Why is infanticide good in one case and bad in another?

Question

God killed all the first-born of Egypt.
Herod killed all the first-born of Israel.

One is portrayed as good, one as bad. Is there a double standard here?

Answer 1

Context is everything in biblical interpretation. The ancient Egyptians served many false gods. The Plagues that were set upon the people of Egypt were relative to the gods of the land demonstrating that God was the true God and that their gods were weak, ineffective, and false.

The death of the firstborn was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God's word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology. In the account of the death of the firstborn, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households. This blood on the doorpost was representative of the actual blood of Christ who is called the Lamb of God. Therefore, God allowed the firstborn to be killed as a judgment upon Pharaoh, as a proof of God's superiority, and as a prophetic representation of the death of His Son, Jesus. It was a representation of the gospel message that the true first born of God who would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved from their bondage to sin. It does not mean that God is mean, especially if we realize that all have sinned. It means that God was arranging history to bear witness of the greatest act of love: the crucifixion.

Answer 2

We cannot hold God to the laws that He (or She) created for us to follow. Yes, God is above this law.

If God kills someone then it is God's will that he or she die at that time and place.

If a human kills someine then the human is choosing his will over God's.

By the way:

When God killed the first born of Egypt, the first born could have been of any age.

Herod id not kill "all the first-born of Israel." He kill infant males in and around Bethleham.

With love in Christ.