According to my understanding, God punished them for enslaving jews, and this is one of the punishment. Why did God punishing innocent kids instead of adults who did the enslaving?
Some of the common responses are 1."Morality does not apply to God" If that's the case, how do to condemn jihad in Islam? They are not bound by morality because they believe God tell them to do it. 2."God is not supposed to be a role model" But Jesus is role model, And Jesus is God. 3."Grand plans, killing to the kids are necessary to achieve it" God is omnipotent. Hard to believe avoiding killing innocent kids is impossible for the omnipotent to achieve the grand place. Thank you for reading in advance. I got banned on another forum asking this.
Edit: question answered: God might killed the kids painlessly and sent them to heaven.
I'm not going to pretend like I have a good answer to this particular ethical problem. But it can be helpful to at least understand how this made sense in the eyes of the ancients.
In many ancient societies of the ancient near east familial lineage was one of the most important things, and the firstborn was heir to the family line. The death of the Egyptian firstborns was, for those who wrote and read the story in ancient times, not about the death of innocent children but rather the end of a bloodline.
Something else to keep in mind is that the firstborn isn't necessarily a child, while we cannot exclude children, including very young children; it wasn't targeted at children but rather the firstborn--that means adults.
Now does this address the ethical problem? No, because almost certainly children were included; and even then from our modern perspective this kind of indiscriminate death--children or adults--is pretty horrific.
In the context of the narrative, this plague doesn't come out of no where. It is a product of escalation, the Jews were held as slaves, and God calls Israel His "firstborn son",
"
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’” - Exodus 4:22-23
That is, God told Pharaoh that if he refused to free God's firstborn, He would respond in kind by taking away Egypt's firstborn. A kind of final desperate move to finally force Pharaoh's hand.
Now, again, I'm not arguing this answers the ethical issues; but I think it is important to get into the headspace of the text.
Jewish commentaries that I can find point out other points of interest, for example highlighting this passage from Genesis,
"
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.'" - Genesis 15:12-14
Rabbinical authorities point out that that the text says God would judge those who enslaved Israel, but that the outcome of that judgment is not mentioned. That is, Israel going into Egypt and being captives there was part of the divine plan for Israel, but how would Egypt treat Israel? In a sense then Moses acts as God's spokesperson to say that this time of enslavement is now over, let Israel free. But Egypt had taken up the task of oppressor with enthusiasm, beating and killing the Israelite, even drowning Israelite children in the Nile river.
Thus, the judgment against Egypt was passed, Egypt was drunk on power and oppression, cruel in her wickedness. Egypt would not let Israel free--God would show forth wonders, but Egypt would refuse,
"
But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go." - Exodus 3:19-20
Those wonders begin small, Aaron's staff becomes a serpent in the court of the Pharaoh.
So step after step, time after time, warning after warning Pharaoh--Egypt--had the opportunity but refused.
That, again, is necessary to the story. Does it resolve the ethical questions? Maybe not. But all these things are essential to the story's narrative, and places a frame around the story in how it should be approached.
Again, I don't think I have a very good answer to the ethical questions of the story. There is simply a lot of things in the Bible that are troubling, and I think that's okay. Wrestling with the Bible is part of taking it seriously.
-CryptoLutheran