Barrett⁹ and Archer.¹⁰

Additional grounds are often listed to support the claim that Jephthah was a man of high moral character, including that he was obviously well acquainted with the Pentateuch, and “human sacrifice was sternly and repeatedly forbidden by God in his law (see Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10).”¹¹ The evidence of Jephthah’s knowledge of God’s law is found earlier in the narrative, when he makes the history of Israel known to the king of the Ammonites (Jdg 11:14–27). The detail with which he rehearses how the tribes of Israel came to possess the land is suggestive of a competent knowledge of the writings of Moses, at least covering that period.

Keil and Delitzch also commend Jephthah for his attempt at a diplomatic resolution, saying, “He does not take to the sword at once, but waits till his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites have been without effect.”¹² This would be inconsistent with the idea that Jephthah was prone to making rash decisions, such as a vow to sacrifice “whatever comes out from the doors of my house,” without due consideration of the consequences. This makes Howard’s argument that Jephthah “was rash, foolish, and sinned in doing this,”¹³ fall somewhat flat in the face of the same judge’s prior restraint.

There are at least four counter-arguments that may account for this incongruity:

Even if Jephthah had a competent knowledge of God’s law, it does not preclude him from disobeying it. While affirming that “Jephthah was acquainted with the Pentateuch,” Davis and Whitcomb rightly separate knowledge from obedience, saying, “that would by no means guarantee that he would not violate the law.”¹⁴

It is quite possible that Jephthah was not as acquainted with the law as might be supposed. The narrative attributes the messages sent to the Ammonite king to Jephthah because he had been made the leader of the Gileadites, and certainly must have approved the content of said messages. Yet, it is probable that they were not composed by Jephthah alone, but with the help of advisors. Additionally, if Jephthah had been so well acquainted with the law, he would have known that he could redeem his daughter from his vow under the terms of Leviticus 27:1–8.

We know that heinous sin is not a bar from inclusion in the list of the faithful in Hebrews 11, which also includes David, though he committed adultery and murder, and Samson, though he broke every prohibition of his Nazarite vow and whose lust for foreign women was his downfall. As Daniel Block notes, “Although the view of the persons named is uncompromisingly favorable, strictly speaking the author of Hebrews makes no comment on their character.”¹⁵ Howard concurs, “If the Scriptures were to withhold commendation of people because of some sinful aspects to their lives, no commendations would ever have been issued, except in the case of Jesus.”¹⁶

Jephthah’s character may not have been as upright as some ascribe to him. According to verse 3, after being driven out of his home, Jephthah attracted to himself a band of “worthless men,” which many interpret as indicating he became the leader of a group of brigands or freebooters, as even Archer acknowledges to have been the case.¹⁷ He had apparently developed a reputation as a “mighty warrior” (Jdg 11:1) in this vocation, as that is the reason the Gileadites sought him out; not due to any high moral character he had displayed. Indeed, when they first approached Jephthah, he was unwilling to help them (Jdg 11:6–7), and only agreed after they offered to make him their leader (Jdg 11:8–9).

The nature of Jephthah’s vow, regardless of whether he intended it to be figurative or literal, also calls his character into question. It cannot be contested that Jephthah framed his vow as a quid pro quo to secure God’s assistance in battle against the Ammonites by means of promising some form of sacrifice. Manipulation of a deity for one’s benefit by means of sacrifice was entirely foreign to the sacrificial system established by God in Leviticus, but sacrifice used to purchase a deity’s favor was a regular feature in the heathen religions of Jephthah’s day, which we know had corrupted the worship of God’s people (Jdg 10:6). For this reason, Block concludes that in his vow, “Jephthah was neither rash nor pious (in the orthodox Yahwistic sense)—he was outrightly pagan. Rather than a sign of spiritual immaturity and folly, like Gideon's ephod, his vow arose from a syncretistic religious environment.”¹⁸

God’s Respect for the Vow

Another strong argument in favor of the figurative interpretation is the assertion that God apparently respected the terms of Jephthah’s vow by giving him decisive victory over the Ammonites (Jdg 11:32–33), something he certainly would not have done if he knew it would result in Jephthah killing his daughter. Archer makes this case forcefully, saying, “The [literal] understanding of the event involves an intolerable theological difficulty, for it hopelessly compromises the integrity of God Himself.”¹⁹ Indeed, the commentators I reviewed made no counter-argument against this point, and though Davis and Whitcomb acknowledged the argument, they did not answer it, saying, “Space will not permit a discussion of this particular problem, but it is one which the student should consider.”²⁰

I will here endeavor to offer a counter-argument without the benefit of wiser men who have gone before me. It is not clear that God was specifically honoring Jephthah’s vow when he gave the judge victory over the Ammonites. The narrative suggests that Jephthah already had God’s support before he made the vow in verses 30–31, as evidenced by God placing his Spirit upon Jephthah in verse 29. Indeed, following the pattern of apostasy, judgment, repentance, and rescue in the rest of the book of Judges, God had already determined to deliver his covenant people from the hand of the Ammonites when they cried out to him (Jdg 10:10), and then repented and “put away the foreign gods from among them” (Jdg 10:16). From that point through the end of chapter 11, the narrative is simply explaining how God providentially accomplished their deliverance. Thus, Jephthah’s vow was not only sinful, but superfluous. God was not honoring Jephthah’s vow when he gave victory over the Ammonites, but honoring his covenant with Israel. The question should not be, “Why would God honor a sinful vow to offer a human sacrifice?” but rather, “Would God have been right withhold deliverance from his covenant people who had cried out to him and repented, just to keep Jephthah from following through on his sinful vow?”

Emphasis on Virginity

The proponents of the figurative view consistently make the argument that the emphasis of the text is on Jephthah’s daughter’s virginity, and not on her impending death. Archer notes this emphasis appearing in both verses 37–38 and verse 39, and he argues that this indicates she was not literally sacrificed as a burnt offering, but was instead “set apart for tabernacle service” where “she would never become a mother” due to the requirement she remain a virgin.²¹ Barrett makes a similar case, saying, “It is a bit odd that if the daughter was sentenced to a sacrificial death, her virginity was the reason for her mourning rather than the loss of life that loomed over her.”²² This would explain why her period of mourning was conducted in seclusion in the mountains (Jdg 11:37), rather than spending her final days with her family, as would have been more fitting if she was anticipating her death.

There are two significant difficulties with this argument. First, service at the tabernacle, or service to God of any other kind, is never mentioned in the text surrounding Jephthah’s vow or its fulfillment. It appears the entire idea that Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to this form of service is based solely upon the repeated mention of her virginity, which is then connected with the passing mention of women serving at the tabernacle in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22. There is a distinct lack of detail given in those passages concerning the nature of this tabernacle service. As Davis and Whitcomb point out, “The women referred to in 1 Samuel 2:22 and Exodus 38:8 are not clearly associated with the tabernacle as permanent residents. Also, there is no evidence in this text, or any other text in the Old Testament, of an ancient equivalent of the modern-day nun.”²³ In fact, the women serving at the tabernacle in 1 Samuel 2:22 certainly were not virgins, because Eli was there rebuking his sons for fornicating with them. Matthew Henry goes further in his criticism of this argument, saying, “We do not find any law or custom in all the Old Testament which suggests in the slightest that being unmarried was a religious act, or that any man or woman was looked on as more holy, more of the Lord’s, or more dedicated to him for being unmarried. It was not a part of the Law either of the priests or of the Nazarites.”²⁴ Rather, the Nazarite vows only required abstaining from the fruit of the vine, from touching a dead body, and from cutting one’s hair (Num 6:1–5). There is no mention anywhere that celibacy was required for service at the tabernacle, even for the priests, who were expected to marry (Lev 21:7, 13–15). This leaves the figurative view with no warrant whatsoever for supposing that the emphasis on her virginity indicates she was specially dedicated to the Lord.

How then is this emphasis on her virginity to be explained? The chief problem for Jephthah, when his daughter was the one who came to meet him upon his return, is that she was his “only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter” (Jdg 11:34). Dying a virgin would mean Jephthah’s line would be extinguished. Moreover, she would never know the joy of marital love, of childbearing, or the hope of all Israelite women: the possibility of bearing the promised seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15). The concept of mourning one’s virginity when facing certain death is not uncommon, but spans across both time and culture. For instance, the Trojan princess Polyxena of Greek mythology is said to have lamented her virginity when she was to be sacrificed to the ghost of Achilles with these words: “No bridegroom, no wedding song for me.”²⁵ This desire to fulfill the purpose of being a help-meet too a husband (Gen 2:18), paired with the end of the family line, is ample reason for Jephthah’s daughter to have been more concerned about her virginity than about her death.

Other Arguments

There are various lesser arguments brought to bear in support of the figurative interpretation. While they should not be considered decisive in determining the biblically faithful view, they also should not be left unstated or unanswered.

Keil and Delitzsch argue that Jephthah could not have literally offered his daughter as a burnt offering, because such sacrifices “could only be offered upon the lawful altar at the tabernacle, or before the ark, through the medium of the Levitical priests.”²⁶ However, if Jephthah was willing to violate the prohibition against human sacrifice, it should not surprise us that he was willing to violate the regulations concerning where and by whom such burnt offerings were permitted, particularly since he lived so far from the tabernacle in the land of Tob (Jdg 11:3).

Barrett contends that the daughters of Israel did not go out year-by-year to “lament” Jephthah’s daughter’s death, as many English versions translate it, but to “rehearse the situation.”²⁷ The Hebrew word here is tanah (תָּנָה) which is found only in Judges 11:40 and Judges 5:11, where it is translated “repeat” in the ESV. Other English versions, such as the NASB, translate the word in Judges 11:40 as “commemorate” rather than “lament,” which also fits with Judges 5:11 and is probably closer to its meaning. This in no way settles the case, though, as it leaves room for either a celebratory or mournful commemoration of Jephthah’s daughter by the daughters of Israel. Even so, the “year by year” aspect of this commemoration is more fitting of a mourning motif.

Barrett also makes much of Jephthah’s vow being “his first act immediately following his being empowered by the Holy Spirit.”²⁸ However, Davis and Whitcomb push back, saying, “It is true that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, but we cannot be sure that this event immediately preceded the vow which he made unto the Lord, for it appears in verse 29 that there was a considerable amount of travel between that event and the time when he made a vow unto the Lord.”²⁹ Jephthah’s first act upon being empowered by the Holy Spirit was not his vow, but his passing through Gilead, Manasseh, Mizpah, and finally to the Ammonites (Jdg 11:29). Block notes that this appears to parallel Gideon’s sounding of the trumpet to rally troops to the cause in Judges 6:34-35, which also immediately followed God placing his Spirit upon Gideon.³⁰

Finally, Keil and Delitzsch argue that, unlike the incident of Gideon making himself a golden ephod (Jdg 8:22–27), “which was only a very small offense in comparison,” but which the narrator of Judges clearly denounces as “a snare to Gideon and to his family” (Jdg 8:27), he never makes a similar denunciation of Jephthah’s vow, but rather “describes the fulfilment of the vow in the words ‘he did to her according to his vow,’ in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that he regarded the act itself as laudable and good.”³¹ Yet, Block sees an implied denouncement of Jephthah’s actions in the structure of the narrative itself, saying, “The narrator's disposition is explicitly expressed by the location of the Jephthah cycle within the ‘Book of Deliverers,’” since it is placed “immediately after the story of Abimelech [which] invites a negative comparison with this man.”³² Moreover, the book of Judges as a whole depicts this period as a downward spiral of further and further Canaanization of both the people and their judges, of which Jephthah is among the last.

Conclusion

After examining the strongest arguments offered by those promoting the figurative interpretation of Jephthah’s vow, it must be acknowledged that they are not entirely without merit. Neither is there any doubt that those holding to this view have a desire to be faithful to the biblical text. Nevertheless, the view is heavily reliant upon the assumption that virginity was a necessary aspect of dedication to the Lord, support for which can be found nowhere in Scripture. Additionally, there is no indication that ʿōlâ (עָלָה), “whole burnt offering,” is ever used in anything but a literal sense. Barrett suggests precedent can be built upon other sacrificial language that is used in a figurative sense,³³ but examples of this are predominantly found in poetic and prophetic literature, where figurative language is expected (Ps 50:14, 51:17, 141:2; Isa 66:20), and the example he gives of the Levites, set apart as a wave offering (Num 8:13, 15–16), makes sense given they were substitutes for the first-born of every tribe and their service would be “waving” before the face of God at his tabernacle. A case can therefore be made that they were a literal wave offering, and not a figurative one.

Finally, Block points out that the Jephthah narrative has strong comparative connections to the account of Abraham, who was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:1–19), and which lose their force if Jephthah’s offering of his daughter was merely figurative.³⁴ Just as Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his “only child,” Jephthah’s daughter was also his “only child,” but he bound himself to offer her against the explicit command of God. In both cases their children were to be made “burnt offerings,” but in Abraham’s case God intervened to provide a substitute, while in Jephthah’s case God remained silent. The purpose of God’s command was to prove Abraham’s faith, while the purpose of Jephthah’s vow was to purchase God’s support; where God tested Abraham, Jephthah tested God. Abraham was called out of his home by God (Gen 12:1), while Jephthah was cast out of his home by his brothers (Jdg 11:2). Isaac was Abraham’s divinely named offspring (Gen 17:19), while Jephthah’s daughter remains nameless. These and other comparative parallels pointed out by Block offer significant support for the literal view.

In summary, the arguments for the figurative view are not compelling enough to abandon the literal interpretation that Jephthah sinfully sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. While Jephthah is counted as a man of faith, it is not on account of having made this sinful vow. He had faith that God alone could give him victory, but had been so influenced by the idolatrous practices of the pagans around him that he thought God's favor could be bought with promises of sacrifice. That's not how God operates. He is faithful to his covenant people because of the promises he made to them and to their fathers.

C.F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, (Montana: Kessinger Publishing Company, 2010), EPUB 14.61.

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, 14.61.

Keil and Delitzsch admit that the surface reading of the text “[appears] to favor the actual sacrifice so strongly, that Luther’s marginal note, ‘some affirm that he did not sacrifice her, but the text is clear enough,’ is perpetually repeated with peculiar emphasis.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, 14.61)
Howard agrees, saying, “The plain meaning of the words is that Jephthah did exactly what he had vowed to do, namely, he offered his daughter as a burnt offering.” See David M. Howard Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 134.

Keil and Delitzsch note that the view that Jephthah put his daughter to death “which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both Rabbins and fathers of the church.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, EPUB 14.61)
Davis and Whitcomb agree, saying, “Until the Middle Ages the interpretation of this vow seems to have been fairly consistent. It was generally regarded as involving human sacrifice.” See John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb, Israel: From Conquest to Exile, (Winona Lake: Brethren Missionary Herald, 1989), 124.

Gleason Archer Jr, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), EPUB 15.5.

Howard, Introduction to the Historical Books, 134.

Michael P.V. Barrett, Old Testament Introduction: Back to Basics, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2025), EPUB 32.77.

Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 126–127.

Barrett, OT Introduction, EPUB 32.76.

Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 15.11.

Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 15.6.

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, EPUB 14.63.

Howard, Introduction to the Historical Books, 134–135.

Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 126.

Daniel I. Block, The New American Commentary: Judges, Ruth, Vol. 6, (Brentwood: B&H Publishing, 1999), EPUB 12.465.

Howard, Introduction to the Historical Books, 134–135.

Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 9.265.

Block, Judges, Ruth, EPUB 21.144.

Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 15.9.

Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 128.

Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, EPUB 15.10.

Barrett, OT Introduction, EPUB 32.78.

Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 126.

Matthew Henry, The New Matthew Henry Commentary, ed. Martin H. Manser, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), EPUB 2.23.1.1.2.

Euripides, Hecuba, ed. W. Arrowsmith and H. Golder, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 42.

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, EPUB 14.65.

Barrett, OT Introduction, EPUB 32.78.

Barrett, OT Introduction, EPUB 32.76.

Davis and Whitcomb, Israel, 126.

Block, Judges, Ruth, EPUB 21.140.

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Judges, EPUB 14.65.

Block, Judges, Ruth, EPUB 22.92.

Barrett, OT Introduction, EPUB 32.77.

Block, Judges, Ruth, EPUB 22.32–22.73.

. #nevent1q…xa5h

2026-07-04T19:43:25Z

quoting
nevent1q…xa5h
The stories of large sites selling their data to #OpenAI then seeing a complete crash of their traffic and userbase is both sad and a blatant tale of #FAFO that I struggle to feel empathy about.

StackOverflow went from 'partnering' with OpenAI to an utter wasteland in ONE YEAR.

What did they think would happen??

#AI #LLM #programming

. #naddr1qq…lqsq

2026-07-04T19:23:22Z

quoting
naddr1qq…lqsq

I have seen a lot of "#Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant" posts lately. It's nothing new. There has always been a bit of it in the past in various forms, and it is generally those same forms that are still repeated:

"Nostr isn't censorship resistant, because my posts are all hidden on Primal."

"...because Amethyst covers my posts with a warning for users whose follows have reported me too many times."

"...because the feds could raid the 5 relays you are using and your posts would all disappear."

"...because relays can blacklist you so you can't post to them anymore."

"...because Web-of-Trust keeps new users' posts from being seen by anyone."

Every one of these supposed evidences that Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant demonstrates ignorance about what that really means, and how it works on Nostr as compared with centralized, legacy social media, or even other attempts at decentralization, like Mastodon.

The Censorship Status Quo

If your account gets banned on Facebook, that's it, you're done. You have to start over and hope you can get everyone who was following your old account to follow your new one. If your post on X gets taken down for violating community standards, there is no third party X client where it will still be visible to people. If you get shadow banned on TikTok so that the algorithm never surfaces your content, there is no alternative app you can point your followers to where they can choose a different algorithm that will show them your videos again.

These platforms are siloes where a single company controls the client applications and/or web interfaces, the user data stored on their servers, who can create an account, and how their posts will be (or won't be) shown to other users. If they take censorious actions against you as a user, your only recourse is to beg them to reverse it, and if they refuse then you are out of luck. That, my friends, is actual censorship, since the unilateral actions of one controlling entity can prevent your speech from being seen by any and all users of that platform.

Even on Mastodon, if you anger the admin of your home instance, they can ban you and you have to start over with a new identity. Your previous social graph does not go with you. A deletion request is also sent to other instances, and most of them will comply with it by deleting your posts. So, even though the ability to censor is spread between various instances, it is trivial for a single entity to effectively censor you if you get on their bad side.

On Nostr, all of these censorship vectors are mitigated, if not outright eliminated. Censorship resistance means that more individuals or entities would need to collude with one another to effectively keep a user's speech from being seen by most or all other users. Let's see how that works in practice by looking at some of the specific claims that Nostr is not actually censorship resistant.

Censorship by Nostr Client Devs

"Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant, because my posts are all hidden on Primal."

One client may decide to completely hide the posts made by a particular npub. There is no system I can imagine where this level of censorship cannot take place. If you rely on an a piece of software created by someone else in order to see content from other users, the developer of that software will always have the ability to hide posts they don't want you to see for one reason or another. Nostr is not censorship resistant because it can somehow prevent software developers from hiding the posts of users they don't like. There is no way to prevent that while maintaining a fixed public key as your identity so that other users can reliably follow your posts.

If every post you made was from a new public key, then it really would be impossible to target you specifically for censorship, and some Nostr clients can do exactly that with an "anon mode" toggle, such as Coracle or Anonostr, but that also precludes you from building a following, since no one knows what public key you will be posting from next, and as soon as there is a way to determine what key you will be posting from, client developers will also have a way to hide your posts again.

Nostr's censorship resistance in this situation is owing to the fact that if one client hides your posts, they are still visible on every other Nostr client without any action requred on your part. Your posts are not censored to the same degree as they would have been on a centralized platform, since one client developer's actions do not result in your speech being hidden from most or all Nostr users. Your speech is being suppressed, but that suppression is nowhere near as effective as it would be if one entity controlled all of Nostr. Thus, Nostr is more resistant to that suppression of your speech than would have been the case elsewhere.

This fact also tends to keep clients from getting ban-happy and censoring absolutely every npub that has said something unkind about them. There's really no point in doing so, since those users' notes will still be visible on every other Nostr client. Therefore, the only npubs that tend to get censored are those that the client devs believe will negatively impact the experience of their users. They may be wrong in that assessment, but they have the right to make it, and if you don't like it, the answer is quite simple: Use a different client, and encourage your followers to do the same if they aren't already. As you do, don't forget to note that this option in itself would never be available to you on centralized social media platforms. Your account would be completely useless and you would have to start over from scratch.

Censorship by User Reports

"Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant, because Amethyst covers my posts with a warning for users whose follows have reported me too many times."

What was said above about a single client hiding a particular user's posts from other users is equally applicable here. Though you might be able to call it a form of censorship by speech suppression, it is not at all censorship to the degree that centralized platforms are capable of, since it only applies to those who use that particular client, and users of other clients will still see your posts without the need for you to take any action.

In this particular example, though, what is being called censorship is not really censorship at all. The client developer is not targeting the speech of any user or group of users for suppression whatsoever. The posts that are covered with a warning, and whether any posts get covered at all, is determined entirely by the users themselves, and it is different for each individual user based on who they are following and who those follows have reported. That's not censorship. That's user-controlled feed curation with a sensible default that can be adjusted to the user's preference.

It might be legitimate to classify it as censorship if the user wasn't aware that any post had been hidden. For the user to reasonably be considered in control of what posts they see, they must be aware that there are posts that are not being shown to them. In this case, the client does show the user a warning message in the place of the hidden note, with an explanation of why it was hidden, and the user can immediately choose to show it anyway if they prefer. In no sense can this be reasonably characterized as censorship.

Censorship by State Actors

"Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant, because the feds could raid the 5 relays you are using and your posts would all disappear."

There are many ways in which this example of Nostr's supposed lack of censorship resistance is just silly. Nevertheless, I wanted to include it not only because I have actually encountered it in the wild, but because it provides an opportunity to discuss ways that users can proactively prevent themselves from being censored, even in this extremely hypothetical instance.

First, if the feds, or some other interested party, decided that the best way to keep your speech from being seen on Nostr was to physically raid the relays you set on your relay list and take them offline, it is unlikely that this would make your posts disappear from Nostr entirely. First of all, there are various other relays that aggregate notes from known relays, and your notes would almost certainly be available on some of them. Any users reading from those aggregators would still see your previous notes.

Second, you can post your notes to more relays than you are advertising in your relay list. Several clients give you this option natively, such as Nostur and Nostrudel. You can also set a blastr relay, like wss://filter.nostr.wine, as one of your write relays, and every time you post a new note, it will be sent to several additional relays that are not advertised in your relay list. That way, if all of your preferred relays go down for any reason, fed raid or otherwise, all you need to do is publish a new relay list that includes a few of the relays where your notes were blasted, and you are back in business like nothing happened.

Third, you can keep a private backup of your notes and easily broadcast them to more relays any time you want, using tools like NostrSync or Archivestr. You can even do this on a regular basis, if you don't want to set up a blastr relay. None of this requires any special hardware. Just go to one of these tools' websites, create an archive of your notes pulled from the relays you are currently writing to, and then broadcast it out to several additional relays. Then make note of which relays you broadcasted to, so you can switch to them in the event your current relays are no longer online.

If you really are concerned that a government entity would be so threatened by your speech that they would resort to raiding the servers hosting your notes, then I hope you have really solid op-sec, because the most effective way to shut down your speech is to find you, not the relays you write to. Aside from that, it is also a good idea to select relays that are not located in the same jurisdiction. Choose relays that are in different countries, and even better if those countries are not always cooperative with one another.

Censorship by Relay Operators

"Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant, because relays can blacklist you so you can't post to them anymore."

This is very similar to the contention that a particular Nostr client can hide your posts from their users. Yes, a particular relay operator can prevent you from posting to their relay. That's not censorship, though. It is their relay to do with as they please. After all, you are not being censored because there are relays that only allow people who have paid the operator to post to them, are you? You are not being censored because some relays only allow those within a certain social group to post to them, are you? No. You can still use any number of public relays that allow anyone to post to them. If they choose to ban you, then you can just switch to using different ones. There are nearly 1,500 known relays to choose from that you can peruse at Nostr.Watch, so one relay, or even a sizeable percentage of relays, banning you has absolutely no impact on whether your notes will be seen. Just update your relay list to some relays that haven't banned you and keep on posting.

This is why nostr does not use home instances or homeservers like Mastodon. That makes you beholden to one particular server admin who has the power to unilaterally ban you. Relay operators can't do that, because your identity is not intrinsically tied to a particular relay.

Better yet, if you are really convinced that a majority of relay operators would be so offended by what you have to say that they would all ban you, you can run your own relay. Yes, this requires a bit of technical know-how, but that is part of the cost of being nearly universally offensive online. Moreover, there are tools like Nostr Relay Tray that make it incredibly easy to run a personal relay that others can read from via clearnet without exposing your home IP.

Censorship Via Web-of-Trust Filters

"Nostr isn't actually censorship resistant, because Web-of-Trust keeps new users' posts from being seen by anyone."

I am sympathetic to this argument, because while Web-of-Trust (WoT) is very effective at keeping spam from showing up in my feed, it also can keep posts from legitimate new users from showing up until they have managed to get a few followers. Depending on how reliant the bulk of Nostr users are on WoT to curate their feeds and their replies, it could make it incredibly difficult for new users to gain any traction, leaving them feeling like they are shouting into the void, until they finally leave because the only response they got back was from a bunch of bots.

That said, I am not aware of any WoT filters that are turned on by default. The end user has to manually opt-into using WoT to curate what they see. This takes WoT definitively out of the category of censorship, since it is not imposed by any client upon their users, but is entirely an optional means for users themselves to decide what content they want to see.

There are two main ways that WoT can be implemented for the purpose of limiting what posts a user sees in their feed. The first is by a Nostr client that shows posts or replies only from within the user's WoT. If I recall correctly, this was originally used by Coracle and Primal to expand the number of notes that users would see in their feed, rather than reduce them, because the default feeds only showed notes from a user's follows, but WoT allowed notes to be displayed from within a user's "network." Coracle iterated on this to develop client-side WoT scores that were unique to each user's view, and they could limit the feed and replies to only display notes from users who met a minimum WoT score set by the user. Jumble implemented the ability to filter based on WoT just for replies, since that is where the most obnoxious spam typically occurs, leaving no filtering on original posts. But all of these filters, regardless of client, have been opt-in only, leaving it in the user's hands to determine whether to take advantage of the feature.

The second way WoT has commonly been implemented is by relays. In this case, a relay can be set up with a whitelist of users who are permitted to post to it based on the relay owner's WoT. This relay type was particularly popular before clients were fetching notes directly from the relays in a user's follows' relay lists in what is known as the outbox model. Back then, Nostr clients would only read notes from the specific relays the user listed as "read" relays, so they could easily reduce spam by only reading from paid relays and WoT relays. That doesn't apply so much today, but even if it did, the choice to use a WoT relay is one made by each individual user. It is not imposed upon users, and therefore it cannot be legitimately be classified as censorship.

Conclusion

In summary, many of the supposed examples of censorship still being possible on Nostr don't really count as censorship at all, because they are not examples of some authority like a client developer targeting specific posts, users, or topics they don't like and hiding them from their users without their knowledge and without any simple recourse. Most are actually 100% in the control of users themselves to determine what they do and do not see in their feeds. These tools are absolutely essential for users to have at their disposal, and we need to see more such tools implemented in other clients, so that users have the ability to curate their experience in accord with their own preferences.

Those ways that actual suppression of speech is still possible on Nostr are greatly mitigated by the flexibility users have to choose between a wide variety of different clients and relays. If one client censors you, it doesn't really matter so long as there are still a number of other popular clients where your notes can still be seen. Yes, this means that some level of censorship can occur and is occurring on Nostr, but it is far less effective than it would be on any centralized platform. This severe reduction in the effectiveness of any effort at censorship is all that is meant when we say that Nostr is censorship resistant. We do not mean that the ability to censor particular users or groups of users is eliminated entirely. That is actually impossible to achieve.

It is my opinion that Nostr has proven itself to be the most censorship resistant social publishing protocol to date. There are still plenty of improvements that can be made, and tools that can be built to push censorship resistance even further, but I have yet to see anything else that comes close to Nostr in practice, though some claim to be just as capable of censorship resistance in theory.

Checking out Primal Nostr client. Apparently it's open ...

2026-07-04T15:22:13Z

Checking out Primal Nostr client. Apparently it's open sourced - https://github.com/PrimalHQ
Kewl!

Nostr event nevent1qqs26wnp99rfm9xc09kyd5vcznv6wcq9d3smkrt9xekevgcpjx34tqszypljdxmm7g6wcqp0zswmaqdxn69tqvnpj8utwgt5hfhkhkl4a7j9gczxsxp

2026-07-03T20:57:14Z

Hello Nostr world!