Exodus 13:11-16?

Question

Is God asking the Israelites, whom He has just saved from decades of intense slavery, to sacrifice their firstborn son's and firstborn cattle as thanks? Then the scripture goes on to say that they have to buy their the firstborn back or else break the beasts neck? - What the heck does all this mean? Im so confused. (I know that God let these bad things happen to his chosen people so that miracles can be worked in His name, and all will recognize God. But dont you think It's a lil messed up that he's also asking the Israelites to sacrifice their sons because of God's 'grace' to finally do something about the situation...)

I need help understanding these verses, and also the second part of my question (in parenthesis).

Good Luck!

Here is a link so you can see the actual text...

http://bible.cc/exodus/13-15.htm

I find it best to click on the GWT translation, It's easier to read and understand, but maybe thats what im doing wrong...

Ok Im getting great answers, but one thing is common. They say that God sacrificed the sons of Pharoah's first borns so that the Israelites can be saved... Why not just intervene (as he has done many times already) in a way so as to not have to sacrifice anything? It seems mean

Answer 1

No, I will try to help you understand this passage. When God asks the Israelites to sacrife the first born of every male. He is talking in reference to "animals", which it says in verse 12. Not the first born of their children. I want to try to make this simple to understand. The Lord took the first born sons of Pharoah's people, but spared the first born of Israel. So, the sacrifice of the first born of the animals is symbolic of Egypt's firstborn son, who was sacrifice that Israel's firstborn sons may go free. I hope this will not be hard to understand, but the firstborn sons of Egypt were taken, that the firstborn sons of Israel might be spared. This is why God tells Moses in verse13 that you can redeem all of your firstborn sons back to you. Because the price has been paid for you to redeem them. The word "redeem" means to purchase. This is really prophetic of Christ who was God's firstborn son, who was sacrificed, that the men would be redeemed back to God also as first fruits unto the Lord. So, no God did not want Israel to sacrifice their sons, but to offer up a animal sacrifice acknowledging that God had spare their firstborn sons. As for the donkey. The donkey was symbolic of sinful man who had to be redeemed by lamb which is symbolic of Christ. So, what the Lord is basically saying is that any sinner (donkey) who does not have a lamb (which is Christ) to sacrifice on his behalf is not connected to God. The sinner can not be saved, so that's why they break the neck of the donkey. Because he is good as dead. I hope this helps a little.

Answer 2

13:1-15 God had saved the firstborn of the Israelites from death in Egypt; therefore, the firstborn of humans and of animals were to be consecrated to God, as belonging to Him. The firstborn sons became priests of God, until the tribe of Levi was later set apart for this service. The firstborn of clean animals were to be sacrificed to God within a year.

The firstborn of unclean animals, such as a donkey, could not be sacrificed to the Lord; therefore, it had to be redeemed by the death of a lamb; that is, a lamb had to die in its place. If the donkey was not redeemed, then its neck had to be broken. It was a choice between redemption and destruction.

Later, provision was made for the donkey to be redeemed with money (Lev_27:27; Num_18:15). The firstborn child, born in sin, also had to be redeemed, the payment being five shekels (Num_18:16). This was a solemn reminder of man's unclean moral condition before God.

Just as the sanctification of the firstborn spoke of dedication to God, so the Feast of Unleavened Bread spoke of the moral purity that was expected of a redeemed people. For seven days the people were to eat unleavened bread, and their houses were to be leaven-free. Both the sanctification of the firstborn and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were to be object lessons to future generations of how the Lord had delivered His people from Egypt.

13:16 The Jews later followed verses 9 and 16 literally by making phylacteries, or little leather boxes containing portions of God's Word, and tying them to their foreheads and wrists. But the spiritual meaning is that all we do (hand) and all we desire (eyes) should be in accordance with God's Word.

Answer 3

Perhaps it is not clear in the single verse that you linked to but the passage is actually describing a sort of new covenant with the Israelites. While there is a literal sacrifice being made of the first born animals, the "sacrifice" of the oldest children is meant symbolically. They were to be offered up as belonging to God, to be His to do with as He wished, not destroyed. Of course this passage can have several different contexts depending on who is reading it. While a Jewish believer may see this as the reaffirming or beginnings of a new covenant with God, Christians will be hard pressed to not assert the need for sacrifice, and that the motif continues until the ultimate redemption, in the form of Jesus.

So, if my answer was a little convoluted let me try to go straightforward. I do not understand the passages you cited (in context of the surrounding verses) to be a question of actual sacrifice/redemption of children but the symbolic spiritual death or giving of self. In this light your parenthetical question become somewhat moot. It would be obvious why God would want His chosen people (as you pointed out He was establishing to glorify and bring others to Him) to dedicate their lives to Him.

Answer 4

Moses says, "The Lord is a man of war" Exodus 15:3
John says, "God is love" 1 John 4:8

This is not a contradiction, because God is love, there are forces against him. That is why the OT is often violent.

This is a great question. It tells of the heart of God, that He takes sin dead seriously. God has always demanded a blood sacrifice for sin so that our hearts would know that he is not only loving, but a just God. The israelites sacrificed lambs to save their children. God sent us the Lamb to save his children, us. But the egyptians offered no sacrifice for their children and did not fear God, therefore he took their children from them, sparing them from a life in a Godless culture.

The only way a donkey could live was if a lamb was slain for it. I like this analogy. Because we know the lamb speaks of Jesus, it's not too difficult to figure out who the donkey represents: Us. In Genesis 22, when Abraham took Isaac up to Mt. Moriah, a donkey was saddled for them, which speaks of a loss of liberty. Later in the chapter, the donkey was to be tied up while Abraham and Isaac ascended the mountain, which speaks of an inability to worship. In Genesis 49, he compares Isacchar to a donkey that is "heavily laden". Jeremiah speaks of a donkey left for dead outside the city gates. Jesus rides a donkey into Jerusalem. He chose a donkey. God chooses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Cor 1:27)

Answer 5

I read this verse out of the KJV. To "sacrifice" in this instance meant to "set apart" for the Lord. To "redeem" meant that as they were set free from bondage in Egypt and the distress of that experience, they were redeemed or "restored" symbolically back to God as the first verse of that chapter mentions God saying that all the first born males were His. It is a very clear reference to the future Messiah and God's redemptive purposes. As it is written of Christ, who was male,(obviously) that He was to be the firstborn of many brethern who weren't even born yet. Kind of heavy stuff, I know. And people question the logic and power of God's reason.

Answer 6

It is hard to understand the relationship that God and the people back then had. We are looking at it from the way are thinking of things now. God would not ask this of us now because we do not have the same relationship with him.

So when you read these passages think of the relationship that god and them had.

God was in more of a way showing them that he was God and that he could do what he needed to do to get things done that needed to get done. God needed his people to know that they and they alone were NOT in charge of things.

I also believe that God does NOT LET bad things happen so miracles can be worked in his name. God put us here and WE let bad things happen. Yes, he can step in at anytime but he gave us free will and we and we alone are the one that are messing things up..

Answer 7

No, they are being told to sacrifice the firstborn of their animals to REDEEM the firstborn of the men.. because God had slain the firstborn of Egypt to save THEM from slavery.

Answer 8

Read again. God did NOT ask to sacrifice their firstborn sons, just to redeem them. That was to remind them of the slaying of all firstborn in Egypt, which brought about Pharoh's permission for them to leave.

Answer 9

No.
They "buy back" the firstborn (human) males from the Lord - in other words, they do not sacrifice them, but consider them a gift from God.

Answer 10

Wow! That's nothing.

In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John it tells of how God sacrifice his own son Jesus and that no more sacrifice are needed. Because of Jesus we can all receive God's great mercy for our lives of disobedience to His will. I think that's radical!

Hebrews 9:27-28
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

http://www.biblegateway.com