If you haven’t read the previous two posts on the tenth plague, you might want to go do that now. It will help this post make more sense.
In light of the idea that God did not kill the firstborn sons of Egypt, why then does the Bible say that it is God who would destroy them (Exodus 11:1, 4-5; 12:12)? This is a perfect example of a place in Scripture where God takes responsibility for a terrible event which occurred on His watch.
God didn’t participate in the destructiveness of the event, but due to the rebellion of the Egyptians and the destruction they had invited upon themselves, God was not able to fully prevent the destruction that came, and so took measures to rescue and deliver those He could. As for the rest of the event, God allows Himself to take the blame for the death of the firstborn because this disaster happened on His watch and so He bears responsibility for it.
There are two pieces of evidence later in Scripture which reveal to us that this is the way the tenth plague should be understood.
The Destroyer Killed the Firstborn Sons of Egypt
The first is what the writer of the book of Hebrews says about this event in Hebrews 11:28. In that text, the author clearly hesitates from saying that it was God who killed the firstborn sons of Egypt and writes instead about “he who destroyed the firstborn.” The author of Hebrews seems to be saying that it was the destroyer who destroyed the firstborn sons of Egypt, and it was God who kept the destroyer from touching the sons of those families who had the blood of the lamb on their doorpost.
The Death of Jesus on the Cross Reveals God’s Role in the Passover
It is this blood of the lamb which gives us the second way to read about the tenth plague in a new light.
Nearly all Christians know that the blood of the lamb is later used to symbolize the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross for us. In the last supper, which was a Passover meal, Jesus talked about His blood being poured out for us (Luke 22:20). The book of Revelation portrays Jesus as the lamb who was slain since the foundation of the world (Rev 5:6).
So if these sorts of texts guide our understanding of the tenth plague, we must not look to the death and destruction of the firstborn sons of Egypt as a proper indication of God’s activity in this event, but rather, we must look to the blood of the lamb. The lamb slain for protection, deliverance, and redemption is where we see Jesus in the events of the first Passover.
And in fact, the symbolism could not be more clear when we remember that the Israelites would have understood the death of the firstborn sons of Egypt as proper revenge for the death of their own sons at the hands of the Egyptians 80 years earlier. When we remember this, and read about the crucifixion of Jesus in light of the first Passover, the contrast between the God who delivers and the destroyer who kills could not be more clear.
The way to see Jesus in the text of the tenth plague is not so much in what Jesus did, but in what Jesus did not do.
For example, when Moses was born, all the sons of Israel were killed by Pharaoh’s army. So, when Moses comes into prophetic power over Egypt, God is shown to be exacting revenge against Egypt by putting to death all the firstborn sons of Egypt.
When Jesus is born, something similar happens. Herod commands that all the boys two years old and younger in the region of Bethlehem be put to death. If one is thinking that Jesus is fulfilling Moses and following in the footsteps of Israel (as the opening chapters of the Gospel of Matthew indicate), we would expect that Jesus, once He enters into His prophetic power over the Roman Empire, does something similar as what was done in the tenth plague. We would expect Jesus to put to death all the firstborn sons of the Romans. But Jesus does the exact opposite.
Rather than kill the firstborn sons of His enemies, Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, lets Himself be killed by His enemies.
Rather than exact revenge upon His enemies for what they had done 33 years earlier, Jesus allows the crime to be repeated again upon Himself. He does not put His enemies to death, but dies in the place of His enemies.
Rather than take steps to protect Himself from the angel of death, He goes willingly to the slaughter so that His blood can protect His enemies.
In this way, the crucifixion of Jesus is a shocking reversal and fulfillment of the tenth plague. Through the crucifixion of Jesus, we learn what God is really like.
God is not a baby-killing deity, who seeks to exact revenge on His enemies for a crime many decades old, but is a self-sacrificial, enemy-loving God, who would rather die for His enemies than see His enemies die.
So when we read about the tenth plague in light of Jesus on the cross, we can see that God is not to be found in the destroying angel who slaughters babies out of revenge or because of the sins of a proud and self-righteous ruler.
Instead, God is to be found in the self-sacrificial death of a lamb, who pours out His blood for others, so that death and destruction, when it comes, passes over the house and cannot touch those who live within. When Jesus reveals the God of the tenth plague to us, it is not a God of death, fear, and destruction, but a God of deliverance, hope, protection, and redemption.
How can a God who says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) be the same God who instructs His people in the Old Testament to kill their enemies?
These are the sorts of questions we discuss and (try to) answer in my online discipleship group. Members of the group can also take ALL of my online courses (Valued at over $1000) at no charge. Learn more here: Join the RedeemingGod.com Discipleship Group I can't wait to hear what you have to say, and how we can help you better understand God and learn to live like Him in this world!
I get what you are trying to argue here but the text indicates that God Himself, whether directly or by visiting “the destroyer” on the homes of the Egyptians.
For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you.
(Exodus 12:23)
Absolutely there is a vision of God’s protective hand over those where the blood is present, prefiguring the atoning substitutionary death of Christ, but there seems to be a clear indication that in this event (as in the ultimate culmination of judgement) it is God who is striking down the first born of the Egyptians, rather than God being an observer to an event outside of His control.
Arthur,
Good points. I tried to address this objection in my post yesterday, https://redeeminggod.com/who-killed-the-firstborn-sons-of-egypt/ but I am not sure how well I answered it.
If Jesus reveals God to us, then an interesting exercise is to try to replace all references in Exodus 12 to God with “Jesus” and see what you come up with. Is is possible to really see Jesus going through the homes of Egypt and killing the firstborn sons? Or, maybe not killing them Himself, but sending a destroying angel in to do the dirty work?
I just cannot see it, despite what the text says. So I either have to give up on inerrancy, OR I have to try to read the text in a different way. For right now, I am trying Option 2, though I am not sure it ends up much different than just saying the text is wrong…
God (YHVH) is executing judgement upon the gods of Egypt.
At least, that is what the LXX and Vulgate says.
I’ll argue the same point for the WLC, albeit with less certainty.
The killing of the first-born is a side effect of slaughtering the Egyptian dieties.
I’m far from the point of saying that the Egyptian dieties killed the first-born, but that is not out of the question. (I’ve read that idea before — that the children died as a result of conflict between the various dieties — but don’t remember where.)
Along those lines, there were several shifts in the Egyptian Pantheon around that point in time. (Polytheism to monotheism to polytheism. New dieties replacing old dieties.)
Wht must you give up on inerrancy? Consider it is important to allow scripture to interpret scripure but equally impirtant to remain true to context. By doing both God is able to reveal HIMSELF who is not carnal nor carnally understood. Does not scripure tell us God is delaying the final judgement? Jesus is indeed the PASSOVER lamb, but the judgement of all not covered is delayed.
Thanks for continuing this series. It really is fascinating. Maybe I’ll come around to your view by the end of all this!
I think I’m starting to see the crux of where we differ, but we’re not there yet. It’s in your statement: “God was not able to fully prevent the destruction that came …” . He could have, but you covered in the last two posts why He didn’t.
Finally, I loved your commentary on Jesus’ life and death in this. I hadn’t thought of it that way at all.
Cathy,
Honestly, I am not fully convinced either. I am writing to attempt to work through the logic of what I feel, but am not sure I can prove from Scripture…
If Jesus was God, and God’s character is consistent, does it not come down to either Israel’s understanding of God was inaccurate, or Jesus was not God? The Jesus portrayed in the New Testament differs fundamentally from the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Or might our understanding/interpretation of what is written about one or both of them be inaccurate?
Sam if your statement that Jesus might not be God is right then it would answer a lot of questions and ad a huge amount of others to it.
Let’s assume you are right, then Jesus is the prophet the old testament speaks of, he is still the messiah that was expected but in a different way then he was expected. He would be fully man without sin, so a “real” second Adam, created by God, maybe before time, but ain’t we all created before time?
If he was the only one who really know the father who is God creator then the view of the OT might be wrong, or the way the people saw might be wrong and then Jeremy you might need to give up on inerrancy.
Look I don’t know my friends don’t believe your idea is sound, one of them even said it was not good for me to read you blog, I thought that to be funny.
I think the Israelite’s did not think much more or less of “their” God then the surrounding nations did, they where all under some kind of influence from one and the other. All gods had some human behavior add to them. So why should they not put anger and violence onto God creator? It shows he cares for them and gives them justice.
I for sure don’t know what justice looks likes for God because he sent Jesus who made us just before him. This indicates there must have been a dept to be paid. So God was angry and put his violence on Jesus trough the cross, luckily Jesus know he would raise from the dead, so he paid a price but got a reward for paying this price. And in Him we may all enjoy this reward.
Is your question Jeremy not more who is to blame? Who is responsible for the violence that takes place?
In the end is that not God?
Or at least could the Israelite’s have thought in this way?
Taco, I believe that Jesus is God incarnate, in flesh. Therefore, I think it much more likely that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is either Israel’s inaccurate understanding of God, which they proceeded to write about, or that we are misunderstanding or misinterpreting what they wrote.
Yes, I think you are right. There are other possibilities, and clearly, our understanding of both is always limited and developing.
Inspired.
Interesting. Just came upon this thread. Why is there a question between God the Father, to whom even Jesus-his only begotten (half mortal in this life) son-prayed to…and Jesus?
They are obviously two distinct beings with 2 distinct personalities and roles.
God the Father in the Old Testiment knew certain truths to be a universal truth. Meaning, God is unchanging, else he is a liar and if a liar not God. Thus God made the rules or taught us of the rules he was bound by.
If he said something “I will visit them in mine anger” or “they will be met with my destruction” whatever verbiage he used, was he not just pointing out that in his anger he would not protect them, for instance if they put other gods before him, etc. So he allowed the destroying angel to…destroy. He wouldnt stop it. He wouldnt have mercy…bht it was their own actions that ripened them for such destruction. In other words, you are for God or against him. Thus one might also say, if you are not for him, you are for his advesary. That is where the destroying angel comes. God takes no delight in evil or the consequence of it.
However, he delights in the righteous thus he provides a way for those who believe and worship him and obey him to be spared. He has power to do this because it does not contradict his promises of good being rewarded/protected and the consequences and even destruction of evil.
This was a precurser as well, in similitude of Christs sacrifice. God the Father is testifying of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ being what saves mankind who believe and worship and obey from the destroying angel-the advesary-satan.
We do not see a different God in the Old and New Testament, we see God the father, and then his son. Two distinct beings with one purpose. To create us, and to save us from an eternity of seperation from them because of sin which is necessary since no unclean thing can enter the presence of God the Father except through the merits of his son -also a God, coming from God in the flesh of man and living a perfect life without sin.
Jesus, his son prayed to him and taught how to pray to “Our Father who art in Heaven ” he also pleased with the God the Father to “Take this cup from me…nevertheless, not MY will but THY will be done” He was clearly not the SAME God.
On the cross, he had to experience for the first time, seperation from God and the Holy Spirit. Something He had NEVER felt as He was Gods only begotten and had walked with him, never even being seperated from the influence of the Holy Spirit as only sin creates that wall and ge had never sinned thus never felt that seperation, but to be able to have the FULL mortal experience before dying, and to atone for all the sins of the world, Jesus had to take all those sins upon him, and then feel the pain of the consequence of that sin, namely seoeration from the presence of God the Father and the Holy Ghost, crying out
“Father, why has thou forsaken me?”
I think when they came up with the trinty concept in what… 5, 10 AD? They did a great injustice to the understanding of who God is and isnt.
This is why there is confusion about the God of the Old Testiment and God of the New Testiment.
The author of confusion writes in the minds of men that which they can understand not that which they should understand.
God the Father
Jesus the only begotten of the Father
The Holy Spirit
3 different beings with unique purpose working together for one purpose.