Exodus 11:5Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The relationship between divine justice and the death of the firstborn is aptly illustrated in Isaiah 38:5. God did not initiate this decree immediately; rather, He aimed to guide them through the influence of others, and when He finally dispatched it, it was with full foreknowledge. What was the intention behind it? To illuminate their understanding through words, thereby preventing them from suffering the consequences directly. However, since they remained unrepentant, He manifested His decree without ambiguity, ensuring that it could not be dismissed as a mere natural affliction or disease. Consider the distinctive details that accompanied this event: first, the striking occurred in one night; second, it affected only the firstborn.

Let us continue exploring the unfolding of the Word, having gathered enough insights from previous discussions to understand that Moses, or any righteous individual who has ascended in virtue, perceives a significant loss in not leading his kindred toward a liberated existence. Having approached his people, he ignites in them a fervent longing for freedom through the presentation of grave afflictions; in his quest to rescue his fellow Israelites from calamity, he brings about the demise of every Egyptian firstborn. By doing this, he legitimizes the eradication of the very root of malevolence; for without this, escaping the bondage of Egypt becomes unattainable. It is prudent for us to reflect on this notion deeply. For if one solely focuses on the narrative itself, how can a divine understanding of these events be maintained? The Egyptian perpetrates injustice, and a newly-born infant suffers the consequences, even though in his tender age, he does not possess the capacity to discern between good and evil; his life lacks the capacity for sinful desire. In his infancy, he cannot even distinguish between his right hand and left, relying instead solely on the gaze of his caretaker; his sole expression of sorrow manifests through a tear, and if his natural needs are met, he responds with a smile. This innocent life bears punishment for his father's transgressions. Where is the truth? Where is justice? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who proclaims, "The soul that sins, it shall die; the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20)? Why does history endorse what contradicts the sacred text? Thus, in light of this, it seems far more reasonable, adhering to the meaning discussed, to believe that something formative has transpired; the Lawgiver, in recounting these events, establishes a principle. The principle articulated here is this: through virtue, one who contends with any vice must annihilate the initial seeds of evil within themselves; for in eradicating the beginning, subsequent transgressions are also extinguished, as the Lord teaches in the Gospel, speaking almost explicitly about the eradication of the firstborn of Egyptian sins, commanding those who have vanquished lust and anger within themselves to fear no more the dirtiness of adultery or the horrors of murder. For neither of these vile acts can occur without the initiation of anger leading to murder and lust leading to adultery. Consequently, since one already burdened by sin before the act of adultery initiates lust, and before murder, anger arises: he who slays the firstborn also undeniably slays the lineage that follows, just as one who strikes the serpent's head eliminates all its progeny.

If nothing exists in the world without God, if all things are held in God's sovereign will, and the Divine essence is both wise and providential, then surely there exists a rational explanation, manifesting the signs of Divine wisdom and providential care. What occurs in vain or without purpose cannot be attributed to God; as Scripture declares, it is said of Him to accomplish "all wisdom" (Psalm 103:24). Where then lies the wisdom in this? A human enters existence through birth, drawing breath, beginning life with cries, fulfilling natural obligations with tears, experiencing sorrow as they commence life, all before they engage with life's pleasures or develop discernment. Before fully mastering their bodily faculties, while still vulnerable and unformed, they are struck by death, whether through external violence or disease. What should we consider regarding such beings? How should we evaluate those who depart in this manner? Will such souls face the Judge? Will they be summoned alongside others for judgement? Will they receive rewards reflective of their deeds, or will they undergo purification by fire, as indicated in the Gospel? Or be refreshed by the blessings (Luke 3:17)? But how might we understand such souls? The term recompense implies that something must precede it; yet one who has not lived possesses nothing to offer. In the absence of giving, the concept of recompense loses its meaning; where there is no retribution, neither good nor evil is present, since the terminology promises recompense. What is neither good nor evil may be argued to not exist at all. Therefore, should anything possess a value designated as good, if God grants yet does not reward such a benefit, what justification exists for such an endowment? On what basis does one substantiate the justice in this? The Gospel reveals that those graced with favor may gain access to the kingdom conditional upon actions performed; for it is said, "because you have done this and that, you shall receive the kingdom." Since no actions nor intentions exist in the case of the untested, is there any reason to assert that such ones will receive the promised reward from God? If one without inquiry accepts the view that those who departed from life will surely partake in benefits, it appears more blessed not to partake of life at all. If the communion of good is confirmed even for those who perished in infancy—whatever circumstance surrounds their conception—while those who lived, as nature intended, inevitably added some degree of moral filth to their lives, then a complete disengagement from evil requires significant effort. It is not without toil that one becomes diligent in virtue, nor is it without struggle that one divorces themselves from earthly pleasures; hence, a long life necessitates one to bear either the hardships of virtue in the present or the consequences of a wasted life in the future. But those who die prematurely receive neither of these trials. Conversely, those who leave life before their appointed time are immediately met with a favorable fate, should the viewpoint be just. Consequently, irrationality prevails over reason, and virtue is rendered worthless. If there is no loss in the acquisition of benefits for those who do not engage in virtue, then striving for virtue becomes futile, since in the Divine judgment, the state of irrationality evidently takes precedence. Reflecting on these considerations, you compel us to examine this question further so that our conclusions may be grounded in firm reasoning. Noting the complexity of the reasoning given, I believe the Apostle’s words resonate with our discourse, wherein he spoke of the incomprehensible nature of God, declaring, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord?" (Rom. 11:33-34). However, the Apostle also asserts that the spiritual person judges all things (1 Cor. 2:15) and praises those enriched by the grace of God "in every word and all knowledge" (1 Cor. 1:5), thus it seems fitting not to take pride in diligent inquiry nor leave this matter without scrutiny. Rather, we ought to explore it thoughtfully so our discourse does not become underdeveloped or lacking in substance, reminiscent of an infant who has yet to grow strong, merely remaining dormant and inactive due to laziness as they await the truth. Therefore, it would be prudent to avoid hastily entering into a debate akin to those of athletes; instead, let us orderly review the topic presented. What should this order be? Firstly, we must understand the origins of human nature and the purpose for its creation. If we do not stray from the truth here, we will not err in our examination. All things stem from God; everything we perceive and imagine within creation must originate from Him. There is no dispute among those who contemplate existence; they universally acknowledge that everything derives from a singular cause, none being self-begotten or serving as its own origin. Conversely, the One Being, which is uncreated and eternal, remains constant and is unmodifiable, transcending every spatial limitation without growing nor diminishing. His creation encompasses both time and place, alongside all that exists within them. Among created natures is the essence of humanity, a truth affirmed through divinely inspired doctrine stating that after God shaped all things, humanity appeared on earth, fashioned from a mingling of elements, as the divine spirit harmoniously unified with its earthly essence. Humanity was designed by the Creator to reflect some likeness of the Divine nature and supreme power. It is best encapsulated by the declaration, "And God created man in His own image" (Genesis 1:27). The purpose of creating such a living being was depicted by some ancient commentators, recognizing that the entirety of creation divides into two realms, as the Apostle states, "the visible and the invisible" (Col. 1:16); the invisible being the intelligible and incorporeal, while the visible comprises the sensory and corporeal. Since all creatures can be categorized as such—into the sensual and the sensible—and since the nature of the angelic and incorporeal, belonging to the invisible, resides in realms of serenity and the divine, the dichotomy suggests the earthly domain does not align with the spiritual intelligences (as what communion exists between that which is upward and light with that which is heavy and earthly?). Thus, the earthly cannot remain devoid of participation in the share of the spiritual and incorporeal beings. It is for this reason that humanity was fashioned with exquisite care, bridging the spiritual essence of the soul with its earthly counterpart, allowing the soul to dwell within the material world, which resonates closely with the fleshly component. The created design aims for all beings to glorify the Power that transcends all; thus, the heavenly and earthly converge through a singular action—turning their gaze to God to pursue the same ultimate goal. This movement toward God is synonymous with the life that is distinctive to the spiritual essence. As earthly bodies sustain themselves with earthly nourishment, demonstrating a corporeal life that can manifest richly in both the voiceless and the articulate, there must be a comparable vitality articulated through the mind, sustaining the soul's existence. If nourishing food, characterized by its transitory nature, brings life to those it enters, precisely how much more so would participation in the truly existent, eternal, and unchanging preserve life in the one who partakes? Therefore, if the distinctive life of the spiritual essence consists in partaking of God, no communion can arise between opposites; the partaker must reflect a kinship with that which is partaken. Just as the eye delights in light, being naturally equipped to perceive what aligns with its nature, no other bodily part conveys sight because none contains innate light prepared to see. Hence, to partake of God, a fundamental kinship in the nature of the partaker to the essence of that which is partaken is indispensable. Thus, Scripture affirms that humanity was created in God's image, as the reflecting likeness seeks the similar; turning toward God, as previously stated, embodies the very life of the soul. However, ignorance of the true good, akin to a fog, obscures the soul's vision, transforming into a thick cloud that blocks the rays of truth from illuminating the depths of ignorance, which results in the impoverishment of both soul and life. For Scripture teaches that the soul's genuine life arises from partaking of goodness; yet, when hindered by ignorance, the soul deprived of communion with God loses its life. No one should inquire about the genealogy of ignorance, questioning its source or origin. Rather, understanding should arise from the very essence of the names themselves, revealing that knowledge and ignorance indicate the soul's relation to something. However, nothing that is mental or descriptive of anything embodies essence. There exists a distinction between relating to something and the essence of a thing itself.

From the onset, the type of execution that Pharaoh inflicted upon the Hebrew people was not a part of the original design, and through this act, God positioned Himself against Pharaoh.

Question 22: Why did God strike down the firstborn of Egypt? It was due to Pharaoh's brutal oppression of God's firstborn, Israel, as the Sovereign Lord proclaimed, ‘My firstborn son Israel’ (Exodus 4:22). Therefore, it was entirely right for Him to enact judgment upon the firstborn of Egypt.

Ultimately, the eldest sons of Egypt, representing authority, as well as the powers and leaders of this world’s dusk, including the creators and architects of the false religions that Christ’s truth has obliterated along with their originators.

Every firstborn in Egypt shall be cut off, from the firstborn of Pharaoh on the throne to the firstborn of the maidservant at the millstone, and even to the firstborn of all livestock. In another passage, the same divine Moses states that there was no house in all of Egypt that did not have a dead person. A great outcry rose throughout the land, for there was not a house without its dead (Ex. 12:30). This raises some questions about whether every household had a firstborn. EXPLANATION. Scriptural interpreters perceive different meanings in these two seemingly contradictory statements, yet one does not negate the other.

The labor at the millstones was regarded not only as the most arduous but also as demeaning, primarily because it involved individuals deemed incapable of anything more due to their lack of understanding. Often, enslaved women of African descent were assigned to this task. The simultaneous death of the firstborn of livestock served as a significant warning to the Egyptians, indicating that it was no trivial matter that their firstborn sons, who held a place of special affection and privilege in the eyes of their parents according to ancient traditions, were taken from them. Furthermore, the loss of these animals also challenged the Egyptians’ naturalistic beliefs and religious views.