• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Abraham and Isaac

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading last night and I came across an arlicle about the commands of the Rabbis, getzerot and takkanot. The author of the article was saying they were valid because of Mamrim 2:9. I cold not find it. Is it in the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud or some other writing then? If so then the Author was using Rabbis decrees to valid Rabbis decrees, right?
 
Last edited:
Ok thank you.
 
Last edited:
[EDIT: This thread is a fork from the Divorced, Abandoned, Put Away, or Kicked to the Curb thread. We're looking here at the relationship between the things we hear directly from God and those things that are revealed in the scriptures, focused particularly on how it came to pass that Abraham was about to slay his son Isaac when interrupted by God and offered a substitute sacrifice.]

So the conundrum is to figure out if God will hold you responsible for not violating His Word when He tells you to? Do you obey what He's written to the world or what He's whispered in your heart? If the two commands conflict then one must be obeyed and thence one is disobeyed.

That is a hard position to be in. You want to be obedient but God has called you to disobey Him. You have to disobey to obey or obey and thus disobey.

Either way you're violating His Word, the written or the received. That is a thorny issue that I can't resolve.

Hashem does not violate His commands.
The issue at hand can be clarified if we examine the Hebrew behind these words.
The command to not murder is "Lo Tirtsach" לא תרצח
It is important to realize that *murder* is not the same thing is taking a life.
We have different words for different ways of ending life in Hebrew: הרג רצח שחט כלה המית לקח-נפש תמותת שפך-דם temotet lakach-nefesh Himiyt, kileh, shafakh-dam, shachat, ratsach, harag .... and I'm sure others if I think about it more.

A soldier, for example, is exempt when he takes a life in war (yes there are circumstances where he's not permitted as well...)
this classification of *killing* "tamot" למות does not rise to the level of רצח, murder as can be seen by the righteous action of Pinchas when he shoved his spear through the copulating couple and was deemed zealous for G-d for his action ... i.e. it was a *righteous killing* of a man and a woman.

The extermination orders חרם HeReM to wipe out entire cities were not רצח, murder because they were warfare commands.
Similarly, commanding Avraham to offer up Yitschak is not *ratsach*. If a general can order you to kill someone and it's not a sin, how much more the Koneh Hashamayim vaarets (Maker of Heaven and Earth)...

*******************main issue done, secondary issue follows concerning belief G-d is countermanding His own commands*****************************

... now regarding the "but what if the G-d of Jacob tells me to do something forbidden in scripture...?"
I don't believe He does that. Forbidden things are detestable to Him and He's smart enough to not need those mechanisms to reach His ends. It also opens up a can of worms for how to parse it by any spectators etc... this opens up another issue chillul Hashem (profaning G-d's reputation)

He's got the resources to make things happen "The Earth and the fullness of it all is mine...the cattle on a thousand hills are mine" - Psalms

We can find an example of such a scenario in New Testament writings.

Keyfah (Peter) sees a vision of forbidden animals for food and is commanded by a voice from heaven to slaughter and eat (book of Acts).
Keyfah knows it's impossible for G-d to command him to do something in violation to scripture so he rightly REFUSES the voice.
3x this happens, Keyfah never eats which is a good thing because the interpretation comes later "you silly goose, Gentiles are the animals I was showing you, let them in now-[of course I would never tell you to violate my commands!]".

Thankfully He is a G-d of order, not chaos and doesn't operate out of confusion to order His servants to violate His own commands.

So if Peter through his righteous example refuses to violate even a minor portion of scripture (having seen a VISION AND heard a voice), that can serve as a good example of behavior that if we think it's G-d telling us to break that commandment ... it just might be somebody else talking to us...

I'm grateful our G-d is consistent and unchanging, ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ואד
 
Last edited:
Similarly, commanding Avraham to offer up Yitschak is not *ratsach*. If a general can order you to kill someone and it's not a sin, how much more the Koneh Hashamayim vaarets (Maker of Heaven and Earth)...

Keyfah (Peter) . . . . Is commanded by a voice from heaven to slaughter and eat.

of course I would never tell you to violate my commands!

So many issues just within the one post.

If God, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, can order Abraham to kill his own son righteously, why could He not, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, command Peter to eat of the same foods that Noah was permitted to eat of?

Also, if the voice from heaven was God when He was giving the interpretation, wouldn't the voice from heaven be God when Peter was being commanded? If it was indeed the same God speaking both times, and not a trickster angel one of the times, according to your post, God commands and then says that it wasn't Him the first time. Good boy because you knew that I had commanded something 1500 years ago and so that couldn't have been me commanding you to rise and eat 15 minutes ago! Well done! Because you passed the test, I'm gonna explain the spiritual meaning behind my first command that I just said it was ok not to obey because of that other command that you obeyed so listen closely to my spiritual command which will result in allowing Gentiles into my covenant in a way which will violate other commands that I commanded 1500 years ago.

All this because God is not a God of confusion! WHAT?
 
So many issues just within the one post.

If God, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, can order Abraham to kill his own son righteously, why could He not, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, command Peter to eat of the same foods that Noah was permitted to eat of?

Also, if the voice from heaven was God when He was giving the interpretation, wouldn't the voice from heaven be God when Peter was being commanded? If it was indeed the same God speaking both times, and not a trickster angel one of the times, according to your post, God commands and then says that it wasn't Him the first time. Good boy because you knew that I had commanded something 1500 years ago and so that couldn't have been me commanding you to rise and eat 15 minutes ago! Well done! Because you passed the test, I'm gonna explain the spiritual meaning behind my first command that I just said it was ok not to obey because of that other command that you obeyed so listen closely to my spiritual command which will result in allowing Gentiles into my covenant in a way which will violate other commands that I commanded 1500 years ago.

All this because God is not a God of confusion! WHAT?

Boooo Verify! We've already established that God didn't command Abraham to kill Isaac.

The unclean animals are a thornier issue and I probably will just anger everyone when I say that the dietary laws are no longer a spiritual necessity but are very much a good idea. We follow them and I believe there are blessings for doing so.

Its hard for me though to not come to the conclusion that the concept of "cleanliness" is what was fulfilled. Now as far as I can see though Hebrews are still bound by them though. I think. I'm still a little fuzzy in all of this.

I know one thing though, it's not a sin to observe them. You're never going to go wrong taking God at His Word.
 
Sorry folks, can't go there with "listening to God" and believing he is telling me to do contrary to scripture. Not gonna go there.

I love your reply Mark, even though we have some differences from time to time.

Nice points Fred.
How is multiple wives contrary to scripture?
2 Samuel 12:8 NIV
I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
 
How is multiple wives contrary to scripture?
2 Samuel 12:8 NIV
I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
You may have misunderstood me.
 
@Zec, I like your post, but I think you've mistaken my post or intent. I'm just comparing logic and statements that were made within the post and how they conflict within the two sections of the post.
 
@Zec, I like your post, but I think you've mistaken my post or intent. I'm just comparing logic and statements that were made within the post and how they conflict within the two sections of the post.

Greetings Veritas,
I didn't see any logic errors reported about my post in your reply (Ad Hominem, Band wagon, Argument from authority, begging the question, etc...).
I think people use that word (logic) too loosely.

You are philosophizing which is fine (G-d can do this if He wants to..) but that's not an issue with my use of logic (or lack thereof) and it requires reading something extra into the text.
My main case is built on linguistics not logic, and my secondary point only uses a "light and heavy" Jewish rabbinical argument as Paul is apt to do "if this (small thing) then how much more so this (large thing)".

*** diet vs. murder ***
It wasn't my intent to go down the path of "you Gentiles must eat Kosher now"; I'm simply pointing out that even on a small command like not eating shrimps, we see the disciple knows better, how much more so on murder; testing perhaps, but not commanding.
The thrust of my point is only that if Keyfah, who was not as great as our father Avraham refused to violate a small thing, how much more so Avraham would not make a RaTSaCH, murder violation.

I know people can get touchy on the following G-d's Law thing so I'm not trying to lead our discussion in that direction; I think you may have misunderstood me. The scope of my comment is in reference to commanding someone to murder.
G-d doesn't do it in the bible just like He doesn't command anyone to violate even the dietary laws which He invented (whether Gentiles have license to eat treyf by interpretation of the letters is another issue i'm not commenting on).

If we want to discuss if they are still valid today in light of Rabbi Shaul's letters to various congregations in various different cultures we can do that; it's an interesting topic, but I suggest another thread for it.
I kind of get the feeling people have their lines drawn in the sand on that issue for now and I'm not trying to convince anyone to join my culture at the moment.
Completing the grafting process - might be the name for the thread if you guys want to pursue that topic.

I think the missed nuance I was aiming to share is, "Yes, G-d CAN do *almost* anything" ...
but due to His nature He doesn't. Test us yes...make us violate His own statutes, no.
Permit us to violate His statutes? Beyond the scope of this thread.

peace and love
 
Last edited:
How about logic chopping and begging the question? ;)

It wasn't "murder" because "God told him to do it" is the whole point.

If Abraham had decided on his own volition to sacrifice Isaac to God, he would be a child murderer. We might call him a Molech-worshipper, but we would never understand that to be an act of worship of the God who later said "thou shalt not murder". But because God told him to to do it, that makes it "not murder". And because we have been taught that he legitimately heard from God and acted in obedience to God's voice, then that makes it okay for him to do something that otherwise we would rightly categorize as premeditated murder.
 
And guys, nobody took the bait on my "string search for word of God" suggestion (typical, it's a tough nut to crack), but framing is everything. The question "whether God would ever lead us to do something that contradicts his Written Word" is a trick question built on unquestioned assumptions and dogma. It's more useful to ask whether God will ever lead us to do something that is different from something we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time. Is your faith in your understanding of a book about other people's experiences with God or in a Resurrected Lord Who has in these last days poured out His Spirit on all flesh?
 
Greetings Ish, glad to see you are back. I enjoyed your breakdown of the Hebrew for kill/murder.

I didn't see any logic errors reported about my post in your reply (Ad Hominem, Band wagon, Argument from authority, begging the question, etc...).

I don't have much time tonight but the few logic errors/fallacies that spring to mind are inconsistent comparison, presenting out of context (the Peter episode), intentionality fallacy, post hoc, there are a few others but these will suffice.

I totally get the light to heavy for the interpretation.

I see no need in revisiting the dietary permissions/restrictions. That's been done elsewhere and isn't pertinent to the Abraham/Isaac thread. (I think)

The thrust of my point is only that if Keyfah, who was not as great as our father Abraham refused to violate a small thing, how much more so Avraham would not make a RaTSaCH, murder violation.

My question for this perspective is what was Peter refusing? Answer: a direct imperative order/command by God repeated 3 times! Though Peter heard a voice from heaven, He identifies the speaker as kyrios (Lord) who then tells him that what theos (God) has cleansed call not common.

The commonality between the Abraham/Isaac story and the Peter story is that both were commanded to do something apparently contrary to established norms for the purpose of obedience testing. In Abraham's obedience to the undeniable command of God, God both protected him and his son and blessed them exceedingly for exhibiting faith through obedience. In Peter's case, he failed because the issue wasn't dietary restrictions/permissions, it was a failure of faith through obedience. Thankfully, Peter finally gets it after it's spelled out in black and white and obeys by traveling/commingling/sharing the gospel with the Gentiles.

I think the missed nuance I was aiming to share is, "Yes, G-d CAN do *almost* anything" .... but due to His nature He doesn't. Test us yes...make us violate His own statutes, no.
Permit us to violate His statutes? Beyond the scope of this thread.

According to James 1:13, because of God's nature, he cannot be tempted with evil, therefore it is impossible for God to tempt man with evil. Thus, for God to command Abraham or Peter to do something apparently contrary to established norms cannot be considered evil in these cases, therefore obedience to the directly spoken command of God trumps all. If God commands it, obedience either does not violate His statutes, or there is an exception to the statute for obedience.

As to the nature of God, it is my contention that the works of his hands are conflated with His identity. It's kind of the "no True Scotsman" fallacy. People have used His actions at cherry picked moments to define His infinite nature. They have then created a god (straw man) that conforms to their definition of His nature (based on His actions in said cherry picked moment) and when another passage seems to contradict this created straw man nature, the discrepancy is ignored, rationalized, and discredited instead of being used to clarify and correct a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. There's no contradiction, the actions do not define the nature.

It is the nature of God and who He is that is unchanging. The evidence that He utilizes similar but different methods, permissions and restrictions for different eras, families and priesthoods simply point to a singular Creator who is not bound or restricted by the permissions and restrictions that He has established for His creations. He is bound by His nature, but not by His creations. There are lots of Scriptures that verify that He is bound by His nature, also lots of Scriptures that verify that He changes His mind at times on how to accomplish different things with His creations. None that I can find that state directly or indirectly, deductive or inductive that He is bound by the same restrictions as His creations. In fact the very nature of God would be proof that He is not bound by Creation's limitations.

Must . . . . Stop . . . . Now . . . .
Peace and love and all the Good stuff.
 
As to the nature of God, it is my contention that the works of his hands are conflated with His identity. It's kind of the "no True Scotsman" fallacy. People have used His actions at cherry picked moments to define His infinite nature. They have then created a god (straw man) that conforms to their definition of His nature (based on His actions in said cherry picked moment) and when another passage seems to contradict this created straw man nature, the discrepancy is ignored, rationalized, and discredited instead of being used to clarify and correct a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. There's no contradiction, the actions do not define the nature.
Very well put. Love it. We need a high five emoticon or something similar....
 
Hmmmm, again, this is a false argument because didn't tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He told Abraham to offer him as a sacrifice. He did offer him as a sacrifice. Jumping forward to killing is conflating two things that aren't related. Which make many of the responses in this thread a little nonsensical.
 
I don't even know what to say to that....
 
You say, " Oh yeah Zec, that's a good point. We are jumping ahead to assign our perceptions of the inevitable outcome of God's commands to actually be God's commands. But God isn't constrained by our perceptions of the outcome of His commands. I will rethink my entire world view in the light of your brilliance. I mean scripture's brilliance. You should cross your arms smugly across your chest. I love furries!" Or something along those lines.
 
And guys, nobody took the bait on my "string search for word of God" suggestion (typical, it's a tough nut to crack), but framing is everything. The question "whether God would ever lead us to do something that contradicts his Written Word" is a trick question built on unquestioned assumptions and dogma. It's more useful to ask whether God will ever lead us to do something that is different from something we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time. Is your faith in your understanding of a book about other people's experiences with God or in a Resurrected Lord Who has in these last days poured out His Spirit on all flesh?
Yes, my faith is in that book, not because it is in and of itself divine, but because it is authored by the Divine, who revealed himself and his interactions with man through it. It needs to be our benchmark for our actions and decisions. If it's not, why call ourselves BIBLICAL Families?

I am going to use my own logical tool "ad absurdum.." (something like that).

Shoot me later, but I just have to go there: Don't crazed, maniacal mass murderers use the "Gods Spirit" told me to do it? We don't think very highly of someone using that argument to kill obvious innocents, do we? There is a defined, established order from God, and murderers aren't allowed. The only qualifier is "redeemed" murderers, that I know of.

Without his written benchmarks, are we gods unto ourselves defining "God's Will" by our own definitions?
 
Hmmmm, again, this is a false argument because didn't tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He told Abraham to offer him as a sacrifice. He did offer him as a sacrifice. Jumping forward to killing is conflating two things that aren't related. Which make many of the responses in this thread a little nonsensical.

I don't think the hebrew word for 'burnt offering' carries with it the english connotation of "offer something that may be taken back if it is declined". The burnt offering is given in a way that is not survivable.

It should be clear that God certainly intended Abraham to believe that he was supposed to cut up his son and light him on fire. First from his actual taking up of a knife and needing to be stopped, secondly from God's words to him " for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

It does not appear that God was employing a semantics exercise with Abraham, like He often does. The first mention of 'olah' was of Noah ending the lives of animals to burn in sacrifice. Every subsequent use of 'olah' appears to involve the ending of an animal's life (with the exception one human girl).

Saying that a sacrifice isn't related to killing is perhaps the exact opposite of the point of the exercise that God was having Abraham enact. If He was revealing something about His nature with clever wordplay, there would be some slight difference in the word used in this case and all the rest of the words that involve this act. He does that often enough! But is there any such distinction? A burnt sacrifice is very much related to killing. Killing happens like 100% of the time a burnt offering is offered. Isaac isn't even an exception here, because God prevented him from being offered.
 
Hmmmm, again, this is a false argument because didn't tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He told Abraham to offer him as a sacrifice. He did offer him as a sacrifice. Jumping forward to killing is conflating two things that aren't related. Which make many of the responses in this thread a little nonsensical.
I won't go down that road with you Zec, but I would like to hear more from @IshChayil's example relating to distinction of kill, justifiable killing, kill for sacrifice, and murder. I think the distinctions and solutions may lie there. Not sure, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top