What does this commandment mean?

[Confused]

As was directed by God, Moses chiseled out 2 tablets of stone and the Lord wrote His commandments on them (Exodus 34:1). Most are aware of the varying accounts of how the 10 commandments were worded between the various books in the Bible. This is one found only in Exodus and I am unsure the meaning or purpose of it:

Exodus 34:19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

Taking these two verses within context of the chapter, they are senseless as they are not further mentioned in Exodus or in any of the other books that refer to the 10 commandments.

What was God trying to tell us with this commandment? If only the first offspring belongs to Him, what about any future offspring. And what does He mean when he refers to "redeeming"? I had initially thought it was making a loose reference to ensuring the first offspring was taught His commandments and adhered to them. But that is nonsensical when it is applied to livestock as well.
So what does this mean and why is it not found anywhere else?

[cnorman18]

Did everybody forget what event immediately preceded the giving of this commandment?

Hold on, checking memory.....nope, didn't forget (humor intended Charles).

I got it that time, but thanks...

In the last of the Ten Plagues, God took the lives of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the firstborn of all their flocks and herds. By "passing over" the firstborn of the Hebrews, God in a sense "owned" their lives. This commandment strikes me as more of an acknowledgment and a commemoration of that tradition than anything else.

The first born of their enemies, not of those who made the Covenant with God, ie... Moses and those he led with the assistance of God.

Uh, no. In the text, it's quite clear that the firstborn of anyone whose door was not marked with the blood of the Paschal Lamb would die, whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew. Didn't you see the movie?

(And calm down, Christians. I know the symbolism you see there, and it doesn't interest me.)

And this was directly written by the hand of God Himself. Why would He make a commandment about those who reject Him and what they must do?

Not quite the idea. The commandment recognizes that the firstborn of Israel belong to God. In Jewish law and tradition, of course, the "first fruits" of everything belong to Him. It doesn't apply to non-Jews.

Why would the Hand of God write a tradition as a commandment?

You've got it backwards. ALL the commandments are traditions, and in Jewish teaching, local tradition carries the force of law.

The Hand of God is a metaphor, of course; God doesn't have hands. Further, as I've written elsewhere, the idea that any part of the Bible is the literal Word of God is not commonly believed by Jews. ALL of this is tradition. Tbat's what Judaism is.

This commandment is not normally listed among the traditional Ten Words that are often carved on the doors of the Arks in synagogues. It is considered one of the 603 subordinate commandments, small c, which Jews are traditionally obliged to observe.

I realize it isn't usually written in the "commandments", but it was written by God Himself.

See above.

Somehow I see that as fairly significant. Why exclude it or minimize it?

Who excludes it or minimizes it? Like I said, most Jews still observe this today. It's more akin to birthday candles or Christmas trees than something like fasting on Yom Kippur, though. It's hard to be real serious about it since there is no Temple. Remember, we follow our laws for their own sake, not because we get the Heaven prize when we croak.

[Confused]

In the last of the Ten Plagues, God took the lives of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the firstborn of all their flocks and herds. By "passing over" the firstborn of the Hebrews, God in a sense "owned" their lives. This commandment strikes me as more of an acknowledgment and a commemoration of that tradition than anything else.

The first born of their enemies, not of those who made the Covenant with God, ie... Moses and those he led with the assistance of God.

Uh, no. In the text, it's quite clear that the firstborn of anyone whose door was not marked with the blood of the Paschal Lamb would die, whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew. Didn't you see the movie?

This is way post plague. This was what was written after the first set was carved. Are we referring to the same chapter in Exodus? 34? Way post Exodus. Red Sea already parted, escape already made, hence, no plague issues at this point.

And this was directly written by the hand of God Himself. Why would He make a commandment about those who reject Him and what they must do?

Not quite the idea. The commandment recognizes that the firstborn of Israel belong to God. In Jewish law and tradition, of course, the "first fruits" of everything belong to Him. It doesn't apply to non-Jews.

Okay, until I am sure we are reading from the same chapter of the same book of the same bible (gosh, think there is enough qualifiers here?) I am going to hold off on further comments to the remainder of your response.

[cnorman18]

In the last of the Ten Plagues, God took the lives of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the firstborn of all their flocks and herds. By "passing over" the firstborn of the Hebrews, God in a sense "owned" their lives. This commandment strikes me as more of an acknowledgment and a commemoration of that tradition than anything else.

The first born of their enemies, not of those who made the Covenant with God, ie... Moses and those he led with the assistance of God.

Uh, no. In the text, it's quite clear that the firstborn of anyone whose door was not marked with the blood of the Paschal Lamb would die, whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew. Didn't you see the movie?

This is way post plague. This was what was written after the first set was carved. Are we referring to the same chapter in Exodus? 34? Way post Exodus. Red Sea already parted, escape already made, hence, no plague issues at this point.

Yeah, Exodus 34. Post-plague. Plague already happened. It's in the past.

That's why it's called a "commemoration." it commemorates something in the past, besides anticipating the "first fruits" laws in Leviticus.

And this was directly written by the hand of God Himself. Why would He make a commandment about those who reject Him and what they must do?

Not quite the idea. The commandment recognizes that the firstborn of Israel belong to God. In Jewish law and tradition, of course, the "first fruits" of everything belong to Him. It doesn't apply to non-Jews.

Okay, until I am sure we are reading from the same chapter of the same book of the same bible (gosh, think there is enough qualifiers here?) I am going to hold off on further comments to the remainder of your response.

Understood.

[Confused]

In the last of the Ten Plagues, God took the lives of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the firstborn of all their flocks and herds. By "passing over" the firstborn of the Hebrews, God in a sense "owned" their lives. This commandment strikes me as more of an acknowledgment and a commemoration of that tradition than anything else.

The first born of their enemies, not of those who made the Covenant with God, ie... Moses and those he led with the assistance of God.

Uh, no. In the text, it's quite clear that the firstborn of anyone whose door was not marked with the blood of the Paschal Lamb would die, whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew. Didn't you see the movie?

This is way post plague. This was what was written after the first set was carved. Are we referring to the same chapter in Exodus? 34? Way post Exodus. Red Sea already parted, escape already made, hence, no plague issues at this point.

Yeah, Exodus 34. Post-plague. Plague already happened. It's in the past.

That's why it's called a "commemoration." it commemorates something in the past, besides anticipating the "first fruits" laws in Leviticus.

What is commemorative about the passage I quote in the OP or the context it is written in? How do you arrive at a commemorative concept when it was written in the Covenant between Moses and those who followed and God? What is commemorative about it?

I wasn't aware God was trying to make a tradition out of it. But again, what is the tradition? Allow God to kill the first born.

Oh buggers, now I am in circles confused and all.

[cnorman18]

What is commemorative about the passage I quote in the OP or the context it is written in? How do you arrive at a commemorative concept when it was written in the Covenant between Moses and those who followed and God? What is commemorative about it?

I wasn't aware God was trying to make a tradition out of it. But again, what is the tradition? Allow God to kill the first born.

Oh buggers, now I am in circles confused and all.

Okay, let's back up.

First, this was not written by God at the top of Mount Sinai. It was written by men, no less than five hundred and maybe as much as a thousand years after the alleged time of the Exodus.

No one knows the order of these events. Something akin to the Plagues happened in Egypt; they are too close to events that we know took place after the eruption of the Thera volcano circa 1468 BCE to be a coincidence. Maybe whoever wrote these documents used the memory of those events to establish the setting of his story, and concocted the "Passover" story to explain a tradition of offering the first fruits of the harvest that was already in place. Or maybe he wrote down an oral tradition that he received from his own teachers. There's no way to know.

Since the Temple was the place where those first fruits were dedicated to God and where firstborn children were "redeemed," it's a good bet that this passage was written after the Temple was built, and maybe as late as the Babylonian Exile.

In any case, it's pointless to wonder about what God thought - He's not saying - or whether these laws should hold a higher or lower place in the tradition. The tradition is as we have it. Those who are strictly observant generally take the tradition literally and do not question it; those who do question it do not take it literally and do not observe these rituals strictly or take them all that seriously. No particular conflict at either end of the spectrum.

All this is like the "issue" of the infallibility of the Pope. There is no "controversy" there. If you're a strict, devout Catholic, you accept the authority of Holy Mother Church and you have no questions. If you're not, then you don't much care - and you don't have any questions either.

Does any of that help at all?

[kermit c. davis]

>>What was God trying to tell us with this commandment? If only the first offspring belongs to Him, what about any future offspring. And what does He mean when he refers to "redeeming"? I had initially thought it was making a loose reference to ensuring the first offspring was taught His commandments and adhered to them. But that is nonsensical when it is applied to livestock as well.
So what does this mean and why is it not found anywhere else?[/quote]<<

That is a good question and I wish I had a good answer. However I will offer you some food for thought.

When verses don't make sense literally, try to look beyond the literal to find a figurative meaning.

We look beyond the literal passover to see Jesus our Passover Lam who was sacrificed for us(I Cor 5:7).

We look beyond the literal manna to see Jesus as our bread of life(Jn 6:31-42).

Offering the first born animal may indicate the person is trusting God to provide for his material needs.

Traditionally the first born son would become the leader and the priest of the tribe. All priest should be dedicated to God. I Pet 2:9 says believers are a "royal priesthood."

To be a true priest of God, we must be dedicated to Him and do the work of a priest.

Hope that helps a little bit.

kermit

[Cmass]

There is a lot of discussion of God "owning". What does it mean for God to "own" something and not own something else? Doesn't God essentially own everything?

Doesn't every quark in the universe belong to God?

I understand the idea of people giving gifts (babies, food, burning flesh) to appease their big scary deities but it seems a rather shallow gift to give something already "owned" but God.

[led by the spirit]

Greetings I came accross two commentaries on this subject perhaps will help answer some questions You have.They hit home to me and so I could not have explained it any better. God bless.


Sanctify unto me all the first-born - To sanctify, קדש kadash, signifies to consecrate, separate, and set apart a thing or person from all secular purposes to some religious use; and exactly answers to the import of the Greek ἁγιαζω, from a, privative, and γη, the earth, because every thing offered or consecrated to God was separated from all earthly uses. Hence a holy person or saint is termed ἁγιος, i.e., a person separated from the earth; one who lives a holy life, entirely devoted to the service of God. Thus the persons and animals sanctified to God were employed in the service of the tabernacle and temple; and the animals, such as were proper, were offered in sacrifice.

Sanctify to me all the firstborn. The parents were not to look upon themselves as interested in their firstborn, till they had first solemnly presented them to God, recognized his title to them, and received them back, at a certain rate, from him again. Note, 1. That which is by special distinguishing mercy spared to us should be in a peculiar manner dedicated to God's honour; at least some grateful acknowledgment, in works of piety and charity, should be made, when our lives, or the lives of our children, have been given us for a prey. 2. God, who is the first and best, should have the first and best, and to him we should resign that which is most dear to us, and most valuable. The firstborn were the joy and hope of their families. Therefore they shall be mine, says God. By this is will appear that we love God best (as we ought) if we are willing to part with that to him which we love best in this world. 3. It is the church of the firstborn that is sanctified to God, Heb_12:23. Christ it the firstborn among many brethren (Rom_8:29), and, by virtue of their union with him, all that are born again, and born from above, are accounted as firstborn. There is an excellency of dignity and power belonging to them; and, if children, then heirs.