Over at the iMonk site, Jeff Dunn has raised the question of this difficult passage:
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh [when after seeing miracles he will not let the people go], Thus saith YHWH, 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. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that YHWH met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
Not even Moses could get away with delaying his child’s circumcision. In our day, then, we can see the parallel (though I won’t attempt anything resembling rigorous exegesis): delaying the New Covenant sign of baptism is a bad idea. Let those take heed who contemn the sacrament of water and death, for they delay it to their own peril, though the Lord is gracious and overlooks many faults. If infant baptism’s the right practice, then pace the Evangelical Free Church, the time of baptism isn’t an indifferent issue and mustn’t be so treated.
I know, I know, I’m making an polemically aggressive manœuvre. So be it, if the issue may have mattered so much that God nearly killed someone over it. If you’re a father, don’t delay your children’s baptism; if you’re a pædobaptist church, don’t allow members to unduly delay their children’s baptism.