First-born ("^■'i:3, nni=3, STnira, from ira, to ripen early ; Sept. and N. T. ■7r(ni)Ti'i-oKoc,\v\'j:.2^nnio- ffenilns), applied ecjually to animals and human beings. Among the Hel)rews the first-born son had many priv- ileges, to be entitled to which it was not only required that a man should be the fir>t child of his mother, but that he should l)e, at the same time, tlie first son of his father (Dent, xxi, 15-17). The eldest son received a double portion of the father's inheritance (Deut. xxi,
17), but not of the mother's (Mishna, Behoroth, viii, 9). If the father had married two wives, of whom he pre- ferred one to the other, he was forbidden to give pre- cedence to the son of the one if the child of the other were the first-born (Deut. xxi, 15, IG). In the case of levirate marriage, the son of the next brother succeed- ed to his uncle's vacant inheritance (Deut. xxv, 5, G). Under the monarchy, the eldest son usuallj', but not always, as appears in the case of Solomon, succeeded his father in the kingdom (1 Kings i, 30 ; ii, 22). That some rights of primogeniture existed in ver}^ early times is plain, but it is not so clear in what they con- sisted. They have been classed as (o.) authority over the rest of the family ; (6.) priesthood ; (c.) a double portion of the inheritance. The birthright of Esau and of Reuben, set as'ide by authority or forfeited by misconduct, prove a general privilege as well as quasi- sacredness of primogeniture (Gen. xxv, 23, 31, 34; xlix, 3; 1 Chron. v, 1 ; Heb. xii, 16), and a precedence which obviously existed, and is alluded to in various passages (as Psa. Ixxxix, 27 ; Job xviii, 13 ; Piom. viii, 29 ; Colos. i, 15 ; Heb. xii, 23) ; but the story of Esau's rejection tends to show the supreme and sacred au- thority of the parent irrevocable even by himself, rather than inherent right existing in the eldest son, which was evidentl}' not inalienable (Gen. xxvii, 29, 33, 86 ; Grotius, Calmet, Patrick, Knobel, on Gen. xxv). See Hottinger, De primogenitis (Marl). 1711); Schroder, De rett. Hehr. et primogenitis (Marb. 1741) ; Fabricius, Bih- liogr. Antiq. p. 892; Gerdes, De variis locis in quibus primogcnitorum 7nentio occurrit (Duisb. 1730) ; Frisch- niuth, De primogenitura (Jen. 1649). See Birthright.
The expression "first-born" is not always to be un- derstood literally ; it is sometimes taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of thinL'S. Thus "Jesus Christ" is "the first-born of every creature, the first-begotten, or first-born from the dead;" begot- ten of the Father before any creature was produced ; the first who rose from the dead by his own power (see Joxir. Sac. IJt. Apr. 1861\ 'Wisdom says that she came out of the mouth of the Most High before he had pro- duced an}"- creature (Prov. viii, 22; Ecclus. xxiv. 3; Isa. xiv, SO). " The first-born of the poor" signifies the most miserable of the poor (Job xviii, 13); "the first-born of death," the most terrible of deaths (see 'Wemy^i^, Si/inbol. Diet.). The "Church of the first- born" (Heb. xii, 23) signifies the Church of the re- deemed— those who have become peculiarly the Lord's, and through the blood of the everlasting covenant, ap- plied to their consciences, are consecrated to him for evermore, in accordance with the custom of consecra- tion described below (see Schottgen, Ilor. Ilehr. i, 922).
Destruction of the First-born. This was the tenth and last plague inflicted on the Egyptians (Exod. xi, 1-8 ; xii, 29, 30). We learn from Herodotus (ii, 85) that it was the custom of the Egyjitians to rush from the house into the street, to licwail the dead with loud and bitter outcries ; and eveiy member of the family united in these expressions of sorrow. How great must their terror and grief have been when "at midnight Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt." Hengstenberg remarks {Fgupt and the Books of Moses) that "the phrase 'all tiie first-born' must not be pressed too far. The whole tenor of the narrative is opposed to such a proceeding, and particu- larly the declaration, ' There was no house where there was not one dead ;' since in every house there was not a first-born. It must not lie inferred that none of the first-born remained alive in the land, or that none be- sides the first-born died. Tliat the Egyptians were swept olf \\y an epidemic is indeed probable, and much more than probable, from Exod. ix, 15. What the Lord there says, he had long been able to do, that he now really does; since the reasons here given in ver. 16, which until now have prevented him from proceed- ing to this last resource, have now ceased ; since, in short, he has by a series of acts sufficiently unfold-
FIRST-BORN
511
FIRST-BORN"
ed hie omnipotence and grace." See Plagues of Egyit.
FIUST-BOKN, Saxctification and Redemption
OF ("i"i::3 »"'irJ^"'I?, isr? "p"'73)- Males of human be- ings and animals were strictly enjoined to perpetuate the remembrance of the death of Egjqit's first-born, whereby the liberty of the Israelites was secured, and of the preservation of Israel's first-born. Compare Exod. xii, 2, 11-15.
1. Sandificatioii of the First-born, its signification, etc. • — The fact that the first-born of Egypt were selected to be smitten down for the hard-heartedness of Phara- oh, and that their death was regarded as the greatest calamit}', shows of itself that a peculiar sanctity had already been attached to the first-born of both man and cattle. The cause of this is easily traced in the Scriptures. The power of procreation was declared by God himself to be a special blessing (Gen. i, 22, 28 ; ix, 1 ; xvii, IG ; xxix, 31), and was granted as a re- ward to those who were well pleasing in his sight (Gen. XV, 4 ; Psa. cxxviii, 4). This was fully appre- ciated bj' the Jews ; for the possession of children, es- pecially of the male sex, was esteemed the climax of social happiness (Gen. xvi, 2 ; xxix, 31 ; Deut. vii, 13, 14 ; Psa. cxxviii, 3, 4), and tlie absence of them was considered a reproach (n2"!n), since it implied divine displeasure (Gen. xxx, 23), and no other earthly bless- ing could compensate for it (Gen. xvi, 1-5). Moreover, the first-born of newly-married j'oung people (""33 b"^^!!"!?!, Psa. cxxvii, 4) were believed to represent the prime of human vigor ("IS n'^lTX'n), being born before the strengtli of the father began to diminish (Gen.xlix, 3; Deut. xxi, 17; Psa. lxxviii,51 ; cv, 36). It was therefore natural that the first instalment of God's blessing, and the prime of man's strength, should be regarded with peculiar aflfection, and have special sanctity attached to him, and that b}^ virtue of the claim which God has to what is most loved and held sacred l)y us, and gratitude on the part of man, the first-born males, both of man and animals, should be consecrated to the Giver of all good things ; the one as a priest, representing the family to which he belonged (Exod. xix, 22, 24), and the other as a sacrifice (Gen. iv, 4), just as the fat of sacrifices was devoted to God because it was regarded as the prime part of the ani- mal. See Fat. This explains the fact why the plague of the first-born of the Egyptians was so terribly felt ; it was the destruction of the objects most dear and sa- cred to them, whilst the first-born of the Hel)rews, i. e. their priests and sacrifices, were spared. Moreover, it shows the import of the consecration enjoined in Exod. xiii, 1. Hitherto it was optional with the Hebrews whether they would devote the first-born to the Lord, but now God, by virtue of havin.; so signally inter- posed f(n- their deliverance, claims the public consecra- tion of the first-born of man as his priests, and of the first-born of animals as sacrifices.