“When the LORD, your God, has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, just as he swore to you and your ancestors, and gives it to you, you will dedicate to the LORD every newborn that opens the womb; and every firstborn male of your animals will belong to the LORD. Every firstborn of a donkey you will ransom with a sheep. If you do not ransom it, you will break its neck. Every human firstborn of your sons you must ransom. And when your son asks you later on, ‘What does this mean?’ you will tell him, ‘With a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of a house of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, the firstborn of human being and beast alike. That is why I sacrifice to the LORD every male that opens the womb, and why I ransom every firstborn of my sons.’ Exodus 13:11ff.
As we take in this intense drama of deliverance and cultic action, we may miss something that is very obvious – there is no priest presiding over it. In fact, there is no mention of “priest” in any of the preceding Scripture except for Melchizedek, who is styled “Priest of the Most High” in Genesis 14:18, the Egyptian priest Potipherah, Joseph’s father-in-law, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, a Priest of Midian. All these are non-Hebrew.
The Hebrews were nomadic, having no king with castle nor permanent temple with a priestly cast. We do find, however, that there is much said about “firstborn.” In fact, our narrative is “disrupted” by a seemingly and strangely out-of-place law of the firstborns, placed right before the resumption of the narrative of Israel’s exit out of Egypt (Ex. 13:11-16). Actually, it is an intentional inclusio, bracketing the initial description of this battle as parental; YHWH fighting for His firstborn, and Pharaoh fighting for his firstborn (Ex. 4:23). YHWH wins by killing Pharaoh’s firstborn, and thus disrupting his dynasty.
We have observed in the book of Genesis that firstborns rarely come out on top; this is the “reversals” motif where God always seems to go contrary to our natural expectations. Be this as it may, the idea of firstborn is critical to Hebrew culture. We see that the whole Joseph Story turns on the idea of firstborn and who will gain its honor. Reuben is Jacob’s firstborn, his “might, and the Firstfruits of my strength, pre-eminent …” (Gen. 49:3). But we see Jacob made a special coat for Joseph, his fourth born, but firstborn of his favorite wife Rachel, a coat which most likely was a priestly garment. Behind this is the idea of “primogenitor,” that the firstborn is, in fact, set apart and holy, with the inherited function of priest.
We see how sacred the idea of firstborn male is by the law of the firstborn embedded here in our narrative. Every firstborn male, from man to beast, belongs to God. Behind this is the expectation that the firstborn male should be offered to God in sacrifice. After all, Abraham was willing to offer God the firstborn of his legal wife Sarah, Isaac, in the ‘akedah, or the Binding of Isaac. Instead, God provided a ram, a sort of “redemption,” for his son. In the law here, the firstborns must be redeemed, evidently by the life of a lamb.
The point here is that Israel is the redeemed firstborn of YHWH and belongs exclusively to Him, with all the privileges and responsibilities that go with this position. Central to this is the national priesthood with a mission to be an intermediary between God and the nations, directly in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, that in him all the nations will be blessed. But the nature of this father-son relationship, and Israel’s priesthood, is conditional upon their obedience to Him. As we shall see, as Israel is preparing herself for the covenantal ceremony that will bind them to YHWH and her new role, “priests” are involved ministering to the people (Ex. 19:22), and “young men” offered sacrifices (Ex. 24:5). These must be the firstborns of the family units, for there was no Levitical priests at this time. As the firstborn of each family was the priest to that family, so Israel was to be the priest of the family of nations.
It is critical to understand that both the concepts of priesthood and even kingship itself were fundamental to the ethos of this nomadic culture where there was no priestly guild, and no kings. The pagans in the established urban areas had both, and the role of priest would merge easily with the king, often exalting the king to deity status. Interestingly enough, they both merge in Israel as a nation as we see YHWH’s intentions for Israel to be a “priestly royalty,” or a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6).
As we shall see, Israel will fail almost immediately with this divine call as YHWH’s primogenitor, making way for the Levitical priesthood, a secondary and temporary solution to the problem of Israel’s failure. Ultimately, the legitimate priesthood belongs to the Primogenitor, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the “firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15, along with the phrase “only begotten Son, John 1:18).
Takeaway: Israel is YHWH’s primogenitor, possessing all the privileges and responsibilities that go with this position of the firstborn, especially the priesthood to the nations.
Question: The law of firstborn belongs to old cultures where societal stability depended on inheritance and priestly rights. How does your understanding of this enhance your understanding of Scripture?
Sources used:
Hann, S. Kinship by Covenant, esp. pp. 136-141.