Exodus 12 commentary

EXODUS 12 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
I TRODUCTIO
COFFMA , "Introduction
This long chapter consists of a number of closely-related paragraphs, all directly
bearing upon the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. These are: The
Passover Proclaimed (Exodus 12:1-14); The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus
12:15-20); Specific Instructions for the First Passover (Exodus 12:21-28); The Tenth
Plague (Exodus 12:29,30); The Israelites Receive Permission to Go (Exodus 12:31-
36); They Take the First Step of their Journey and Depart from Egypt (Exodus
12:37-42); and Special Instructions Regarding on-Israelites and the Covenant
(Exodus 12:43-51).
There are not two (or more) separate accounts of the Passover in this chapter, as
affirmed by Dummelow.[1] These instructions concern the First Passover only and
are not related in any way to "ceremonial keeping of the ordinance of the Passover
in later times."[2] The Passover which appears in this chapter by the direct
authority of Almighty God is not merely the adaptation of some previously-existing
pagan rite celebrating "the birth of lambs, and probably a communion meal shared
by the shepherd group and its deity."[3] The account given here is the original
account of the Passover, and it is not an account of how the ordinance was observed
at "a late period in Israel's development."[4] As a matter of fact, there are many
things that distinguish this institution of the Passover from later changes that
followed the adaptation of the ordinance to the Mosaic dispensation, an adaptation
that was made, not by priests, but by God Himself. As for the perplexity of critical
scholars as to where the offering of a lamb originated, let them read the Genesis
account of the offerings submitted by Cain and Abel, where the words "sin lieth at
the door" is a positive reference to the lamb as a sin offering. The Lamb slain from
the foundation of the world was indeed typified by the Passover lamb in this
chapter, but no less so than it was typified by the offering of Abel. The big deal in
this chapter is not God's seizing upon some common pagan practice and converting
it to sacred use, but that of expanding and continuing the marvelous figure of "The
Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World," a figure that began within the
shadow of the gates of Eden. The incorporation of the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(as in this chapter - Exodus 12) and the Dedication of the First-born (in Exodus 13)
into a single, unified celebration of the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is historical.
"The contiguous location for the laws for the three rites is simply due to the fact that
all three commemorate the Exodus."[5] Concerning all the complex and self-
contradictory allegations of critical scholars seeking some intelligent support for

their denial of the Word of God, we may summarize them all in the words of Fields:
"Such ideas lack any proof at all, and certainly do not agree with Biblical
information about the passover origin."[6
PETT, "Introduction
Yahweh’s Battle With Pharaoh - The Ten Plagues (Exodus 7:14 to Exodus 12:51)
In the first seven chapters we have seen how God raised up Moses to deliver His
people, and how when he approached Pharaoh with a simple request that they
might go into the wilderness and worship Him because He had revealed Himself in a
theophany there, Pharaoh had reacted savagely and had increased Israel’s burdens.
Then Yahweh had promised to Moses that He would reveal His name in mighty
action and deliver them, but had initially provided Pharaoh with a further
opportunity to consider by three signs which Pharaoh had rejected. ow He would
begin in earnest.
The first nine plagues that follow were the intensification of natural occurrences
that struck Egypt from time to time. Yet they came in such a way and with such
effect and were so intense that they could not be described as ‘natural’, for they
came when called on, ceased when Yahweh commanded, and affected only what
Yahweh wanted affecting. They were thus supernaturally controlled natural
phenomenon.
Because these plagues were common to natural occurrences that took place in Egypt
they were connected with the gods of Egypt, for the Egyptians had gods which were
connected with every part of life. Thus the very plagues meant that Yahweh was, in
Egyptian eyes, in conflict with the gods of Egypt. However, it is important to
recognise that the writer only mentions the gods of Egypt once (Exodus 12:12), and
there only in relation to the slaying of the firstborn because at least one of the
firstborn who would die would be connected with a god (Pharaoh). Thus he is
drawing attention to Yahweh’s dealings with Pharaoh and the Egyptians rather
than with their gods. This indicates that while the gods may have had the Egyptians
as their servants, they did not have any control of the land or of nature. The writer
is clearly monotheistic. To him the gods of Egypt are an irrelevance.
The Overall Pattern of the arrative.
The first nine plagues can be divided into three sets of three as follows;
· The first three - water turned to blood (Exodus 7:14-25), plague of frogs
(Exodus 8:1-15), plague of ticks and similar insects (Exodus 8:16-19).
· The second three - plague of swarms of flying insects (Exodus 8:20-32), cattle
disease (Exodus 9:1-7), boils (Exodus 9:8-12).
· The third three - great hail (Exodus 9:13-35), plague of locusts (Exodus 10:1-
20), thick darkness (Exodus 10:21-27).
As we have seen in Part 1 the previous section of Exodus has been mainly based on a

series of chiastic and similar patterns which demonstrate the unity of the narrative.
Here the overall pattern changes to a more complicated one in view of the combined
subject matter, but the underlying pattern is the same nevertheless.
For we should note that there is a definite pattern in these series of threes. The first
and second of each of the judgments in each series is announced to the Pharaoh
before it takes place, while in each case the third is unannounced. The first incident
of each series of three is to take place early in the morning, and in the first and
second of these ‘first incidents of three’ the place where Moses meets Pharaoh is by
the ile, in the third it is before Pharaoh. The second judgment in each series is
announced in the king's palace. The third judgment in each series comes without the
Pharaoh or the Egyptians being warned. As these judgments from God continue,
their severity increases until the last three bring the Egyptian people to a place
where life itself becomes almost impossible, and their economy is almost totally
destroyed. The huge hailstones kept them in their homes and wrecked their
environment, the locusts ate up what the hail had left and made life unbearable, and
the thick darkness kept them in solitude even from each other. They must have
wondered what was coming next.
Furthermore in the first two judgments the magicians pit themselves against Moses
as they imitate the judgments of blood and frogs, but in the third judgment of the
first series, that of ticks, they are forced to yield and acknowledge, "This is the
finger of God" (Exodus 8:19) and from then on they withdraw from the contest. In
the sixth they cannot even stand before Moses, presumably because of the effect of
the boils which they could do nothing about.
It is noteworthy in this regard that while blood and frogs can easily be manipulated
by conjurors, ticks are a different proposition, for they cannot be so easily
controlled.
In the second series an important distinction is drawn between the Israelites and the
Egyptians, for from then on only the Egyptians are affected, and not the whole land
of Egypt as previously. Several times the specific protection of Israel is mentioned.
As the intensity of the plagues increases, so does the intensity of the Pharaoh's desire
to secure the intervention of Moses and Aaron for deliverance from the plague
(consider Exodus 8:8; Exodus 8:25; Exodus 8:28; Exodus 9:27-28; Exodus 10:16-17;
Exodus 10:24), and Moses becomes more outspoken.
In the first series of three judgments the staff of Aaron is used, in the second series
of three no staff is mentioned and in the third series either the hand or staff of
Moses is prominent. ote also that in two cases in the second series neither Moses
nor Aaron do anything. Thus an instrument is used seven times. These overall
patterns clearly demonstrate the unity of the narrative.
Another division can be made in that the first four plagues are personal in effect
producing annoyance and distress while the next four inflict serious damage on

property and person, the ninth is the extreme of the first four and the tenth the
extreme of the second four. This further confirms the impression of unity.
The same is true of the wording and ideas used throughout. We have noted above
the three sets of three plagues, and that in the first plague of each set Moses goes to
Pharaoh in the early morning, either to the river or ‘before Pharaoh’, while in the
second in each set Moses goes to the palace, and in the third plague in each set the
plague occurs without warning. ow we should note the intricate pattern of phrases
and ideas which are regularly repeated.
We should, for example, note that God says ‘let my people go’ seven times, the
divinely perfect number (although only six times before specific plagues - Exodus
5:1; Exodus 7:16; Exodus 8:1; Exodus 8:20; Exodus 9:1; Exodus 9:13; Exodus 10:3).
This is significant in the light of what follows below.
We should also note that there is a central core around which each plague is
described, although the details vary. This central core is:
· A description in detail of what will happen (Plague one - Exodus 7:17-18;
plague two - Exodus 8:2-4; plague three - no separate description; plague four -
Exodus 8:21; plague five - Exodus 9:3-4; plague six - Exodus 9:9; plague seven -
Exodus 9:15; plague eight - Exodus 10:4-6; plague nine - no separate description).
· The call to Moses either to instruct Aaron (three times - Exodus 7:19; Exodus
8:5; Exodus 8:16) or to act himself (three times - Exodus 9:22; Exodus 10:12;
Exodus 10:21) or for them both to act (once - Exodus 9:8).
· The action taken (Exodus 7:20; Exodus 8:6; Exodus 8:17; no action; no
action; Exodus 9:10; Exodus 9:23; Exodus 10:13; Exodus 10:22).
· And an inevitable description of the consequences, which parallels the
previous description where given (Exodus 7:21; Exodus 8:6; Exodus 8:17; Exodus
8:24; Exodus 9:6-7; Exodus 9:10-11; Exodus 9:23-26; Exodus 10:13-15; Exodus
10:22-23).
It may be argued that this core was largely inevitable, and to a certain extent that is
true, but we should note that while there are nine plagues, there are only seven
separate prior descriptions, and as previously noted seven calls to act followed by
that action, but the sevens are not in each case for the same plagues. Thus the
narrative is carefully built around sevens. This can be exemplified further.
For example, Pharaoh’s initial response to their approach is mentioned three times,
in that Pharaoh reacts against the people (Exodus 5:5-6); calls for his magicians
(Exodus 7:11); and makes a compromise offer and then drives Moses and Aaron
from his presence (Exodus 10:11). It indicates his complete action but denies to him
the number seven. That is retained for Yahweh and His actions as we shall see, or
for Pharaoh’s negativity overall caused by Yahweh.
One significant feature is that Pharaoh’s final response grows in intensity.
1). Yahweh hardened his heart so that he did not listen to them as Yahweh had said

(Exodus 7:13) (Yahweh hardening him, and that he would not let the people go had
been forecast in Exodus 4:21). This was prior to the plagues.
2). His heart was hardened and he did not listen to them as Yahweh had said, and
he turned and went into his house, ‘nor did he set his heart to this also’ (Exodus
7:22-23).
3). He entreated Yahweh to take away the plague and said that he would let the
people go to worship Yahweh (Exodus 8:8), and later hardened his heart and did
not listen to them as Yahweh had said (Exodus 8:15).
4). Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he did not listen to them as Yahweh had said
(Exodus 8:19).
5). He told Moses and Aaron that they may sacrifice in the land (Exodus 8:25), and
then, on Moses’ refusing his offer, said that they may sacrifice in the wilderness but
not go far away (8:28) which Moses accepts, but later Pharaoh hardened his heart
and would not let the people go (Exodus 8:32).
6). He sent to find out what had happened and then his heart was hardened and he
would not let the people go (Exodus 9:7).
7). Yahweh hardened his heart and he did not listen to them as Yahweh had spoken
to Moses (Exodus 9:12).
8). Pharaoh admitted that he had sinned, asked them to entreat for him, and said ‘I
will let you go and you will stay no longer’ (Exodus 9:27-28). Then he sinned yet
more and hardened his heart, he and his servants (Exodus 9:34), and his heart was
hardened nor would he let the children of Israel go as Yahweh had spoken to Moses
(Exodus 9:35).
9). Pharaoh admitted that he had sinned, and asked them to entreat Yahweh for him
(Exodus 10:17), but later Yahweh hardened his heart so that he would not let the
children of Israel go (Exodus 10:20).
10). Pharaoh said that they might go apart from their cattle (Exodus 10:24), and on
Moses refusing ‘Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not let them go’
(Exodus 10:27), and he commanded that they leave his presence and not return on
pain of death (Exodus 10:28).
11). In the summary ‘Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the
children of Israel go out of his land’ (Exodus 11:10).
We note from the above that ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you’ occurs twice (Exodus
7:4; Exodus 11:9), ‘did not listen to them as Yahweh had said’ occurs four times
(Exodus 7:13; Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:15; Exodus 19); and ‘did not listen to them as
Yahweh had spoken to Moses’ occurs once (Exodus 9:12), thus his not being willing
to listen occurs seven times in all (the phrase ‘as Yahweh had spoken to Moses’
occurs twice (Exodus 9:12; Exodus 9:35), but not as connected with not listening).
In contrast he entreats that Yahweh will show mercy four times (Exodus 8:8;
Exodus 8:28; Exodus 9:27; Exodus 10:17), and parleys with Moses three times
(Exodus 8:8; Exodus 8:25; Exodus 10:24), making seven in all. Yahweh hardened
his heart five times (Exodus 7:13; Exodus 9:12; Exodus 10:20; Exodus 10:27;
Exodus 11:10), which with Exodus 4:21 and Exodus 10:1 makes seven times.
(Yahweh also hardened his heart in Exodus 14:8, but that was over the matter of
pursuing the fleeing people. See also Exodus 14:4; Exodus 14:17. He said that He
would do it in Exodus 7:3).

His heart was hardened (by himself?) four times (Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:19;
Exodus 9:7; Exodus 9:35), and he hardened his own heart three times (Exodus 8:15;
Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:34), again making seven times. It is said that he would not let
the people go five times (Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:7; Exodus 9:35; Exodus 10:20;
Exodus 11:10). With Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:14 that makes not letting the people go
seven times. Yahweh told Pharaoh to let His people go seven times (Exodus 5:1;
Exodus 7:16; Exodus 8:1; Exodus 8:20; Exodus 9:1; Exodus 9:13; Exodus 10:3).
Thus the writer would clearly seem to have been deliberately aiming at sevenfold
repetition, and this sevenfoldness is spread throughout the narrative in different
ways, stressing the total unity of the passage. One or two sevens might be seen as
accidental but not so many.
Taking with this the fact that each narrative forms a definite pattern any suggestion
of fragmented sources of any size that can be identified is clearly not permissible.
Thus apart from an occasional added comment, and in view of the way that
covenants were always recorded in writing, there seems little reason to doubt that
Exodus was written under the supervision of Moses or from material received from
him as was constantly believed thereafter. Other Old Testament books certainly
assert the essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (‘the Law’) demonstrating
the strong tradition supporting the claim (see 1 Kings 2:3; 1 Kings 8:53; 2 Kings
14:6; 2 Kings 18:6; 2 Kings 18:12). More importantly Jesus Christ Himself saw the
Pentateuch as the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47), and as without error (Matthew
5:17-18), and indicated Moses’ connection with Deuteronomy (Matthew 19:7-8;
Mark 10:3-5). See also Peter (Acts 3:22), Stephen (Acts 7:37-38), Paul (Romans
10:19; 1 Corinthians 9:9), and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews
10:28).
One fact that brings out Pharaoh’s total selfishness and disregard for his people is
that he only asks Moses to entreat Yahweh to remove a plague four times, in the
case of the frogs, the flying insects, the hail and the locusts. These were the ones that
would personally affect him the most. The narrative is totally consistent.
The Plagues In The Light Of atural Phenomena.
We will now try to see the plagues in the light of natural phenomena, recognising
that God used natural phenomena, enhancing it where necessary, to accomplish His
purpose. While the land waited totally unaware of the forces that were gathering He
knew exactly what was coming and what He would do with it and directed Moses
accordingly.
The first nine plagues form a logical and connected sequence if we work on the basis
that in that year there was an abnormally high inundation of the ile occurring in
July and August. In Egypt too high an inundation of the ile could be as bad as too
low an inundation, and this was clearly beyond anything known. This would be
caused by abnormal weather conditions in lands to the south of Egypt of a kind
rarely experienced which may well have also caused the effects not produced

directly by the inundation.
The higher the ile-flood was, the more earth it carried within it, especially of the
red earth from the basins of the Blue ile and Atbara. And the more earth it carried
the redder it became. The flood would further bring down with it flood microcosms
known as flagellates and associated bacteria. These would heighten the blood-red
colour of the water and create conditions in which the fish would die in large
numbers (Exodus 7:21). Their decomposition would then foul the water further and
cause a stench (Exodus 7:21). The water would be undrinkable and the only hope of
obtaining fresh water would be to dig for it (Exodus 7:24). The whole of Egypt
would of course be affected. This is the background to the first plague.
The result of these conditions would be that the decomposing fish would be washed
along the banks and backwaters of the ile polluting the haunts of the frogs, who
would thus swarm out in huge numbers seeking refuge elsewhere (Exodus 8:3).
Their sudden death would suggest internal anthrax which would explain their rapid
putrefaction (Exodus 8:13-14). This is the background to the second plague.
The high level of the ile-flood would provide especially favourable conditions for
mosquitoes, which may partly explain either the ‘ken’ (ticks/lice/fleas) (Exodus 8:16)
or the ‘arob (swarms) (Exodus 8:21), while the rotting carcasses of the fish and frogs
would encourage other forms of insect life to develop, as would excessive deposits of
the red earth which may have brought insect eggs with them. Insects would
proliferate throughout the land (Exodus 8:16). These might include lice and also the
tick, an eight-legged arthropod and blood-sucking parasite and carrier of disease, as
well as fleas. This is the background to the third plague.
As well as mosquitoes from the ile flood, flies would also develop among the
rotting fish, the dead frogs and the decaying vegetation, including the carrier-fly,
the stomoxys calcitrans (which might well be responsible for the later boils), and
become carriers of disease from these sources. The ‘swarms’ may well have included
both (Exodus 8:21). This is the background to the fourth plague.
The dying frogs might well have passed on anthrax, and the proliferating insects
would pass on other diseases, to the cattle and flocks who were out in the open
(Exodus 9:3) and therefore more vulnerable. This is the background to the fifth
plague.
The dead cattle would add to the sources of disease carried by these insects, and the
insect bites, combined with the bites of the other insects, may well have caused the
boils (Exodus 9:9). This would occur around December/January. It may well be the
background to the sixth plague.
Thus the first six plagues in a sense follow naturally from one another given the
right conditions, but it is their timing, extremeness and Moses’ knowledge of them
that prove the hand of God at work.

The excessively heavy hail (Exodus 9:22), with thunder, lightning and rain, may well
have resulted from the previously mentioned extreme weather conditions, but it
went beyond anything known and was exceptional, resulting in death and
destruction, and the ruination of the barley and flax, but not the wheat and spelt
which was not yet grown (Exodus 8:31-32). (This indicates a good knowledge of
Egyptian agriculture). This would probably be in early February.
The excessively heavy rains in Ethiopia and the Sudan which led to the
extraordinarily high ile would cause the conditions favourable to an unusually
large plague of locusts (Exodus 10:4; Exodus 10:13), which would eventually be
blown down into orthern Egypt and then along the ile valley by the east wind
(Exodus 10:13).
The thick darkness (Exodus 10:21) that could be felt was probably an unusually
heavy khamsin dust storm resulting from the large amounts of red earth which the
ile had deposited which would have dried out as a fine dust, together with the
usual sand of the desert. The khamsin wind would stir all this up making the air
unusually thick and dark, blotting out the light of the sun. Three days is the known
length of a khamsin (Exodus 10:23). This, coming on top of all that had come before,
and seeming to affect the sun god himself, would have a devastating effect.
These unusual and freak events demonstrate an extremely good knowledge of
Egyptian weather conditions with their particular accompanying problems, which
could only have been written in the right order by someone with a good knowledge
of the peculiar conditions in Egypt which could produce such catastrophes,
confirming the Egyptian provenance of the record and the unity of the account.
In all this the gods of Egypt would be prominent to the Egyptians as the people were
made aware that the God of the Hebrews was doing this, and that their gods could
seemingly do nothing about it. Prominent among these would be Ha‘pi, the ile god
of inundation, Heqit the goddess of fruitfulness, whose symbol was the frog, Hathor
the goddess of love, often symbolised by the cow, along with Apis the bull god, Osiris
for whom the ile was his life-blood, now out of control, the goddess Hatmehyt
whose symbol was a fish, and of whom models were worn as charms, ut the sky
goddess, Reshpu and Ketesh who were supposed to control all the elements of
nature except light, and Re the sun god. All these would be seen to be unable to
prevent Yahweh doing His work and thus to have been at least temporarily
defeated.
But it should be noted that that is the Egyptian viewpoint. Moses only mentions the
gods of Egypt once, and that is probably sarcastically (Exodus 12:12). As far as he is
concerned they are nothing. They are irrelevant.
The Tenth Plague - The Slaying of the Firstborn (Exodus 11:1 to Exodus 12:36).
This whole section is constructed on an interesting chiastic pattern:

a Israel are to ask the Egyptians for gold and jewellery, etc (Exodus 11:1-3).
b All the firstborn in Egypt are to die - there will be a great cry throughout the
land - Israel will be told to go (Exodus 11:4-10).
c The preparation of the lamb - the sacrifice - the blood on the doorpost it -
will be a memorial for ever (Exodus 12:1-14).
d For seven days they are to eat unleavened bread - their houses to be emptied
of leaven - the observation of the feast (Exodus 12:15-17).
d The observation of the feast of unleavened bread for seven days - their
houses to be emptied of leaven (Exodus 12:18-20).
c The preparation of the lamb - the sacrifice - the blood on the doorpost - to be
observed as an ordinance for ever (Exodus 12:21-28).
b The firstborn in Egypt die - there is a great cry in Egypt - the children of
Israel are told to go (Exodus 12:29-34).
a Israel ask the Egyptians for gold and jewellery etc. (Exodus 12:35-36).
There can be no doubt that this skilful arrangement is deliberate.
Exodus 12 Instructions To Israel Concerning The Passover.
This chapter is partly historical, and partly explanatory. It splits into a number of
sections. (1) Exodus 12:1-14 contain the explanations given by Yahweh to Moses and
Aaron with regard to the conducting of the first Passover. (2) Exodus 12:15-20
connect the Passover with the Feast of Unleavened Bread to be observed at future
times. (3) Exodus 12:21-23 present Moses’ explanations in abbreviated form to the
elders for the conducting the first Passover. (4) Exodus 12:24-28 explain the future
way in which their children are to be taught of the Passover. (5) Exodus 12:29-42
describe the actual occurrence of the Passover , the slaying of the firstborn, and the
departure of the people. (6) Exodus 12:43-51 conclude with further instructions for
the Israelites regarding the celebration of the Passover in the future, and especially
focus on the participation of foreigners who will dwell among them. But only the
section from 1-36 is part of the Passover narrative., which is from 11:1-12:36.
The First Stages of Their Journey (Exodus 12:37 to Exodus 13:22).
The journey from Egypt now commencing we are informed of the quantity of those
leaving and the connection backwards with when they first entered Egypt. This is
then followed by instructions concerning who in future will be able to participate in
the Passover. This had become very important in view of the mixed multitude
(peoples of many nations) who accompanied them. As a result of the Passover their
firstborn sons and beasts had been spared so regulations concerning the firstborn
are laid down, together with those concerning the accompanying feast which was
even then in process. And following that we are given information about the initial
stages of their journey.
It may be analysed as follows:
a The journey commences (Exodus 12:37-42).
b The observance of the Passover and who may take part in it (Exodus 12:43-

51).
b Regulations concerning the firstborn and the feast of unleavened bread
(Exodus 13:1-16).
a First details of the journey (Exodus 13:17-22).
It will be noted that in ‘a’ the initial commencement of the journey is paralleled with
its first stage, while in ‘b’ the regulations concerning who may eat the Passover are
paralleled with connected regulations concerning the firstborn who had been saved
by Yahweh during the Passover, together with the accompanying regulations
concerning unleavened bread which was all a part of the Passover celebrations.
The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened
Bread
1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
BAR ES, "This chapter was written some time after the Exodus, probably when
Moses put together the portions of the book toward the end of his life. The statements
that these instructions were given in the land of Egypt, and that they were given to
Moses and Aaron, are important: the one marks the special dignity of this ordinance,
which was established before the Sinaitic code; the other marks the distinction between
Moses and Aaron and all other prophets. They alone were prophets of the law, i. e. no
law was promulgated by any other prophets.
GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,....
Before they and the children of Israel came out of it, before the slaying of the firstborn,
yea, before Moses came from the presence of Pharaoh, and had given him notice of it;
and it is very probable even before the three days darkness, seeing it seems necessary it
should be four days before the passover, since on the tenth day the lamb was to be taken,
and on the fourteenth slain, Exo_12:3 and by what follows it looks as if it was at the
beginning or first day of the month, and so the words may be rendered, "the Lord had
spoke" (y); and the following account is deferred to this place, that there might be no
interruption of the history of the plagues, and that the passover, with all its rites and
ceremonies, both at the first institution and observance of it, and in later times, might be
laid together.

HE RY 1-3, "Moses and Aaron here receive of the Lord what they were afterwards
to deliver to the people concerning the ordinance of the passover, to which is prefixed an
order for a new style to be observed in their months (Exo_12:1, Exo_12:2): This shall be
to you the beginning of months. They had hitherto begun their year from the middle of
September, but henceforward they were to begin it from the middle of March, at least in
all their ecclesiastical computations. Note, It is good to begin the day, and begin the year,
and especially to begin our lives, with God. This new calculation began the year with the
spring, which reneweth the face of the earth, and was used as a figure of the coming of
Christ, Son_2:11, Son_2:12. We may suppose that, while Moses was bringing the ten
plagues upon the Egyptians, he was directing the Israelites to prepare for their departure
at an hour's warning. Probably he had be degrees brought them near together from their
dispersions, for their are here called the congregation of Israel (Exo_12:3), and to them
as a congregation orders are here sent. Their amazement and hurry, it is easy to suppose,
were great; yet now they must apply themselves to the observance of a sacred rite, to the
honour of God. Note, When our heads are fullest of care, and our hands of business, yet
we must not forget our religion, nor suffer ourselves to be indisposed for acts of
devotion.
JAMISO , "Exo_12:1-10. The Passover instituted.
the Lord spake unto Moses — rather, “had spoken unto Moses and Aaron”; for it
is evident that the communication here described must have been made to them on or
before the tenth of the month.
K&D, "Institution of the Passover. - The deliverance of Israel from the bondage of
Egypt was at hand; also their adoption as the nation of Jehovah (Exo_6:6-7).
But for this a divine consecration was necessary, that their outward severance from
the land of Egypt might be accompanied by an inward severance from everything of an
Egyptian or heathen nature. This consecration was to be imparted by the Passover-a
festival which was to lay the foundation for Israel's birth (Hos_2:5) into the new life of
grace and fellowship with God, and to renew it perpetually in time to come. This festival
was therefore instituted and commemorated before the exodus from Egypt. Vv. 1-28
contain the directions for the Passover: viz., Exo_12:1-14 for the keeping of the feast of
the Passover before the departure from Egypt, and Exo_12:15-20 for the seven days'
feast of unleavened bread. In Exo_12:21-27 Moses communicates to the elders of the
nation the leading instructions as to the former feast, and the carrying out of those
instructions is mentioned in Exo_12:28.
Exo_12:1-2
By the words, “in the land of Egypt,” the law of the Passover which follows is brought
into connection with the giving of the law at Sinai and in the fields of Moab, and is
distinguished in relation to the former as the first or foundation law for the congregation
of Jehovah. The creation of Israel as the people of Jehovah (Isa_43:15) commenced with
the institution of the Passover. As a proof of this, it was preceded by the appointment of
a new era, fixing the commencement of the congregation of Jehovah. “This month” (i.e.,
the present in which ye stand) “be to you the head (i.e., the beginning) of the months, the
first let it be to you for the months of the year;” i.e., let the numbering of the months,
and therefore the year also, begin with it. Consequently the Israelites had hitherto had a
different beginning to their year, probably only a civil year, commencing with the
sowing, and ending with the termination of the harvest (cf. Exo_23:16); whereas the

Egyptians most likely commenced their year with the overflowing of the Nile at the
summer solstice (cf. Lepsius, Chron. 1, pp. 148ff.). The month which was henceforth to
be the first of the year, and is frequently so designated (Exo_40:2, Exo_40:17; Lev_23:5,
etc.), is called Abib (the ear-month) in Exo_13:4; Exo_23:15; Exo_34:18; Deu_16:1,
because the corn was then in ear; after the captivity it was called Nisan (Neh_2:1; Est_
3:7). It corresponds very nearly to our April.
CALVI , "1.And the Lord spake. Although the institution of the Passover in some
degree appertains to the Fourth Commandment, where the Sabbath and Feast-days
will be treated of; yet, in so far as it was a solemn symbol (308) of their redemption,
whereby the people professed their obligation to God their deliverer, and in a
manner devoted themselves to His dominion, I have not hesitated to insert it here as
a supplement of the First Commandment. The observation of the day itself will
again recur in its proper place; it will only be suitable to observe here, that God
enjoined this ceremony in order that He might wholly bind the people under
obligation to Himself alone, and that from it the Israelites might learn that they
should never turn away from Him, by whose kindness and hand they were
redeemed. For by these means He had purchased them to Himself as His peculiar
people; and, therefore, whenever He reproves them for declining from His pure
worship, He complains that they were forgetful of this great favor, the memory of
which ought to have been sufficient to retain them. In effect, then, the celebration of
the Passover taught the Israelites that it was not lawful for them to have regard to
any other God besides their Redeemer; and also that it was just and right for them
to consecrate themselves to His service, since He had restored them from death to
life; and thus, as in a glass or picture, He represented to their eyes His grace; and
desired that they should on every succeeding year recognize what they had formerly
experienced, lest it should ever depart from their memory. First, let us define what
the Passover (Pascha) is; (309) I use its trite and ordinary name. In its etymology
there is no difficulty, except that the passage (transitus) of God, is equivalent to His
leaping over, (transilitio) whereby it came to pass that the houses of the Israelites
remained untouched; for Isaiah, (310) speaking of the second redemption,
unquestionably alludes to this place, when he says, I will leap over Jerusalem. The
reason, then, for this expression being used is, that God’s vengeance passed over the
Israelites, so as to leave them uninjured. With respect to the twofold mention by
Moses of a passing-over, observe that the same word is not used in both places; but
Pesah (311) refers to the chosen people, and Abar to the Egyptians; as if he had said,
my vengeance shall pass through the midst of your enemies, and shall everywhere
destroy them; but you I will pass over untouched. Since, then, God was willing to
spare His Israel, He awakened the minds of the faithful to the hope of this salvation,
by the interposition of a sign; (312) whilst He instituted a perpetual memorial of His
grace, that the Passover might every year renew the recollection of their deliverance.
For the first Passover was celebrated in the very presence of the thing itself, to be a
pledge to strengthen their terrified minds; but the annual repetition was a sacrifice
of thanksgiving, whereby their posterity might be reminded that they were God’s
rightful and peculiar dependents (clientes). Yet both the original institution and the
perpetual law had a higher reference; for God did not once redeem His ancient
people, that they might remain safely and quietly in the land, but He wished to bring

them onward even to the inheritance of eternal life, wherefore the Passover was no
less than Circumcision a sign of spiritual grace; and so it has an analogy and
resemblance to the Holy Supper, because it both contained the same promises,
which Christ now seals to us in that, and also taught that God could only be
propitiated towards His people by the expiation of blood. In sum, it was the sign of
the future redemption as well as of that which was past. For this reason Paul writes,
that “Christ our Passover is slain,” (1 Corinthians 5:7;) which would be unsuitable,
if the ancients had only been reminded in it of their temporal benefit. Yet let us first
establish this, that the observation of the Passover was commanded by God in the
Law, that He might demand the gratitude of His people and devote to Himself those
who were redeemed by His power and grace. I now descend to particulars. God
commands the Israelites to begin the year with the month in which they had come
out of Egypt, as if it had been the day of their birth, since that exodus was in fact a
kind of new birth; (313) for, whereas they had been buried in Egypt, the liberty
given them by God was the beginning of a new life and the rising of a new light. For
though their adoption had gone before, yet, since in the mean time it had almost
vanished from the hearts of many, it was necessary that they should be in a manner
re-begotten, that they might begin to acknowledge more certainly that God was
their Father. Wherefore He says in Hosea,
“I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but
me,” (Hosea 12:9, and Hosea 13:4;)
because He had then especially acquired them to Himself as His peculiar people;
and He speaks even more clearly a little before,
“when Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1.)
ow, although it was common to the race of Abraham with other nations to begin
the year with the month of March; yet in this respect the reason for it was different,
for it was only to the elect people that their resurrection was annually put before
their eyes. But, up to that time, the Hebrews themselves had begun their year with
the month of September, which is called in Chaldee Tisri, and in which many
suppose that the world was created; because immediately on its creation the earth
produced ripe fruits, so that its fecundity was in perfection. And still there remains
among the Jews a twofold manner of dating and counting their years; for, in all
matters which relate to the common business of life, they retain the old and natural
computation, so that the first month is the beginning of Autumn; but, in religious
matters and festivals, they follow the injunctions of Moses; and this is the legal year,
beginning nearly with our month of March, (314) yet not precisely, because we have
not their ancient embolisms; for, since twelve circuits of the moon would not equal
the sun’s course, they were obliged to make an intercalation, lest, in progress of
years, an absurd and enormous diversity should arise. Thence it happens that the
month isan, in which they celebrated the Passover, begins among the Jews
sometimes earlier, and sometimes later, according as the intercalation retards it.

BE SO , "Verse 1-2
Exodus 12:1-2. The Lord spake unto Moses — Or had spoken before what is related
in the foregoing chapter, if not also before the three days’ darkness: but the mention
of it was put off to this place, that the history of the plagues might not be
interrupted. This month shall be to you the beginning of months — That is, the first
and principal month of the year. It was called Abib, (Exodus 13:4; Exodus 23:15,)
which signifies an ear of corn, because then the corn was eared. It answers nearly to
our March. Before this time, the Jews, like most other nations, began their year
about the autumnal equinox, in the month Tisri, answering to our September, after
their harvest and vintage. But in commemoration of this, their signal deliverance
out of Egypt, their computation, at least as to their feasts and sacred things, was
from the month Abib. And therefore, what was before their first month, now
became their seventh. The beginning of their civil year, however, appears still to
have been reckoned as before. We may suppose that while Moses was bringing the
ten plagues upon the Egyptians, he was directing the Israelites to prepare for their
departure at an hour’s warning. Probably he had, by degrees, brought them near
together from their dispersions, for they are here called the congregation of Israel;
and to them, as a congregation, orders are here sent.
COFFMA , "Verses 1-3
THE DELIVERA CE OF ISRAEL
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron, in the land of Egypt, saying, This
month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the
year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of
this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers'
houses, a lamb for a household."
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron, in the land of Egypt ..." The plain
meaning of this is that the instructions here given were not ceremonially developed
at some later age, but that they were revealed by God and tied to the events about to
take place, not, long afterward in Canaan, but in Egypt, and at a time actually
before the events memorialized. Like so many other things in this inspired record,
this too was fulfilled in the fact that Jesus Christ our Lord instituted the Lord's
Supper, commemorating his death and looking forward to his resurrection, before
either event! The meaning here also includes the affirmation that neither Moses nor
Aaron at any time, either here or afterward, ever initiated regulations and
legislation from themselves, but that they delivered God's Word on all that they
established. "The whole system, religious, political, and ecclesiastical, was received
by Divine Revelation, commanded by God, and merely established by the two
brothers."[7]
"This month ... beginning of months ... the first month of the year ..." According to
Exodus 13:4, this was the month Abib. This was the name of that month used by
Israel until after the Babylonian captivity, but following the exile, it was called
isan, as until the present time. The significance of this is that if the post-exilic
priesthood had had anything to do with placing these verses in Exodus, they would

never have used this word Abib. Of course, the critics know this, so they call on the
ever-ready "redactor" and assign it to R! As we have often noted, every appeal to a
redactor is a confession of the failure and bankruptcy of the alleged sources. After
the captivity, the Jews calculated the and the ecclesiastical years separately, "The
first month of each year, sacred or being the seventh month of the other."[8]
"In the tenth day of this month ... take every man a lamb ..." it is a matter of
extreme interest that the plural "lambs" is generally not used in Biblical references
to the Passover, despite the fact of there having been literally thousands and
thousands of them. Full agreement with Fields is felt in his comment that, "This was
no accident, but was God's way of indicating that there was only O E true passover
lamb in HIS mind. That lamb is Christ!"[9] We have not found even an attempted
explanation of why the lamb was taken on the tenth day, four days before its
slaughter, but here also we may be able to understand it from the antitype. Christ
entered Jerusalem on Sunday, four days before his crucifixion, and patiently waited
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday until his crucifixion on Thursday.
There really is no other explanation of this phenomenal verse available.
ote also, in this, that each head of a household took the lamb and killed it at the
appointed time, as did all who participated. Like nearly everything else in this
chapter, it is impossible to identify this with the doings of priests in later centuries.
If this narrative had originated in any such fashion, they would have had all the
lambs brought together at one place, and the priests would have done the killing.
Moses wrote the account here, and it is the account of the First Passover.
CO STABLE, "Directions for the Passover12:1-14
The Jews called their first month Abib ( Exodus 12:2). After the Babylonian
captivity they renamed it isan ( ehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7). It corresponds to our
March-April. Abib means "ear-month" referring to the month when the grain was
in the ear.
"The reference to the Passover month as the "lead month," "the first of the year"s
months" is best understood as a double entendre. On the one hand, the statement
may be connected with an annual calendar, but on the other hand, it is surely an
affirmation of the theological importance of Yahweh"s Passover." [ ote: Ibid,
p153.]
The spring was an appropriate time for the Exodus because it symbolized new life
and growth. Israel had two calendars: one religious (this one) and one civil ( Exodus
23:16). The civil year began exactly six months later in the fall. The Israelites used
both calendars until the Babylonian captivity. After that, they used only the civil
calendar. [ ote: See James F. Strange, "The Jewish Calendar," Biblical
Illustrator13:1 (Fall1986):28-32. Also see the Appendix of these notes for a chart of
the Hebrew calendar.]

". . . the sense of the verse is: you are now beginning to count a new year, now the
new year will bring you a change of destiny." [ ote: Cassuto, p137.]
The Passover was a communal celebration. The Israelites were to observe it with
their redeemed brethren, not alone ( Exodus 12:4). They celebrated the corporate
redemption of the nation corporately (cf. Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29).
Since the lamb was a substitute sacrifice its required characteristics are significant (
Exodus 12:5; cf. John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19).
"Freedom from blemish and injury not only befitted the sacredness of the purpose
to which they were devoted, but was a symbol of the moral integrity of the person
represented by the sacrifice. It was to be a male, as taking the place of the male first-
born of Israel; and a year old, because it was not till then that it reached the full,
fresh vigour of its life." [ ote: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:10.]
Some of the ancient rabbis taught that God wanted the Jews to sacrifice the
Passover lamb exactly at sunset because of the instructions in Exodus 12:6 and
Deuteronomy 16:6. However "at twilight" literally means "between the two
evenings." The more widely held Jewish view was that the first evening began right
after noon and the second began when the sun set. [ ote: Gispen, p117.] In
Josephus" day, which was also Jesus" day, the Jews slew the Passover lamb in mid-
afternoon. [ ote: Josephus, 14:4:3.] The Lord Jesus Christ died during this time
(i.e, about3:00 p.m, Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46; 1
Corinthians 5:7).
The sprinkling of the blood on the sides and top of the doorway into the house was a
sign ( Exodus 12:7; cf. Exodus 12:13). It had significance to the Jews. The door
represented the house (cf. Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 12:17; et
al.). The smearing of the blood on the door with hyssop was an act of expiation
(cleansing; cf. Leviticus 14:49-53; umbers 19:18-19). This act consecrated the
houses of the Israelites as altars. They had no other altars in Egypt. They were not
to apply the blood to the other member of the doorframe, the threshold, because
someone might tread on it. The symbolic value of the blood made this action
inappropriate. The whole ritual signified to the Jews that the blood (life poured out,
Leviticus 17:11) of a sinless, divinely appointed substitute cleansed their sins and
resulted in their setting apart (sanctification) to God. The application of the blood as
directed was a demonstration of the Israelites" faith in God"s promise that He
would pass over them ( Exodus 12:13; cf. Hebrews 11:28).
The method of preparing and eating the lamb was also significant ( Exodus 12:8-11).
God directed that they roast it in the manner common to nomads rather than eating
it raw as many of their contemporary pagans ate their sacrificial meat (cf. 1 Samuel
2:14-15). They were not to boil the lamb either ( Exodus 12:9). Roasting enabled the
host to place the lamb on the table undivided and unchanged in its essential
structure and appearance ( Exodus 12:9). This would have strengthened the
impression of the substitute nature of the lamb. It looked like an animal rather than

just meat.
The unleavened bread was bread that had not risen (cf. Exodus 12:34). The bitter
herbs-perhaps endive, chicory, and or other herbs native to Egypt-would later recall
to the Israelites who ate them the bitter experiences of life in Egypt. However the
sweetness of the lamb overpowered the bitterness of the herbs. The Israelites were
not to eat the parts of the meal again as leftovers ( Exodus 12:10). It was a special
sacrificial meal, not just another dinner. Moreover they were to eat it in haste (
Exodus 12:11) as a memorial of the events of the night when they first ate it, the
night when God provided deliverance for His people. [ ote: For an explanation of
the history and modern observance of the Passover by Jews, the Seder, or "order of
service," see Youngblood, pp61-64. For an account of a Seder observance held in
Dallas on April2 , 1988 , see Robert Andrew Barlow, "The Passover Seder,"
Exegesis and Exposition3:1 (Fall1988):63-68.]
"Those consuming the meat were not to be in the relaxed dress of home, but in
traveling attire; not at ease around a table, but with walking-stick in hand; not in
calm security, but in haste, with anxiety." [ ote: Durham, p154.]
In slaying the king"s son and many of the first-born animals, God smote the gods of
Egypt that these living beings represented ( Exodus 12:12). This was the final proof
of Yahweh"s sovereignty.
"The firstborn of Pharaoh was not only his successor to the throne, but by the act of
the gods was a specially born son having divine property. Gods associated with the
birth of children would certainly have been involved in a plague of this nature.
These included Min, the god of procreation and reproduction, along with Isis who
was the symbol of fecundity or the power to produce offspring. Since Hathor was
not only a goddess of love but one of seven deities who attended the birth of
children, she too would be implicated in the disaster of this plague. From
excavations we already have learned of the tremendous importance of the Apis bull,
a firstborn animal and other animals of like designation would have had a
tremendous theological impact on temple attendants as well as commoners who
were capable of witnessing this tragic event. The death cry which was heard
throughout Egypt was not only a wail that bemoaned the loss of a son or precious
animals, but also the incapability of the many gods of Egypt to respond and protect
them from such tragedy." [ ote: Davis, p141.]
Egyptian religion and culture valued sameness and continuity very highly. The
Egyptians even minimized the individual differences between the Pharaohs.
"The death of a king was, in a manner characteristic of the Egyptians, glossed over
in so far as it meant a change." [ ote: Frankfort, p102.]
The Egyptians had to acknowledge the death of Pharaoh"s Song of Solomon ,
however, as an event that Yahweh had brought to pass.

ote that God said that when He saw the blood He would pass over the Jews (
Exodus 12:13). He did not say when they saw it. The ground of their security was
propitiation. The blood satisfied God. Therefore the Israelites could rest. The reason
we can have peace with God is that Jesus Christ"s blood satisfied God. Many
Christians have no peace because the blood of the Lamb of God does not satisfy
them. They think something more has to supplement His work (i.e, human good
works). However, God says the blood of the sacrifice He provided is enough (cf. 1
John 2:1-2).
One writer believed that the first Passover was the origin of the concept of "the day
of the Lord," which is so prominent in the writing prophets. The day of the Lord
that they referred to was an instance of divine intervention, similar to what God did
at the first Passover, involving judgment and blessing. [ ote: Benno Jacob, The
Second Book of the Bible: Exodus , p315.]
Verses 1-16
C. God"s redemption of His people12:1-13:16
Scholars differ in their opinions as to when Israel actually became a nation. Many
have made a strong case for commencing national existence with the institution of
the Passover, which this section records. The proper translation of the Hebrew word
pasah is really "hover over" rather than "pass over." [ ote: Meredith G. Kline,
"The Feast of Cover-over," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society37:4
(December1994):497-510.]
". . . properly understood, the Exodus also is precisely the event and the moment
that coincides with the historical expression of God"s election of Israel. The choice
of Israel as the special people of Yahweh occurred not at Sinai but in the land of
Goshen. The Exodus was the elective event; Sinai was its covenant formalization."
[ ote: Eugene H. Merrill, "A Theology of the Pentateuch," in A Biblical Theology
of the Old Testament, p31. Cf. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p259.]
God gave the Israelites a national calendar that set them apart from other nations (
Exodus 12:2). They also received instructions for two national feasts that they were
to perpetuate forever thereafter ( Exodus 12:14; Exodus 12:17; Exodus 12:24). Also
Moses revealed and explained the event that resulted in their separation from Egypt
here.
Verses 1-28
1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation12:1-28
"The account of the final proof of Yahweh"s Presence in Egypt has been expanded
by a series of instructions related to cultic [ritual worship] requirements designed to
commemorate that proof and the freedom it purchased." [ ote: Durham, p152.]
ELLICOTT, "I STITUTIO OF THE PASSOVER.

(1) In the land of Egypt.—This section (Exodus 12:1-28) has the appearance of
having been written independently of the previous narrative—earlier, probably, and
as a part of the Law rather than of the history. It throws together instructions on
the subject of the Passover which must have been given at different times (comp.
Exodus 12:3; Exodus 12:12; Exodus 12:17), some before the tenth of Abib. some on
the day preceding the departure from Egypt, some on the day following. As far as
Exodus 12:20 it is wholly legal, and would suit Leviticus as well as Exodus. From
Exodus 12:20 it has a more historical character, since it relates the action taken by
Moses.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "THE PASSOVER.
Exodus 12:1-28.
We have now reached the birthday of the great Hebrew nation, and with it the first
national institution, the feast of passover, which is also the first sacrifice of directly
Divine institution, the earliest precept of the Hebrew legislation, and the only one
given in Egypt.
The Jews had by this time learned to feel that they were a nation, if it were only
through the struggle between their champion and the head of the greatest nation in
the world. And the first aspect in which the feast of passover presents itself is that of
a national commemoration.
This day was to be unto them the beginning of months; and in the change of their
calendar to celebrate their emancipation, the device was anticipated by which
France endeavoured to glorify the Revolution. All their reckoning was to look back
to this signal event. "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall
keep it for a feast unto the Lord; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a
feast by an ordinance for ever" (Exodus 12:14). "It shall be for a sign unto thee
upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the Lord
may be in thy mouth, for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of
Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year"
(Exodus 13:9-10).
ow for the first time we read of "the congregation of Israel" (Exodus 12:3, Exodus
12:6), which was an assembly of the people represented by their elders (as may be
seen by comparing the third verse with the twenty-first); and thus we discover that
the "heads of houses" have been drawn into a larger unity. The clans are knit
together into a nation.
Accordingly, the feast might not be celebrated by any solitary man. Companionship
was vital to it. At every table one animal, complete and undissevered, should give to
the feast a unity of sentiment; and as many should gather around as were likely to
leave none of it uneaten. either might any of it be reserved to supply a hasty ration
amid the confusion of the predicted march. The feast was to be one complete event,
whole and perfect as the unity which it expressed. The very notion of a people is that

of "community" in responsibilities, joys, and labours; and the solemn law by virtue
of which, at this same hour, one blow will fall upon all Egypt, must now be accepted
by Israel. Therefore loneliness at the feast of Passover is by the law, as well as in
idea, impossible to any Jew. Every one can see the connection between this festival
of unity and another, of which it is written, "We, being many, are one body, one
loaf, for we are all partakers of that one loaf."
ow, the sentiment of nationality may so assert itself, like all exaggerated
sentiments, as to assail others equally precious. In this century we have seen a
revival of the Spartan theories which sacrificed the family to the state. Socialism and
the phalanstere have proposed to do by public organisation, with the force of law,
what natural instinct teaches us to leave to domestic influences. It is therefore
worthy of notice that, as the chosen nation is carefully traced by revelation back to a
holy family, so the national festival did not ignore the family tie, but consecrated it.
The feast was to be eaten "according to their fathers' houses"; if a family were too
small, it was to the "neighbour next unto his house" that each should turn for co-
operation; and the patriotic celebration was to live on from age to age by the
instruction which parents should carefully give their children (Exodus 12:3, Exodus
12:26, Exodus 13:8).
The first ordinance of the Jewish religion was a domestic service. And this
arrangement is divinely wise. ever was a nation truly prosperous or permanently
strong which did not cherish the sanctities of home. Ancient Rome failed to resist
the barbarians, not because her discipline had degenerated, but because evil habits
in the home had ruined her population. The same is notoriously true of at least one
great nation today. History is the sieve of God, in which He continually severs the
chaff from the grain of nations, preserving what is temperate and pure and calm,
and therefore valorous and wise.
In studying the institution of the Passover, with its profound typical analogies, we
must not overlook the simple and obvious fact that God built His nation upon
families, and bade their great national institution draw the members of each home
together.
The national character of the feast is shown further because no Egyptian family
escaped the blow. Opportunities had been given to them to evade some of the
previous plagues. When the hail was announced, "he that feared the word of the
Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the
house"; and this renders the national solidarity, the partnership even of the
innocent in the penalties of a people's guilt, the 'community' of a nation, more
apparent now. There was not a house where there was not one dead. The mixed
multitude which came up with Israel came not because they had shared his
exemptions, but because they dared not stay. It was an object-lesson given to Israel,
which might have warned all his generations.
And if there is hideous vice in our own land today, or if the contrasts of poverty and
wealth are so extreme that humanity is shocked by so much luxury insulting so

much squalor,--if in any respect we feel that our own land, considering its supreme
advantages, merits the wrath of God for its unworthiness,--then we have to fear and
strive, not through public spirit alone, but as knowing that the chastisement of
nations falls upon the corporate whole, upon us and upon our children.
But if the feast of the Passover was a commemoration, it also claims to be a sacrifice,
and the first sacrifice which was Divinely founded and directed.
This brings us face to face with the great question, What is the doctrine which lies at
the heart of the great institution of sacrifice?
We are not free to confine its meaning altogether to that which was visible at the
time. This would contradict the whole doctrine of development, the intention of God
that Christianity should blossom from the bud of Judaism, and the explicit assertion
that the prophets were made aware that the full meaning and the date of what they
uttered was reserved for the instruction of a later period (1 Peter 1:12).
But neither may we overlook the first palpable significance of any institution.
Sacrifices never could have been devised to be a blind and empty pantomime to
whole generations, for the benefit of their successors. Still less can one who believes
in a genuine revelation to Moses suppose that their primary meaning was a false
one, given in order that some truth might afterwards develop out of it.
What, then, might a pious and well-instructed Israelite discern beneath the surface
of this institution?
To this question there have been many discordant answers, and the variance is by
no means confined to unbelieving critics. Thus, a distinguished living expositor says
in connection with the Paschal institution, "We speak not of blood as it is commonly
understood, but of blood as the life, the love, the heart,--the whole quality of Deity."
But it must be answered that Deity is the last suggestion which blood would convey
to a Jewish mind: distinctly it is creature-life that it expresses; and the ew
Testament commentators make it plain that no other notion had even then evolved
itself: they think of the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ, not of His Deity.(20)
either of this feast, nor of that which the gospel of Jesus has evolved from it, can
we find the solution by forgetting that the elements of the problem are, not deity,
but a Body and Blood.
But when we approach the theories of rationalistic thinkers, we find a perfect chaos
of rival speculations.
We are told that the Hebrew feasts were really agricultural--"Harvest festivals,"
and that the epithet Passover had its origin in the passage of the sun into Aries. But
this great festival had a very secondary and subordinate connection with harvest
(only the waving of a sheaf upon the second day) while the older calendar which was
displaced to do it honour was truly agricultural, as may still be seen by the phrase,
"The feast of ingathering at the end of the year, when thou gatherest in thy labours

out of the field" (Exodus 23:16).
In dealing with unbelief we must look at things from the unbelieving angle of vision.
o sceptical theory has any right to invoke for its help a special and differentiating
quality in Hebrew thought. Reject the supernatural, and the Jewish religion is only
one among a number of similar creations of the mind of man "moving about in
worlds unrecognised." And therefore we must ask, What notions of sacrifice were
entertained, all around, when the Hebrew creed was forming itself?
ow, we read that "in the early days ... a sacrifice was a meal.... Year after year, the
return of vintage, corn-harvest, and sheep-shearing brought together the members
of the household to eat and drink in the presence of Jehovah.... When an honoured
guest arrives there is slaughtered for him a calf, not without an offering of the blood
and fat to the Deity" (Wellhausen, Israel, p. 76). Of the sense of sin and propitiation
"the ancient sacrifices present few traces.... An underlying reference of sacrifice to
sin, speaking generally, was entirely absent. The ancient sacrifices were wholly of a
joyous nature--a merry-making before Jehovah with music" (ibid., p. 81).
We are at once confronted by the question, Where did the Jewish nation come by
such a friendly conception of their deity? They had come out of Egypt, where
human sacrifices were not rare. They had settled in Palestine, where such idyllic
notions must have been as strange as in modern Ashantee. And we are told that
human sacrifices (such as that of Isaac and of Jephthah's daughter) belong to this
older period (p. 69). Are they joyous and festive? are they not an endeavour, by the
offering up of something precious, to reconcile a Being Who is estranged? With our
knowledge of what existed in Israel in the period confessed to be historical, and of
the meaning of sacrifices all around in the period supposed to be mythical, and with
the admission that human sacrifices must be taken into account, it is startling to be
asked to believe that Hebrew sacrifices, with all their solemn import and all their
freight of Christian symbolism, were originally no more than a gift to the Deity of a
part of some happy banquet.
It is quite plain that no such theory can be reconciled with the story of the first
passover. And accordingly this is declared to be non-historical, and to have
originated in the time of the later kings. The offering of the firstborn is only "the
expression of thankfulness to the Deity for fruitful flocks and herds. If claim is also
laid to the human firstborn, this is merely a later generalisation" (Wellhausen, p.
88).(21)
But this claim is by no means the only stumbling-block in the way of the theory,
serious a stumbling-block though it be. How came the bright festival to be spoiled by
bitter herbs and "bread of affliction"? Is it natural that a merry feast should grow
more austere as time elapses? Do we not find it hard enough to prevent the most
sacred festivals from reversing the supposed process, and degenerating into revels?
And is not this the universal experience, from San Francisco to Bombay? Why was
the mandate given to sprinkle the door of every house with blood, if the story
originated after the feast had been centralised in Jerusalem, when, in fact, this

precept had to be set aside as impracticable, their homes being at a distance? Why,
again, were they bidden to slaughter the lamb "between the two evenings" (Exodus
12:6)--that is to say, between sunset and the fading out of the light--unless the story
was written long before such numbers had to be dealt with that the priests began to
slaughter early in the afternoon, and continued until night? Why did the narrative
set forth that every man might slaughter for his own house (a custom which still
existed in the time of Hezekiah, when the Levites only slaughtered "the passovers"
for those who were not ceremonially clean, 2 Chronicles 30:17), if there were no
stout and strong historical foundation for the older method?
Stranger still, why was the original command invented, that the lamb should be
chosen and separated four days before the feast? There is no trace of any intention
that this precept should apply to the first passover alone. It is somewhat unexpected
there, interrupting the hurry and movement of the narrative with an interval of
quiet expectation, not otherwise hinted at, which we comprehend and value when
discovered, rather than anticipate in advance. It is the very last circumstance which
the Priestly Code would have invented, when the time which could be conveniently
spent upon a pilgrimage was too brief to suffer the custom to be perpetuated. The
selection of the lamb upon the tenth day, the slaying of it at home, the striking of the
blood upon the door, and the use of hyssop, as in other sacrifices, with which to
sprinkle it, whether upon door or altar; the eating of the feast standing, with staff in
hand and girded loins; the application only to one day of the precept to eat no
leavened bread, and the sharing in the feast by all, without regard to ceremonial
defilement,--all these are cardinal differences between the first passover and later
ones. Can we be blind to their significance? Even a drastic revision of the story, such
as some have fancied, would certainly have expunged every divergence upon points
so capital as these. or could any evidence of the antiquity of the institution be
clearer than its existence in a form, the details of which have had to be so boldly
modified under the pressure of the exigencies of the later time.
Taking, then, the narrative as it stands, we place ourselves by an effort of the
historical imagination among those to whom Moses gave his instructions, and ask
what emotions are excited as we listen.
Certainly no light and joyous feeling that we are going to celebrate a feast, and
share our good things with our deity. ay, but an alarmed surprise. Hitherto,
among the admonitory and preliminary plagues of Egypt, Israel had enjoyed a
painless and unbought exemption. The murrain had not slain their cattle, nor the
locusts devoured their land, nor the darkness obscured their dwellings. Such
admonitions they needed not. But now the judgment itself is impending, and they
learn that they, like the Egyptians whom they have begun to despise, are in danger
from the destroying angel. The first paschal feast was eaten by no man with a light
heart. Each listened for the rustling of awful wings, and grew cold, as under the eyes
of the death which was, even then, scrutinising his lintels and his doorposts.
And this would set him thinking that even a gracious God, Who had "come down"
to save him from his tyrants, discerned in him grave reasons for displeasure, since

his acceptance, while others died, was not of course. His own conscience would then
quickly tell him what some at least of those reasons were.
But he would also learn that the exemption which he did not possess by right
(although a son of Abraham) he might obtain through grace. The goodness of God
did not pronounce him safe, but it pointed out to him a way of salvation. He would
scarcely observe, so entirely was it a matter of course, that this way must be of
God's appointment and not of his own invention--that if he devised much more
costly, elaborate and imposing ceremonies to replace those which Moses taught him,
he would perish like any Egyptian who devised nothing, but simply cowered under
the shadow of the impending doom.
or was the salvation without price. It was not a prayer nor a fast which bought it,
but a life. The conviction that a redemption was necessary if God should be at once
just and a justifier of the ungodly sprang neither from a later hairsplitting logic, nor
from a methodising theological science; it really lay upon the very surface of this
and every offering for sin, as distinguished from those offerings which expressed the
gratitude of the accepted.
We have not far to search for evidence that the lamb was really regarded as a
substitute and ransom. The assertion is part and parcel of the narrative itself. For,
in commemoration of this deliverance, every firstborn of Israel, whether of man or
beast, was set apart unto the Lord. The words are, "Thou shall cause to PASS
OVER unto the Lord all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast
that cometh of a beast; the males shall be the Lord's" (Exodus 13:12). What, then,
should be done with the firstborn of a creature unfit for sacrifice? It should be
replaced by a clean offering, and then it was said to be redeemed. Substitution or
death was the inexorable rule. "Every firstborn of an ass thou shalt redeem with a
lamb, and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck." The meaning of
this injunction is unmistakable. But it applies also to man: "All thy firstborn of man
among thy sons thou shalt redeem." And when their sons should ask "What
meaneth this?" they were to explain that when Pharaoh hardened himself against
letting them go from Egypt, "the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land; ... therefore
I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the womb being males; but all the firstborn of
my sons I redeem" (Exodus 13:12-15).
Words could not more plainly assert that the lives of the firstborn of Israel were
forfeited, that they were bought back by the substitution of another creature, which
died instead, and that the transaction answered to the Passover ("thou shalt cause to
pass over unto the Lord"). Presently the tribe of Levi was taken "instead of all the
firstborn of the children of Israel." But since there were two hundred and seventy-
three of such firstborn children over and above the number of the Levites, it became
necessary to "redeem" these; and this was actually done by a cash payment of five
shekels apiece. Of this payment the same phrase is used: it is "redemption-money"--
the money wherewith the odd number of them is redeemed ( umbers 3:44-51).
The question at present is not whether modern taste approves of all this, or resents

it: we are simply inquiring whether an ancient Jew was taught to think of the lamb
as offered in his stead.
And now let it be observed that this idea has sunk deep into all the literature of
Palestine. The Jews are not so much the beloved of Jehovah as His redeemed--"Thy
people whom Thou hast redeemed" (1 Chronicles 17:21). In fresh troubles the
prayer is, "Redeem Israel, O Lord" (Psalms 25:22), and the same word is often used
where we have ignored the allusion and rendered it "Deliver me because of mine
enemies ... deliver me from the oppression of men" (Psalms 69:18, Psalms 119:134).
And the future troubles are to end in a deliverance of the same kind: "The
ransomed of the Lord shall return and come with singing unto Zion" (Isaiah 35:10,
Isaiah 51:11); and at the last "I will ransom them from the power of the grave"
(Hosea 13:14). In all these places, the word is the same as in this narrative.
It is not too much to say that if modern theology were not affected by this ancient
problem, if we regarded the creed of the Hebrews simply as we look at the
mythologies of other peoples, there would be no more doubt that the early Jews
believed in propitiatory sacrifice than that Phoenicians did. We should simply
admire the purity, the absence of cruel and degrading accessories, with which this
most perilous and yet humbling and admonitory doctrine was held in Israel.
The Christian applications of this doctrine must be considered along with the whole
question of the typical character of the history. But it is not now premature to add,
that even in the Old Testament there is abundant evidence that the types were semi-
transparent, and behind them something greater was discerned, so that after it was
written "Bring no more vain oblations," Isaiah could exclaim, "The Lord hath laid
on Him the iniquity of us all. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. When Thou
shalt make His soul a trespass-offering He shall see His seed" (Isaiah 1:13, Isaiah
53:6-7, Isaiah 53:10). And the full power of this last verse will only be felt when we
remember the statement made elsewhere of the principle which underlay the
sacrifices: "the life (or soul) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life" (or "soul"-- Leviticus 17:11, R.V.) It is even
startling to read the two verses together: "Thou shalt make His soul a trespass-
offering;" "The blood maketh atonement by reason of the soul ... the soul of the
flesh is in the blood."(22)
It is still more impressive to remember that a Servant of Jehovah has actually arisen
in Whom this doctrine has assumed a form acceptable to the best and holiest
intellects and consciences of ages and civilisations widely remote from that in which
it was conceived.
Another doctrine preached by the passover to every Jew was that he must be a
worker together with God, must himself use what the Lord pointed out, and his own
lintels and doorposts must openly exhibit the fact that he laid claim to the benefit of
the institution of the Lord Jehovah's passover. With what strange feelings, upon the
morrow, did the orphaned people of Egypt discover the stain of blood on the

forsaken houses of all their emancipated slaves!
The lamb having been offered up to God, a new stage in the symbolism is entered
upon. The body of the sacrifice, as well as the blood, is His: "Ye shall eat it in haste,
it is the Lord's passover" (Exodus 12:11). Instead of being a feast of theirs, which
they share with Him, it is an offering of which, when the blood has been sprinkled
on the doors, He permits His people, now accepted and favoured, to partake. They
are His guests; and therefore He prescribes all the manner of their eating, the
attitude so expressive of haste, and the unleavened "bread of affliction" and bitter
herbs, which told that the object of this feast was not the indulgence of the flesh but
the edification of the spirit, "a feast unto the Lord."
And in the strength of this meat they are launched upon their new career, freemen,
pilgrims of God, from Egyptian bondage to a Promised Land.
It is now time to examine the chapter in more detail, and gather up such points as
the preceding discussion has not reached.
(Exodus 12:1.) The opening words, "Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron in the
land of Egypt," have all the appearance of opening a separate document, and
suggest, with certain other evidence, the notion of a fragment written very shortly
after the event, and afterwards incorporated into the present narrative. And they
are, in the same degree, favourable to the authenticity of the book.
(Exodus 12:2.) The commandment to link their emancipation with a festival, and
with the calendar, is the earliest example and the sufficient vindication of sacred
festivals, which, even yet, some persons consider to be superstitious and judaical.
But it is a strange doctrine that the Passover deserved honour better than Easter
does, or that there is anything more servile and unchristian in celebrating the birth
of all the hopes of all mankind than in commemorating one's own birth.
(Exodus 12:5.) The selection of a lamb for a sacrifice so quickly became universal,
that there is no trace anywhere of the use of a kid in place of it. The alternative is
therefore an indication of antiquity, while the qualities required--innocent youth
and the absence of blemish, were sure to suggest a typical significance. For, if they
were merely to enhance its value, why not choose a costlier animal?
Various meanings have been discovered in the four days during which it was
reserved; but perhaps the true object was to give time for deliberation, for the
solemnity and import of the institution to fill the minds of the people; time also for
preparation, since the night itself was one of extreme haste, and prompt action can
only be obtained by leisurely anticipation. We have Scriptural authority for
applying it to the Antitype, Who also was foredoomed, "the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).
But now it has to be observed that throughout the poetic literature the people is
taught to think of itself as a flock of sheep. "Thou leddest Thy people like a flock by

the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Psalms 77:20); "We are Thy people and the sheep
of Thy pasture" (Psalms 79:13); "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Isaiah 53:6);
"Ye, O My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men" (Ezekiel 34:31); "The Lord of
hosts hath visited His flock" (Zechariah 10:3). All such language would make more
easy the conception that what replaced the forfeited life was in some sense,
figuratively, in the religious idea, a kindred victim. One who offered a lamb as his
substitute sang "The Lord is my shepherd." "I have gone astray like a lost sheep"
(Psalms 23:1; Psalms 119:176).
(Exodus 12:3, Exodus 12:6.) Very instructive it is that this first sacrifice of Judaism
could be offered by all the heads of houses. We have seen that the Levites were
presently put into the place of the eldest son, but also that this function was
exercised down to the time of Hezekiah by all who were ceremonially clean, whereas
the opposite holds good, immediately afterwards, in the great passover of Josiah (2
Chronicles 30:17, 2 Chronicles 35:11).
It is impossible that this incongruity could be devised, for the sake of plausibility, in
a narrative which rested on no solid basis. It goes far to establish what has been so
anxiously denied--the reality of the centralised worship in the time of Hezekiah. And
it also establishes the great doctrine that priesthood was held not by a superior
caste, but on behalf of the whole nation, in whom it was theoretically vested, and for
whom the priest acted, so that they were "a nation of priests."
(Exodus 12:8.) The use of unleavened bread is distinctly said to be in
commemoration of their haste--"for thou camest out of Egypt in haste"
(Deuteronomy 16:3)--but it does not follow that they were forced by haste to eat
their bread unleavened at the first. It was quite as easy to prepare leavened bread as
to provide the paschal lamb four days previously.
We may therefore seek for some further explanation, and this we find in the same
verse in Deuteronomy, in the expression "bread of affliction." They were to receive
the meat of passover with a reproachful sense of their unworthiness: humbly, with
bread of affliction and with bitter herbs.
Moreover, we learn from St. Paul that unleavened bread represents simplicity and
truth; and our Lord spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (Mark 8:15).
And this is not only because leaven was supposed to be of the same nature as
corruption. We ourselves always mean something unworthy when we speak of
mixed motives, possible though it be to act from two motives, both of them high-
minded. ow, leaven represents mixture in its most subtle and penetrating form.
The paschal feast did not express any such luxurious and sentimental religionism as
finds in the story of the cross an easy joy, or even a delicate and pleasing stimulus
for the softer emotions, "a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and
playeth well on an instrument." o, it has vigour and nourishment for those who
truly hunger, but its bread is unfermented, and it must be eaten with bitter herbs.

(Exodus 12:9.) Many Jewish sacrifices were "sodden," but this had to be roast with
fire. It may have been to represent suffering that this was enjoined. But it comes to
us along with a command to consume all the flesh, reserving none and rejecting
none. ow, though boiling does not mutilate, it dissipates; a certain amount of tissue
is lost, more is relaxed, and its cohesion rendered feeble; and so the duty of its
complete reception is accentuated by the words "not sodden at all with water." or
should it be a barbarous feast, such as many idolatries encouraged: true religion
civilises; "eat not of it at all raw."
(Exodus 12:10.) or should any of it be left until the morning. At the first
celebration, with a hasty exodus impending, this would have involved exposure to
profanation. In later times it might have involved superstitious abuses. And
therefore the same rule is laid down which the Church of England has carried on
for the same reasons into the Communion feast--that all must be consumed. or can
we fail to see an ideal fitness in the precept. Of the gift of God we may not select
what gratifies our taste or commends itself to our desires; all is good; all must be
accepted; a partial reception of His grace is no valid reception at all.
(Exodus 12:12.) In describing the coming wrath, we understand the inclusion
equally of innocent and guilty men, because it is thus that all national vengeance
operates; and we receive the benefits of corporate life at the cost, often heavy, of its
penalties. The animal world also has to suffer with us; the whole creation groaneth
together now, and all expects together the benefit of our adoption hereafter. But
what were the judgments against the idols of Egypt, which this verse predicts, and
another ( umbers 33:4) declares to be accomplished? They doubtless consisted
chiefly in the destruction of sacred animals, from the beetle and the frog to the holy
ox of Apis--from the cat, the monkey, and the dog, to the lion, the hippopotamus,
and the crocodile. In their overthrow a blow was dealt which shook the whole
system to its foundation; for how could the same confidence be felt in sacred images
when all the sacred beasts had once been slain by a rival invisible Spiritual Being!
And more is implied than that they should share the common desolation: the text
says plainly, of men and beasts the firstborn must die, but all of these. The
difference in the phrase is obvious and indisputable; and in its fulfilment all Egypt
saw the act of a hostile and victorious deity.
(Exodus 12:13.) "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where
ye are." That it was a token to the destroying angel we see plainly; but why to them?
Is it enough to explain the assertion, with some, as meaning, upon their behalf?
Rather let us say that the publicity, the exhibition upon their doorposts of the
sacrifice offered within, was not to inform and guide the angel, but to edify the
people. They should perform an open act of faith. Their houses should be visibly set
apart. "With the mouth confession" (of faith) "is made unto salvation," unto that
deliverance from a hundred evasions and equivocations, and as many inward
doubts and hesitations, which comes when any decisive act is done, when the die is
cast and the Rubicon crossed. A similar effect upon the mind, calming and steadying
it, was produced when the Israelite carried out the blood of the lamb, and by
sprinkling it upon the doorpost formally claimed his exemption, and returned with

the consciousness that between him and the imminent death a visible barrier
interposed itself.
Will any one deny that a similar help is offered to us of the later Church in our
many opportunities of avowing a fixed and personal belief? Whoever refuses to
comply with an unholy custom because he belongs to Christ, whoever joins heartily
in worship at the cost of making himself remarkable, whoever nerves himself to
kneel at the Holy Table although he feels himself unworthy, that man has broken
through many snares; he has gained assurance that his choice of God is a reality: he
has shown his flag; and this public avowal is not only a sign to others, but also a
token to himself.
But this is only half the doctrine of this action. What he should thus openly avow
was his trust (as we have shown) in atoning blood.
And in the day of our peril what shall be our reliance? That our doors are trodden
by orthodox visitants only? that the lintels are clean, and the inhabitants temperate
and pure? or that the Blood of Christ has cleansed our conscience?
Therefore (Exodus 12:22) the blood was sprinkled with hyssop, of which the light
and elastic sprays were admirably suited for such use, but which was reserved in the
Law for those sacrifices which expiated sin (Leviticus 14:49; umbers 19:18-19).
And therefore also none should go forth out of his house until the morning, for we
are not to content ourselves with having once invoked the shelter of God: we are to
abide under its protection while danger lasts.
And (Exodus 12:23) upon the condition of this marking of their doorposts the Lord
should pass over their houses. The phrase is noteworthy, because it recurs
throughout the narrative, being employed nine times in this chapter; and because
the same word is found in Isaiah, again in contrast with the ruin of others, and with
an interesting and beautiful expansion of the hovering poised notion which belongs
to the word.(23)
Repeated commandments are given to parents to teach the meaning of this
institution to their children, (Exodus 12:26, Exodus 13:8). And there is something
almost cynical in the notion of a later mythologist devising this appeal to a tradition
which had no existence at all; enrolling, in support of his new institutions, the
testimony (which had never been borne) of fathers who had never taught any story
of the kind.
On the other hand, there is something idyllic and beautiful in the minute instruction
given to the heads of families to teach their children, and in the simple words put
into their mouths, "It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came
forth out of Egypt." It carries us forward to these weary days when children
scarcely see the face of one who goes out to labour before they are awake, and
returns exhausted when their day is over, and who himself too often needs the most
elementary instruction, these heartless days when the teaching of religion devolves,

in thousands of families, upon the stranger who instructs, for one hour in the week,
a class in Sunday-school. The contrast is not reassuring.
When all these instructions were given to Israel, the people bowed their heads and
worshipped. The bones of most of them were doomed to whiten in the wilderness.
They perished by serpents and by "the destroyer"; they fell in one day three-and-
twenty thousand, because they were discontented and rebellious and unholy. And
yet they could adore the gracious Giver of promises and Slayer of foes. They would
not obey, but they were quite ready to accept benefits, to experience deliverance, to
become the favourites of heaven, to march to Palestine. So are too many fain to be
made happy, to find peace, to taste the good word of God and the powers of the age
to come, to go to heaven. But they will not take up a cross. They will murmur if the
well is bitter, if they have no flesh but only angels' food, if the goodly land is
defended by powerful enemies.
On these terms, they cannot be Christ's disciples.
It is apparently the mention of a mixed multitude, who came with Israel out of
Egypt, which suggests the insertion, in a separate and dislocated paragraph, of the
law of the passover concerning strangers (Exodus 12:38, Exodus 12:43-49).
An alien was not to eat thereof: it belonged especially to the covenant people. But
who was a stranger? A slave should be circumcised and eat thereof; for it was one of
the benignant provisions of the law that there should not be added, to the many
severities of his condition, any religious disabilities. The time would come when all
nations should be blessed in the seed of Abraham. In that day the poor would
receive a special beatitude; and in the meantime, as the first indication of catholicity
beneath the surface of an exclusive ritual, it was announced, foremost among those
who should be welcomed within the fold, that a slave should be circumcised and eat
the passover.
And if a sojourner desired to eat thereof, he should be mindful of his domestic
obligations: all his males should be circumcised along with him, and then his
disabilities were at an end. Surely we can see in these provisions the germ of the
broader and more generous welcome which Christ offers to the world. Let it be
added that this admission of strangers had been already implied at Exodus 12:19;
while every form of coercion was prohibited by the words "a sojourner and a hired
servant shall not eat of it," in Exodus 12:45.
PARKER, "The Preservation of the Israelites
Exodus 12:1-20
During the plague of hail,—when the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all
that was in the field, both man and beast, when the fire ran along upon the ground
and the hail was so grievous that there had been none like it in all the land of Egypt
since it became a nation,—"Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel

were, was there no hail"—"The Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians
and Israel." After the plague of hail came the plague of darkness. It was a darkness
that night be felt. "There was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days,"
during which period the people "saw not one another, neither rose any from his
place." In the midst of this darkness "all the children of Israel had light in their
dwellings"—"The Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."
After the plague of darkness came a still more terrible midnight, the midnight in
which the firstborn of Egypt were destroyed. But in view of that infinite darkness
the Lord changed the beginning of the year. He changes the beginnings of time now.
He will not have your history reckoned from your fleshly birthday, but from the day
when you were born again. On the tenth day of the new year every man in Israel
took a lamb, "a lamb for an house,"—a lamb without blemish, either a sheep or a
goat. So a touch of grace is in this technical regulation. On the fourteenth day—four
days having elapsed, during which the lamb would be examined to see if there were
spot or blemish in his flesh—the lamb was killed in the evening, and each family
took of the blood and struck it on the two side posts and on the upper doorpost of
the houses wherein the lamb was eaten. The sign was blood: the blood was a token
upon the houses,—"and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and the plague
shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." So in hail
there was dryness; in darkness there was light; in destruction there was
preservation—"The Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."
To explain the detail is not in human power, but to me the detail is a small mystery
compared with the greater problem that these trifling acts of mitigation still left the
people themselves in the cruel bondage of Egypt. They were dry in the midst of the
hail, but they were not the less in bondage; they had lights in their houses, but their
houses themselves were prisons; they were not killed in sudden judgment—the very
suddenness of which is mercy;—but they died the slow and sevenfold death of
studied cruelty. If I had read all this in an ancient book written by an author
unknown, I should have been staggered by its romance, and strongly disposed
towards unbelief. But it is not written in an ancient book; it is not a romance by an
anonymous author; it is not a weird poem written by a poet who plucked his feather
from the pinion of a flying eagle and madly dipped it in some sea of sulphur. It is a
picture of our own life; it is stiff prose, hard as facts, true to the lines which give
definiteness to every day. We may give up every one of the descriptive words and
leave in its splendid integrity the internal doctrine. The fear is that the critic should
never get beyond the door of the words, simply because he is a critic only within a
narrow compass. The great and solemn question to be put by every reader is this:—
What is the purpose of the description? What is the moral truth which the
description is intended to picture and convey? Having seized the spiritual teaching,
all that is external and decorative may be traced to national habits of expression—
perhaps to Oriental exaggeration. Our business does not end with the language, but
with the inner truth which that language was intended vividly to represent. In the
light of this canon of interpretation let me repeat that this whole incident, turning
upon the differences which it represents between men, is part of our own history,
and the whole drama is passing before our own eyes,—yes, through the very centre
of our own houses and dwelling-places. See if this be not so.

Is it an experience quite unknown that the most terrific and overwhelming flood
should be kept back from some part of our life and hope? Is it a universal deluge?
The flood was very tempestuous; it seemed to break upon the poor life from every
point; but now that we have had time to look at the whole case, what is the reality?
Was nothing left untouched? Was there not some little ark sailing quietly on the
great water? Is there any man who can say, "The flood utterly destroyed me;
nothing was left,—no token of mercy, no sign of the Divine providence, no
expression of heavenly care; the ruin was total, absolute, overwhelming and
irreparable"? Can we not say,—"The ruin was very great, but, thank God, the
sweet child was left: in Goshen"s land we had that gracious comfort"? Or can we
not say,—"Amidst it all our health was wonderfully preserved"? or "Reason never
staggered"? or "In the midst of all there was a strange peace, deeper than any
measured sea in the very centre of the heart"? Can we not say,—"In the midst of all
there was a sanctuary, there was a stairway leading straight up into the heavens"?
Once discover that fact, and see how natural it is to express it in poetic form. Cold
prose is not fit for this holy service. We will speak of it rapturously, poetically: with
exaggeration to the man who does not understand the experience. We will say that a
chamber was found for us in the steeps of the mountain whilst the valleys were
engulphed by the roaring flood. We will say that in the sunlit cloud of heaven we
rested whilst the thunder-rains flashed and foamed far under our uplifted feet; and
in our rapture we may feel as if heaven itself had warmly curtained us whilst the
earth was drowned in seas of rain. The imagery is not the point; the mere verbal
expression has next to nothing to do with the reality of the case,—except that it must
ever be an effort to express the inexpressible. Our boldest metaphors, our fiercest
eloquence must be but a dim symbol indicative of the infinite, the unutterable, the
profound and eternal. The temptation is to wrestle with the words, to raise a
controversy where no battle is needed, and where battle indeed is wholly out of
place. The one inquiry which should urge itself upon the mind is:—What is the
reality? What is it that occasions the poetry? Why this use of brilliant colour?—and
we shall find in reply to that inquiry that the reason is that God, though terrible in
judgment, has yet given us dryness in the midst of the storm, a quiet resting-place
amid the tumult of the seas; a hiding chamber, a sanctuary stronger than rock,
amidst all the transient and mutable—all that could be upset and filled with the
spirit of ruin.
Then again is it an experience quite unknown that, amidst darkest darkness, there
has yet remained to Christian hearts some ray of tender light—a lustrous edging of
a cloud vast as the span of heaven? The experience is familiar; we can all testify to
it,—that in the very blackest night we have at least supposed we could see some star
battling its way to us as if bearing messages of hope. Who has been stripped utterly?
What Job is there who has been so impoverished as to have taken away from his
soul the desire to pray? That being left, all is left,—a clear, dry way up to the
throne, and nothing is lost. In the consciousness that full and bold access can be had
to the Father poverty is wealth; loss is gain; weakness is immortal strength. ever
have I met a man that has not had upon him some little token that God had not
absolutely forsaken him:—some of his old friends were living: his memory was
unusually quick in bringing up incidents of the gone time which warmed him like

Exodus 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Exodus 12 commentary

Similar to Exodus 12 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exodus 12 commentary