Did God Command Murder?

[Aaron]

I find it incredibly hard to see it any other way than murder; God asked Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a burnt sacrifice.

Murder is the unjust taking of a life. Killing in obedience to God is not murder.

 

[Aaron]

17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
18 even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back. Heb 11


:thumbsup::thumbsup:

'In a figure', amazing when one considers that these things transpired in order for us to have this wonderful type of Christ, written for our admonition and example, amazing.

Amen and amen!

 

[percho]

By the same token without looking it up I believe God told Saul to kill them all
men. women children and even the animals. I do not consider this to have been murder either, for the wages of sin death, whenever and however it comes. A God prerogative.

It is not for man to do according to his free will. He best do according to the will of God.

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I believe Job understood, it is the Lord that gives and the Lord that takes away.

 

[John of Japan]

Abraham absolutely believed God meant a human sacrifice inasmuch as:
1.) that is precisely what God commanded him in plain language...he even said to burn him and the writer of Hebrews does everything in his power to prevent us from making this mistake when he says:
2.)Hbr 11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Did God allow Abraham to kill his son? No. So did God intend human sacrifice? No.

 

[John of Japan]

I've prayed for you and your conference participants today.

Thanks much. We had a great day yesterday. I got to speak to the little kids twice.

A couple points regarding the various Hebrew words relating to this discussion

(1) Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4:8 (NIV)

The word "killed" in Hebrew is transliterated hereg (root HRG) (see Strongs 2027; GK 2223).

In Numbers 11:11-15 Moses cries out to the LORD, "If you will treat me like this, kill (HRG) me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness.” [11:15 (ESV)]


(2) “You shall not murder". Exodus 20:13 (ESV)

The root word for "murder" ["kill" in AV] in Hebrew is RSH is transliterated here as retzah (see Strongs 7523; GK 8357)

Numbers 35:6 speaks of refuge cities where those who committed murder [retzah] (both premeditated and unpremeditated as noted in Nu. 35:11) could flee; this person is called a man-slayer (from the same root word- RSH) ["i]rotzah[/i]".

The passage defines various types ways one could be killed [or slayed AV] (see point #3)

“But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death."
Numbers 35:16–18 (ESV)

(3) The passage in Numbers 35:11 talks of one who "kills"[ESV] or "slays" [AV] (the Hebrew word transliterated "makka") (Stongs 5221; GK 5782)

Used in relation to striking, smiting, hitting, beating.

In Exodus 2:11, the Egyptian was "beating" a Hebrew slave; Moses in response "struck down" the Egyptian. Both words ["beating" and "struck down" are from the same Hebrew root].

One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
Exodus 2:11–12 (ESV)

Noting the pattern of parallelism in Hebrew poetry if you look in Psalms 94 one can see these words are interrelated.

They kill [harag] [["slay" AV]] (Strongs 2027; GK 2223) the widow and the sojourner, and murder [retzah] (Strongs 7523; GK 8357) the fatherless;
Psalm 94:6 (ESV)

(4) One more word, "slaughter" used in Genesis 22:10 which is a killing (usually ceremonial) of an innocent, powerless victim.
[Hebrew transliteration: sa-hat, (Strong 7819)]

and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.
Exodus 12:6 (ESV)


Now what did the LORD ask Abraham to do?

He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Genesis 22:2 (ESV)

The LORD asked Abraham to kill his son, his only son.

Abraham's response was to do the unthinkable: to kill, murder his son and offer him up as a sacrifice.

Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.
Genesis 22:9–10 (ESV)

And yes, it is noted that this act is deplorable to the LORD.

And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?
“How sick is your heart, declares the Lord GOD, because you did all these things…
Ezekiel 16:20–21, 30a (ESV)

Rob

This is a good analysis. What it lacks is Ex. 20:12, "Thou shalt not kill" (ratsach, murder). And that word is not used in Gen. 22:2. Yes, God told Abraham to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. But God did not command murder (ratsach). He commanded a burnt offering, an act of worship. In addition, Abraham understood that either God would provide an offering, or that God would immediately raise up Isaac. I can't see that as murder.

 

[Deacon]

But for Abraham there was no easy assurance.

The LORD clearly specified that the burnt offering was to be Abraham’s son.
And prior to burning an offering, the sacrifice had to be slain/killed/slaughtered… use whatever word you want (in Hebrew or English), it was a murder.

Even if God raised Isaac immediately from the dead (and the immediacy of the raising was certainly not assured), Abraham would have committed the act of murder.

At his trial he could have said, “God told me to do it”.

Imagine the solders that crucified our Lord, were they innocent of the act because Jesus arose three days later.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

But for Abraham there was no easy assurance.

The LORD clearly specified that the burnt offering was to be Abraham’s son.
And prior to burning an offering, the sacrifice had to be slain/killed/slaughtered… use whatever word you want (in Hebrew or English), it was a murder.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Even if God raised Isaac immediately from the dead (and the immediacy of the raising was certainly not assured), Abraham would have committed the act of murder.

I look at it this way. If God commanded murder, doesn't that make Him a murderer? Or at least an accessory?

At his trial he could have said, “God told me to do it”.

Not to split hairs, but Abraham was a government in and of himself. He and his family and trained servants wandered on their own, not part of any city-state in the region. So there would have been no trial. So in essence, as a despot, Abraham had every legal right to kill his son.

Imagine the solders that crucified our Lord, were they innocent of the act because Jesus arose three days later.

Rob

I don't consider the soldiers to be guilty. They were only following orders. They did not murder our Lord. Even Christ said, "They know not what they do." There was no Roman crime involved, though the Jews broke their own law and were thus guilty.

 

[freeatlast]

No, it could not be a call to commit murder as all murder is sin, just like all lies are sin. God does not tempt us to sin so what God called for was not murder.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The above.........Is the definition of a circular argument.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Quote:
Originally Posted by John of Japan
I look at it this way. If God commanded murder, doesn't that make Him a murderer? Or at least an accessory?
Not to split hairs, but Abraham was a government in and of himself. He and his family and trained servants wandered on their own, not part of any city-state in the region. So there would have been no trial. So in essence, as a despot, Abraham had every legal right to kill his son.

No. Morally, he did not have any such right, as far as I can tell, you are at this point appealing to the idea, that since Abraham was POLITICALLY, a Government unto himself that he was authorized to whatsoever he wanted.....but, again, my King James Bible tells me that prior to this.....NOAH (Abe's patriarc) was given the moral tenants of earthly government Prior to your proposed usurpor Abraham wherein, God apparently claims:Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. :Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I don't consider the soldiers to be guilty. They were only following orders. They did not murder our Lord. Even Christ said, "They know not what they do." There was no Roman crime involved, though the Jews broke their own law and were thus guilty.

Morally, they were beyond guilty, what they did was a sin, they committed sin, accordng to this line of thought, as long as a soldier is comanded by his earthly superiors to commit any given attrocity, he is absolved from the guilt of such because he was "commanded" to commit it: THAT IS SITUATION ETHICS.... you may be o.k. with that, but, as a former Marine infantry and anti-terrorism man myself, I know the difference, and ,I will have no part of it.

This is a good analysis. What it lacks is Ex. 20:12, "Thou shalt not kill" (ratsach, murder). And that word is not used in Gen. 22:2. Yes, God told Abraham to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. But God did not command murder (ratsach). He commanded a burnt offering, an act of worship. In addition, Abraham understood that either God would provide an offering, or that God would immediately raise up Isaac. I can't see that as murder.

[/QUOTE]
Abraham, according to the King James Bible I use, believed no such thing, he believed ONLY, the prospect that God might raise his son from the dead, he absolutely did NOT believe, that there would be a sustitutionary sacrifice provided, it is not in the Bible, It is not Scriptural, Abraham did not believe it. Again, allow the Bible to be our Sole Authority of Faith: The Word of our almighty God, once again, states CLEARLY in: Hbr 11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Abraham believed two things:
1.) He woud offer his son as a ritual sacrifice, kill, and burn him
2.) God would absolutely fulfill his covenant with Abraham and raise him up a seed (from Sarah) from which " all the world would be blessed) Therefore: Abraham's assumption was that God must raise Isaac from the dead. PERIOD

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't read every post of this thread, but I noticed there wasn't a definition of the term "murder" offered. In the other thread, the example of God commanding Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (regardless of if one calls it 'murder' or not) was offered to show that God is superior to a set of rules as interpreted by us. And that motive of faithful obedience to God (like when Rahab lied to hide the Israelite spies) is not sinful, but heroic.


Consider this definition of Murder:
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Clearly, it is unlawful for us to offer one of our children up for a sacrifice by killing them. Abraham was willing to break that law in faithful obedience to a direct command of God and because of that God credit him as a righteous man. Abraham life wasn't in submission to a list of rules, he was in submission to a person....God. That is the difference.

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't read every post of this thread, but I noticed there wasn't a definition of the term "murder" offered. In the other thread, the example of God commanding Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (regardless of if one calls it 'murder' or not) was offered to show that God is superior to a set of rules as interpreted by us. And that motive of faithful obedience to God (like when Rahab lied to hide the Israelite spies) is not sinful, but heroic.


Consider this definition of Murder:
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Clearly, it is unlawful for us to offer one of our children up for a sacrifice by killing them. Abraham was willing to break that law in faithful obedience to a direct command of God and because of that God credit him as a righteous man. Abraham life wasn't in submission to a list of rules, he was in submission to a person....God. That is the difference.

By this definition Abraham would not have committed murder if he had killed Isaac. In the society of that day Abraham was a tribal leader with his own nation who could make his own law and was not obligated to obey the law of any of the city-states around him.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Double post...

 

[Skandelon]

By this definition Abraham would not have committed murder if he had killed Isaac. In the society of that day Abraham was a tribal leader with his own nation who could make his own law and was not obligated to obey the law of any of the city-states around him.

So, your argument is at that time and in those circumstances it was lawful for Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice?

If so, does that mean God's laws change depending upon time and circumstances?

If so, why are we disagreeing in the first place regarding Rahab's lie? I mean, if God's rules are subject to change depending upon time, circumstance, motive etc, then you have just proven my point.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Did God allow Abraham to kill his son

?
No. We know this, this is not what you asked...

No. So did God intend human sacrifice?

No, this is not what you asked either, you asked what the command was, not God's intent ....words have meaning. Unless I am mistaken....you asked about what God commanded Abraham, and................yet one more time..........God commanded Abraham to:

Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So, your argument is at that time and in those circumstances it was lawful for Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice?

If so, does that mean God's laws change depending upon time and circumstances?

If so, why are we disagreeing in the first place regarding Rahab's lie? I mean, if God's rules are subject to change depending upon time, circumstance, motive etc, then you have just proven my point.

BINGO!!!!! :applause:thumbsup::thumbsup::love2:
What we hve been striving to convey

 

[Deacon]

Posted on Drudge
Father Accused of Trying to Sacrifice His Son [LINK]

Humorously the first comment mentions Abraham

Rob

 

[webdog]

I haven't read this entire thread, but isn't the fact Abraham's actions were not premeditated, and Isaac went along willingly play into it? Sin is all about intent of the heart. It can never be sin to follow a direct, audible command of God, in fact the sin would have been committed by Abraham using some of the very logic and arguments here.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

By this definition Abraham would not have committed murder if he had killed Isaac. In the society of that day Abraham was a tribal leader with his own nation who could make his own law and was not obligated to obey the law of any of the city-states around him.

Yes, he was absolutely obligated....morally by his predecesor Noah, and through Shem who passed the moral law down to him.....God established....through those patriarchs, the moral law, from which any Legitimate political / governmental law derives it's power....note yet again:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

From these basic principles: Civil authorities are to derive their power, I would contend that civil authority had its basis here and Abraham would have been subject to those principles......You have now begun appealing to civil law to back up our claims.....and yet it was civil law you refused to break With your refusal to "lie to the authorities" with the source of this debate to begin with....

Depending on the identitiy of Mr. Melchizedek.....(a debatable identity to be sure).. Abraham might have quite reasonably obeyed some of the Civil Authorities extant in the near Middle East as he knew them at the time, hence, his rendering of a tithe to him....after a battle was fought.

 

[kyredneck]

16 There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. Prov 6

If you're looking for a scriptual definition of 'murder', I say this is it; the shedding of innocent blood.

And I agree with Aaron, if it's the will of God, it isn't murder:

Is it not lawful for God to do what He wills with His own? It is not murder to kill in obedience to God.