The Difficulty
The tenth and climactic plague: God kills every firstborn son in Egypt, from Pharaoh’s heir to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon, along with the firstborn of all livestock. The text says “there was a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead” (Ex 12:30). The Passover celebrates Israel’s deliverance, but it comes at the cost of countless Egyptian children — infants who had nothing to do with Pharaoh’s policies. How do we reconcile this with God’s love? Does the liberation of one people require the slaughter of another’s children? And what do we do pastorally with a text that sits at the heart of Jewish and Christian liturgy?
Responses
Divine Judgment on an Oppressive Power
Summary: The plague was God’s climactic act of judgment against a regime that had oppressed, enslaved, and murdered Israelite children for generations; the firstborn represent Egypt’s future and power.
The traditional reading emphasizes divine justice. Egypt had enslaved Israel for 400 years and explicitly commanded the death of every Hebrew male infant (Ex 1:16, 22). The drowning of Hebrew children in the Nile is the context for the tenth plague. Exodus frames the killing of the firstborn as measure-for-measure justice: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1); Israel is God’s “firstborn son” (Ex 4:22–23); Egypt killed Israel’s children, so God, after repeated warnings and escalating plagues, takes Egypt’s firstborn. The plague targets Pharaoh’s dynastic succession and Egypt’s imperial power. The Passover lamb’s blood provides a protection extended to anyone — Israelite or Egyptian — who obeys. This is not arbitrary slaughter but judicial judgment on a political-religious system of oppression.
Strengths
Takes the narrative context seriously (Pharaoh’s prior infanticide). Frames the event as judgment on a system, not random cruelty. Consistent with OT covenant theology. The Passover protection was available to any who trusted God.
Weaknesses
Still involves the death of non-combatants, including infants. The measure-for-measure justice works at a symbolic level but not at the level of individual Egyptian children. Doesn’t resolve the moral problem for those children who were themselves victims of Pharaoh’s policies.
Further Reading
- Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Fortress, 2nd ed., 2001), ch. 1 — “The Alternative Community of Moses”
- Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL, 1974), on Ex 11–12
- Terence Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation, 1991)
- Jon Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (Yale, 1993)
Cosmic Battle / Conflict with the Gods of Egypt
Summary: The plagues, including the death of the firstborn, were targeted judgments against Egypt’s gods; the tenth plague struck Pharaoh himself, believed to be the divine son of Ra.
Many scholars (John Currid, James Hoffmeier) argue that each plague systematically dismantled a specific Egyptian deity. Blood in the Nile judged Hapi. The plague of darkness judged Ra. The final plague struck the divine firstborn — Pharaoh, who was worshipped as the son of Ra and the embodiment of Horus. Exodus 12:12: “On all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.” The death of every firstborn, culminating in Pharaoh’s own heir, was the definitive public demonstration that the God of Israel is the true God, and the “gods” of Egypt are powerless. This reading frames the plague not primarily as punishment of individual Egyptians but as cosmic warfare that unmasks false gods.
Strengths
Takes Ex 12:12 seriously as providing the theological framework. Consistent with Egyptian religious understanding of Pharaoh’s divinity. Explains the specific targeting of the firstborn (heir = divine successor). Connects the plagues to a coherent theological purpose.
Weaknesses
The “cosmic battle” framing can diminish the human cost — the firstborn son of the Egyptian servant girl was not a god, just a child. Works better for Pharaoh’s household than for the general Egyptian population. Doesn’t fully address the moral question.
Further Reading
- John Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Baker, 1997) — especially strong on the plagues
- James Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (Oxford, 1996)
- John Currid, “Why Did God Harden Pharaoh’s Heart?” Bible Review (June 1993)
- Douglas Stuart, Exodus (NAC, 2006)
Necessary Lament / The Rabbinic Tradition
Summary: The Passover is not unambiguous celebration but includes deep mourning for Egyptian suffering; Jewish tradition has long held these deaths as a necessary but grievous reality.
Rabbinic tradition preserves a striking counter-current within the Passover celebration. The Talmud (b. Megillah 10b) tells of the angels rejoicing at the drowning of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, and God rebuking them: “My creatures are drowning in the sea, and you want to sing?” During the Passover Seder, Jews remove a drop of wine from the cup for each plague — a ritual gesture reducing joy in recognition of Egyptian suffering. The Passover narrative does not celebrate Egyptian death; it mourns it even while celebrating liberation. Christians have often missed this Jewish interpretive sensibility. Genuine liberation theology does not rejoice in oppressors’ deaths but laments the cost of justice. The text demands both gratitude for deliverance and grief for those who died.
Strengths
Honors the rich Jewish interpretive tradition Christians have often ignored. Allows for both theological affirmation and moral grief. Provides a model for how to liturgically celebrate liberation without triumphalism. Pastorally rich.
Weaknesses
Doesn’t fully resolve the question of whether God caused these deaths. “Lament within celebration” is a sophisticated posture hard to maintain in congregational worship. Can be seen as sentimentalizing the text.
Further Reading
- Jonathan Sacks, Exodus: The Book of Redemption (Maggid Books, 2010)
- Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (Harper, 1962)
- Rabbi Shai Held, The Heart of Torah (JPS, 2017)
- Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Bible With and Without Jesus (HarperOne, 2020) — especially strong on Jewish interpretive traditions Christians often miss
Christological Typology
Summary: The death of the firstborn anticipates Christ, God’s own firstborn, who dies so that the sword of judgment passes over all who trust in him.
The traditional Christian typological reading: the Passover lamb foreshadows Christ, and the death of the firstborn ultimately points to the death of the ultimate Firstborn — Christ himself. 1 Corinthians 5:7 explicitly calls Christ “our Passover lamb.” Colossians 1:15 calls Christ “the firstborn of all creation.” The terrible logic of the original Passover — that deliverance requires a death, that judgment passes over those under the blood — is fulfilled at Calvary, where God’s own firstborn Son bears the judgment that humanity deserves. This typological reading doesn’t eliminate the moral problem of the Egyptian firstborn, but it reframes it: God does not finally require the blood of the other’s firstborn; God ultimately gives the blood of his own.
Strengths
Deeply embedded in Christian tradition from the NT forward. Provides a theological framework that moves from Exodus to the Cross. Offers pastoral comfort: the God who brought the tenth plague ultimately bears the judgment himself.
Weaknesses
Can supersede the Jewish reading of Exodus. Doesn’t actually resolve the historical question of the Egyptian firstborn’s suffering. Typology can feel abstract when real children died.
Further Reading
- Melito of Sardis, On Pascha (c. 160 AD) — the classic early Christian typological reading
- N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)
- Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale (Ignatius, 1990)
- Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion (Eerdmans, 2015)