In biblical language, the word "son of" may mean "descendant of" (e.g. Matthew 1:1), and "begat" may mean "ancestor of". A comparison of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 with the same records found in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles shows that some generations have been left out (e.g. Matthew 1:11 - "Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren" - leaves out Jehoiakim, who was the father of Jechonias cf. 1 Chron 3:15-17). (e.g. 2 - In Matthew 1:8 - three names have been omitted between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah). The purpose of these genealogies is simply to trace the lineage of a person particularly through certain key persons in his lineage.

Other examples of ‘gaps’: Exodus 2:1,2 gives the impression that Moses was the firstborn son of the Levite man and woman. But we realise later on that he was the third child, after Aaron and Miriam.

Since there are gaps in the genealogies of the Bible, the date of creation would be pushed earlier than 4000 BC. Comparisons with archaeological findings and records have led many Bible scholars (conservative ones) to estimate a date of 10,000 B.C.

You may be interested to compare Luke 3:36,37 with Genesis 11:11-14. Luke has an addition person "Cainan" between Arphaxad and Salah. He is missing from Genesis 11. Hence, there must be gaps in Gen 11.

It is clear from 6:3 that a new situation arose that caused sin to increase in the world and caused God to decide to punish the world with a flood. This background favours the view that the problem that sparked the increase of sin was compromise by the godly line through intermarriages with the ungodly line.

You are right in saying that the term ‘Sons of God’ though used for angels in other Bible passages, cannot be referring to angels here, because angels do not marry and begat children (Mark 12:25). In addition since this event became the cause for judging the world of mankind, not the angels, ‘sons of God’ here does not refer to angels. If they were angels, what should follow is a description of God’s judgment on these fallen angels.

The view that it refers to a human ungodly line helps to explain why Israel was given such great warnings against intermarriage with ungodly nations.

As for Jacob, at the time that he deceived his father, he did not know God yet in a personal manner. His life was ruled by his own selfish desires. As a result, he had to face the consequences of his own sins. By deceiving his father, he had stolen his brother’s blessings. This incurred his brother’s wrath against Jacob, leading to his having to leave home. But God was gracious to reveal Himself to Jacob after this. Through this, and subsequent events, Jacob was gradually changed from his selfish ways to become a god-fearing man.

God does not favour people because they do the wrong things, but despite the fact that they do them. His favour alone enables them to change and do the right things.

The identification of that particular serpent with Satan is found in Revelation 12:9. This does not mean that all serpents are agents of Satan. Christ was pre-figured by a brass serpent that God commanded Moses to make (John 3:14).

One clear instance where we can see that God holds the wife accountable for a sin she committed as a result of submitting to her husband’s command is Sapphira, the wife of Ananias (Acts 5:1-10). Like Abram, Ananias told his wife to tell a lie. Sapphira obeyed her husband, and as a result of this she was struck dead like her husband. Her submission did not save nor protect her from bearing the full awful consequences of her lie.

In the case of Sarai and Abram, God could have easily and rightfully allowed them both to suffer the consequences of their own sins. The fact that He intervened by stopping Pharaoh from marrying Sarai, does not mean that He honoured their actions. It was only by God’s undeserved grace and mercy that Sarai was saved, and that Abram was spared from losing his wife.

Therefore, whenever a person who has authority over us commands us to do something that is morally wrong we should not carry out the command. We should never think that only the authority will bear the blame for the wrongdoing and that we are absolved from blame because all we did was to submit. The image of God that He has given us is able to tell right from wrong (although it is now corrupted by sin), and He requires us to use that ability well and not just submit ourselves blindly to any authority. God has also given us His Word and He expects us to apply it.

This applies to government authority (Acts 4:19, 5:29), parental authority (Ephesians 6:1) and the husband’s authority (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18). To obey a human authority more than God’s authority is to break the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3)

The hardening here refers to a condition of being unreasonably obstinate, unyielding and resistant against God. In all there are 10 places where the “hardening” of Pharaoh’s heart is ascribed to God (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). This seems to indicate that Pharaoh had no choice in the matter and thus he cannot be blamed for what he did.

But it must be stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart in another 10 passages (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; 13:15) and that he alone was the agent of the hardening in the first sign* and in all the first 5 plagues (his period of grace). Not until the 6th plague was it stated that God actually hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12) and even after that, Pharaoh still continued to harden his own heart after the 7th plague. He had therefore reached the point of no return after the first 5 plagues, and after that God ensured that Pharaoh would receive the judgment he deserved by hardening his heart.

Hence in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3, God, being all knowing, was predicting what He would do to Pharaoh’s heart from the 6th plague onward, in response to Pharaoh’s act of hardening his own heart first.

(*The translation of Exodus 7:13, which records Pharaoh’s response to the first sign, as “And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart…” is inaccurate. A better translation is “And Pharaoh’s heart became hard…”)

Another example: Genesis 15:16 – “But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” This describes the people of Canaan who continued to commit sins of idolatry, moral perversion, etc. until the time that God brought Israel to Canaan, when their sins would be full and they would have exceeded their period of grace and be ripe for God’s judgment.

Joshua 11:19-20 tells us how the judgment finally came on them – “There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.”  Instead of trying to make peace with the Israelites (knowing what God had done for them) all the Canaanite cities except for Gibeon chose to make war with them. This was because God had judicially hardened their hearts against making peace, so that they would rush headlong to their own deserved destruction.

The ‘him’ that the Lord sought to kill was Moses. Moses became very ill and almost died while staying at the inn. This is why it was Zipporah had to perform the circumcision, and not Moses.

O.T. Allis explains: “This incident is best understood as indicating that Moses had failed to circumcise the baby [Eliezer] before leaving home.  This may have been due partly to haste and preoccupation with the mission which had been given him.  But it was more probably due to Zipporah’s objection to the performance of the rite.  Whether she had objected in the case of Gershom, we do not know.  Here at the inn, when she realized that Moses’ life was in danger and apparently felt that she was responsible, she performed the rite herself, but evidently with great reluctance (as is shown by her words, twice repeated, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me”).  Whatever the reason, Moses had sinned in failing to perform the covenant rite which was required of every Israelite under penalty of death (Genesis 17:13,14) The incident caused Zipporah to return with the children to Midian.  She did not rejoin him until he later returned with the Israelites to Horeb (18:1-6)

According to Egyptian records, the Pharoah of the Exodus, Amenhotep II, had a son who became Pharoah, but it was not his eldest son.  The question is, What became of his eldest son?  Could he have been the son that died in the tenth plague?

Egyptian history records a noticeable decline in conquest and trade after the reign of Amenhotep II. Perhaps the losses sustained through the plagues and through the destruction of 600 war chariots in the Red Sea meant that it would take some years to rebuild the army so that Egypt could embark on conquest again. The decline in trade indicates an economically depressed period, and this would be expected if Egypt had nothing left to trade after the plagues had destroyed everything.

The next Pharoah, Amenhotep III (1410 – 1377 B.C.) had his hands full with a rising discontent within Egypt, a turmoil related to the ascendancy of one god or the other.  His son, Amenhotep IV (1377-1358 B.C.) settled the matter by originating a monotheistic religion which revolutionized Egyptian theology and also made an indelible political impact.  He called this new god, Aton. Since each of the 10 plagues symbolised the defeat of an Egyptian god, the Egyptians would naturally lose confidence in them after the plagues, and be willing to accept changes to their religion.

The word ‘firstborn’ in these verses refer only to the first male offspring, because of the following reasons:

a.  The purpose of the 10th plague was stated in Exodus 4:22,23 – “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”

b. Only males could be used as the Passover lamb to protect the home. Exodus 12:5 – “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats.”

c. The Hebrew word for firstborn used in these verses is ‘bekor’ which is masculine in gender. The feminine form of the word is ‘bekiyrah’ which is used only in Genesis 19:31-37 for the firstborn daughter of Lot, in Genesis 29:26 for Leah, the firstborn daughter of Laban, and in 1 Samuel 14:49 for Merab, the firstborn daughter of Saul.

d. Because the firstborn of Israel were saved, the Israelites were to devote their firstborn to the Lord. However, only the males were thus devoted and redeemed: Exodus 13:15 – “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.” (see also Exodus 34:20; Numbers 3:43-45)

This implies that Egyptian families that had no male children suffered no deaths in the 10th plague! But why were only the firstborn sons targeted in the 10th plague? This is due to the fact that the firstborn son was considered to be the father’s ‘beginning of strength.’ (Genesis 49:3; Psalm 78:51; 105:36) The firstborn son inherited a double portion of his father’s estate (Deuteronomy 21:16,17) while the other sons received a single portion each.

Daughters received no portion. However in cases where a man had no sons but daughters, his daughters would inherit equal portions of their father’s estate. (Numbers 27:7,8).

This corresponds with the way that Jesus Christ was killed on the cross – by the shedding of His blood (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”. Cf. John 1:29, 36).

The significance of dying by the shedding of blood is that this alone can atone for a man’s sins. Leviticus 17:11 – “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”  (cf. Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:2; 1 Peter 1:18,19)

The firstborn of Egypt died as God’s judgment on their sins. However, in the 10th plague the firstborn of Israel would also have died because they were just as guilty of sin as the Egyptians. It was only by having a substitute to die for them that the firstborn of Israel were saved. The lamb’s blood on the doorpost and lintel meant that a death had already taken place in the house and so the angel of death passed over that house.

Nothing is mentioned in the Bible as to why this had to be done, but the following may be some possible reasons for doing this:

a) It was a special meal that must not be profaned because it is holy and points to Jesus Christ. For other daily meals, leftovers could be preserved and kept for later consumption, but not in this one. (cf. Exodus 23:28; 29:34; Leviticus 17:15-17; 22:29,30 for similar laws applied to other offerings)

b) It was an illustration of the necessity of accepting God’s provision for our salvation before it is too late for us to do so. “It was to be eaten immediately, not deferred till morning, v. 10. To-day Christ is offered, and is to be accepted while it is called to-day, before we sleep the sleep of death.” (Matthew Henry)

If we use only the data that is provided in the Bible, the only instances when time duration is mentioned in the ten plagues are found in:

Exodus 7:25 – “And seven days were fulfilled, after that the LORD had smitten the river.” (the time interval between the beginnings of the 1st and 2nd plagues)

Exodus 10:22 – “And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days” (The duration of the 9th plague)

If we were to take each plague as lasting about 5 days (which is the average of the above two figures), and multiply them by 9 we would end up with 45 days. The 10th plague was exceptionally short (1 day) because of its severity and the instant response it produced from Pharaoh. However it was preceded by 4 days of preparation (cf. 12:3 and 12:6).

Hence the estimated duration from the beginning of the 1st plague until the day Pharaoh let the Israelites go is about 50 days.

Since God is all-knowing, He already knew that Pharaoh would reject the request for a 3-day leave of absence. But God had determined to prevail against him until Pharaoh himself would yield and command the Israelites to leave Egypt permanently! This would then be a powerful display of God’s power over the greatest kings of the earth.

Look at the following changes in Pharaoh’s concessions:

a. (After the 4th plague) “Do not leave, but sacrifice here” (8:25)

b. “You may leave, but do not go too far” (8:28)

c. (After the 7th plague) “You may leave, but only the men.” (10:10,11)

d. (After the 9th plague) “You and your children may leave, but your animals must remain behind.”  (10:24)

e. (After the 10th plague) “Get out, you, your children and your animals, and be gone!” (12:31,32)

Solomon was a god-fearing king when he first began. The Lord appeared unto him in a dream and he asked for wisdom. He prayed a very wonderful prayer to dedicate the Temple that he built for the lord. Despite that, he backslided badly into sin and started off the trend of compromise in his kingdom that eventually brought them into captivity.

Like Solomon, Saul also started out well. The Lord sanctioned his appointment to be the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 9:13; 10:1,24). 1 Sam 10:9 indicates a possible work of God of regeneration in Saul - "And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day." This was followed by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in the next verse. Saul sought to do God’s will as a king - When he heard news that a tribe of Israel in Gilead was oppressed he was filled with righteous indignation and received the Holy Spirit’s power to deliver the tribe. 1 Samuel 11:6 - "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly." And he humbly attributed his success to God, v.13 - " And Saul said, There shall not a man be put to death this day: for to day the LORD hath wrought salvation in Israel."

But like Solomon, Saul in his latter years, fell into disobedience and sin. Because of this, he lost the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and his condition became worse (16:14). When God appointed David to replace him, he sought to kill him. Although Saul disobeyed God, there were some moments when he still showed some degree of goodness and repentance in him. e.g. 1 Samuel 14:17-21; 26:21,25. There is no record that Saul repented of all his sins and was restored at the end of his life. One can only guess that perhaps just before he died on the battlefield, he finally realised the folly of his sins and repented, but knowing that it was too late to save the situation, he sinned by taking his own life.

Now here is the problem. Was Saul’s spiritual experience in the earlier part of his life genuine? If it was, then he must have been saved. Was Saul still saved at the end of his life? If he was not, then he must have lost his salvation. This conclusion however, would contradict the rest of the Scriptures which teach that salvation can never be lost. Besides, as we have seen in the case of Solomon, it is possible for a true believer to backslide and become disobedient to God.

Firstly: The Bible informs us that God is not cruel. He takes no delight in seeing sinners suffering in hell. Ezekiel 18:31,32 - "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."

Lamentations 3:32-36 - "But though He cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. To crush under His feet all the prisoners of the earth, To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High, To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not."

In the Book of Jonah, we see how merciful and caring God is even for little children: Jonah 4:10,11 - "Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand [i.e. children]; and also much cattle?"

Secondly: The Bible tells us that every man deserves punishment for sin (Romans 6:23; 3:23). Infants are not innocent, because, even though they may not have committed sin, they are already born in sin - they have inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12) and the sinful nature from their parents. Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." As a father of two children, I can testify that babies begin to show their sinful nature at a very early age. No one has to teach them how to sin. It is natural for them.

Thirdly: The Bible shows us that God’s judgments are not meted out indiscriminately, but always in proportion to the offence. E.g. in the case of the Amalekites, the cause of the judgment is found in Exodus 17:8-16 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19. The Amalekites were cruel to launch a surprise attack on the Israelites from behind. The ones traveling at the back of the Israelite camp that marched to Sinai were the lame and elderly, who could not keep up with the rest. They massacred these helpless people and they "feared not God." Hence the punishment they received was fully deserved by them.

The same is true with all the heathen nations that God commanded Israel to kill. They were being judged by God for their awful sins. In fact, God gave them time to repent but they did not do so. He endured and tolerated their sins until they were ripe for judgment.

The amazing thing about God’s love is that it is shown to us even when we are deserving of judgment. Romans 5:7,8 – "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." We must tell the unbeliever that it is only when we understand God’s wrath against sin that we can understand God’s love for unworthy sinners.

The psalm means that God in His sovereignty can even use little children and babies to bring glory to Him and to silence those who are against Him, as was fulfilled in Christ’s triumphal entry (Matthew 21:15).