PDA

View Full Version : More than just the firstborn killed?


ANewCreature
October 19th, 2007, 09:20 AM
I was talking with a cousin of mine who has a medical degree. He feels it's impossible to think that the final plague could seek out only the firstborn - but he also believes in the Bible. He has a different theory - he feels that the pleague may well have wiped out many more, and that it just happened that all the firstborn were killed.

At the least, I like how he tries to reconcile his faith with science, though God in His omnipotence could do anything He wants with a plague. But, do you think that's possible? I read the part in Exodus where it talks about that, and it doesn't say "only the firstborn of Egypt." but, I noticed something else interesting, too.

It says that there was not a house that was not touched by the plague - someone was dead in every house. (Exodus 12:30) Now, remember what life was like in those days - disease and sickness were quite common. It actually seems a bit coincidental that every house in Egypt, at that time, would have their first born living.

So, did the death angel take the first born, or, if the first born had happened to die before, the oldest then living? I'm sure that verse means it wasn't just children - if a male was the first born and was old enough to have married, he might be the one to die, for instance. But, that just increases the chance that a first born could have died sometime before then.

I think this is where my cousin is getting this theory that it was a large plague that happened to kill all the first born. And, I applaud him for reading his Bible. but, has anyone else heard this theory? I'll admit, I always thought of it as just the first born till recently, but that may be because, as a child in Sunday School, when I would hear a plague killed "the firstborn" my young mind didn't really think about whether there might be others.

Seller_of_Purple
October 19th, 2007, 11:44 AM
That's a really good point, because before we were adults we were someones baby! I have never looked into that idea, though the plagues of Egypt are so interesting to me...
God in his sovereignty could totally take anyone he wanted based on whatever common denominator he chose...

Freedom
October 19th, 2007, 01:16 PM
Have we forgot that God is a supernatural God?
We get into trouble when we try to explain the Bible by natural methods which is attemtped today as the supernatural is rejected and those that believe such are looked at as ignorant by the mass media.
The death was done by an angel and done systematically (first born).
How many times does a river turn to blood (and back again).
A staff into a snake and back again.
God also supernaturally spared the Israelites in a few of the plagues so that the people would recognize God's hand (not just the death of the first born).
God did the events supernaturally as not to leave a doubt to Pharoah/Moses/Egyptians/Isrealits that these were not a natural occurrence.

HeIsEnough
October 19th, 2007, 07:15 PM
He feels it's impossible to think that the final plague could seek out only the firstborn.

With God, nothing is impossible.

It says that there was not a house that was not touched by the plague - someone was dead in every house. (Exodus 12:30)

I would think that verse is better seen as "family", as in 'the house of so and so'. The word has a wide application, and is translated as such elsewhere. Unless the Lord also ensured there was a firstborn child in every particular house. It seems the context is better understood to be the former.

My Abba's Child
October 20th, 2007, 05:18 AM
Remember that this Plague was not a sickness, no germs or virus caused it... this was an angel who was sent by God for a specific mission. "Kill all firstborn from the houses which do not have the blood of a lamb covering the doors." This was not a "plague" as we know it... it wasn't the Black Plague, it wasn't Smallpox, no Staph infection, etc... THIS is how it could be sure that ONLY the firstborn (if the firstborn child had died before this, then the father or mother was likely the firstborn from their family and they would be the one killed, etc...) of each household. This is how GOD would get the glory, the fear of God would fill the people, and wisdom would be the result.

In His love,

ANewCreature
October 21st, 2007, 06:47 AM
All good points, thanks; I agree, I think my cousin has fallen for the temptation here to put too much thinking & not enough faith into it.

Never thought about the different meaning of "house," thanks.

watchman
October 21st, 2007, 09:19 AM
A family with a husband, wife and a single child.
All could be firstborn.
All would have died.

Other houses may have only had one.

Since extended family living arrangements were common at the time. Likely many died in every house.

Most people think it was only male infant children, rather than the actual understanding of the numbers if all firstborn were counted.