It's reasonable to assume that he was a firstborn son himself, but he didn't 'get off' with the final plague on Egypt's firstborns, for God did strike him dead only a few days later, after he'd let the people go. Logically, this Pharaoh had to still be alive after the end of the 10th plague.

However, please note that God had foretold that after all God's wonders, this Pharaoh would then let the people go. That, he will let you go' (Exodus 3:19-20 NIV Emphasis mine).īy the end of the 9th plague, this Pharaoh still had not let God's people go. So I will stretch out my hand and strike theĮgyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. 'But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty Before Moses pitched up at the Pharaoh's court with Aaron, his brother, God had stated, But I don't want to delve into that, as the point of the Exodus account is to show why God kept this Pharaoh alive till shortly after the slaying of the firstborn - whoever that Pharaoh was.

If he could be categorically identified, then his lineage could be checked and it would be clear if he was a firstborn son, or not. Also, the matter of establishing exactly which Pharaoh was the one God sent Moses to, is not as simple as most people suppose. The text in question does not answer that question. Īnd as Nigel mentioned in his comment, it is possible that Pharaoh's father may have already passed away and therefore headship now becomes Pharaoh's and the title of 'firstborn' falls on his son. However, it may be that not every Egyptian household had a literal firstborn son (the married couple being childless or the firstborn son having already died), and in view of the statement at Exodus 12:30, “there was not a house where there was not one dead,” the destruction could have included the chief one in the house occupying the position of firstborn. Pharaoh himself was probably a firstborn and yet his life was not taken. ( Ex 12:21-23, 28, 29) Evidently the firstborn son of each household is meant in most cases and not the head of the household, even though he may have been a firstborn. By obeying God’s instructions concerning the slaying of a lamb and the splashing of its blood on the doorposts and upper part of the doorway of their houses, the Israelites did not lose their firstborn in death, whereas all the firstborn of the Egyptians, of both man and beast, were slain. The tenth plague that Jehovah brought upon the Egyptians served to discredit this god and showed up his inability to protect the firstborn. Among the Egyptians, the firstborn were dedicated as sacred to the sun-god Amon-Ra, the supposed preserver of all the firstborn. The firstborn came into considerable prominence at the time that Jehovah delivered his people from slavery in Egypt. The topic ' Firstborn, Firstling' from the Insight on the Scriptures touches on this issue: The Pharaoh at the time of the tenth plague, was he not a firstborn son?

Notsu pharroh