The document discusses Exodus 12, detailing Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage, including the Passover, the tenth plague, and the Israelites' departure from Egypt. It emphasizes that the Passover was divinely instituted by God and distinct from pagan practices, while also outlining the ten plagues as a demonstration of God's power over Pharaoh and Egyptian gods. The narrative is structured with significant patterns and repetitions that highlight God's sovereignty and the monotheistic perspective of the author.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. (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).

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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:

9. 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-

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.]

16. ". . . 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. (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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. (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

29. 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,

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. prophecies: stress and agony had forced to his lips some new and surprising
eloquence of prayer. In some cases the sufferer has said,—"I would not have been
without that affliction, now that I see the whole case, before I was afflicted I went
astray; I have seen in darkness what I never could see in the common daylight; I
bless God for the night, for if the sun had always glared upon me I had not known
that "the floor of heaven is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold."" Once let the
mind seize that fact, and instantly there will be a light in the habitations above the
brightness of the sun,—a glory humbling the pomp of summer, a splendour which
angels might wish to see,—a miracle wrought in light. Then the heart will invent
words. The heart is not to be silenced by the taunt of exaggeration. The mean man
who never felt the throb of a noble passion shall not be invested with power to put
down the rapture of souls that are aflame with thankfulness. There is a danger in
this, however. There are some men who never warm. They are not children of the
sun,—no music can thrill them, no colour can bring tears to their eyes,—a sunset is
upon them a wasted miracle. The boldness of the Bible is seen in that it is never
afraid to put the case in exactly opposite light and with exactly opposite bearing.
Sometimes all the advantage is upon the side of the ungodly. The Psalmist was not
afraid to say respecting those who made themselves their own gods,—"They are not
in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride
compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment."
So the Bible does not shrink from changing the ground entirely and representing the
exactly reverse picture of that which is presented in the Book of Exodus in relation
to the children of Israel. How is this?—because the Book is true,—true at the core,
true in its purpose and meaning,—bearing upon it all the colours of all the ages
through which it has passed; but the root is the same, drawing its nutriment and its
force from the very heart of the Divine power.
As to the sprinkled blood, have we no feeling of its relation and sublimity? Do we
part company with the historian here, saying we have no corresponding experience?
We do touch the historic spirit in the matter of protection from the overwhelming
flood, and of having some gleam of light in the midst of surrounding darkness; but
when the lamb is provided a language is spoken which has no interpretation to our
souls,—here we fall out of the music, having no answering harmony in our own
experience.
Was not a Lamb slain for us also? Here silence is better than speech. We worship
him who by his own blood entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us. We are redeemed not with corruptible things as silver and gold,
but with the precious blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the
world. He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter; he hath redeemed us to God by
his own blood. Why here we seem to have still larger confirmatory experience. This
is our hope in the day of judgment. ot that we have been moral, clever, free from
public charge; but that the sprinkled blood is upon the poorest of our forfeited lives.
When the angels shall come to execute the Divine judgment what is our hope? That
we were not so immoral as some other man? If that is all, there is no blood in the
mean, frivolous speech. That we have kept ourselves from the cognisance of the

34. magistrate and the penalty of the national law? By such protestations and
felicitations we may but aggravate the guilt which is at once our burden and our
curse. What then is our hope? The Lamb—the Lamb slain—the Lamb of the
precious blood. Can we explain it? Thank God, no. We cannot explain the sin,—how
then can we explain the remedy? We feel it, and we know it by feeling. The highest
knowledge comes to us not along the narrow way of the intellect, but through the
broad thoroughfares of the responsive and sympathetic heart. We keep ourselves
outside the sanctuary because we will only have the intellect satisfied with all its
vain questionings, and curious analyses and propositions, whereas it is the heart
that must enter. The intellect as a clever, boastful, self-idolatrous faculty must be
left outside, and only the heart come within the sanctuary of the Divine forgiveness
and the Divine complacency,—the broken heart, the contrite heart, the heart that
has no speech in self-defence, but that yields itself into the hands of the loving
Saviour to be treated by his grace, not daring to encounter his judgment.
We are not ashamed of this word blood. We are not to be driven away from it
because some minds have debased the term, having taken out of it all its highest
symbolism and noblest suggestion. We speak not of blood merely as it is commonly
understood, but of blood as the life, the love, the heart,—the whole quality of
Deity—a mystery in words having no answer in speech. Is the blood upon the house
of my life? Is the blood upon the doorpost of my dwelling-place? Have I put up
against the Divine judgment some hand of self-protection? Verily, it will be
swallowed up in the great visitation. In that time nothing will stand but the blood
which God himself has chosen as a token and a memorial. "The blood of Jesus
Christ, God"s Song of Solomon , cleanseth from all sin." There is a fountain opened
in the house of David for sin and for uncleanness. Do not attempt to bar iron
window, to close iron door, to protect yourself against the judgments of God. All we
can do will be overwhelmed in the Divine visitation. We must allow God to find his
own answer to his own judgments.
That is the attitude which God will respect. A looking in any other direction will be
regarded as an aggravation of our offence; but a hopeful, tender, trustful looking
towards the Cross will keep back the thunder, and God will spare us when he makes
inquisition for blood.
PETT, "Verses 1-4
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

35. 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.
Yahweh’s Explanation to Moses and Aaron Concerning the First Passover (Exodus
12:1-14).
ote that it is a direct address by Yahweh to Moses and Aaron to be passed on to
His people.
a The moon period of Abib is from now on to be the beginning of months to
them, the first moon period of the festal year (Exodus 12:1-2).
b On the tenth day of this month the head of the family is to take for each
family a lamb/kid, one lamb/kid per household. If a household is too small to be able
to eat a whole lamb/kid then two households may join together. The lamb/kid must
be without blemish, a year old male, and either a sheep or a goat (Exodus 12:3-5).
c It shall be kept by each household until the fourteenth day of the moon
period (around the full moon) and the whole of the gathering of Israel will each kill
their lamb/kid between the two evenings (Exodus 12:6).
d And they shall take the blood and put it on the side posts and on the
overhead lintel, on the houses in which they eat of it (Exodus 12:7).
e And they shall eat its flesh, roasted with fire, along with unleavened bread
and bitter herbs. They must not eat it raw, or sodden with water, but roasted with
fire (Exodus 12:8).
e Its head and its legs and innards. They must let nothing of it remain until the
morning, and what remains of it in the morning must be burned with fire (Exodus
12:9-10).
d And they will eat it with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, their
staff in their hand, and with haste. For it is Yahweh’s Passover (Exodus 12:11).
c For Yahweh will go through the land of Egypt that night and will smite all
the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, and will execute judgment
against all the gods of Egypt. For He is Yahweh (Exodus 12:12).
b And the blood will be a token on the houses where they are, and when
Yahweh sees the blood He will pass over them, and no plague will come on them to
destroy them, when He smites the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:13).
a And this day is to be a memorial and kept as a feast to Yahweh. Throughout
their generations they will keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever (Exodus 12:14).
We note the parallels found in this solemn account. In ‘a’ the moon period of Abib is
to be fixed for each year, and in the parallel the fourteenth day of that moon period
is to be observed for ever. In ‘b’ the households gather and make ready a lamb/kid,
and in the parallel those households are safe from Yahweh as He passes over and
smites the land of Egypt. In ‘c’ the Passover lamb/kid is slain and in the parallel the
firstborn of the land of Egypt are slain. In ‘d’ the blood is put as a token on the
outside of the houses where they ‘will eat it’ and in the parallel the people ‘will eat
it’ waiting to depart and fitted to leave on their journey in haste. In ‘e’ the
provisions for eating it are described, and in the parallel the fact that all must be
consumed.

36. Exodus 12:1
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying, “This month
shall be to you the beginning of months, it shall be the first month of the year to
you.”
This is a turning point in the book. It was a moment of huge historical importance,
for in this month Israel’s deliverance was to be achieved. Thus there is the specific
declaration of a new beginning. From this day on life was to be seen as having begun
in this month because it was in it that their deliverance from Egypt, ready for their
reception of their future inheritance, commenced. It was in fact the month of Abib
(Exodus 13:4), the month in which the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated
(Exodus 23:15). Later in Canaan they would celebrate the agricultural ew Year in
the Autumn because then the harvest was over and the new round of nature was to
begin, but even so this probably continued to be the ew Year religiously speaking,
for it commenced the round of feasts that led finally up to Tabernacles. This was the
official calendar. The other simply one observed because of the nature of things. It
was only later that that would become official (they did not think in strict calendar
terms as we do).
“In the land of Egypt.” It is specifically stressed that this passover feast with its
unique emphasis was instituted in the land of Egypt. The connection with Egypt is
stressed again in two passages which are specifically stated to have been written by
Moses (Exodus 34:18 with Exodus 12:25 compare 23:15 with Exodus 12:18).
LA GE, "Exodus 12:1 sqq. Institution of the Passover. As Christendom reckons its
years according to the salvation in Christ, so the Israelites were to reckon the
months of the year from the first month of their redemption. The first month, in
which the redemption took place, Abib (month of green ears) or isan, was to
become the first month of their year. Hereby likewise the feast of the Passover was
to be made the foundation of all the Jewish feasts, and the Passover sacrifice the
foundation of all the various kinds of offering. The feast, however, becomes a double
one. The Passover, as the feast of redemption, lasts, together with the day of
preparation, only one night; the least of unleavened bread (including the Passover)
seven days. Since the feast of the great day of atonement also coalesces with the feast
of tabernacles which follows close upon it, it would seem that the feast of Pentecost
also, as the feast of ingathering, requires to be coupled with something. The
institution of the feast of the Passover, connected with the announcement of the
destruction of the first-born of Egypt, is narrated in Exodus 12:1-14; in15–20 the
institution of the feast of unleavened bread. The two feasts, however, are so
thoroughly blended into one, that the whole feast may be called either the Passover,
or the feast of unleavened bread. The festival as a whole signifies separation from
the corruption of Egypt, this being a symbol of the corruption of the world. The
foundation of the whole consists in the divine act of redemption celebrated by the
Passover. The result consists in the act of the Israelites, the removal of the leaven,
which denotes community with Egyptian principles (Vid. Comm. on Matthew,
pp245, 289). We have here, therefore, a typical purification based on a typical

37. redemption
BI 1-2, "The beginning of months.
A new start
I. The idea of a new start is naturally attractive to all of us. We are fatigued, we are
dissatisfied, and justly so, with the time past of our lives. We long for a gift of amnesty
and oblivion.
II. There are senses in which this is impossible. The continuity of life cannot be broken.
There is a continuity, a unity, an identity, which annihilation only could destroy.
III. “The beginning of months” is made so by an exodus. Redemption is the groundwork
of the new life. If there is in any of us a real desire for change, we must plant our feet
firmly on redemption.
IV. When we get out of Egypt, we must remember that there is still Sinai in front, with
its thunderings and voices. We have to be schooled by processes not joyous but grievous.
These processes cannot be hurried, they must take time. Here we must expect everything
that is changeful, and unresting, and unreposeful, within as without. But He who has
promised will perform. He who has redeemed will save. He who took charge will also
bring through. (Dean Vaughan.)
The first month of the year
I. The first month of the year is a good time for religious contemplation and devotion.
Then the flight of time, the events of life, and the mortality of man, may all furnish topics
for reflection. Then especially should the Passover be celebrated, the blood of Christ
anew be sprinkled on the soul; and in this spirit of trust in the Saviour should the year
begin.
II. The first month of the year is eventful in the history of individual and collective life.
How many souls, awakened by the circumstances of life, have been led to the Cross at
this solemn period? What we are then, we are likely to remain throughout the year; we
then get an impulse for good or evil which will affect our moral character to the end. The
first month is the keynote of the year’s moral life. It is the rough sketch of the soul’s life
for the year. We should therefore seek to observe it unto the Lord.
III. The first month of the year is important in its relation to the commercial prospects
of men. The new year may mark the advent of new energy, or it may witness the
continuance of the old indolence. Lessons:
1. That the ordering of months and of years is of God.
2. That the first month must remind us of the advent of the Saviour.
3. That the first month must be consecrated by true devotion.
4. That the Church must pay some attention to the calendar of the Christian year.
5. That God usually by His ministers makes known His mind to His Church. (J. S.
Exell, M. A.)

38. The beginning of months
I want to bring to your mind this fact, that, just as the people of Israel when God gave
them the Passover had a complete shifting and changing of all their dates, and began
their year on quite a different day, so when God gives to His people to eat the spiritual
passover there takes place in their chronology a very wonderful change. Saved men and
women date from the dawn of their true life; not from their first birthday, but from the
day whereto they were born again of the Spirit of God, and entered into the knowledge
and enjoyment of spiritual things.
I. First, then, let us describe this remarkable event, which was henceforth to stand at the
head of the Jewish year, and, indeed, at the commencement of all Israelitish chronology.
1. This event was an act of salvation by blood. The law demands death—“The soul
that sinneth it shall die.” Christ, my Lord, has died in my stead: as it is written, “Who
His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.” Such a sacrifice is more than
even the most rigorous law could demand. “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.”
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”
Therefore do we sit securely within doors, desiring no guard without to drive away
the destroyer; for, when God sees the blood of Jesus He will pass over us.
2. Secondly, that night they received refreshment from the lamb. Being saved by its
blood, the believing households sat down and fed upon the lamb. It was a solemn
feast, a meal of mingled hope and mystery. Do you remember when first you fed
upon Christ, when your hungry spirit enjoyed the first morsel of that food of the
soul? It was dainty fare, was it not?
3. The third event was the purification of their houses from leaven, for that was to go
in a most important way side by side with the sprinkling of the blood and the eating
of the lamb. You cannot feed on Christ and at the same time hold a lie in your right
hand by vain confidence in yourself, or by love of sin. Self and sin must go. This
month is the beginning of months, the first month of the year to us, when the Spirit
of truth purges out the spirit of falsehood.
4. A fourth point in the Passover is not to be forgotten. On the Passover night there
came, as the result of the former things, a wonderful, glorious, and mighty
deliverance. “This month,” etc.
II. Now, secondly, I want to mention the varieties of its recurrence among us at this day.
1. The first recurrense is of course on the personal salvation of each one of us. The
whole of this chapter was transacted in your heart and mine when first we knew the
Lord.
2. But then it happens again in a certain sense when the man’s house is saved.
Remember, this was a family business. A family begins to live in the highest sense
when, as a family, without exception, it has all been redeemed, all sprinkled with the
blood, all made to feed on Jesus, all purged from sin, and all set at liberty to go out of
the domains of sin, bound for the kingdom.
3. Extend the thought—it was not only a family ordinance, but it was for all the tribes
of Israel. There were many families, but in every house the passover was sacrificed.
Would it not be a grand thing if you that employ large numbers of men should ever
be able to gather all together and hopefully say, “I trust that all these understand the
sprinkling of the blood, and all feed upon Christ.”
III. And now I come to show in what light this date is to be regarded, if it has occurred

39. to us in the senses I have mentioned. Primarily, if it has occurred in the first sense to us
personally: what about it then?
1. Why the day in which we first knew the Saviour as the Paschal Lamb should
always be the most honourable day that has ever dawned upon us. Prize the work of
grace beyond all the treasures of Egypt.
2. This date is to be regarded as the beginning of life. Let your conversion be the
burial of the old existence, and as for that which follows after, take care that you
make it real life, worthy of the grace which has quickened you.
3. Our life, beginning as it does at our spiritual passover, and at our feeding upon
Christ, we ought always to regard our conversion as a festival and remember it with
praise. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The beginning of days
If you have no such spiritual new year’s day, now is a good time to secure one. Says old
Thomas Fuller: “Lord, I do discover a fallacy, whereby I have long deceived myself,
which is this: I have desired to begin my amendment from my birthday, or from the first
day of the year, or from some eminent festival, that so my repentance might bear some
remarkable date. But when those days were come, I have adjourned my amendment to
some other time. Thus, whilst I could not agree with myself when to start, I have almost
lost the running of the race. I am resolved thus to befool myself no longer. I see no day
like to-day Grant, therefore, that to-day I may hear Thy voice. And if this day be
remarkable in itself for nothing else, give me to make it memorable in my soul;
thereupon, by Thy assistance, beginning the reformation of my life.” Let this day be the
beginning of months, the first month of the year to you. (H. C. Trumbull.)
The lessons of time
1. Time gives birth to actions.
2. God ordains that certain periods of life shall determine others (Luk_19:44).
3. There is an extension of man’s trial. One chance more.
4. Procrastination ends destructively, Not only thief of time, but also hardener of
men’s hearts.
5. Time will end.
6. The issues of time will last for ever. (British Weekly.)
Turning over a new leaf
The time has come for turning over a new leaf. As the town clock struck midnight of the
last day of the old year divers and sundry resolutions which had lain dormant a long
time, waiting for the New Year to ring its chimes, came forth into new life. They had long
had an existence, these new resolutions had, for in reality they are not new at all, but
quite venerable; for on the first of January of many a past year they have been brought to
the surface. And so the new leaf has been turned over, and on its virgin pages these new

40. resolutions have been written, and, alas! not inscribed for the first time. Were they not
written on the new leaf on the first of January, just a year ago, and the New Year’s day
before that, and can you not go back, and back, and back, till you come to your childhood
and the time when you first began to turn over a new leaf? These new leaves that we are
always turning over—how they accuse us! We write on the newly turned page that we
will do many duties which we have left undone—many duties in the home, the church—
many duties to our friends, our neighbours, duties to God and to ourselves; and how
long is it before there comes a little January gust and blows the leaf back again? and then
all goes on pretty much as before. The trouble with this matter of leaf-turning, of making
good resolutions only to break them, is twofold.
1. The effort is not made in good faith—it is more a whim than a solemn purpose put
into action, and so it is we have altogether too much regard to times and seasons,
and too little to the imperative demand of to-day. Conscience is a court whose fiat is
to be obeyed not on New Year’s day, or Christmas, or on a birthday, but now—on the
instant. A man who defers to execute a right resolution till some particular day has
arrived will be pretty sure not to carry it out at all.
2. Then the second difficulty is that we rely too much upon our own will and too little
upon God’s help. No man can change his own nature or reform himself. He can do
much, if he but will, in the direction of carrying cut a good resolution; but the real
efficient reliance must be God. (Christian Age.)
2 “This month is to be for you the first month, the
first month of your year.
BAR ES, "This month - Abib Exo_13:4. It was called “Nisan” by the later
Hebrews, and nearly corresponds to our April. The Israelites are directed to take Abib
henceforth as the beginning of the year; the year previously began with the month Tisri,
when the harvest was gathered in; see Exo_23:16. The injunction touching Abib or
Nisan referred only to religious rites; in other affairs they retained the old arrangement,
even in the beginning of the Sabbatic year; see Lev_25:9.
CLARKE, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months - It is
supposed that God now changed the commencement of the Jewish year. The month to
which this verse refers, the month Abib, answers to a part of our March and April;
whereas it is supposed that previously to this the year began with Tisri, which answers to
a part of our September; for in this month the Jews suppose God created the world,
when the earth appeared at once with all its fruits in perfection. From this circumstance
the Jews have formed a twofold commencement of the year, which has given rise to a
twofold denomination of the year itself, to which they afterwards attended in all their

41. reckonings: that which began with Tisri or September was called their civil year; that
which began with Abib or March was called the sacred or ecclesiastical year.
As the exodus of the Israelites formed a particular era, which is referred to in Jewish
reckonings down to the building of the temple, I have marked it as such in the
chronology in the margin; and shall carry it down to the time in which it ceased to be
acknowledged.
Some very eminently learned men dispute this; and especially Houbigant, who
contends with great plausibility of argument that no new commencement of the year is
noted in this place; for that the year had always begun in this month, and that the words
shall be, which are inserted by different versions, have nothing answering to them in the
Hebrew, which he renders literally thus. Hic mensis vobis est caput mensium; hic vobis
primus est anni mensis. “This month is to you the head or chief of the months; it is to
you the first month of the year.” And he observes farther that God only marks it thus, as
is evident from the context, to show the people that this month, which was the beginning
of their year, should be so designated as to point out to their posterity on what month
and on what day of the month they were to celebrate the passover and the fast of
unleavened bread. His words are these: “Ergo superest, et Hebr. ipso ex contextu
efficitur, non hic novi ordinis annum constitui, sed eum anni mensem, qui esset primus,
ideo commemorari, ut posteris constaret, quo mense, et quo die mensis paseha et
azyma celebranda essent.”
GILL, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months,.... Not only the
first, as after expressed, but the chief and principal of them, now famous for their
coming out of Egypt in it, and would be more so for the sufferings and death of the
Messiah, and redemption by him from sin, Satan, and the world, law, hell, and death, for
he suffered at the time of the passover. This month was called Abib, Exo_13:4, which
signifies an ear of corn, and at this time we find that the barley was in ear, Exo_9:31
which clearly shows in what month the above things were transacted; afterwards it was
called Nisan, which seems to be the Chaldean name for it, Neh_2:1, it shall be the first
month of the year to you; which before was the seventh; while the Israelites were in
Egypt they observed the same beginning of the year and course of months as the
Egyptians, as Josephus (z) intimates; and with the Egyptians, the month Thot was the
first month, which answered to Tisri with the Jews, and both to our September, or a part
of it, so that the beginning of the year was then in the autumnal equinox, at which season
it is thought the world was created; but now to the Israelites it was changed unto the
vernal equinox, for this month of Abib or Nisan answers to part of our March and part of
April; though indeed both beginnings of the year were observed by them, the one on
ecclesiastic, the other on civil accounts; or, as Josephus (a) expresses it, the month of
Nisan was the beginning with respect to things divine, but in buying and selling, and
such like things, the ancient order was observed; and so the Targum of Jonathan here
paraphrases it,"from hence ye shall begin to reckon the feasts, the times, and the
revolutions.''Indeed the Jews had four beginnings of the year according to their Misnah
(b); the first of Nisan (or March) was the beginning of the year for kings and for
festivals; the first of Elul (or August) for the tithing of cattle; the first of Tisri (or
September) for the sabbatical years, jubilees, and planting of trees and herbs; and the
first of Shebet (or January) for the tithing the fruit of trees.
JAMISO , "this month shall be unto you the beginning of months — the
first not only in order but in estimation. It had formerly been the seventh according to

42. the reckoning of the civil year, which began in September, and continued unchanged,
but it was thenceforth to stand first in the national religious year which began in March,
April.
COKE, "Exodus 12:2. This month shall be unto you the beginning of months— The
Jews, like most other nations, began their year, before this event, about the
autumnal equinox, in the month Tisri, after their harvest and vintage: but that
which was their first month, now became their seventh; as the month Abib, which
answers principally to our March, was, by God's appointment, and in
commemoration of this their deliverance, constituted the first month of their sacred
year. Abib signifies the green corn; and the month was so named, because the corn
in those countries began to ripen about this time. See ch. Exodus 13:4.
ELLICOTT, "(2) The beginning of months.—Hitherto the Hebrews had
commenced the year with Tisri, at or near the autumnal equinox. (See Exodus
23:16.) In thus doing, they followed neither the Egyptian nor the Babylonian
custom. The Egyptians began the year in June, with the first rise of the ile; the
Babylonians in isannu, at the vernal equinox. It was this month which was now
made, by God’s command, the first month of the Hebrew year; but as yet it had not
the name isan: it was called Abib (Exodus 13:4), the month of “greenness.”
Henceforth the Hebrews had two years, a civil and a sacred one (Joseph., Ant. Jud.,
i. 3, § 3). The civil year began with Tisri, in the autumn, at the close of the harvest;
the sacred year began with Abib (called afterwards isan), six months earlier. It
followed that the first civil was the seventh sacred month, and vice versa.
PARKER, ""This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the
first month of the year to you." — Exodus 12:2.
God is the Ruler of time.—We do not invent years and months and weeks. These are
really, when searched into, the creations and appointments of the Divine power.—
ew days are new opportunities. ew days enable us to forget the evil of all
yesterdays.—Consider the dawning year in this light, and the opening day.—The
true birthday of a man is the day on which his soul was born into a purer and
nobler life. A birthday may be determined by a vow. The birthday of the body is the
poorest of all anniversaries.—When the great idea entered the mind, inspiring and
ennobling it, and filling it with Divine enthusiasm, the man was truly born.—We are
entitled to date our existence from our regeneration, otherwise our memory might
become an intolerable torment—Regeneration destroys the recollections of
remorse.—Man is breaking a Divine ordinance when he goes beyond the day of his
recreation, and insists upon making alive again all the iniquities that corrupted and
degraded his earliest life.—Beautiful is the word beginning. It is one of the first
words in the Bible. God himself alone could have invented that word. It is a dewy
term; it is tender with the brightness of morning; it is beautiful with the bloom of
heaven; a very holy and most helpful word.—Blessed is the man who knows he has
begun his life again, and who can confidently date his best existence from a point in
time which separates him from every evil and accusing memory.

43. LA GE, "Exodus 12:1-2. In the land of Egypt.—It is a mark of the dominion of
Jehovah in the midst of His enemies, that He established the Jewish community in
the land of Egypt, as also the Christian community in the midst of Judaism, and the
Evangelical community under the dominion of the Papacy. To the triumphant
assurance in regard to the place corresponds the triumphant assurance in regard to
the time: the Passover, as a typical festival of redemption, was celebrated before the
typical redemption itself; the Lord’s Supper before the real redemption; and in the
constant repetition of its celebration it points forward to the final redemption which
is to take place when the Lord comes. Keil calls attention to this legislation in the
land of Egypt, as the first, in distinction from the legislation on Mt. Sinai and the
fields of Moab.—The beginning of months.—It does not definitely follow from this
ordinance that the Jews before had a different beginning of the year; but this is
probable, inasmuch as the Egyptians had a different one. Vid. Keil, Vol11, p10.
isan nearly corresponds to our April.
ISBET, "A EW START
‘This month shall be … the first month of the year to you.’
Exodus 12:2
Egypt behind—Sinai before—Canaan beyond—this is the exact account of the
position of Israel when God said to him, ‘This month shall be unto you the
beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.’ Redemption was
the starting point of the new: from it all that follows shall take a new character, a
new life.
The text is chosen, all will understand, not with a view to historical retrospects, but
to the circumstances of this day, and of this congregation—kept alive by Him who
created, to take part in the public worship of the first Sunday of a new year. ‘This
shall be to you the beginning of months: the first month of the year to you.’
I. The idea of a new start is naturally attractive to all of us.—We are fatigued, we
are wearied, we are dissatisfied, and justly so, with the time past of our lives. O for a
gift of amnesty and of oblivion! O for some one to say to us, ‘The past is gone and
done with—nothing shall come back from it to scare, to encumber, or to accuse,—
God and man have agreed together to bury it in the earth, to drown it in the depths
of the sea!’ Let us have a ‘beginning of months’ once again; let this be indeed ‘the
first month’ of a second first year!
There are senses, indeed, in which this is impossible. The continuity of life cannot be
broken. either lapse of time, nor division of time; neither transition from
childhood to youth, nor from youth to uttermost age; neither change of place, nor
change of position, nor change of circumstance, nor change of companionship;
neither joy nor sorrow; neither prosperity nor disappointment; neither pain nor
love (the two most powerful factors in man’s life) can snap in twain the unity of this
being, or make me, save for a few rare and fallacious moments, so much as dream
that I am not the thing I was. When any accidental evidence comes to me out of the
past—the sight of an old letter, to me or from me—the greeting of a former
schoolfellow, unseen for twenty or thirty years—I start as I recognise my present

44. self in the mirror of that past—the same ‘mixture of a man’—the same good points,
whether of mind or heart, which I hoped were new—the same bad points, whether
of feeling or character, which I flattered myself were the creatures of circumstance,
recent, accidental, evanescent. I seem to understand—and it is no pleasant
discovery—in such confrontings of the old self and the new, how it is that Scripture
is able to fix that character which to us appears ever dissolving—how it may be
possible for God in the great day, without witnesses, without a jury, to judge a man
as one thing all along, all through, and not many—even to write his epitaph, as He
has done for so many in the pages of His Book—‘He did that which was good,’ or,
‘He did that which was evil,’ ‘in the sight of the Lord’—his name, and his mother’s
name, and his birth, and his burial!
There is a continuity, a unity, an identity, which annihilation only—nay, not
annihilation—could destroy. And there are those who overlook this—deal too
lightly, too flippantly, with this re-beginning which is our text—are startled, almost
angry, if they find the Israel of Sinai bewraying by his murmurings his identity with
the Israel of Egypt’s flesh-pots, or the Israel of Canaan itself dwelling contentedly
amidst ‘abominable idolatries’ which he was commissioned and charged and set
there to exterminate. Against this false teaching we must earnestly warn such as will
hearken. It will come to us, most often, in the garb of evangelical doctrine, true and
scriptural and salutary in its principle—wrong only, yet most wrong, in its
inferences and its corollaries.
II. ‘The beginning of months’ is made so by an Exodus.—The Passover, the
sprinkling of sacrificial blood, the faith thus evidenced, the part thus taken, the
choice thus made, the lot thus cast in with God and His people as against Egypt and
its ‘pleasures of sin for a season’—this was the starting-point. Brethren, it is so still.
Redemption, the Redemption of the world—undertaken as at this season, completed
on Calvary, by our Lord Jesus Christ—this is the groundwork of the new life. It is
no re-commencement of the life to write a new year in our books or on our letters.
This is indeed a change marked in sand, written in water—a mere name, a mere
fancy, if we treat it as anything but just a signal or symbol of God’s call and of our
duty. We waken in the new as we slept in the old. This is nothing. If there be in any
of us a real desire for change—for a life different in kind from the former—for a life
higher, nobler, purer, more real, more consistent, more spiritual—plant your foot
firmly upon redemption. See the Paschal Lamb bearing the sins of the world.
Behold Him, Divine and Human, undertaking to deliver man, coming into the world
to save sinners, making atonement for us, opening the kingdom of heaven to all
believers. View the enterprise in this large, bold, broad way. Believe that it was
successful. Believe that your sins were there. See God, your Father, in His Son Jesus
Christ: and doubt not that He who spared not Him will spare nothing else that is
good.
Dean Vaughan.
Illustration
(1) ‘There is nothing so great, nothing so supreme for thought now, as the coming, in

45. our wrong-doing world, of that kingdom of Christ which holy men from the
beginning of time have looked forward to. And, as we enter on another year, when
new and gigantic developments of the working of evil sound alarm, prayer is what
the Spirit is pressing on us.’
(2) ‘Charge not thyself with the weight of the year,
Child of the Master, faithful and dear.
Choose not the cross for the coming week,
For that is more than He bids thee seek.
Bend not the arms for to-morrow’s load:
Thou may’st leave that to thy gracious God,
“Daily” only He saith to thee.
“Take up thy cross and follow Me.”’
(3) ‘God is the ruler of time. We do not invent years and months and weeks. These
are really, when searched into, the creations and appointments of the Divine Power.
ew days are new opportunities. ew days enable us to forget the evil of all
yesterdays. Consider the dawning year in this light, and the opening day. The true
birthday of a man is the day on which his soul was born into a purer and nobler life.
A birthday may be determined by a vow. The birthday of the body is the poorest of
all anniversaries. When the great idea entered the mind, inspiring and ennobling it,
and filling it with Divine enthusiasm, the man was truly born. We are entitled to
date our existence from our regeneration, otherwise our memory might become an
intolerable torment. Regeneration destroys the recollections of remorse. Man is
breaking a Divine ordinance when he goes beyond the day of his re-creation, and
insists upon making alive again all the iniquities that corrupted and degraded his
earliest life. Beautiful is the word beginning. It is one of the first words in the Bible.
God Himself alone could have invented that word. It is a dewy term; it is tender
with the brightness of morning; it is beautiful with the bloom of Heaven; a very holy
and most helpful word. Blessed is the man who knows he has begun his life again,
and who can confidently date his best existence from a point in time which separates
him from every evil and accusing memory.’
(4) ‘It is a good thing for us to keep up such anniversaries as affect us as a people, or
as households, or as believers in Jesus Christ. “He clung,” says the biographer of
Baron Bunsen, “with affection to signs and seasons, and days and years, though not
to the extent that would have degenerated into superstition; a date once marked by
an event for good seemed to him a point round which all that was good and
desirable might cluster for ever.”’
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:2 This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it
[shall be] the first month of the year to you.
Ver. 2. This month.] Called Abib in Exodus 13:4; with us called March or April;
when the day lengthening, and the sun ascending, each thing begins to revive. To
show, saith one, that by the true Passover, Christ Jesus, not only is our time and all
other things sanctified, but also that we should in recent remembrance of that
benefit of our redemption, all our days and years be thankful to our gracious

46. Redeemer, and that by his death, true life and reviving came unto mankind.
It shall be the first month,] viz., In respect of sacred, not civil affairs, as Junius here
proveth out of Josephus. (a) The jubilees began in September. [Leviticus 25:8
Exodus 23:16] The creation of the world began then, as some will have it: but
Luther and others think it was in the spring rather.
ISBET, "Verse 22-23
THE SPRI KLED DOORPOSTS
‘And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason,
and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason,’ etc.
Exodus 12:22-23
The night of the Passover was ‘a night much to be remembered.’ Wherever a Jew
exists it is to this night he points, as the proudest epoch in his people’s history. The
feast of the Passover is full of typical meaning. otice, first, that this was a little
judgment day. The children of Israel were to be delivered by a direct visitation of
God. There are three great truths brought out in this narrative.
I. The universality of condemnation.—God was going to save the Israelites, but
before He saved them He must condemn them. He sent Moses with a message
couched in the language of symbol, which clearly showed that the Israelites were
guilty no less than the Egyptians. The lamb was to be the representative of the
firstborn son, who must die for the sins of his family. The Israelite and the Egyptian
are brought under one common charge of guilt, and there they all stand,
‘condemned already.’
II. The great truth of substitution.—God sends Moses to His people and bids them
choose ‘for every family a lamb.’ The lamb was instead of the firstborn. Christ is the
‘Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’
III. The third truth taught is appropriation.—The Israelite would not have been
safe if he had merely killed the lamb; he had to sprinkle its blood on the lintel and
on the two sideposts. When we repose our confidence in the Person of Christ, we
have taken the bunch of hyssop and dipped it in the blood, and from that moment
we are safe.
—Canon Hay Aitken.
Illustration
(1) ‘The Passover-feast, kept as a united national act of obedience, was the first act
of the independent and free nation; organised under Jehovah, their invisible king.
Observe that the national history dates from a Divine deliverance; as we date from
the coming to earth of our Incarnate Saviour. Get illustrations of the atonement of
the Lord Jesus from the Passover. Work out the following points:—(1) The victim it
provides. (2) The sacrifice it requires. (3) The duty it enjoins (ver. 7). (4) The spirit it
demands. (5) The peril it averts. (6) The extent it contemplates.’

47. (2) ‘The paschal lamb being without blemish fitly shadowed forth the perfection of
His character; its age, how He was to be cut off in the flower of His days; the charge
not to break its bones, represents literally what took place in our Lord’s case; and
the charge to roast it with fire is a foreshadowing of the severity of His sufferings,
while the bitter herbs with which it was to be eaten tells of the sorrow for sin with
which it behoves us to receive the Saviour; and the eating itself, and the sprinkling
of the blood, are indications of the appropriation which we need to make of Him by
faith in order that we may live by Him, and of the necessity of having His blood
applied to our hearts and consciences in order that it may cleanse us from all sin.
The whole speaks of Christ, and is meaningless except as it speaks of Him.’
(3) ‘ one but the circumcised could partake. O! my soul, hast thou put off from thee
the filthiness of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, so only canst thou be sure of
having a right to the body and blood of the Lamb.’
PETT, "Exodus 12:2-3
“You, speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth day of this month
they shall take for themselves every man a lamb (or kid) according to their fathers’
houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household be too small for a lamb, then
shall he, and his neighbour next to his house, take one according to the number of
people, according to what every man eats you will take your count for the lamb.’ ”
On the tenth day of the month of Abib every household was to take a lamb (or goat)
and set it apart ready for the Passover.
This was not specifically said here to be for a sacrifice, although it is in Exodus
12:27. The purpose of the lamb was that it should be eaten. This is made abundantly
clear. If the household could not fully eat it then two households could combine. But
its ‘holiness’ is made clear in that it must all be eaten and any that is not eaten must
be burned with fire (Exodus 12:10). one must be left. And the putting of the blood
on the doorpost (Exodus 12:7) in the light of its purpose (to prevent the smiting
judgment of Yahweh - Exodus 12:23) suggests that it signifies some kind of
substitutionary appeasement. The firstborn would not die because the blood was on
the doorpost. Thus it clearly has a sacrificial element (Exodus 12:27; compare
Exodus 34:25). The people would be protected by the blood and would hardly see it
otherwise than as a sacrifice.
At this stage there was no priestly caste, and it is therefore probable that leaders of
households acted as family priest. Thus each slaying would be made by the family
priest. Certainly by the time of Jesus it had obtained sacrificial status for it had to
be slain by the priests in the Temple.
“The congregation of Israel.” This is re-emphasising the unity of the children of
Israel. They are one people, one gathering. The plea to Pharaoh had been that as a
group they should be able to gather as a congregation in the wilderness to serve
Yahweh. This was a phrase that would later represent the gathering of the whole

48. people at a central sanctuary but it is not quite as fixed as that yet. Here it is rather
those who are seen as being attached to ‘the children of Israel’ and represented by
their leaders. It represents those who will gather to them when the time for
departure comes. Those who, if the call came to sacrifice to Yahweh in the
wilderness, would respond to that call. The identity of the group has been
maintained as worshippers of Yahweh, and as accepting their connection with the
people who entered Egypt with Israel (Jacob).
“According to their father” houses.’ This indicates the lowest level of group. Each
father has his household, and this is the group involved. Those who live in the one
house are the members of that household. The father would be both patriarch and
priest.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the
tenth day of this month each man is to take a
lamb[a] for his family, one for each household.
BAR ES, "A lamb - The Hebrew word is general, meaning either a sheep or a goat -
male or female - and of any age; the age and sex are therefore epecially defined in the
following verse. The direction to select the lamb on the tenth day, the fourth day before
it was offered, was intended to secure due care in the preparation for the great national
festival. The custom certainly fell into desuetude at a later period, but probably not
before the destruction of the temple.
CLARKE, "In the tenth day of this month - In after times they began their
preparation on the thirteenth day or day before the Passover, which was not celebrated
till the fourteenth day, see Exo_12:6 : but on the present occasion, as this was their first
passover, they probably required more time to get ready in; as a state of very great
confusion must have prevailed at this time. Mr. Ainsworth remarks that on this day the
Israelites did afterwards go through Jordan into the land of Canaan; Jos_4:19. And
Christ, our Paschal Lamb, on this day entered Jerusalem, riding on an ass; the people
bearing palm branches, and crying, Hosanna, Joh_12:1, Joh_12:12, Joh_12:13, etc.: and
in him this type was truly fulfilled.
A lamb - The original word ‫שה‬ seh signifies the young of sheep and of goats, and may
be indifferently translated either lamb or kid. See Exo_12:5.

49. A lamb for a house - The whole host of Israel was divided into twelve tribes, these
tribes into families, the families into houses, and the houses into particular persons;
Numbers 1, Jos_7:14 - Ainsworth.
GILL, "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel,.... That is, to the elders of
the people, and heads of families; unless we can suppose that they had been gradually
gathered, and were now gathered together in a body by the direction of Moses, by whom
they were assured that their departure was at hand; and the rather it may be thought
that so it was, since the following order concerned the whole and every individual:
saying, in the tenth day of this month; the month Abib or Nisan, which shows that
this direction must be given before that day, and so very probably on the first of the
month, as before observed:
they shall take to them every man a lamb; not every individual person, but every
master of a family, or head of an house, as follows:
according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house; if large enough to
eat up a whole lamb, otherwise they were to do as next directed: the Targum of Jonathan
suggests, that this direction of taking a lamb to them on the tenth day of the month was
only for this time, and not for following ages; and so the Jewish doctors (c) commonly
understand it as being peculiar to the passover in Egypt, and not in later times; for they
(d) say,"what difference is there between the passover in Egypt, and the passover in later
ages? the passover in Egypt was taken within the tenth day, and was obliged to
sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop upon the lintel, and upon the two side posts, and was
eaten with haste in one night, but the passover in later ages was kept all the seven
days.''The ground and reason of this special direction for taking up a lamb on the tenth
day was, that they might have a lamb ready; and that through the multiplicity of
business, and the hurry they would be in at their departure, they might not forget it, and
neglect it; and that they might have time enough to examine whether it had all the
prerequisites and qualifications that were necessary; and that while they had it in view,
they might be led to meditate upon, and talk of, expect and firmly believe their
deliverance; yea, that their faith might be directed to a far greater deliverance by the
Messiah, which this was only typical of, Heb_11:28 but some of these reasons would
hold good in later times, and it seems by some circumstances that this rule was attended
to.
JAMISO , "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel — The recent events
had prepared the Israelitish people for a crisis in their affairs, and they seem to have
yielded implicit obedience at this time to Moses. It is observable that, amid all the hurry
and bustle of such a departure, their serious attention was to be given to a solemn act of
religion.
a lamb for an house — a kid might be taken (Exo_12:5). The service was to be a
domestic one, for the deliverance was to be from an evil threatened to every house in
Egypt.
K&D, "Exo_12:3-14
Arrangements for the Passover. - “All the congregation of Israel” was the nation
represented by its elders (cf. Exo_12:21, and my bibl. Arch. ii. p. 221). “On the tenth of

50. this (i.e., the first) month, let every one take to himself ‫ה‬ ֶ‫שׂ‬ (a lamb, lit., a young one,
either sheep or goats; Exo_12:5, and Deu_14:4), according to fathers' houses” (vid.,
Exo_6:14), i.e., according to the natural distribution of the people into families, so that
only the members of one family or family circle should unite, and not an indiscriminate
company. In Exo_12:21 mishpachoth is used instead. “A lamb for the house,” ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ , i.e.,
the family forming a household.
CALVI , "3.Speak ye unto all. A question is asked on this passage, why, when one
Lamb alone was offered in sacrifice for the reconciliation of the Church, and God
was propitiated by the blood of one Christ alone, He should have commanded a
lamb to be slain in every house, as if there were to be a special sacrifice for every one
apart? The reply is easy; because, although all were protected from destruction by
the same blood, and the general rite united them altogether into fellowship in the
same expiation, yet still it was not unreasonable that, by that special application, so
to speak, God would have every family separately reminded, so as to feel the grace
more peculiarly conferred on itself. Thus now-a-days we have all the same baptism,
whereby we are ingrafted in common into the body of Christ; yet His baptism is
conferred on every individual, that they may more surely acknowledge that they are
partakers in the adoption, and therefore members of the Church. God, then, in
commanding them to slay a lamb in every house, did not wish to draw away the
people to different grounds of hope, but only to shew them in a familiar way, that all
houses were under obligation to Him, and that not only the salvation of the whole
people ought to be confessed to come from Him, but that His singular blessing ought
to shine forth in every family. The cause of his desiring the neighbors to be added if
the number of people in one house were not, sufficient to eat the Passover, was that
nothing might be left of it; and this amongst others appears to have been the chief
reason why the whole lamb was to be consumed, viz., lest they should mix this
sacred feast with their daily food, and also lest its dignity should be diminished by
appearing in the form of tainted meat. Perhaps, too, God provided this, lest any
superstition should creep in from the preservation of the remnants; and therefore
commanded the very bones to be burnt.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:3. In the tenth day of this month — It was necessary they
should now begin to prepare the passover four days before, because otherwise it
would have been difficult to get ready so many lambs in Egypt, especially as they
were to depart in haste; besides, this being the first instance of the celebration of the
ordinance, they would require more time to prepare for a ceremony entirely new.
But in future ages they did not begin the preparation till the thirteenth, the day
before the passover. They shall take every man a lamb — The Hebrew word
signifies a lamb, or kid, (Deuteronomy 14:4,) as is evident from Exodus 12:5; for
they might take either for this sacrifice: but commonly they made choice of a lamb.
COKE, "Exodus 12:3. In the tenth day of this month— It appears from Exodus 12:6
that the passover was to be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month. In after-
times they did not begin their preparation till the thirteenth, or the day before the
passover: but now, they are ordered to prepare on the tenth day of the month; not

51. only because this being the first time of the celebration of the passover, they might
require more time to prepare for a ceremony entirely new; but because, being to
depart from Egypt suddenly, and in great haste, they might be perfectly ready, and
have no hindrance from a neglect of any part of the duty enjoined. It is plain, from
Exodus 12:5 that the animal to be sacrificed might either be a lamb or a kid:
accordingly, the word rendered lamb, signifies either, as you may observe it
rendered in the margin of our Bibles. Lambs were, however, more generally chosen
than kids. Some have observed, that this appointment of a lamb or kid to sacrifice,
was partly in opposition to the Egyptian worship of the ram; which they began this
day (the tenth of the month Abib) with a sacrifice to a real ram, the representative
of the constellation Aries. The Egyptians worshipped Jupiter Ammon in the likeness
of a ram or a goat; therefore they never sacrifice these creatures: and, consequently,
the Israelites' sacrifice of them was an abomination to the Egyptians. A lamb for an
house, signifies a lamb for each family, Genesis 7:1. The Jewish writers tell us, that
there were not to be fewer than ten, nor more than twenty persons to the eating of
one lamb. Men, women, and children, masters, and servants, (all but uncircumcised
males,) were, without discrimination, entertained at this sacred repast.
ELLICOTT, "(3) In the tenth day.—It is evident that this direction must have been
given before the tenth day had arrived, probably some days before. The object of
the direction was to allow ample time for the careful inspection of the animal, so
that its entire freedom from all blemish might be ascertained. The animal was not to
be killed till four days later (Exodus 12:6).
A lamb.—The word used (seh) is a vague one, applied equally to sheep and goats, of
any age and of either sex. Sex and age were fixed subsequently (Exodus 12:5), but
the other ambiguity remained; and it is curious that practically only lambs seem to
have been ever offered. The requirement indicates a social condition in which there
was no extreme poverty. All Israelites are supposed either to possess a lamb or to be
able to purchase one.
According to the house of their fathers.—Rather, for the house of their fathers: i.e.,
for their family.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:3 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 the
house of [their] fathers, a lamb for an house:
Ver. 3. In the tenth day.] The paschal lamb was taken up the tenth day, but not
sacrificed till the fourteenth, that they might "so kill the passover" as first to
"sanctify themselves and prepare their brethren." [2 Chronicles 35:6] For which
cause also it was a received tradition among the Jews, that during those four days
the lamb was tied to their bedposts. (a)
BI 3-4, "If the household be too little for the lamb.
Too little for the lamb

52. I. The text reminds us of a primary privilege.
1. That each man of Israel ate the passover for himself; “every man according to his
eating.” So do we feed upon Jesus, each one as his appetite, capacity, and strength
enable him to do.
2. But this same delicious fare should be enjoyed by all the family—“a lamb for an
house.” Oh, that each of the parents and all the children and servants may be
partakers of Christ!
II. The text is silent as to a certain contingency.
1. The lamb was never too little for the family; and assuredly the Lord Jesus was
never too little even for the largest family, nor for the most sinful persons.
2. There is no reason to stint our prayers for fear we ask too much.
3. Nor to stay our labours because the Lord Jesus cannot give us strength enough, or
grace enough.
4. Nor to restrain our hopes of salvation for the whole family, because of some
supposed narrowness in the purpose, provision, or willingness of the Lord to bless.
III. The text mentions a possibility, and provides for it.
1. One family is certainly too small a reward for Jesus—too little for the Lamb.
2. One family is too little to render Him all the praise, worship, service, and love
which He deserves.
3. One family is too little to do all the work of proclaiming the Lamb of God,
maintaining the truth, visiting the Church, winning the world. Therefore let us call in
the neighbour next unto our house.
(1) Our next neighbour has the first claim upon us.
(2) He is the most easy to reach, and by each calling his next neighbour all will be
reached.
(3) He is the most likely person to be influenced by us. At any rate this is the
rule, and we are to obey it (see Luk_24:47; Joh_1:41; Neh_3:28). If our
neighbour does not come when invited, we are not responsible; but if he perished
because we did not invite him, blood-guiltiness would be upon us (Eze_33:8).
IV. The whole subject suggests thoughts upon neighbourly fellowship in the gospel.
1. It is good for individuals and families to grow out of selfishness, and to seek the
good of a wide circle.
2. It is a blessed thing when the centre of our society is “the Lamb.”
3. Innumerable blessings already flow to us from the friendships which have sprung
out of our union in Jesus.
4. Our care for one another in Christ helps to realize the unity of the one body, even
as the common eating of the passover proclaimed and assisted the solidarity of the
people of Israel as one nation. This spiritual union is a high privilege.
5. Thoroughly carried out, heaven will thus be foreshadowed upon earth, for there
love to Jesus and love to one another is found in every heart. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

53. Sharing religion with others
There are some things which can be shared with our neighbours, and some which
cannot, in the religious life. In securing the “means of grace” we can go halves with our
next-door neighbours; but not so in the great fact of personal salvation. We can join with
a neighbour in taking a pew in church, or in getting a waggon to carry us to church, or in
subscribing for a religious paper—and paying for it too; but we can share no neighbour’s
seat in heaven; his team will never carry us there; the truths which benefit him from the
weekly paper do not, because of their gain to him, do us any good. And if our nextdoor
neighbour’s family is a household of faith, that doesn’t make ours so. The members of
his family may be saved and ours lost. Neighbourliness is commanded and commended
of God; but God doesn’t want you to leave your salvation in the hands of your next-door
neighbour. The blood above your neighbour’s doorpost will not save your household
from death. (H. C. Trumbull.)
4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb,
they must share one with their nearest neighbor,
having taken into account the number of people
there are. You are to determine the amount of
lamb needed in accordance with what each person
will eat.
BAR ES, "Tradition specifies ten as the least number; but the matter was probably
left altogether to the discretion of the heads of families.
The last clause should be rendered: “each man, according to his eating, ye shall count
for the lamb.”
CLARKE, "If the household be too little - That is, if there be not persons enough
in one family to eat a whole lamb, then two families must join together. The rabbins
allow that there should be at least ten persons to one paschal lamb, and not more than
twenty.

54. Take it, according to the number of the souls - The persons who were to eat of
it were to be first ascertained, and then the lamb was to be slain and dressed for that
number.
GILL, "And if the household be too little for the lamb,.... That they cannot eat it
up at once:
let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the
number of the souls; which Josephus (e) says were never fewer than ten, and were
often twenty, but no man might feast alone; with which agrees the Jewish canon
(f),"they do not kill the passover lamb for a single person, nor even for a society
consisting of one hundred, that cannot eat the quantity of an olive:"
every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb: that is,
a man must reckon up how many he has in his own house to eat of the lamb, and what
their appetites be, by which he will he able to judge whether he can dispense with a lamb
himself, or whether he must take in some of his neighbours, and how many, so as to eat
up the whole lamb, for, for such persons the lamb was to be slain. The rule is,"if a man
slays it for those that do not eat of it, or for those that are not counted, for the
uncircumcised, and the unclean, it was wrong, and not allowed of (g).''The taking in his
neighbours may respect the call of the Gentiles to partake of Christ with the Jews, see
Eph_3:5.
JAMISO , "if the household be too little for the lamb, etc. — It appears from
Josephus that ten persons were required to make up the proper paschal communion.
every man according to his eating — It is said that the quantity eaten of the
paschal lamb, by each individual, was about the size of an olive.
K&D, "Exo_12:4
But if “the house be too small for a lamb” (lit., “small from the existence of a lamb,” ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬
comparative: ‫ה‬ ֶ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ּות‬‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ is an existence which receives its purpose from the lamb, which
answers to that purpose, viz., the consumption of the lamb, i.e., if a family is not
numerous enough to consume a lamb), “let him (the house-father) and his nearest
neighbour against his house take (sc., a lamb) according to the calculation of the
persons.” ‫ה‬ ָ‫ס‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫מ‬ computatio (Lev_27:23), from ‫ס‬ ַ‫ס‬ ָⅴ computare; and ‫ס‬ ֶ‫כ‬ ֶ‫,מ‬ the calculated
amount or number (Num_31:28): it only occurs in the Pentateuch. “Every one
according to the measure of his eating shall ye reckon for the lamb:” i.e., in deciding
whether several families had to unite, in order to consume one lamb, they were to
estimate how much each person would be likely to eat. Consequently more than two
families might unite for this purpose, when they consisted simply of the father and
mother and little children. A later custom fixed ten as the number of persons to each
paschal lamb; and Jonathan has interpolated this number into the text of his Targum.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:4. If the household be too little — The Hebrew doctors tell
us, that there were not to be fewer than ten persons, nor more than twenty, to the

55. eating of one lamb. And at this sacred repast, men, women, and children, masters
and servants, if circumcised, were entertained.
COFFMA , "Verses 4-6
"And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to
his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man's
eating ye shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a
male a year old: ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats; and ye shall keep
it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the
congregation of Israel shall kill it at even."
"According to every man's eating, ye shall make your count ..." This means merely
that each householder was to take into account the amount given members of his
household would eat. The very young, the aged, or other conditions were to be
considered.
"Your lamb shall be without blemish ..." This, in addition to being a proper
qualification for any sacred use, was also typical of the perfection and sinlessness of
the Son of God, the Christ.
"A male a year old ..." Here too the Christ is typified. It was specifically foretold
that the Seed of Woman should crush the serpent's head, but it was equally true
that the Messiah would be a man, "a He-Man," (Revelation 12:13), his masculinity
being specifically stressed by the sacred writers. A male (lamb) a year old would be
in the prime of life, at the zenith of its strength, just as Christ was crucified at about
age 33, the very pinnacle of earthly strength and maturity. There were also other
qualities of a lamb which provided a suitable prefiguration of Christ. One, revealed
later in Isaiah 53:7 (See Acts 8:32f), was the wonder of a lamb's patient and
noiseless submission to death. It appears to have been the genius of the Jewish
nation that instinctively preferred the lamb to the kid goat for these sacrifices,
despite the acceptability of either.
"The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it ..." Only the heads of
households actually did the killing, but, in the aggregate, they represented all Israel.
In this too, one sees the responsibility of all Israel, indeed of all people, in the
crucifixion of Christ. It was the sins of ALL OF US which crucified him. As the song
says, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?"
"Congregation ..." Here and in Exodus 12:3, a moment earlier, one finds the very
first use of the term "congregation" for the chosen people, a term later used for the
ew Israel of God's church.
One may only be astonished at the assertion that, "The post-exilic celebration of the
Passover is again in the writer's mind, as he pictures the heads of households all
gathered in a single place for the slaying."[10] There are two impossibilities in such
a comment.

56. There's not a word in the Bible about all those heads of households coming together
at any one place, an event not even hinted at in this place, and withal impossible
anyway.
Furthermore, there is nothing at all post-exilic about such a dreamed up "picture."
Priests were absolutely in charge in post-exilic times and long prior to those times.
This is only one sample of the worthless and illogical "arguments" employed by
critical enemies of the Bible.
"Kill it at even ..." "Literally, `between the two evenings.'"[11] There are two
interpretations of this: (1) between 3:00 p.m. and sundown, and (2) between
sundown and dark. We believe that the correct interpretation is (1), basing it upon
the fact that Christ suffered death at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m.), as noted in
Matthew 27:46. That every householder, and not the priests, would be the ones
killing the lamb was God's original intention, and thus the whole business of a
priesthood adopted later was not fully in keeping with the plan of God - these facts
are fully set forth in Exodus. And, when the people insisted that "someone else" do
the priestly service that had been originally designed for all Israel, God
accommodated to it as he later did in the cases of both the monarchy and the
building of the temple. It was that change in God's plan, due to human failure, that
resulted in the acceptance of the second interpretation.
When the lambs were sacrificed in the temple, by a continual succession of offerers,
it became impossible to complete the sacrifices in the short time originally allowed.
Of necessity the work of killing the victims was commenced pretty early in the
afternoon, and continued until after sunset. The interpretation was then altered to
bring it in line with the altered practice.[12]
ELLICOTT, "(4) If the household be too little for the lamb.—There would be cases
where the family would not be large enough to consume an entire lamb at a sitting.
Where this was so, men were to club with their neighbours, either two small families
joining together, or a large family drafting off some of its members to bring up the
numbers of a small one. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud., vi. 9, § 3), ten was the
least number regarded as sufficient, while twenty was not considered too many.
Every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.—Rather,
shall ye count. In determining the number for any given Paschal meal, ye shall
“count men according to their eating,” admitting more or fewer, as they are likely to
consume less or more.
5 The animals you choose must be year-old males

57. without defect, and you may take them from the
sheep or the goats.
BAR ES, "Without blemish - This is in accordance with the general rule (margin
reference): although in this case there is a special reason, since the lamb was in place of
the firstborn male in each household. The restriction to the first year is unique, and
refers apparently to the condition of perfect innocence in the antitype, the Lamb of God.
CLARKE, "Without blemish - Having no natural imperfection, no disease, no
deficiency or redundancy of parts. On this point the rabbins have trifled most
egregiously, reckoning fifty blemishes that render a lamb or kid, or any animal, improper
to be sacrificed: five in the ear, three in the eyelid, eight in the eye, three in the nose, six
in the mouth, etc., etc.
A male of the first year - That is, any age in the first year between eight days and
twelve months.
From the sheep, or from the goats - The ‫שה‬ seh means either; and either was
equally proper if without blemish. The Hebrews however in general preferred the lamb
to the kid.
GILL, "Your lamb shall be without blemish,.... Without any spot or defect in it.
Maimonides (h) reckons no less than fifty blemishes in a creature, anyone of which
makes it unfit for sacrifice, see Lev_21:21. This lamb was a type of Christ, who is
therefore said to be our passover sacrificed for us, 1Co_5:7 comparable to a lamb for his
innocence and harmlessness, for his meekness, humility, and patience, for usefulness
both for food and raiment, as well as for being fit for sacrifice; and who is a lamb without
spot and blemish, either of original sin, or actual transgression, holy in his nature,
harmless in his life:
a male of the first year; anyone within that time, but not beyond it; denoting the
strength and vigour of Christ, in the flower of his age, his short continuance among men,
and his being tender and savoury food for the faith of his people:
ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats; it might be either a lamb,
or a kid of the goats; for the most part, or generally, it was a lamb that was taken; so the
Jewish canon runs (i),"he that says to his servant, go and slay for me the passover, if he
slays a kid he may eat it; if he slays a lamb he may eat of it; if he slays a kid and a lamb,
he may eat of the first.''The goat being of an ill smell may denote Christ being made sin,
and a sin offering for his people; and the taking of a lamb from these may signify the
choice of Christ from among the people in the council and covenant of God; the
preordination of him to be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; the
preservation of him from the infection of sin in his incarnation, and the separation of

58. him from sinners in his conversation.
JAMISO , "lamb ... without blemish — The smallest deformity or defect made a
lamb unfit for sacrifice - a type of Christ (Heb_7:26; 1Pe_1:19).
a male of the first year — Christ in the prime of life.
K&D, "Exo_12:5
The kind of lamb: ‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ integer, uninjured, without bodily fault, like all the sacrifices
(Lev_22:19-20); a male like the burnt-offerings (Lev_1:3, Lev_1:11); ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ן‬ ֶ one year old
(ᅚνιαύσιος, lxx). This does not mean “standing in the first year, viz., from the eighth day
of its life to the termination of the first year” (Rabb. Cler., etc.), a rule which applied to
the other sacrifices only (Exo_22:29; Lev_22:27). The opinion expressed by Ewald and
others, that oxen were also admitted at a later period, is quite erroneous, and cannot be
proved from Deu_16:2, or 2Ch_30:24 and 2Ch_35:7. As the lamb was intended as a
sacrifice (Exo_12:27), the characteristics were significant. 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. “Ye shall take it out from
the sheep or from the goats:” i.e.,, as Theodoret explains it, “He who has a sheep, let him
slay it; and he who has no sheep, let him take a goat.” Later custom restricted the choice
to the lamb alone; though even in the time of Josiah kids were still used as well (2Ch_
25:7).
CALVI , "5.Your lamb shall be without blemish. We shall see elsewhere, that in all
their sacrifices prescribed by the Law they were diligently to beware, lest there
should be any spot or fault in them; and by this the people were reminded, that the
expiation was not legitimate, unless it possessed the utmost perfection, such as is
never to be found in men. It is not to be wondered, therefore, that God should now
require the Passover to be of one year old, and without blemish, that the Israelites
might know that in order to propitiate God, a more excellent price was required
than could be discovered in the whole human race; and since such excellency could
much less exist in a beast, the celestial perfection and purity of Christ was shewn
forth by this visible perfection of the lamb, or kid. It was with reference to this also
that; they were commanded to keep it up separate from the rest; of the flock, from
the tenth until the fourteenth day of the month. As to God’s will, that the side-posts
and lintel should be sprinkled with blood, by this sign He plainly taught them, that
the sacrifice would profit none but those who were stained and marked with
Christ’s blood; for this sprinkling was equivalent to their bearing each one the
mark: of His blood upon their forehead. And, in effect, Christ, by the outpouring of
His blood, has not delivered all, but only the faithful, who sanctify themselves with
it. That internal sprinkling indeed holds the first place, which Peter teaches us to be
effected by the power of the Spirit, (1 Peter 1:2;) yet by this external sign the
Israelites were instructed that they could not be protected from God’s wrath, except
by holding up against it the shield of the blood. And this corresponds with the lesson

59. learnt above, that the same universal sacrifice was offered particularly in every
house, in order that thus its peculiar instruction might affect them more seriously,
when generally it would have been uninteresting and ineffectual. I prefer to be
ignorant as to why He required the flesh to be roasted and not boiled, rather than to
invent such unfounded subtleties, as that Christ was, in a manner, roasted on the
Cross. A nearer approach to the truth appears to me to be, that God desired thus to
mark their haste, because, when their implements were all packed up, the meat
would be more easily roasted on a spit than cooked in the pot. And this also is the
tendency of the precept respecting the manner of eating it, in which three things are
to be observed, the unleavened bread, the sauce of bitter herbs, and the girded loins,
together with the rest of the costume of travelers. Undoubtedly God commanded the
bread to be made without leaven on account of their sudden departure, because He
would snatch his people out of Egypt, as it were, in a moment; and, therefore, they
baked unleavened loaves out of flour hurriedly kneaded. (315) It was required that
the remembrance of this should be renewed every year, in order that their posterity
might know that their deliverance was afforded them from above, since their fathers
hastily took flight without having made any preparation for their journey; for any
greater preparation would have thrown some shade upon the divine grace, which
shone forth more brightly on account of their want of food. God would have them
content with bitter herbs, because hasty travelers, and especially in an enemy’s
country, are satisfied without delicacies, and whatever sauce they meet with is very
grateful to their taste, nor does its bitterness seem offensive to them, as it does in
seasons of abundance and ease. Possibly too they were reminded of their former
condition; for under so dire and bitter a tyranny nothing could be sweet or pleasant.
But their haste was still more plainly represented by their eating the lamb hurriedly
with their shoes on their feet, and their loins girded, and leaning on their staves.
Men pass from their suppers to bed and to repose; and therefore the ancients used
both to take off their shoes and to lie down to it; but the people’s necessity inverts
this order, since they were compelled to fly immediately from their supper. And
hence the reason is subjoined, “it is the Lord’s passover;” since they escaped in
safety amidst the confusion, and when the sword of God was raging. We must,
however, bear in mind what we have already said, that the use of this sacrament was
twofold, both to exercise the people in the recollection of their past deliverance, and
to nourish in them the hope of future redemption; and therefore the passover not
only reminded them of what God had already done for His people, but also of what
they were hereafter to expect from Him. Consequently there is no doubt that the
Israelites ought to have learnt from this rite that they were redeemed from the
tyranny of Egypt on these terms, viz, that a much more excellent salvation still
awaited them. But this spiritual mystery was more clearly laid open by the coming
of Christ; and therefore Paul, accommodating this, ancient figure to us, commands
us, because
“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” to “keep the feast, not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of malice, and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.”
(1 Corinthians 5:7.)

60. God therefore formerly wished the houses, in which the Passover was celebrated, to
be free from all corruption; and far more does it become us now to take care of this,
lest the sacrifice wherewith Christ has redeemed us from eternal death, should be
polluted by any leaven of wickedness. To the same effect (316) is what follows,
warning us lest we should be devoted to the attractions of the world, and lest our
course should be delayed by the enticements of pleasure; but that we are pilgrims on
earth, and should be ever girt and ready to make haste; and that although the cross
of Christ be bitter, yet we should not refuse to taste it.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:5. Your lamb shall be without blemish — Shall be perfect, as
the Hebrew is, that is, in all its parts. This was a qualification indispensably
requisite in all sacrifices: Leviticus 22:20-24. Even the heathen, in the worship of
their false gods, were particular in this circumstance. A male — Because the males
were accounted more excellent, and their flesh better than that of females. Of the
first year — Under a year old, not above: for the lamb, as also a kid and calf, was fit
for sacrifice at eight days old, but not before, Exodus 22:30. And the same law was
observed in the daily sacrifice, Exodus 29:38. They were not to be offered before the
eighth day, “because,” says Bochart, “till then they have hardly attained to the
perfection of animal life, and are not sufficiently purified.” He adds, “they were not
to be offered after the first year, because then they begin to feel the heat of
libidinous appetite, and consequently are not fit emblems of purity and innocence.”
COKE, "Exodus 12:5. Your lamb shall be without blemish— It was an
indispensable qualification in sacrifices, to be perfect, as the Hebrew has it, or
without blemish. See Leviticus 20:24. This was not peculiar to the sacrifices offered
to the true God. The heathens were no less careful in this respect. As the paschal
lamb was a lively and expressive type of Jesus Christ, there is no doubt but the
perfection of that Lamb of God was signified by this circumstance, 1 Peter 1:19
while, at the same time, that moral purity and sincerity, without which no act of
worship can be pleasing to the Deity, and the entire consecration of our whole man
to God, might also be figured out by it. The lamb was not only to be perfect, but a
male. Leviticus 3:10. Many of the nations, in contradiction to this, (as some have
observed,) held the sacrifice of the female sex, as the more proper: Though
Herodotus informs us, that the Egyptians counted it unlawful to offer any other but
male animals in sacrifice to the gods, Herod. l. ii. c. 41. Indeed, in the ritual of the
Hebrews, it appears to have been indifferent which sex was offered in peace-
offerings or eucharistical sacrifices, Leviticus 3:1. umbers 19:2. Deuteronomy 21:3.
Freedom from blemish was required in every sacrifice; but the limitation of sex
seemed to have been fixed to those which were more immediately typical of the great
expiation. The lamb was to be not only perfect, and a male, but of the first year:
Hebrew, a son of the year, i.e. not exceeding the first year in age. They were counted
unfit for sacrifice after the first year; because, according to Bochart's remark, they
then were not so proper to be emblems of purity and innocence. And, as they were
not to be offered after the first year, so were they not to be offered before they were
eight days old; see ch. Exodus 22:30. Leviticus 22:27 before which time they were
scarcely supposed to have attained the perfection of animal life, or to have been
sufficiently purified. Pliny says, Pecoris foetus die octavo purus est, the young of

61. cattle are pure on the eighth day.
ELLICOTT, "(5) Without blemish.— atural piety teaches that we must not “offer
the blind, the lame, or the sick for sacrifice” (Malachi 1:8). We must give to (God of
our best. The Law emphasized this teaching, and here, on the first occasion when a
sacrifice was formally appointed, required it to be absolutely without blemish of any
kind. Afterwards the requirement was made general (Leviticus 22:19-25). It was
peculiarly fitting that the Paschal offering should be without defect of any kind, as
especially typifying “the Lamb of God,” who is “holy, harmless, undefiled”—a
“lamb without spot.”
A male.—Males were reckoned superior to females, and were especially appropriate
here, since the victim represented the firstborn male in each house.
Of the first year—i.e., not above a year old. As children are most innocent when
young, so even animals were thought to be.
PETT, "Exodus 12:5
“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You shall take it from
the sheep or from the goats.”
“Without blemish.” The lamb (or kid) was to be without blemish. This too
emphasises the sacrificial element. It is separated to Yahweh and must therefore be
‘perfect’. It is a ritual without an official altar and without a sanctuary, but it is
nevertheless holy to Yahweh.
“A male of the first year (literally ‘son of a year”).’ This may mean one year old and
therefore a grown lamb, or it may mean up to one year old.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year:
ye shall take [it] out from the sheep, or from the goats:
Ver. 5. Without blemish.] Christ, that immaculate Lamb of God, was hereby
typified, [1 Peter 1:19] {See Trapp on "1 Peter 1:19"}
From the sheep, or from the goats.] A lamb; to show Christ’s innocency, meekness,
patience, profitableness. Or a kid; to show that he was a sinner; (1.) By imputation,
for "the Lord made our sins to meet upon him"; [Isaiah 53:6] (2.) By reputation, for
"he made his grave with the wicked." [Isaiah 53:9]
LA GE, "Exodus 12:5. Quality of the lamb: without blemish, male, one year old.
For divergent opinions, see Keil, Vol. II, p11.[F 4] That the lamb, as free from
blemish, was designed to represent the moral integrity of the offerer (Keil), is a very
doubtful proposition, since moral integrity needs no expiatory blood; it might, with
more propriety, be taken to represent theocratic integrity. Also the requirement that
the lamb be a male can hardly [as Keil assumes] have exclusive reference to the

62. first-born sons [for whom the lambs were substituted]. The requirement of one year
as the age probably is connected with the necessity that the lamb be weaned;
furthermore, it was for a meal which was to suffice for an ordinary family. The
first-born of beasts which were sacrificed on other occasions than at the Passover
needed only to be eight days old. As the lamb was of more value than the kid, it is
natural that for this occasion it became more and more predominantly used.
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of
the month, when all the members of the
community of Israel must slaughter them at
twilight.
BAR ES, "Until the fourteenth day - It should be observed that the offering of
our Lord on the self-same day is an important point in determining the typical character
of the transaction. A remarkable passage in the Talmud says: “It was a famous and old
opinion among the ancient Jews that the day of the new year which was the beginning of
the Israelites’ deliverance out of Egypt should in future time be the beginning of the
redemption by the Messiah.”
In the evening - The Hebrew has between the two evenings. The meaning of the
expression is disputed. The most probable explanation is that it includes the time from
afternoon, or early eventide, until sunset. This accords with the ancient custom of the
Hebrews, who killed the paschal lamb immediately after the offering of the daily
sacrifice, which on the day of the Passover took place a little earlier than usual, between
two and three p.m. This would allow about two hours and a half for slaying and
preparing all the lambs. It is clear that they would not wait until sunset, at which time
the evening meal would take place. The slaying of the lamb thus coincides exactly with
the death of our Saviour, at the ninth hour of the day Mat_27:46.
CLARKE, "Ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day - The lamb or kid was
to be taken from the flock on the tenth day, and kept up and fed by itself till the
fourteenth day, when it was to be sacrificed. This was never commanded nor practiced
afterwards. The rabbins mark four things that were required in the first passover that
were never required afterwards:

63. 1. The eating of the lamb in their houses dispersed through Goshen.
2. The taking the lamb on the tenth day.
3. The striking of its blood on the door posts and lintels of their houses. And,
4. Their eating it in haste. These things were not required of the succeeding
generations.
The whole assembly - shall kill it - Any person might kill it, the sacrificial act in
this case not being confined to the priests.
In the evening - ‫הערבים‬ ‫בין‬ beyn haarbayim, “between the two evenings.” The Jews
divided the day into morning and evening: till the sun passed the meridian all was
morning or fore-noon; after that, all was afternoon or evening. Their first evening began
just after twelve o’clock, and continued till sunset; their second evening began at sunset
and continued till night, i.e., during the whole time of twilight; between twelve o’clock,
therefore, and the termination of twilight, the passover was to be offered.
“The day among the Jews had twelve hours, Joh_11:9. Their first hour was about six
o’clock in the morning with us. Their sixth hour was our noon. Their ninth hour
answered to our three o’clock in the afternoon. By this we may understand that the time
in which Christ was crucified began at the third hour, that is, at nine o’clock in the
morning, the ordinary time for the daily morning sacrifice, and ended at the ninth hour,
that is, three o’clock in the afternoon, the time of the evening sacrifice, Mar_15:25, Mar_
15:33, Mar_15:34, Mar_15:37. Wherefore their ninth hour was their hour of prayer,
when they used to go into the temple at the daily evening sacrifice, Act_3:1; and this was
the ordinary time for the passover. It is worthy of remark that God sets no particular
hour for the killing of the passover: any time between the two evenings, i.e., between
twelve o’clock in the day and the termination of twilight, was lawful. The daily sacrifice
(see Exo_29:38, Exo_29:39) was killed at half past the eighth hour, that is, half an hour
Before three in the afternoon; and it was offered up at half past the ninth hour, that is,
half an hour After three. In the evening of the passover it was killed at half past the
seventh hour, and offered at half past the eighth, that is, half an hour Before three: and if
the evening of the passover fell on the evening of the Sabbath, it was killed at half past
the Sixth hour, and offered at half past the Seventh, that is, half an hour Before two in
the afternoon. The reason of this was, they were first obliged to kill the daily sacrifice,
and then to kill and roast the paschal lamb, and also to rest the evening before the
passover. Agreeably to this Maimonides says ‘the killing of the passover is after mid-day,
and if they kill it before it is not lawful; and they do not kill it till after the daily evening
sacrifice, and burning of incense: and after they have trimmed the lamps they begin to
kill the paschal lambs until the end of the day.’ By this time of the day God foreshowed
the sufferings of Christ in the evening of times or in the last days, Heb_1:2; 1Pe_1:19,
1Pe_1:20 : and about the same time of the day, when the paschal lamb ordinarily died,
He died also, viz., at the ninth hour; Mat_27:46-50.” See Ainsworth.
GILL, "And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month,....
In their houses; this may denote the preservation of Christ in his infancy, and to the
appointed time of his sufferings and death; and it is remarkable, that on this very day,
the tenth of Nisan, four days before the passover, and so as many days before his
sufferings and death, he made his entry into Jerusalem, near to which he was to be
offered up, Joh_12:1,

64. and the whole assembly of the congregation shall kill it in the evening; that
is, of the fourteenth of Nisan; not between the two suns, as the Targum of Jonathan,
between the sun setting and the sun rising; nor between the setting of the sun, and the
entire disappearance of its rays of light reflecting in the air and clouds after it, as Aben
Ezra; so it is said in the Talmud (k), after the sun is set, all the time that the face of the
east is red; others say as long as a man can walk half a mile after sun setting; and others,
the twinkling of an eye; but "between the two evening's" (l), as it may be rendered; which
respects that space of time after the sun begins to decline, and the entire setting of it;
when the sun begins to decline, as it does after noon, that is the first evening, and when
it is set, that is the second; and the middle space between the one and the other is about
the nineth hour of the day, according to the Jewish computation, and, with us, about
three o'clock in the afternoon, about which time the passover used to be killed; for they
say (m),"the daily sacrifice was slain at eight and a half, and offered at the nineth; but on
the evening of the passover it was slain at seven and a half, and offered at eight and a
half, whether on a common day, or on a sabbath; and if the evening of the passover
happened to be on the evening of the sabbath, it was slain at six and a half, and offered
up at seven and a half, and after that the passover;''which was done, that there might be
time before the last evening for the slaying of the passover lamb. Josephus (n) says, at
the passover they slew the sacrifice from the nineth hour to the eleventh; See Gill on
Mat_26:17, and it being at the nineth hour that our Lord was crucified, the agreement
between him and the paschal lamb in this circumstance very manifestly appears, Mat_
27:46 though it may also in general denote Christ's appearing in the last days, in the end
of the world, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: the slaying of the paschal lamb is
ascribed to the "whole assembly of the congregation", because it was to be slain by their
order, and in their name, for their use, and they present; and thus the crucifixion of
Christ, his sufferings and death, are attributed to the men of Israel, and all the house of
Israel, Act_2:22.
HE RY, "God appointed that on the night wherein they were to go out of Egypt they
should, in each of their families, kill a lamb, or that two or three families, if they were
small, should join for a lamb. The lamb was to be got ready four days before and that
afternoon they were to kill it (Exo_12:6) as a sacrifice; not strictly, for it was not offered
upon the altar, but as a religious ceremony, acknowledging God's goodness to them, not
only in preserving them from, but in delivering them by, the plagues inflicted on the
Egyptians. See the antiquity of family-religion; and see the convenience of the joining of
small families together for religious worship, that it may be made the more solemn.
JAMISO , "keep it up until the fourteenth day, etc. — Being selected from the
rest of the flock, it was to be separated four days before sacrifice; and for the same length
of time was Christ under examination and His spotless innocence declared before the
world.
kill it in the evening — that is, the interval between the sun’s beginning to decline,
and sunset, corresponding to our three o’clock in the afternoon.
K&D, "Exo_12:6
“And it shall be to you for preservation (ye shall keep it) until the fourteenth day, and
then...slay it at sunset.” Among the reasons commonly assigned for the instruction to
choose the lamb on the 10th, and keep it till the 14th, which Jonathan and Rashi
supposed to refer to the Passover in Egypt alone, there is an element of truth in the one

65. given most fully by Fagius, “that the sight of the lamb might furnish an occasion for
conversation respecting their deliverance from Egypt,...and the mercy of God, who had
so graciously looked upon them;” but this hardly serves to explain the interval of exactly
four days. Hoffmann supposes it to refer to the four doroth (Gen_15:16), which had
elapsed since Israel was brought to Egypt, to grow into a nation. The probability of such
an allusion, however, depends upon just what Hoffmann denies without sufficient
reason, viz., upon the lamb being regarded as a sacrifice, in which Israel consecrated
itself to its God. It was to be slain by “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel:”
not by the whole assembled people, as though they gathered together for this purpose,
for the slaughtering took place in every house (Exo_12:7); the meaning is simply, that
the entire congregation, without any exception, was to slay it at the same time, viz.,
“between the two evenings” (Num_9:3, Num_9:5, Num_9:11), or “in the evening at
sunset” (Deu_16:6). Different opinions have prevailed among the Jews from a very early
date as to the precise time intended. Aben Ezra agrees with the Caraites and Samaritans
in taking the first evening to be the time when the sun sinks below the horizon, and the
second the time of total darkness; in which case, “between the two evenings” would be
from 6 o'clock to 7:20. Kimchi and Rashi, on the other hand, regard the moment of
sunset as the boundary between the two evenings, and Hitzig has lately adopted their
opinion. According to the rabbinical idea, the time when the sun began to descend, viz.,
from 3 to 5 o'clock, was the first evening, and sunset the second; so that “between the
two evenings” was from 3 to 6 o'clock. Modern expositors have very properly decided in
favour of the view held by Aben Ezra and the custom adopted by the Caraites and
Samaritans, from which the explanation given by Kimchi and Rashi does not materially
differ. It is true that this argument has been adduced in favour of the rabbinical practice,
viz., that “only by supposing the afternoon to have been included, can we understand
why the day of Passover is always called the 14th (Lev_23:5; Num_9:3, etc.);” and also,
that “if the slaughtering took place after sunset, it fell on the 15th Nisan, and not the
14th.” But both arguments are based upon an untenable assumption. For it is obvious
from Lev_23:32, where the fast prescribed for the day of atonement, which fell upon the
10th of the 7th month, is ordered to commence on the evening of the 9th day, “from even
to even,” that although the Israelites reckoned the day of 24 hours from the evening
sunset to sunset, in numbering the days they followed the natural day, and numbered
each day according to the period between sunrise and sunset. Nevertheless there is no
formal disagreement between the law and the rabbinical custom. The expression in
Deu_16:6, “at (towards) sunset,” is sufficient to show that the boundary line between the
two evenings is not to be fixed precisely at the moment of sunset, but only somewhere
about that time. The daily evening sacrifice and the incense offering were also to be
presented “between the two evenings” (Exo_29:39, Exo_29:41; Exo_30:8; Num_28:4).
Now as this was not to take place exactly at the same time, but to precede it, they could
not both occur at the time of sunset, but the former must have been offered before that.
Moreover, in later times, when the paschal lamb was slain and offered at the sanctuary,
it must have been slain and offered before sunset, if only to give sufficient time to
prepare the paschal meal, which was to be over before midnight. It was from these
circumstances that the rabbinical custom grew up in the course of time, and the lax use
of the word evening, in Hebrew as well as in every other language, left space enough for
this. For just as we do not confine the term morning to the time before sunset, but apply
it generally to the early hours of the day, so the term evening is not restricted to the
period after sunset. If the sacrifice prescribed for the morning could be offered after
sunrise, the one appointed for the evening might in the same manner be offered before
sunset.

66. BE SO , "Exodus 12:6. Ye shall keep it up — Keep it apart from the rest of the
flock. The whole assembly, shall kill it — That is, any man of the whole assembly
might kill it. For slaying the passover was not appropriated to the priests.
COKE, "Exodus 12:6. And ye shall keep it up, &c.— Keep it up apart from the
flock. And the whole assembly shall kill it, i.e. any person of the whole assembly of
Israel shall have liberty to kill it: the slaying of the passover was not appropriated to
the priesthood, as the offering of the blood was. See Leviticus 2:5. It was to be killed
in the evening; according to the Hebrew, between the two evenings. The first
evening with the Hebrews, or, as we call it, afternoon, was calculated from the time
of the sun's passing the meridian to his setting; when the second evening began, and
lasted till night, i.e. till the twilight was gone. Between these two evenings was the
passover offered; i.e. according to Maimonides, about half an hour after three, when
the daily evening sacrifice, and all belonging to it, was over, then the paschal
sacrifice began, and continued till sun-setting. It should be observed, that, about this
time of the day, JESUS CHRIST, the true Passover, was sacrificed on the cross. He
also suffered at this time of the year; and there was a tradition among the Jews,
that, as they were redeemed from Egypt on the fifteenth day of Abib, or isan, so
they should on the same day be redeemed by the Messiah.
ELLICOTT, "(6) Ye shall keep it up.—Heb., ye shall have it in custody: separate it,
i.e., from the flock, and keep it in or near your house for four days. During this time
it could be carefully and thoroughly inspected. (Comp. Exodus 12:3.)
The whole assembly of the congregation . . . shall kill it.—Every head of a family
belonging to the “congregation” was to make the necessary arrangements, to have
the victim ready, and to kill it on the fourteenth day, the day of the full moon, at a
time described as that “between the two evenings.” There is some doubt as to the
meaning of this phrase. According to Onkelos and Aben Ezra, the first evening was
at sunset, the second about an hour later, when the twilight ended and the stars
came out. With this view agrees the direction in Deuteronomy 16:6 :—“Thou shalt
sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun.” It is objected that,
according to Josephus (Bell. Jud., vi. 9, § 3), the actual time of the sacrifice was
“from the ninth to the eleventh hour”—i.e., from three o’clock to five—and that
there would not have been time for the customary ceremonies during the short
twilight of Palestine. The ceremonies consisted in the slaughter of the lambs at the
tabernacle door, and the conveyance of the blood in basins to the altar, in order that
it might be sprinkled upon it. For this operation a period of several hours’ duration
would seem to have been necessary: hence the time came gradually to be extended;
and when this had been done, a new interpretation of the phrase “between the
evenings” grew up. The first evening was explained to begin with the decline of the
sun from the zenith, and the second with the sunset; but this can scarcely have been
the original idea.
PETT, "Exodus 12:6-7
“And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, and the whole

67. assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the two evenings. And
they shall take of the blood and put it on the two side posts and on the lintel in the
houses in which they shall eat it.”
o indication is given as to why the lamb had to be kept for four days. It was
possibly so as to give time to discover any blemish. Perhaps even tribal inspections
of the lambs took place. Or it may be that its period of separation was seen as
allowing a certain time for it to become ‘holy’, a separated lamb, set apart to God.
(Compare how later after washing with water men would not be clean until a
certain period had passed, ‘shall not be clean until the evening’). But at this first
Passover it was probably also to give opportunity of all who would respond to
become aware of the situation.
The blood of the lamb was to be put on the lintel and on the two doorposts. A
number of festivals are known where blood was so applied to ward off evil spirits
but there is no question of that here. This is a ceremony required by a benevolent
Yahweh from His people and attracts his protection. The blood is there for Him to
see. And He does not need to be warded off. Rather He wants to be satisfied that
they have fulfilled His requirements. They have slain and eaten and therefore they
will be spared. Even if this ceremony is based on some similar ceremony held in the
past or known among other peoples its nature is being fundamentally changed. The
applying of the blood to the doorposts and lintel may well have a somewhat similar
purpose to the presenting of the blood at the altar. It indicates to Yahweh that the
sacrifice has been made and applies the blood of the offering of the lamb.
“The fourteenth day of Abib.” Passover was held at the time of the full moon,
fourteen days after the new moon which would commence the month. This would
aid them in their journey.
“The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel.” Each household was to slay the
lamb. This would almost certainly be done by the head of the household. All would
see him as acting as a priest. At this stage as far as we know there was no official
priesthood among the children of Israel and the father, the patriarchal figure, of the
group or of the family would act as priest. But it is emphasised that each household
offers as a part of the whole congregation.
“Between the two evenings.” This has to signify a period which is prior to the
commencement of the new day (which began in the evening), as the sun was going
down - see verse 18 and compare Deuteronomy 16:6, ‘at the going down of the sun’.
As working slaves they would be released just prior to sunset. Compare Jeremiah
6:4, ‘the day declines, the shadows of the evening are stretched out’.
The passover celebration was to be both communal, for all would do it together, and
individual, for each family unit would perform it. It had most of the elements of a
sacrifice. An unblemished lamb, set apart as holy, solemnly killed by the priestly
head of the household, partaken of by the household and the remainder burned with
fire, with its blood applied before Yahweh (Who will specifically see it - Exodus
12:13; Exodus 12:23). It is specifically called a sacrifice in Exodus 12:27. It was

68. distinctive because of the nature of the circumstances which would ever be
remembered.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same
month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the
evening.
Ver. 6. Until the fourteenth day.] {See Trapp on "Exodus 12:3"}
In the evening.] Christ came in the evening of the world; [Hebrews 1:2] in "the last
hour" ( εσχατη ωρα, 1 John 2:11); when all lay buried in darkness; in the eventide
of our sin and death.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:6. Ye shall keep it.—Does this mean simply: ye shall keep it in
store? Probably it is intimated that the lamb was designed either to represent the
persons, or to be held in custody for them. Why did this keeping of the animal last
from the 10 th to the 14 th of isan? “Which regulation, however, Jonathan and
Raschi regarded as applicable only to the passover slain in Egypt” (Keil). According
to Hofmann, the four days refer to the four generations spent by the Israelites in
Egypt. In that case the whole analogy would lie in the number four. If the 10 th day
of isan was near the day of the command, and Moses foresaw that the last plague
would not come till after four days, it was natural for him not to leave so important
a preparation to the last day; the four days, moreover, were by the ordinance itself
devoted entirely to wholesome suspense and preparation; in another form Fagius
refers to this when he says: “ut occasionem haberent inter se colloquendi et
disputandi,” etc. Vid. Keil.—The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel.—
Although every head of a family killed his lamb, yet the individual acts were a
common act of the people in the view of the author of the rite. Israel was the
household enlarged; the separate household was the community in miniature. Hence
later the lambs were slain in the court.—In the evening (literally “between the two
evenings”). This regulation, which distinguishes two evenings in one day, is
explained in three ways: (1) between sunset and dark (Aben- Ezra, the Karaites and
Samaritans, Keil and others); (2) just before and just after sunset (Kimchi, Raschi,
Hitzig); (3) between the decline of the day and sunset (Josephus, the Mishna, and
the practice of the Jews). Without doubt this is the correct explanation; in favor of it
may be adduced Exodus 16:12; Deuteronomy 16:6; John 13:2. According to this
passage, preparation for the Passover was begun before the sun was fully set.
Considerable time was needed for the removal of the leaven and the killing of the
lamb. According to the Jewish conception of the day as reckoned from6 A. M. to6 P.
M, there was in fact a double evening: first, the decline of the day of twelve hours;
secondly, the night-time, beginning at6 P. M, which, according to Genesis 1:5 and
Matthew 28:1, was always evening in the wider sense—the evening of the day of
twenty-four hours—which preceded the morning, the day in the narrower sense.
[F 5]

69. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put
it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the
houses where they eat the lambs.
BAR ES, "The upper door post - Or lintel, Exo_12:23. This direction was
understood by the Hebrews to apply only to the first Passover: it was certainly not
adopted in Palestine. The meaning of the sprinkling of blood is hardly open to question.
It was a representation of the offering of the life, substituted for that of the firstborn in
each house, as an expiatory and vicarious sacrifice.
CLARKE, "Take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts - This was
to be done by dipping a bunch of hyssop into the blood, and thus sprinkling it upon the
posts, etc.; see Exo_12:22. That this sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb was an
emblem of the sacrifice and atonement made by the death of Jesus Christ, is most clearly
intimated in the sacred writings, 1Pe_1:2; Heb_9:13, Heb_9:14; Heb_8:10. It is
remarkable that no blood was to be sprinkled on the threshold, to teach, as Mr.
Ainsworth properly observes, a reverent regard for the blood of Christ, that men should
not tread under foot the Son of God, nor count the blood of the covenant wherewith they
were sanctified an unholy thing; Heb_10:29.
GILL, "And they shall take of the blood,.... Of the lamb, being received into a
basin, Exo_12:22,
and strike it on the two side posts; with a bunch of hyssop dipped into it:
and on the upper doorpost of the houses, wherein they shall eat it; but not on
the posts of those houses, the inhabitants of which joined with their neighbours in eating
it; though Levi Ben Gersom thinks they were sprinkled as the rest; but to what purpose,
when there were no Israelites, and no firstborn in them? the two side posts were the
posts of a folding door, on which the two folds were hung, and the upper doorpost is
what is afterwards called the lintel, Exo_12:23 and has its name in Hebrew from looking
out; for, as Aben Ezra says, there was a window over the door, as is the custom
throughout the whole country of the Ishmaelites or Arabians; and so Schindler says (o),
which perhaps he took from him, that the word signifies either a lintel, or a little window
over the door, through which it might be seen who called or knocked at the door; and
adds, in Egypt, as now in Arabia, there were windows over the doors of houses. The

70. sprinkling the blood of the paschal lamb was typical of the sprinkling of the blood of
Christ upon the hearts and consciences of his people, and of their peace, safety, and
security by it from the wrath of God, and the vengeance of divine justice; of the further
use of this rite, see Exo_12:22, Aben Ezra mentions it as the opinion of some, that the
sprinkling of the blood on those places was to show that they slew the abomination of
the Egyptians openly; but he himself gives a much better reason for this rite, namely,
that it was to be a propitiation for everyone that ate in the house, and was a sign to the
destroyer, that he might look upon it in like manner, as it is said Eze_9:4, "set a mark,
&c." this seems to be peculiar to the passover in Egypt, and was not used in later times.
JAMISO , "take of the blood, and strike it on the two side-posts, etc. — as a
sign of safety to those within. The posts must be considered of tents, in which the
Israelites generally lived, though some might be in houses. Though the Israelites were
sinners as well as the Egyptians, God was pleased to accept the substitution of a lamb -
the blood of which, being seen sprinkled on the doorposts, procured them mercy. It was
to be on the sideposts and upper doorposts, where it might be looked to, not on the
threshold, where it might be trodden under foot. This was an emblem of the blood of
sprinkling (Heb_12:24; Heb_10:29).
K&D, "Exo_12:7
Some of the blood was to be put (‫ן‬ ַ‫ת‬ָ‫נ‬ as in Lev_4:18, where ‫ן‬ ֵ ִ‫י‬ is distinguished from ‫ה‬ָ ִ‫ה‬
, to sprinkle, in Lev_4:17) upon the two posts and the lintel of the door of the house in
which the lamb was eaten. This blood was to be to them a sign (Exo_12:13); for when
Jehovah passed through Egypt to smite the first-born, He would see the blood, and
would spare these houses, and not permit the destroyer to enter them (Exo_12:13, Exo_
12:23). The two posts with the lintel represented the door (Exo_12:23), which they
surrounded; and the doorway through which the house was entered stood for the house
itself, as we may see from the frequent expression “in thy gates,” for in thy towns (Exo_
20:10; Deu_5:14; Deu_12:17, etc.). The threshold, which belonged to the door quite as
much as the lintel, was not to be smeared with blood, in order that the blood might not
be trodden under foot. But the smearing of the door-posts and lintel with blood, the
house was expiated and consecrated on an altar. That the smearing with blood was to be
regarded as an act of expiation, is evident from the simple fact, that a hyssop-bush was
used for the purpose (Exo_12:22); for sprinkling with hyssop is never prescribed in the
law, except in connection with purification in the sense of expiation (Lev_14:49.; Num_
19:18-19). In Egypt the Israelites had no common altar; and for this reason, the houses
in which they assembled for the Passover were consecrated as altars, and the persons
found in them were thereby removed from the stroke of the destroyer. In this way the
smearing of the door-posts and lintel became a sign to Israel of their deliverance from
the destroyer. Jehovah made it so by His promise, that He would see the blood, and pass
over the houses that were smeared with it. Through faith in this promise, Israel acquired
in the sign a firm pledge of its deliverance. The smearing of the doorway was
relinquished, after Moses (not Josiah, as Vaihinger supposes, cf. Deu_16:5-6) had
transferred the slaying of the lambs to the court of the sanctuary, and the blood had been
ordered to be sprinkled upon the altar there.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:7. They shall take of the blood — Which was to be sprinkled
before the flesh was eaten. Strike it on the two side-posts, and the upper door- post

71. — These were to be sprinkled by dipping a bunch of hyssop into the blood, Exodus
12:22; but not the threshold, lest any one should tread upon the blood, which would
have been profane.
COFFMA , "Verses 7-11
"And they shall take of the blood, and put it on the two side-posts and upon the
lintel, upon the houses wherein they shall eat. And they shall eat the flesh in that
night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat
not of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs
and with the inwards thereof And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the
morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your
staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is Jehovah's passover."
"They shall take of the blood ..." ote that in this sprinkling of the blood there was
no altar, no priest, nor anything else that suggested the ceremonialism and
priestcraft of post-exilic times. Esses, a former Jewish Rabbi, now a believer in
Christ, noted that:
"As they were obedient to put the blood on the side-posts and the lintel above the
door, they were making the sign of the cross. And when the Lord saw the sign of the
cross in blood, he would pass over them and spare the first-born of their
houses."[13]
It is a gross error, of course, to find any such thing in this blood sprinkling that
suggests or approves of that which is commonly understood as "making the sign of
the cross." evertheless, the Lord Jesus Christ is in every line of this marvelous
Passover narrative. Just as the blood of that Passover was sprinkled upon the side-
posts and lintels of the doors, all who draw near to God in Christ today must do so
with their "hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience" (Hebrews 10:22), the blood of
Christ our Passover being the cleansing agent in view there.
"Roast with fire ..." The instruction to "roast" (not boil) the lamb has provoked
many speculations. Why roast? That it expedited the cooking of it in one piece, that
it could be more easily done in this manner, that it was a simpler and quicker
process, and that a special sanctity was supposed to attach to that which "passed
through the fire," are just a few of the reasons men have supposed lay behind this
instruction. We cannot find much fault with the opinion of Justin Martyr, who like
the former Rabbi (mentioned above), found the cross of Christ in it. He said that for
roasting the lamb, two wooden stakes were used, one passing from end to end
length-wise through the animal, and the other an upright thrust through the center
and attached to the cross-member, thus forming a cross.[14] Whether or not this
was actually the custom, we have no way of knowing, but one thing is certain:
Christ was indeed in the ceremony of the passover. Especially note that this roasting
of the Passover was not at all like the priestly method inaugurated in Deuteronomy
16:7, where one finds a demand to BOIL the meat!
"Unleavened bread ..." This was not originated in some prior pagan custom and

72. adopted into God's system here, but it was part and parcel of that original Passover.
To begin with, the very HASTE of the people, as they were "thrust out" by the
Egyptians allowed no time to prepare and use leaven. That, not some pagan notion,
is the historical fact behind the unleavened bread.
"Eat not of it raw ..." Such was forbidden, perhaps because of its pagan association.
The worship of Dionysus and Bacchus was celebrated by eating raw meat.[15]
"With bitter herbs ..." ettles, chicory, wild lettuce and endives are among the
"bitter herbs" supposed to have been used, and used by the Jews for this ceremony
until today. The meaning of this also is reflected in the reality of the Lord's Table,
where the prospect is retrospective to the sufferings and death of Our Lord, and
prospective to the coming of his glorious Second Advent. Just so, in that Passover,
the bitter herbs were retrospective to the bitter slavery and hardships of Israel in
Egypt, and prospective to their trials and hardships as they struggled to reach the
Promised Land.
"Ye shall eat it in haste ..." Fully clothed, hats, shoes, the outer cloak girded in
place, and even a walking staff! "Ready to go." That was what this meant. As a boy,
this writer attended a church where they took the Lord's Supper standing up (no
hats, however), a tradition that was sustained for centuries in the Christian religion.
In fact, the cathedrals of Europe, even today, have no pews. The people stood up to
worship God, or knelt. Martin Luther is credited with saying, "Let the Pope stand
up to take the Holy Communion, like any other stinking sinner!"[16] Jamieson
declared that until this day, "The Modern Samaritans go up to Mount Gerizim and
keep the Passover still, with these ceremonies."[17]
" either shall ye break a bone thereof ..." (Exodus 12:46) We comment on this here,
because it is implied here in the fact that head, legs, and all of the animal, even the
entrails, were to be roasted in one piece. If that does not mean "don't break a bone
of it," it doesn't mean anything! The critics who want to find a separate source and
a variable account in the passage later on in the chapter where this was specified
have simply failed to read the passage here. Oh yes, Christ again shines like the
Daystar in this type of our true Passover. ot a bone of Christ was broken, despite
the fact of a unit of the Roman army having been dispatched with orders to break
his legs. And, just as they ate that first Passover "in haste," Israel was in a hurry for
the true Passover to die, and the purpose of Pilate's order to "break his legs" was
that of HASTE I G his death (which had already occurred). See John 19:31-33.
"It is Jehovah's passover ..." It is an error, therefore, to view this as the Passover of
a group of priests of later ages, who were trying to rewrite history as a support of
changes they desired to make. God was the author, not only of the first Passover
recounted here, but of the far greater and more wonderful Passover, Jesus Christ
our Lord.
COKE, "Exodus 12:7. They shall take of the blood, &c.— It appears, from Exodus
12:22 that this ceremony was to be performed by dipping a bunch of hyssop into the

73. blood of the lamb. It was peculiar to this first passover: and the reason of it is given
in the 23rd verse. In after-times, when the children of Israel were settled, the
passover was to be sacrificed only in the appointed place of public worship, when
the blood was sprinkled by the priest on the altar, Deuteronomy 5:7. Leviticus 17:6.
2 Chronicles 35:11. This was an emblem of the virtue of the blood of Christ, who
delivers us from the destroying angel, and saves us from the wrath of GOD.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Strike it.—With a bunch of hyssop. (See Exodus 12:22.)
The two side posts and on the upper door post.—The idea seems to have been that
the destroying influence, whatever it was, would enter the house by the door. The
sight of the bloody stains above the door and on either side would prevent its
entering. The word translated “upper door post” appears to be derived from
shâcaph, “to look out,” and to signify properly the latticed window above the door,
through which persons reconnoitred those who knocked before admitting them.
Such windows are frequently represented in the early Egyptian monuments. The
blood thus rendered conspicuous would show that atonement had been made for the
house, i.e., for its inmates.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike [it] on the two
side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
Ver. 7. And strike it on the two sideposts.] ot on the threshold. We may not "tread
under foot the Son of God, or count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing,"
[Hebrews 10:29] but get "our hearts sprinkled" tberewith by the hyssop branch of
faith "from an evil conscience, that we may serve the living God." [Hebrews 9:14]
LA GE, "Exodus 12:7. Take of the blood.—The two door-posts, as well as the lintel
of the door, denote the whole door; the threshold is excepted because the atoning
blood should not be trodden under foot. “The door,” says Keil, “through which one
goes into the house, stands for the house itself; as is shown by the frequent
expression: ‘in thy gates,’ for ‘in thy cities,’ Exodus 20:10, etc.” It is here assumed
that every house or tent had a door properly so called. “Expiation was made for the
house, and it was consecrated as an altar” (Keil). This is a confused conception. It
was the household that was atoned for; the building did thus indeed become a sort
of sanctuary; but in what sense was it to be an altar? For here all kinds of offerings
were united in one central offering: the ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ֶר‬‫ח‬, or the slaughter of the Egyptian
firstborn; the expiatory offering, or the blood sprinkled by the hyssop-branch on
the door-posts ( Leviticus 14:49; umbers 19:18), which, therefore, as such
represent the several parts of the altar; the thank-offering, or the Passover-meal;
the burnt-offering, or the burning of the parts left over. Because the door-posts
themselves stand for the altar, the smearing of them was afterwards given up, and,
instead, the lamb was killed in the court; and this change must have been made as
soon as there was a court.

74. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted
over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread
made without yeast.
BAR ES, "In that night - The night is thus clearly distinguished from the evening
when the lamb was slain. It was slain before sunset, on the 14th, and eaten after sunset,
the beginning of the 15th.
With fire - Among various reasons given for this injunction the most probable and
satisfactory seems to be the special sanctity attached to fire from the first institution of
sacrifice (compare Gen_4:4).
And unleavened bread - On account of the hasty departure, allowing no time for
the process of leavening: but the meaning discerned by Paul, 1Co_5:7-8, and recognized
by the Church in all ages, was assuredly implied, though not expressly declared in the
original institution. Compare our Lord’s words, Mat_16:6, Mat_16:12, as to the
symbolism of leaven.
Bitter herbs - The word occurs only here and in Num_9:11, in reference to herbs.
The symbolic reference to the previous sufferings of the Israelites is generally admitted.
CLARKE, "They shall eat the flesh - roast with fire - As it was the ordinary
custom of the Jews to boil their flesh, some think that the command given here was in
opposition to the custom of the Egyptians, who ate raw flesh in honor of Osiris. The
Ethiopians are to this day remarkable for eating raw flesh, as is the case with most
savage nations.
Unleavened bread - ‫מצות‬ matstsoth, from ‫מצה‬ matsah, to squeeze or compress,
because the bread prepared without leaven or yeast was generally compressed, sad or
heavy, as we term it. The word here properly signifies unleavened cakes; the word for
leaven in Hebrew is ‫חמץ‬ chamets, which simply signifies to ferment. It is supposed that
leaven was forbidden on this and other occasions, that the bread being less agreeable to
the taste, it might be emblematical of their bondage and bitter servitude, as this seems to
have been one design of the bitter herbs which were commanded to be used on this
occasion; but this certainly was not the sole design of the prohibition: leaven itself is a
species of corruption, being produced by fermentation, which in such cases tends to
putrefaction. In this very light St. Paul considers the subject in this place; hence,
alluding to the passover as a type of Christ, he says: Purge out therefore the old leaven -
for Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old
leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread

75. of sincerity and truth; 1Co_5:6-8.
Bitter herbs - What kind of herbs or salad is intended by the word ‫מררים‬ merorim,
which literally signifies bitters, is not well known. The Jews think chicory, wild lettuce,
horehound, and the like are intended. Whatever may be implied under the term,
whether bitter herbs or bitter ingredients in general, it was designed to put them in mind
of their bitter and severe bondage in the land of Egypt, from which God was now about
to deliver them.
GILL, "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire,.... The night of
the fourteenth of Nisan; and as the Jews reckoned their days from the evening
preceding, this must be the beginning of the fifteenth day, which being observed, will
serve to reconcile some passages relating to this ordinance. The lamb was to be roasted,
not only because its flesh thereby would be more palatable and savoury, but because
soonest dressed that way, their present circumstances requiring haste; but chiefly to
denote the sufferings of Christ, the antitype of it, when he endured the wrath of God,
poured out as fire upon him; and also to show, that he is to be fed upon by faith, which
works by love, or to be received with hearts inflamed with love to him:
and unleavened bread; this also was to be eaten at the same time, and for seven days
running, even to the twenty first day of the month, Exo_12:15, where see more
concerning this: the reason of this also was, because they were then in haste, and could
not stay to leaven the dough that was in their troughs; and was significative of the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, with which the true passover lamb is to be
eaten, in opposition to the leaven of error, hypocrisy, and malice, 1Co_5:7,
and with bitter herbs they shall eat it; the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "with
wild lettuces", which are very bitter; and the worst sort of which, for bitterness, Pliny
says (p), is what they call "picris", which has its name from the bitterness of it, and is the
same by which the Septuagint render the word here: the Targum of Jonathan is,"with
horehound and endive they shall eat it;''and so the Targum on Son_2:9. Wild endive; of
which Pliny says (q), there is a wild endive, which in Egypt they call cichory, and bids
fair to be one of these herbs; according to the Misnah (r) and Maimonides (s), there were
five sorts of them, and anyone, or all of them, might be eaten; their names with both are
these, Chazoreth, Ulshin, Thamcah, Charcabinah, and Maror; the four first of which may
be the wild lettuce, endive, horehound, or perhaps "tansie"; and cichory the last. Maror
has its name from bitterness, and is by the Misnic commentators (t) said to be a sort of
the most bitter coriander; it seems to be the same with "picris": but whatever they were,
for it is uncertain what they were, they were expressive of the bitter afflictions of the
children of Israel in Egypt, with which their lives were made bitter; and of those bitter
afflictions and persecutions in the world, which they that will live godly in Christ Jesus
must expect to endure; as well as they may signify that as a crucified Christ must be
looked upon, and lived upon by faith, so with mourning and humiliation for sin, and
with true repentance for it as an evil and bitter thing, see Zec_12:10.
JAMISO , "roast with fire — for the sake of expedition; and this difference was
always observed between the cooking of the paschal lamb and the other offerings (2Ch_
35:13).
unleavened bread — also for the sake of despatch (Deu_16:3), but as a kind of

76. corruption (Luk_12:1) there seems to have been a typical meaning under it (1Co_5:8).
bitter herbs — literally, “bitters” - to remind the Israelites of their affliction in Egypt,
and morally of the trials to which God’s people are subject on account of sin.
K&D, "Exo_12:8-9
With regard to the preparation of the lamb for the meal, the following directions were
given: “They shall eat the lamb in that night” (i.e., the night following the 14th), and
none of it ‫א‬ָ‫נ‬ (“underdone” or raw), or ‫ל‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ָ (“boiled,” - lit., done, viz., ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ִ ַ ‫ל‬ ָ ֻ‫ב‬ ְ‫,מ‬ done in
water, i.e., boiled, as ‫ל‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ ָ does not mean to be boiled, but to become ripe or done, Joe_
3:13); “but roasted with fire, even its head on (along with) its thighs and entrails;” i.e.,
as Rashi correctly explains it, “undivided or whole, so that neither head nor thighs were
cut off, and not a bone was broken (Exo_12:46), and the viscera were roasted in the belly
along with the entrails,” the latter, of course, being first of all cleansed. On ‫ים‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְⅴ and ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ק‬
see Lev_1:9. These regulations are all to be regarded from one point of view. The first
two, neither underdone nor boiled, were connected with the roasting of the animal
whole. As the roasting no doubt took place on a spit, since the Israelites while in Egypt
can hardly have possessed such ovens of their own, as are prescribed in the Talmud and
are met with in Persia, the lamb would be very likely to be roasted imperfectly, or
underdone, especially in the hurry that must have preceded the exodus (Exo_12:11). By
boiling, again, the integrity of the animal would have been destroyed, partly through the
fact that it could never have been got into a pot whole, as the Israelites had no pots or
kettles sufficiently large, and still more through the fact that, in boiling, the substance of
the flesh is more or less dissolved. For it is very certain that the command to roast was
not founded upon the hurry of the whole procedure, as a whole animal could be quite as
quickly boiled as roasted, if not even more quickly, and the Israelites must have
possessed the requisite cooking utensils. It was to be roasted, in order that it might be
placed upon the table undivided and essentially unchanged. “Through the unity and
integrity of the lamb given them to eat, the participants were to be joined into an
undivided unity and fellowship with the Lord, who had provided them with the meal”
(cf. 1Co_10:17).
(Note: See my Archäologie i. p. 386. Baehr (Symb. 2, 635) has given the true
explanation: “By avoiding the breaking of the bones, the animal was preserved in
complete integrity, undisturbed and entire (Psa_34:20). The sacrificial lamb to be
eaten was to be thoroughly and perfectly whole, and at the time of eating was to
appear as a perfect whole, and therefore as one; for it is not what is dissected,
divided, broken in pieces, but only what is whole, that is eo ipso one. There was not
other reason for this, than that all who took part in this one whole animal, i.e., all who ate of
it, should look upon themselves as one whole, one community, like those who eat the New
Testament Passover, the body of Christ (1Co_5:7), of whom the apostle says (1Co_10:17),
“There is one bread, and so we, being many, are one body: for we are all partakers of one
body.” The preservation of Christ, so that not a bone was broken, had the same signification;
and God ordained this that He might appear as the true paschal lamb, that was slain for the
sins of the world.”)
They were to eat it with ‫ּות‬‫צ‬ ַ‫מ‬ (ᅎζυµα, azymi panes; lxx, Vulg.), i.e., (not sweet, or

77. parched, but) pure loaves, nor fermented with leaven; for leaven, which sets the dough
in fermentation, and so produces impurity, was a natural symbol of moral corruption,
and was excluded from the sacrifices therefore as defiling (Lev_2:11).
“Over (upon) bitter herbs they shall eat it.” ‫ים‬ ִ‫ּר‬‫ר‬ ְ‫,מ‬ πικρίδες (lxx), lactucae agrestes
(Vulg.), probably refers to various kinds of bitter herbs. Πικρίς, according to Aristot.
Hist. an. 9, 6, and Plin. h. n. 8, 41, is the same as lactuca silvestris, or wild lettuce; but in
Dioscor. 2, 160, it is referred to as the wild σέρις or κιχώριον, i.e., wild endive, the intubus
or intubum of the Romans. As lettuce and endive are indigenous in Egypt, and endive is
also met with in Syria from the beginning of the winter months to the end of March, and
lettuce in April and May, it is to these herbs of bitter flavor that the term merorim
chiefly applies; though others may also be included, as the Arabs apply the same term to
Scorzonera orient., Picris scabra, Sonclus oler., Hieracium uniflor., and others (Forsk.
flor. cxviii. and 143); and in the Mishnah, Pes. 2, 6, five different varieties of bitter herbs
are reckoned as merorim, though it is difficult to determine what they are (cf. Bochart,
Hieroz. 1, pp. 691ff., and Cels. Hierobot. ii. p. 727). By ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ (upon) the bitter herbs are
represented, both here and in Num_9:11, not as an accompaniment to the meat, but as
the basis of the meal. ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ does not signify along with, or indicate accompaniment, not
even in Exo_35:22; but in this and other similar passages it still retains its primary
signification, upon or over. It is only used to signify accompaniment in cases where the
ideas of protection, meditation, or addition are prominent. If, then, the bitter herbs are
represented in this passage as the basis of the meal, and the unleavened bread also in
Num_9:11, it is evident that the bitter herbs were not intended to be regarded as a
savoury accompaniment, by which more flavour was imparted to the sweeter food, but
had a more profound signification. The bitter herbs were to call to mind the bitterness of
life experienced by Israel in Egypt (Exo_1:14), and this bitterness was to be overpowered
by the sweet flesh of the lamb. In the same way the unleavened loaves are regarded as
forming part of the substance of the meal in Num_9:11, in accordance with their
significance in relation to it (vid., Exo_12:15). There is no discrepancy between this and
Deu_16:3, where the mazzoth are spoken of as an accompaniment to the flesh of the
sacrifice; for the allusion there is not to the eating of the paschal lamb, but to sacrificial
meals held during the seven days' festival.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:8-9. Eat it not raw — or half dressed; but roast with fire —
ot only because it might be sooner roasted than boiled, and they were in haste to
be gone; but because it was thus the better type of him who endured the fierceness
of divine wrath for us, Lamentations 1:13. Unleavened bread — Partly to remind
them of their hardships in Egypt, unleavened bread being more heavy and
unsavoury; and partly to commemorate their hasty deliverance, which did not allow
them time to leaven it, Exodus 12:39;
Deuteronomy 16:3. But as the original word for unleavened signifies pure, unmixed,
uncorrupted, leaven being a kind of corruption, the use of unleavened bread, no
doubt, was enjoined to show them the necessity of sincerity and uprightness: to
which quality of leaven the apostle alludes, Galatians 5:2, and 1 Corinthians 5:8.
With bitter herbs — To remind them of their Egyptian bondage, which made their
lives bitter to them.

78. COKE, "Exodus 12:8. They shall eat the flesh in that night— That is to say, the
night following the fourteenth, and beginning the fifteenth day; for we must not
forget, that the Hebrew day commenced from the setting of the sun. The lamb was
to be sacrificed the fourteenth, between three and six; but it was eaten on the
fifteenth, i.e. in the beginning of it: whence the passover is said to be offered
sometimes on the fourteenth, and sometimes on the fifteenth day: a remark, which
may serve to reconcile some seemingly contrary passages of Scripture. It was to be
eaten roast with fire; as not only the most expeditious and convenient method, but
as generally supposed to be a fitter type of HIM, who endured the fierceness of
Divine wrath for us. See Lamentations 1:13. It was to be eaten with unleavened
bread; partly to commemorate their hasty deliverance, which did not allow them to
leaven it, as we learn from Exodus 12:39 and partly to remind them of their
hardships in Egypt: unleavened bread being more heavy and unsavoury than
leavened; nay, and expressly called, in allusion to this event, the bread of affliction,
Deuteronomy 16:3. It was designed, most probably, to remind them further of that
sincerity, which is an indispensable requisite in every act of religious duty. St. Paul,
at least, leads us to this idea, when, 1 Corinthians 5:8 he says, let us keep the feast
with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth; see Galatians 5:9 and Matthew
16:6 accordingly, the original word for unleavened, signifies pure, unmixed,
uncorrupted, for leaven is a kind of corruption. Plutarch tells us, that the use of
leaven was forbidden to the priests of Jupiter; because, being itself bred of
corruption, it corrupts the mass with which it is mixed. To remind the Israelites also
of that hard bondage in Egypt which made their lives bitter, ch. Exodus 1:14 they
were to eat the lamb with, or upon bitter herbs. The original expresses no species of
herbs; literally it is, with bitterness: with bitter things or ingredients.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 8
(8) Roast with fire.—Roasting is the simplest, the easiest, and the most primitive
mode of cooking meat. It was also the only mode open to all the Hebrews, since the
generality would not possess cauldrons large enough to receive an entire lamb.
Further, the requirement put a difference between this and other victims, which
were generally cut up and boiled (1 Samuel 2:14-15).
Unleavened bread . . . bitter herbs.—As partaking of the lamb typified feeding on
Christ, so the putting away of leaven and eating unleavened bread signified the
putting away of all defilement and corruption ere we approach Christ to feed on
Him (1 Corinthians 5:8). As for the bitter herbs, they probably represented “self-
denial” or “repentance”—fitting concomitants of the holy feast, where the Lamb of
God is our food. At any rate, they were a protest against that animalism which turns
a sacred banquet into a means of gratifying the appetite (1 Corinthians 11:20-22).
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Exodus 12:8
Christianity, considered as a moral system, is made up of two elements, beauty and
severity; whenever either is indulged to the loss or disparagement of the other, evil
ensues.... Even the Jews, to whom this earth was especially given, and who might be
supposed to be at liberty without offence to satiate themselves in its gifts, were not

79. allowed to enjoy it without restraint. Even the Paschal Lamb, their great typical
feast, was eaten "with bitter herbs".
— ewman, Sermons on Subjects of the Day, pp120-121.
PETT, "Exodus 12:8-10
“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire and unleavened bread.
They will eat it with bitter herbs. Do not eat of it raw, or sodden with water, but
roast with fire, its head with its legs and with the inwards thereof. And you shall let
nothing remain of it until the morning, but that which remains of it until the
morning you shall burn with fire.”
The lamb was to be eaten roasted with fire, not raw or boiled with water. The
roasting may have been for purposes of speed, compared with boiling. Among other
peoples sacrificial flesh was often eaten raw with a view to absorbing the blood of
the animal, its life-force. But it was not to be so here. The eating of the blood would
later be strictly forbidden to Israel (Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:10) and clearly was
so here. However, sacrificial flesh was certainly often boiled (Leviticus 6:28;
umbers 6:19). This is therefore a specific enactment. Deuteronomy 16:7 is
sometimes cited as later allowing the boiling of the Passover lamb, but compare 2
Chronicles 35:13 where bashal is used for both roast and boil (it can also mean
‘bake’ - 2 Samuel 13:8). It is thus a general word for cooking.
“Unleavened cakes.” Quickly and easily cooked. There is continual emphasis in the
passage on speed and readiness. Compare also 12:34 where it is stated that they did
not have time to leaven their dough. In Deuteronomy 16:3 they are called ‘the bread
of affliction’ because of their connection with the escape from Egypt.
“Bitter herbs.” The lives of the children of Israel had been made ‘bitter’ (Exodus
1:14) and this symbolised the bitterness of their lives in Egypt. (Later, according to
the Mishnah, these would be composed of lettuce, chicory, pepperwort, snakeroot
and dandelion).
othing was to be left of the meal. Whatever was uneaten was to be burned with
fire. This would be because it was seen as a holy meal, set apart to God, and thus to
be reserved only for use in the celebration. What remained was used as an offering
to God. The whole of the sacrifice was thus seen as that night preparing them for
their deliverance by sanctifying them (setting them apart as holy) in God’s eyes.
“Its head and its legs with the inwards thereof.” These were probably to be burned
up and not eaten (compare Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 1:8-9; Leviticus 1:12-13;
Leviticus 4:11; Leviticus 8:20-21; Leviticus 9:13-14).
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and
unleavened bread; [and] with bitter [herbs] they shall eat it.
Ver. 8. In that night.] By candle light. So must we feed upon Christ, lumine

80. supernaturali. "By his knowledge doth God’s righteous servant justify many."
[Isaiah 53:11]
Roast withfire.] ot raw: we may not grossly conceive of Christ, nor rashly receive
him. ot boiled, but roast: to show that Christ was roasted in the fire of his Father’s
wrath: et sicut tostis cibariis non adhibentur alia, ut in elixis fieri consuevlt: ira
solum Christum debemus apprehendere fide, saith an interpreter. (a)
And unleavened bread,] {See Trapp on "1 Corinthians 5:7"} {See Trapp on "1
Corinthians 5:8"}
And with bitter herbs.] To teach that, "looking upon Christ whom they have
pierced," men must be "in bitterness," [Zechariah 12:10] and feel what "an evil and
bitter thing sin is," [Jeremiah 2:19] being ready to suffer hardship with Christ,
though he should feed us to the full with bitter herbs, and "make us drunken with
wormwood." [Lamentations 3:15]
LA GE, "Exodus 12:8. On that night.—The one following the 14 th of isan. Why
only on the same night? Otherwise it would not have been a festive meal. Why
roasted? The fire (itself symbolically significant) concentrates the strength of the
meat; by boiling a part of it passes into the water. The unleavened bread has a two-
fold significance. When eaten at the Passover, it denotes separation from the leaven
of Egypt ( Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:12; 2 Corinthians 5:8); as a feast by itself, the
feast of unleavened bread, called bread of affliction, denotes remembrance of the
afflictions which were connected with the flight from Egypt ( Deuteronomy 16:3).
This is overlooked, when it is inferred from Exodus 12:17 that the ordinance of the
feast of unleavened bread was made at a later time (as Keil does, II, p20).—With
bitter herbs.—‫ים‬ ִ‫ֹר‬ ‫ְר‬‫מ‬, πικρίδες (LXX.), lactucæ agrestes (Vulg.), the wild lettuce, the
endive, etc. Vid. Keil II, p15, Knobel, p99. “According to Russell,” says Knobel,
“there are endives in Syria from the beginning of the winter months to the end of
March; then comes lettuce in April and May.” According to Keil, “the bitter herbs
are not called accompaniments of the meal, but are represented as the principal part
of the meal, here and in umbers 9:11.” For ‫ַל‬‫ע‬, he says, does not mean along with,
together with, but retains its fundamental meaning, upon, over. In this way the
following strange symbolic meaning is deduced: “The bitter herbs are to call to
mind the bitterness of life experienced by Israel in Egypt, and this bitterness is to be
overcome by the sweet flesh of the lamb.” If only the bitter herbs did not taste
pleasant! If only the lamb did not form a meal of thank-offering, and in this meal
were not the chief thing! May not the lamb, according to the usual custom, have lain
upon a setting of bitter herbs? In the passage before us only the unleavened bread is
said to be put upon the bitter herbs. The modification of the arrangement in
umbers 9:11 is unimportant. It is a strange notion that the bitter herbs and the
sweet bread formed “the basis of the Passover-meal” (Keil). In that case the “sweet”
bread ought to have made the “sweet” flesh of the lamb superfluous. Moreover, the

81. opposite of sweet is not bitter, but sour. According to Knobel, the bitter herbs
correspond to the frankincense which used to accompany many offerings of grain,
inasmuch as they had, for the most part, a pleasant odor. But frankincense has a
special reference to prayer. If the bitter herbs are to be interpreted as symbolic, we
may understand that they supplement the negative significance of the unleavened
bread by something positive, as being health-giving, vitalizing, consecratory herbs.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but
roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and
internal organs.
BAR ES, "Raw - i. e. “half-cooked.”
Sodden ... with water - It was probably more common to seethe meat than to roast
meat; hence, the regrets expressed by the Israelites for the seething pots of Egypt.
The purtenance thereof - or its intestines. This verse directs that the lamb should
be roasted and placed on the table whole. No bone was to be broken (see Exo_12:46, and
margin reference). The bowels were taken out, washed and then replaced. The Talmud
prescribes the form of the oven of earthenware, in which the lamb was roasted, open
above and below with a grating for the fire. Lambs and sheep are roasted whole in
Persia, nearly in the same manner.
This entire consumption of the lamb constitutes one marked difference between the
Passover and all other sacrifices, in which either a part or the whole was burned, and
thus offered directly to God. The whole substance of the sacrificed lamb was to enter into
the substance of the people, the blood only excepted, which was sprinkled as a
propitiatory and sacrificial offering. Another point of subordinate importance is noticed.
The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled by the head of each family: no separate
priesthood as yet existed in Israel; its functions belonged from the beginning to the
father of the family: when the priesthood was instituted the slaying of the lamb still
devolved on the heads of families, though the blood was sprinkled on the altar by the
priests; an act which essentially belonged to their office. The typical character of this
part of the transaction is clear. Our Lord was offered and His blood shed as an expiatory
and propitiatory sacrifice, but His whole Humanity is transfused spiritually and
effectually into His Church, an effect which is at once symbolized and assured in holy
communion, the Christian Passover.

82. CLARKE, "With the purtenance thereof - All the intestines, for these were
abused by the heathens to purposes of divination; and when roasted in the manner here
directed they could not be thus used. The command also implies that the lamb was to be
roasted whole; neither the head or legs were to be separated, nor the intestines removed.
I suppose that these last simply included the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc., and not the
intestinal canal.
GILL, "Eat not of it raw,.... Not roasted enough; and so Jarchi says, that what is not
sufficiently roasted, or is not thoroughly and down roasted, is in the Arabic language
called ‫נא‬ (u), the word here used; and so Maimonides (w) says it signifies flesh, on which
the fire begins to operate, and is roasted a little, but not enough for eating. And indeed
there seems to be no necessity of a prohibition of eating the flesh quite raw: some (x)
derive the word from a root which signifies to break, and suppose that this rule forbids
the breaking or cutting it in pieces; that as it was to be roasted whole, and not a bone of
it to be broken, so it was to be brought to table whole, and the whole to be eaten; but
then it could not be eaten without being cut to pieces. Abarbinel (y) takes the word in the
usual signification of it, "now", as if the sense was, ye shall not eat of it now, not before
the evening of the fourteenth day; but whereas Moses had told them, Exo_12:6, that the
lamb was to be kept up until the fourteenth day, it was needless to tell them that they
should not eat it now or immediately; the first sense is best, and this shows that Christ,
the antitype of this lamb, is not to be eaten in a carnal but spiritual manner, of which our
Lord treats in Joh_6:31, nor sodden at all with water; the Targum of Jonathan
is,"neither boiled in wine, nor in oil, nor in other liquor, nor boiled in water.''This, with
respect to the antitype, shows, that Christ is not to be received in a cold lukewarm
manner, and with indifference; and that nothing is to be mixed, added, and joined unto
him, but he alone is to be regarded in the business of our acceptance, justification, and
salvation:
but roast with fire; for the reasons before given: the manner of roasting it, according
to the Jewish canons (z), was this, they bring a spit made of the wood of pomegranate,
and thrust it into its mouth quite through it, and put the thighs and entrails within it;
they do not roast the passover lamb on an iron spit, nor on an iron grate. Maimonides
(a) is a little more particular and exact in his account; to the question, how do they roast
it? he replies,"they transfix it through the middle of the mouth to its posteriors, with a
wooden spit, and they hang it in the midst of a furnace, and the fire below:''so that it was
not turned upon a spit, according to our manner of roasting, but was suspended on a
hook, and roasted by the fire underneath, and so was a more exact figure of Christ
suspended on the cross, and enduring the fire of divine wrath. And Justin Martyr (b) is
still more particular, who was by birth a Samaritan, and was well versed in Jewish
affairs; he, even in conversing with Trypho the Jew, who could have contradicted him
had he said what was wrong, says, the lamb was roasted in the form of a cross; one spit,
he says, went through from the lower parts to the head, and again another across the
shoulders, to which the hands (or rather the legs) of the lamb were fastened and hung;
and so was a very lively emblem of Christ crucified:
his head, with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof; or with its inwards (c),

83. these were all to be roasted together, the whole lamb with all that belonged to it, with
which the above canon of the Jews agrees.
JAMISO , "Eat not of it raw — that is, with any blood remaining; a caveat against
conformity to idolatrous practices. It was to be roasted whole, not a bone to be broken,
and this pointed to Christ (Joh_19:36).
COKE, "Exodus 12:9. Eat not of it raw, &c.— Particular caution is here given, that
the lamb should be roasted with fire; that he should be roasted whole: his head, with
his legs, and all which pertains to him. It was not to be eaten raw; that is rare, or
half-roasted: it was to be thoroughly done, none of the blood remaining in it; in
opposition (as Spencer thinks) to what the Egyptians did in the worship of Bacchus,
i.e. Osiris, when they ate raw flesh: nor sodden with water, as they used in their
sacrifices, says he, to their god Hori. It is particularly expressed, that it was to be
roasted with fire; in opposition, as some think, to the custom of roasting their
sacrifices in the sun; which was usual among some heathen nations. And it was to be
roasted whole with its entrails; in opposition to the superstitious custom of the
pagans, who used to consult the entrails of the victims; and to teach the Jews, that,
in the paschal lamb, all was sacred, and to be considered as such.
ELLICOTT, "(9) His head with his legs . . . —The lamb was to be roasted whole:
“not a bone of it was to be broken” (Exodus 12:46). Justin Martyr says that it was
prepared for roasting by means of two wooden spits, one perpendicular and the
other transverse, which extended it on a sort of cross, and made it aptly typify the
Crucified One.
The purtenance thereof.—Heb., its inside. The entrails were taken out, carefully
cleansed, and then replaced.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:9. Its head with its legs. [“From the head to the thighs,” is
Lange’s translation.] “I.e., as Raschi correctly explains, whole, not cut in pieces, so
that the head and legs are not separated from the animal, no bone of him is broken (
Exodus 12:46), and the inward parts together with the (nobler?) entrails, these of
course first cleansed, are roasted in and with the body.”[F 6] The unity of the lamb
was to remain intact; on which point comp. Bähr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus
II, p635, Keil, and others.[F 7] The symbolic significance of the lamb thus tended
towards the notion of personality and inviolability, that on which rested also the fact
and continuance of the unity of the family which partook of it.
10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is
left till morning, you must burn it.

84. BAR ES, "This was afterward a general law of sacrifices; at once preventing all
possibility of profanity, and of superstitious abuse. The injunction is on both accounts
justly applied by our Church to the eucharist.
Burn with fire - Not being consumed by man, it was thus offered, like other
sacrifices Exo_12:8, to God.
CLARKE, "Ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning - Merely to
prevent putrefaction; for it was not meet that a thing offered to God should be subjected
to corruption, which in such hot countries it must speedily undergo. Thus the body of
our blessed Lord saw no corruption, Psa_16:10; Act_2:27, because, like the paschal
lamb, it was a sacrifice offered to God.
It appears that from the Jewish passover the heathens borrowed their sacrifice termed
Propter Viam. It was their custom previously to their undertaking a journey, to offer a
sacrifice to their gods, and to eat the whole if possible, but if any part was left they
burned it with fire; and this was called propter viam, because it was made to procure a
prosperous journey. It was in reference to this that Cato is said to have rallied a person
called Q. Albidius, who, having eaten up all his goods, set fire to his house, his only
remaining property. “He has offered his sacrifice propter viam,” says Cato, “because he
has burned what he could not eat.” This account is given by Macrobius, Saturn., lib. ii.,
2, edit. Bipont., vol. 1, p. 333; and is a remarkable instance how closely some of the
religious observances of the people of God have been copied by the heathen nations.
GILL, "And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning,.... It was to be
all ate up; a whole Christ is to be received and fed upon by faith; Christ in both his
natures, divine and human, united in his person, in all his offices of prophet, priest, and
King, and with all the benefits and blessings of his grace, and which come by his blood,
righteousness, and sacrifice:
and that which remaineth of it until the morning, ye shall burn with fire:
what of the flesh which remaineth not ate, and what of it that could not be eaten, as the
bones, which were not broken, and the nerves and sinews, which might not be eaten;
and so runs the Jewish canon (d),"the bones, and the sinews, and what remains, they
shall burn on the sixteenth day; and if the sixteenth happens on the sabbath, they shall
burn on the seventeenth.''The reason of this law was, that what was left might not be
converted to common or superstitious uses, as also that the Israelites might not be
burdened with it in their journey, nor the Egyptians have an opportunity of treating it
with contempt.
JAMISO , "let nothing of it remain until the morning — which might be
applied in a superstitious manner, or allowed to putrefy, which in a hot climate would

85. speedily have ensued; and which was not becoming in what had been offered to God.
K&D, "Exo_12:10-11
The lamb was to be all eaten wherever this was possible; but if any was left, it was to
be burned with fire the following day, - a rule afterwards laid down for all the sacrificial
meals, with one solitary exception (vid., Lev_7:15). They were to eat it ‫ּון‬‫ז‬ ָ ִ‫ח‬ ְ , “in anxious
flight” (from ‫ז‬ ַ‫פ‬ ָ‫ח‬ trepidare, Psa_31:23; to flee in terror, Deu_20:3; 2Ki_7:15); in
travelling costume therefore, - with “the loins girded,” that they might not be impeded in
their walking by the long flowing dress (2Ki_4:29), - with “shoes (Sandals) on their feet,”
that they might be ready to walk on hard, rough roads, instead of barefooted, as they
generally went (cf. Jos_9:5, Jos_9:13; Bynaeus de calceis ii. 1, 7; and Bochart, Hieroz. i.
pp. 686ff.), and “staff in hand” (Gen_32:11). The directions in Exo_12:11 had reference
to the paschal meal in Egypt only, and had no other signification than to prepare the
Israelites for their approaching departure. But though “this preparation was intended to
give the paschal meal the appearance of a support for the journey, which the Israelites
were about to tale,” this by no means exhausts its signification. The divine instructions
close with the words, “it is ‫ח‬ ַ‫ס‬ ֶ to Jehovah;” i.e., what is prescribed is a pesach appointed
by Jehovah, and to be kept for Him (cf. Exo_20:10, “Sabbath to Jehovah;” Exo_32:5,
“feast to Jehovah”). The word ‫ח‬ ַ‫ס‬ ֶ , Aram. ‫א‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ס‬ ִ‫,פ‬ Gr. πάσχα, is derived from ‫ח‬ ַ‫ס‬ ָ , lit., to
leap or hop, from which these two meanings arise: (1) to limp (1Ki_18:21; 2Sa_4:4, etc.);
and (2) to pass over, transire (hence Tiphsah, a passage over, 1Ki_4:24). It is for the
most part used figuratively for ᆓπερβαίνειν, to pass by or spare; as in this case, where the
destroying angel passed by the doors and houses of the Israelites that were smeared with
blood. From this, pesach (ᆓπέρβασις, Aquil. in Exo_12:11; ᆓπερβασία, Joseph. Ant. ii. 14,
6) came afterwards to be used for the lamb, through which, according to divine
appointment, the passing by or sparing had been effected (Exo_12:21, Exo_12:27; 2Ch_
35:1, 2Ch_35:13, etc.); then for the preparation of the lamb for a meal, in accordance
with the divine instructions, or for the celebration of this meal (thus here, Exo_12:11;
Lev_23:5; Num_9:7, etc.); and then, lastly, it was transferred to the whole seven days'
observance of the feast of unleavened bread, which began with this meal (Deu_16:1), and
also to the sacrifices which were to be offered at that feast (Deu_16:2; 2Ch_35:1, 2Ch_
35:7, etc.). The killing of the lamb appointed for the pesach was a ‫ח‬ ַ‫ב‬ֶ‫,ז‬ i.e., a slain-
offering, as Moses calls it when making known the command of God to the elders (Exo_
12:27); consequently the eating of it was a sacrificial feast (“the sacrifice of the feast of
the Passover,” Exo_34:25). For ‫ח‬ ַ‫ב‬ָ‫ז‬ is never applied to slaying alone, as ‫ט‬ ַ‫ח‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ is. Even in
Pro_17:1 and 1Sa_28:24, which Hoffmann adduces in support of this meaning, it
signifies “to sacrifice” only in a figurative or transferred sense. At the first Passover in
Egypt, it is true, there was no presentation (‫יב‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫,)ה‬ because Israel had not altar there.
But the presentation took place at the very first repetition of the festival at Sinai (Num_
9:7). The omission of this in Egypt, on account of the circumstances in which they were
placed, constituted no essential difference between the first “sacrifice of the Passover”
and the repetitions of it; for the choice of the lamb four days before it was slain, was a
substitute for the presentation, and the sprinkling of the blood, which was essential to
every sacrifice, was effected in the smearing of the door-posts and lintel. The other
difference upon which Hofmann lays stress, viz., that at all subsequent Passovers the fat

86. of the animal was burned upon the altar, is very questionable. For this custom cannot be
proved from the Old Testament, though it is prescribed in the Mishnah.
(Note: In the elaborate account of the Passover under Josiah, in 2 Chron 35, we
have, it is true, an allusion to the presentation of the burnt-offering and fat (2Ch_
35:14); but the boiling of the offerings in pots, caldrons, and pans is also mentioned,
along with the roasting of the Passover (2Ch_35:13); from which it is very obvious,
that in this account the offering of burnt and slain-offerings is associated with the
preparation of the paschal lamb, and the paschal meal is not specially separated from
the sacrificial meals of the seven days' feast; just as we find that the king and the
princes give the priests and Levites not only lambs and kids, but oxen also, for the
sacrifices and sacrificial meals of this festival (see my Archäologie, §81, 8).)
But even if the burning of the fat of the paschal lamb had taken place shortly after the
giving of the law, on the ground of the general command in Lev_3:17; Lev_7:23. (for this
is not taken for granted in Exo_23:18, as we shall afterwards show), this difference could
also be accounted for from the want of an altar in Egypt, and would not warrant us in
refusing to admit the sacrificial character of the first Passover. For the appointment of
the paschal meal by God does not preclude the idea that it was a religious service, nor
the want of an altar the idea of sacrifice, as Hoffmann supposes. All the sacrifices of the
Jewish nation were minutely prescribed by God, so that the presentation of them was
the consequence of divine instructions. And even though the Israelites, when holding the
first Passover according to the command of God, merely gave expression to their desire
to participate in the deliverance from destruction and the redemption of Egypt, and also
to their faith in the word and promise of God, we must neither measure the signification
of this divine institution by that fact, nor restrict it to this alone, inasmuch as it is
expressly described as a sacrificial meal.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:10-11. With your loins girded — In a travelling posture,
prepared for a journey, which is also the import of the three following particulars.
Ye shall eat it in haste — As men expecting every moment to begin their journey.
ow all these ceremonies were to accompany the feast, that it might be a more lively
commemoration of their signal deliverance out of Egypt. It is the Lord’s passover —
A sacrifice in honour of Jehovah, who passed over, or spared the Israelites, when he
smote the Egyptians. It was not, however, strictly a sacrifice, not being offered upon
the altar, but a religious ceremony, acknowledging God’s goodness to them, not only
in preserving them from, but in delivering them by, the plagues inflicted on the
Egyptians. Let nothing of it remain until the morning — God would have them to
depend on him for their daily bread. That which remaineth ye shall burn with fire
— To prevent its corruption, and the profane abuse of it.
COKE, "Exodus 12:10. Ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning— If the
guests were not sufficient to eat up the whole lamb, what remained in the morning
was then to be consumed in the fire. The verse might be rendered, ye shall let
nothing it remain until the morning; but if any shall happen to remain, ye shall
burn it with fire: an order, which seems to have been given, to prevent things sacred
from being corrupted, or being esteemed as common: and, probably, in opposition
to the practices of those idolaters, who used to preserve relics of the sacrifices for
superstitious and abominable uses. See ch. Exodus 29:34.

87. ELLICOTT, "(10) Ye shall let nothing of it remain.—That there might be neither
profanation nor superstitious use of what was left. (Comp. the requirement of the
Church of England with respect to the Eucharistic elements.)
That which remaineth—i.e., the bones and such particles of flesh as necessarily
adhered to them. These were to be at once totally consumed by fire. Thus only could
they be, as it were, annihilated, and so secured from profanation.
11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak
tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet
and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is
the Lord’s Passover.
BAR ES, "These instructions are understood by the Jews to apply only to the first
Passover, when they belonged to the occasion. There is no trace of their observance at
any later time. Each of the directions marks preparation for a journey; the long flowing
robes are girded round the loins; shoes or sandals, not worn in the house or at meals,
were fastened on the feet; and the traveler’s staff was taken in hand.
The Lord’s passover - The great and most significant name for the whole
ordinance. The word Passover renders as nearly as possible the true meaning of the
original, of which the primary sense is generally held to be “pass rapidly,” like a bird with
outstretched wings, but it undoubtedly includes the idea of sparing Exo_12:13. See Isa_
31:5, which combines the two great ideas involved in the word.
CLARKE, "And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded - As in the eastern
countries they wear long loose garments, whenever they travel they tuck up the fore
parts of their garments in the girdle which they wear round their loins.
Your shoes on your feet - This seems particularly mentioned because not
customary. “The easterns throw off their shoes when they eat, because it would be
troublesome,” says Sir J. Chardin, “to keep their shoes upon their feet, they sitting cross-
legged on the floor, and having no hinder quarters to their shoes, which are made like
slippers; and as they do not use tables and chairs as we do in Europe, but have their
floors covered with carpets, they throw off their shoes when they enter their apartments,
lest they should soil those beautiful pieces of furniture.” On the contrary the Israelites

88. were to have their shoes on, because now about to commence their journey. It was
customary among the Romans to lay aside their shoes when they went to a banquet. The
servants took them off them when they entered the house, and returned them when they
departed to their own habitations.
Your staff in your hand - The same writer observes that the eastern people
universally make use of a staff when they travel on foot.
Ye shall eat it in haste - Because they were suddenly to take their departure: the
destroying angel was at hand, their enemies were coming against them, and they had not
a moment to lose.
It is the Lord’s passover - That is, Jehovah is now about to pass over the land, and
the houses only where the blood is sprinkled shall be safe from the stroke of death. The
Hebrew word ‫פסח‬ pesach, which we very properly translate Passover, and which should
always be pronounced as two words, has its name from the angel of God passing by or
over the houses of the Israelites, on the posts and lintels of which the blood of the lamb
was sprinkled, while he stopped at the houses of the Egyptians to slay their first-born.
GILL, "And thus shall ye eat it,.... After the following manner, in the habit and
posture described: the Targum of Jonathan adds,"at this time, and not in ages
following;''for these rites were peculiar to the passover in Egypt, and not to be observed
in later times:
with your loins girded; that is, with their garments girt about their loins, for the
better convenience in travelling; for in those countries they wore long loose garments,
which reached to their feet, and unless girt up, were a great hinderance in walking; and
may denote the saints being girt with the girdle of truth, and their readiness and fitness
to perform every good work:
your shoes on your feet; which used to be put off at feasts, in order to have their feet
washed, which was frequently done at such times, as we learn from many instances in
Scripture, which could not be done unless the shoes were off, Gen_18:4, besides, it is
highly probable that the Israelites in Egypt did not wear shoes in common, it being a hot
country, and they in a state of poverty and bondage; but now being about to depart the
land, and to take a journey, they are ordered to have their shoes on, to be ready for it:
and was a token of their deliverance and freedom, and joy on that occasion; and may, in
an evangelic sense, denote the feet of the saints being shod with the preparation of the
Gospel of peace, Eph_6:15,
and your staff in your hand; such as travellers make use of to support and assist,
protect and defend them, in their journey, and may be expressive of faith in the word
and promises of God, which are the support of his people in their passage through this
world, Psa_23:4.
and ye shall eat it in haste; because upon slaying the firstborn the Egyptians would
be urgent upon them to depart immediately. Aquila renders it, "with fear", and so the
Targum of Jonathan; but the other sense suits best with the circumstances of the
Israelites:
it is the Lord's passover; which he has commanded, and is a sign and token of his
passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed the firstborn in all the

89. houses of the Egyptians, and which is explained in the following verse, and the reason of
its name given; the act of passing was his, the ordinance was appointed by him, and it
was typical of the Lord Jesus Christ, the true passover, 1Co_5:7.
HE RY, ". The lamb so slain they were to eat, roasted (we may suppose, in its several
quarters), with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, because they were to eat it in haste
(Exo_12:11), and to leave none of it until the morning; for God would have them to
depend upon him for their daily bread, and not to take thought for the morrow. He that
led them would feed them.
JAMISO , "Exo_12:11-14. The rite of the Passover.
thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet — as
prepared for a journey. The first was done by the skirts of the loose outer cloth being
drawn up and fastened in the girdle, so as to leave the leg and knee free for motion. As to
the other, the Orientals never wear shoes indoors, and the ancient Egyptians, as appears
from the monuments, did not usually wear either shoes or sandals. These injunctions
seem to have applied chiefly to the first celebration of the rite.
it is the Lord’s passover — called by this name from the blood-marked dwellings of
the Israelites being passed over figuratively by the destroying angel.
COKE, "Exodus 12:11. Thus shall ye eat it— The reason of these peculiar
ceremonies is abundantly evident: and they were to be kept in perpetual
commemoration of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and of their
redemption, when the Lord passed through the land: and, in a moral and spiritual
view, they serve well to signify to us, that readiness of soul, wherewith we, as
strangers and pilgrims, should eat of the true passover, and await the Lord's
command to leave the land of our bondage, and go out towards the spiritual
Canaan. The girded loins, refers to the loose kind of garments which were worn in
the Eastern countries, and which it was necessary to gird about their loins when
they travelled. The shoes and staff equally refer to their preparation for a journey.
In Egypt, and in the Eastern countries, the people did not commonly wear shoes. See
Matthew 10:10. Mark 6:9.
ELLICOTT, "(11) Thus shall ye eat it.—The injunctions which follow are not
repeated in any later part of the Law, and were not generally regarded as binding at
any Passover after the first. They all had reference to the impending departure of
the Israelites, who were to eat the Passover prepared as for a journey. The long robe
(beged), usually allowed to flow loosely around the person, was to be gathered
together, and fastened about the loins with a girdle; sandals, not commonly worn
inside the house, were to be put on the feet, and a walking-stick was to be held in
one hand. The meal was to be eaten “in haste,” as liable to be interrupted at any
moment by a summons to quit Egypt and set out for Canaan. Some such attitude
befits Christians at all times, since they know not when the summons may come to
them requiring them to quit the Egypt of this world and start for the heavenly
country.
It is the Lord’s passover.—The word “passover” (pesakh) is here used for the first

90. time. It is supposed by some to be of Egyptian origin, and to signify primarily “a
spreading out of wings, so as to protect. But the meaning “pass over” is still
regarded by many of the best Hebraists as the primary and most proper sense, and
the word itself as Semitic. It occurs in the geographic name Tiphsach (Thapsacus),
borne by the place where it was usual to cross, or “pass over,” the Euphrates.
PETT, "Exodus 12:11-13
“And this is the way you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet,
and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is Yahweh’s passover,
for I will go through the land of Egypt in that night and will smite all the firstborn
in the land of Egypt, and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments. I am
Yahweh. And the blood will be for you a token on the houses where you are. And
when I see the blood I will pass over you and there will be no plague on you to
destroy you when I smite the land of Egypt.”
As they prepared the lamb and ate it they were to be dressed ready for a journey
with staff in hand, and they were to eat in expectancy of soon leaving (‘in haste’).
For during that night Yahweh was about to smite all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt.
The instructions about dress are not just as a symbol although they became that
later on. The point is being made that the children of Israel must be ready for
departure and that that departure will be hasty. They have only a few days to
prepare for it and when the time comes they must be ready for it. It was a guarantee
that their deliverance was coming.
“Loins girded.” Their robes tucked in so as not to impede the feet or get mud-ridden
when walking. ‘Your shoes on your feet.’ ot left by the door as would be normal.
“It is Yahweh”s passover (pesach).’ The meaning of ‘pasach’ is not certain.
However in Isaiah 31:5 it is used in comparison with birds flying over, and the
thought is of protection by hovering or circling over. This fits admirably here. (It
has also been connected with ‘pasach’ - ‘to limp’ (1 Kings 18:21; 1 Kings 18:26), and
with Akkadian ‘pasahu’ - ‘to be soothed’). It was ‘a night of watching for Yahweh
to bring them out of the land of Egypt’ (Exodus 12:42).
“Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments. I am Yahweh” The
protection of the gods was constantly sought by the Egyptians, but those so-called
gods will be unable to intervene, as they had been unable to intervene previously.
Indeed they will be unable to save themselves and their proteges. The sacred
animals that represent them will all face death in the family. Their priests will suffer
the same fate. And a potential god will be smitten in the house of Pharaoh, for his
heirs were destined to become gods. It was a night of judgment. So Yahweh, ‘He
Who is there to act’, will act. He will make Himself known under His true name as
the uniquely all-powerful.
It is noteworthy that Moses himself never mentions the gods of Egypt. He does not

91. see himself as battling with them. Considering his background this is remarkable
and demonstrates to what extent he sees Yahweh not only as the most powerful God
but as the only God.
“A token.” A distinguishing mark, a sign which Yahweh will see to bring to mind a
covenant obligation (Genesis 9:12), so that they will enjoy His protection and escape
judgment. The blood signified that the necessary sacrifice had been made. It also
meant that the firstborn within the house was looked on as Yahweh’s, doomed for
slaughter, but because of the blood of the sacrifice ‘redeemed’ and was thus now
Yahweh’s (Exodus 13:1; Exodus 13:13). The lamb meanwhile had taken the place of
the firstborn and had been willingly offered as a sufficient representative and
substitute. And all had partaken in it thus sharing in its efficacy. As a result they
were protected under the covenant.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes
on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the
LORD’S passover.
Ver. 11. With your loins girded.] As pressed and intent to the service. So we should
be at all times, but especially when to depart out of the Egypt of this life, and to take
heaven by force. Then, if ever, we should hoc agere, "gird up the loins of our
minds," &c. [1 Peter 1:13]
And ye shall eat it in haste.] As not doubting of deliverance, and waiting a call out of
life.
It is the Lord’s Passover.] A sacramental expression, like that of our Saviour, "This
is my body". [Matthew 26:26] {See Trapp on "Matthew 26:26"} The sacraments of
the Old Testament were both sacraments and types: but those of the ew, are
sacraments only.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:11. And thus. The preparation for the journey is here at once
real and symbolic. The readiness to start is expressed by three marks: the loins
girded (tucked up); the travelling shoes on the feet; the walking-stick in the hand.
That even the O. T. ritual was no rigid ordinance is proved by the remarkable fact
that at the time of Christ they ate the passover lying on couches.—In haste. [“In
readiness for flight,” Lange.] A meal could hardly have been taken in “anxious
flight” (Keil), or in “anxious haste” (Knobel).[F 9]—It is Jehovah’s Passover. ot
the Passover unto Jehovah, as Keil takes it, referring to Exodus 20:10, Exodus 32:5.
For the Passover designates Jehovah’s own going through, going by, passing over
(sparing), as symbolically represented and appropriated by the Passover festival.
The feast, it is true, is celebrated to Jehovah; but it celebrates Jehovah’s Acts, and in
the place where the rite is first instituted, it cannot appear as already instituted.
[F 10] The LXX say: πάσχα ἐστὶ κυρίῳ. The Vulg. “est enim Phase (id est transitus)
domini. On the meaning of ‫ַח‬‫ס‬ָ‫פ‬vid. the lexicons, and Keil II, p17. The pesach is
primarily the divine act of “passing over;” next the lamb with the killing of which

92. this exemption is connected; finally, the whole eight days’ festival, including that of
unleavened bread ( Deuteronomy 16:1-6), as, on the other hand, the latter feast also
included that of the Passover. That this first Passover was really a sacrificial feast,
Keil proves, in opposition to Hofmann, II, p17. Comp. Hofmann’s Schriftbeweis II,
p271.[F 11]
LA GE, "Footnotes:
F #3 - Exodus 12:11. ‫ָזוֹן‬‫פּ‬ִ‫ח‬ְ‫בּ‬. Lange translates: in Flucht-bereitschaft, “in readiness
for flight,” condemning De Wette’s rendering, Eilfertigkeit, “haste,”
“precipitation.” But in the only other two passages where the word occurs, Lange’s
translation is hardly admissible. Deuteronomy 16:3, “Thou camest forth out of the
land of Egypt in haste, ‫ָזוֹן‬‫פּ‬ִ‫ח‬ְ‫בּ‬.” It could not be said, “Thou camest forth in readiness
for flight.” So Isaiah 52:12, “Ye shall not go out with haste (‫ָזוֹן‬‫פּ‬ִ‫ח‬ְ‫בּ‬), nor go by
flight.” Here the word also denotes anxious haste. The verb ‫ַז‬‫פ‬ָ‫ח‬ likewise everywhere
conveys the notion of hurriedness, or anxiety connected with haste.—Tr.].
F #4 - The age of the lamb is expressed in Hebrew by the phrase: “son of a year.”
The Rabbinical interpretation is that this means a year old or less, and in practice it
has been applied to lambs from the age of eight days to that of one year. Apparently
our translators had that interpretation in mind in rendering: “of the first year.” But
notwithstanding the wide currency of this view (adopted even by Rosenmüller,
Baumgarten, Murphy and other modern commeutators), it seems to be almost
stupidly incorrect, as Knobel very clearly shows. Murphy says: “The phrase ‘son of
a year’ means of any age from a month to a full year,” and refers to Genesis 7:6;
Genesis 7:11. But why “from a month?” Why not “eight days” as well? Why not one
day, or one second, from the time of birth? Isaac, we are told in Genesis 21:4, was
circumcised when he was the “son of eight days.” How old was he? In Leviticus 27:6
we read: “If it be from the son of a month unto the son of five years,” where the A.
V. reads correctly “a month old,” and “five years old.” It would be a singular way of
fixing two limits, if both expressions are so indeterminate as the Rabbinical
interpretation would make them. If the “son of a year” may be as young as eight
days, and the “son of a month” may be twenty-nine days old, what is the use of the
phrase “son of a month” at all? Or what is the sense of using the latter phrase as the
early limit? Why not say simply: “If it be the son of five years?” which, according to
the Rabbinical interpretation, ought to cover the whole period.—Tr.]
F #5 - Ginsburg in Alexander’s Kitto’s Cyclopædia, Art. Passover, has shown that
the second of the three views about “the two evenings” was not held by Kimchi and
Raschi (otherwise called Jarchi), but that they agreed with the great mass of Jewish
commentators in adopting the third view. The phrase itself is so vague that from it
alone the meaning cannot with certainty be gathered. Most modern Christian
commentators, it should be said, adopt the first view. Deuteronomy 16:6, where the
time for sacrificing the Passover is fixed “at the going down of the sun,” is quoted as
favoring that view, while Lange quotes it on the other side. Whatever may have been
the exact meaning of the phrase originally, it is probable that the very early Jewish
practice corresponded with the Rabbinical interpretation. The transactions

93. recorded in 1 Kings18 indicate this. There we read ( Exodus 12:26) that the
prophets of Baal called on Baal from morning till noon, and afterwards ( Exodus
12:29) from mid-day “until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice” (more
exactly, “until towards the time”). According to Exodus 29:39 the evening sacrifice
also was offered “between the two evenings.” If the meaning were “from mid-day till
sunset,” there would seem to be no reason why it should not have been so expressed.
Besides, it is intrinsically improbable that the howlings of the false prophets
continued through the whole day. Especially is it difficult, if not impossible, to find
time enough in the evening of that day for the events which are narrated to have
followed, viz. Elijah’s prayer, the consumption of the burnt-offering, the slaying of
the false prophets, the return from the Kishon, the prayer for rain, the servant’s
going seven times to look, Elijah’s going to Jezreel.—Tr.]
F #6 - This sentence is marked as a quotation by Lange, but the source, as very
often in the German original, is not indicated; and in this case I have not been able
to trace it out.—Tr.].
F #7 - Bähr, l. c. says on this point: “This had no other object than that all who
received a part of that one intact Iamb, i.e., who ate of it, should regard themselves
as a unit and a whole, as a community, just like those who eat the ew Testament
Passover, the body of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 5:7), of which the Apostle, in 1
Corinthians 10:17, says, ‘For we being many are one bread and one body; for we
are all partakers of that one bread.’ ”—Tr.].
F #8 - The hypothesis is that the remains of the paschal lamb, if there were any,
were burnt up the same night, and therefore were not allowed to remain till the next
day. But this seems to conflict with the plain language of the verse.—Tr.].
F #9 - Why not in “anxious haste?” A man can surely eat in haste as well as do
anything else in haste. That there was to be a “readiness for flight” is sufficiently
indicated by the precept concerning the girdles, sandals, and staves. Vid. under
“Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.].
F #10 - We have let the A. V. reading stand: nevertheless it is by no means so clear
that Keil is not right. He certainly is supported not only by many of the best versions
and commentators, but by the Hebrew, which literally rendered can read only, “It is
a Passover to Jehovah,” or “It is a Passover of Jehovah.” The latter differs from
Lange’s translation as making “Passover” indefinite, whereas “Jehovah’s Passover”
is equivalent to “the Passover of Jehovah.” Furthermore, the subject of the sentence
naturally, if not necessarily, refers to the lamb; but the lamb cannot be called
Jehovah’s passing over. The last point made in opposition to Keil is not just,
inasmuch as Keil does not render (as Lange makes him) “the Passover unto
Jehovah,” but distinctly leaves the noun indefinite, so that there is no implication
that it was an already existent institution.—Tr.].
F #11 - Hofmann takes ‫ַה‬‫ב‬ֶ‫ז‬ in Exodus 12:27 in the general sense of slaughter,
instead of the ceremonial sense of sacrifice, and argues that, as the lamb was killed

94. in order to be eaten, it was in no proper sense an offering to Jehovah, although the
killing and eating of it was divinely commanded. He distinguishes also between the
original ordinance and the later celebration of it. Keil, on the contrary, lays stress
on the fact that ‫ַה‬‫ב‬ָ‫ז‬ and ‫ַה‬‫ב‬ֶ‫ז‬ everywhere, except Proverbs 17:1, and 1 Samuel 28:24,
denote sacrifice in the narrow ceremonial sense, and that the Passover in umbers
9:7 is called ‫ָן‬‫בּ‬ ְ‫ָר‬‫ק‬, offering. Knobel likewise says, “Without doubt the Passover was a
sort of offering.” But he contends that it was not (as Keil and others hold) a sin-
offering, for the reasons: (1) that the O. T. gives no indication of such a character;
(2) that the mode of observing the rite differed from that belonging to the sin-
offering, particularly in that the lamb was eaten, whereas none of the animal
constituting the sin-offering was eaten; and (3) that it was a joyous festival, whereas
everything connected with the sin-offering was solemn. He classes it, therefore,
rather with the burnt-offering. But the latter was not eaten, and had (though not
exclusively, yet partially) an explatory character. Vid. Leviticus 1:4.—Tr.].
12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt
and strike down every firstborn of both people
and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the
gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.
BAR ES, "I will pass through - A word wholly distinct from that which means
“pass over.” The “passing through” was in judgment, the “passing over” in mercy.
Against all the gods of Egypt - Compare the margin reference. In smiting the
firstborn of all living beings, man and beast, God struck down the objects of Egyptian
worship (compare Exo_12:5).
CLARKE, "Against all the gods of Egypt, etc. - As different animals were sacred
among the Egyptians, the slaying of the first-born of all the beasts might be called
executing judgment upon the gods of Egypt. As this however does not appear very clear
and satisfactory, some have imagined that the word ‫אלהי‬ elohey should be translated
princes, which is the rendering in our margin; for as these princes, who were rulers of

95. the kingdom under Pharaoh, were equally hostile to the Hebrews with Pharaoh himself,
therefore these judgments fell equally heavy on them also. But we may ask, Did not these
judgments fall equally on all the families of Egypt, though multitudes of them had no
particular part either in the evil counsel against the Israelites or in their oppression?
Why then distinguish those in calamities in which all equally shared? None of these
interpretations therefore appear satisfactory. Houbigant, by a very simple and natural
emendation, has, he thinks, restored the whole passage to sense and reason. He
supposes that ‫אלהי‬ elohey, Gods, is a mistake for ‫אהלי‬ ahley, Tents or habitations, the ‫ה‬
he and the ‫ל‬ lamed being merely interchanged. This certainly gives a very consistent
sense, and points out the universality of the desolation to which the whole context
continually refers. He therefore contends that the text should be read thus: And on all
the Tents (or Habitations) of Egypt I will execute judgment; by which words the Lord
signified that not one dwelling in the whole land of Egypt should be exempted from the
judgment here threatened. It is but justice to say that however probable this criticism
may appear, it is not supported by any of the ancient versions, nor by any of the MSS.
collated by Kennicott and De Rossi. The parallel place also, Num_33:4, is rather against
Houbigant’s interpretation: For the Egyptians buried all their first-born, which the Lord
had smitten among them: upon their gods also [‫ובאלהיהם‬ ubeloheyhem] the Lord
executed judgments. But Houbigant amends the word in this place in the same way as he
does that in Exodus. There appears also to be an allusion to this former judgment in Isa_
19:1 : Behold, the Lord - shall come into Egypt, and the idols [‫אלילי‬ eliley] of Egypt shall
be moved at his presence. And in Jer_43:13 : The houses of the gods [‫אלהי‬ ‫בתי‬ bottey
elohey] of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire. The rabbins say that “when Israel came
out of Egypt, the holy blessed God threw down all the images of their abominations, and
they were broken to pieces.” When a nation was conquered, it was always supposed that
their gods had either abandoned them or were overcome. Thus Egypt was ruined, and
their gods confounded and destroyed by Jehovah. See Clarke’s note on Exo_11:7.
GILL, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night,..... Which must be
understood consistent with his omnipresence, and of the manifestation of his powerful
presence, or of the exertion of his mighty power in the following event: and will smite all
the
firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; as had been declared to
Pharaoh, Exo_11:5.
and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment; meaning either
figuratively, the nobles, princes, judges and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called
Elohim, gods; but since the firstborn of these, as of others, and so the judgment on
them, are comprehended in the preceding clause, this is, rather to be understood
literally of the idols of the Egyptians, their images of gold and silver, or of whatever they
were made of: the Targum of Jonathan is,"on all the idols of the Egyptians I will exercise
four judgments; the molten idols shall be melted, the idols of stone shall be cut asunder,
the idols of earth shall be broke to pieces, and the idols of wood shall become ashes;''see
Num_33:4 and there are some traces of this in Heathen writers; Artapanus (e) says, that
by an earthquake most of the temples in Egypt fell; and Justin (f) reports, that Moses,

96. being the leader of the exile Israelites, stole away the sacred things of the Egyptians, i.e.
their gods, which they endeavoured to regain by force of arms:
I am the Lord; God Almighty, faithful and true, and therefore what was threatened
should certainly be performed, and thereby the Egyptians and all others might know that
he was Jehovah alone, and that there is no God beside him.
HE RY 12-13, ". Before they ate the flesh of the lamb, they were to sprinkle the
blood upon the doorposts, Exo_12:7. By this their houses were to be distinguished from
the houses of the Egyptians, and so their first-born secured from the sword of the
destroying angel, Exo_12:12, Exo_12:13. Dreadful work was to be made this night in
Egypt; all the first-born both of man and beast were to be slain, and judgment executed
upon the gods of Egypt. Moses does not mention the fulfillment, in this chapter, yet he
speaks of it Num_33:4. It is very probable that the idols which the Egyptians
worshipped were destroyed, those of metal melted, those of wood consumed, and those
of stone broken to pieces, whence Jethro infers (Exo_18:11), The Lord is greater than all
gods. The same angel that destroyed their first-born demolished their idols, which were
no less dear to them. For the protection of Israel from this plague they were ordered to
sprinkle the blood of the lamb upon the door-posts, their doing which would be accepted
as an instance of their faith in the divine warnings and their obedience to the divine
precepts. Note, 1. If in times of common calamity God will secure his own people, and set
a mark upon them; they shall be hidden either in heaven or under heaven, preserved
either from the stroke of judgments or at least from the sting of them. 2. The blood of
sprinkling is the saint's security in times of common calamity; it is this that marks them
for God, pacifies conscience, and gives them boldness of access to the throne of grace,
and so becomes a wall of protection round them and a wall of partition between them
and the children of this world.
JAMISO , "smite ... gods of Egypt — perhaps used here for princes and grandees.
But, according to Jewish tradition, the idols of Egypt were all on that night broken in
pieces (see Num_33:4; Isa_19:1).
K&D, "Exo_12:12-13
In Exo_12:12 and Exo_12:13 the name pesach is explained. In that night Jehovah
would pass through Egypt, smite all the first-born of man and beast, execute judgment
upon all the gods of Egypt, and pass over (‫ח‬ ַ‫ס‬ ָ ) the Israelites. In what the judgment
upon all the gods of Egypt consisted, it is hard to determine. The meaning of these words
is not exhausted by Calvin's remark: “God declared that He would be a judge against the
false gods, because it was most apparent then, now little help was to be found in them,
and how vain and fallacious was their worship.” The gods of Egypt were spiritual
authorities and powers, δαιµόνια, which governed the life and spirit of the Egyptians.
Hence the judgment upon them could not consist of the destruction of idols, as Ps.
Jonathan's paraphrase supposes: idola fusa colliquescent, lapidea concidentur, testacea
confringentur, lignea in cinerem redigentur. For there is nothing said about this; but in
v. 29 the death of the first-born of men and cattle alone is mentioned as the execution of
the divine threat; and in Num_33:4 also the judgment upon the gods is connected with

97. the burial of the first-born, without special reference to anything besides. From this it
seems to follow pretty certainly, that the judgments upon the gods of Egypt consisted in
the slaying of the first-born of man and beast. But the slaying of the first-born was a
judgment upon the gods, not only because the impotence and worthlessness of the
fancied gods were displayed in the consternation produced by this stroke, but still more
directly in the fact, that in the slaying of the king's son and many of the first-born
animals, the gods of Egypt, which were worshipped both in their kings and also in
certain sacred animals, such as the bull Apis and the goat Nendes, were actually smitten
themselves.
CALVI , "12.For I will pass through the land. This refers to the first passover, the
night in which they were to be delivered from Egypt; and God expressly declares
that He will be the judge against the false gods, because it then especially appeared
how utterly unable they were to help, and how vain and fallacious was their service.
The absurd commentary of some of the Rabbins (317) is tame and far-fetched, that
the idols should be cast down, because by the single miracle of their redemption, all
superstitions were magnificently overturned, and whatsoever men believed about
idols was condemned as folly and delusion. God therefore affirms, that he would not
only conquer the nation itself, but its very gods. Perhaps Isaiah alludes to this
passage when he says,
“Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt; and the
idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence,” (Isaiah 19:1;)
for wherever He has appeared as the Savior of His people, He has asserted His glory
in opposition to all impious and corrupt religions.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:12. Dreadful work was to be made this night in Egypt: all the
firstborn of man and beast were this night to be slain, and judgment to be executed
upon all the gods of Egypt — Their idol-gods. The images made of metal were,
probably, melted, those of wood consumed, and those of stone broken to pieces. To
this Isaiah 19:1, and Jeremiah 43:13, have been thought to allude. It may also
signify, that God destroyed their sacred animals.
COFFMA , "Verses 12-14
"For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-
born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I
will execute judgments: I am Jehovah. And the blood shall be to you a token upon
the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there
shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this
day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to Jehovah:
throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever."
"I will pass through (Exodus 12:12) ... I will pass over (Exodus 12:13) ..." "The
passing THROUGH was in judgment; the passing OVER was in mercy."[18]
"Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments ..." This has a limited

98. application to what God had already done during the previous visitations of his
wrath, but the thing in view here is the devastating series of judgments that fell
upon that final and fatal night when the first-born both of man and of beast from
the greatest to the lowest in all the land of Egypt died in agony at the midnight hour!
How was this a judgment (or a plurality of judgments) against all the gods of Egypt?
There were all kinds of animal "deities" in Egypt, and when these alleged "gods"
were unable to protect either themselves or their offspring from death, the status of
their "godhead" perished! The sacred bulls, frogs, cows, serpents, beetles, whatever,
all died in sufficient numbers to remove the whole animal kingdom from any
further consideration as being "gods." Even the pagan god Pharaoh, whose first-
born was "heir apparent" to the throne and the darling not merely of the royal
family but of all Egypt, was not spared. The judgment of God fell upon the palace as
upon the hovel or the kennel.
COKE, "Exodus 12:12. Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment— The
original word here rendered gods, is ‫אלהי‬ alei; which, in the margin of our Bibles, is
rendered princes; as the word aleim sometimes signifies: and Wall is strongly of
opinion that this is its true meaning. But the generality of interpreters understand
the idol-gods of Egypt to be here meant. And to this they think, Isaiah 19:1 and
Jeremiah 43:13 refer; as, indeed, seems very probable.
ELLICOTT, "(12) For I will pass through.—Rather, go through, since the word
used is entirely unconnected with pesahh.
Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.—The translation “gods” is far
preferable to that of “princes,” given in the margin. The death of all the firstborn
beasts would have been felt by the Egyptians as a heavy judgment upon their gods.
Some of their sacred animals were regarded as actual incarnations of deity; and if
any of these perished, as is likely, the threat would have been executed to the letter.
But even apart from this, as cows, sheep, goats, cats, dogs, jackals, crocodiles,
hippopotami, apes, ibises, frogs, &c, were sacred, either throughout Egypt or in
parts of it, a general destruction of all firstborn animals would have been felt as a
blow dealt to the gods almost equally.
I am the Lord.—Heb. I, Jehovah. The construction is, “I, Jehovah, will execute
judgment.”
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and
will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all
the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD.
Ver. 12. And I will smite all the firstborn.] This crosseth not that in Ezekiel 18:20,
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father"; for God never punisheth the
innocent, because all are guilty before him. These Egyptians had slain Israel, God’s
firstborn. And it is the observation of Theodoret, that when God smote Pharaoh’s
firstborn, he drew blood of the arm for the cure of the head: which, because it
mended not thereupon, came also to confusion.

99. And against all the gods of Egypt.] As he did here upon the Popish idols in the
beginning of the Reformation, by detecting their vanity, and laying their honour in
the dust.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:12-13. Explanation of the Passover. And I. The counterpart
and prototype of the Passover festival are historic facts. First, Jehovah, as Judges,
passes through all Egypt. Secondly, He visits upon the young life in the land a
plague whose miraculousness consists especially in the fact that the first-born fall,
the infliction beginning with the house of Pharaoh. The result is that all the gods of
Egypt are judged by Jehovah. What does that mean? Keil says: the gods of Egypt
were spiritual powers, δαιµόνια. Pseudo-Jonathan: idols. Knobel compares
umbers 33:4, and says: “We are to think especially of the death of the first-born
beasts, since the Egyptians worshipped beasts as gods,” (!) etc. The essential thing in
the subjective notion of gods are the religious conceptions and traditions of the
heathen, in so far as they, as real powers, inhere in national ideals and sympathies.
Legends in point, vid. in Knobel, p100. Thirdly, Jehovah spares the first-born of the
Israelites.—The blood shall be to you for a sign. The expression is of psychological
importance, even for the notion of atonement. It does not read: it shall be to me for a
sign. The Israelites were to have in the blood the sacramental sign that by the
offering of blood the guilt of Israel in connection with Egypt was expiated, in that
Jehovah had seen the same blood. This looking on the blood which warded off the
pestilence reminds us of the looking up to the brazen serpent, and of the believer’s
contemplation of the perfect atonement on the cross. Keil says, “In the meal the
sacrificium becomes a sacramentum.”
BI, "Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute Judgment.
The Lord God of gods
When, in Deu_10:17, Moses says, “The Lord your God is God of gods,” and when, in
Jos_22:22, the people exclaim, “The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He
knoweth”—what do the words mean? Are there other “gods” than Jehovah? It is likely
this inquiry will come up in the mind of almost any student of the Bible when he is
reading the account of the ten plagues. The question is hard to discuss; but two
considerations can be offered for help, and then we can reach the conclusion.
1. One is this: the entire record, unless a most elastic ingenuity of exposition be
employed, seems to say that the contests delineated in the exciting chapters which
record the deliverance from bondage and the establishment of Israel was between
supernatural powers, rather than between ordinary human antagonists. Pharaoh
accepted the gauntlet thrown down by Moses as a defiance to his gods, and, with a
courage worthy of a better cause, took it up cheerfully in their name. So the conflict
proceeds. The nations stand silently and solemnly by while these tremendous
antagonistic forces are employed in the royal abodes, and are aroused only
afterwards when the pressure outside begins to be felt. The close of the narrative
teaches us that they were perfectly intelligent from the beginning in the conceptions
they had of what was going on. Pharaoh finally confesses openly the defeat of his
gods when he says humbly to Moses, “Go then, serve Jehovah; and bless me also!”

100. And with a like acknowledgment the Israelites ascribe all the glory of their
deliverance to God. They do not behave as if they owed even a decent gratitude to
Moses or Aaron.
2. We must put with this consideration a second: these so-called “gods” of the
Egyptians are spoken of constantly as if they were not mere dumb idols, nor even
mere ideal creations of human imagination; the language could have hardly been
stronger if it had meant to leave the impression that they were living existences—
beings possessed of life and intelligence and will and some power (see Deu_32:16-17;
1Co_10:20; Psa_66:4-5). For some mysterious reason of His own, the sovereign
Monarch of the universe has accepted an antagonism between the powers of evil and
the powers of good in this world; and for nearly six thousand years Satan His
creature has been waging battle openly amid the sublime agencies of nature with
Jesus Christ His Son. We feel as if we must assume real antagonists when we read
Moses’ own words in Num_33:4: “The Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the
Lord had smitten among them; upon their gods also the Lord executed judgment.”
3. Thus, then, we reach our conclusion at which all along we have been aiming. Were
Pharaoh’s gods real gods? How was Jehovah the “God of gods”? And what does our
text mean, “Against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgment”? We ask you to
recapitulate in your own minds the delineation made concerning the three cycles of
miracles grouped around the three personages who stood on a certain occasion on
the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus Christ, Moses, and Elijah, each the bringer of a
dispensation of revealed truth for men’s salvation, the law, the prophets, and the
gospel. It is sufficient to say, here at the start, that this same onset of demoniacal
forces is disclosed in each of these cases, and a recognition made of the fact that the
old fight with Satan was renewed, the old fight which began in the Garden of Eden.
Demoniacal possession is found in these same three cycles of time, and nowhere else
in the history of the Old Testament or the New. This, then, is what is intended when
we say that this was a contest between Immanuel and Satan, a positive resumption of
the war from the instant when “the seed of the woman” began to bruise the serpent’s
head. So, when we return to the story we are studying, we are bold to say that this
whole contest between Moses and Menephtah was really the sublime and awful
conflict between Immanuel and Satan for the slavery, on the one side, for the
salvation, on the other, of the race of human souls whom the Almighty had originally
made in His own image. Several most welcome explanations, therefore, meet us just
here.
1. One is concerning the abrupt cessation of performances, on the part of Pharaoh’s
magicians, when they exclaimed, “This is the finger of God.” They knew that the
resistance was virtually over. We may even imagine that these people had sometimes
been surprised already at what actually seemed their own power. Then there is a
second explanation furnished by this disclosure.
2. We know now why this history has such an evangelical spirit attributed to it when
references are made in the New Testament. Read over again, in the light of such an
understanding of God’s true purpose, the story which the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews gives concerning Moses’ choice in his early career; see how singular is the
motive ascribed to him: He took his stand as a believer in Jehovah Jesus as his
Redeemer—“By faith Moses,” etc. The New Testament writer identifies the two
dispensations as the same. Israel was the Church, Jehovah was Jesus; so Moses
became a Christian.
3. In the same way the allusions made to the incidents of the later history become

101. intelligible. You recall the terrible trouble from the fiery serpents; put with that now
the exhortation of the apostle Paul: “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them
also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” He here says that Christ was the one
who was tempted in that murmuring; it was Christ who was leading Israel through
the wilderness. There never has been but one Church, but one Leader of God’s elect,
but one Redeemer, but one way in which to be saved. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
Past redemption point
On the bank of the Niagara River, where the rapids begin to swell and swirl most
desperately, preparatory to their final plunge, is a sign-board which bears a most
startling legend. “Past Redemption Point,” it reads. To read it even when one feels the
soil firm beneath his feet sends a shiver of horror through one’s soul as he looks off upon
the turbulent water and realizes the full significance of the sign. The one who gets into
those boiling rapids and passes that point, cannot retrace his way, cannot pull to shore,
cannot be rescued by friends. Past redemption point! How many men despise the
warnings God sends, and pass the last stage at which they could arrest their evil way,
and too late they find they have passed redemption point!
13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses
where you are, and when I see the blood, I will
pass over you. o destructive plague will touch
you when I strike Egypt.
CLARKE, "The blood shall be to you for a token - It shall be the sign to the
destroying angel, that the house on which he sees this blood sprinkled is under the
protection of God, and that no person in it is to be injured. See Clarke on Exo_12:11
(note).
GILL, "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you
are,.... The blood of the passover lamb being sprinkled on the two sideposts and upper
doorposts of the houses inhabited by the Israelites, or where they were eating the
passover; this should be a sign or token to them of the Lord's making good his promises,
to them, and so of their safety, and to the destroying angel not to enter therein, but pass
by and save them:

102. and when I see the blood, I will pass over you; for which reason this ordinance
now instituted was called the passover, because the Lord, on sight of the blood
sprinkled, passed over the houses of the Israelites to those of the Egyptians; or "leaped",
as Jarchi says, the word signifies, skipped from one Egyptian house to another, passing
by that of the Israelites:
and the plague shall not be upon you, to destroy you, when I smite the land
of Egypt, the pestilence with which the firstborn should be destroyed.
K&D, "Exo_12:13
To the Israelites, on the other hand, the blood upon the houses in which they were
assembled would be a sign and pledge that Jehovah would spare them, and no plague
should fall upon them to destroy (cf. Eze_21:31; not “for the destroyer,” for there is no
article with ‫ית‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫מ‬ ְ‫.)ל‬
COKE, "Exodus 12:13. I will pass over you— Here the reason of the name passover
is given: and, to the believing Israelites, it must have been a source of continual
comfort. An ordinance for ever, at the end of the 14th verse, means an ordinance
which shall be observed so long as the Jewish church subsists; or till Christ, who is
the Fulfiller of the law, shall come.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 13
(13) The blood shall be to you for a token.—Rather, the blood shall be for a token
for you: i.e., it shall be a token to Me on your behalf. (See the comment on Exodus
12:7, and compare Exodus 12:23.)
14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the
generations to come you shall celebrate it as a
festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.
BAR ES, "A memorial - A commemorative and sacramental ordinance of
perpetual obligation. As such, it has ever been observed by the Hebrews. By the
Christian it is spiritually observed; its full significance is recognized, and all that it
foreshadowed is realized, in the sacrament of holy communion.

103. CLARKE, "A memorial - To keep up a remembrance of the severity and goodness,
or justice and mercy, of God. Ye shall keep it a feast - it shall be annually observed, and
shall be celebrated with solemn religious joy, throughout your generations - as long as ye
continue to be a distinct people; an ordinance - a Divine appointment, an institution of
God himself, neither to be altered nor set aside by any human authority.
For ever - ‫עולם‬ ‫חקת‬ chukkath olam, an everlasting or endless statute, because
representative of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world; whose
mediation, in consequence of his sacrifice, shall endure while time itself lasts; and to
whose merits and efficacy the salvation of the soul shall be ascribable throughout
eternity. This, therefore, is a statute and ordinance that can have no end, either in this
world or in the world to come. It is remarkable that though the Jews have ceased from
the whole of their sacrificial system, so that sacrifices are no longer offered by them in
any part of the world, yet they all, in all their generations and in all countries, keep up
the remembrance of the passover, and observe the feast of unleavened bread. But no
lamb is sacrificed. Their sacrifices have all totally ceased, ever since the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans. Even the flesh that is used on this occasion is partly roasted
and partly boiled, that it may not even resemble the primitive sacrifice; for they deem it
unlawful to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The truth is, the true Lamb of God that taketh
away the sin of the world has been offered, and they have no power to restore the ancient
type. See Clarke on Exo_12:27 (note).
GILL, "And this shall be unto you for a memorial,.... To be remembered, and
that very deservedly, for the destruction of the firstborn of the Egyptians, and for the
deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and as memorable a day it is, and much
more so, for the redemption of the spiritual Israel by the Messiah; for it was on this
selfsame day that he suffered for the redemption and salvation of his people: the Jews
not only having a saying,"that in the month Nisan they were redeemed, and in the month
Nisan they will be redeemed (g)''but they expressly say,"on the same day, the fifteenth of
Nisan, Israel is to be redeemed, in the days of the Messiah, as they were redeemed on
that day, as it is said, according to the days, &c. Mic_7:15 (h):"
and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; as the
fifteenth day was properly the Chagigah; or festival day, when they made a feast both of
the flock and of the herd, of both sheep and oxen, Deu_16:2.
you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever; unto the end of the Jewish
economy and church state, until the Messiah come, the true passover, and be sacrificed
for us.
HE RY 14-20, "This was to be annually observed as a feast of the Lord in their
generations, to which the feast of unleavened bread was annexed, during which, for
seven days, they were to eat no bread but what was unleavened, in remembrance of their
being confined to such bread, of necessity, for many days after they came out of Egypt,
Exo_12:14-20. The appointment is inculcated for their better direction, and that they
might not mistake concerning it, and to awaken those who perhaps in Egypt had grown

104. generally very stupid and careless in the matters of religion to a diligent observance of
the institution. Now, without doubt, there was much of the gospel in this ordinance; it is
often referred to in the New Testament, and, in it, to us is the gospel preached, and not
to them only, who could not stedfastly look to the end of these things, Heb_4:2; 2Co_
3:13.
1. The paschal lamb was typical. Christ is our Passover, 1Co_5:7. (1.) It was to be a
lamb; and Christ is the Lamb of God (Joh_1:29), often in the Revelation called the
Lamb, meek and innocent as a lamb, dumb before the shearers, before the butchers. (2.)
It was to be a male of the first year (Exo_12:5), in its prime; Christ offered up himself in
the midst of his days, not in infancy with the babes of Bethlehem. It denotes the strength
and sufficiency of the Lord Jesus, on whom our help was laid. (3.) It was to be without
blemish (Exo_12:5), denoting the purity of the Lord Jesus, a Lamb without spot, 1Pe_
1:19. The judge that condemned him (as if his trial were only like the scrutiny that was
made concerning the sacrifices, whether they were without blemish or no) pronounced
him innocent. (4.) It was to be set apart four days before (Exo_12:3, Exo_12:6), denoting
the designation of the Lord Jesus to be a Saviour, both in the purpose and in the
promise. It is very observable that as Christ was crucified at the passover, so he solemnly
entered into Jerusalem four days before, the very day that the paschal lamb was set
apart. (5.) It was to be slain, and roasted with fire (Exo_12:6-9), denoting the exquisite
sufferings of the Lord Jesus, even unto death, the death of the cross. The wrath of God is
as fire, and Christ was made a curse for us. (6.) It was to be killed by the whole
congregation between the two evenings, that is, between three o'clock and six. Christ
suffered in the end of the world (Heb_9:26), by the hand of the Jews, the whole
multitude of them (Luk_23:18), and for the good of all his spiritual Israel. (7.) Not a
bone of it must be broken (Exo_12:46), which is expressly said to be fulfilled in Christ
(Joh_19:33, Joh_19:36), denoting the unbroken strength of the Lord Jesus.
JAMISO , "for a memorial, etc. — The close analogy traceable in all points
between the Jewish and Christian passovers is seen also in the circumstance that both
festivals were instituted before the events they were to commemorate had transpired.
K&D, "Exo_12:14
That day (the evening of the 14th) Israel was to keep “for a commemoration as a feast
to Jehovah,” consecrated for all time, as an “eternal ordinance,” ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יכ‬ ֵ‫ּת‬‫ר‬ּ‫ד‬ ְ‫ל‬ “in your
generations,” i.e., for all ages, ‫ּת‬‫ר‬ּ denoting the succession of future generations (vid.,
Exo_12:24). As the divine act of Israel's redemption was of eternal significance, so the
commemoration of that act was to be an eternal ordinance, and to be upheld as long as
Israel should exist as the redeemed people of the Lord, i.e., to all eternity, just as the new
life of the redeemed was to endure for ever. For the Passover, the remembrance of which
was to be revived by the constant repetition of the feast, was the celebration of their
birth into the new life of fellowship with the Lord. The preservation from the stroke of
the destroyer, from which the feast received its name, was the commencement of their
redemption from the bondage of Egypt, and their elevation into the nation of Jehovah.
The blood of the paschal lamb was atoning blood; for the Passover was a sacrifice, which
combined in itself the signification of the future sin-offerings and peace-offerings; in
other words, which shadowed forth both expiation and quickening fellowship with God.
The smearing of the houses of the Israelites with the atoning blood of the sacrifice set

105. forth the reconciliation of Israel and its God, through the forgiveness and expiation of its
sins; and in the sacrificial meal which followed, their communion with the Lord, i.e.,
their adoption as children of God, was typically completed. In the meal the sacrificium
became a sacramentum, the flesh of the sacrifice a means of grace, by which the Lord
adopted His spared and redeemed people into the fellowship of His house, and gave
them food for the refreshing of their souls.
CALVI , "14.And this day shall be unto you. This is spoken of its annual
celebration, which was as well a monument of their exodus as a symbol of their
future deliverance. As to its being called a rite, or ordinance for ever, (edictum
soeculi,) I admit that by this expression perpetuity is meant, but only such as would
exist until the renovation of the Church; and the same explanation will apply to
circumcision, as well as to the whole ceremonial of the Law; for although by
Christ’s coming it was abolished as concerns its use, yet did it only then attain its
true solidity; and therefore the difference between ourselves and the ancient people
detracts nothing from this perpetual statute; just in the same way as the new
Covenant does not destroy the old in substance, but only in form. A little further on,
where he says, “save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you,”
verse 18; the meaning is, that they must cease from every work, except the
preparation of their day’s food; and this exception is expressly made, that they may
not permit themselves to violate their sacred festivals by other business.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:14-20. This shall be to you for a memorial — It was to be
annually observed as a feast to the Lord in their generations, to which the feast of
unleavened bread was annexed. A holy convocation — Such solemn festivals were
called convocations, because the people were then assembled by sound of trumpet to
attend the rites and ordinances of divine worship. The first day was to be a holy
convocation, because of the feast of the passover; and the seventh, as being that day,
after their exit out of Egypt, when Pharaoh and his host were drowned in the Red
sea. A stranger — A proselyte, Heathen were not concerned in the passover.
It must be here observed, that the whole of this ordinance of the passover was
typical.
(1,) The paschal lamb was typical. Christ is our passover, 1 Corinthians 5:7. 1st, It
was to be a lamb, and Christ is the Lamb of God, John 1:29. 2d, It was to be a male
of the first year; in its prime. Christ offered up himself in the midst of his days. It
denotes the strength and sufficiency of the Lord Jesus, on whom our help was laid.
3d, It was to be without blemish, signifying the purity of the Lord Jesus, a lamb
without spot, 1 Peter 1:19. 4th, It was to be set apart four days before, denoting the
designation of the Lord Jesus to be a Saviour, both in the purpose and promise of
God. It is observable, that as Christ was crucified at the passover, so he solemnly
entered into Jerusalem four days before, the very day that the paschal lamb was set
apart. 5th, It was to be slain and roasted with fire, representing the exquisite
sufferings of the Lord Jesus, even unto death, the death of the cross. 6th, It was to be
killed by the whole congregation between the two evenings, that is, between three
o’clock and six. Christ suffered in the latter end of the world, (Hebrews 9:26,) by the

106. hand of the Jews, the whole multitude of them, Luke 23. 18. 7th, ot a bone of it
must be broken, (Exodus 12:46,) which is expressly said to be fulfilled in Christ,
John 19:33; John 19:36.
(2,) The sprinkling of the blood was typical. 1st, It was not enough that the blood of
the Lamb was shed, but it must be sprinkled, denoting the application of the merit
of Christ’s death to our souls, by the Holy Ghost, through faith. 2d, It was to be
sprinkled upon the door-posts, signifying the open profession we are to make of
faith in Christ, and obedience to him. The mark of the beast may be received in the
forehead, or in the right hand, but the seal of the Lamb is always in the forehead,
Revelation 7:3. 3d, The blood thus sprinkled was a means of the preservation of the
Israelites from the destroying angel. If the blood of Christ be sprinkled upon our
consciences, it will be our protection from the wrath of God, the curse of the law,
and the damnation of hell.
(3,) The solemn eating of the lamb was typical of our gospel duty to Christ. 1st, The
paschal lamb was killed not to be looked upon only, but to be fed upon; so we must
by faith make Christ ours, as we do that which we eat, and we must receive spiritual
strength and nourishment from him, as from our food, and have delight in him, as
we have in eating and drinking when we are hungry or thirsty. 2d, It was to be all
eaten: those that, by faith, feed upon Christ, must feed upon a whole Christ. They
must take Christ and his yoke, Christ and his cross, as well as Christ and his crown.
3d, It was to be eaten with bitter herbs, in remembrance of the bitterness of their
bondage in Egypt; we must feed upon Christ with brokenness of heart, in
remembrance of sin. 4th, It was to be eaten in a departing posture, Exodus 12:11;
when we feed upon Christ by faith, we must sit loose to the world and all things in
it.
(4,) The feast of unleavened bread was typical of the Christian life, 1
Corinthians Exodus 5:7-8. Having received Christ Jesus the Lord, 1st, We must
keep a feast, in holy joy, continually delighting ourselves in Christ Jesus; for if true
believers have not a continual feast, it is their own fault. 2d, It must be a feast of
unleavened bread, kept in charity, without the leaven of malice, and in sincerity,
without the leaven of hypocrisy. All the old leaven must be put far from us, with the
utmost caution, if we would keep the feast of a holy life to the honour of Christ. 3d,
It was to be an ordinance for ever. As long as we live we must continue feeding upon
Christ, and rejoicing in him always, with thankful mention of the great things he
has done for us.
ELLICOTT, "(14) Ye shall keep it a feast . . . by an ordinance for ever.—The
Passover is continued in the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 5:7-8); and the Easter
celebration, which the Church makes binding on all her members, exactly
corresponds in time to the Paschal ceremony, and takes its place. In this way the
Passover may be regarded as still continuing under Christianity, and as intended to
continue, “even to the end of the world.”

107. MACLARE , "THE PASSOVER: A EXPIATIO A D A FEAST, A
MEMORIAL A D A PROPHECY
Exodus 12:1 - - Exodus 12:14.
The Passover ritual, as appointed here, divides itself into two main parts-the
sprinkling of the sacrificial blood on the door-posts and lintels, and the feast on the
sacrifice. These can best be dealt with separately. They were separated in the later
form of the ritual; for, when there was a central sanctuary, the lambs were slain
there, and the blood sprinkled, as in other expiatory sacrifices, on the altar, while
the domestic feast remained unaltered. The former was more especially meant to
preserve the Israelites from the destruction of their first-born; the latter as a
permanent memorial of their deliverance. But both have perpetual fitness as
prophetic of varying aspects of the Christian redemption.
I. The ritual of the protecting blood.
In the hurry and agitation of that eventful day, it must have seemed strange to the
excited people that they should be called upon to observe such a service. But its
institution at that crisis is in accordance with the whole tone of the story of the
Exodus, in which man is nothing and God all. Surely, never was national
deliverance effected so absolutely without effort or blow struck. If we try to realise
the state of mind of the Israelites on that night, we shall feel how significant of the
true nature of their deliverance this summons to an act of worship, in the midst of
their hurry, must have been.
The domestic character of the rite is its first marked feature. Of course, there were
neither temple nor priests then; but that does not wholly account for the provision
that every household, unless too few in number to consume a whole lamb, should
have its own sacrifice, slain by its head. The first purpose of the rite, to provide for
the safety of each house by the sprinkled blood, partly explains it; but the deepest
reason is, no doubt, the witness which was thereby borne to the universal priesthood
of the nation. The patriarchal order made each man the priest of his house. This
rite, which lay at the foundation of Israel’s nationality, proclaimed that a restricted
priestly class was a later expedient. The primitive formation crops out here, as
witness that, even where hid beneath later deposits, it underlies them all.
We have called the Passover a sacrifice. That has been disputed, but unreasonably.
o doubt, it was a peculiar kind of sacrifice, unlike those of the later ritual in many
respects, and scarcely capable of being classified among them. But it is important to
keep its strictly sacrificial character in view; for it is essential to its meaning and to
its typical aspect. The proofs of its sacrificial nature are abundant. The instructions
as to the selection of the lamb; the method of disposing of the blood, which was
sprinkled with hyssop-a peculiarly sacrificial usage; the treatment of the remainder
after the feast; the very feast itself,-all testify that it was a sacrifice in the most
accurate use of the word. The designation of it as ‘a passover to the Lord,’ and in set
terms as a ‘sacrifice,’ in Exodus 12:27 and elsewhere, to say nothing of its later form
when it became a regular Temple sacrifice, or of Paul’s distinct language in 1
Corinthians 5:7, or of Peter’s quotation of the very words of Exodus 12:5, applied to
Christ, ‘ a lamb without blemish,’ all point in the same direction.
But if a sacrifice, what kind of sacrifice was it? Clearly, the first purpose was that
the blood might be sprinkled on the door-posts and lintels, and so the house be safe

108. when the destroying angel passed through the land. Such is the explanation given in
Exodus 12:13, which is the divine declaration of its meaning. This is the centre of the
rite; from it the name was derived. Whether readers accept the doctrines of
substitution and expiation or not, it ought to be impossible for an honest reader of
these verses to deny that these doctrines or thoughts are there. They may be only the
barbarous notions of a half-savage age and people. But, whatever they are, there
they are. The lamb without blemish carefully chosen and kept for four days, till it
had become as it were part of the household, and then solemnly slain by the head of
the family, was their representative. When they sprinkled its blood on the posts,
they confessed that they stood in peril of the destroying angel by reason of their
impurity, and they presented the blood as their expiation. In so far, their act was an
act of confession, deprecation, and faith. It accepted the divinely appointed means of
safety. The consequence was exemption from the fatal stroke, which fell on all
homes from the palace to the slaves’ hovel, where that red streak was not found. If
any son of Abraham had despised the provision for safety, he would have been
partaker of the plague.
All this refers only to exemption from outward punishment, and we are not obliged
to attribute to these terrified bondmen any higher thoughts. But clearly their
obedience to the command implied a measure of belief in the divine voice; and the
command embodied, though in application to a transient judgment, the broad
principles of sacrificial substitution, of expiation by blood, and of safety by the
individual application of that shed blood.
In other words, the Passover is a Gospel before the Gospel. We are sometimes told
that in its sacrificial ideas Christianity is still dressing itself in ‘Hebrew old clothes.’
We believe, on the contrary, that the whole sacrificial system of Judaism had for its
highest purpose to shadow forth the coming redemption. Christ is not spoken of as
‘our Passover,’ because the Mosaic ritual had happened to have that ceremonial;
but the Mosaic ritual had that ceremonial mainly because Christ is our Passover,
and, by His blood shed on the Cross and sprinkled on our consciences, does in
spiritual reality that which the Jewish Passover only did in outward form. All other
questions about the Old Testament, however interesting and hotly contested, are of
secondary importance compared with this. Is its chief purpose to prophesy of
Christ, His atoning death, His kingdom and church, or is it not? The ew
Testament has no doubt of the answer. The Evangelist John finds in the singular
swiftness of our Lord’s death, which secured the exemption of His sacred body from
the violence inflicted on His fellow-sufferers, a fulfilment of the paschal injunction
that not a bone should be broken; and so, by one passing allusion, shows that he
recognised Christ as the true Passover. John the Baptist’s rapturous exclamation,
‘Behold the Lamb of God!’ blends allusions to the Passover, the daily sacrifice, and
Isaiah’s great prophecy. The day of the Crucifixion, regarded as fixed by divine
Providence, may be taken as God’s own finger pointing to the Lamb whom He has
provided. Paul’s language already referred to attests the same truth. And even the
last lofty visions of the Apocalypse, where the old man in Patmos so touchingly
recurs to the earliest words which brought him to Jesus, echo the same conviction,
and disclose, amidst the glories of the throne, ‘a Lamb as it had been slain.’
II. The festal meal on the sacrifice.
After the sprinkling of the blood came the feast. Only when the house was secure

109. from the destruction which walked in the darkness of that fateful night, could a
delivered household gather round the board. That which had become their safety
now became their food. Other sacrifices were, at a later period, modelled on the
same type; and in all cases the symbolism is the same, namely, joyful participation
in the sacrifice, and communion with God based upon expiation. In the Passover,
this second stage received for future ages the further meaning of a memorial. But on
that first night it was only such by anticipation, seeing that it preceded the
deliverance which it was afterwards to commemorate.
The manner of preparing the feast and the manner of partaking of it are both
significant. The former provided that the lamb should be roasted, not boiled,
apparently in order to secure its being kept whole; and the same purpose suggested
the other prescriptions that it was to be served up entire, and with bones unbroken.
The reason for this seems to be that thus the unity of the partakers was more plainly
shown. All ate of one undivided whole, and were thus, in a real sense, one. So the
Apostle deduces the unity of the Church from the oneness of the bread of which they
in the Christian Passover partake.
It was to be eaten with the accompaniments of bitter herbs, usually explained as
memorials of the bondage, which had made the lives bitter, and the remembrance of
which would sweeten their deliverance, even as the pungent condiments brought out
the savour of the food. The further accompaniment of unleavened bread seems to
have the same signification as the appointment that they were to eat with their
garments gathered round their loins, their feet shod, and staves in hand. All these
were partly necessities in their urgent hurry, and partly a dramatic representation
for later days of the very scene of the first Passover. A strange feast indeed, held
while the beat of the pinions of the destroying angel could almost be heard,
devoured in hot haste by anxious men standing ready for a perilous journey, the end
whereof none knew! The gladness would be strangely dashed with terror and
foreboding. Truly, though they feasted on a sacrifice, they had bitter herbs with it,
and, standing, swallowed their portions, expecting every moment to be summoned to
the march.
The Passover as a feast is a prophecy of the great Sacrifice, by virtue of whose
sprinkled blood we all may be sheltered from the sweep of the divine judgment, and
on which we all have to feed if there is to be any life in us. Our propitiation is our
food. ‘Christ for us’ must become ‘Christ in us,’ received and appropriated by our
faith as the strength of our lives. The Christian life is meant to be a joyful feast on
the Sacrifice, and communion with God based upon it. We feast on Christ when the
mind feeds on Him as truth, when the heart is filled and satisfied with His love,
when the conscience clings to Him as its peace, when the will esteems the ‘words of
His mouth more than’ its ‘necessary food,’ when all desires, hopes, and inward
powers draw their supplies from Him, and find their object in His sweet sufficiency.
or will the accompaniments of the first Passover be wanting. Here we feast in the
night; the dawn will bring freedom and escape. Here we eat the glad Bread of God,
not unseasoned with bitter herbs of sorrow and memories of the bondage, whose
chains are dropping from our uplifted hands. Here we should partake of that
hidden nourishment, in such manner that it hinders not our readiness for outward
service. It is not yet time to sit at His table, but to stand with loins girt, and feet
shod, and hands grasping the pilgrim staff. Here we are to eat for strength, and to

110. blend with our secret hours of meditation the holy activities of the pilgrim life.
That feast was, further, appointed with a view to its future use as a memorial. It was
held before the deliverance which it commemorated had been accomplished. A new
era was to be reckoned from it. The month of the Exodus was thenceforward to be
the first of the year. The memorial purpose of the rite has been accomplished. All
over the world it is still observed, so many hundred years after its institution, being
thus, probably, the oldest religious ceremonial in existence. Once more aliens in
many lands, the Jewish race still, year by year, celebrate that deliverance, so
tragically unlike their homeless present, and with indomitable hope, at each
successive celebration, repeat the expectation, so long cherished in vain, ‘This year,
here; next year, in the land of Israel. This year, slaves; next year, freemen.’ There
can be few stronger attestations of historical events than the keeping of days
commemorating them, if traced back to the event they commemorate. So this
Passover, like Guy Fawkes’ Day in England, or Thanksgiving Day in America,
remains for a witness even now.
What an incomprehensible stretch of authority Christ put forth, if He were no more
than a teacher, when He brushed aside the Passover, and put in its place the Lord’s
Supper, as commemorating His own death! Thereby He said, ‘Forget that past
deliverance; instead, remember Me.’ Surely this was either audacity approaching
insanity, or divine consciousness that He Himself was the true Paschal Lamb, whose
blood shields the world from judgment, and on whom the world may feast and be
satisfied. Christ’s deliberate intention to represent His death as expiation, and to fix
the reverential, grateful gaze of all future ages on His Cross, cannot be eliminated
from His founding of that memorial rite in substitution for the God-appointed
ceremonial, so hoary with age and sacred in its significance. Like the Passover, the
Lord’s Supper was established before the deliverance was accomplished. It remains
a witness at once of the historical fact of the death of Jesus, and of the meaning and
power which Jesus Himself bade us to see in that death. For us, redeemed by His
blood, the past should be filled with His sacrifice. For us, fed on Himself, all the
present should be communion with Him, based upon His death for us. For us, freed
bondmen, the memorial of deliverance begun by His Cross should be the prophecy
of deliverance to be completed at the side of His throne, and the hasty meal, eaten
with bitter herbs, the adumbration of the feast when all the pilgrims shall sit with
Him at His table in His kingdom. Past, present, and future should all be to us
saturated with Jesus Christ. Memory should furnish hope with colours, canvas, and
subjects for her fair pictures, and both be fixed on ‘Christ our Passover, sacrificed
for us.’
PETT, "Exodus 12:14
‘And this day shall be to you for a memorial, and you will keep it as a feast to
Yahweh, throughout your generations you will keep it as a feast by an ordinance for
ever.’
From this time on ‘for ever’ the Passover must be celebrated yearly as a reminder of
and participation in this first feast and the deliverance it portended. It is still kept
when we meet to celebrate the greater Passover of our Lord Jesus Christ.

111. “This day.” The fifteenth of Abib when the Passover was eaten and the firstborn of
Israel were spared, and the children of Israel began their departure from the land.
The day began in the evening and the Passover was therefore eaten on the first ‘day’
of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
“A memorial.” Something to bring to remembrance. God was concerned that what
was done this day would be remembered for ever.
“You shall keep it as a feast (chag).” This is the general term for the later pilgrimage
feasts of Israel. It signified a feast of unity, and while Passover was observed in
separate houses it was observed by the congregation of Israel all at the same time.
And its connection with the feast of unleavened bread meant that in the future it
would have to be observed in connection with the gathering together of the people of
Israel. In this sense it too would be a pilgrimage feast.
BI, "A feast to the Lord throughout your generations.
Analogy between the Jewish Passover and the Lord’s Supper
I. The Jewish institution was commemorative; so is the Lord’s Supper.
1. It was a “memorial” of a deliverance from the most cruel bondage.
2. It was a “memorial” of a deliverance from the most cruel bondage by the sacrifice
of an innocent victim.
3. It was a “memorial” of a deliverance wrought by the sovereign compassion of God
(Exo_3:7-8).
II. The Jewish institution was social; so is the Lord’s Supper.
1. Here all feel that they are in the same moral condition.
2. Here all feel that they are dependent on the same Redeemer for salvation.
3. Here all feel that they are members of the same family and destined for the same
house.
III. The Jewish institution was binding; so is the Lord’s Supper.
1. It is binding on all.
2. It is binding on all perpetually. (Homilist.)
The Passover
I. The preparation for the Passover.
1. Divinely commanded.
2. The Passover a new era.
3. Details explicitly given.
(1) Indicating the importance of having a “Thus saith the Lord” for every
ordinance religiously observed.
(2) Indicating the importance of observing every Divine ordinance as divinely

112. ordained.
(3) In the ease of the Israelites, to deviate from the prescribed form would
indicate insubordination.
(4) The lamb is Divinely declared a type of Christ.
(5) The lamb being “kept up” from the tenth to the fourteenth may be a type of
the time when the promise of Christ was given in Eden, and of His crucifixion on
Calvary.
II. The blood of the Passover.
1. The disposition to be made of it.
2. The purpose.
(1) A sign for the angel of death to exempt the house thus marked.
(2) This sign thus became the ground of peace and security to the Israelites.
(3) This was also a sign that this exemption, peace, and security, were not of
works, but wholly of grace.
(4) The application to the believer, covered by the precious blood of Jesus (1Jn_
1:7; 1Pe_1:18-20; 1Co_5:7-8; Rom_3:24-25).
III. Eating this Passover. Its typical significance. Lessons:
1. The Old Testament seems typical of the New Testament.
2. Doctrine and practice vividly portrayed. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Eastertide memories
1. It is a day that reminds us of the deep sympathy of mind with nature. The
springtime of the year has many meanings for us all. The face of the earth is
renewed; and in imitation of it we renew our dress and the face of our homes. And
for thoughtful and sensitive minds, doubtless the lesson goes very deep and very far;
they feel the gentle hint that old dust and cobwebs should be swept out of the mind,
and that they should seek for a fresh stock of impressions to carry the work of
imagination cheerfully on.
2. We are reminded of our part in the lot of humanity. A long history seems to close;
a new one opens on us Easter Day. We derive the name of Easter from an ancient
heathen goddess, Ostera, worshipped by our ancestors. A thousand years ago, her
priestesses on Easter eve washed their faces in clear springs: it was a kind of
sacrament in her worship. Then, too, the Easter fires were kindled on many a height,
as the name Osterberg, which often occurs in Germany, reminds us. The Easter
water and the Easter fire had substantially one tendency and one efficacy—to cleanse
from evil, to drive away evil spirits, to bring blessing to the hearth and home, to the
fields and the toil of the husbandman. How far and wide the notion of a purgation, in
the most comprehensive sense, of the doing away with the old and a new beginning,
has extended through the world! We may begin our inquiries in the East of London,
where the Jews make a thorough cleansing of the house and of the utensils against
the Passover season. With the old leaven let malice and wickedness go out of the
heart, and let it recover its unleavened state of sincerity and truth. Corresponding

113. customs to those of the Jews are practised among peoples in all parts of the world,
and there is not a tribe of black or brown men from whom we may not learn
something edifying for ourselves. At a feast of first-fruits of a tribe of North
American Indians, they provide themselves with new clothes, new pots and pans;
they collect all their worn-out clothes and other despicable things, sweep and cleanse
their houses, squares, and the whole town of their filth, which, with all the remaining
grain and other old provisions, they cast together into one common heap, and
consume it with fire. After having fasted for three days, all the fire in the town is
extinguished. During the fast they abstain from the gratification of every passion and
appetite whatever. A general amnesty is proclaimed; all malefactors may return to
their towns. On the fourth morning the high priest, by rubbing dry wood together,
produces new fire in the public square, whence every habitation in the town is
supplied with the new and pure flame. Then there is feasting and rejoicing, and on
the following days they receive visits from their friends of neighbouring towns, who
have in like manner purified and prepared themselves. A man of genius, in
describing these things, says, “I have scarcely heard of a truer sacrament—i.e., an
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace—than this, and I have no
doubt that they were originally inspired from heaven to do thus, though they have no
Biblical record of the revelation.”
3. But this feast reminds us of deeper things—of things that never were, nor could
be, learned from nature—of the hope of humanity, of triumph over death. If we look
at the imagery and traditions of the nations, there is evidence of an overwhelming
persuasion that the soul has a life distinct from the body, and that the soul will live
again. One strong belief was, when the body was consumed on the funeral pyre, the
human burden, as a Roman poet calls it, was cast away, mortality ceased, and higher
life began. The phoenix bird, which arose from out of the ashes, was one of the
symbolic images in which antiquity found this thought expressed. In another way we
may see the same belief forming the very basis of worship. And at the great feasts of
the year, such as Eastertide, the first thing was to bring offerings to the spirits of the
departed, solemnly to commemorate them, and to unite with them in the social feast.
What made those high days so peculiarly solemn, was the thought that the ancestral
spirits had come back from the viewless regions to hold communion with their living
posterity, and to impart to them a fresh blessing. And here, again, at the head of this
belief, is something sweet and sound. If we let the heart’s logic have its way with us,
we shall hold that the life of humanity is continuous and unbroken, and that they
who have gathered with us in the house of God in times gone by return from time to
time to visit us in our lingering exile from bliss, and, it maybe, secretly to inspire us
to follow their faith and to attain whither they have attained. (E. Johnson, M. A.)
The Passover
I. Obedience. Lamb to be killed, prepared, eaten, None to be left till morning. Eaten in a
certain form and manner. Christ, the Lamb, slain for us, to be received as a whole. His
yoke, His cross, as well as His crown. Example. Redeemer. Righteousness.
II. Faith. More reasonable that they should shed the blood of their enemies than of the
lamb, and use the sword than the knife. Spreading fire and slaughter. More reasonable,
apparently, to help and trust themselves than confide in a word spoken, and a few drops
of blood on the door-post. Our faith, and Jesus the Lamb.
III. Humiliation. Eaten with bitter herbs. Penitential recollections. They prevented mere

114. carnal delight in the feast. Our bitter herbs: remembrance of sin; of our condition; of our
prospects, etc.
IV. Deliverance. Last night in Egypt. The blood sprinkled. The destroying angel. Door of
every Israelite’s home opens, and the family comes out. The escape. Learn:
1. That God gives songs in the night. “In darkest shades, if Thou appear.”
2. That Christ our Passover was slain for us (1Co_5:7).
3. That we should receive Him with all humility, obedience, and faith.
4. That trusting in Him, we shall have a great deliverance. (J. C. Gray.)
A laudable custom
Rev. Joseph Sortain, the eloquent Brighton preacher, was of Huguenot extraction. He
always observed the custom of his persecuted ancestors of reading the twenty-third
Psalm at family worship on Saturday evening. When sometimes asked by guests why he
had a special portion of Scripture for that evening, he would reply, “It was the custom of
my Huguenot forefathers, and I wish to gain inspiration for my Sunday’s duties by the
associations it calls up.” (J. Tinling.)
15 For seven days you are to eat bread made
without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast
from your houses, for whoever eats anything with
yeast in it from the first day through the seventh
must be cut off from Israel.
BAR ES, "Cut off - The penalty inflicted on those who transgressed the command
may be accounted for on the ground that it was an act of rebellion; but additional light is
thrown upon it by the typical meaning assigned to leaven by our Lord, Mat_16:6.
CLARKE, "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread - This has been
considered as a distinct ordinance, and not essentially connected with the passover. The
passover was to be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month; the feast of
unleavened bread began on the fifteenth and lasted seven days, the first and last of
which were holy convocations.

115. That soul shall be cut off - There are thirty-six places in which this excision or
cutting off is threatened against the Jews for neglect of some particular duty; and what is
implied in the thing itself is not well known. Some think it means a violent death, some a
premature death, and some an eternal death. It is very likely that it means no more than
a separation from the rights and privileges of an Israelite; so that after this excision the
person was considered as a mere stranger, who had neither lot nor part in Israel, nor any
right to the blessings of the covenant. This is probably what St. Paul means, Rom_9:3.
But we naturally suppose this punishment was not inflicted but on those who had
showed a marked and obstinate contempt for the Divine authority. This punishment
appears to have been nearly the same with excommunication among the Christians; and
from this general notion of the cutting off, the Christian excommunication seems to have
been borrowed.
GILL, "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread,.... From the evening of the
fourteenth day to the evening of the twenty first; and this was a distinct festival from
what was properly called the feast of the passover, and does not respect the first
passover in Egypt; for though the passover lamb was eaten with unleavened bread, and
the Israelites ate no other, not only for seven days, but for thirty days following; yet this
was not only by the divine command, but through necessity, they having no other bread
to eat; but in later times they were commanded to keep a feast for seven days, in which
they were not to eat leavened bread, in commemoration of their hasty departure out of
Egypt, not having time to leaven the dough in their troughs, and of their distress and
want of savoury bread:
even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; out of their
dwelling houses, which were to be diligently searched for that purpose, and every hole
and crevice in them; and not only their lower rooms, their dining rooms and parlours,
but their upper rooms and bedchambers; because it was possible a man might
sometimes go into them with a piece of bread in his hand, and drop or leave some of it
behind him: yea, synagogues and schools were to be searched, since children might carry
thither leavened breads (i): and this search was to be made by the light of a lamp or
candle, not by the light of the moon, if in the night; nor by the light of the sun, if in the
day, but by the light of a lamp or candle, and not by the light of a torch, or of a lump of
fat, or grease, or oil, but by a lamp or candle of wax (k): and this search was to be made
at the beginning of the night of the fourteenth of Nisan; yea, it is said that leavened
bread was forbidden from the seventh hour of the day, that is, one o'clock in the
afternoon and upwards, which is the middle of the day (l): the account of the Misnic
doctors is (m),"R. Meir says, that they may eat leaven the whole fifth hour, i.e. eleven
o'clock in the morning, and burn it the beginning of the sixth, or twelve o'clock; R. Judah
says, they may eat it all the fourth hour, or tenth o'clock, and suspend it the whole fifth
hour, and burn it the beginning of the sixth:"
for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh
day; from the first of the seven days to the last of them, beginning at the night at the
fourteenth, and ending at the night of the twenty first:
that soul shall be cut off from Israel; either from the commonwealth of Israel, and
be disfranchised, and not accounted as an Israelite; or from the Israelitish church state,
and have no communion in it, or partake of the ordinances at it; or if it is to be

116. understood of cutting off by death, it is either by the hand of the civil magistrate, or by
the immediate hand of God; and is sometimes by the Jews interpreted of a man dying
either without children, or before he is fifty years of age, and some even understand it of
destruction of soul and body, or of eternal damnation.
JAMISO , "Exo_12:15-51. Unleavened Bread.
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread, etc. — This was to commemorate
another circumstance in the departure of the Israelites, who were urged to leave so
hurriedly that their dough was unleavened (Exo_12:39), and they had to eat unleavened
cakes (Deu_16:3). The greatest care was always taken by the Jews to free their houses
from leaven - the owner searching every corner of his dwelling with a lighted candle. A
figurative allusion to this is made (1Co_5:7). The exclusion of leaven for seven days
would not be attended with inconvenience in the East, where the usual leaven is dough
kept till it becomes sour, and it is kept from one day to another for the purpose of
preserving leaven in readiness. Thus even were there none in all the country, it could be
got within twenty-four hours [Harmer].
that soul shall be cut off — excommunicated from the community and privileges of
the chosen people.
K&D, "Exo_12:15-20
Judging from the words “I brought out” in Exo_12:17, Moses did not receive
instructions respecting the seven days' feast of Mazzoth till after the exodus from Egypt;
but on account of its internal and substantial connection with the Passover, it is placed
here in immediate association with the institution of the paschal meal. “Seven days shall
he eat unleavened bread, only ( ְ‫ך‬ፍ) on the first day (i.e., not later than the first day) he
shall cause to cease (i.e., put away) leaven out of your houses.” The first day was the 15th
of the month (cf. Lev_23:6; Num_28:17). On the other hand, when ‫אשׁון‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ is thus defined
in Exo_12:18, “on the 14th day of the month at even,” this may be accounted for from the
close connection between the feast of Mazzoth and the feast of Passover, inasmuch as
unleavened bread was to be eaten with the paschal lamb, so that the leaven had to be
cleared away before this meal. The significance of this feast was in the eating of the
mazzoth, i.e., of pure unleavened bread (see Exo_12:8). As bread, which is the principal
means of preserving life, might easily be regarded as the symbol of life itself, so far as the
latter is set forth in the means employed for its own maintenance and invigoration, so
the mazzoth, or unleavened loaves, were symbolical of the new life, as cleansed from the
leaven of a sinful nature. But if the eating of mazzoth was to shadow forth the new life
into which Israel was transferred, any one who ate leavened bread at the feast would
renounce this new life, and was therefore to be cut off from Israel, i.e., “from the
congregation of Israel” (Exo_12:19).
CALVI , "15.Whosoever eateth leavened bread. This law specially refers to the
keeping of the Passover. God had before forbidden the use of leaven; and He now
enacts the punishment to be inflicted, if any should neglect the prohibition, and
mingle leaven with the Paschal feast. But it is not without reason that we have
postponed to this place what Moses has joined together with the institution of the
Passover; for the plan proposed by us demands that the political laws, which
sanction God’s worship by the denunciation of punishments, should occupy their
peculiar place. From the punishment it appears that, although it may be in itself a

117. trifling matter to abstain from leaven, (as Paul teaches that “bodily exercise
profiteth little,” 1 Timothy 4:8,) yet, inasmuch as in this ceremony the redemption of
the people was kept in memory, it was a very gross crime not to observe whatever
God had prescribed, for we must estimate the importance of the rites of the law
from their object. (69)
COFFMA , "Verses 15-20
"Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day, ye shall put away
leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day
until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel And in the first day there
shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no
manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that
only may be done by you. And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in
this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall
ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance forever. In the
first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened
bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there
be no leaven found in your houses, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that
soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or
one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations
shall ye eat unleavened bread."
It is true that these instructions regarding the holy convocations at the beginning
and at the end of the passover week were applicable to later times after Israel had
entered into the land of Canaan, but no such fact negates the truth that these
instructions came along with and accompanied that very first Passover. In a very
similar way, Jesus Christ gave very specific teaching regarding the Lord's Supper in
John 6:56ff, at a time long before it was possible for his disciples to do what he
commanded there. The instructions here were, in time, faithfully carried out, but in
the context of that first Passover, they would indeed eat the unleavened bread, but
the holy convocations would have to wait.
"Leaven ..." This, by reason of God's instructions here, was made to be a symbol of
corruption, sin, wickedness, and impurity. Paul gave the spiritual application of it in
1 Corinthians 5:7, and Jesus mentioned it in Matthew 16:6-12. The only instance in
which leaven might not have been intended to convey this meaning is that in the
parable of the leaven hidden in three measures of meal (Matthew 13:33), and even
there, if the true meaning is the final and total corruption of God's church by the
forces of evil, it would still retain the unfavorable denotation. In our interpretation
of that we found no way to accept the premise of the final corruption of the whole
church (Matthew 16:18), and therefore construed a favorable meaning of leaven
there.
"For in this selfsame day I have brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt ..." This
sentence is the principal problem associated with the interpretation of this entire
passage. In God's reference here to the exodus as an event already accomplished,
past perfect tense, the critical scholars especially find proof (allegedly) that these

118. instructions were not part of God's original rules for the Passover, but that they
were later added to accommodate changed conditions. Even conservative scholars
are inclined, generally, to admit the weight of this argument. Keil said, "Moses did
not receive instructions concerning this seven days' feast until after the exodus."[19]
Fields mentioned the possibility that "God did not relay instructions concerning this
feast until after the departure was underway."[20] However, Fields mentioned
"another interpretation" as possible, saying:.
"God said, `I have brought you out,' (a completed action) before he had actually
brought them out, because the predicted act was as good as done in his determined
plans. umerous Bible prophecies are spoken of as completed acts.[21]
To us, this appears to be absolutely the correct understanding of the place. We have
already pointed out that the instructions at this point for what could not be done
until later is exactly paralleled in the instructions about the Lord's Supper before
his death occurred. Jamieson also observed this and declared that:
"The close analogy traceable in all points between the Jewish and Christian
Passovers is seen also in the circumstance that both festivals were instituted
BEFORE the events they were designed to commemorate."[22]
We are amused at the boldness by which critical scholars misinterpret this place as
if they had never even heard of the prophetic tense, one of the outstanding features
of Holy Scripture, and which without doubt appears also in Exodus 12:17.
COKE, "Exodus 12:15. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread— In consequence
of this command, the Jews searched with the utmost diligence the evening before the
passover, that there might not be the least leaven, or leavened bread, remaining in
their houses. They were to continue in the use of unleavened bread seven days;
because it is computed, that their deliverance was completed on the seventh day
after their exit from Egypt, when Pharaoh and his host were drowned in the Red-
sea; see ch. Exodus 14:30. Of these days, the first and the seventh were to be held
peculiarly sacred; there was to be a holy convocation on them; that is, a calling
together, or assembling, for the purposes of Divine worship, umbers 2:10.
Be cut off from Israel— That is, (as some suppose,) shall no longer be esteemed an
Israelite, or be admitted into the privileges of my covenant with this people, (Exodus
12:10.) whether he be a native-born Israelite, or a stranger, who, by the reception of
circumcision, has been proselyted to the Jewish religion. See Genesis 17:14.
CO STABLE, "Verses 15-20
Directions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread12:15-20
The Feast of Unleavened Bread began with the Passover meal and continued for
seven more days ( Exodus 12:15). The bread that the Jews used contained no leaven
(yeast), which made it like a cracker rather than cake in its consistency. The Old
Testament uses leaven as a symbol of sin often. Leaven gradually permeates dough,
and it affects every part of the dough. Here it not only reminded the Israelites in
later generations that their ancestors fled Egypt in haste, before their dough could

119. rise. It also reminded them that their lives should resemble the unleavened bread as
redeemed people. Bread is the staff of life and represents life. The life of the
Israelites was to be separate from sin since they had received new life as a result of
God"s provision of the Passover lamb. Eating unleavened bread for a week and
removing all leaven from their houses would have impressed the necessity of a holy
life upon the Israelites.
"For us the leaven must stand for the selfness which is characteristic of us all,
through the exaggerated instinct of self-preservation and the heredity received
through generations, which have been a law to themselves, serving the desires of the
flesh and of the mind. We are by nature self-confident, self-indulgent, self-
opinionated; we live with self as our goal, and around the pivot of I our whole being
revolves." [ ote: Meyer, pp138-39.]
Anyone who refused to abide by these rules repudiated the spiritual lesson
contained in the symbols and was therefore "cut off from Israel." This phrase
means to experience separation from the rights and privileges of the nation through
excommunication or, more often, death. [ ote: Cf. Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; and
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus , pp241-2.]
"Playing fast and loose with God"s prescribed practices is to show disrespect for
God"s honor and dignity." [ ote: Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, p466.]
The Israelites celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of Abib, and the Feast of
Unleavened Bread continued through the twenty-first ( Exodus 12:18). God"s call to
the Israelites to live holy lives arose from what God had done for them.
Consecration follows redemption; it is not a prerequisite for redemption. Similarly
God calls us to be holy in view of what He has done for us (cf. Romans 12:1-2). He
does not say we can experience redemption if we become holy first.
Sunset ended one day and began the next for the Jews (cf. Genesis 1:5; et al.).
ELLICOTT, "(15) Seven days.—The division of time into periods of seven days
each was unknown to the more ancient Egyptians, but is thought to have existed in
Babylonia as early as B.C. 2000. That it was recognised in the family of Abraham
appears from Genesis 29:27. According to some, God established the division by an
express command to our first parents in Paradise that they should keep the seventh
day holy (see Genesis 2:3); but this is greatly questioned by others, who regard
Genesis 2:3 as anticipatory, and think the Sabbath was not instituted until the
giving of the manna (Exodus 16:23). However this may have been, it is generally
allowed that the Israelites had not observed the seventh day in Egypt. where,
indeed, they were held to labour continually. and that the Sabbath as an actual
observance dates from the Exodus. The injunction here given, if it belongs to the
time of the tenth plague, would be the first preliminary note of warning with respect
to the Sabbath, raising an expectation of it, and preparing the way for it, leading up
to the subsequent revelations in the wilderness of Sin and at Sinai.

120. Ye shall put away leaven out of your houses.—There was to be no compromise,
nothing resembling half measures. Leaven, taken as typical of corruption, was to be
wholly put away, not allowed by any householder to lurk anywhere within his
house—a solemn warning that we are to make no compromise with sin.
That soul shall be cut off from Israel.—See the ote on Genesis 17:14.
PETT, "Verses 15-20
Instructions Concerning the Later Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:15-20).
These instructions had the future in mind. They would not be in their houses in
order to observe it in Egypt, although it may well have been a feast that they
previously observed. But now it was to be directly connected with the Passover, and
with the haste in which they left Egypt.
a They were to eat unleavened bread for seven days, and on the first day put
all unleavened bread out of their houses, for whoever eats unleavened bread from
the first day until the seventh day, that person will be cut off from Israel (Exodus
12:15).
b On the first day was to be a holy gathering and on the seventh day was to be
a holy gathering, and no manner of work was to be done except what a man must
eat (Exodus 12:16).
c The feast of unleavened bread was to be observed on the selfsame day as
Yahweh brought their hosts out of Egypt (Exodus 12:17 a).
c Which is why they will observe this day throughout their generations by an
ordinance for ever (Exodus 12:17 b).
b On the first month, on the fourteenth day in the evening they were to eat
unleavened bread, until the twenty first day in the evening (Exodus 12:18).
a For seven days no leaven was to be found in their houses , for whoever ate
what was leavened, that person was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel,
whether a resident alien or one born in the land. othing leavened was to be eaten.
In all their dwellings they must eat unleavened bread (Exodus 12:19-20).
We note in ‘a’ the parallels. In both the feast was to be for seven days when there
was to be no leaven, and any who ate of unleavened bread was to be cut off from
among the people. In the former the leaven is to be put out of their houses, and in
the latter they must eat unleavened bread in all their houses. In ‘b’ we have the
mention in both, in different ways, of the first and the seventh day, described in the
parallel as the fourteenth and twenty first day. In ‘c’ the day to be celebrated is
stressed in both cases.
Exodus 12:15
“Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread. Even the first day you shall put away
leaven out of your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until
the seventh that person shall be cut off from Israel.”
The earlier patriarchal family tribe under Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would
certainly have observed a number of feasts (for example the sheep shearing - see on

121. Genesis 31:19), and as they produced crops this would have included a celebration
of the beginning of the barley harvest which, in Canaan, would have taken place at
this time of the year. It is probable that these feasts had been continued in Egypt, as
part of their tradition, to retain a connection with their roots. But it would be linked
to something else, so that, apart from the connection with unleavened bread, a seven
day feast may already have been observed at this time. Such customs are notoriously
tenacious even over long periods of time.
But this time the deliverance would not give the children of Israel time to leaven
their bread (Exodus 12:34; Exodus 12:37). Thus from this time on this feast, which
had in Canaan been connected with the beginning of the barley harvest, (and would
be again), but in Egypt was probably connected with some other reason for
celebration, was to be observed with unleavened bread to remind them of their
deliverance from Egypt. It would be a feast to which all the children of Israel
gathered. This feast is now given a special meaning and connected with the
Passover, although shown as a distinctive feast. ( otice how the Passover and the
Feast of Unleavened Bread are dealt with separately in Exodus 12:43-49 and Exodus
13:3-9. Later they would be seen as one as a result of the passage of time, but that is
not yet).
“Seven days.” A divinely perfect period. We do not know whether at this stage the
children of Israel observed the ‘seven day week’ as we know it. Probably not for no
mention is made of the institution of the weekly Sabbath until Exodus 16. But it
would be wrong to assume that ‘seven days’ necessarily anywhere indicates a
recognised week. ‘Seven days’ was commonly recognised as a sacred period not
necessarily directly connected to the calendar, for the number seven had a sacred
significance throughout the ear East. Thus the Babylonian flood story had a seven
day flood. But they did not have a seven day week. The Philistines held a seven day
wedding feast (Judges 14:17) but did not observe the Sabbath. And while this seven
day period begins and ends with a sabbath, these sabbaths were not what came to be
the regular Sabbath.
“You shall eat unleavened bread (cakes).” This is bread (plural) made from dough
to which yeast had not been introduced, baked in the form of flat cakes. The initial
significance of this in context was that they would go in haste without leaving time
for the bread to be leavened (Exodus 12:34; Exodus 12:39). Thus the feast would be
a continual reminder of that hasty departure. But it probably also gained a new
significance from the fact that leaven had a ‘corrupting’ influence on the dough,
unleavened bread thus signifying the necessity for purity. The escape from Egypt
rescued them from the leaven of Egypt, the corrupting influence of Egypt, and their
being united in the covenant was intended to deliver them from the leaven of sin. It
thus continued to indicate deliverance from the world’s influence and from sin.
“The first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses.” All leaven had to be
removed from each house so that only unleavened bread remained. We are probably
justified in seeing in this a picture of the need for the removal of all corrupting
tendencies from the lives of partakers.

122. “Whoever eats --- that person shall be cut off from Israel.” Unity with Jacob (Israel)
in the covenant of Yahweh requires obedience to the demands of the covenant God.
Thus to deliberately partake of leavened bread during the seven day period would
be to signify an unwillingness to belong to the covenant community, and would
result in removal from ‘the congregation of Israel’. Such a person might even, at
this stage, be put to death ( umbers 15:27-36). To have become a member of the
covenant was a serious matter. But being ‘cut off’ may simply indicate expulsion.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day
ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread
from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
Ver. 15. Ye shall put away leaven.] All unsoundness in point of faith, and insincerity
in point of practice. {See Trapp on "1 Corinthians 5:7"} The Jews, at this day, on
the night before their passover, search and sweep every mouse hole for crumbs of
leaven with wax candles. If they find none, they purposely fling down some, that
they might not seem to have prayed and laboured in vain.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:15. The solemn institution of the seven days’ feast of
unleavened bread. It was contemporaneous with the Passover; not afterwards
appended to it, for this is not implied by Exodus 12:17. (See above on Exodus 12:8).
The real motive was the uniform removal of the Egyptian leaven, a symbol of entire
separation from everything Egyptian. Hence the clearing away of the leaven had to
be done on the first day, even before the incoming of the 15 th of isan, on the
evening of the 14 th. Vid. Exodus 12:18. Hence also every one who during this time
ate anything leavened was to be punished with death. He showed symbolically that
he wished to side with Egypt, not with Israel. The explanation, “The unleavened
bread is the symbol of the new life, cleansed from the leaven of sin,” (Keil), is
founded on the fundamentally false assumption, revived again especially by
Hengstenberg, that the leaven is in itself a symbol of the sinful life. If this were the
case, the Israelites would have had to eat unleavened bread all the time, and
certainly would not have been commanded on the day of Pentecost to put leavened
bread on the altar ( Leviticus 23:17). The leaven is symbol only of transmission and
fellowship, hence, in some cases, of the old or of the corrupt life. “Leaven of the
Egyptian character,” says Keil himself, II, p21.
BI 15-19, "The feast of unleavened bread.
The feast of unleavened bread; or, the ordinances of God, and the manner in
which they should be observed
The feast of unleavened bread was a distinct ordinance from the Passover, though
following immediately upon it. At this feast the Israelites were to eat unleavened bread;
probably to commemorate the fact that they had left Egypt in such haste that they had
no opportunity to leaven their dough, and were consequently obliged to eat unleavened
cakes. It would also remind them of the power of God in bringing them out of Egypt
when they were without provision for their journey, and it would teach them a lesson of
trust in the Divine providence. This feast was an ordinance of God. We observe in

123. reference to it—
I. That the ordinances of God are clearly made known and enjoined upon man.
1. Divinely authorized.
2. Morally beneficial.
3. Wofully neglected.
This neglect is prevalent; it is fearful; it is inexcusable; it is morally injurious; it will
ultimately meet with its due punishment.
II. That the ordinances of God are to be observed in a spirit and temper free from sin.
1. In a spirit free from hypocrisy.
2. In a spirit free from malice and bitterness.
3. The home-life must be in sympathy with God’s ordinances.
What we are at home we shall be in the ordinances of God. The home-life and the
ordinary worship are inseparable; they are part of the same service, and must be pure.
III. That the ordinances of God are to be observed with solemnity and propreity of
moral conduct and demeanor.
IV. That those who profane the ordinances of God are unworthy of them, and should be
denied the privilege of them. “That soul shall be cut off from Israel.” Lessons:
1. That there are in connection with the Church of God many ordinances to be
observed by men.
2. That these ordinances should be observed with due solemnity and appropriate
conduct.
3. That neglect of these ordinances is disobedience to the command of God. (J. S.
Exell, M. A.)
16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and
another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all
on these days, except to prepare food for everyone
to eat; that is all you may do.

124. BAR ES, "An holy convocation - An assembly called by proclamation for a
religious solemnity. See Lev_23:2; Num_10:2-3. In the East the proclamation is made
by the Muezzins from the minarets of the mosques.
Save that ... - In this the observance of the festival differed from the Sabbath, when
the preparation of food was prohibited. The same word for “work” is used here and in
the fourth commandment: it is very general, and includes all laborious occupation.
CLARKE, "In the first day and in the seventh day there shall be a holy
convocation - This is the first place where we meet with the account of an assembly
collected for the mere purpose of religious worship. Such assemblies are called holy
convocations, which is a very appropriate appellation for a religious assembly; they were
called together by the express command of God, and were to be employed in a work of
holiness. ‫מקרא‬ mikra, convocation, is a word of similar import with the Greek εκκλησια,
which we commonly translate Church, and which properly signifies an assembly
convened by public call.
GILL, "And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation,.... An holy day,
in which the people be called to holy exercises, and wholly abstain from worldly
business, done on other days:
and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation unto you; observed
in a festival way, and in the like religious manner the first day was, the day of their going
out of Egypt; and the seventh was the day in which Pharaoh and his host were drowned
in the Red sea, as Aben Ezra observes; for which reason those days are distinguished
from the rest, and appointed to be holy convocations, and which appear from the
journeying of the children of Israel, as computed by Junius: they came to Succoth on the
fifteenth, to Etham the seventeenth, to Pihahiroth the eighteenth, where they were
ordered to stay, and wait the coming of their enemies, on the twentieth the army of
Pharaoh came up to them, and the night following the Israelites passed through the sea
and the Egyptians were drowned:
no manner of work shall be done in them; as used to be done on other days, and
as were on the other five days of this festival: the Jewish canons are,"it is forbidden to do
any work on the evening of the passover, from the middle of the day and onward, and
whoever does work from the middle of the day and onward, they excommunicate him;
even though, he does it for nothing, it is forbidden (n): R. Meir says, whatever work
anyone begins before the fourteenth (of Nisan) he may finish it on the fourteenth, but he
may not begin it on the beginning of the fourteenth, though he could finish it: the wise
men say, three workmen may work on the evening of the passover unto the middle of the
day, and they are these, tailors, barbers, and fullers: R. Jose bar Judah says, also
shoemakers (o),''but in the text no exception is made but the following:
save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you; so that
kindling fire and preparing food might be done on those days, which might not be done
on sabbath days; and the prohibition of work was not so strict on those days as on that.
HE RY, " The feast of unleavened bread was typical of the Christian life, 1Co_5:7,

125. 1Co_5:8. Having received Christ Jesus the Lord, (1.) We must keep a feast in holy joy,
continually delighting ourselves in Christ Jesus; no manner of work must be done (Exo_
12:16), no care admitted or indulged, inconsistent with, or prejudicial to, this holy joy: if
true believers have not a continual feast, it is their own fault. (2.) It must be a feast of
unleavened bread, kept in charity, without the leaven of malice, and in sincerity, without
the leaven of hypocrisy. The law was very strict as to the passover, and the Jews were so
in their usages, that no leaven should be found in their houses, Exo_12:19. All the old
leaven of sin must be put far from us, with the utmost caution and abhorrence, if we
would keep the feast of a holy life to the honour of Christ. (3.) It was by an ordinance for
ever (Exo_12:17); as long as we live, we must continue feeding upon Christ and rejoicing
in him, always making thankful mention of the great things he has done for us.
JAMISO , "there shall be an holy convocation — literally, calling of the people,
which was done by sound of trumpets (Num_10:2), a sacred assembly - for these days
were to be regarded as Sabbaths - excepting only that meat might be cooked on them
(Exo_16:23).
K&D, "Exo_12:16
On the first and seventh days, a holy meeting was to be held, and labour to be
suspended. ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ק‬‫א־‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫מ‬ is not indictio sancti, proclamatio sanctitatis (Vitringa), but a holy
assembly, i.e., a meeting of the people for the worship of Jehovah (Eze_46:3, Eze_46:9).
‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫,מ‬ from ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ to call, is that which is called, i.e., the assembly (Isa_4:5; Neh_8:8). No
work was to be done upon these days, except what was necessary for the preparation of
food; on the Sabbath, even this was prohibited (Exo_35:2-3). Hence in Lev_23:7, the
“work” is called “servile work,” ordinary handicraft.
ELLICOTT, "(16) In the first day there shall be an holy convocation.—The
Passover was to be kept on the fourteenth day of Abib, at even. The seven following
days were to be “days of unleavened bread.” On the first of these, the fifteenth of
Abib (Leviticus 23:6), there was to be a “holy convocation,” i.e., a general gathering
of the people to the door of the sanctuary for sacrifice, worship, and perhaps
instruction. (Comp. ehemiah 8:1.) The term “convocation” implies that the people
were summoned to attend; and the actual summons appears to have been made by
the blowing of the silver trumpets ( umbers 10:2). On the seventh day, the twenty-
first of Abib, was to be another similar meeting. “ o manner of work” was to be
done on either of these two days; or rather, as explained in Leviticus 23:7-8, “no
servile work."
PETT, "Exodus 12:16
“And on the first day there shall be for you a holy gathering, and on the seventh day
a holy gathering, no manner of work shall be done in them except what every man
must eat, that only may be done for you.”
The seven day period was to begin on day one and end on day seven with both days
being observed as days of rest from labour, apart from that necessary for the feast.
They were holy days. On these days they would gather for feasting and worship.

126. They were days set apart for God later to become known as ‘sabbaths’. Thus such
set apart days (both the first and the last of the seven) were to be seen as times when
no work must be done. This was to be as a reminder of the bondage that had been
theirs in Egypt. The idea of a seventh day sabbath would later develop into a
regular Sabbath day every seven days (Exodus 16:5; Exodus 16:23; Exodus 16:25;
Exodus 16:29-30; Exodus 20:8-11), a sign that they were continually His free people,
provided for by Him. But they would not have been able to observe such a regular
Sabbath in Egypt. Thus after the regular Sabbath was instituted there could in the
feast of unleavened bread be three sabbaths, the day one sabbath, the day seven
sabbath, and the regular Sabbath.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:16. On the first day. This is the day following the holy night,
the second half of the 15 th of isan. Like the seventh day it is appointed a festival,
but to be observed less rigidly than the Sabbath. According to Leviticus 23:7, the
only employments forbidden are the regular labors of one’s vocation or service, and
food may be prepared according to the necessities of the day; this was not allowed
on the Sabbath.
17 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread,
because it was on this very day that I brought
your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as
a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.
CLARKE, "Self-same day - ‫בעצם‬ beetsem, in the body of this day, or in the strength
of this day; probably they began their march about day-break, called here the body or
strength of the day, and in Deu_16:1, by night - sometime before the sun rose.
GILL, "And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread,.... Which was a
distinct feast from the passover feast; for though at that unleavened bread was eaten, it
was kept but one night, this seven days; and it is repeated that it might be taken notice
of, and the rather, as it was to be observed in all ages as long as the Jewish economy
lasted; the reason of which follows:

127. for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt;
which, though not already done, was just on doing, and was certain; and besides, it
respects the day when it should come about another year: by their "armies" are meant
the tribes of Israel, not so much for their military force, for as yet they were an unarmed
people, but for their numbers, which were sufficient to make several considerable
armies, and for their order and ease, and their being without any fear of the enemy, in
which they marched out of Egypt:
therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for
ever; according to the rules given, with the same exactness, strictness, and constancy, as
the first of the passover, and as long as that continued; See Gill on Exo_12:14.
JAMISO , "ye shall observe, etc. — The seven days of this feast were to
commence the day after the passover. It was a distinct festival following that feast; but
although this feast was instituted like the passover before the departure, the observance
of it did not take place till after.
K&D, "Exo_12:17-20
“Observe the Mazzoth” (i.e., the directions given in Exo_12:15 and Exo_12:16
respecting the feast of Mazzoth), “for on this very day I have brought your armies out of
the land of Egypt.” This was effected in the night of the 14th-15th, or rather at midnight,
and therefore in the early morning of the 15th Abib. Because Jehovah had brought Israel
out of Egypt on the 15th Abib, therefore Israel was to keep Mazzoth for seven days. Of
course it was not merely a commemoration of this event, but the exodus formed the
groundwork of the seven days' feast, because it was by this that Israel had been
introduced into a new vital element. For this reason the Israelites were to put away all
the leaven of their Egyptian nature, the leaven of malice and wickedness (1Co_5:8), and
by eating pure and holy bread, and meeting for the worship of God, to show that they
were walking in newness of life. This aspect of the feast will serve to explain the repeated
emphasis laid upon the instructions given concerning it, and the repeated threat of
extermination against either native or foreigner, in case the law should be disobeyed
(Exo_12:18-20). To eat leavened bread at this feast, would have been a denial of the
divine act, by which Israel was introduced into the new life of fellowship with Jehovah.
‫ר‬ֵ, a stranger, was a non-Israelite who lived for a time, or possibly for his whole life, in
the midst of the Israelitish nation, but without being incorporated into it by
circumcision. ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ח‬ ַ‫ר‬ְ‫ז‬ ֶ‫,א‬ a tree that grows upon the soil in which it was planted; hence
indigena, the native of a country. This term was applied to the Israelites, “because they
had sprung from Isaac and Jacob, who were born in the land of Canaan, and had
received it from God as a permanent settlement” (Clericus). The feast of Mazzoth, the
commemoration of Israel's creation as the people of Jehovah (Isa_43:15-17), was fixed
for seven days, to stamp upon it in the number seven the seal of the covenant
relationship. This heptad of days was made holy through the sanctification of the first
and last days by the holding of a holy assembly, and the entire suspension of work. The
beginning and the end comprehended the whole. In the eating of unleavened bread
Israel laboured for meat for the new life (Joh_6:27), whilst the seal of worship was
impressed upon this new life in the holy convocation, and the suspension of labour was
the symbol of rest in the Lord.

128. COKE, "Exodus 12:17. I have brought out— This translation may be proper, as
God may truly be said to have done what he has fully proposed and decreed to do.
But perhaps it might have been as well rendered, in agreement with several of the
versions, I will bring out, or I am about to bring out.
REFLECTIO S.—The deliverance of Israel advances. Orders are issued out
concerning their departure, and the preparations for it. As they are now to begin
new lives, they are to count from this day the new year. ote; That is emphatically
our birth-day, and the beginning of years, in which we begin to escape from sin, and
live to God.
1. The passover is instituted, with particular directions for present and future use;
and the days of unleavened bread are to follow, in memory of this great event, their
escape from the house of their prison. We must begin with God, whatever haste of
business is upon our hands.
2. Observe God's visitation upon Egypt and her idols. All the vain confidence of
sinners must perish with them
3. The respect these ordinances have to us in these gospel-times. (1.) Christ is our
Passover; a lamb without blemish, appointed and set apart by God to be slain;
enduring the fiercest fire of Divine wrath, and sacrificed for all his spiritual Israel.
(2.) His blood must by faith be sprinkled on our consciences. Wherever it is found,
there is no condemnation; and we must never be ashamed to profess our open
dependance upon him. (3.) The Lamb of God is to be fed upon as our spiritual
strength and nourishment. As the time is short, we must make haste to draw near to
him. The bitter herbs of repentance should attend the feast, and give a greater relish
to the food; and, as those who remember how near their departure is, we should be
ready, not only to leave our sins behind, but our bodies in the dust, whenever he
calls us away to his blessed Self. (4.) With these dispositions, we shall keep the feast
with holy joy, as pardoned sinners; with fervent affection, as those who are going to
possess the same land; with sincerity and truth, renouncing the leaven of malice and
wickedness; and thus persevering, till we come to sit down in the true Canaan, the
kingdom of eternal glory.
ELLICOTT, "(17) In this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land
of Egypt.—On the application of the word “armies” to the people of Israel, see
above (Exodus 6:26). The expression “have I brought” indicates either that these
directions were not given until after the Exodus, or at any rate that they were not
reduced to writing until then.
PETT, "Exodus 12:17
“And you shall observe the Mazzoth (unleavened bread). For on this selfsame day
have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this
day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever.”
From this day on the first day of this feast would be a reminder of their being freed

129. from slavery. As they ceased from work they would remember how they had been
freed from slavery in Egypt. So from this day on the fifteenth day of Abib was a day
set apart, a day on which the Passover would be eaten (having been killed on the
fourteenth between the two evenings) and as a day of cessation from labour.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:17. For on this self-same day. Strictly speaking then, the days
of unleavened bread began with the beginning of the 15 th of isan, and in
commemoration of the exodus itself, whereas the Passover was devoted to the
commemoration of the preceding dreadful night of judgment and deliverance, the
real adoption or birth of God’s people Israel.
18 In the first month you are to eat bread made
without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth
day until the evening of the twenty-first day.
GILL, "In the first month,.... As it was now ordered to be reckoned, the month Abib
or Nisan:
the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread; that
is, at the evening following, the fourteenth of Nisan, and which was the beginning of the
fifteenth day, the Jews beginning their day from the evening: hence the Targum of
Jonathan is,"on the fourteenth of Nisan ye shall slay the passover, in the evening of the
fifteenth ye shall eat unleavened bread:"
unto the twentieth day of the month at even; which would make just seven days;
the above Targum adds,"on the evening of the twenty second ye shall eat leavened
bread,''which was the evening following the twenty first day. This long abstinence from
leaven denotes, that the whole lives of those who are Israelites indeed should be without
guile, hypocrisy, and malice, and should be spent in sincerity and truth.
ELLICOTT, "(18) In the first month.—The Hebrew omits “month” by a not
unusual ellipse. (Comp. Ezekiel 1:1.)
At even.—The evening intended is not that with which the fourteenth day began,

130. but that with which it closed, the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the
fifteenth day. (See Leviticus 23:5-6.)
PETT, "12:18-20
“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month when evening comes, you
will eat unleavened bread, until the twenty first day in the evening. Seven days there
will be no leaven in your houses, for whoever eats what is leavened that person shall
be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner or one born in
the land. You shall eat nothing leavened. In all your dwellings you shall eat
unleavened bread.”
The details are now repeated so that the listeners are reminded of them. (In the first
place Moses and Aaron, but finally all who listen to this account read out at a feast).
The ban on unleavened bread begins on the fourteenth day of the month as the next
evening approaches and the Passover lamb is killed, and goes on until the end of the
twenty first day, a period of just over seven days.
“Whether he be a sojourner or one born in the land.” This is looking forward to the
ideal day when the land promised to their fathers, and to them in Exodus 3:8, finally
belongs to them in its totality. All would know of the land that God had promised to
give to the seed of Abraham (Genesis 13:15 etc.). This was confirmation that these
promises were to be fulfilled in the not too distant future. Then every one in that
land, whether born there, or living there having been born elsewhere, will be subject
to these regulations. This is a message of hope for it guarantees that they are to
receive the land promised to their fathers. God has promised that He is delivering
them so as to give them the land (Exodus 3:8). This is spoken in anticipation of, and
guarantee of, that day. Their inheritance is guaranteed to them on this their day of
deliverance.
“In all your dwellings.” Every household among the people will be involved.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:18. On the fourteenth day of the month. This is the feast of
unleavened bread in the wider sense, including the Passover. The Passover,
according to the very idea of it, could not be celebrated with leavened bread, i.e., in
connection with any thing Egyptian, for it represented a separation, in principle,
from what was Egyptian.
19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your
houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-

131. born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be
cut off from the community of Israel.
BAR ES, "Born in the land - A stranger or foreigner might be born in the land,
but the word here used means “a native of the land,” belonging to the country by virtue
of descent, that descent being reckoned from Abraham, to whom Canaan was promised
as a perpetual inheritance.
CLARKE, "No leaven found in your houses - To meet the letter of this precept
in the fullest manner possible, the Jews, on the eve of this festival, institute the most
rigorous search through every part of their houses, not only removing all leavened bread,
but sweeping every part clean, that no crumb of bread shall be left that had any leaven in
it. And so strict were they in the observance of the letter of this law, that if even a mouse
was seen to run across the floor with a crumb of bread in its mouth, they considered the
whole house as polluted, and began their purification afresh. We have already seen that
leaven was an emblem of sin, because it proceeded from corruption; and the putting
away of this implied the turning to God with simplicity and uprightness of heart. See on
Exo_12:8 (note), and Exo_12:27 (note).
GILL, "Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses,.....
Wherefore, on the fourteenth day the most diligent search was made, and whatever was
found was burnt, or cast into the sea, or dispersed with the wind; about which the
traditionary writers of the Jews, give many rules and canons; see Gill on Exo_12:15,
for whoso eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from
the congregation of Israel; which is repeated to deter them from the breach of this
ordinance; See Gill on Exo_12:15, and it is added for further explanation, of whom it
concerns:
whether he be a stranger, or born in the land; by a "stranger" is meant, not a
mere Heathen, who was not bound by this law, but a proselyte; and not a proselyte of the
gate, one that was only a sojourner among them, and observed the commandments of
the sons of Noah; but a proselyte of righteousness, who professed the Jewish religion,
and proposed to conform to it in all respects, and therefore was obliged to observe this
as other precepts: and by one "born in the land", is intended a native of the land of
Canaan, whither they were now going in order to possess it, or a real Israelite, such as
were born of Israelitish parents, and proper inhabitants of Canaan, which they would be
put into the possession of.
JAMISO , "stranger — No foreigner could partake of the passover, unless
circumcised; the “stranger” specified as admissible to the privilege must, therefore, be

132. considered a Gentile proselyte.
ELLICOTT. "(19) A stranger—i.e., a foreigner in blood, who has been adopted into
the nation, received circumcision, and become a full proselyte. It is not improbable
that many of the “six hundred thousand” reckoned to “Israel” (Exodus 12:37) were
of this class—persons who had joined themselves to the nation during the sojourn in
Egypt, or even earlier. (See ote on Genesis 17:13.) When the “exclusiveness” of the
Hebrews is made a charge against them, justice requires us to remember that from
the first it was open to those who were not of Hebrew blood to share in the Hebrew
privileges by accepting the covenant of circumcision, and joining themselves to the
nation. It was in this way that the Kenites. and even the Gibeonites, became
reckoned to Israel.
Born in the land.—Hob., natives of the land: i.e., of Canaan. Canaan was regarded
as belonging to Abraham and his descendants from the time of the first promise
(Genesis 12:7). Thenceforth it was their true home: they were its expatriated
inhabitants.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses:
for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the
congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
Ver. 19. o leaven found.] {See Trapp on "Exodus 12:15"}
Shall be cut off.] For a small fault, as it may seem to some: but the less the matter
the greater is the contempt in denying to do it. Keep therefore God’s commandment
as the sight of thine eye. Look to those minutula legis, that ye may live.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:19. Also the foreigner, who wishes to live among the Israelites,
must submit to this ordinance, even though he has continued to be a foreigner, i.e.,
has not been circumcised. The one born in the land is the Israelite himself, so called
either in anticipation of his destined place of settlement, or in the wider sense of
nationality. Keil approves Leclerc’s interpretation: quia oriundi erant ex Isaaco et
Jacobo, [“because they were to take their origin from Isaac and Jacob.”]
20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you
live, you must eat unleavened bread.”

133. GILL, "Ye shall eat nothing leavened,.... Bread or anything else that had any leaven
in it:
in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread, that is, if they eat any
bread at all, it must be such; otherwise they might eat cakes of almonds or of eggs mixed
with sugar, provided there was no leaven used, and this the Jews call the rich unleavened
bread (p): this is repeated over and over, that they might be the more careful of
observing this precept; but as this was limited for a certain time, it plainly appears to be
a mistake of Tacitus (q) the Roman historian, who represents unleavened bread as the
bread the Jews eat of in common.
21 Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel
and said to them, “Go at once and select the
animals for your families and slaughter the
Passover lamb.
BAR ES, "Draw out - i. e. draw the lamb from the fold and then take it to the
house.
The passover - The word is here applied to the lamb; an important fact, marking the
lamb as the sign and pledge of the exemption of the Israelites.
CLARKE, "Kill the passover - That is, the lamb, which was called the paschal or
passover lamb. The animal that was to be sacrificed on this occasion got the name of the
institution itself: thus the word covenant is often put for the sacrifice offered in making
the covenant; so the rock was Christ, 1Co_10:4; bread and wine the body and blood of
Christ, Mar_14:22, Mar_14:24. St. Paul copies the expression, 1Co_5:7 : Christ our
passover (that is, our paschal lamb) is sacrificed for us.
GILL, "Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel,.... Not in age but in office,

134. who were either heads of families, or at least principal men in the tribes; which explains
in what manner he was to speak to the congregation of Israel, and convey to them the
will of God concerning the observation of these feasts, Exo_12:3,
and said unto them, draw out; a lamb or a kid, out of the flocks on the tenth day of
the month, and keep it up until the fourteenth, as in Exo_12:3.
and take you a lamb, according to your families; or "take ye of the flock" (r),
whether a lamb or a kid; a lamb for every family, if there was a sufficient number in it to
eat it up; if not, two or more families were to join and keep the feast together:
and kill the passover; the lamb for the passover, which was to be done on the
fourteenth day of the month; and before the priesthood was established in the family of
Aaron, and before the Israelites were possessed of the land of Canaan, and the temple
was built at Jerusalem, the passover was killed by the heads of families, and in their own
houses, but afterwards it was killed only by the priests, and at Jerusalem and in the
temple there, see Deu_16:5.
HE RY, ". Moses is here, as a faithful steward in God's house, teaching the children
of Israel to observe all things which God had commanded him; and no doubt he gave
the instructions as largely as he received them, though they are not so largely recorded.
It is here added,
JAMISO , "Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, etc. — Here are
given special directions for the observance.
K&D, "Exo_12:21-28
Of the directions given by Moses to the elders of the nation, the leading points only are
mentioned here, viz., the slaying of the lamb and the application of the blood (Exo_
12:21, Exo_12:22). The reason for this is then explained in Exo_12:23, and the rule laid
down in Exo_12:24-27 for its observance in the future.
Exo_12:21-22
“Withdraw and take:” ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫מ‬ is intransitive here, to draw away, withdraw, as in Jdg_4:6;
Jdg_5:14; Jdg_20:37. ‫ּוב‬‫ז‬ ֵ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ַ ֻ‫ג‬ ֲ‫:א‬ a bunch or bundle of hyssop: according to Maimonides,
“quantum quis comprehendit manu sua.” ‫ּוב‬‫ז‬ ֵ‫א‬ (ᆖσσωπος) was probably not the plant
which we call hyssop, the hyssopus officinalis, for it is uncertain whether this is to be
found in Syria and Arabia, but a species of origanum resembling hyssop, the Arabian
zâter, either wild marjoram or a kind of thyme, Thymus serpyllum, mentioned in Forsk.
flora Aeg. p. 107, which is very common in Syria and Arabia, and is called zâter, or
zatureya, the pepper or bean plant. “That is in the bason;” viz the bason in which the
blood had been caught when the animal was killed. ‫ם‬ ֶ ְ‫ע‬ַ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫,ו‬ “and let it reach to, i.e., strike,
the lintel:” in ordinary purifications the blood was sprinkled with the bunch of hyssop
(Lev_14:51; Num_19:18). The reason for the command not to go out of the door of the
house was, that in this night of judgment there would be no safety anywhere except
behind the blood-stained door.

135. CALVI , "I have here omitted what Moses has related in the beginning of the
chapter up to this verse, because it pertains to the perpetual doctrine of the Law. I
shall hereafter insert it in its proper place. But., since here also God gave precepts as
to the observation of the Passover, I have thought it right to interweave them with
the history; because Moses does not merely teach here what God would have
observed by His people in all ages, but relates what He required on a particular
occasion. But my readers are to be reminded that some precepts are temporary, and
some perpetual, like the Law itself. Of this we may see a clear and familiar example
in the chapter before us. For up to this place, Moses had explained what; would be
the due observation of the Passover year by year for ever; but now he only relates
historically, that, on the night in which the people went forth, they celebrated the
Passover according’ to God’s command. I shall, therefore, lightly touch upon what
is here repeated; since a more fitting place for a full exposition will be, when we
come to the doctrine of the law. The word ‫פסה‬,)140 ) pesech, means a passing-over,
not of the people, (as many have falsely thought,) but of God Himself, who passed
over the houses of the Israelites without harm, when He slew the first-born in all
Egypt. Since, then, the wrath of God, which then like a deluge covered the whole of
Egypt, left the Israelites untouched, He instituted a memorial of His passing-over,
whereby they had been preserved in safety amidst the public destruction of the
whole land. He is also said to have passed-over the Egyptians, whom He deprived of
their first-born; but after a different manner, because He spared His chosen ones, as
if they had been far away, or protected in places of sure refuge.
21.Then Moses called for all the elders. His address is especially directed to the
elders, that they might afterwards repeat it to the multitude; for he could not have
been heard at the same time by so great a number of people. But, although the
disorganization of the people had been terrible under that severe tyranny, still God
willed that certain relics of order should be preserved, and did not suffer those,
whom He had adopted, to be deprived of all government. This also had been an
availing means of preserving their unity, so that the chosen seed of Abraham should
not be lost. But Moses here only speaks of the sprinkling of the blood; because he
had already addressed them as to the eating of the lamb. He therefore commands
branches of hyssop to be dipped in the blood, which had been caught in the basin,
and every one’s lintel and two side-posts to be sprinkled with this. By which sign
God testified that He will preserve His people from the common destruction,
because they will be discerned from the wicked by the mark of blood. For it was
necessary that the Israelites should first be reminded, that by the expiation of the
sacrifice, they were delivered from the plague, and their houses preserved
untouched; and, secondly, that the sacrifice would profit them, only if its
conspicuous sign existed among them. We elsewhere see that the Paschal lamb was a
type of Christ, who by His death propitiated His Father, so that we should not
perish with the rest of the world. But, already of old time, He desired to bear witness
to the ancients under the Law, that He would not be reconciled to them otherwise
than through the sacrifice of a victim. And there is no doubt that by this visible
symbol He raised up their minds to that true and heavenly Exemplar, whom it
would be absurd and profane to separate from the ceremonies of the law. For what
could be more childish than to offer the blood of an animal as a protection against

136. the hand of God, or to seek from thence a ground of safety? God, then, shows that
He spares the Israelites on no other condition but that of sacrifice; from whence it
follows, that the death of Christ was set before them in this ordinance, which alone
constituted the difference between them and the Egyptians. But at the same time He
taught that no advantage was to be expected from the blood poured forth, without
the sprinkling; not that the external and visible sprinkling produced any good
effect, but because by this familiar rite it was useful that the ignorant should be
brought to perceive the truth, and that they might know that what was put before
them Visibly must be spiritually fulfilled. It is notorious from the testimony of Peter,
(1 Peter 1:2,) that our souls are sprinkled with the blood of Christ by the Spirit. This
was typified by the bunch of hyssop, (141) which herb possesses great cleansing
power, and therefore, was often used in other sacrifices also, as we shall hereafter
see in the proper places.
COFFMA , "Verses 21-28
"Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and
take you lambs according to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a
bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and
the two side-posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of
the door of his house until morning. For Jehovah will pass through to smite the
Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood that is on the lintel and the two side-posts,
Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto
your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee
and to thy sons forever. And it shall come to pass that when ye are come to the land
which Jehovah will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this
service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What
mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jehovah's passover,
who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the
Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and
worshipped And the children of Israel went and did so; as Jehovah had commanded
Moses and Aaron, so did they."
"Take a bunch of hyssop ..." There is some uncertainty about this, but most current
commentators accept the definition making it, "a species of marjoram which grows
wild. It has leafy stalks which make it suitable for sprinkling."[23] However, it
seems more likely that it is a name for "the caper plant." "It is in view of this latter
identification that the modern Arabic name for the caper plant is Asuf or Asaf,
almost the same as the Hebrew [~'ezowb], the word here rendered hyssop."[24] This
plant, used as a sprinkler for blood is mentioned in connection with a number of
O.T. rites.
"Jehovah will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses ... "The
destroyer is the personified power of Yahweh Himself manifesting itself as
destruction."[25] There is no problem that God's agent appears to be mentioned
here and that God Himself is represented as slaying the first-born in other passages.
One, even God, is said to do what his agent does upon his orders. Keil identified the
"agent" here as "The Angel of Jehovah."[26] It is a sinful human error to suppose

137. that the actions attributed to God in the O.T. "are untenable in the light of our
Lord's attitude,"[27] because the Second Advent of Christ will also be an occasion
of judgment, punishment, and destruction, at which time, "All the tribes of the
earth shall mourn over him" (Revelation 1:7).
"Blood that is in the basin ..." As often in all languages a given word has more than
one meaning; and here the word rendered "basin" also has the meaning of
"threshold," but the translators, from the context, chose the proper rendition. One
does not put blood "in a threshold." That has not kept some of the critics, however,
from building up a fanciful tale about the Passover having originally been a pagan
threshold rite, from which superstition it is still customary to carry brides over the
threshold, etc., etc![28]
"Then Moses called all the elders of Israel ..." In view of the dimensions of such a
task, it has been supposed that, "These directions were given earlier than that day,
so that there was plenty of time for the elders to communicate the commands
received to all Israel."[29] Such could easily have been true. After all, the Israelites
had known for the better part of a whole year that their departure from Egypt was
sure and impending. Only such a period of preparation could have imparted the
information and discipline required when the moment for their leaving Egypt
finally came.
COKE, "Exodus 12:21. Draw out and take—and kill the passover.— The word ‫משׁכו‬
mishecu signifies, properly, as we have rendered it, to draw out or take from a
number; as if it was said, choose out now, and take you a lamb. It deserves
particularly to be remembered, that Moses here calls the paschal lamb by the name
of the passover. Kill the passover; i.e. the paschal lamb: a mode of speaking very
frequent, both in the Old and ew Testament: a little attention to which would have
prevented many strange opinions and disputes. Thus Christ calls the bread and
wine his body and blood, Mark 14:22; Mark 14:24. Thus St. Paul calls Christ our
Passover, 1 Corinthians 5:7. So circumcision is called the covenant, Genesis 17:13.
CO STABLE, "Verses 21-28
The communication and execution of the directions concerning the Passover12:21-
28
Hyssop grew commonly on rocks and walls in the ear East and Egypt ( Exodus
12:22). If it was the same plant that we identify as hyssop today, masses of tiny white
flowers and a fragrant aroma characterized it. The Jews used it for applying blood
to the door in the Passover ritual because of its availability and suitability as a
liquid applicator. They also used it in the purification rite for lepers ( Leviticus 14:4;
Leviticus 14:6), the purification rite for a plague ( Leviticus 14:49-52), and for the
red heifer sacrifice ritual ( umbers 19:2-6).
"The hairy surface of its leaves and branches holds liquids well and makes it
suitable as a sprinkling device for purification rituals." [ ote: Youngblood, p61.]

138. "The people were instructed that the only way they could avert the "destroyer" was
to put the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. Though the text does not explicitly
state it, the overall argument of the Pentateuch ... would suggest that their obedience
to the word of the Lord in this instance was an evidence of their faith and trust in
him [cf. Hebrews 11:28]." [ ote: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p263.]
God through Moses stressed the significance and the importance of perpetuating the
Passover ( Exodus 12:26).
"The Israelitish child will not unthinkingly practice a dead worship; he will ask:
What does it mean? and the Israelitish father must not suppress the questions of the
growing mind, but answer them, and thus begin the spiritualizing [the explanation
of the spiritual significance] of the paschal rite." [ ote: J. P. Lange, "Exodus or the
Second Book of Moses," in Lange"s Commentary on the Holy Scripture, 1:2:39-40.]
Worship and obedience occur together again here ( Exodus 12:27-28). These are the
two proper responses to God"s provision of redemption. They express true faith.
These are key words in Exodus.
"The section closes with one of those rare notices in Israel"s history: they did
exactly what the Lord had commanded ( Exodus 12:28)-and well they might after
witnessing what had happened to the obstinate king and people of Egypt!" [ ote:
Kaiser, " Exodus ," p376.]
"By this act of obedience and faith, the people of Israel made it manifest that they
had put their trust in Jehovah; and thus the act became their redemption." [ ote:
Johnson, p62.]
ELLICOTT, "THE FIRST PASSOVER KEPT.
(21) Moses called for all the elders.—He had been directed to “speak unto all the
congregation” (Exodus 12:3), but understood the direction as allowing him to do so
mediately, through the elders.
Draw out.—Some understand this intransitively—“Withdraw, and take,” i.e., go,
and take; others transitively—“Withdraw a lamb from the flock.”
According to your families—i.e., with reference to the number of your families, but
not necessarily one for each. (See Exodus 12:4.)
PETT, "Verses 21-30
The Elders Are Instructed How To Observe the First Passover And Yahweh Passes
Over Egypt and Slays The Firstborn (Exodus 12:21-30).
a Moses calls on the elders of Israel that all families shall take lambs/kids and
kill the Passover and put blood on the doorposts and lintels of their houses and not
go out until the morning (Exodus 12:21-22).

139. b For Yahweh will pass through to smite the Egyptians and when He sees the
blood He will pass over them and not allow the Destroyer to enter their houses to
smite them (Exodus 12:23).
c And they will observe this for an ordinance for themselves and their sons for
ever (Exodus 12:24).
d And when they come to the land which He has given them as He promised
they will keep this service, and when their children ask ‘what does this service
mean?’ (Exodus 12:25-26).
d Their children will be told that it is the sacrifice of Yahweh’s Passover Who
passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the
Egyptians and delivered Israel’s houses (Exodus 12:27).
c And the people bowed their heads and worshipped, and the children of Israel
went and did all that Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron (Exodus 12:28).
b And at midnight Yahweh smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from
the firstborn of Pharaoh to the firstborn of the lowest (Exodus 12:29).
a And Pharaoh rose in the night, and all his grandees, and all the people of
Egypt, and there was a great cry in Egypt, and there was not a house where there
was not one dead (Exodus 12:30).
This is a passage of contrasts. In ‘a’ the children of Israel are safe in their houses,
for they are protected by the blood on doorpost and lintel and by staying within
their houses until morning, in the parallel is the contrast with Pharaoh and his
people where there is a great cry and there is no house where there is not one dead.
In ‘b’ Yahweh passes through and smites the Egyptians while the houses of the
Israelites are safe because of the blood so that the Destroyer does not enter their
houses, while in the parallel Yahweh smites all the firstborn in the land of Egypt
regardless of status, and none are delivered. In ‘c’ there is the requirement for the
perpetual keeping of the ordinance, an act of obedience and solemn worship, while
in the parallel the people bow their heads and worship and do all that Yahweh
commanded Moses and Aaron. Here there is the parallel of future obedience and
worship and present worship and obedience. In ‘d’ there is the contrast of the future
blessing when they are safely settled in the land which Yahweh has given them with
the present deliverance, and we have the question put by the son of the family about
what this service means, paralleled by the explanation of what it does mean, that it
is the sacrifice of Yahweh’s Passover when He passed over the houses of the
children of Israel in Egypt and smote the Egyptians, delivering the households of
Israel.
The Call To Prepare for the Passover (Exodus 12:21-23).
Exodus 12:21
‘Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Draw out and take
lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover.” ’
That these instructions result from Moses having already explained what is in the
previous verses comes out in that he speaks of ‘the passover’ as though they will
understand it. ow he tells them to carry them into effect. There is thus a period of
four to five days between the ‘drawing’ and the ‘killing’ in which they can begin to

140. prepare for their deliverance.
“The elders of Israel.” The lay rulers, heads of tribes and sub-tribes and their
advisers.
LA GE, "[ Exodus 12:21. “Draw out,” as the rendering of ‫כוּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫מ‬, is acquiesced in by
Lange, De Wette, “Wordsworth, Murphy, and Canon Cook (in the Speaker’s
Commentary), and is defended by Kalisch and Bush. The latter, in a note on Judges
4:6, affirms that ‫ְך‬ ַ‫ש‬ָ‫מ‬ never means “to approach.” He assigns to it there the meaning
“to draft,” or “enlist,” sc. soldiers for his army—a meaning which certainly is no
where else (therefore not “frequently,” as Bush says) to be found. That ‫ְך‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫מ‬ may be
used intransitively, Bush does not deny; and indeed in Judges 20:37 he himself
follows the rendering “drew themselves along,” and explains it as descriptive of a
mass of men “stretching themselves out in a long train and rapidly urging their way
to the city.” This certainly is not far from the meaning which he denies to the word.
What significance could be attached to the phrase “draw out,” as here used of the
paschal lamb, is not clear. ot “draw out,” in the sense of “pull out,”—a meaning
which the word has in such cases as that of Jeremiah, who was drawn up with cords
out of the dungeon, Jeremiah 38:13. ot “draw out” in the sense of “draw by lot;”
for the word no where has this meaning, and the lambs were not drawn by lot. It
could mean only “take”—a meaning which, though assigned to it here by Kalisch,
the word no where else has, and which, if it had it, would be the same as that of the
following word. There is therefore little doubt that we are to understand the word,
with the LXX, Vulg, Gesenius, Fürst, Bunsen, Arnheim, Alford, Keil, Knobel, and
others, as used intransitively.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL A D CRITICAL
The narrative evidently transports us to the 14 th day of isan, the days of
preparation being passed over.
Exodus 12:21. For this reason we do not translate ‫כוּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫מ‬ intransitively, “go hence,”
etc. The paschal lambs have been for four days in a special enclosure; now they are
to be drawn out, seized and slaughtered. Hence also the injunction proceeds at once
to the further directions concerning the transaction.
LA GE, "F #12 - Exodus 12:21. “Draw out,” as the rendering of ‫כוּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫מ‬, is
acquiesced in by Lange, De Wette, “Wordsworth, Murphy, and Canon Cook (in the
Speaker’s Commentary), and is defended by Kalisch and Bush. The latter, in a note
on Judges 4:6, affirms that ‫ְך‬ ַ‫ש‬ָ‫מ‬ never means “to approach.” He assigns to it there
the meaning “to draft,” or “enlist,” sc. soldiers for his army—a meaning which
certainly is no where else (therefore not “frequently,” as Bush says) to be found.
That ‫ְך‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫מ‬ may be used intransitively, Bush does not deny; and indeed in Judges
20:37 he himself follows the rendering “drew themselves along,” and explains it as
descriptive of a mass of men “stretching themselves out in a long train and rapidly
urging their way to the city.” This certainly is not far from the meaning which he
denies to the word. What significance could be attached to the phrase “draw out,”

141. as here used of the paschal lamb, is not clear. ot “draw out,” in the sense of “pull
out,”—a meaning which the word has in such cases as that of Jeremiah, who was
drawn up with cords out of the dungeon, Jeremiah 38:13. ot “draw out” in the
sense of “draw by lot;” for the word no where has this meaning, and the lambs were
not drawn by lot. It could mean only “take”—a meaning which, though assigned to
it here by Kalisch, the word no where else has, and which, if it had it, would be the
same as that of the following word. There is therefore little doubt that we are to
understand the word, with the LXX, Vulg, Gesenius, Fürst, Bunsen, Arnheim,
Alford, Keil, Knobel, and others, as used intransitively.—Tr.]
BI 21-23, "Strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood.
Three great truths taught by the Passover
I. The universality of condemnation. Israelite and Egyptian are brought under one
common charge of guilt, and there they all stand, “condemned already.”
II. The great truth of substitution. The lamb instead of the firstborn. “Behold the Lamb
of God,” etc.
III. The third truth taught is appropriation. The Israelite would not have been safe if he
had merely killed the lamb; he had to sprinkle its blood on the lintel and on the two side
posts. When we repose our confidence in the Person of Christ, we have taken the bunch
of hyssop and dipped it in the blood, and from that moment we are safe. (W. Hay
Aitken, M. A.)
Christ, our Passover
I. The first thing is this, that salvation then and now is freedom from impending doom.
Let us revive that essential idea of our most holy faith in all our hearts and minds. The
times greatly need it. As there hung over Egypt that night the awful threat of God’s
descending wrath, so let my soul and yours never forget there hangs over this city the
threat of impending vengeance. And just because of that, a motive which worked that
night upon the hearts of Israelites, and ought to work upon our hearts now, was, and
should be, the element and moving principle of fear. Let me reassert this: let me iterate
and reiterate it—that fear is a legitimate motive in salvation. Perhaps the Israelites on
that occasion were immediately drawn by loving obedience to obey what God had
spoken. If so, they were different from you and me. I rather think that while some
temperaments would just quietly and unquestioningly yield whenever Moses declared
the mind and heart of God, as to what was coming of doom, and as to how salvation was
to be secured, others would question; others would be reluctant; others would be very
like ourselves. But we do hope that, no matter how they felt “rubbed the wrong way” (if
you will allow the familiar expression), they had sense enough, whether drawn by love or
driven by fear, to sprinkle that blood and get in under its shelter in time, and stay there.
Ah, yes, it is said to be unphilosophical, that if you do not draw men with love, you will
never drive them by fear. Men are moved by fear every day. Why did you go and insure
your house last week? Was it not through fear? Why did you insure your life last week,
even though the doctor told you that there was nothing wrong with you? Was it not from
fear? Grand men, large broad-brewed men, are men who are moved by fear. Methinks
Noah was a grand, broad-brewed man, and “Noah, moved by fear, prepared him an ark
for the saving of his house.” It was fear as well as love that clenched every bolt in it. So

142. never go away and boast, my friend, that you have such a big intellect that fear will not
move you. This is a real legitimate element in salvation. God works upon it. He plays
upon that heart-string by His Word and by His Spirit. He did it then in that night in
Egypt.
II. Now, I should like to say, further, re-stating some simple but essential elements of
gospel revelation regarding sin and salvation, that salvation was of God’s devising. It was
altogether a matter of revelation. Nothing was left to man but bare obedience of mind
and hand and foot. Mark that I do not say that God spoke irrationally; I do not say that
God simply came and overmastered them with despotic tyrannical power, but I do say
that God came forth out of His secret place that memorable night, and Himself devised
the plan of salvation. God Himself devised such a plan that no soul needed to be lost if
that soul simply believed and obeyed. It was all of God, it was all of grace; so still.
III. I wish to say, further, that on this night of this divinely appointed salvation, when it
was received and obeyed, there were one or two things which would surely strike the
recipients, and those who were obedient to this heavenly revelation. “Draw out a lamb,”
says Moses, speaking for God, “draw out a lamb and kill it, and take its blood and
sprinkle it on the lintel and on the two side posts.” Every Israelitish father who killed the
lamb, not simply with a knife and with his hand, but whose mind and heart were
working behind the knife, must surely have had this thought borne upon him—“If I am
not to die, something is to die.” Substitution. Oh, let me ring it out! “For me, for me,”
yeas bound to ring in his ears with every gurgling of that lapping blood. That again is the
heart of salvation, for you and for me. If I am to go free, this innocent thing has to part
with its very life’s blood. “By His stripes we are healed.” Bless God for this
substitutionary salvation. Then this salvation on that night in Egypt, and this night for
you and me, was not only substitutionary, but another very simple idea I would like to
revive in your hearts and minds, and it is this: it was after all a matter of simple
obedience. “Take the blood.” It was not enough that it was sprinkled by every Israelitish
father or head of a household who represented them all. Every Israelitish father had to
take that bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood, and strike it on the lintel and pass in,
he and his household, just as he was told. And there is an element, therefore, in salvation
that is illustrated there. What is faith? It is a simple literal bowing of the soul in abject
obedience. And, again, it comes out, contrariwise, that the very essence of unbelief now
is not a want of understanding, but a want of obedience. There is a moral taint in
unbelief. Now, come away to another evening away down the stream of time for
centuries; and again it is becoming dark, and there is a darkness deeper than the
darkness of the darkening sky. The darkness and blackness of sin, and of all time, are
gathering round about that hill called Calvary. Now, watch that Saviour Christ. See that
innocent holy Man, holy as a lamb, without blemish and without spot. See the soldier as
he thrusts that spear into His side, and out there come blood and water. And, remember
this: there is the last blood that shall ever be shed for human sins. “There remaineth no
more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation
that shall devour the adversaries.” “Take you a bunch of hyssop, and strike the lintel and
the two side posts.” God actually condescending to tell a man how to sprinkle the blood!
He left no loop-hole by which a man might be lost if he wanted to be saved himself, and
to save his wife and his children. If lost, you will be inexcusable. What was the hyssop?
Well, so far as I can gather from Scripture, it was a very common plant. You remember
that when the range of Solomon’s botanical knowledge is being indicated, it is said that
Solomon spoke of trees from the hyssop that grows out of the wall to the cedar that is in
Lebanon. What a poor salvation if God had said, “Take a sprig of cedar.” What an easy
salvation it was when He said, “Take a bunch of hyssop”—that kind of coarse grass, I

143. suppose, that would grow out of any dyke-back—just like the grass that grew out of the
thatch of your mother’s house away in the country long ago—a thing so simple; do you
not see that everybody could get at it? Instinctively the father’s hand went for it, and
used it. There is a something in the powers of your soul and mine that is common and
handy, and is continually in use in this work-a-day life of ours. It is continually in use
like the bunch of hyssop. And what is that? It is faith. Believe me, faith is as common as
the hyssop that sprang out of the wall. With all the rack and ruin that sin has made it is
here. Now, what you have to do is this. Take that faith, that confidence that you are
exercising in brother-man and sister-woman every day—it is the very cement of society—
society would tumble into chaos without it—take that faith of yours and give it a new
direction. Give it an operation which it never had before. “Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Faith is common, natural, reasonable, sublime. You put
it to its highest power, its loftiest use, when it is turned to trust God in the word that He
has spoken, and in the love that He has displayed on Calvary.
IV. And the last word I have to say is this-the last word in the text, “take the bunch of
hyssop, and dip it in the blood, and let none of you go out of the door of his house until
the morning.” I hear to-day, and so do you, about “development,” and “growth”; and
what we hear about them gets wearisome, does it not? There was very little development
that night. “Let none of you go out of the door of his house until the morning.” Go in,
and stay in, if you would be saved. That is to say, there was to be no advance, and
absolutely no development from the simplicity of faith. That which they had begun to do
saved them only as they kept it up. Human nature is the same all the world over,
whether you are in Egypt or in London; and I can imagine a young Israelite, a young
fellow just like ourselves, full of flesh and blood, full of natural go and glow and
enthusiasm, feeling it a little irksome as the evening wore on, and as the night darkened
down; and feeling that it was rather an ignoble, inglorious position to be huddled in
there like sheep, with that word over them, “Let none of you go out of the door of his
house until the morning.” And to be saved in this simple way by the blood-red mark
which they did not see, but which, being outside, could be seen by the Destroying Angel
as He passed. And I should not wonder, as the Israelites and the Egyptians were not
separated one from another, if the Egyptians were all round about the Israelites; and I
should not wonder if some young Egyptians came round about these blood-streaked
houses and cried, with scoffs and jokes, “Come out! Come out!” and laughed and said,
“What are you doing in there? There is no judgment. There was never such a fine night
in Egypt. Come out! Come out!” Was not that hard to bear? Is not that taunt in our ears
yet—“Come out, yon stupid believers!” And I can imagine a young Israelite chafing and
getting restless as the night wore on, and there came no sign of this doom, and no sign of
this judgment; I can imagine him shaking himself, and saying, “I will assert my
manhood. This may do for the old people”; and he is going over to the door, but his
father rises, and with a voice like thunder says, “Unhand that door! Back for your life!”
And he was right if he did. He was right. The Egyptians might laugh that night, and the
young, restless, hot-headed Israelites might have a little trouble, but nobody laughed in
the morning. And you and I, children of faith, believers in God and in God’s Christ who
died for sin, just for a little while have to stand the laugh, and I admit that it is against
our pride. By the grace of God, and in the obedience of faith, let me charge you, hold on,
my brother, as you began. Let us keep together, we who belong to “the household of
faith.” How that expression receives its illustration from this story. Let us keep together.
Let us encourage ourselves to stay in doors until the morning. Some of you, God bless
you, will not have long to wait. God bless all white and whitening heads in this assembly;
you will not have long to wait. “Now is the time of your salvation nearer than when you

144. believed.” For you the morning cometh. (J. McNeill.)
Anxiety in reference to salvation
There is among the Hebrews a legend of two sisters who that night had, with the rest of
their household, gone into their dwellings. One of them stood all ready to depart, and
began quietly eating her portion of the roast body of the lamb (a type of the soul feeding
on Christ), her mind at perfect peace and rest. The other was walking about the dwelling,
full of terrible fear lest the Destroying Angel should penetrate therein. This one
reproached her sister for being so careless and confident, and finally asked her how it
was that she could be so full of assurance when the angel of death and judgment was
abroad in the land. The reply was, “Why, sister, the blood has been sprinkled; and we
have God’s word that when He sees the blood, He will pass over us. Now I have no right
to doubt God’s word. I believe He will keep His word. If I were in doubt about the blood
having been shed; or if I doubted either the integrity or ability of God in connection with
His word, I should be uneasy. But, as I do not question the fact that the blood has been
shed, and as I believe that God will be true to His word, I cannot but be at peace.” They
were both equally safe; but one was at peace, while the other was not. Or, as we should
say now: one had assurance; and the other was full of doubts. But if the doubting one
had believed what God said, she could not have been in distress. It is even so now. Those
believers who make the finished work of Christ the ground of their hope, and are resting
simply and sincerely on His Word, are at peace; while those who are trying to find peace
in themselves, in their frames and feelings, are never at rest. It is the Blood of Jesus that
makes us safe; it is the Word of God concerning blood that makes us sure. (J. Parker, D.
D.)
22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in
the basin and put some of the blood on the top
and on both sides of the doorframe. one of you
shall go out of the door of your house until
morning.
BAR ES, "A bunch of hyssop - The species here designated does not appear to be
the plant now bearing the name. It would seem to have been an aromatic plant, common
in Palestine and near Mount Sinai, with a long straight stalk and leaves well adapted for
the purpose of sprinkling.

145. Bason - The rendering rests on good authority and gives a good sense: but the word
means “threshold” in some other passages and in Egyptian, and is taken here in that
sense by some versions. If that rendering be correct it would imply that the lamb was
slain on the threshold.
None ... shall go out ... - There would be no safety outside the precincts protected
by the blood of the lamb; a symbolism explained by the margin reference.
CLARKE, "A bunch of hyssop - The original word ‫אזוב‬ ezob has been variously
translated musk, rosemary, polypody of the wall, mint, origanum, marjoram, and
Hyssop: the latter seems to be the most proper. Parkhurst says it is named from its
detersive and cleansing qualities, whence it was used in sprinkling the blood of the
paschal lamb, in cleansing the leprosy, Lev_14:4, Lev_14:6, Lev_14:51, Lev_14:52; in
composing the water of purification, Num_19:6, and sprinkling it, Num_19:18. It was a
type of the purifying virtue of the bitter sufferings of Christ. And it is plain, from Psa_
51:7, that the psalmist understood its meaning. Among botanists hyssop is described as
“a genus of the gymnospermia (naked-seeded) order, belonging to the didynamia class
of plants. It has under-shrubby, low, bushy stalks, growing a foot and a half high, small,
spear-shaped, close-sitting, opposite leaves, with several smaller ones rising from the
same joint; and all the stalks and branches terminated by erect whorled spikes of flowers
of different colors, in the varieties of the plant. The leaves have an aromatic smell, and a
warm pungent taste. The leaves of this plant are particularly recommended in humoral
asthmas, and other disorders of the breast and lungs, and greatly promote
expectoration.” Its medicinal qualities were probably the reason why this plant was so
particularly recommended in the Scriptures.
GILL, "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop,.... Which some take to be "mint",
others "origanum" or "marjoram", as Kimchi (s), others "rosemary", as Piscator, Rivet,
and many more; and indeed this seems to be fitter to strike or sprinkle with than hyssop;
but it is more generally understood of hyssop, because the Hebrew word "ezob" is so
near in sound to it; though whether it means the same herb we call hyssop is uncertain:
Jarchi says, three stalks of it are called a bunch, and so the Misnic canon runs (t),"the
command concerning hyssop is three stalks (which Maimonides on the place interprets
roots), and in them three branches;''which some have allegorically applied to the Trinity,
by whom the hearts of God's people are sprinkled with the blood of the true paschal
Lamb, and are purged from dead works: the Heathens in their sacrifices used sometimes
branches of laurel, and sometimes branches of the olive, to sprinkle with (u):
and dip it in the blood that is in the basin: which, according to the Targum of
Jonathan, was an earthen vessel, into which the blood of the lamb was received when
slain, and into this the bunch of hyssop was dipped; so it was usual with the Heathens to
receive the blood of the sacrifice in cups or basins (x): the blood being received into a
basin, and not spilled on the ground and trampled on, may denote the preciousness of
the blood of Christ, the true passover lamb, which is for its worth and excellent efficacy
to be highly prized and esteemed, and not to be counted as a common or unholy thing;
and the dipping the bunch of hyssop into the blood of the lamb may signify the exercise
of faith on the blood of Christ, which is a low and humble grace, excludes boasting in the
creature, deals alone with the blood of Jesus for peace, pardon, and cleansing, and by
which the heart is purified, as it deals with that blood:

146. and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the
basin: an emblem of the sprinkling of the hearts and consciences of believers with the
blood of Christ, and cleansing them from all sin by it:
and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning; that
they might not be in the way of the destroyer; and though the destroying angel knew an
Israelite from an Egyptian, yet this was to be the ordinance of protection to them,
abiding in their houses, marked with the blood of the passover lamb; signifying that
their safety was in their being under that blood, as the safety of believers lies in their
being justified by the blood of Christ; for to that it is owing that they are saved from
wrath to come: this is the purple covering under which they pass safely through this
world to the heavenly glory, Rom_5:9, this circumstance was peculiar to the passover in
Egypt; in later times there was not the like danger.
HE RY, "That this night, when the first-born were to be destroyed, no Israelite must
stir out of doors till morning, that is, till towards morning, when they would be called to
march out of Egypt, Exo_12:22. Not but that the destroying angel could have known an
Israelite from an Egyptian in the street; but God would intimate to them that their safety
was owing to the blood of sprinkling; if they put themselves from under the protection
of that, it was at their peril. Those whom God has marked for himself must not mingle
with evil doers: see Isa_26:20, Isa_26:21. They must not go out of the doors, lest they
should straggle and be out of the way when they should be summoned to depart: they
must stay within, to wait for the salvation of the Lord, and it is good to do so.
JAMISO , "hyssop — a small red moss [Hasselquist]; the caper-plant [Royle]. It
was used in the sprinkling, being well adapted for such purposes, as it grows in bushes -
putting out plenty of suckers from a single root. And it is remarkable that it was
ordained in the arrangements of an all-wise Providence that the Roman soldiers should
undesignedly, on their part, make use of this symbolical plant to Christ when, as our
Passover, He was sacrificed for us [Joh_19:29].
none ... shall go out at the door of his house until the morning — This
regulation was peculiar to the first celebration, and intended, as some think, to prevent
any suspicion attaching to them of being agents in the impending destruction of the
Egyptians; there is an allusion to it (Isa_26:20).
BE SO , "Exodus 12:22. Out of the door of his house — Of that house wherein he
ate the passover: until the morning — That is, till toward the morning, when they
would be called for to march out of Egypt; for they went forth very early in the
morning. This command was peculiar to the first passover.
COKE, "Exodus 12:22. Ye shall take a bunch of hyssop— This herb was to be used
in the cleansing of the leprous person and the leprous house, as well as on other
occasions. See Leviticus 14:6; Leviticus 7:38. umbers 6:18. In allusion to this,
David, praying for purification from the leprosy of sin, says, purge me with hyssop,
Psalms 51:7. Le Clerc is of opinion, that it is used as emblematical of purification;
for it is a cathartic herb: and Parkhurst observes, that it has its name in the
Hebrew, from its detersive and purgative qualities. Porphyry observes, that the
Egyptians attributed a cleansing quality to the hyssop; whence their priests did not

147. eat bread, unless it was cut together with hyssop. Some have thought, that the
hyssop is emblematical of that faith, by which the purifying blood of Christ is
applied to the heart, Hebrews 11:28. Acts 15:9.
one of you shall go out at the door of his house— This was a command peculiar to
the first passover, and seems to have been designed to signify to the Egyptians, that
Jehovah alone was the dreadful agent of their calamities; and that none of the
people were at all concerned with Him, or appointed by Him, as instruments of
inflicting them. See Isaiah 63:3.
REFLECTIO S.—Moses enjoins, and Israel humbly obeys. The lamb is killed, the
lintels sprinkled with blood. o man must go out, lest he die. ote; The soul which
trusts on any other hope than the blood of sprinkling, perishes with the Egyptians.
Their children too hereafter must be taught the meaning of the ordinance. When
children ask, (and it is pleasing indeed to see them inquisitive in matters relating to
God,) we should take delight to speak to them about the dear Lamb which was slain,
and his amazing love to mankind, but especially to his faithful people.
ELLICOTT, "(22) A bunch of hyssop.—The “hyssop” (êzob) of the Old Testament
is probably the caper plant, called now asaf, or asuf, by the Arabs, which grows
plentifully in the Sinaitic region (Stanley: Sinai and Palestine, p. 21), and is well
adapted for the purpose here spoken of. It was regarded as having purifying
properties (Leviticus 14:4; Leviticus 14:49-52; umbers 19:6; Psalms 51:7), and was
therefore suitable for sprinkling the blood of expiation.
In the bason.—The word translated “bason” has another meaning also, viz.,
“threshold;” and this meaning was preferred in the present place both by the LXX.
and by Jerome. Whichever translation we adopt, there is a difficulty in the
occurrence of the article, since neither the threshold nor any bason had been
mentioned previously. Perhaps Moses assumed that whenever a victim was offered,
the blood had to be caught in a bason, and therefore spoke of “the bason” as
something familiar to his hearers in this connection. If the lamb had been sacrificed
on the threshold, it would scarcely have been necessary to put the blood on the lintel
and doorposts also.
one of you shall go out.—Moses seems to have given this command by his own
authority, without any positive Divine direction. He understood that the Atoning
blood was the sole protection from the destroying angel, and that outside the portal
sprinkled with it was no safety.
PETT, "Exodus 12:22
“And you shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin,
and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin, and
none of you will go out of his house until the morning. For Yahweh will pass
through to smite the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the

148. two side posts, Yahweh will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to
come into your houses to smite you.”
They are to put blood on the doorposts and lintels of their houses using hyssop
dipped in the blood from the slain lamb gathered in a basin, and striking the
doorposts and lintel. They are then to remain in their houses, for Yahweh will go
through the land of Egypt to smite the Egyptians (in the Hebrew ‘pass through’ has
no stem connection with ‘pass over’). And when He sees the blood on the lintel and
doorposts He will ‘pass over’ (the thought is of protection by hovering or circling
over - see Exodus 12:11 and Isaiah 31:5) and prevent destruction because He will
know them as those who are in the covenant community and under His protection,
and as those who have made the offering of the lamb, with whom He is well pleased.
“A bunch of hyssop.” This plant is generally considered to be a species of marjoram,
a common, fragrant grey-leaved, wiry stemmed perennial herb 20-30 centimetres
(about 1 foot) high having white flowers in small heads and growing in dry, rocky
places.
“The blood which is in the basin.” The lamb’s blood is to be collected in a basin, and
the hyssop then dipped in, and the blood put on the lintels and doorposts of their
houses. Comparison with Exodus 24:6-8 suggests that by this the house and those
within it are seen as included in Yahweh’s covenant. (There it was sprinkled on
pillars representing the people and on the people themselves, here it is put on the
lintel and doorposts of the houses where they are, which symbolise the whole
household). This application of the blood confirms the sacrificial significance of the
slaying of the lamb. It had to be applied in accordance with ritual, and the blood
must not be touched.
“ one of you will go out of his house until the morning.” The house has been made
holy to Yahweh by the application of the blood and those who are within it share
that holiness and so must not go out into the mundane world. They are thus
invulnerable and seen as under His protection. They are His. (To suggest that it
meant that they must not go out because of some demon destroyer is to overlook the
fact that only the firstborn were in danger from such a destroyer).
“For Yahweh will pass through to smite the Egyptians.” It is made quite clear that it
is Yahweh Himself Who smites the Egyptians. The blood is not for protection to
divert demons nor a marker to identify the houses, but as a token to Yahweh that
those within the house are within the covenant.
“Will not allow the destroyer to come into your houses.” It is Yahweh Who is the
Destroyer and it is Yahweh Who is the Protector. We can compare how sometimes
He distinguished Himself as ‘the angel of Yahweh’, almost as another self (Genesis
chapters 16 and 22 and often, see also Genesis 48:16; Isaiah 63:9). He is thus
depicted as acting to prevent Himself from destroying.
Because blood applied to the entrance into dwellings, whether houses or tents, was
elsewhere at other times used for the purpose of diverting demons and evil spirits,

149. some have sought to apply that here (what are called ‘apotropaic’ rites to divert evil
influences or bad luck). But this can only be done by totally ignoring the context. As
with all ceremonies the meaning of actions changes depending on belief. We
ourselves engage in traditions whose meaning has been transformed (such as the use
of mistletoe). And this applies here. Here the blood is stated specifically to be to
guarantee the protection of Yahweh Who is outside as Protector, not to prevent
Yahweh or anything else entering. The children of Israel have been freed (at least
theoretically) from the idea of other gods and demons affecting their lives for they
are within Yahweh’s covenant.
This Feast Was To Become An Ordinance For The Future And Their Children
Instructed In Its Significance (Exodus 12:24-28).
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip [it] in the
blood that [is] in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the
blood that [is] in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house
until the morning.
Ver. 22. A bunch of hyssop.] A herb of a purging property. See 1 Corinthians 6:11.
The blood that is in the bason.] The remembrance of Christ’s bloody passion must
be kept fresh in our hearts. (a)
Strike the lintel.] Profess Christ crucified; honour him by a holy conversation; mind
trim in your outgoings and incomings.
one of you shall go out.] Be not "of those that withdraw to perdition, but of them
that believe to the salvation of the soul." [Hebrews 10:39] Mingle no more with the
Egyptians.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:22. A bunch of hyssop.—A handful, says Maimonides. Hyssop
“designates probably not the plant which we call hyssop, not the hyssopus
officinalis, it being doubtful whether this is found in Syria and Arabia (vid. Ritter,
Erdkunde, XVII, p686), but a species of the origanum similar to the hyssop”
(Keil).—That is in the basin—i.e., in which the blood was caught. one of you shall
go out.—They are protected only in the house, behind the propitiatory blood.
23 When the Lord goes through the land to strike

150. down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the
top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over
that doorway, and he will not permit the
destroyer to enter your houses and strike you
down.
GILL, "For the Lord will pass though to smite the Egyptians,.... All the
firstborn in the several families, in all the towns and cities in Egypt:
and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and upon the two side posts;
which must be understood of his taking notice of it with a special view to the good of
those within the house; otherwise every thing is seen by his all seeing eye: and thus
Christ, the Lamb of God, is in the midst of the throne, as though he had been slain, and
is always in the view of God and his divine justice; and his blood, righteousness, and
sacrifice, are always looked unto by him with pleasure, delight, and satisfaction, to the
advantage of his people, as applied unto them, who are hereby accepted with him,
justified in his sight, and secure from condemnation and wrath:
the Lord will pass over the door; and the house where this blood is sprinkled, and
go to the next, or where Egyptians dwell; and thus justice passes over, and passes by,
acquits and discharges them who are interested in the blood and sacrifice of Christ:
and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you;
the destroying angel, as the Targum of Jonathan; for he seems to be distinct from the
Lord, who is said to pass through and pass over, being an attendant and minister of his,
to execute vengeance upon the Egyptians; and whether a good or a bad angel, it matters
not, since God can make use of either to inflict judgments on men; but it may be more
probably the former, even such an one as was employed in destroying the whole host of
the Assyrians in one night, 2Ki_19:35 and answers better in the antitype or emblem to
the justice of God taking vengeance on ungodly sinners, when it is not suffered to do the
saints any harm.
K&D, "Exo_12:23-26
(cf. Exo_12:13). “He will not suffer (‫ן‬ ֵ ִ‫)י‬ the destroyer to come into your houses:”
Jehovah effected the destruction of the first-born through ‫ית‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ ַ‫,ה‬ the destroyer, or
destroying angel, ᆇ ᆇλοθρεύων (Heb_11:28), i.e., not a fallen angel, but the angel of
Jehovah, in whom Jehovah revealed Himself to the patriarchs and Moses. This is not at
variance with Psa_78:49; for the writer of this psalm regards not only the slaying of the

151. first-born, but also the pestilence (Exo_9:1-7), as effected through the medium of angels
of evil: though, according to the analogy of 1Sa_13:17, ‫ית‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ ַ‫ה‬ might certainly be
understood collectively as applying to a company of angels. Exo_12:24. “This word,” i.e.,
the instructions respecting the Passover, they were to regard as an institution for
themselves and their children for ever (‫ם‬ ָ‫ּול‬‫ע‬‫ד־‬ ַ‫ע‬ in the same sense as ‫ם‬ ָ‫ּול‬‫ע‬, Gen_17:7, Gen_
17:13); and when dwelling in the promised land, they were to explain the meaning of this
service to their sons. The ceremony is called ‫ה‬ ָ‫ּד‬‫ב‬ ֲ‫,ע‬ “service,” inasmuch as it was the
fulfilment of a divine command, a performance demanded by God, though it promoted
the good of Israel.
CALVI , "23.For the Lord will pass through. He forbids them to go out during the
night, lest they should mix themselves with the Egyptians, but commands them to
keep quietly under the protection of the blood. By this sign they were admonished
that they also were exposed to destruction, if they did not separate themselves from
the unbelievers under the safeguard of the blood. Afterwards the promise: is added,
that, provided this were done, the angel would pass them over, and inflict no injury
upon them, because God would acknowledge the houses so marked as His own.
Wherefore, it is again repeated, that they should alone be safe by the blessing of the
blood, who should not neglect to sprinkle themselves with it; because faith alone
confers upon us the salvation which is obtained by the slaughter of the victim. The
angel, whom God had delegated for afflicting Egypt, is here undoubtedly called “the
destroyer;” and, although He often executes His judgments by evil angels, it is to be
gathered from other passages that this was one of the elect angels, who also was the
minister of the people’s deliverance under Christ as the Head.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:23. The destroyer — The destroying angel: whether this was
a good or an evil angel, we have not light to determine.
ELLICOTT, "(23) The destroyer.—The “plague” of Exodus 12:13 is here called
“the destroyer” ( τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα, LXX.), as again in Hebrews 12:28. Jehovah
seems to have employed an angel, or “angels” (Ps. 79:48) as His agents to effect the
actual slaying of the firstborn. (Comp. 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15; 2 Kings
19:35.) There is no struggle or opposition (as Bishop Lowth and Redslob think)
between Jehovah and” the destroyer,” who is simply His minister (Hebrews 1:14),
bidden to enter some houses and to “pass over” others.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:23. The destroyer to come in—Comp. the ὀλοθρεύων of
Hebrews 11:28 with 2 Samuel 24:16; Isaiah 37:36. So Keil and others, whereas
Knobel and others take ‫ִית‬‫ח‬ְ‫שׁ‬ַ‫מ‬ as abstract=destruction. Knobel’s reasons (p105) are
easily refuted; e.g., though Jehovah Himself goes through Egypt, yet it does not
thence follow that He might not make use of an angel of judgment in the judicial
inflictions (to be understood symbolically, vid. Psalm 78:49); He Himself, however,
distinguishes between His people and the Egyptians.

152. 24 “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance
for you and your descendants.
GILL, "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and thy sons
for ever. Not this last thing of sprinkling the blood, which was peculiar to the passover
in Egypt; but the whole before observed relating to the feast of the passover, and the
feast of unleavened bread, and all the rites appertaining to them, which were to be
observed until the coming of Christ.
CALVI , "24.And ye shall observe this thing. He again repeats the precept as to its
annual celebration, and expressly says, that, when they have come into the land, the
recollection of their deliverance is yearly to be revived by this rite. He adds,
however, what he had not before touched upon, that they should also teach their
children, since, without the aid of this teaching, it would have been an unmeaning
and useless spectacle. For doctrine may justly be called the life of sacraments,
without which no rigor remains in them, so far are they from imparting to us any
life. Lest, then, the passover should be a lifeless ceremony, God in this place enjoins
that it shall not be mute; for in these words, “when your children shall say unto
you,” Moses does not mean that they are to wait until their children make inquiry of
their own accord, and anticipate the zeal of their parents; but he only indicates the
age when they are capable of being taught. Yet, at the same time, he indirectly
exhorts the children to teachableness, when their age admits of their understanding
what the passover signifies, and enjoins them diligently to inquire into the use of the
ceremony; that thus religion may be handed down, and may ever flourish amongst
the people. Since, then, the Paschal Lamb corresponds with the Holy Supper, we
may gather from hence, that none can be duly admitted to receive it, but those who
are capable of being taught.
ELLICOTT, "(24) This thing.— ot the sprinkling of the blood, which was never
repeated after the first occasion, but the sacrifice of the lamb, commanded in
Exodus 12:21.
PETT, "Exodus 12:24-27 a
“And each of you shall observe this thing for an ordinance to you and to your sons
for ever. And it shall happen that, when your children will say to you, ‘What do you
mean by this service?’, you will say, ‘It is the sacrifice of Yahweh’s passover who
hovered over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the
Egyptians and delivered our houses.”

153. It is constantly emphasised that what is to happen is so stupendous that it will act
for ever as a reminder of the faithfulness of Yahweh to His covenant (compare
Exodus 12:17). And this is spelt out in the form of someone asking, ‘Why do you
serve God in this way?’ And the reply is, ‘This is the sacrifice to do with Yahweh’s
protective watch over His people when He smote the Egyptians’. The change to a
singular verb indicates ‘each and all of you’.
Here the killing of the Passover lamb is specifically described as ‘zebach’. This
would later be the name for the ‘peace offering’ (Leviticus 3, 4) but here it more
generally means sacrifices other than the whole burnt offering of which they could
partake (see Exodus 10:25 compare Genesis 31:54; Genesis 46:1; Exodus 18:12;
Exodus 24:5). Later the stipulation would be made that it should only be offered ‘in
the place that Yahweh your God shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 16:5-6). ote again the
emphasis on Yahweh’s protective watch, and that it is He Himself Who will smite
the Egyptians.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:24-26. The establishment of the Passover festival is again
enjoined, and at the same time there is connected with it an injunction to instruct
children concerning it. The Israelitish child will not unthinkingly practice a dead
worship; he will ask: What does it mean? And the Israelitish fathers must not
suppress the questions of the growing mind, but answer them, and thus begin the
spiritualizing of the paschal rite.
BI 24-25, "Ye shall keep this service.
Celebration of the Passover
I. In this incident we have a clear recognition of the principle of vicarious suffering. It is
seen in the birth of the infant, in the history of the family circle, in the events of everyday
life, but supremely in the Cross of Christ. In the Cross of Christ it is seen in its highest
embodiment, in its truest meaning, and in its most glorious possibility. There is the
innocent dying for the guilty, the God-man suffering for the race.
II. In this incident we have a clear recognition of the need of falling in with all the
requirements of the great scheme of salvation. The method whereby the Israelites were
to be protected from the stroke of the Destroying Angel was Divinely originated, clearly
revealed, and imperative in requirement. The sinner must be saved in God’s way, and
not after his own. He may reason about the peculiarity of the method of salvation; be
may think that other means will be more effective to the end desired; but if he at last is
found out of the Divine way of safety, he will inevitably be lost. The blood of Christ
sprinkled on the heart is the only sign the Destroying Angel will recognize and regard as
the token of safety.
III. In this incident we have a clear recognition of the fact that the Divine method of
salvation will avert the most awful peril. The trustful soul shall not be hurt by the second
death.
IV. In this incident we have a clear recognition of the fact that the efficacy of the Divine
method of salvation should be associated with public religious ordinances (Exo_12:24).
V. In this incident we have a clear recognition of the fact that the good should be able to
give an intelligent explanation of their moral safety (Exo_12:27). (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

154. The need of an intelligent apprehension of the service and worship of God
I. It is necessary in order to the true performance of religious service and worship.
II. It is necessary in order to the true performance of parental duty and instruction.
III. It is necessary in order to refute and silence the sceptical reasonings of men. (J. S.
Exell, M. A.)
The blood of sprinkling and the children
I. The importance attached to the blood of sacrifice is here made very plain.
1. It became and remained the national mark.
2. It was also the saving token.
3. It was rendered as conspicuous as possible.
4. It was made very dear to the people themselves by the fact that they trusted in it in
the most implicit manner.
5. The paschal bloodshedding was to be had in perpetual remembrance.
6. This sprinkling of the blood was to be an all-pervading memory.
II. The institution that was connected with the remembrance of the Passover. Inquiry
should be excited respecting spiritual things in the minds of children. The doctrine of the
expiatory sacrifice is a gospel for the youngest. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Children should be taught the doctrine of the Cross
It is well to explain to children the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, for this shows forth
the death of Christ in symbol. I regret that children do not oftener see this ordinance.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper should both be placed in view of the rising generation,
that they may then ask us, “What mean ye by this?” Now, the Lord’s Supper is a
perennial gospel sermon, and it turns mainly upon the sacrifice for sin. You may banish
the doctrine of the Atonement from the pulpit, but it will always live in the Church
through the Lord’s Supper. You cannot explain that broken bread and that cup filled
with the fruit of the vine, without reference to the Lord’s atoning death. You cannot
explain “the communion of the body of Christ” without bringing in, in some form or
other, the death of Jesus in our place and stead. Let your little ones, then, see the Lord’s
Supper, and let them be told most clearly what it sets forth. Tell them who it was that
suffered, and why. And when attention is excited upon the best of themes, let us be ready
to explain the great transaction by which God is just, and yet sinners are justified.
Children can well understand the doctrine of the expiatory sacrifice; it was meant to be a
gospel for the youngest. The gospel of substitution is a simplicity, though it is a mystery.
We ought not to be content until our little ones know and trust in their finished Sacrifice.
This is essential knowledge, and the key to all other spiritual teaching. With all their
gettings may they get an understanding of this, and they will have the foundation rightly
laid. This will necessitate your teaching the child his need of a Saviour. You must not
hold back from this needful task. Do not flatter the child with delusive rubbish about his

155. nature being good and needing to be developed. Tell him he must be born again. Don’t
bolster him up with the fancy of his own innocence, but show him his sin. Mention the
childish sins to which he is prone, and pray the Holy Spirit to work conviction in his
heart and conscience. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
25 When you enter the land that the Lord will
give you as he promised, observe this ceremony.
GILL, "And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land,.... To the land
of Canaan, towards which they were just about to set forward on their journey, and in a
few years would be in the possession of:
which the Lord will give you according as he hath promised; to their fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to them:
that ye shall keep this service; enjoined them, respecting the passover lamb, and
leavened bread, with all the rites and ceremonies relative thereunto, excepting such as
were peculiar to the first passover in Egypt.
CALVI , "25.When ye come into the land. He now adds that this rite must be annually
observed, in order that the memory of this extraordinary grace might never perish. But since a
commandment is given respecting the continual observation (142) of the Sabbath, I postpone its
explanation to a more appropriate place; except I would cursorily remark, that the proclamation of
the blessing is annexed to the sign; because otherwise it would be an empty and unmeaning
proceeding. God, therefore, would have the fathers proclaim it unto their children, so that the
knowledge of their redemption, being handed down by tradition, may flourish in all ages. The word
‫עבד‬,)143 ) gnebod, some have improperly rendered “work,” whereas it is rather used for “worship;”
as in many passages to serve God means the same as to worship Him. We too, in French, call
whatever relates to the exercises of piety “God’s service.” Finally, Moses adds that the people
professed their faith and obedience by solemn adoration. This indeed they had already done from
the beginning, but with little constancy, because they had been so harassed by their afflictions as
to neglect their duty; but now they correct the fault of ingratitude. Therefore, they not only declare
their feelings of seriousness by bowing the head, but give actual proof of them; for it is expressly
said, that they diligently performed whatever was commanded.

156. 26 And when your children ask you, ‘What does
this ceremony mean to you?’
CLARKE, "What mean ye by this service? - The establishment of this service
annually was a very wise provision to keep up in remembrance this wonderful
deliverance. From the remotest antiquity the institution of feasts, games, etc., has been
used to keep up the memory of past grand events. Hence God instituted the Sabbath, to
keep up the remembrance of the creation; and the passover to keep up the remembrance
of the deliverance from Egypt. All the other feasts were instituted on similar reasons.
The Jews never took their sons to the tabernacle or temple till they were twelve years of
age, nor suffered them to eat of the flesh of any victim till they had themselves offered a
sacrifice at the temple, which they were not permitted to do before the twelfth year of
their age. It was at this age that Joseph and Mary took our blessed Lord to the temple,
probably for the first time, to offer his sacrifice. See Calmet.
GILL, "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you,
what mean ye by this service? Of killing and roasting a lamb, and eating it with
bitter herbs, and of abstaining from leavened bread.
HE RY, "That hereafter they should carefully teach their children the meaning of
this service, Exo_12:26, Exo_12:27. Observe,
(1.) The question which the children would ask concerning this solemnity (which they
would soon take notice of in the family): “What mean you by this service? What is he
meaning of all this care and exactness about eating this lamb, and this unleavened bread,
more than about common food? Why such a difference between this meal and other
meals?” Note, [1.] It is a good thing to see children inquisitive about the things of God; it
is to be hoped that those who are careful to ask for the way will find it. Christ himself,
when a child, heard and asked questions, Luk_2:46. [2.] It concerns us all rightly to
understand the meaning of those holy ordinances wherein we worship God, what is the
nature and what the end of them, what is signified and what intended, what is the duty
expected from us in them and what are the advantages to be expected by us. Every
ordinance has a meaning; some ordinances, as sacraments, have not their meaning so
plain and obvious as others have; therefore we are concerned to search, that we may not
offer the blind for sacrifice, but may do a reasonable service. If either we are ignorant of,
or mistake about, the meaning of holy ordinances, we can neither please God nor profit
ourselves.
JAMISO , "when your children shall say, ... What mean ye by this service
— Independently of some observances which were not afterwards repeated, the usages
practised at this yearly commemorative feast were so peculiar that the curiosity of the
young would be stimulated, and thus parents had an excellent opportunity, which they

157. were enjoined to embrace, for instructing each rising generation in the origin and
leading facts of the national faith.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Exodus 12:26
"What then," asks the author of Let Youth But Know (p50), "is the fundamental
task of a liberal education? What should be its constant endeavour? Surely to
awaken and to keep ever alert the faculty of wonder in the human soul. To take life
as a matter of course—whether painful or pleasurable—that is the true spiritual
death. From the body of that death it is the task of education to deliver us."
The Meaning of the Observance of Easter
Exodus 12:26-27
Take the first things commemorated by the Jewish Passover, and see how they are
fulfilled in the Christian"s Easter.
I. The Passover told, first, of the deliverance from the misery of Egyptian bondage;
and Easter tells of man"s deliverance from a bondage worse than that of Egypt—
the bondage of sin.
II. The Passover commemorated the means by which the Israelites were delivered—
the death of the first-born, the substituted blood of the lamb. And this is what Good
Friday and Easter preaches to the Christian—the love of God, Who spared not His
own Song of Solomon , but delivered Him up for us all—the power of Christ"s
resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, by which we are freed from the
bonds of our sins, and are raised with Him.
III. The Jews were reminded by the Passover that the Agent of their deliverance was
none other than Jehovah Himself, Who overthrew their enemies and brought them
safely through the Red Sea. And we are reminded that the Agent of our
sanctification is the Holy Ghost, by whose special grace preventing us all good
desires are poured into our hearts, and by whose operation in the sacraments both
actual and sanctifying grace are conveyed to our souls.
IV. We observe that in the feast of the Passover was fulfilled God"s command,
"This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord
throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever".
The Passover, like other Jewish rites, has been abrogated; or, rather, has been taken
up into and fulfilled in its highest sense in the sacrifice of the altar, whereby,
according to our Lord"s holy institution, we "continue a perpetual memory of that
His precious death until His coming again".
—A. G. Mortimer, The Church"s Lessons for the Christian Year, part ii. p336.

158. 27 then tell them, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to
the Lord, who passed over the houses of the
Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he
struck down the Egyptians.’” Then the people
bowed down and worshiped.
BAR ES, "It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover - or This is the sacrifice of
the Passover to Yahweh. The most formal and exact designation of the festival is thus
given: but “the Passover” may mean either the act of God’s mercy in sparing the
Israelites, or the lamb which is offered in sacrifice: more probably the latter, as in Exo_
12:21. This gives a clear sense to the expression “to Yahweh;” the Passover lamb was a
sacrifice offered to Yahweh by His ordinance.
CLARKE, "It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover - We have already
intimated that the paschal lamb was an illustrious type of Christ; and we shall find that
every thing in this account is typical or representative. The bondage and affliction of the
people of Israel may be considered as emblems of the hard slavery and wretchedness
consequent on a state of sinfulness. Satan reigns over both body and soul, bringing the
whole into subjection to the law of sin and death; while various evil tempers, passions,
lusts, and irregular appetites, act as subordinate tormentors, making the lives of the
vassals of sin bitter, because of the rigour by which they are obliged to serve. Reader, is
this thy case? The mercy of God projects the redemption of man from this cruel bondage
and oppression; and a sacrifice is appointed for the occasion by God himself, to be
offered with particular and significant rites and ceremonies, all of which represent the
passion and death of our blessed Lord, and the great end for which he became a
sacrifice, viz., the redemption of a lost world from the power, the guilt, and the pollution
of sin, etc. And it is worthy of remark,
1. That the anniversary or annual commemoration of the passover was strictly and
religiously kept by the Jews on the day, and hour of the day, on which the original
transaction took place, throughout all their succeeding generations.
2. That on one of these anniversaries, and, as many suppose, on the very day and
hour on which the paschal lamb was originally offered, our blessed Lord expired

159. on the cross for the salvation of the world.
3. That after the destruction of Jerusalem the paschal lamb ceased to be offered by
the Jews throughout the world, though they continue to hold the anniversary of
the passover, but without any sacrifice, notwithstanding their deep-rooted,
inveterate antipathy against the author and grace of the Gospel.
4. That the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was instituted to keep this true paschal
sacrifice in commemoration, and that this has been religiously observed by the
whole Christian world (one very small class of Christians excepted) from the
foundation of Christianity to the present day!
5. That the Jews were commanded to eat the paschal lamb; and our Lord,
commemorating the passover, commanded his disciples, saying, Take, eat, This is
my body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the communion
service of the Church of England, the spirit and design both of the type and
antitype are most expressly condensed into one point of view, in the address to the
communicant: “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for Thee; and
Feed upon Him, in thy heart, by Faith with Thanksgiving. Thus God continues the
memorial of that grand transaction which he has said should be an ordinance for
ever; evidently meaning thereby, that the paschal lamb should be the significator
till the passion and death of Christ; and that afterwards bread and wine taken
sacramentally, in commemoration of his crucifixion, should be the continual
representatives of that sacrifice till the end of the world. Thus the passover in
itself, and in its reference, is an ordinance for ever; and thus the words of the Lord
are literally fulfilled.
Reader, learn from this,
1. That if thou art not rescued from the thraldom of sin, thou must perish for ever.
2. That nothing less than the power and mercy of God can set thee free.
3. That God will save thee in no other way than by bringing thee out of thy sinful
state, and from thy wicked practices and companions.
4. That in order to thy redemption it was absolutely necessary that the Son of God
should take thy nature upon him, and die in thy stead.
5. That unless the blood of this sacrifice be sprinkled, in its atoning efficacy and
merits, on thy heart and conscience, the guilt and power of thy sin cannot be taken
away.
6. That as the blood of the paschal lamb must be sprinkled on every house, in order
to the preservation of its inhabitants, so there must be a personal application of
the blood of the cross to thy conscience, to take away thy sins.
7. As it was not enough that the passover was instituted, but the blood must be
sprinkled on the lintels and door posts of every house to make the rite effectual to
the salvation of each individual, so it is not enough that Christ should have taken
human nature upon him, and died for the sin of the world; for no man who has the
opportunity of hearing the Gospel is saved by that death, who does not, by faith,
get a personal application of it to his own heart.
8. That those who wish for an application of the atoning blood, must receive this
spiritual passover with a perfect readiness to depart from the land of their
captivity, and travel to the rest that remains for the people of God; it being
impossible, not only to a gross sinner, continuing such, to be finally saved,
(however he may presume upon the mercy of God), but also to a worldly-minded

160. man to get to the kingdom of God; for Christ died to save us from the present evil
world, according to the will of God.
9. That in order to commemorate aright, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the
great atonement made for the sin of the world, all leaven of malice, bitterness, and
insincerity, must be put away; as God will have no man to partake of this mystery
who does not fully enter into its spirit and meaning. See 1Co_5:7, 1Co_5:8.
GILL, "That ye shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover,.... This lamb
is a sacrifice, both eucharistical, or by way of thanksgiving for their safety, when the
firstborn of the Egyptians were slain, and for their deliverance out of Egypt; and also
propitiatory, the blood of this lamb being a propitiation or atonement for all within the
house where it was sprinkled, as before observed from Aben Ezra; and typical of the
atoning sacrifice of Christ our passover, 1Co_5:7 and this was commanded by the Lord,
and approved of and accepted by him, and therefore called his sacrifice as well as
passover, for the following reason:
who passed over the houses of the children of Israel, when he smote the
Egyptians, and delivered our houses; their families, not suffering the destroying
angel to enter into them, which was a very distinguishing mercy, and worthy of
remembrance. Now in this they were to instruct their children in successive generations,
that the memory of it might be kept up, and a sense of the goodness of God continued,
and his name glorified. Maimonides (y) says,"it is a command to make this known to
children, even though they do not ask it, as it is said, "and thou shall show thy son",
Exo_13:8. According to the son's knowledge, his father teaches him; how if he is a little
one or foolish? he says to him, my son, all of us were servants, as this handmaid, or this
servant, in Egypt; and on this night the holy blessed God redeemed us, and brought us
into liberty: and if the son is grown up, and a wise man, he makes known to him what
happened to us in Egypt, and the wonders which were done for us by the hand of Moses
our master, all according to the capacity of his son; and it is necessary to make a
repetition on this night, that the children may see, and ask, and say, how different is this
night from all other nights! until he replies and says to them, so and so it happened, and
thus and thus it was:"
and the people bowed the head and worshipped; signifying the deep sense they
had of the mercy shown them, their thankfulness for it, and their readiness to observe
the ordinance now instituted.
HE RY, "The answer which the parents were to return to this question (Exo_12:27):
You shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, that is, “By the killing and
sacrificing of this lamb, we keep in remembrance the work of wonder and grace which
God did for our fathers, when,” [1.] “To make way for our deliverance out of bondage, he
slew the firstborn of the Egyptians, so compelling them to sign our discharge;” and, [2.]
“Though there were with us, even with us, sins against the Lord our God, for which the
destroying angel, when he was abroad doing execution, might justly have destroyed our
first-born too, yet God graciously appointed and accepted the family-sacrifice of a lamb,
instead of the first-born, as, of old, the ram instead of Isaac, and in every house where
the lamb was slain the first-born were saved.” The repetition of this solemnity in the
return of every year was designed, First, To look backward as a memorial, that in it they
might remember what great things God had done for them and their fathers. The word

161. pesach signifies a leap, or transition; it is a passing over; for the destroying angel passed
over the houses of the Israelites, and did not destroy their first-born. When God brings
utter ruin upon his people he says, I will not pass by them any more (Amo_7:8; Amo_
8:2), intimating how often he had passed by them, as now when the destroying angel
passed over their houses. Note, 1. Distinguishing mercies lay under peculiar obligations.
When a thousand fall at our side, and ten thousand at our right hand, and yet we are
preserved, and have our lives given us for a prey, this should greatly affect us, Psa_91:7.
In war or pestilence, if the arrow of death have passed by us, passed over us, hit the next
to us and just missed us, we must not say it was by chance that we were preserved but by
the special providence of our God. 2. Old mercies to ourselves, or to our fathers, must
not be forgotten, but be had in everlasting remembrance, that God may be praised, our
faith in him encouraged, and our hearts enlarged in his service. Secondly, It was
designed to look forward as an earnest of the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God in the
fulness of time, instead of us and our first-born. We were obnoxious to the sword of the
destroying angel, but Christ our passover was sacrificed for us, his death was our life,
and thus he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, from the foundation
of the Jewish church: Moses kept the passover by faith in Christ, for Christ was the end
of the law for righteousness.
II. The people received these instructions with reverence and ready obedience. 1. They
bowed the head and worshipped (Exo_12:27): they hereby signified their submission to
this institution as a law, and their thankfulness for it as a favour and privilege. Note,
When God gives law to us, we must give honour to him; when he speaks, we must bow
our heads and worship. 2. They went away and did as they were commanded, Exo_
12:23. Here was none of that discontent and murmuring among them which we read of,
Exo_5:20, Exo_5:21. The plagues of Egypt had done them good, and raised their
expectations of a glorious deliverance, which before they despaired of; and now they
went forth to meet it in the way appointed. Note, The perfecting of God's mercies to us
must be waited for in a humble observance of his institutions.
JAMISO , "the people bowed the head, and worshipped — All the preceding
directions were communicated through the elders, and the Israelites, being deeply
solemnized by the influence of past and prospective events, gave prompt and faithful
obedience.
K&D, "Exo_12:27
After hearing the divine instructions, the people, represented by their elders, bowed
and worshipped; not only to show their faith, but also to manifest their gratitude for the
deliverance which they were to receive in the Passover.
BE SO ,"Exodus 12:27. The people bowed the head and worshipped — They
hereby signified their submission to this institution as a law, and their thankfulness
for it as a privilege.
ELLICOTT, "(27) It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover.—Heb., This is a
passover-sacrifice to Jehovah. The emphatic word is “Passover;” and it was the
meaning of this term which was especially to be explained. The explanation would
involve an historical account of the circumstances of the institution, such as would

162. be apt to call forth feelings of gratitude and devotion.
PETT, "Exodus 12:27-28
‘And the people bowed the head and worshipped. And the children of Israel went
and did so. As Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.’
The people respond in obedience and worship and do what they have been
commanded through Moses and Aaron. Thus are they ready when Yahweh acts.
ote that they no longer grumble or disagree with what Moses says. What has
previously occurred has filled them with awe and they have recognised that Yahweh
is acting for them.
28 The Israelites did just what the Lord
commanded Moses and Aaron.
GILL, "And the children of Israel went away,.... The elders of the people, Exo_
12:21 they departed to their several tribes and families at Goshen and elsewhere:
and did as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they; they took a
lamb on the tenth day, and kept it till the fourteenth, on which day they slew it, and
roasted it with fire, and ate it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
K&D, "Exo_12:28
They then proceeded to execute the command, that through the obedience of faith
they might appropriate the blessing of this “service.”
LA GE, "Exodus 12:28. Brief reference to the festive meal of faith in contrast with
the dreadful judgment now beginning. At midnight.—According to Keil, we have no
occasion here to look for any natural force as underlying the punishment, but to
regard it as a purely supernatural operation of divine omnipotence, inasmuch as
here the pestilence is not named, as in 2 Samuel 24:15. Also (he says) Jehovah
administers the last plague without Moses’ mediation. But here too Moses’
prophetic prediction has a place; and also the teleological design of the facts. And
this was the main feature of all these punitive miracles, provided we do not conceive
Moses’ rod as having itself wrought them. According to Knobel, the miracle
consisted in the pestilence “which from the oldest time to the present day has had its

163. chief seat in Egypt.” He gives a series of examples, p106. Also statements concerning
the season in which the pestilence is accustomed to appear in Egypt: December,
February, March. “It is most destructive from March to May.” “Quite in
accordance with the facts, the series of plagues ends with the pestilence, which
generally lasts till the ile inundation.” “The pestilence spares many region, e.g., the
deserts (Pruner, p419).” On the death of the cattle: “According to Hartmann
(Erdbeschreibung) von Afrika, I, p68), the dogs in Cairo almost constantly have the
pestilence; and when it rages among them, it ceases to prevail among men.”
According to Knobel, the occurrence was expanded by legendary tradition into a
miracle. But miraculous are: (1) The prediction of the fact, its object, and its results;
(2) the sudden spread of the plague over the younger generation, the first-born,
especially the first-born of the king, being singled out; (3) the fact that both beasts
and men suffered; (4) the liberation of Israel. That the religious expression of this
great event has its peculiarity, that it makes generalizations, and leaves out
subordinate features in accordance with its idealizing tendency and symbolic
design—on this point one must shape his views by means of a thorough
hermeneutical apprehension of the religious style. Even Keil cannot quite adopt the
assumption of Cornelius a Lapide, that in many houses grandfathers, fathers, sons,
and wives, in case they were all first-born, were killed. But literally understood, the
narrative warrants this. But the perfect realization of the object aimed at lifts the
event above the character of a legend.
29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the
firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh,
who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the
prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the
firstborn of all the livestock as well.
BAR ES, "This plague is distinctly attributed here and in Exo_12:23 to the personal
intervention of the Lord; but it is to be observed that although the Lord Himself passed
through to smite the Egyptians, He employed the agency of “the destroyer” Exo_12:23,
in whom, in accordance with Heb_11:28, all the ancient versions, and most critics,

164. recognize an Angel (compare 2Ki_19:35; 2Sa_24:16).
CLARKE, "Smote all the first born - If we take the term first-born in its literal
sense only, we shall be led to conclude that in a vast number of the houses of the
Egyptians there could have been no death, as it is not at all likely that every first-born
child of every Egyptian family was still alive, and that all the first-born of their cattle still
remained. And yet it is said, Exo_12:30, that there was not a house where there was not
one dead. The word therefore must not be taken in its literal sense only. From its use in a
great variety of places in the Scriptures it is evident that it means the chief, most
excellent, best beloved, most distinguished, etc. In this sense our blessed Lord is called
the First-Born of every creature, Col_1:15, and the First-Born among many brethren,
Rom_8:29; that is, he is more excellent than all creatures, and greater than all the
children of men. In the same sense we may understand Rev_1:5, where Christ is called
the First-Begotten from the dead, i.e., the chief of all that have ever visited the empire of
death, and on whom death has had any power; and the only one who by his own might
quickened himself. In the same sense wisdom is represented as being brought forth
before all the creatures, and being possessed by the Lord in the beginning of his ways,
Pro_8:22-30; that is, the wisdom of God is peculiarly conspicuous in the production,
arrangement, and government of every part of the creation. So Ephraim is called the
Lord’s First-Born, Jer_31:9. And the people of Israel are often called by the same name,
see Exo_4:22 : Israel is my son, my First-Born; that is, the people in whom I particularly
delight, and whom I will especially support and defend. And because the first-born are in
general peculiarly dear to their parents, and because among the Jews they had especial
and peculiar privileges, whatever was most dear, most valuable, and most prized, was
thus denominated. So Mic_6:7 : Shall I give my First-Born for my transgression, the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Shall I give up the most beloved child I have, he
that is most dear and most necessary to me, in order to make an atonement for my sins!
In like manner the Prophet Zechariah, speaking of the conversion of the Jews to the
Gospel of Christ, represents them as looking on him whom they have pierced, and being
as one that is in bitterness for his First-Born; that is, they shall feel distress and anguish
as those who had lost their most beloved child. So the Church triumphant in the
kingdom of God are called, Heb_12:23, the general assembly and Church of the First-
Born, i.e., the most noble and excellent of all human if not created beings. So Homer, Il.
iv., ver. 102: Αρνων πρωτογονων ρεξειν κλειτην ᅛκατοµβην· “A hecatomb of lambs all
firstlings of the flock.” That is, the most excellent of their kind.
In a contrary sense, when the word first-born is joined to another that signifies any
kind of misery or disgrace, it then signifies the depth of misery, the utmost disgrace. So
the First-Born of the poor, Isa_14:30, signifies the most abject, destitute, and
impoverished. The First-Born of death, Job_18:13, means the most horrible kind of
death. So in the threatening against Pharaoh, Exo_11:5, where he informs him that he
will slay all the first-born, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon the throne; to
the first born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill, he takes in the very highest and
lowest conditions of life. As there was no state in Egypt superior to the throne, so there
was none inferior to that of the female slave that ground at the mill. The Prophet
Habakkuk seems to fix this as the sense in which the word is used here; for speaking of
the plagues of Egypt in general, and the salvation which God afforded his people, he
says, Hab_3:13 : Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people - thou woundedst the
Head (‫ראש‬ rosh, the chief, the most excellent) of the house of the wicked - of Pharaoh

165. and the Egyptians. And the author of the book of The Wisdom of Solomon understood it
in the same way: The master and the servant were punished after one manner; and like
as the king, so suffered the common people - for in one moment the Noblest Offspring of
them was destroyed, The Wisdom of Solomon 18:11, 12. And in no other sense can we
understand the word in Psa_89:27, where, among the promises of God to David, we find
the following: Also I will make him my First-Born, higher than the kings of the earth; in
which passage the latter clause explains the former; David, as king, should be the First-
Born, of God, i.e., he should be higher than the kings of the earth - the Most Eminent
potentate in the universe. In this sense, therefore, we should understand the passage in
question; the most eminent person in every family in Egypt, as well as those who were
literally the first-born, being slain in this plague. Calmet and some other critics
particularly contend for this sense.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn
in the land of Egypt,.... The midnight of the fifteenth of Nisan, as the Targum of
Jonathan, when fast asleep, and thoughtless of any danger; and it being at such a time
must strike with a greater horror and terror, when sensible of the blow, which might be
attended with a great noise, that might awaken the rest:
from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne; the heir to his crown, who
was to have sat upon his throne, or already did, being taken a partner with him in it:
unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; or prison, that was
grinding at the mill there, Exo_11:5 which was the work and business the prisoners were
often put to, as appears from the case of Samson, Jdg_16:21,
and all the firstborn of cattle; which were left of the other plagues, which had
consumed great numbers of them.
HE RY 29-30, "Here we have, I. The Egyptians' sons, even their first-born, slain,
Exo_12:29, Exo_12:30. If Pharaoh would have taken the warning which was given him
of this plague, and would thereupon have released Israel, what a great many dear and
valuable lives might have been preserved! But see what obstinate infidelity brings upon
men. Observe, 1. The time when this blow was given: It was at midnight, which added to
the terror of it. The three preceding nights were made dreadful by the additional plague
of darkness, which might be felt, and doubtless disturbed their repose; and now, when
they hoped for one quiet night's rest, at midnight was the alarm given. When the
destroying angel drew his sword against Jerusalem, it was in the day-time (2Sa_24:15),
which made it the less frightful; but the destruction of Egypt was by a pestilence walking
in darkness, Psa_91:6. Shortly there will be an alarming cry at midnight, Behold, the
bridegroom cometh. 2. On whom the plague fastened - on their first-born, the joy and
hope of their respective families. They had slain the Hebrews' children, and now God
slew theirs. Thus he visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children; and he is not
unrighteous who taketh vengeance. 3. How far it reached - from the throne to the
dungeon. Prince and peasant stand upon the same level before God's judgments, for
there is no respect of persons with him; see Job_34:29, Job_34:20. Now the slain of the
Lord were many; multitudes, multitudes, fall in this valley of decision, when the
controversy between God and Pharaoh was to be determined. 4. What an outcry was
made upon it: There was a great cry in Egypt, universal lamentation for their only son

166. (with many), and with all for their first-born. If any be suddenly taken ill in the night, we
are wont to call up neighbours; but the Egyptians could have no help, no comfort, from
their neighbours, all being involved in the same calamity. Let us learn hence, (1.) To
tremble before God, and to be afraid of his judgments, Psa_119:120. Who is able to
stand before him, or dares resist him? (2.) To be thankful to God for the daily
preservation of ourselves and our families: lying so much exposed, we have reason to
say, “It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed.”
JAMISO , "at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of
Egypt — At the moment when the Israelites were observing the newly instituted feast in
the singular manner described, the threatened calamity overtook the Egyptians. It is
more easy to imagine than describe the confusion and terror of that people suddenly
roused from sleep and enveloped in darkness - none could assist their neighbors when
the groans of the dying and the wild shrieks of mourners were heard everywhere around.
The hope of every family was destroyed at a stroke. This judgment, terrible though it
was, evinced the equity of divine retribution. For eighty years the Egyptians had caused
the male children of the Israelites to be cast into the river [Exo_1:16], and now all their
own first-born fell under the stroke of the destroying angel. They were made, in the
justice of God, to feel something of what they had made His people feel. Many a time
have the hands of sinners made the snares in which they have themselves been
entangled, and fallen into the pit which they have dug for the righteous [Pro_28:10].
“Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth” [Psa_58:11].
K&D, "Death of the first-born, and Release of Israel. - The last blow announced to
Pharaoh took place in “the half of the night,” i.e., at midnight, when all Egypt was lying
in deep sleep (Mat_25:5-6), to startle the king and his people out of their sleep of sin. As
all the previous plagues rested upon a natural basis, it might seem a probable
supposition that this was also the case here, whilst the analogy of 2Sa_24:15-16 might
lead us to think of a pestilence as the means employed by the destroying angel. In that
case we should find the heightening of the natural occurrence into a miracle in the fact,
that the first-born both of man and beast, and they alone, were all suddenly slain, whilst
the Israelites remained uninjured in their houses. This view would be favoured, too, by
the circumstance, that not only are pestilences of frequent occurrence in Egypt, but they
are most fatal in the spring months. On a closer examination, however, the
circumstances mentioned tell against rather than in favour of such a supposition. In
2Sa_24:15, the pestilence is expressly alluded to; here it is not. The previous plagues
were nearly all brought upon Egypt by Moses' staff, and with most of them the natural
sources are distinctly mentioned; but the last plague came direct from Jehovah without
the intervention of Moses, certainly for no other reason than to make it apparent that it
was a purely supernatural punishment inflicted by His own omnipotence. The words,
“There was not a house where there was not one dead,” are to be taken literally, and not
merely “as a general expression;” though, of course, they are to be limited, according to
the context, to all the houses in which there were first-born of man or beast. The term
“first-born” is not to be extended so far, however, as to include even heads of families
who had children of their own, in which case there might be houses, as Lapide and
others suppose, where the grandfather, the father, the son, and the wives were all lying
dead, provided all of them were first-born. The words, “From the son of Pharaoh, who
will sit upon his throne, to the son of the prisoners in the prison” (Exo_12:29 compared
with Exo_13:15), point unquestionably to those first-born sons alone who were not yet
fathers themselves. But even with this limitation the blow was so terrible, that the effect

167. produced upon Pharaoh and his people is perfectly intelligible.
CALVI , "29.And it came to pass, that at midnight. Lest the hand of God should be
hidden in this miracle, as well in the preservation of the people as in taking
vengeance upon the Egyptians, Moses sets forth its power by many circumstances.
For he both relates that the destruction took place at midnight, which was the time
prescribed by God, and then adds, that all the first-born of the land were smitten,
from the son of the king to the son of the captive in the dungeon. It is thus that he
indicates proverbially the most abject persons, as he had said before, “unto the first-
born of the maidservant that is behind the mill.” For it could only be by an
extraordinary miracle that this calamity could affect every house without exception,
at the same hour, especially when it extended even to the beasts. Thirdly, he
recounts that all the Egyptians were aroused suddenly, and manifestly convinced
that the God of Israel was wroth with them. Fourthly, that Pharaoh humbly prayed
of Moses to lead forth the people in haste; nay, that he even importunately thrust
them out. Yet not even by such clear and solid proofs has the dishonesty and
impudence of some been prevented from attempting to upset by their falsehoods this
memorable work of God. The calumnies are too well known which Josephus refutes
in his reply to Apion the Grammarian; and it appears from Justin (144) that they
were generally received. or can we wonder that the devil should have employed all
sorts of artifices, so that by the introduction of various fables he might efface from
men’s minds the redemption of the Church. But here also was manifested the
admirable wisdom of God, that the futility of these absurdities refutes itself, without
the use of any arguments against them. Perhaps there was no intention to deceive on
the part of profane writers, when they reported these frivolous and silly stories
about the Jews; for doubtless Strabo (145) desired to give the true history of the
origin of circumcision when he wrote his foolish and unfounded fables. or did even
Cornelius Tacitus, (146) although he wrote with malignant and virulent feelings,
intentionally put himself to shame; but when by the impulse of Satan they obscured
God’s glory, they were smitten with blindness and folly, so that their ridiculous
want of truth might be discovered even by children; from whence, however, some
sparks of fact may still be elicited, because God would not suffer so memorable an
operation to be altogether forgotten, of which these blind men were the proclaimers,
when the devil was using their aid to obliterate its memory.
COFFMA , "Verse 29-30
PLAGUE X
"And it came to pass at midnight, that Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land
of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of
the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of cattle. And Pharaoh
rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a
great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead."
Here, dramatically stated, came the execution of the Tenth Plague upon Egypt. The
fact of everyone rising up in the middle of the night should be taken as an indication
that death followed some kind of violent and painful visitation with the result that

168. the cries of the victims aroused the households. Had this not been the case, the dead
would have been discovered, not that night, but the next morning.
Several quibbles concerning these verses are:
"The captive that was in the dungeon" is used in Exodus 12:29, whereas, "the maid-
servant that is behind the mill" is used in the parallel place in Exodus 11:5; but
those with knowledge of those times tell us that many of the maid-servants who
ground the corn and performed other menial tasks in Egypt were also captives in
their dungeons.
There was not a house where there was not one dead. The quibbler wants to know
about those houses were there were not any first-born! Such quibbles disappear in
the light of the usage in all languages in which major proportions of anything are
commonly referred to by the word "all." See my commentary on Matthew (at
Matthew 3:5,6) for a discussion of the Biblical use of hyperbole, and also other .T.
examples of it.
This tenth and final plague accomplished all that God had said concerning it.
Pharaoh did indeed at last let the people go. he even sent for Moses and Aaron
whom he had vowed never to see again, apparently joining with his servants and
officers in hastening the departure of the children of Israel.
"There was a great cry in Egypt ..." This must be understood as typical of the Final
Judgment, as indicated in Revelation 6:14ff. When God shall at last execute the
sentence of death upon Adam and Eve in the person of their total posterity, what an
occasion of remorse and terror shall it be? When evil men, men of exactly the same
attitude that appears in the Pharaoh of Exodus, when such men who profess not
even to know God, who suppose that they shall never be punished no matter what
they do, who in their atheism consider themselves as the highest thing in all creation
- when such men shall suddenly be summoned with all mankind to the bar of
Eternal Judgment, it will indeed be a time of universal fear and mourning. Both in
Matthew and in Revelation, such thoughts are stressed: "Then shall all the tribes of
the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven
with power and with great glory" (Matthew 24:30). See the special O.T. report on
the terrors of that day in my Commentary on ahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and
Haggai, pp. 141-144.
'
COKE, "Exodus 12:29. And it came to pass, that at midnight, &c.— See ch. Exodus
11:4-5. If the common interpretation of the words in Exodus 12:12 the gods of Egypt
be embraced; we may reasonably suppose, that the first-born of beasts is here so
particularly specified, on account of the veneration which the Egyptians paid to the
beasts; those, especially, which were held and worshipped as emblematical of their
gods. Herodotus informs us, lib. ii. c. 36. that the Egyptians lived promiscuously
with their cattle. The word ‫בכור‬ becor, rendered the first-born, comes from the verb
‫בכר‬ bacer, to precede, go before, &c. and so may signify, those which had the pre-
eminence; the chief and most distinguished, Exodus 4:22. Psalms 89:27. Micah 6:7.

169. Wisdom of Solomon 18:12.
CO STABLE, "Verses 29-36
2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel12:29-36
The angel struck the Egyptians at midnight, the symbolic hour of judgment (
Exodus 12:29; cf. Matthew 25:5-6), when they were asleep "... to startle the king and
his subjects out of their sleep of sin." [ ote: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:23.] Pharaoh had
originally met Moses" demands with contemptuous insult ( Exodus 5:4). Then he
tried a series of compromises ( Exodus 8:25; Exodus 8:28; Exodus 10:8-11; Exodus
10:24). All of these maneuvers were unacceptable to God.
There is evidence from Egyptology that the man who succeeded Amenhotep II, the
pharaoh of the plagues, was not his first-born son. [ ote: See Unger, Archaeology
and . . ., pp142-44; Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p218;
and Pritchard, p449.] His successor was Thutmose IV (1425-1417 B.C.), a son of
Amenhotep II but evidently not his first-born. Thutmose IV went to some pains to
legitimatize his right to the throne. This would not have been necessary if he had
been the first-born. So far scholars have found no Egyptian records of the death of
Amenhotep II"s first-born son.
"Thutmose IV claimed that when he was still a prince he had a dream in which the
sun god promised him the throne; this implies that he was not the one who would be
expected to succeed to the throne under normal circumstances." [ ote: Gispen,
p113.]
Remember Joseph"s dreams.
In contrast to the former plagues, this one was not just a heightened and
supernaturally directed natural epidemic but a direct act of God Himself (cf.
Exodus 12:12-13; Exodus 12:23; Exodus 12:27; Exodus 12:29).
We need to understand "no home" in its context ( Exodus 12:30). There was no
Egyptian home in which there was a first-born Song of Solomon , who was not a
father himself, that escaped God"s judgment of physical death.
"This series of five imperative verbs [in Exodus 12:31], three meaning "go" (dlh is
used twice) and one meaning "take," coupled with five usages of the emphatic
particle mg "also" ..., marvelously depicts a Pharaoh whose reserve of pride is gone,
who must do everything necessary to have done with Moses and Israel and the
Yahweh who wants them for his own." [ ote: Durham, p167.]
Pharaoh"s request that Moses would bless him is shocking since the Egyptians
regarded Pharaoh as a god ( Exodus 12:32; cf. Genesis 47:7).
The reader sees God in two roles in this section, representing the two parts of
Israel"s redemption. He appears as Judge satisfied by the blood of the innocent sin-

170. bearer, and He is the Deliverer of Israel who liberated the nation from its slavery.
Redemption involves the payment of a price. What was the price of Israel"s
redemption? It was the lives of the lambs that God provided as the substitutes for
Israel"s first-born sons who would have died otherwise (cf. Isaac in Genesis 22 , and
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten of the Father). The first-born sons remained God"s
special portion ( umbers 8:17-18). The Egyptian first-born sons died as a
punishment on the Egyptians. The Egyptians had enslaved God"s people and had
not let them go, and they had executed male Israelite babies ( Exodus 1:15-22)
possibly for the last80 years. [ ote: Ramm, p79.] God owns all life. He just leases it
to His creatures. God paid the price of Israel"s redemption to Himself. He
purchased the nation to be a special treasure for Himself and for a special purpose (
Exodus 19:5).
ELLICOTT, "(29) All the firstborn.—The Hebrew word used applies only to males.
The firstborn of Pharaoh.—The law of primogeniture prevailed in Egypt, as
elsewhere generally. The Pharaoh’s eldest son was recognised as “hereditary crown
prince,” and sometimes associated in the kingdom during his father’s lifetime. This
had been the case with Lameses II., probably the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled
(Exodus 2:15); but the practice was not common. In any case, however, the eldest
son of the reigning monarch occupied a most important position, and his loss would
be felt as a national calamity.
The firstborn of the captive.—The variation of phrase between this verse and
Exodus 11:5 is curious, but appears not to be of any significance. The writer simply
means, in both places, “all, from the highest to the lowest.”
All the firstborn of cattle.—Rather, of beasts, as in Exodus 11:5. (On the reasons for
beasts being included in the calamity, see the ote on that passage.)
Verse 29-30
THE TE TH PLAGUE.
(29, 30) The nature of the tenth plague is indubitable, but as to the exact agency
which was employed there may be different views. In every family in which the
firstborn child had been a male, that child was stricken with death. Pharaoh’s
firstborn son—the erpa suten sa—the heir to his throne, was taken; and so in all
other families. obles, priests, tradesmen, artisans, peasants, fishermen—all alike
suffered. In the hyperbolic language of the narrator, “there was not a house where
there was not one dead.” And the deaths took place “at midnight,” in the weirdest
hour, at the most silent time, in the deepest darkness. So it had been prophesied
(Exodus 11:4); but the particular night had not been announced. As several days
had elapsed since the announcement, the Egyptians may have been wrapt in fancied
security. Suddenly the calamity fell upon them and “there was a great cry.” Death
did not come, as upon the host of Sennacherib, noiselessly, unperceivedly, but “with
observation.” Those who were seized woke up and aroused their relatives. There

171. was a cry for help, a general alarm, a short, sharp struggle and then a death.
The visitation is ordinarily ascribed to God Himself (Exodus 4:23; Exodus 11:4;
Exodus 12:12; Exodus 12:27; Exodus 12:29; Exodus 13:15, &c), but in Exodus 12:23
to “the destroyer.” It has been already shown that this expression points to angelic
agency. That agency, however, does not exclude a further natural one. As in 2
Samuel 24 the seventy thousand whom the destroying angel killed (Exodus 12:16)
are said to have been slain by a pestilence (Exodus 12:15), so it may have been here.
Pestilence often rages in Egypt in the spring of the year, and carries off thousands in
a very short space. As with so many of the other plagues, God may here too have
employed a natural agency. one the less would the plague have been miraculous—
(1) in its intensity; (2) in its coming at the time prophesied, viz., midnight; (3) in its
selection of victims, viz., the firstborn males only, and all of them; (4) in its
avoidance of the Israelites; and (5) in its extension, as prophesied, to the firstborn of
animals.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Exodus 12:29-30
Speaking in favour of peace with Russia, John Bright once employed this passage
most effectively in the House of Commons. "I do not suppose," he said, "that your
troops are to be beaten in actual conflict with the foe, or that they will be driven into
the sea; but I am certain that many homes in England in which there now exists a
fond hope that the distant one may return—many such homes may be rendered
desolate when the next mail shall arrive. The Angel of Death has been abroad
throughout the land; you may almost hear the beating of bis wings. There is no one,
as when the first-born were slain of old, to sprinkle with blood the lintel and the two
side-posts of our doors, that he may spare and pass on; he takes his victims from the
castle of the noble, the mansion of the wealthy, and the cottage of the poor and
lowly, and it is on behalf of all these classes that I make this solemn appeal."
References.—XII:29.—T. A. Gurney, The Living Lord and the Opened Grave, p57.
XII:30.—A. Ainger, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix1901 , p91.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "Verses 29-36
THE TE TH PLAGUE.
Exodus 12:29-36.
And now the blow fell. Infants grew cold in their mothers' arms; ripe statesmen and
crafty priests lost breath as they reposed: the wisest, the strongest and the most
hopeful of the nation were blotted out at once, for the firstborn of a population is its
flower.
Pharaoh Menephtah had only reached the throne by the death of two elder
brethren, and therefore history confirms the assertion that he "rose up," when the
firstborn were dead; but it also justifies the statement that his firstborn died, for the
gallant and promising youth who had reconquered for him his lost territories, and

172. who actually shared his rule and "sat upon the throne," Menephtah Seti, is now
shown to have died early, and never to have held an independent sceptre.
We can imagine the scene. Suspense and terror must have been wide spread; for the
former plagues had given authority to the more dreadful threat, the fulfilment of
which was now to be expected, since all negotiations between Moses and Pharaoh
had been formally broken off.
Strange and confident movements and doubtless menacing expressions among the
Hebrews would also make this night a fearful one, and there was little rest for
"those who feared the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh." These, knowing where
the danger lay, would watch their firstborn well, and when the ashy change came
suddenly upon a blooming face, and they raised the wild cry of Eastern
bereavement, then others awoke to the same misery. From remote villages and
lonely hamlets the clamour of great populations was echoed back; and when, under
midnight skies in which the strong wind of the morrow was already moaning, the
awestruck people rushed into their temples, there the corpses of their animal deities
glared at them with glassy eyes.
Thus the cup which they had made their slaves to drink was put in larger measure
to their own lips at last, and not infants only were snatched away, but sons around
whom years of tenderness had woven stronger ties; and the loss of their bondsmen,
from which they feared so much national weakness, had to be endured along with a
far deadlier drain of their own life-blood. The universal wail was bitter, and
hopeless, and full of terror even more than woe; for they said, "We be all dead
men." Without the consolation of ministering by sick beds, or the romance and
gallant excitement of war, "there was not a house where there was not one dead,"
and this is said to give sharpness to the statement that there was a great cry in
Egypt.
Then came such a moment as the Hebrew temperament keenly enjoyed, when "the
sons of them that oppressed them came bending unto them, and all they that
despised them bowed themselves down at the soles of their feet." Pharaoh sent at
midnight to surrender everything that could possibly be demanded, and in his
abject fear added, "and bless me also"; and the Egyptians were urgent on them to
begone, and when they demanded the portable wealth of the land,--a poor ransom
from a vanquished enemy, and a still poorer payment for generations of forced
labour,--"the Lord gave them favour" (is there not a saturnine irony in the phrase?)
"in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. And they
spoiled the Egyptians."
By this analogy St. Augustine defended the use of heathen learning in defence of
Christian truth. Clogged by superstitions, he said, it contained also liberal
instruction, and truths even concerning God--"gold and silver which they did not
themselves create, but dug out of the mines of God's providence, and misapplied.
These we should reclaim, and apply to Christian use" (De Doct. Chr., 60, 61).

173. And the main lesson of the story lies so plainly upon the surface that one scarcely
needs to state it. What God requires must ultimately be done; and human resistance,
however stubborn and protracted, will only make the result more painful and more
signal at the last.
ow, every concern of our obscure daily lives comes under this law as surely as the
actions of a Pharaoh.
PETT, "The Judgment of The Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).
Exodus 12:29
‘And it came about at midnight that Yahweh smote all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the
captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.’
In the middle of the night ‘all’ the firstborn in the land of Egypt were smitten from
the highest to the lowest. The maidservant behind the mill of Exodus 11:5 has been
replaced here by the captive in the dungeon. Both were seen as on a similar level.
It is difficult to comment on this awe-inspiring and dreadful statement. A terrible
epidemic passes through a whole nation so that on one night the vast multiplicity of
deaths strikes terror in the minds of the people, and yet not one household of the
children of Israel is affected. And the firstborn seem particularly to have been
affected in a widespread way. We put it this way because no one could have checked
that every single firstborn died, and it is possible that others died too. But
outstanding examples were certainly known such as the firstborn of the house of
Pharaoh and the firstborn of prisoners in dungeons. All classes were affected.
And this was at the hand of Yahweh. Whatever the secondary cause, the primary
directing was His, for He controls all things. The judgment may seem appalling, and
it truly was. But we may also see in it an act of mercy. Only the firstborn died,
whereas God could have smitten the whole of Egypt. However it was sufficient for
its purpose. The whole of Egypt wanted to get rid of the Israelites.
(While not detracting in any way from the huge significance of the event, we must
remember that such general statements are not always to be applied absolutely
literally. The wording would be satisfied if the large majority of the firstborn died
sufficient to give the impression of universality (indeed we know that no one in a
protected house died). ‘All’ can often mean ‘most’ or ‘the vast majority’ compare
Genesis 12:3; Genesis 14:11; Genesis 20:8; Genesis 24:1; Genesis 24:36 with Genesis
25:5-6; Genesis 29:22; Genesis 31:1; Genesis 31:6; Genesis 34:29; Genesis 41:56-57;
Genesis 47:14-15; Exodus 1:14; Exodus 1:22; Exodus 9:25; Exodus 18:1; Exodus
18:8; Exodus 18:14; Exodus 33:19; umbers 14:2; Deuteronomy 2:32 and often,
including 2 Samuel 11:18; 1 Kings 4:29-30; 1 Kings 4:34).
“The firstborn of Pharaoh.” A potential god in the making but his father, or
grandfather, Pharaoh, incarnation of the god Horus, could do nothing to prevent it.

174. Clearly the ‘firstborn of Pharaoh’ means of those present in the land. Thus if
Pharaoh’s actual firstborn was away on a military expedition then the next in line
would presumably be affected, possibly his son if he had one.
But it would not be the first time in history that a detrimental fact was covered up.
If Pharaoh’s first born son did die in this ignominious way, it could well have been
‘covered up’ and not written into the histories. He could have become a non-person.
Histories were on the whole written to bring glory to those about whom the history
was written, not in order to tell the truth. Israel were exceptional in recording all
their bad points and failures, probably because their histories were written by
prophets.
BI 29-30, "A great cry in Egypt.
The death of the firstborn of Egypt
I. We see here that God’s vengeance is as certainly executed upon the rebellious as it is
threatened. Men cannot elude the stroke of heaven.
II. We see here that God’s vengeance is upon all sinners, no matter what their social
position, whether king or beggar. He takes the rich from their wealth, the poor from
their misery; and perhaps in the next life the relations of men may be inverted—the poor
man may be the prince, and the prince the slave in the dungeon.
III. We see here that God’s vengeance comes upon sinners when they least expect it, and
in their moments of fancied security. The darkness cannot hide from Him, We know not
what will be in the approaching night.
IV. We see mere that God’s vengeance may make the most obstinate sinners yield to the
demands of heaven. It is well to avoid the penalties of sin, though this is the very lowest
motive for obedience to the will of heaven. The submission of Pharaoh
1. It was immediate upon the plague.
2. It was complete in its obedience.
3. It was comprehensive in its injunction.
4. It was welcomed by the Egyptians. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
“Not a house where there was not one dead”
I. We shall notice some of the particulars detailed in this remarkable history. It is of no
utility we read it, if it be not with care for our instruction.
1. Evidently there was a Divine design in this event. All events are of Providence, and
not a single death takes place, however man seeks to shun it, without its
concurrence. But in this ease, God obviously determined on giving palpable proof of
His hand, that the blindest of the Egyptians should be able to see and own it.
(1) There was method in the dispensation.
(2) The time was remarkable.
(3) There was no death in any of the families of the Israelites.

175. 2. Let us ascertain what was the design of God in this peculiar visitation of the
Egyptians. He may bear long in patience with the unjust and cruel, but not always,
and the lingering stroke will fall the more heavily at last.
II. When God resolves on punishing the rebellious, it is impossible to stay his hand.
1. How sudden was the infliction l No sign was given to the rebellious of this
particular calamity; for they had been furnished with signs which, they had net
properly regarded.
2. What may we suppose were the contemplations and feelings of the Israelites
during these solemn proceedings? No doubt they had often been tempted to think
hardly of Providence that had given them such evil things, and the Egyptians their
good things of wealth and prosperity, at their cost. Now what a reverse! “He is not
unrighteous who taketh vengeance.”
III. The scenes of mortality, still so common in our world, ought to produce in us a
disposition to thine of our own approaching dissolution. Let two things be well
considered.
1. A sense of the transitory nature of earthly scenes unquestionably is most necessary
as a preparation and stimulus to seek the salvation of the soul. 2 What is it to be
prepared for death? There is no other question equal in importance to this. You must
see and feel yourself a lost sinner without Christ as your Saviour. (Essex
Remembrancer.)
The marks of spiritual death
1. The first mark of spiritual death which I shall mention is that of living in any open
and acknowledged sin; such as profane swearing, sabbath breaking, drunkenness,
adultery, covetousness, and such like.
2. Another mark of spiritual death is a dependence in whole or in part upon
ourselves for salvation. One of the first acts of the Spirit of God upon the heart is to
convince men of sin.
3. A third mark of this state is, when under the preaching of the gospel, no change
takes place in the life or conversation.
4. Another mark of this state is, a practical preference of the creature to the Creator,
or of self to God. When the soul is quickened by the Holy Spirit, it makes God its
chief happiness.
5. Another mark of those who ai e spiritually dead is, living without private and
secret prayer. (J. H. Stewart, M. A.)
A king’s bereavement
Henry I., on his return from Normandy, was accompanied by a crowd of nobles and his
son William. The white ship in which the prince embarked lingered behind the rest of
the royal fleet, while the young nobles, excited with wine, hung over the ship’s side
taunting the priest who came to give the customary benediction. At last the guards of the
king’s treasure pressed the vessel’s departure, and, driven by the arms of fifty rowers, it
swept swiftly out to sea. All at once the ship’s side struck on a rock at the mouth of the

176. harbour, and in an instant it sank beneath the waves. One terrible cry, ringing through
the stillness of the night, was heard by the royal fleet, but it was not until the morning
that the fatal news reached the king. He fell unconscious to the ground and rose never to
smile again! (H. O. Mackey.)
A father’s grief
On the death of his only son, the famous Edmund Burke wrote as follows: “The storm
has gone over me, and I lie like one of those old oaks which the late hurricane has
scattered around me. I am stripped of all my honour. I am torn up by the roots, and lie
prostrate on the earth. I am alone.” (J. Tinling, B. A.)
The last plague, and the deliverance of the Israelites
Two questions naturally arise here: Why in this judgment upon the life of man should
precisely the firstborn have been slain? and if the judgment was for the overthrow of the
adversary and the redemption of Israel, why should a special provision have been
required to save Israel also from the plague?
1. In regard to the first of these points, there can be no doubt that the slaying of the
firstborn of Egypt had respect to the relation of Israel to Jehovah; “Israel,” said God,
“is My son, My firstborn: if thou refuse to let him go, I will slay thy son, thy
firstborn” (Exo_4:22-23). But in what sense could Israel be called God’s firstborn
son? Something more is plainly indicated by the expression, though no more is very
commonly found in it, than that Israel was peculiarly dear to God, had a sort of
firstborn’s interest in His regard. It implies this, no doubt, but it also goes deeper,
and points to the Divine origin of Israel as the seed of promise; in their birth the
offspring of grace, as contradistinguished from nature. As the firstborn in God’s elect
family is to be spared and rescued, so the firstborn in the house of the enemy, the
beginning of his increase, and the heir of his substance, must be destroyed: the one a
proof that the whole family were appointed to life and blessing; the other, in like
manner, a proof that all who were aliens from God’s covenant of grace, equally
deserved, and should certainly in due time inherit, the evils of perdition.
2. In regard to the other question which concerns Israel’s liability to the judgment
which fell upon Egypt, this arose from Israel’s natural relation to the world, just as
their redemption was secured by their spiritual relation to God. For, whether viewed
in their individual or in their collective capacity, they were in themselves of Egypt:
collectively, a part o! the nation, without any separate and independent existence of
their own, vassals of the enemy, and inhabitants of His doomed territory;
individually, also, partakers of the guilt and corruption of Egypt. It is the mercy and
grace alone of God’s covenant which makes them to differ from those around them;
and, therefore, to show that while, as children of the covenant, the plague should not
come nigh them, not a hair of their head should perish, they still were in themselves
no better than others, and had nothing whereof to boast, it was, at the same time,
provided that their exemption from judgment should be secured only by the blood of
atonement. (P. Fairbairn, D. D.)

177. A picture of the wrath to come
Is this a dreadful picture? Yet it is but a type of what must be—a shadow merely of the
wrath to come to all the unsprinkled souls’ tenements in eternity. Ye that affect to think
so lightly of death and eternity! see here this shadow and gather the elementary ideas of
what shall be, from what has been already, under the government of God. Standing, in
imagination, amid these complicated horrors in Egypt—the groans of the dying,
mingling with the shrieks of the living, throughout a whole empire—all earthly pomp
and power levelled to mingle its unavailing cries with the lowest and meanest in a
common woe,—here see what it is for God to “whet His glittering sword and His hand to
take hold on vengeance.” (S. Robinson, D. D.)
God’s direct interference
It is to be observed that in this last plague God is represented as descending in His own
Person. It is no longer the man Moses, standing as a mediator between the king of Egypt
and the King of kings. God Himself awakes to judgment; He hath girt His sword upon
His thigh, and is come down;—“Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into
the midst of Egypt” (Exo_11:4). This solemn assurance, though it might well strike terror
into the hearts of the miserable Egyptians, would encourage and confirm the Israelites.
What God had undertaken could not fail, could not miscarry. The course of Moses’
policy with Pharaoh hitherto had brought them no deliverance, but some increase of
their sufferings, and many disappointments. Now they might feel assured that the
promised rescue was at hand. The God of their fathers has given over the Egyptians
appointed unto death, and is gathering the Israelites together for safety and release.
Through the fall of Egypt salvation is come unto Israel; and the judgment which slays
the one people is ordained as a type of mercy and redemption for the other, to be
commemorated evermore. If God made use of natural means in a supernatural manner,
as in the case of the locusts, and generally of the other plagues, the miracle would not, on
that account, be less miraculous. But there are circumstances in the account of this
plague which distinguish it from any known or specific form of disease. The firstborn
only were smitten; these were singled out in every family with unerring precision, the
houses of the Israelites, wherever the blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the door-posts
being passed over. The death of all those thousands, both of man and beast, took place at
the same instant—“at midnight.” Every one of these extraordinary events had been
foretold by Moses. Whatever explanations modern scepticism may suggest, they were
admitted without hesitation both by the Egyptians and the Jews to be the Lord’s doing,
and marvellous in their eyes. The God whom they knew not had come among them, and
made His presence felt: they stood face to face with their Creator. Fear fell upon them,
and a horrible dread overwhelmed them; their flesh trembled for fear of Him, and they
were afraid of His judgments. The sins of the parents were now visited upon the
children: the seed of evildoers was cut off. Slaughter was prepared for the children, for
the iniquity of their fathers. Is God unrighteous, then, that taketh vengeance? No;this is
an act of retribution. The Egyptians had slain the children of the Israelites, casting their
infants into the river. Now the affliction is turned upon themselves; the delight of their
eyes is taken from them; all their firstborn are dead, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that
sat upon his throne, unto the firstborn of the captive that was in his dungeon. (T. S.
Millington.)

178. Midnight terror
A Southern lady, writing of the early days of the war in America, says—“The fear of an
uprising of the blacks was most powerful with us at night. The notes of the whip-poor-
wills in the sweet.gum swamp near the stable, the mutterings of a distant thunderstorm,
even the rustle of the night wind in the oaks that shaded my window, filled me with
nameless dread. In the daytime it seemed impossible to associate suspicion with those
familiar tawny or sable faces that surrounded us. We had seen them for so many years
smiling or saddening with the family joys or sorrows: they were so guileless, patient, and
satisfied. What subtle influence was at work that should transform them into tigers
thirsting for our blood? But when evening came again, the ghost that refused to be laid
was again at one’s elbow. Rusty bolts were drawn and rusty fire-arms loaded. A watch
was set where never before had eye or ear been lent to such a service.” (H. O. Mackey.)
30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the
Egyptians got up during the night, and there was
loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house
without someone dead.
CLARKE, "There was a great cry - No people in the universe were more
remarkable for their mournings than the Egyptians, especially in matters of religion;
they whipped, beat, tore themselves, and howled in all the excess of grief. When a
relative died, the people left the house, ran into the streets, and howled in the most
lamentable and frantic manner. See Diod. Sicul., lib. i., and Herod., lib. ii., c. 85, 86. And
this latter author happening to be in Egypt on one of their solemnities, saw myriads of
people whipping and beating themselves in this manner, lib. ii., c. 60; and see Mr.
Bryant on the Plagues of Egypt, where many examples are given, p. 162, etc. How
dreadful then must the scene of horror and distress appear when there was not one
house or family in Egypt where there was not one dead; and according to their custom,
all the family running out into the streets bewailing this calamity!
GILL, "And Pharaoh rose up in the night,.... Being awakened by the uncommon
noise he heard:

179. he and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; he and his nobles, and ministers of
state, courtiers, and counsellors, and his subjects in common, perhaps everywhere in his
kingdom, but particularly in the metropolis:
and there was a great cry in Egypt; throughout the whole land, the firstborn being
everywhere slain, which caused a most dreadful lamentation of parents for their eldest
son, of brethren and sisters for their elder brother, and of servants and maidens for the
principal and heir of the family; a cry so loud and general as perhaps was never heard
before or since, and under which distress they could have no relief, or any to be their
comforter, since all were in the same circumstances: for there was not a house wherein
there was not one dead; for if there was no firstborn in it, as it can hardly be thought
there should be in every house, though some have been of opinion that it was so ordered
in Providence that there should; yet the principal or most considerable person in the
family, that is next to the master, might be called the firstborn, as Jarchi notes from
Psa_89:27. Though this may be taken as an hyperbolical expression, or, as Aben Ezra
observes, it being usual with the Scripture to say that of all, which is true of the greatest
part.
JAMISO , "there was not a house where there was not one dead — Perhaps
this statement is not to be taken absolutely. The Scriptures frequently use the words
“all,” “none,” in a comparative sense - and so in this case. There would be many a house
in which there would be no child, and many in which the first-born might be already
dead. What is to be understood is, that almost every house in Egypt had a death in it.
K&D, "Exo_12:30-32
The very same night Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and gave them permission to
depart with their people, their children, and their cattle. The statement that Pharaoh
sent for Moses and Aaron is not at variance with Exo_10:28-29; and there is no
necessity to resort to Calvin's explanation, “Pharaoh himself is said to have sent for
those whom he urged to depart through the medium of messengers from the palace.”
The command never to appear in his sight again did not preclude his sending for them
under totally different circumstances. The permission to depart was given
unconditionally, i.e., without involving an obligation to return. This is evident from the
words, “Get you forth from among my people,” compared with Exo_10:8, Exo_10:24,
“Go ye, serve Jehovah,” and Exo_8:25, “Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.” If in
addition to this we bear in mind, that although at first, and even after the fourth plague
(Exo_8:27), Moses only asked for a three days' journey to hold a festival, yet Pharaoh
suspected that they would depart altogether, and even gave utterance to this suspicion,
without being contradicted by Moses (Exo_8:28, and Exo_10:10); the words “Get you
forth from among my people” cannot mean anything else than “depart altogether.”
Moreover, in Exo_11:1 it was foretold to Moses that the result of the last blow would be,
that Pharaoh would let them go, or rather drive them away; so that the effect of this
blow, as here described, cannot be understood in any other way. And this is really
implied in Pharaoh's last words, “Go, and bless me also;” whereas on former occasions
he had only asked them to intercede for the removal of the plagues (Exo_8:8, Exo_8:28;
Exo_9:28; Exo_10:17). ְ‫ך‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ֵ , to bless, indicates a final leave-taking, and was equivalent to
a request that on their departure they would secure or leave behind the blessing of their
God, in order that henceforth no such plague might ever befall him and his people. This

180. view of the words of the king is not at variance either with the expression “as ye have
said” in Exo_12:31, which refers to the words “serve the Lord,” or with the same words
in Exo_12:32, for there they refer to the flock and herds, or lastly, with the circumstance
that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites after they had gone, with the evident intention of
bringing them back by force (Exo_14:5.), because this resolution is expressly described
as a change of mind consequent upon renewed hardening (Exo_14:4-5).
ELLICOTT, "(30) A great cry.—See the comment on Exodus 11:6. The
combination of public calamity, private grief, and shocked religious fanaticism
might well produce a cry “such as there was none like it, neither shall be like it any
more” (Exodus 11:6).
ot a house where there was not one dead. This cannot have been literally true. In
half the families a daughter would have “opened the womb;” in others, the firstborn
son would have been absent, or dead previously. To judge Scripture fairly, we must
make allowance for the hyperbole of Oriental thought and expression, which causes
the substitution of universal terms for general ones, and the absence of qualifying
clauses. The meaning is that in the great majority of houses there was one dead.
This may, well have been so, if we include the dependants and the animals. Pet
animals—dogs, cats, gazelles, and monkeys—abounded in Egyptian homes.
PETT, "Exodus 12:30
‘And Pharaoh rose up in the night, and all his servants and all the Egyptians, and
there was a great cry in Egypt for there was not a house where there was not one
dead.’
The greatness of the tragedy is stressed. It is significant that whatever killed the
firstborn did so in such a way as to waken each household. This may suggest some
dreadful illness which caused first suffering and misery, and finally death. It may
have arisen from the effects of previous plagues leaving bacteria which were stirred
up by the wind or simply had a delayed effect, but it occurred when needed and in
the way required. We may theorise about what it was but it affected both man and
cattle, and especially affected the firstborn, and all in one night. And in the end we
are clearly told that it was the hand of God.
“Pharaoh --- all his servants --- all the Egyptians.” Again we have the depiction of
the different classes in Egypt, Pharaoh, his high officials and bureaucrats, and the
common people. And all were affected. From every house came the cry of mourning.
But again the ‘all’ is not necessarily to be taken literally. It means the Egyptians on
the whole. Some houses would not contain a firstborn son. Others would contain
more than one firstborn. Although it may be that the deaths were more widespread
than the firstborn.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:30-31. The great lamentation which in the night of terror
resounds through Egypt becomes the immediate motive for releasing Israel. And he
called for Moses.—We need not, with Calvin, lay any stress on the fact that
Pharaoh, Exodus 10:28, had commanded the men not to show themselves again to

181. him, as if a humiliating inconsistency of the tyrant with himself were not
characteristic, and as if in the history of despotism it were not a frequent feature.
This crushing humiliation Pharaoh could not escape. Moses and Aaron had to
receive the permission from his own month. And we cannot call it mere permission.
He drives him out by a mandate which boars unmistakable marks of excitement.
Serve Jehovah, as ye have said.—These words involve the promise of complete
liberation, and at the same time the intention to require the Israelites to return. As
ye have said—he repeats—and finally he even begs for their intercession: “bless me
also.” According to Keil, every thing, even the request for their blessing, looks to a
manifest and quite unconditional dismissal and emancipation. But this thought is
expressed more positively in the behavior of the Egyptians, who were the most
terrified.”
The Exodus
31 During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses
and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you
and the Israelites! Go, worship the Lord as you
have requested.
CLARKE, "Called for Moses and Aaron - That is, he sent the message here
mentioned to them; for it does not appear that he had any farther interview with Moses
and Aaron, after what is mentioned Exo_10:28, Exo_10:29, and Exo_11:8. See Clarke’s
notes Exo_10:28, Exo_10:29 (note), and Exo_11:8 (note).
GILL, "And he called for Moses and Aaron by night,.... Not that Pharaoh went in
person, but he sent his servants to call them; for they never saw his face more after he
had drove them from his presence; but now was fulfilled what Moses told him, that his
servants should come to him in a very suppliant manner, and entreat him and his people
to get away in all haste, Exo_10:28. Where Moses and Aaron now were is not certain,
probably in the city, or suburbs of it, where Pharaoh's palace was, for it is not likely that
they were gone to Goshen:

182. and said, rise up; from their beds in which they now were, being midnight:
and get ye forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel;
even all of them, without any exception of women or children as before; and without
limiting them to place or time, where they should go, and how long they should stay, and
without obliging them to promise to return:
and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said; as they had entreated they might, and as
they had demanded in the name of the Lord that they should; to which now he gave his
consent, though he afterwards repented of it.
HE RY, ". God's sons, even his first-born, released; this judgment conquered
Pharaoh, and obliged him to surrender at discretion, without capitulating. Men had
better come up to God's terms at first, for he will never come down to theirs, let them
object as long as they will. Now Pharaoh's pride is abased, and he yields to all that Moses
had insisted on: Serve the Lord as you have said (Exo_12:31), and take your flocks as
you have said, Exo_12:32. Note, God's word will stand, and we shall get nothing by
disputing it, or delaying to submit to it. Hitherto the Israelites were not permitted to
depart, but now things had come to the last extremity, in consequence of which, 1. They
are commanded to depart: Rise up, and get you forth, Exo_12:31. Pharaoh had told
Moses he should see his face no more; but now he sent for him. Those will seek God
early in their distress who before had set him at defiance. Such a fright he was now in
that he gave orders by night for their discharge, fearing lest, if he delayed any longer, he
himself should fall next; and that he sent them out, not as men hated (as the pagan
historians have represented this matter), but as men feared, is plainly discovered by his
humble request to them (Exo_12:32): “Bless me also; let me have your prayers, that I
may not be plagued for what is past, when you are gone.” Note, Those that are enemies
to God's church are enemies to themselves, and, sooner or later, they will be made to see
it. 2. They are hired to depart by the Egyptians; they cried out (Exo_12:33), We be all
dead men. Note, When death comes into our houses, it is seasonable for us to think of
our own mortality. Are our relations dead? It is easy to infer thence that we are dying,
and, in effect, already dead men. Upon this consideration they were urgent with the
Israelites to be gone, which gave great advantage to the Israelites in borrowing their
jewels, Exo_12:35, Exo_12:36. When the Egyptians urged them to be gone, it was easy
for the to say that the Egyptians had kept them poor, that they could not undertake such
a journey with empty purses, but, that, if they would give them wherewithal to bear their
charges, they would be gone. And this the divine Providence designed in suffering things
to come to this extremity, that they, becoming formidable to the Egyptians, might have
what they would, for asking; the Lord also, by the influence he has on the minds of
people, inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to furnish them with what they desired, they
probably intending thereby to make atonement, that the plagues might be stayed, as the
Philistines, when they returned the ark, sent a present with it for a trespass-offering,
having an eye to this precedent, 1Sa_6:3, 1Sa_6:6. The Israelites might receive and keep
what they thus borrowed, or rather required, of the Egyptians, (1.) As justly as servants
receive wages from their masters for work done, and sue for it if it be detained. (2.) As
justly as conquerors take the spoils of their enemies whom they have subdued; Pharaoh
was in rebellion against the God of the Hebrews, by which all that he had was forfeited.
(3.) As justly as subjects receive the estates granted to them by their prince. God is the
sovereign proprietor of the earth, and the fulness thereof; and, if he take from one and
give to another, who may say unto him, What doest thou? It was by God's special order
and appointment that the Israelites did what they did, which was sufficient to justify

183. them, and bear them out; but what they did will by no means authorize others (who
cannot pretend to any such warrant) to do the same. Let us remember, [1.] That the King
of kings can do no wrong. [2.] That he will do right to those whom men injure, Psa_
146:7. Hence it is that the wealth of the sinner often proves to be laid up for the just,
Pro_13:22; Job_27:16, Job_27:17.
JAMISO , "called for Moses and Aaron — a striking fulfilment of the words of
Moses (Exo_11:8), and showing that they were spoken under divine suggestion.
K&D, "
CALVI , "31.And he called for Moses. It is not probable that God’s servants were
recalled into the presence of Pharaoh; but the sense of this passage must be sought
for in the prediction of Moses. Pharaoh, therefore, is said to have called them, when,
by sending to them his chief courtiers, he compelled their departure. And this is
sufficiently proved by the context, because it is immediately added, that the
Israelites were by the Egyptians compelled to go out: in haste. Therefore, although
Pharaoh never should have seen Moses from the time that he threatened him with
death if he came to him again, there is nothing absurd in saying that he called for
him when he sent his nobles to him with his command. The perturbation of an
alarmed and anxious person is expressed to the life in these words, — “Rise up, get
you forth, both ye and your children; go, serve the Lord; also take your flocks and
your herds, as ye have said.” For he takes no less precaution lest he should give any
occasion for delay, than he had before been diligent in bargaining. Whilst, then, he
hastily cuts off all objections, the change in the man betrays itself, for the same God
who had before hardened his iron heart has now broken it. Hence, too, that cry —
the signal of despair — “We be all dead men;” hence, too, their readiness to give
willingly of their substance, and to dress up in spoils those whom they had pillaged
before. or indeed does he without reason repeat that this favor proceeded from
divine inspiration, since there would never have been such liberality in robbers as
willingly to proffer whatever precious things their houses possessed, and to give
them to the Israelites, now ready to depart, whom they knew to be justly hostile to
them on account of so many injuries. And that the children of Israel should be so
prompt to obey, who before had been either slow, or inconstant, or sullen, or
rebellious, was brought about by the guidance of the Spirit, who turned their hearts
in a moment; since God well knew how to dispose opportunely all the springs of
action.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:31-32. Rise up, and get you forth — Pharaoh had told Moses
he should see his face no more, but now he sent for him; those will seek God in their
distress, who before had set him at defiance. Such a fright he was now in that he
gave orders by night for their discharge, fearing lest, if he delayed, he himself
should fall next. And that he sent them out, not as men hated (as the pagan
historians have represented this matter) but as men feared, is plain by his request to
them. Bless me also — Let me have your prayers, that I may not be plagued for
what is past when you are gone.

184. COFFMA , "Verses 31-36
"And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, get you forth from
among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve Jehovah, as ye
have said, Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and
bless me also. And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of
the land in haste; for they said, We are all dead men. And the people took their
dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their
clothes upon their shoulders. And the children of Israel did according to the word of
Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment: and Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that
they let them have what they asked, And they despoiled the Egyptians."
The fact of Pharaoh having previously vowed not to see Moses again is not at all
inconsistent with what is written here. The stubborn Pharaoh, following the death of
his first-born, SIMPLY CHA GED HIS MI D, deciding to follow the will of many
of his subordinates who had long wanted to get rid of the Israelites. Some critics,
however, find "another source,"[30] but it would be difficult indeed to find a poorer
excuse for such a finding than appears here. It is not another source which appears,
but a development in the story.
At last, Israel was free! The great drama of the Chosen People which had begun
more than four centuries earlier with the call of Abraham was now ready to unfold
on a much larger stage of action, but all of the details of God's wonderful promises
to this people were in place. The promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were now
to be fulfilled by the transfer of Israel into the land of Canaan, despite the fact that
a forty-year interval in the wilderness of wanderings still confronted them. They
had indeed become a mighty people, and there were already signs that such
expressions as "the sands of the seashore," and "the stars of heaven" were indeed
appropriate metaphors for the numbers of Abraham's "seed."
ote how carefully the sacred writer included the fulfillment of God's Word to
Abraham that Israel would depart from the land of their affliction with "great
substance." We have no way of knowing exactly HOW MUCH property they took
with them, but it must have been a phenomenal amount. ot only did they have all
of their flocks and herds, but they also were enriched by the jewels and raiment
given to them by the Egyptians. Esses declared that the gold alone would be worth
between fifteen and twenty million dollars today.[31] The truly significant thing
about this, however, is that God had foretold this very thing to Abraham nearly half
a millennium earlier! There is no intelligent understanding of these remarkable
writings as a patch-work collection of prior documents. The synchronization, the
mysterious correspondence of all these wonders that more than one thousand years
afterward were re-enacted and fulfilled in the deeds and teachings of the Great
Passover, and the overwhelming evidence of truth carried in every line of the holy
record - these things, and many others, place the Bible utterly above any possibility
of human origin. The words of this glorious chapter still speak to millions of
believers in Christ all over the world!

185. COKE, "Exodus 12:31. And he called for Moses and Aaron, &c.— See note on ch.
Exodus 10:29. Hence we see, how vain it is to contend against the Almighty. Sooner
or later the most obstinate must submit before him; and even an obdurate Pharaoh
prays for a blessing from him.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 31
THE DISMISSAL OF THE ISRAELITES.
(31) He called for Moses and Aaron.—This does not mean that Pharaoh summoned
them to his presence, but only that he sent a message to them. (See above, Exodus
11:8.) The messengers were undoubtedly chief officials; they “bowed themselves
down” before Moses, who was now recognised as “very great” (Exodus 11:3), and
delivered their master’s message, which granted in express terms all that Moses had
ever demanded. Pharaoh’s spirit was, for the time, thoroughly broken.
PARKER, ""And he called for Moses and Aaron by night."— Exodus 12:31.
What men are always doing.—It is not enough to have a religion or a conviction for
the daytime.—Our religious convictions must be large enough to include the whole
circle of existence.—Were life a summer day and one steady pulse of health, a
certain kind of religion might be made to do; were life one gloomy night and one
continued consciousness of pain, another kind of religion might be wanted. Were life
eternal youth or endless old age, such a condition would require special
treatment.—Life is a mixed quantity; darkness—light, youth—age, enthusiasm—
coldness, wealth—poverty; all these and infinitely more elements enter into its
composition; and only a religion at least as large as itself can come to such life with
any hope of doing it permanent good.—Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron by night;
ministers are most wanted when the darkness is deepest.—Darkness is always a
mystery to the superstitious mind.—Moses and Aaron are always prepared to go,
whether by night or by day; their message is always in season.— o invitation
addressed to ministers or churches should be declined, if there is in it the faintest
sign of sincerity.—A conversion wrought at night may be as good as a conversion
wrought at noonday.— icodemus went to Jesus by night, and the blessed Christ
showed the inquiring rabbi all the stars of God.—Do not put off sending until night;
begin early in the day.—A whole life consecrated to heavenly pursuits will drive
away the night, and it may be said of such a life as is said of the heavenly world,
"There is no night there."—God uses darkness as an instrument of fear.—The
ministry of Christ in the world would be incomplete if it did not appeal to the fear as
well as to the hope of man.—That Isaiah , indeed, the poorest of the appeals; but it
is essential in order to make up the completeness of the holy ministry, which seeks to
excite the attention and save the lives of men.
PETT, "Verses 31-36
The Final Farewell (Exodus 12:31-36).
Yahweh has delivered the final telling blow and Pharaoh tells Moses and Aaron that
very night that they may go with all that they have and worship Yahweh, and seeks

186. his right as their overlord to expect a blessing from their God. They thus depart
loaded with riches as the Egyptians, eager to see them go, pour treasures on them,
probably with the hope of placating Yahweh.
a Pharaoh calls Moses and Aaron by night and tells them all to go and serve
Yahweh and seeks a blessing for himself (Exodus 12:31-32).
b The Egyptians are urgent that they leave in haste because of the trail of death
(Exodus 12:33).
b The children of Israel take their unleavened dough (thus leaving in haste)
and all their domestic equipment (Exodus 12:34).
a They obtain jewels of silver and gold from the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35) in
accordance with the word of Moses, for Yahweh gives them favour in the eyes of the
Egyptians so that they give them all that they desire and they spoil the Egyptians.
(While Pharaoh was seeking a blessing for himself, Yahweh was ensuring a blessing
for His people).
The Command To Depart (Exodus 12:31-32)
Exodus 12:31-32
‘And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said, “Rise up, get yourselves out
from among my people, both you and the children of Israel, and go, serve Yahweh
as you have said. Take both your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be
gone. And bless me also.” ’
This last plague was too much even for Pharaoh. He now wanted nothing more than
to get Moses and Aaron away from his people as soon as possible. Possibly in spite of
his earlier statement he called them to him at his palace, or it may be that his words
were passed on through a high official, for he would himself be in mourning. And he
gave them the permission that they had been seeking, including all that Moses had
previously demanded (Exodus 10:9; Exodus 10:26). They could go and serve
Yahweh in the wilderness. And he goes so far as to ask Yahweh’s blessing on
himself. He has come a long way from his sarcastic question, “Who is Yahweh?”
(Exodus 5:2). ow he knows and seeks His benediction.
It was quite normal for kings to expect their tributaries to offer sacrifices on their
behalf as a sign of loyalty, and to seek blessing from their God. This was still not
permission to finally leave Egypt for good, but God knew what He was working
towards.
32 Take your flocks and herds, as you have said,
and go. And also bless me.”

187. BAR ES, "Bless me also - No words could show more strikingly the complete,
though temporary, submission of Pharaoh.
GILL, "Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said,.... Which they
had insisted upon should go with them, but he had refused, but now he is willing they
should go with them:
and be gone; out of his city and country in all haste:
and bless me also; or pray for me, as the Targum of Onkelos; pray the Lord to bestow
a blessing upon me also, as I have done well by you in suffering you to depart with your
whole families, flocks, and herds. The Targum of Jonathan is,"I desire nothing else of
you, only pray for me, that I die not;''and so Jarchi. As he found his firstborn, and the
heir to his crown and kingdom, was dead, he might justly fear it would be his case next,
and perhaps very soon; and therefore desires their prayers for him, that his life might be
spared.
JAMISO , "also take your flocks, etc. — All the terms the king had formerly
insisted on were now departed from; his pride had been effectually humbled. Appalling
judgments in such rapid succession showed plainly that the hand of God was against
him. His own family bereavement had so crushed him to the earth that he not only
showed impatience to rid his kingdom of such formidable neighbors, but even begged an
interest in their prayers.
COKE, "Exodus 12:32. And bless me also— That is, not only freely depart, but
pray for a blessing upon me and my people, at this dreadful hour of destruction;
and intreat the Lord to deliver us from the imminent danger of this plague.
ELLICOTT, "(32) And bless me also.—Here Pharaoh’s humiliation reaches its
extreme point. He is reduced by the terrible calamity of the last plague not only to
grant all the demands made of him freely, and without restriction, but to crave the
favour of a blessing from those whom he had despised, rebuked (Exodus 5:4),
thwarted, and finally driven from his presence under the threat of death (Exodus
10:28). Those with whom were the issues of life and death must, he felt, have the
power to bless or curse effectually.
33 The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and

188. leave the country. “For otherwise,” they said, “we
will all die!”
CLARKE, "The Egyptians were urgent upon the people - They felt much, they
feared more; and therefore wished to get immediately rid of a people on whose account
they found they were smitten with so many and such dreadful plagues.
GILL, "And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people,.... The people of Israel;
not using force, but strong entreaties, the most powerful arguments, and importunate
language they were masters of:
that they might send them out of the land in haste: this looks as if it was the
people about Pharaoh, his ministers and courtiers, they were pressing upon to dismiss
the Israelites at once, and to hasten their departure; or else Moses and Aaron, and the
elders of the people, to stir them up to a quick dispatch of their affairs, that they might
be soon rid of them; unless the sense is, that they were very solicitous and earnest with
the people, that they would get away out of the land as fast as they could:
for they said, we be all dead men; for their firstborn being all slain, they expected
that they themselves, and the rest of their families, would be struck with death next; and
this they feared would be the case in a very little time, if they did not depart:
for they had sufficient reason to convince them, that it was purely on their
account, and because they had not leave to go out of the land, that all the above
judgments, and particularly the last, were inflicted on them.
K&D, "Exo_12:33
“And Egypt urged the people strongly (‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ק‬ַ‫ז‬ ָ‫ח‬ to press hard, κατεβιάζοντο, lxx) to make
haste, to send them out of the land;” i.e., the Egyptians urged the Israelites to accelerate
their departure, “for they said (sc., to themselves), “We are all dead,” i.e., exposed to
death. So great was their alarm at the death of the first-born.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:33. The Egyptians were urgent — They were willing to make
all concessions, so they would but be gone; ransoming their lives, not only by
prayers, but by their most precious things. For they said, We be all dead men —
When death comes into our houses it is seasonable for us to think of our own
mortality.
ELLICOTT, "(33) The Egyptians were urgent.— ot only Pharaoh, but the
Egyptian nation generally was anxious for the immediate departure of the Israelites,
and expedited it in every way. This must greatly have facilitated their all setting
forth at once. It also accounts for the readiness of the Egyptians to part with their

189. “jewels” and “raiment” (Exodus 12:35).
PETT, "The People’s Departure and the Reaction of the Egyptians (Exodus 12:33-
36).
Exodus 12:33
‘And the Egyptians acted with great urgency towards the people to send them out of
the land as soon as possible, for they said “We are all dead men.”
The ordinary Egyptians and the bureaucrats were also eager to see the back of the
children of Israel. They had had enough. All their firstborn were dead. Soon they
might be included as well.
“We are all dead men.” This may be a rueful look at their firstborn children lying
dead in their beds, or may imply that they feared suffering the same fate themselves.
What had happened to one could happen to all. As the plagues had gone by they had
thought that things were so bad that they could not get worse. But they had got
worse. And now this was the worst of all. And they recognised that if they did not
get rid of the Israelites, it might get even worse still. Soon none might be left alive.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:33. At all events the Israelites had a right to understand the
dismission as an emancipation, although formally this right was not complete until
Pharaoh hostilely pursued them. Keil refers to Exodus 14:4-5. The report brought to
the king, that the people had fled, seems, however, to imply that in the mind of the
Egyptians there had been no thought of unconditional emancipation, but only of an
unconditional furlough. And when Pharaoh was disposed violently to take back
even this promise, that was a new instance of hardness of heart, the last and the
fatal one. We are all dead men: as it were, already dead. Expression of the greatest
consternation.
BI, "The Egyptians were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the
land.
Hastened out of Egypt
1. Note the reason of this urgency. Fear lest death overtake them all.
2. Note the utter selfishness of the motive. No true repentance in it.
3. Urgency is fitting when there is imminent danger.
4. There is the greatest need of urgency in every sinner’s case. Doom and death are at
hand. (Homiletic Review.)
The Israelites going out of Egyptian bondage; or, the freedom of the Church
I. That the Israelites were given their freedom by those who had long oppressed them;
and so the Church shall be freed by those who have long enslaved it.
II. That the Israelites, in availing themselves of their freedom, had to make many

190. temporary shifts; and so the Church, in stepping into liberty, will have to encounter
many perplexities.
III. That the Israelites, going into freedom, took with them all the wealth they could get
from the Egyptians; and so the Church, in entering upon its liberty, should avail itself of
all the valuables it can obtain from the world. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Borrowed from the Egyptians.
Borrowing from the enemy
I remember, when visiting Denmark some twenty years ago, I learned a little incident in
the history of a great Danish admiral. On one occasion, when commanding a little
sloop—it was before he was admiral—he had the audacity to engage an English frigate in
battle. They both fired away, but after a little time the captain of the frigate noticed that
the firing from the sloop ceased. A flag of truce was hoisted; a boat was lowered, and the
Danish captain came alongside. Addressing his opponent, he said, “Sir, our powder is all
done, and we have come to borrow some from you!” The devil has been using money
against the cause of God for many years; let us take it from him, and turn his guns
against himself. (Dr. Sinclair Patterson.)
34 So the people took their dough before the yeast
was added, and carried it on their shoulders in
kneading troughs wrapped in clothing.
BAR ES, "Kneadingtroughs - (Compare the margin and Deu_28:5). The troughs
were probably small wooden bowls in which the cakes when baked were preserved for
use. The Hebrews used their outer garment, or mantle, in the same way as the Bedouins
at present, who make a bag of the voluminous folds of their burnous. See Rth_3:15; 2Ki_
4:39.
CLARKE, "The people took their dough before it was leavened, etc. - There
was no time now to make any regular preparation for their departure, such was the
universal hurry and confusion. The Israelites could carry but little of their household
utensils with them; but some, such as they kneaded their bread and kept their meal in,
they were obliged to carry with them. The kneading troughs of the Arabs are
comparatively small wooden bowls, which, after kneading their bread in, serve them as
dishes out of which they eat their victuals. And as to these being bound up in their
clothes, no more may be intended than their wrapping them up in their long, loose

191. garments, or in what is still used among the Arabs, and called hykes, which is a long kind
of blanket, something resembling a highland plaid, in which they often carry their
provision, wrap themselves by day, and sleep at night. Dr. Shaw has been particular in
his description of this almost entire wardrobe of an Arab. He says they are of different
sizes and of different qualities, but generally about six yards in length, and five or six feet
broad. He supposes that what we call Ruth’s veil, Rth_3:15, was a hyke, and that the
same is to be understood of the clothes of the Israelites mentioned in this verse. See his
Travels, p. 224, 4th edition.
GILL, "And the people took their dough before it was leavened,.... They had
that evening mixed their flour with water, and made it into dough, but had put no leaven
into it; and the Egyptians being so very earnest to have them gone, they stayed not to put
any leaven into it:
but their kneadingtroughs, or rather "their dough":
being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders; for it is not likely that
their troughs should be wrapped up in the skirts of their garments; but their dough
might, if their clothes were like the hykes of the Arabs now, as Dr. Shaw (z) thinks they
were, and which are pretty much like the plaids of the Scotch, and which are large
enough for such a purpose; as even the veil which Ruth wore held six measures of barley,
Rth_3:15 and so these clothes of theirs, like the Arabs' hykes, and the Scotch plaids,
might be so made, that large lumps of dough being bound up in them might be thrown
over their shoulders, and so carried by them when they journeyed.
JAMISO , "people took ... their kneading-troughs — Having lived so long in
Egypt, they must have been in the habit of using the utensils common in that country.
The Egyptian kneading-trough was a bowl of wicker or rush work, and it admitted of
being hastily wrapped up with the dough in it and slung over the shoulder in their hykes
or loose upper garments.
K&D, "Exo_12:34-36
This urgency of the Egyptians compelled the Israelites to take the dough, which they
were probably about to bake for their journey, before it was leavened, and also their
kneading-troughs bound up in their clothes (cloths) upon their shoulders. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫,שׂ‬ ᅷµάτιον,
was a large square piece of stuff or cloth, worn above the under-clothes, and could be
easily used for tying up different things together. The Israelites had intended to leaven
the dough, therefore, as the command to eat unleavened bread for seven days had not
been given to them yet. But under the pressure of necessity they were obliged to content
themselves with unleavened bread, or, as it is called in Deu_16:3, “the bread of
affliction,” during the first days of their journey. But as the troubles connected with their
departure from Egypt were merely the introduction to the new life of liberty and grace,
so according to the counsel of God the bread of affliction was to become a holy food to
Israel; the days of their exodus being exalted by the Lord into a seven days' feast, in
which the people of Jehovah were to commemorate to all ages their deliverance from the
oppression of Egypt. The long-continued eating of unleavened bread, on account of the

192. pressure of circumstances, formed the historical preparation for the seven days' feast of
Mazzoth, which was instituted afterwards. Hence this circumstance is mentioned both
here and in Exo_12:39. On Exo_12:35, Exo_12:36, see Exo_3:21-22.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:34. The people took their dough — Perhaps the Hebrew
word here used had better be rendered flour, as it is 2 Samuel 13:8; for if they had
time to make it into paste, it seems they would also have had time to leaven it. Their
kneading-troughs — The word thus rendered is translated store, Deuteronomy
28:5; Deuteronomy 28:17. And as kneading-troughs are not things which travellers
are wont to carry with them, it seems more natural to understand it of their flour,
grain, or dough.
COKE, "Exodus 12:34. The people took their dough before it was leavened— Or,
more properly, not yet leavened, or which had not yet been leavened; i.e. their
dough unleavened, according to the immediate order of God; the vessels in which
they were used to knead their dough being hastily bound up in their garments, and
cast over their shoulders. The word which we render dough, ‫בצק‬ batzek, according
to Parkhurst, means meal moistened with water; paste, or dough unleavened. This
dough, we are told, was carried away by the Israelites in their kneading-troughs on
their shoulders. ow an honest thoughtful countryman, who knows how
cumbersome our kneading-troughs are, and how much less important than many
other utensils, may be led to wonder at this, and find a difficulty in accounting for it.
But his wonder perhaps may cease, when he comes to understand, that the vessels
which the Arabs of that country make use of for kneading the unleavened cakes that
they prepare for those who travel in this very desert, are only small wooden bowls;
and that they seem to use no other in their own tents for that purpose or any other:
these bowls being used by them for kneading their bread, and afterwards for
serving up their provisions when cooked: for then it will appear, that nothing could
be more convenient than kneading-troughs of this sort for the Israelites in their
journey. I am, however, a little doubtful, whether these were the things which Moses
meant by the word which our version renders kneading-troughs; since it seems to
me, that the Israelites had made a provision of corn sufficient for their consumption
for about a month, and that they were preparing to bake all this at once: now, their
own little bowls, in which they were accustomed daily to knead the bread they
wanted for a single day, could not contain all this dough; nor could they well carry a
number of these things, procured from the Egyptians for the present occasion, with
them. That they had furnished themselves with corn sufficient for a month, appears
from their not wanting bread till they came into the wilderness of Sin. That the
Eastern people commonly bake their bread every day as they want it, appears from
the history of the patriarch Abraham: and that they were preparing to bake bread
sufficient for this journey at once, seems most probable from the universal hurry
they were in, and from the much greater conveniences for baking in Egypt than in
the wilderness; which are such, that, though Dr. Shaw's attendants sometimes
baked in the desert, he thought fit, notwithstanding, to carry biscuit with him; and
Thevenot mentions his doing the same. The Israelites then could not well carry such
a quantity of dough in those wooden bowls, which they used for kneading their
bread in common. And what is still a further proof, Dr. Pococke tells us, in his

193. account of the diet and utensils of the inhabitants of Egypt, that the Arabs actually
carry their dough in something else; for, after having spoken of their copper dishes
put one within another, and of their wooden bowls, in which they make their bread,
and which complete the kitchen-furniture of an Arab, even where he is settled; he
gives us a description of a round leather coverlid, which they lay upon the ground,
and which serves them to eat off. It has, says he, hooks round it, by which it is
drawn together with a chain, which has a hook fastened to it to hang it up by. This,
he observes, is drawn together; and that sometimes they carry in it their meal, made
into dough; in this manner they bring it full of bread; and when the repast is over,
carry it away at once, with all that is left. Whether this utensil is rather to be
understood by the word translated kneading-troughs, than the Arab wooden bowl,
is left with the reader to determine. I would only remark, that there is nothing in the
other three passages, in which the word occurs, to contradict this explanation. These
passages are, Exodus 8:3 and Deuteronomy 5:17 in the two last of which places it is
translated store. Observations.
In their clothes upon their shoulders— These clothes were slight thin garments,
resembling those which the Arabs at this day wear, and which they call hykes.
"These hykes," says Dr. Shaw, "are of various sizes, and of different qualities and
fineness. The usual size of them is six yards long, and five or six broad, serving the
Kabyle and Arab for a complete dress in the day: and, as they sleep in their
raiments, as the Israelites did of old, Deuteronomy 24:13 it serves likewise for their
bed and covering by night. It is a loose but troublesome garment, being frequently
disconcerted and falling upon the ground: so that the person who wears it, is
continually obliged to tuck it up, and fold it anew about his body. This shews the
great use there is of a girdle, whenever they are concerned in any active
employment; and, in consequence thereof, the force of the Scripture injunction,
alluding thereunto, of having our loins girded, in order to set about it. The method
of wearing these garments, with the use they are at other times put to, in serving for
coverlids to their beds, might induce us to take the finer sorts of them, at least such
as are worn by the ladies and persons of distinction, to be the peplus of the ancients.
Ruth's veil, which held six measures of barley, (Ruth 3:15.) might be of the like
fashion, and have served extraordinarily for the same use: as were also the clothes (
τα ιµατια, the upper garments) of the Israelites, mentioned in this verse, wherein
they folded up their kneading-troughs; as the Moors, Arabs, and Kabyles do, to this
day, things of the like burden and incumbrance in their hykes. It is very probable
likewise, that the loose folding garment, the toga of the Romans, was of this kind:
for, if the drapery of their statues is to instruct us, this is actually no other than the
dress of the Arabs, when they appear in their hykes. The plaid of the Highlanders in
Scotland is the very same." Travels, p. 225.
PETT, "Exodus 12:34
‘And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs
being bound up in their clothes on their shoulders.’
A homely description confirming that all leaven had been got rid of. All they now
had was unleavened dough. The fact that they felt that they could not wait for it to

194. leaven illustrates the speed at which they left. All this confirms that the getting rid of
the leaven was a specific act carried out in fulfilment of Yahweh’s command as
otherwise there must have been some leavened bread still available. This was in
obedience to Exodus 12:15.
The description of the kneadingtroughs on the shoulder suggests an eyewitness
account. The purpose of mentioning them was to show that they were not in use.
The bearing of such things in the loose clothing around the shoulders is still
practised among Arabs.
TRAPP, "Exodus 12:34 And the people took their dough before it was leavened,
their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
Ver. 34. Took their dough, &c., upon their shoulders.] ot upon their camels, which,
saith Aben Erza, were laden with the precious things borrowed of the Egyptians.
Rab. Solomon saith, it was to show their cheerfulness in obeying the command of
God. See a better reason afterwards, in Exodus 12:39.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:34. And the people took their dough, before it was leavened.
That is (according to Keil): “The Israelites intended to leaven the dough, because
the command to eat unleavened bread for seven days had not yet been made known
to them.” But the text evidently means to say just the opposite of this: they carried,
in accordance with the command, dough which was entirely free from leaven. They
had already put enough for seven days into the baking-pans, and carried these on
their shoulders, wrapped up in their outer garments, or rather in wrapping cloths,
such as might be used for mantles or wallets.
Exodus 12:35-36. Vid. Exodus 3:21 and Comm. on Genesis, p83.
35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and
asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold
and for clothing.
BAR ES, "Borrowed - “Asked of.” See Exo_3:22 note.

195. CLARKE, "They borrowed of the Egyptians - See Clarke’s note on Exo_3:22,
where the very exceptionable term borrow is largely explained.
GILL, "And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses,....
Exo_3:22.
and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment; or "they asked" (a) them of the Egyptians to give them them, which they
readily did to get rid of them; for upon their being urgent with the Israelites to be gone
in haste, they might reply, that they were not provided with things suitable for a journey,
and therefore requested such things of them, which they at once freely consented to; See
Gill on Exo_3:22, Exo_11:2, Exo_11:3.
JAMISO , "children of Israel borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver —
When the Orientals go to their sacred festivals, they always put on their best jewels. The
Israelites themselves thought they were only going three days’ journey to hold a feast
unto the Lord, and in these circumstances it would be easy for them to borrow what was
necessary for a sacred festival. But borrow conveys a wrong meaning. The word
rendered borrow signifies properly to ask, demand, require. The Israelites had been
kept in great poverty, having received little or no wages. They now insisted on full
remuneration for all their labor, and it was paid in light and valuable articles adapted for
convenient carriage.
K&D, "
COKE, "Exodus 12:35. They borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, &c.— This
was the immediate command of God himself, ch. Exodus 3:22 and, therefore, we
might reasonably conclude, could not be any act of injustice, as proceeding from the
great Fountain of right and truth: and, perhaps, the only reason which has caused
such a suspicion, is the giving the improper idea of borrowing to the original word,
‫שׁאל‬ sheal, which strictly and properly signifies to ask, demand, or require, as the
best expositors have fully shewn: and it appears, that the temper of the Egyptians
was such at the time of the departure of the Israelites, that they were very ready to
grant their requests, and to comply with all their demands; which, their own
consciences must have assured them, were just and equitable; as the Israelites had
the fairest claim to a full retribution for all the hardships they had suffered, and for
all the services they had done in Egypt for the space of a hundred and forty years. It
has been observed, that this passage of Scripture, thus rightly understood, reflects a
beauty on the Divine conduct, and is a proof of the sacred inspiration of the
Pentateuch; for, it being evident that the people did not borrow the jewels, but
asked the Egyptians to give them, and did accordingly receive them as presents; this
particularly manifests the glory and goodness of Jehovah, who gives his own people
favour in the eyes of their greatest enemies, and causes them to receive the most

196. generous instances of respect from a people, among whom they had been so long
enslaved and so ill treated. The original word, which we render jewels, would be
rendered more properly vessels.
PETT, "Exodus 12:35-36
‘And the children of Israel did as Moses had said, and they asked of the Egyptians
jewels of silver and jewels of gold and clothing. And Yahweh gave the people favour
in the eyes of the Egyptians so that they let them have what they asked. And they
spoiled the Egyptians.’
Compare for this Exodus 4:21-22; Exodus 11:2-3. It was important that the people
depart as victors to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh. The children of Israel
possibly knew that they were leaving for good for that was what Yahweh had
promised right at the beginning (Exodus 3:8; Exodus 3:16), although it may be that
at this stage they were still not sure and simply obeying Yahweh’s commands. What
the Egyptians thought we are not told. They were probably so keen to get rid of
them that they did not care. It was only Pharaoh with his insatiable demand for
slave labourers who thought at this stage in terms of their returning.
The jewels of silver and gold and the splendid clothing would be given with a view
to pleasing Yahweh at the feast in the wilderness, and placating Him. It was to be
for His treasure house. Or it may be that a cowed people were just happy to pour
the riches on them hoping that it might please Yahweh and thus save them from
further plagues. Either way the children of Israel departed with the spoils of war.
ote the interesting irony that Pharaoh had sought a blessing on himself, which
would include a wish for his prosperity, while Yahweh was ensuring the prosperity
of His own people.
So all having been done as Yahweh had commanded, they were ready to go on their
way. Their permission was to go into the wilderness to serve Yahweh. But Yahweh’s
intention was that they leave Egypt permanently as He had promised and soon
Pharaoh would panic and chase them with his army, breaking his treaty with
Yahweh and releasing them from any obligation to return.
36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably
disposed toward the people, and they gave them
what they asked for; so they plundered the
Egyptians.

197. BAR ES, "Lent - Or gave. The word in the Hebrew means simply “granted their
request.” Whether the grant is made as a loan, or as a gift, depends in every instance
upon the context. Here the word “spoiled” ought to be regarded as conclusive that the
grant was a gift, a moderate remuneration for long service, and a compensation for cruel
wrongs.
GILL, "And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians,....
Their minds were disposed towards them, and their hearts were inclined to grant their
request, and did grant it:
so they lent unto them: such things as they required; or "they gave unto them" (b);
made presents of them freely to them; and so Josephus says (c), that they honoured
them with gifts:
and they spoiled the Egyptians; stripped them of their substance and riches, of their
most valuable things; in doing which they were in no wise criminal, since they did it by
the direction and authority of God, who has a right to dispose of all the things in the
world; and to take of them from one, and give to another, as he pleases; nor was any
injustice done to the Egyptians, who owed all this, and perhaps abundantly more, to the
Israelites, for the labour and service they had served them in for many years; besides,
they were the avowed enemies of Israel, and the Lord had now put himself at the head of
the armies of Israel, and was contending with them, and they with him, who should
overcome; and this was doing no other than what, acceding to the law of nations, is
lawful to be done in time of war; to spoil, plunder, and distress an enemy, in whatsoever
way it can be done. And thus the promise made to Abraham, that his posterity should
come out with great substance, was fulfilled, Gen_15:14. This circumstance is taken
notice of by some Heathen writers, as Artapanus (d); who says they borrowed many cups
of the Egyptians, and not a little raiment, besides a great quantity of other treasure and
riches; and so Ezekiel the tragedian (e) speaks of a vast deal of gold and silver, raiment,
and other things, the Israelitish women had of the Egyptians at their departure, and who
relates the history of Moses and the above plagues very agreeably to the sacred writings.
JAMISO , "the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians —
Such a dread of them was inspired into the universal minds of the Egyptians, that
whatever they asked was readily given.
spoiled the Egyptians — The accumulated earnings of many years being paid them
at this moment, the Israelites were suddenly enriched, according to the promise made to
Abraham (Gen_15:14), and they left the country like a victorious army laden with spoil
(Psa_105:37; Eze_39:10).
COKE, "Exodus 12:36. They spoiled the Egyptians— So long ago as in the time of

198. Abraham, this event had been foretold, Genesis 15:14. See Psalms 105:37. See also
Waterland's Scripture vindicated, par. 2: p. 9.
REFLECTIO S.—Observe,
1. Heavy the dreadful stroke descends. At midnight the destroyer comes: one awful
groan awakens every family, and one united dolorous cry echoes through the land.
What guilty sinner need not tremble at the thought of such a dread surprise? He
that closes his eyes each night upon his bed in unrepented sin, is in danger of lifting
them up before morning in the torments of hell.
2. Pharaoh hastens to thrust them out. Death is at his door: he trembles for himself;
at midnight they must be gone; he cannot rest till they have departed: and now he
seeks their blessing, whom late with imprecations he had driven from his presence
on pain of death. ote; The day is coming, when men will value the prayers of those
whom once they reviled. Pharaoh's people are in the same mind. The death which
had begun, strikes them with a panic, lest it should be universal. ote; othing
shocks a sinner so much, as near views of death: but whether they see it or no, every
impenitent sinner is a dead man.
3. To get rid of their company, the Egyptians are glad to part with their gold, their
jewels, and vessels. When life is at stake, our goods appear insignificant things.
Israel thus, as servants, receive their wages; and, as conquerors, divide the spoil. It
was a high act of justice from God, and they had his special order for their
proceedings.
37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to
Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand
men on foot, besides women and children.
BAR ES, "Rameses - See Exo_1:11 note. Rameses was evidently the place of
general rendezvous, well adapted for that purpose as the principal city of Goshen. The
Israelites were probably settled in considerable numbers in and about it. Pharaoh with
his army and court were at that time near the frontier, and Rameses, where a large
garrison was kept, was probably the place where the last interview with Moses occurred.
The first part of the journey appears to have followed the course of the ancient canal.

199. The site of Succoth cannot be exactly determined, but it lay about halfway between
Rameses and Etham Exo_13:20. The name Succoth (i. e. “tents” or “booths” in Hebrew),
may have been given by the Israelites, but the same, or a similar word, occurs in
Egyptian in connection with the district.
600,000 - This includes all the males who could march. The total number of the
Israelites should therefore be calculated from the males above twelve or fourteen, and
would therefore amount to somewhat more than two millions. This is not an excessive
population for Goshen, nor does it exceed a reasonable estimate of the increase of the
Israelites, including their numerous dependants.
CLARKE, "From Rameses to Succoth - Rameses appears to have been another
name for Goshen, though it is probable that there might have been a chief city or village
in that land, where the children of Israel rendezvoused previously to their departure,
called Rameses. As the term Succoth signifies booths or tents, it is probable that this
place was so named from its being the place of the first encampment of the Israelites.
Six hundred thousand - That is, There was this number of effective men, twenty
years old and upwards, who were able to go out to war. But this was not the whole
number, and therefore the sacred writer says they were about 600,000; for when the
numbers were taken about thirteen months after this they were found to be six hundred
and three thousand five hundred and fifty, without reckoning those under twenty years
of age, or any of the tribe of Levi; see Num_1:45, Num_1:46. But besides those on foot,
or footmen, there were no doubt many old and comparatively infirm persons, who rode
on camels, horses, or asses, besides the immense number of women and children, which
must have been at least three to one of the others; and the mixed multitude, Exo_12:38,
probably of refugees in Egypt, who came to sojourn there, because of the dearth which
had obliged them to emigrate from their own countries; and who now, seeing that the
hand of Jehovah was against the Egyptians and with the Israelites, availed themselves of
the general consternation, and took their leave of Egypt, choosing Israel’s God for their
portion, and his people for their companions. Such a company moving at once, and
emigrating from their own country, the world never before nor since witnessed; no
doubt upwards of two millions of souls, besides their flocks and herds, even very much
cattle; and what but the mere providence of God could support such a multitude, and in
the wilderness, too, where to this day the necessaries of life are not to be found?
Suppose we take them at a rough calculation thus, two millions will be found too small
a number.
Effective men, 20 years old and upward 600,000
Two-thirds of whom we may suppose were married,
in which case their wives would amount to 400,000
These, on an average, might have 5 children under 20
years of age, an estimate which falls considerably
short of the number of children each family must have
averaged in order to produce from 75 persons, in A.
M. 2298, upwards of 600,000 effective men in A. M.
2494, a period of only 196 years 2,000,000
The Levites, who probably were not included among
the effective men 45,000
Their wives 33,000

200. Their children 165,000
The mixed multitude probably not less than 20,000
_____________________________________
_______
________
__
Total 3,263,000
Besides a multitude of old and infirm persons who would be obliged to ride on camels
and asses, etc., and who must, from the proportion that such bear to the young and
healthy, amount to many thousands more! Exclude even the Levites and their families,
and upwards of three millions will be left.
“In Num_3:39 the male Levites, aged one month and upwards, are reckoned 22,000,
perhaps the females did not much exceed this number, say 23,000, and 500 children,
under one month, will make 45,500.” - Anon.
Had not Moses the fullest proof of his Divine mission, he never could have put himself
at the head of such an immense concourse of people, who, without the most especial and
effective providence, must all have perished for lack of food. This single circumstance,
unconnected with all others, is an ample demonstration of the Divine mission of Moses,
and of the authenticity and Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch. To suppose that an
impostor, or one pretending only to a Divine call, could have ventured to place himself at
the head of such an immense body of people, to lead them through a trackless
wilderness, utterly unprovided for such a journey, to a land as yet in the possession of
several powerful nations whom they must expel before they could possess the country,
would have implied such an extreme of madness and folly as has never been witnessed in
an individual, and such a blind credulity in the multitude as is unparalleled in the annals
of mankind! The succeeding stupendous events proved that Moses had the authority of
God to do what he did; and the people had at least such a general conviction that he had
this authority, that they implicitly followed his directions, and received their law from
his mouth.
GILL, "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth,....
Rameses was a place in Goshen, or rather the land of Goshen, from whence the country
was so called; See Gill on Gen_47:11. The Targum of Jonathan takes it to be Pelusium, or
Sin, now called Tinah, formerly the strength of Egypt, and which lay at the entrance of it,
and says it was one hundred and thirty miles to Succoth; and Jarchi says one hundred
and twenty. But the distance between these two places was not so great; for Succoth
from Rameses it is computed was eight miles (f) only. The latter place is so called by
anticipation; for it was now a desert, as Josephus (g) says, which he calls Latopolis, but
had its name Succoth from the children of Israel pitching their tents there; for the word
signifies tents or tabernacles. The number of the children of Israel when they came out
of Egypt
were about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, besides children;
and which is confirmed by the account that Chaeremon (h) the Heathen gives, who
makes the number of those drove out of Egypt, as he calls them, 250,000; and says that
when they came to Pelusium, they found there 380,000 left there by Amenophis; which
makes in all 630,000. And so Philo the Jew says (i), they were above 600,000, besides
old men, children, and women, that could not easily be numbered; and the word "about"

201. will admit of it, since it may be used not to diminish, but to increase the number; and it
is certain that in the second year after they were come out of Egypt, their number was
600,550 without the Levites, who were not numbered; and they that were numbered
were such as were twenty years old and upward, and able to go forth to war, Num_1:9
and such were those here, as Jarchi observes; so that if there were 600,000 men of
twenty years old and upwards, able to bear arms, besides women, children, and old men,
it may well be thought that in all there were no less than near two millions and a half;
for, according to the ordinary proportion allowed in other nations of four to one between
the number of the whole people in a nation, and those men fit to bear arms, that the
number of the Israelites alone, of all ages and sexes which went out of Egypt along with
Moses, will amount to 2,400,000 souls (j); which was a prodigious increase of seventy
persons in little more than two hundred years, and a most marvellous thing it was, that
in so large a number of persons there was not one feeble among them, Psa_105:37.
HE RY 37-42, "Here is the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt; having
obtained their dismission, they set forward without delay, and did not defer to a more
convenient season. Pharaoh was now in a good mind; but they had reason to think he
would not long continue so, and therefore it was no time to linger. We have here an
account, 1. Of their number, about 600,000 men (Exo_12:37), besides women and
children, which I think, we cannot suppose to make less than 1,200,000 more. What a
vast increase was this, to arise from seventy souls in little more than 200 years' time! See
the power and efficacy of that blessing, when God commands it, Be fruitful and multiply.
This was typical of the multitudes that were brought into the gospel church when it was
first founded; so mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed. 2. Of their retinue
(Exo_12:38): A mixed multitude went up with them, hangers on to that great family,
some perhaps willing to leave their country, because it was laid waste by the plagues, and
to seek their fortune, as we say, with the Israelites; others went out of curiosity, to see
the solemnities of Israel's sacrifice to their God, which had been so much talked of, and
expecting to see some glorious appearances of their God to them in the wilderness,
having seen such glorious appearances of their God for them in the field of Zoan, Psa_
78:12. Probably the greatest part of this mixed multitude were but a rude unthinking
mob, that followed the crowd they knew not why; we afterwards find that they proved a
snare to them (Num_11:4), and it is probable that when, soon afterwards, they
understood that the children of Israel were to continue forty years in the wilderness,
they quitted them, and returned to Egypt. Note, There were always those among the
Israelites that were not Israelites, and there are still hypocrites in the church, who make
a deal of mischief, but will be shaken off at last. 3. Of their effects. They had with them
flocks and herds, even very much cattle. This is taken notice of because it was long
before Pharaoh would give them leave to remove their effects, which were chiefly cattle,
Gen_46:32. 4. Of the provision made for the camp, which was very poor and slender.
They brought some dough with them out of Egypt in their knapsacks, Exo_12:34. They
had prepared to bake, the next day, in order to their removal, understanding it was very
near; but, being hastened away sooner than they thought of, by some hours, they took
the dough as it was, unleavened; when they came to Succoth, their first stage, they baked
unleavened cakes, and, though these were of course insipid, yet the liberty they were
brought into made this the most joyful meal they had ever eaten in their lives. Note, The
servants of God must not be slaves to their appetites, nor solicitous to wind up all the
delights of sense to their highest pitch. We should be willing to take up with dry bread,
nay, with unleavened bread, rather than neglect or delay any service we have to do for
God, as those whose meat and drink it is to do his will. 5. Of the date of this great event:

202. it was just 430 years from the promise made to Abraham (as the apostle explains it, Gal_
3:17) at his first coming into Canaan, during all which time the children of Israel, that is,
the Hebrews, the distinguished chosen seed, were sojourners in a land that was not
theirs, either Canaan or Egypt. So long the promise God made to Abraham of a
settlement lay dormant and unfulfilled, but now, at length, it revived, and things began
to work towards the accomplishment of it. The first day of the march of Abraham's seed
towards Canaan was just 430 years (it should seem to a day) from the promise made to
Abraham, Gen_12:2, I will make of thee a great nation. See how punctual God is to his
time; though his promises be not performed quickly, they will be accomplished in their
season. 6. Of the memorableness of it: It is a night to be much observed, Exo_12:42. (1.)
The providences of that first night were very observable; memorable was the destruction
of the Egyptians, and the deliverance of the Israelites by it; God herein made himself
taken notice of. (2.) The ordinances of that night, in the annual return of it, were to be
carefully observed: This is that night of the Lord, that remarkable night, to be celebrated
in all generations. Note, The great things God does for his people are not to be a nine
days' wonder, as we say, but the remembrance of them is to be perpetuated throughout
all ages, especially the work of our redemption by Christ. This first passover-night was a
night of the Lord much to be observed; but the last passover-night, in which Christ was
betrayed (and in which the passover, with the rest of the ceremonial institutions, was
superseded and abolished), was a night of the Lord much more to be observed, when a
yoke heavier than that of Egypt was broken from off our necks, and a land better than
that of Canaan set before us. That was a temporal deliverance to be celebrated in their
generation; this is an eternal redemption to be celebrated in the praises of glorious
saints, world without end.
JAMISO , "The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses — now generally
identified with the ancient Heroopolis, and fixed at the modern Abu-Keisheid. This
position agrees with the statement that the scene of the miraculous judgments against
Pharaoh was “in the field of Zoan” [Psa_78:12, Psa_78:43]. And it is probable that, in
expectation of their departure, which the king on one pretext or another delayed, the
Israelites had been assembled there as a general rendezvous. In journeying from
Rameses to Palestine, there was a choice of two routes - the one along the shores of the
Mediterranean to El-Arish, the other more circuitous round the head of the Red Sea and
the desert of Sinai. The latter Moses was directed to take (Exo_13:17).
to Succoth — that is, booths, probably nothing more than a place of temporary
encampment. The Hebrew word signifies a covering or shelter formed by the boughs of
trees; and hence, in memory of this lodgment, the Israelites kept the feast of tabernacles
yearly in this manner.
six hundred thousand ... men — It appears from Num_1:3 that the enumeration
is of men above twenty years of age. Assuming, what is now ascertained by statistical
tables, that the number of males above that age is as nearly as possible the half of the
total number of males, the whole male population of Israel, on this computation, would
amount to 1,200,000; and adding an equal number for women and children, the
aggregate number of Israelites who left Egypt would be 2,400,000.
K&D, "Departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt. - The starting-point was
Raëmses, from which they proceeded to Succoth (Exo_12:37), thence to Etham at the
end of the desert (Exo_13:20), and from that by a curve to Hachiroth, opposite to the

203. Red Sea, from which point they passed through the sea (Exo_14:2, Exo_14:21.). Now, if
we take these words simply as they stand, Israel touched the border of the desert of
Arabia by the second day, and on the third day reached the plain of Suez and the Red
Sea. But they could not possibly have gone so far, if Raëmses stood upon the site of the
modern Belbeis. For though the distance from Belbeis to Suez by the direct road past
“Rejûm el Khail is only a little more than 15 geographical miles, and a caravan with
camels could make the journey in two days, this would be quite impossible for a whole
nation travelling with wives, children, cattle, and baggage. Such a procession could never
have reached Etham, on the border of the desert, on their second day's march, and then
on the third day, by a circuitous course “of about a day's march in extent,” have arrived
at the plain of Suez between Ajiruud and the sea. This is admitted by Kurtz, who
therefore follows v. Raumer in making a distinction between a stage and a day's journey,
on the ground that ‫ע‬ ַ ַ‫מ‬ signifies the station or place of encampment, and not a day's
journey. But the word neither means station nor place of encampment. It is derived from
‫ע‬ ַ‫ס‬ָ‫נ‬ to tear out (sc., the pegs of the tent), hence to take down the tent; and denotes
removal from the place of encampment, and the subsequent march (cf. Num_33:1).
Such a march might indeed embrace more than a day's journey; but whenever the
Israelites travelled more than a day before pitching their tents, it is expressly mentioned
(cf. Num_10:33, and Num_33:8, with Exo_15:22). These passages show very clearly
that the stages from Raëmses to Succoth, thence to Etham, and then again to Hachiroth,
were a day's march each. The only question is, whether they only rested for one night at
each of these places. The circumstances under which the Israelites took their departure
favour the supposition, that they would get out of the Egyptian territory as quickly as
possible, and rest no longer than was absolutely necessary; but the gathering of the
whole nation, which was not collected together in one spot, as in a camp, at the time of
their departure, and still more the confusion, and interruptions of various kinds, that
would inevitably attend the migration of a whole nation, render it probable that they
rested longer than one night at each of the places named. This would explain most
simply, how Pharaoh was able to overtake them with his army at Hachiroth. But
whatever our views on this point may be, so much is certain, that Israel could not have
reached the plain of Suez in a three days' march from Belbeis with the circuitous route
by Etham, and therefore that their starting-point cannot have been Belbeis, but must
have been in the neighbourhood of Heröopolis; and there are other things that favour
this conclusion. There is, first, the circumstance that Pharaoh sent for Moses the very
same night after the slaying of the first-born, and told him to depart. Now the
Pentateuch does not mention Pharaoh's place of abode, but according to Psa_78:12 it
was Zoan, i.e., Tanis, on the eastern bank of the Tanitic arm of the Nile. Abu Keishib (or
Heroopolis) is only half as far from Tanis as Belbeis, and the possibility of Moses
appearing before the king and returning to his own people between midnight and the
morning is perfectly conceivable, on the supposition that Moses was not in Heroopolis
itself, but was staying in a more northerly place, with the expectation that Pharaoh
would send a message to him, or send for him, after the final blow. Again, Abu Keishib
was on the way to Gaza; so that the Israelites might take the road towards the country of
the Philistines, and then, as this was not the road they were to take, turn round at God's
command by the road to the desert (Exo_13:17-18). Lastly, Etham could be reached in
two days from the starting-point named.
(Note: The different views as to the march of the Israelites from Raemses to their
passage through the sea, are to be found in the Studien und Kritiken, 1850, pp.
328ff., and in Kurtz, ii. pp. 361ff.)

204. On the situation of Succoth and Etham, see Exo_13:20.
The Israelites departed, “about 600,000 on foot that were men.” ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫ר‬ (as in Num_
11:21, the infantry of an army) is added, because they went out as an army (Exo_12:41),
and none are numbered but those who could bear arms, from 20 years old and upwards;
and ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ְ ַ‫ה‬ because of ‫ף‬ ַ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ד‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ‫,ל‬ “beside the little ones,” which follows. ‫ף‬ ַ‫ט‬ is used here in its
broader sense, as in Gen_47:12; Num_32:16, Num_32:24, and applies to the entire
family, including the wife and children, who did not travel on foot, but on beasts of
burden and in carriages (Gen_31:17). The number given is an approximative one. The
numbering at Sinai gave 603,550 males of 20 years old and upwards (Num_1:46), and
22,000 male Levites of a month old and upwards (Num_3:39). Now if we add the wives
and children, the total number of the people may have been about two million souls. The
multiplication of the seventy souls, who went down with Jacob to Egypt, into this vast
multitude, is not so disproportionate to the 430 years of their sojourn there, as to render
it at all necessary to assume that the numbers given included not only the descendants of
the seventy souls who went down with Jacob, but also those of “several thousand man-
servants and maid-servants” who accompanied them. For, apart from the fact, that we
are not warranted in concluding, that because Abraham had 318 fighting servants, the
twelve sons of Jacob had several thousand, and took them with them into Egypt; even if
the servants had been received into the religious fellowship of Israel by circumcision,
they cannot have reckoned among the 600,000 who went out, for the simple reason that
they are not included in the seventy souls who went down to Egypt; and in Exo_1:5 the
number of those who came out is placed in unmistakeable connection with the number
of those who went in. If we deduct from the 70 souls the patriarch Jacob, his 12 sons,
Dinah, Asher's daughter Zerah, the three sons of Levi, the four grandsons of Judah and
Benjamin, and those grandsons of Jacob who probably died without leaving any male
posterity, since their descendants are not mentioned among the families of Israel, there
remain 41 grandsons of Jacob who founded families, in addition to the Levites. Now, if
we follow 1Ch_7:20., where ten or eleven generations are mentioned between Ephraim
and Joshua, and reckon 40 years as a generation, the tenth generation of the 41
grandsons of Jacob would be born about the year 400 of the sojourn in Egypt, and
therefore be over 20 years of age at the time of the exodus. Let us assume, that on an
average there were three sons and three daughters to every married couple in the first six
of these generations, two sons and two daughters in the last four, and we shall find, that
in the tenth generation there would be 478,224 sons about the 400th year of the sojourn
in Egypt, who would therefore be above 20 years of age at the time of the exodus, whilst
125,326 men of the ninth generation would be still living, so that there would be 478,224
+ 125,326, or 603,550 men coming out of Egypt, who were more than 20 years old. But
though our calculation is based upon no more than the ordinary number of births, a
special blessing from God is to be discerned not only in this fruitfulness, which we
suppose to have been uninterrupted, but still more in the fact, that the presumed
number of children continued alive, and begot the same number of children themselves;
and the divine grace was peculiarly manifest in the fact, that neither pestilence nor other
evils, nor even the measures adopted by the Pharaohs for the suppression of Israel,
could diminish their numbers or restrain their increase. If the question be asked, how
the land of Goshen could sustain so large a number, especially as the Israelites were not
the only inhabitants, but lived along with Egyptians there, it is a sufficient reply, that
according to both ancient and modern testimony (cf. Robinson, Pal. i. p. 78), this is the
most fertile province in all Egypt, and that we are not so well acquainted with the extent
of the territory inhabited by the Israelites, as to be able to estimate the amount of its

205. produce.
CALVI , "37.And the children of Israel journeyed. Although it is probable that
they were more widely dispersed, since that district could not have contained so
great a multitude, especially when the Egyptians occupied it together with them;
still because the recollection of the promise remained among them, from whence
some hope of their redemption always was preserved, it is not wonderful that they
should have preferred to be kept within narrow bounds, to their great
inconvenience, rather than, by seeking other habitations, to separate from the main
body. That this was the peculiar abode of the nation is plain also from what has
gone before, where Moses related that they were forced to servile tasks in building
those fortified cities wherein they might be shut up, as in prison. In the number of
men which he reports, he commends the incredible miracle of God’s favor in
increasing and multiplying their race. Thus is the effrontery of the impious refuted
who think it a sufficient ground for their sneers, that this great people could not in
so short a time have naturally proceeded from a single family; and therefore they
burst out into unrestrained and blasphemous laughter, as if Moses were simply
relating what had happened, and not rather extolling the extraordinary power of
God in the sudden increase of His Church. But we know that it was no more a
matter of difficulty for the Creator of the whole world to exceed the ordinary course
of nature, in the multiplication of a particular nation, than at the beginning to
produce speedily many people from one man and woman; and again, after the
deluge, to renew the human race by a miraculous augmentation. ow, this is the
peculiar character of the Church, that in producing and preserving it, God exerts
unusual power, that it may be separated from the common condition of mankind;
for although it sojourns on earth, yet is its nature in a manner heavenly, that the
work of God may shine forth more brightly in it. o wonder then if, contrary to
usual custom, it should emerge, as it were, from nothing, if it grows in the same way
and makes continual progress. Such an example does Paul set before us in Romans
4:0., in the person of Abraham. But whilst the impious despisers of God betray their
stupidity in their wicked audacity, when they estimate this work of God by their
own senses and by common reason, so, too, do they foolishly err who attempt to
defend Moses by philosophical arguments; for his intention was very different, viz.,
to show that the promises were not unfulfilled, “I will multiply thy seed as the stars
of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore,” (Genesis 22:17, and Genesis
12:2, and Genesis 15:5,) the effect of which promises was beyond human
comprehension.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:37. About six hundred thousand men — The word means
strong and able men fit for wars, besides women and children, which we cannot
suppose to make less than twelve hundred thousand more. What a vast increase was
this to arise from seventy souls, in little more than two hundred years!
COFFMA , "Verses 37-42
"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred
thousand on foot that were men, besides children. And a mixed multitude went up
also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. And they baked

206. unleavened cakes of dough which they brought forth out of Egypt; for it was not
leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had
they prepared for themselves any victuals. ow the time that the children of Israel
dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of
four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the
hosts of Jehovah went out from the land of Egypt. It is a night to be much observed
unto Jehovah: for bringing them out from the land of Egypt' this is that night of
Jehovah, to be much observed of all the children of Israel throughout their
generations."
"From Rameses to Succoth ..." The exact location of these places is uncertain, and it
is merely a weariness to explore the conflicting views of scholars on where, or how
far, these places were.
"Six hundred thousand ... men ..." The bold denial of this number by men who
really know nothing about it is characteristic of some writings. "That such a figure
has no basis in fact is clear from almost every point of view."[32] The author of that
denial then went on to prove his point by asserting that: (1) such a large number
could not have lived in Egypt; (2) they could not have survived in the desert, and (3)
they could not have found enough room in Canaan! Millions of people today live in
each one of those areas! Besides that, God fed the Israelites in the wilderness; and
their clothes did not wear out! Such denials are merely amusing to believers. An
even more renowned scholar said that, "This 600,000 is not an excessive number for
the population of Goshen, nor does it exceed a reasonable estimate of the increase of
the Israelites."[33]
In this connection, we also include the questions raised by Huey: "If only a few
thousand people were involved in the Exodus, (1) Why were the Egyptians afraid of
them? (2) Why were they subjected to slavery to reduce their numbers? (3) Why
were the Moabites terrified of them?"[34] To these questions it is possible to add
others. If the numbers of the Exodus given here are not correct, how were the
Israelites able to subjugate thirty-two kingdoms of Canaan? How is it that the
"fear" of the Israelites had spread all over the world of that era? See Joshua 2:9. In
view of all the facts, we must reject the speculations based upon imaginative guesses
that challenge the Biblical account. The Bible is far more trustworthy than the
speculators.
"Four hundred and thirty years ..." here again, the denials of the critics rise in a
shrill chorus, but there is nothing wrong with this figure. True it was rounded off to
"four hundred" in the promise to Abraham, and Stephen did the same thing in Acts
7. So what? This type of variation is common and ordinary. The only trumped up
evidence ever raised against the figure is in the Septuagint (LXX) account of it
where the number is reduced to 215 years, but the verse where that is found is an
interpolation without any authority whatever. It is false on the face of it. The actual
basis for critical denials here is founded on what they call the "impossibility" of it.
But, if it did not happen as the Bible says, then what did happen? Before us is the
only trustworthy account of the events mentioned, and we find it entirely

207. satisfactory to accept the only record there is. That the events here indeed seem
"impossible" is freely admitted. What of it? All things are possible with God, and
we are surely dealing with God and His actions in these chapters!
"And a mixed multitude went up also with them ..." Who were these? They might
have been other slave peoples of the Egyptians who saw their opportunity and took
it. They could have been many of the Egyptians who had become converted to the
God of Israel. o real information is given concerning them. Would that mixed
multitude turn against the Lord and cause Israel to sin? We appreciate the comment
concerning this mixed multitude by a former Jewish Rabbi:
"As a former Jewish Rabbi, I have the temptation to say, "Yes, it was the mixed
multitude that caused Israel to sin in Exodus." But that's not the way it really
happened. The mixed multitude were the staunchest believers. They were the ones
who truly believed in the Lord, because they knew what it was like to be unsaved,
and now they knew what it was like to be saved."
"But the people of Israel were coasting along on their knowledge that they were the
chosen people, God's favorite, and they did not have to do anything to deserve His
favor."
"You have chosen us above all people, God," they were thinking, "So now we can
do anything we want to and get away with it."[35]
Whether or not such a view is fully correct concerning Israel, it is certainly the case
with many Christians who lose their enthusiasm for the truth, who slip back into the
careless and sinful ways of the world and neglect the plainest and most urgent duties
of the Christian life.
COKE, "Exodus 12:37. From Rameses to Succoth— In Genesis 47:11. Goshen is
called the land of Rameses; and therefore it is most reasonable to suppose, that no
particular city is here meant, but the land of Goshen in general: though some have
thought that Rameses was the chief city of the land of Goshen, and that the Israelites
had their general rendezvous there: from whence they travelled to a place, named
from their first encampment there, Succoth, that is, tents or booths. See Exodus
13:17-18. Genesis 33:17.
About six hundred thousand on foot that were men— That is, of an age fit for war;
twenty years old and upwards: see umbers 1:45-46 whence it appears, that when
they were numbered with more exactness, all that were able to go forth to war in
Israel, from twenty years old and upward, were six hundred thousand, and three
thousand, and five hundred and fifty, besides the Levites, old men, women, and
children, who must be computed, at least, to have amounted to twice as many more.
So mightily did the Lord increase his people; and so exactly did he verify his
promise. See the note on ch. Exodus 1:7.
CO STABLE, "Verses 37-39
The record of Israel"s sojourn in the wilderness really begins here.

208. "Rameses" is probably the same city as "Raamses," also called Avaris ( Exodus
12:37; cf. Exodus 1:11). Many critical scholars date the Exodus in the thirteenth
century because of this reference to Rameses. Rameses II ruled Egypt at that time.
However, "Rameses" may very well be a later name for this site, similar to the
reference to the city of Dan in Genesis 14:14. This may be another instance of later
scribal updating.
Rameses was the city from which the Israelites left Egypt, and it lay somewhere east
of the ile delta in the land of Goshen. Archaeologists have not identified Succoth
certainly either. However from the context it seems that Succoth was only a few
miles from Rameses. It may have been a district rather than a town. [ ote: Edward
aville, The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus , p23; Kaiser, "
Exodus ," p379.] Perhaps Cassuto was right when he wrote the following.
"Succoth was a border town named in Egyptian Tkw. Here the name appears in a
Hebrew or Hebraized form. Apparently it was situated at the tell called by the
Egyptians today Tell el-Maskhuta." [ ote: Cassuto, 147.]
Many commentators concluded that, since there were about600 ,000 Israelite males,
the total number of Israelites must have been about two million. Though the
Hebrew word translated "thousand" (eleph) can also mean "family," "clan,"
"military unit," or something else, most translators have preferred "thousand" (cf.
Exodus 38:26; umbers 1:45-47). In view of the incongruities posed by such a large
number (cf. Exodus 13:17; Exodus 14:21-31; Exodus 16:3-4; Exodus 17:8-13;
Exodus 18:14-16; Exodus 23:29-30; umbers 14; Deuteronomy 7:7; Deuteronomy
7:22; Joshua 7:5; et al.), eleph may have meant "hundred" or "unit of ten" or some
other number smaller than "thousand," though the evidence to support this theory
is presently weak, in my opinion.
Moses referred to the "mixed multitude" often in the account of the wilderness
wanderings that follows. This group probably included Egyptian pagans and God-
fearers ( Exodus 12:38; cf. Exodus 9:20) and an assortment of other people
including other enslaved Semites. For one reason or another these people took this
opportunity to leave or escape from Egypt with the Israelites. This group proved to
be a source of trouble in Israel and led the Israelites in complaining and opposing
Moses (e.g, umbers 11:4).
ELLICOTT, "Verse 37
(37) From Rameses to Succoth.—The difference between the Raamses of Exodus
1:11 and the Rameses of this passage is merely one of “pointing;” nor is there the
least ground for supposing that a different place is intended. Pi-Ramesu was the
main capital of the kings of the nineteenth dynasty, having superseded Tanis, of
which it was a suburb. (See ote on Exodus 1:11.) Succoth has been identified by
Dr. Brugsch with an Egyptian town called Thukot; but it is probably a Semitic
word, signifying “tents” or “booths.” The district south-east of Tanis is one in which
clusters of “booths” have been at all times common. Some one of these—situated,

209. perhaps, near the modern Tel-Dafneh, fifteen miles south-east of Tanis—was the
first halt of the Israelites.
Verses 37-41
THE DEPARTURE OF ISRAEL, THEIR UMBERS, A D THE TIME OF THE
EGYPTIA SOJOUR .
(37-41) The two principal statements of this passage are—(1) that the sojourn of the
Israelites in Egypt lasted four hundred and thirty years; and (2) that at the time of
the departure the number of the “men” (gëbârim) was six hundred thousand. This
latter statement is evidently a rough one, but it is confirmed, and even enlarged, by
the more accurate estimate of umbers 1, 2, which goes into particulars with respect
to the several tribes, and makes the exact amount of the adult male population,
exclusive of the Levites, to be 625,540 ( umbers 2:32). It would follow that the
nation, at the time of its departure, was one of above two millions of souls.
Two difficulties are raised with respect to this estimate:—(1) Could the Israelites
possibly have increased during their sojourn in Egypt from the “seventy souls” who
went down with Jacob to two millions? (2) Is it conceivable that such a multitude,
with their flocks and herds, could have quitted Egypt on one day, and marched in a
body through the narrow wadys of the Sinaitic region to the plain in front of Sinai?
Could even that plain have contained them? With regard to the first point, before it
can be decided we must ascertain what are the exact data. What is to be taken as the
original number of those who “went down into Egypt?” what as the duration of the
sojourn? It has been already shown (see the comment on Exodus 1:5) that the
descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt were probably a hundred and thirty-two
rather than seventy; that they were accompanied by their wives and husbands; that
they took with them also their “households,” which were very numerous (see ote
on Genesis 17:13); and that the entire number is fairly estimated at “several
thousands.” Let us then place it at 3,000.
The duration of the sojourn in Egypt, stated in the Hebrew text at 430 years, is
reduced by the LXX. and Samaritan Versions to half the time: i.e., to 215 years. If
we accept Mr. Malthus’s statement, that in the absence of artificial checks
population will double itself every twenty years, we shall find that 3,000 persons
might, in the space of two centuries, increase to above 3,000,000; so that even the
215 years of the Greek and Samaritan Versions would admit of such a
multiplication as that required. But as there is no sufficient reason for preferring
the Versions to the Original, or the period of 215 to that of 430 years, we are entitled
to regard the latter term as the real duration of the sojourn, in which case a
doubling of the population every forty-five years would have produced the result
indicated. Such a result under the circumstances, in the rich soil of Egypt, in the
extensive territory granted to the Israelites, and with God’s special blessing on the
people, is in no way surprising.
The difficulty of handling so vast a body, and marching them from Goshen to the
Red Sea, and from the Red Sea to Sinai, remains, and, no doubt, is considerable. But

210. we must remember that as far as Marah the country was perfectly open, and
allowed of any extension of the line of march on either flank. After this, the wadys
were entered, and the real difficulties of the journey began. Probably the host
spread itself out, and proceeded to the rendezvous in front of the Ras Sufsafeh by
several routes, of which Moses traces only the one which he himself followed. The
plain Er-Rahah, according to the calculations of the best engineers, would have
contained the entire multitude; but it is unnecessary to suppose that all were at any
one time present in it. The whole Sinaitic district was probably occupied by the
flocks and herds, and the herdsmen who tended them. Many of the tents may have
been pitched in the Wady-ed-Deir and the Seil Leja. All that the narrative requires
is that the main body of the people should have been encamped in front of Sinai,
have heard the Decalogue delivered, and consented to the covenant.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "Verses 37-42
THE EXODUS.
Exodus 12:37-42.
The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. Already, at the outset of
their journey, controversy has had much to say about their route. Much ingenuity
has been expended upon the theory which brought their early journey along the
Mediterranean coast, and made the overthrow of the Egyptians take place in "that
Serbonian bog where armies whole have sunk." But it may fairly be assumed that
this view was refuted even before the recent identification of the sites of Rameses
and Pi-hahiroth rendered it untenable.
How came these trampled slaves, who could not call their lives their own, to possess
the cattle which we read of as having escaped the murrain, and the number of which
is here said to have been very great?
Just before Moses returned, and when the Pharaoh of the Exodus appears upon the
scene, we are told that "their cry came up unto God, ... and God heard their
groaning, and God remembered His covenant ... and God saw the children of Israel,
and God took knowledge of them" (Exodus 2:23).
May not this verse point to something unrecorded, some event before their final
deliverance? The conjecture is a happy one that it refers to their share in the revolt
of subject races which drove Menephtah for twelve years out of his northern
territories. If so, there was time for a considerable return of prosperity; and the
retention or forfeiture of their chattels when they were reconquered would depend
very greatly upon circumstances unknown to us. At all events, this revolt is
evidence, which is amply corroborated by history and the inscriptions, of the
existence of just such a discontented and servile element in the population as the
"mixed multitude" which came out with them repeatedly proved itself to be.
But here we come upon a problem of another kind. How long was Israel in the house
of bondage? Can we rely upon the present Hebrew text, which says that "their

211. sojourning which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And
it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame
day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt"
(Exodus 12:40-41).
Certain ancient versions have departed from this text. The Septuagint reads, "The
sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt and in the land of
Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years"; and the Samaritan agrees with this,
except that it has "the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers." The
question is, which reading is correct? Must we date the four hundred and thirty
years from Abraham's arrival in Canaan, or from Jacob's descent into Egypt?
For the shorter period there are two strong arguments. The genealogies in the
Pentateuch range from four persons to six between Jacob and the Exodus, which
number is quite unable to reach over four centuries. And St. Paul says of the
covenant with Abraham that "the law which came four hundred and thirty years
after" (i.e. after the time of Abraham) "could not disannul it" (Galatians 3:17).
This reference by St. Paul is not so decisive as it may appear, because he habitually
quotes the Septuagint, even where he must have known that it deviates from the
Hebrew, provided that the deviation does not compromise the matter in hand. Here,
he was in nowise concerned with the chronology, and had no reason to perplex a
Gentile church by correcting it. But it was a different matter with St. Stephen,
arguing his case before the Hebrew council. And he quotes plainly and confidently
the prediction that the seed of Abraham should be four hundred years in bondage,
and that one nation should entreat them evil four hundred years (Acts 7:6). Again,
this is the clear intention of the words in Genesis (Genesis 15:13). And as to the
genealogies, we know them to have been cut down, so that seven names are omitted
from that of Ezra, and three at least from that of our Lord Himself. Certainly when
we consider the great population implied in an army of six hundred thousand adult
men, we must admit that the longer period is inherently the more probable of the
two. But we can only assert with confidence that just when their deliverance was
due it was accomplished, and they who had come down a handful, and whom cruel
oppression had striven to decimate, came forth, no undisciplined mob, but armies
moving in organised and regulated detachments: "the Lord did bring the children
of Israel forth by their hosts" (Exodus 12:51). "And the children of Israel went up
armed out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 13:18).
PETT, "Verses 37-42
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

212. 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 Children of Israel Begin Their Journey (Exodus 12:37-42).
As a result of the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh had commanded the children of
Israel to go and serve Yahweh in the wilderness with all that they had. His words
(Exodus 12:31-32) had been urgent and gave the impression that he would not mind
if he never saw them again. He wanted rid of them at any cost because of what their
presence had brought on himself and his people, and what their presence might
continue to bring. Egypt was devastated, and now on top of the disasters every
family in Egypt had lost its firstborn sons through some mysterious means. But
underneath he was still the same obstinate and evil man. We can see therefore why
he changed his mind a little later on, when he reconsidered his words once the worst
seemed to be over. He had never ever been thwarted like this before. It was not just
that Egypt were losing such a quantity of slaves, although that was bad enough, it
was the fact that he had been totally humiliated.
a The children of Israel set out, six hundred military units of men as well as
children, all go together. And a mixed multitude go with them with many flocks and
herds (Exodus 12:37-38).
b They had to bake with unleavened dough because they had been thrust out in
such haste (Exodus 12:39).
c They had resided as aliens in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40).
c For 430 years after they had entered Egypt they left it ‘on that selfsame day’
(Exodus 12:41).
b It was a night to be much observed to Yahweh because He had brought them
out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:42 a).
a It was the night of Yahweh to be observed by all the children of Israel in
their generations (Exodus 12:42 b).
ote the parallels. In ‘a’ all of the children of Israel and more had left Egypt, thus in
the parallel it was a night to be observed by all the children of Israel. In ‘b’ they had

213. been thrust out of the land in haste, and in the parallel it was a night to be observed
to Yahweh for this reason. In ‘c’ they had resided as aliens in Egypt for 430 years,
and in the parallel now after 430 years He had brought them out.
Exodus 12:37
‘And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred
’eleph on foot that were men, beside children.’
Meanwhile the people of Yahweh began their journey on foot into the wilderness via
Succoth leading towards Etham on the edge of the wilderness (Exodus 13:20). The
site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been
made. It may be the fortress town of Tjeku mentioned in Egyptian sources. In these
we learn, for example, of a chief of the archers sent to Tjeku to prevent certain
slaves from running away, but arriving too late. They had been seen crossing the
north wall of the fortress town of Seti-Merenptah. Another mentions some Libyan
mercenaries who had tried to flee but were brought back to Tjeku. Thus Tjeku was
on the route regularly taken by fugitives.
“The children of Israel journeyed.” ot necessarily in an orderly march. They had
been given the date and were ready. Then they streamed towards Succoth near the
border to gather for the march, the main body coming from around Rameses (or
they may have gathered outside Rameses). The necessity for rapid movement would
prevent too much overall organisation. The heads of each clan would be expected to
ensure that their clan joined in and kept up. Organisation would come later.
From Rameses to Succoth.’ The word succoth means ‘booths’ or ‘tents’ (compare
Genesis 33:17). Possibly originally it had been a city of tents, and the name had
clung to it. Or possibly it was simply a Hebrew rendering of an Egyptian word that
mean something different. But there is an ironic twist in the fact that the first stage
of their journey is represented as being from the city of the great king to ‘the place
of tents’, for this indicated their future. It parallels the journey of Abraham from Ur
of the Chaldees to Canaan. (Indeed all who would serve God must go ‘from
Rameses to Succoth’, from living for man’s glory to becoming a stranger and
pilgrim in the world (1 Peter 2:11), counting what this world offers as nothing, for
man’s glory offers nothing but bondage, while submission to God leads to freedom)
“Six hundred ”eleph on foot who were men.’ Probably we should read ‘six hundred
family or military units on foot who were men’. Much later ‘eleph’ became
established as indicating ‘one thousand’ but at this stage it may well not have been
quite so emphatically used and instead often have had a significance relating to its
other meanings of ‘family group’ or ‘clan’, or even a ‘military unit’ (2 Samuel 18:1)
of a certain size. In Judges 6:15 Gideon says ‘my ’eleph is the weakest in Manasseh’
and in 1 Samuel 10:19-21 we read ‘present yourselves by your tribes and by your
families (’alpheycem from root ’eleph) where the parallel in Exodus 12:21 suggests
it means family groups not thousands. Thus ’eleph could here have signified a
considerably smaller number than a thousand.

214. To the Hebrew mind the ‘six hundred’ may also have indicated intensified
completeness (three doubled times a hundred). We must not read back into them
our numeracy, and streaming out from different parts of Goshen they would at the
time have been in no position to be counted individually, whereas a note may well
have been taken of the approximate number of groups that arrived as they all came
together.
“Besides children.” Strictly the Hebrew indicates ‘as well as males under age’. The
presence of the wives and daughters with them is assumed. The word for ‘children’,
is in fact often distinguished from wives, but it is also sometimes used as indicating
the whole family apart from the adult males (Genesis 43:8; Genesis 47:12).
ote On the umbers Mentioned in the Pentateuch.
When considering numbers in the Pentateuch we should always be aware of the
possibility that the number words used in this early literature may have been
intended to give information other than numerical quantity. umerical quantity
would have meant little to most readers. They did not think numerically. Few could
count. or did they use more than minimal numbers in daily life (say up to ten at
the most and some only up to three as with many modern primitive tribespeople).
What numbers conveyed to them was an impression of size and an indication of
significance. Even in the time of Elijah ‘two’ could mean ‘a few’ (1 Kings 17:12).
But what really matters is that the significance of the events themselves is not
affected by the numbers. Whether the number here literally means ‘six hundred
thousand’ in our terms, or whether it indicates a large and complete number of
family groupings, the miraculous deliverance was the same. We do not have to
believe that the numbers should be taken with their modern significance if they do
not, so as to prove our faith, nor do we need to reject them because they seem to
produce difficulties. We should simply ask, what was the writer signifying?
Sufficient evidence has been accumulated elsewhere in order to demonstrate that 2
million Israelites could have made the journey in view of God’s miraculous
provisions. But the question is, given that fact, does the text say that they did?
Certainly when translating these large numbers we should note the following:
1). Later in Exodus we are told that the Canaanites would be driven out little by
little because the Israelites were not numerous enough satisfactorily to occupy the
whole land (Exodus 23:29-30) whereas a literal six hundred thousand men,
suggesting over two million people, would surely have been well sufficient, even
though a good number would not have been fit. Most Canaanite cities such as
Jericho contained only a thousand or two people at the most, and many but a few
hundred, even though a few such as Megiddo held considerably more. This very
much speaks against there being such a large number of Israelites.
2). That the total number of firstborn males among the children of Israel in
umbers 3:42-43 was only 22,273 and that a number which included under age
children from a month old and upwards. If we took the number of firstborn males

215. who were over twenty to be about 15,000 that would ill compare with a total of
number of men of 600,000.
However, in this regard a question does arise as to who were numbered as firstborn.
For example does it include fathers and grandfathers who were firstborn, or only
the firstborn in each current family, that is, those who were sons of the heads of
each smaller family grouping when the Passover took place, or even just those who
were born since the first Passover? Furthermore, is it only the firstborn of the first
wife in each family which is in mind, as Reuben alone is called the ‘firstborn’
(bechor) of Jacob’s family, while there were twelve sons bearing children, or is it all
firstborns of all their wives? The former would seem the most probable, so that if
polygamy was common at that time because at times so many men died, both
through religious purges as in Exodus 1:22 and through ill-treatment in their
bondage in times of the worst persecution, it would help to explain why there was a
relatively small number of ‘firstborn’ (bechor) to the first wives. Families with girl
firstborns would also be excluded and may have well exceeded the number of male
firstborns still alive. Many male firstborns (those who opened the womb) would
have died at birth or infancy, and it may be that firstborns of families were
especially targeted by the Egyptian authorities as being prospective heads of their
families. And so we could go on. So this is by no means conclusive.
3). That in Deuteronomy 7:1 the seven nations in Canaan are said to be ‘greater and
mightier’ than them. This also might suggest a number lower than six hundred
thousand. The occupants of Canaan in the widest sense probably did not themselves
come to more than two million men women and children.
These verses must therefore make us pause and consider any numbers that we are
interpreting. On the other hand the fact that Pharaoh went after them in such force
must be seen as demonstrating that their numbers were quite large, especially in
view of the fact that they were not well-armed and were not trained fighting men.
And the fact that the amount of the ransom of the males tallies with this number
must also be seen as significant (Exodus 38:25-27), although there we cannot be sure
what the weights indicated at this period, and in fact have to recognise that the total
weight of the silver, of both poll tax and freewill gifts, might well have determined
the numerical description, rather than vice versa (see on those verses).
What we must further keep in mind is that Hebrew was at this time in its early
stages as a developing language and that the children of Israel would not as a whole
be a numerate people. They would not think in mathematical terms and that would
be reflected in their limited use of ‘number’ words (see article, "The Use of
umbers"). umbers were in fact regularly intended to signify more than just
specific quantity. We can compare the huge numbers of the reigns of earliest
Sumerian kings, in the hundreds of thousands, which can hardly be taken literally.
This especially comes out in the numbers used in the Pentateuch which follow a
certain pattern. They tend to end in nought, five, or less often seven, with thirty as
an ending being popular. They do not give the impression of exact numerical
accuracy in our terms. (See ‘The Use of umbers’ above and also the introduction
to our commentary on the Book of umbers).
The special problem of the initial meaning of ’eleph in early Hebrew is highlighted

216. in 1 Samuel 6:19 where we read ‘he smote of the people seventy men, fifty ’eleph
men’. There the latter number must in some way surely tie in with the former which
itself may be a round number indicating divine completeness. It is possibly saying
that He smote ‘seventy’ men from fifty families of men (or even seventy men and
fifty oxen of men, for ’eleph can mean ox). Cities in Canaan were not in general
physically large enough to contain anywhere remotely near fifty thousand residents
(Megiddo was a rare exception), so fifty thousand men gathered at Bethshemesh
(and those only the ones killed) is extremely unlikely. Consider also for example that
at the battle of Kadesh, against the mighty Hittites, Rameses II had an army of only
twenty thousand men and it was his main force.
So numbers in these early books must be considered guardedly, and we would be
wise not to be dogmatic. It is not a question of whether they are accurate or not, it is
a question of what they indicate, what the Hebrew means. It may be that new
discoveries will at some time make the position clearer. evertheless what we must
not do is argue from the grounds of ‘impossibility’, for with God nothing is
impossible. And the fact that the people constantly fed on the manna whose supply
never failed until they reached the land must always be taken into account.
However, we must certainly argue on the facts.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:37. And the children of Israel journeyed.—On the journey see
the Introduction, Keil II, p26, the literature above quoted, and Keil II, p28, ote,
Knobel, p 111 sq.—About600,000 on foot.—“‫ִי‬‫ל‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫,ר‬ as in umbers 11:21, the infantry
of an army, is added, because they went out as a warlike host ( Exodus 12:41), and
in the number given only the men able to bear arms, those over twenty years of age,
are reckoned; ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָר‬‫ב‬ְ‫גּ‬ַ‫ה‬ is added because of the following ‫ף‬ַ‫טּ‬ִ‫מ‬ ‫ַד‬‫ב‬ְ‫ל‬: ‘besides the little
ones.’ ‫ף‬ַ‫ט‬ is used here in the wider significance of the dependent part of the family,
including wife and children, as in Genesis 47:12; umbers 32:16; umbers 32:24,
and often, those who did not travel on foot, but on beasts of burden or in wagons”
(Keil). On the round number, as well as the increase of Israel in Egypt, comp,
Knobel, p121, Keil, l. c, and the Introduction. On the fruitfulness of the land of
Goshen, see Keil II, p29. Kurtz and Bertheau have suggested as an explanation of
the great number, that we may assume that the seventy Israelites who emigrated to
Egypt had several thousand men-servants and maid-servants. Keil insists that only
the posterity of the seventy souls is spoken of. But compare the antithesis in Genesis
32:10 : “one staff” and “two bands.” In Israel the faith constituted the nationality,
as well as the nationality the faith, as is shown by so many examples (Rahab, Ruth,
the Gibeonites, etc.), and Israel had in its religion a great attractive power.
BI 37-39, "Journeyed from Rameses.
The setting forth of the Israelites from Egypt
1. The sons of Israel, or Church of God, are in a moving state below.
2. From countries and cities with habitations, God leads His people sometimes to
pitch in booths.
3. The number of the seed of God’s visible Church is great and multiplied according

217. to His word.
4. Men, women, and children, God numbers with His Church or Israel (Exo_12:37).
5. Providence so ordering, all sorts of people may join themselves to God’s Church,
though not in truth.
6. God’s Word fails not in giving His Church great substance when He seeth it good
(verse 88).
7. Liberty from Egypt is Israel’s good portion with unleavened cakes.
8. Sufficiency and contentation God giveth His people in their straits.
9. In working liberty for His Church, God may put them upon some hardship. 10.
God sometimes prevents the providence of His Church for themselves, that He may
provide for them (Exo_12:39). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
A mixed multitude went up also.—
The nominal followers of the Christian Church; the motives by which they
are actuated, and the perplexities by which they are tested
I. The motives by which the nominal adherents of the Christian church are animated.
1. They are acquainted and impressed with the history of the Church, and hence are
induced to follow it.
2. They have an inner conviction that the Church is right, and hence they are
sometimes led to follow it.
3. They are associated by family ties with those who are real members of the
Christian Church, and hence they are induced to follow it.
4. They are troubled by ideas of the retributive providence of God, and so are
induced to seek shelter in the Church.
5. They have an idea that it is socially correct to be allied to the Church, and
therefore are induced to follow it.
6. They always follow the multitude.
II. The perplexities by which the nominal adherents of the Christian church are tested.
We read elsewhere that “the mixed multitude that was among the Israelites fell a lusting”
(Num_11:4). Their unhallowed desires were not gratified. Their deliverance had not
been so glorious as they had imagined. Trial was before them, and they rebelled against
the first privations of the wilderness. And so it is, nominal members of the Christian
Church are soon tested, and they often yield to the trying conditions of the pilgrim
Church life.
1. The nominal members of the Church are tested by the outward circumstances of
the Church.
2. They are tested by the pilgrim difficulties of the Church.
3. They are tested by the pilgrim requirements of the Church. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

218. The character and conduct of the mixed multitude
I. The character of this mixed multitude. Some, perhaps, were mere idolaters; others
had outwardly renounced their superstitions. Some might be connected in marriage with
the sons or daughters of Israel; for such are mentioned: and some, perhaps, were a
thoughtless rabble, whom curiosity had called from their homes, that they might go
three days’ journey with the people, to sacrifice to the Lord in the wilderness.
1. With such a view of the mixed multitude, we may reasonably imagine that they
had a very imperfect knowledge of the God of Israel.
2. This mixed multitude had been induced to follow Israel, probably because they
had seen the miraculous interpositions of God in behalf of His people, and wished to
partake of them.
3. Others, again, had probably accompanied the Israelites in unreflecting
carelessness, without anticipating the difficulties and trials before them.
4. The mixed multitude seem never to have entirely united themselves to the
community of Israel.
II. Their conduct in the hour of temptation. The passage in the book of Numbers
informs us that they fell a lusting. We know not the peculiar nature of the trials to which
they were exposed; but we find them soon yielding to the power of temptation, and the
love of sin.
1. They speedily became discontented with their condition.
2. The inspired penman speaks no more of this mixed multitude; and therefore we
are justified in supposing that they who escaped the fire of the Lord, quitted the
camp of Israel, and returned to Egypt. In that mixed multitude which throng around
the Church of the living God, and profess communion with it, there are, I fear, not a
few who sin after the similitude of the transgression committed in the wilderness. (C.
H. Spurgeon.)
Lessons
I. That profession is not necessarily true religion.
II. That trials are necessary proof of faith and love.
III. That evil communications corrupt good manners. (R. P. Buddicom.)
The mixed multitude
I. The emissaries of Satan. In all ages there have been these corrupters of the truth in the
Church, who have bred schisms of all kinds, “creeping into houses,” and “leading captive
silly women”; and, as they have gained power and position, becoming more bold in the
propagandism of error, both in doctrine and form.
II. The hypocrites. Worldly men come into the Church for the purpose of making “gain
of godliness,” and using religion as a “cloak of covetousness.” I remember very well,
when I was a young man, going away from home into a newer part of our country with a
view of making my fortune. I was advised by a respectable business man to “connect
myself with the most popular church in the town,” as a means of “getting on,” and

219. securing the recognition-and help of the best people. Soon after I became a pastor, I
overheard a merchant talking to a young man, and endeavouring to persuade him to join
the church; he used as an argument the fact that when he cams to that village a young
man, that was the first thing he had done; and he affirmed that it was “the best stroke of
business he had ever done.” He attributed his success in life to that fact. And no doubt
the hypocrite was right. Verily he had his reward.
III. The formalists. By these I mean those who are more or less apprehensive of the
future, and somewhat troubled about their sins, and who take to the formalism of
Christianity as a means of security against the possible dangers of another world. They
know nothing of Christ and His salvation; are strangers to conversion and regeneration:
but seize upon the forms and ceremonies of religion as being all that is needful. Among
this number may be classed a vast number who have fled for refuge to the “Church” in
serious earnest, but who are at best the merest parasites, or semi-parisites. They have no
life in themselves, but are clinging to persons or things from whom or from which they
fancy they can draw lifo for themselves. Poor souls! did they only flee to Christ, and be
joined to Him, they would indeed be saved; but, as it now is, they are mere Egyptians
who are in the midst of the camp of Israel without the mark or sign of blood upon them.
IV. The self-deceived. (G. F. Pentecost, D. D.)
Mixed multitudes
People looking on will judge everything according to their own quality. You cannot get
bad people to form good judgments. You cannot persuade good people to form mean
and contemptible judgments. Let us suppose Moses and Aaron at the head of this great
throng. Criticism would thus speak respecting the multitude: They must be better than
they seem, or they would not follow the leadership of such men as Moses and Aaron; it is
a very motley crowd, but it must be substantially good at heart, because look at the
leadership which it has chosen. Or criticism might speak thus: Moses and Aaron cannot
be much after all, or they would not allow this rag-tag-and-bob-tail following. Thus
criticism, I repeat, is determined by quality. In the one case the multitudes get the
benefit of the moral elevation of their leaders; in the other case the leaders come in for
depreciation because of the motley character of their followers. Blessed be heaven, the
Judge is just who shall judge us all. We shall not be left at the disposal of imperfect and
selfish criticism. A crowd, even in church, is not to be judged indiscriminately or
pronounced upon in some rough generalization. The crowd is “mixed.” Men are not all in
church for the same reason. Men are not all in church through the same motives. Some
are in church who do not want to be there; they have a purpose to serve: some are there
on account of mere curiosity. Others are in church to pray, to confess their life-sins, and
seek the pity of God as expressed in pardon at the foot of the saving Cross. Outside
criticism would thus judge us differently. Whilst we say this about the outward church,
the great surging crowd that may be within the hallowed walls, we could say practically
the same thing about the inner church. Even the inner church, gathered around the
sacramental board, is a mixed multitude. For example, look at the difference of spiritual
attainment. There is the veteran who knows his Bible almost by heart, and here is the
little learner spelling out its earliest words. Have they a right to be in the same church?
Their right is not in their attainments, but in their desire. But this makes church life very
difficult to conduct: very difficult for the pastor and teacher, very difficult for the
constituent members themselves. One can go at a great pace; another can only crawl.
What is to be done when there is such a diversity of power? Then look at what a mixture

220. of disposition there is even in the inner church. We are not all of one quality. Some men
are born generous; other men are born misers. It is easy for some men to pray; other
men have to scourge themselves to their knees. Look at the difference of faculty for work
you find in the church. One man will do anything for you in the way of music. He likes it;
it would be a burden to him not to do it. Thank God for such service! Another man will
work in the Sunday school. He loves children; their presence makes him young; he can
never be old so long as he sees the light of little faces. Every man is himself a mixed
multitude. That is the philosophy. Have you ever gone far enough in the task of self-
analysis to find out how many men you, the individual man, really are? You are self-
inconsistent; you are not the same man at night you were in the morning; whatever you
do, you do in a mixed way. It is human nature that is the mixed multitude. We know that
we have motives; we have never seen them, but we have felt them; we know of a verity
that we never do anything with a pure, simple, direct, frank motive. Sometimes the
motive is as a whole good, with just one tittle taint in the middle of it. Sometimes the
motive is predominantly bad, with just one little speck of white on the outside or on the
left hand. So are we. It is the same way with our thoughts. We are not always impious.
Sometimes even the unbeliever feels as though he could believe if one beam could be
added to the light which already showers its glory upon his life. Sometimes the believer
feels as if he had been misled, as if he were following some aerial sprite, some shadowy
spectral nothing. At what point is he to be judged? God will judge him at his best. God
accepts our prayers in their bloom. Do not, therefore, condemn yourselves because
sometimes you are in moods that really distress the very soul; on the other hand, do not
flatter yourselves and commit yourselves to the seduction that ends in utterest failure of
life. What is the great work which the gospel has to do in the soul in relation to all this
mixture of motive and thought? It has to take out all the bad and throw it away. Come,
thou Holy Ghost, and take out of our hearts the selfish motive, the miser’s greed, the
debasing thought, the little, mean, contemptible purpose; tear it up, burn it in
unquenchable fire. When a man can so pray he has a seed hope that one day he shall be
self-unanimous. Blessed will be the realization of self-unanimity. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Hangers-on
The remora, instead of swimming far by its own exertions, greatly prefers being
transported from place to place on ships’ bottoms, or even the bodies of sharks. When
one of the sharks to which a remora is clinging is caught by a hook, and is pulled out of
the water, the little parasite is shrewd in its own interest, for it drops off and makes for
the bottom of the ship. As long as a ship remains within the tropics, numbers of remorse
cling to its bottom, whether that be coppered or not, whence they dart off occasionally to
pick up any morsels of greasy or farinaceous matter that may be thrown overboard,
retiring again rapidly to their anchorage. These hangers-on resemble our social ones in
the following particulars: they like travelling about; they do not care what they attach
themselves to so long as it suits their purpose for the time; they will not get along by
their own exertions if they can find others to carry them; they are sharp in their own
interests, and know quite well when to desert a supporter; and they are ready to avail
themselves of discarded or accidental ailment. (Scientific Illustrations.)

221. 38 Many other people went up with them, and
also large droves of livestock, both flocks and
herds.
BAR ES, "A mixed multitude - Probably remains of the old Semitic population,
whether first brought into the district by the Hyksos or not is uncertain. As natural
objects of suspicion and dislike to the Egyptians who had lately become masters of the
country, they would be anxious to escape, the more especially after the calamities which
preceded the Exodus.
Very much cattle - This is an important fact, both as showing that the oppression of
the Israelites had not extended to confiscation of their property, and as bearing upon the
question of their maintenance in the Wilderness.
GILL, "And a mixed multitude went up also with them,.... Some of these were
Egyptians, and some of other nations that had resided in Egypt, and who, on various
accounts, might choose to go along with the children of Israel; some through
intermarriages with them, being loath to part with their relations, see Lev_20:10, others
on account of religion, being proselytes of righteousness, and others through worldly
interest, the land of Egypt being by the plagues a most desolate place; and such wonders
being wrought for the children of Israel, they saw they were a people that were the
favourites of heaven, and judged it safest and best and most for their interest to keep
with them; the Targum of Jonathan computes the number of those to be two hundred
and forty myriads:
and flocks and herds, even very much cattle; the greatest part of which must be
supposed to belong to the children of Israel, whose cattle were not destroyed when those
of the Egyptians were; and the rest might be the cattle of such who feared and regarded
the word of God, and took their cattle into their houses at the time of the plague of hail,
whereby they were preserved; and which might be an inducement to them to take their
herds and their flocks, and go along with the children of Israel, see Exo_9:20.
JAMISO , "a mixed multitude went with them — literally, “a great rabble” (see
also Num_11:4; Deu_29:11); slaves, persons in the lowest grades of society, partly
natives and partly foreigners, bound close to them as companions in misery, and gladly
availing themselves of the opportunity to escape in the crowd. (Compare Zec_8:23).
K&D, "Exo_12:38-39
In typical fulfilment of the promise in Gen_12:3, and no doubt induced by the signs
and wonders of the Lord in Egypt to seek their good among the Israelites, a great crowd

222. of mixed people (‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֵ‫)ע‬ attached themselves to them, whom Israel could not shake off,
although they afterwards became a snare to them (Num_11:4). ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֵ‫:ע‬ lit., a mixture,
ᅚπίµικτος sc., λαός (lxx), a swarm of foreigners; called ‫ף‬ ֻ‫ס‬ ְ‫פ‬ ַ‫ס‬ ֲ‫א‬ in Num_11:4, a medley, or
crowd of people of different nations. According to Deu_29:10, they seem to have
occupied a very low position among the Israelites, and to have furnished the nation of
God with hewers of wood and drawers of water. - On Exo_12:29, see Exo_12:34.
CALVI , "38.And a mixed multitude. Although Abraham possessed many servants,
yet is it scarcely probable that in the famine Jacob maintained any other persons in
his family besides his own children, whom he could hardly so sustain as to preserve
them from dying of hunger. And since Moses, in relating their coming into Egypt,
does not mention any servants, we may conjecture that they brought no great
number, because necessity compelled them to be content at any rate with a few.
From hence we gather that the mixed multitude, which united themselves with the
Israelites, were either the offspring of Egypt, or had migrated from the neighboring
countries to take up their habitation there; as fertile lands often attract many
strangers to them by the pleasures of abundance. The same expression is used in
ehemiah 13:3, where it is said that “the mixed multitude” was separated from the
true Israelites, lest all should promiscuously arrogate to themselves the same
dignity, and, thus the Church should be polluted by a confused admixture, But if
any should think it absurd that ungodly men, with no better hope before them,
would voluntarily forsake a rich and convenient habitation in order to seek a new
home as wanderers and pilgrims, let him recollect that Egypt had now been afflicted
by so many calamities that by its very poverty and devastation it might easily have
driven away its inhabitants. A great part of the cattle had perished; all the fruits of
the earth were corrupted; the fields were ravaged and almost desert; we need not,
therefore, wonder if despair should have caused many sojourners to fly away, and
even some of the natives themselves. It may be also that, having been inhumanly
treated, they shook off the yoke of tyranny when a way to liberty was opened to
them.
But although God gave His people a ready departure, still He did not choose to let
them go out altogether without any inconvenience; for they go not out satiated with
food, nor having delicately supped, but are compelled to carry in their bags
unbaked masses of dough, that they may eat bread burned or toasted on the embers
in their journey. By this example we are taught that God’s blessings are always
mingled with certain inconveniences, lest too great delight should corrupt the minds
of the godly.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:38-39. And a mixed multitude went up with them — Some
perhaps willing to leave their country, because it was laid waste by the plagues. But
probably the greatest part was but a rude, unthinking mob, that followed they knew
not why. It is likely, when they understood that the children of Israel were to
continue forty years in the wilderness, they quitted them, and returned to Egypt
again. And flocks and herds, even very much cattle — This is taken notice of,
because it was long ere Pharaoh would give them leave to remove their effects,

223. which were chiefly cattle. Thrust out — By importunate entreaties.
COKE, "Exodus 12:38. A mixed multitude went up—with them— A great mixture
of people of other nations, but more particularly of the Egyptians. These are
thought to have been proselytes to the Jewish religion. See umbers 11:4.
ELLICOTT, "(38) A mixed multitude went up also with them.— othing is told us
of the component elements of this “mixed multitude.” We hear of them as
“murmuring” in umbers 11:4, so that they seem to have remained with Israel.
Some may have been Egyptians, impressed by the recent miracles; some foreigners
held to servitude, like the Israelites, and glad to escape from their masters. It is
noticeable that the Egyptian writers, in their perverted accounts of the Exodus,
made a multitude of foreigners (Hyksôs) take part with the Hebrews.
PARKER, ""And a mixed multitude went up also with them."— Exodus 12:38.
This may be taken as a sign of mercy.—God permits men to work along the line of
their impulses, even when they cannot justify those impulses by natural right or by
technical argument—Impulses to go with the people of God ought never to be
repelled; out of those impulses something better may come.—We must not be too
curious in inquiring into the metaphysical reasons of human action. When that
action points in the right direction, we should accept it, and afterwards begin and
continue the work of spiritual education. In the meantime it ought to be accounted a
sign of hopefulness that men are inclined to go to church, to listen to preaching, or
take any interest in spiritual activities.
This may also be taken in mitigation of judgment of a severe kind often passed upon
the Church.—They are not all Israel that are called Israel; neither are they all
Christians that follow the Christian standard. We must always distinguish between
the true Israel and the mixed multitude. Time will separate them by teaching
them.—It is of the nature of evil that it must destroy itself, and it is of the nature of
life, rooted in God, that it must grow and bloom eternally.—Men are not judges.—
Wherever a man proves himself to be bad and to be acting the bad man"s part, he
unchurches himself without any formal and penal excommunication.
There is a sense in which the Church itself is a mixed multitude. Take it, for
example, in the light of spiritual attainments.—We are not all upon one level.—In
the Church there are great scholars and poor learners; some are far advanced and
others are toiling at the alphabet.—Take it in the matter of disposition.—It is not
equally easy for all men to be religious. It is not equally easy for all men to be
generous.—Where the difficulty is greatest, the sincerity may be of a very pure
kind.—Take it in the matter of individual action.—Probably no human action is
free from some kind of suspicious motive.—Our motives are a mixed multitude.—
We often have to go by majorities, even in our personal considerations and
decisions; we have to marshal a mixed multitude of thoughts, feelings, hopes, and
fears.—Herein is the delicacy of life, and herein the necessity for a discerning
judgment and a sound discipline.

224. PETT, "Exodus 12:38
‘And a mixed multitude went up also with them, and flocks and herds, even very
much cattle.’
This ‘mixed multitude’ would consist of other ‘foreigners’ who had connected
themselves with them, from many nations. They were clearly large enough
numerically for a separate mention. (If umbers 11:4 refers to them their numbers
were sufficient to be noted as dissidents, but it must be counted as doubtful whether
in fact the mixed multitude were in mind in that passage in umbers. The ones
mentioned there were probably the rogue element in Israel that every nation
possesses. The LXX interpretation probably resulted from a later exclusivist
attitude). The battle of Moses with Pharaoh would naturally be widely known and
many slaves and sojourners would by it have been encouraged to join this group of
people who had such a powerful God, especially if it offered them a chance
themselves to escape from oppression in Egypt. And there might well have been
some, including Egyptians, who had been impressed by Israel’s God and had
themselves observed the Passover stipulations. There were clearly a good number in
this mixed multitude and they would all probably later be required to submit to
Yahweh’s covenant. They would by that identify themselves as ‘children of Israel’,
especially in the making of the covenant at Sinai. That this could be so is shortly
legitimised (12:48-49). That the children of Israel were not all directly descended
from Jacob was already true in that the ‘households’ of Jacob and his sons, which
would include slaves and retainers, were also included. ow that expands even
further. God’s mercy extends to all who will submit to Him and to His covenant (see
verse 48).
Together with the mixed multitude were many herds and flocks. The description is
here intended to indicate the large quantity of persons and animals who were on the
move.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:38. And a mixed multitude.—‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ֵר‬‫ע‬. Vulg.: vulgus
promiscuum; Luther: viel Pöbelvolk, “a great rabble”—“In typical fulfillment of
the promise, Genesis 12:3, without doubt stimulated by the signs and wonders of the
Lord in Egypt (comp. Exodus 9:20; Exodus 10:7; Exodus 11:3) to seek their
salvation with Israel, a great multitude of mixed people joined themselves to the
departing Israelites; and, according to the governing idea of the Jewish
commonwealth, they could not be repelled, although these people afterwards
became a snare to them. Vid. umbers 11:4, where they are called ‫ֻף‬‫ס‬ְ‫פ‬ַ‫ס‬ֲ‫,א‬ medley”
(Keil). Literally, a collection. Comp. Deuteronomy 29:11.

225. 39 With the dough the Israelites had brought
from Egypt, they baked loaves of unleavened
bread. The dough was without yeast because they
had been driven out of Egypt and did not have
time to prepare food for themselves.
GILL, "And they baked unleavened cakes,.... While they were at Succoth; but
since that was a desert place, where could they get ovens to bake them in? they might lay
them upon coals, and by frequent turning them bake them, or under hot ashes, under a
pan covered with hot embers and coals, on an hearth, in which way cakes and other
things are now baked with us in many places: of the quick way of dressing cakes in the
eastern countries; see Gill on Gen_18:6 and some render the word, "cakes under ashes"
(k) which were made
of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt; for it was not leavened;
of the manner of their bringing it; see Gill on Exo_12:34, and the reason why it was not
leavened follows:
because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry: to leaven their
dough, in such haste did they go out from thence. When they are said to be "thrust out",
it is not to be understood of force and compulsion used, or of any indecent and ill
behaviour towards them; but of earnest entreaties and urgent persuasions to depart;
though this no doubt gave rise to the stories told by Justin (l), Tacitus (m), and others,
that they were drove and cast out of Egypt by force, because they were a filthy diseased
people, infected with the scab, itch, and leprosy; whereas there was not a sick, unsound,
infirm, and feeble person among them, as before observed:
neither had they prepared for themselves any victual; they had their flocks and
their herds, out of which they could take for their use, and they had dough, though
unleavened and unbaked; but they had nothing ready dressed; what remained of the
passover lamb they were obliged to burn; they had nothing which was got by hunting or
fishing, as the word (n) used signifies; neither venison nor fish, of the latter of which
there was great plenty in Egypt.
ELLICOTT, "(39) Unleavened cakes.—Such are commonly eaten by the Arabs,
who make them by mixing flour with water, and attaching round pieces of the
dough to the insides of their ovens after they have heated them.

226. PETT, "Exodus 12:39
‘And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt
for it was not leavened because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not linger,
nor had they prepared for themselves any victual.’
The total unpreparedness of the children of Israel is stressed. Because of the speed
with which they were sent out of Egypt there had not been time to leaven the dough.
This is an explanation of why unleavened bread was eaten during the seven days of
what became the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and why God made unleavened bread
a symbol of the feast and of the departure from Egypt. In their flight they no doubt
observed the feast as best they could.
40 ow the length of time the Israelite people
lived in Egypt[b] was 430 years.
BAR ES, "Who dwelt - Read, which they sojourned. The obvious intention of
Moses is to state the duration of the sojourn in Egypt.
CLARKE, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, etc. - The statement
in this verse is allowed on all hands to be extremely difficult, and therefore the passage
stands in especial need of illustration. “That the descendants of Israel did not dwell 430
years in Egypt,” says Dr. Kennicott, “may be easily proved, and has often been
demonstrated. Some therefore imagine that by Egypt here both it and Canaan are to be
understood. But this greater latitude of place will not solve the difficulty, since the
Israelites, including Israel their father, did not sojourn 430 years in both countries
previous to their departure from Egypt. Others, sensible of the still remaining deficiency,
would not only have Egypt in the text to signify it and Canaan, but by a figure more
comprehensive would have the children of Israel to mean Israel’s children, and Israel
their father, and Isaac the father of Israel, and part of the life of Abraham, the father of
Isaac.
“Thus indeed,” says Dr. Kennicott, “we arrive at the exact sum, and by this method of
reckoning we might arrive at any thing but truth, which we may presume was never thus
conveyed by an inspired writer.” But can the difficulty be removed without having
recourse to such absurd shifts? Certainly it can. The Samaritan Pentateuch, in all its
manuscripts and printed copies, reads the place thus: -
Umoshab beney Yishrael veabotham asher yashebu baarets Cenaan, ubaarets mitsraim

227. sheloshim shanah vearba meoth shanah.
“Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they
sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years.” This same sum
is given by St. Paul, Gal_3:17, who reckons from the promise made to Abraham, when
God commanded him to go to Canaan, to the giving of the law, which soon followed the
departure from Egypt; and this chronology of the apostle is concordant with the
Samaritan Pentateuch, which, by preserving the two passages, they and their fathers,
and in the land of Canaan, which are lost out of the present copies of the Hebrew text,
has rescued this passage from all obscurity and contradiction. It may be necessary to
observe that the Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint has the same reading as that in the
Samaritan. The Samaritan Pentateuch is allowed by many learned men to exhibit the
most correct copy of the five books of Moses; and the Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint
must also be allowed to be one of the most authentic as well as most ancient copies of
this version which we possess. As to St. Paul, no man will dispute the authenticity of his
statement; and thus in the mouth of these three most respectable witnesses the whole
account is indubitably established. That these three witnesses have the truth, the
chronology itself proves: for from Abraham’s entry into Canaan to the birth of Isaac was
25 years, Gen_12:4; 17:1-21; Isaac was 60 years old at the birth of Jacob, Gen_25:26;
and Jacob was 130 at his going down into Egypt, Gen_47:9; which three sums make 215
years. And then Jacob and his children having continued in Egypt 215 years more, the
whole sum of 430 years is regularly completed. See Kennicott’s Dissertation on the
Hebrew Text.
GILL, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt,....
The Septuagint version adds, "and in the land of Canaan"; and the Samaritan version
is,"the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, in the land of Canaan,
and in the land of Egypt.''Agreeably to which are both the Talmuds: in one (o) of them
the words are,"in Egypt and in all lands,''and in the other (p),"in Egypt, and in the rest of
the lands;''and in the same way Aben Ezra interprets the words. And certain it is, that
Israel did not dwell in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, and even not much more
than two hundred years; but then they and their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
dwelt so long in Mesopotamia, in Canaan, and in Egypt, in foreign countries, in a land
not theirs, as the phrase is, Gen_15:13 where the place of their sojourning, and the time
of it, are given by way of prophecy. The Jews reckon from the vision of God to Abraham
between the pieces to the birth of Isaac thirty years, so the Targum of Jonathan; but that
cannot be, though from his coming out of his own native place, Ur of the Chaldeans, to
the birth of Isaac, might be so many years, since he was seventy five years of age when he
came out of Haran, Gen_12:4 and if he stayed at Haran five years, as probably he did,
then there were just thirty from his coming out of Ur of the Chaldees to Isaac's birth,
since he was born when he was one hundred years old; and from the birth of Isaac to the
birth of Jacob was sixty years, Gen_25:26 and from thence to his going down to Egypt
was one hundred and thirty, Gen_47:9 and from thence to the coming of Israel out of
Egypt were two hundred and ten years, as is generally computed, which make the exact
sum of four hundred and thirty years; of these See Gill on Act_7:6, Gal_3:17.
JAMISO , "the sojourning of the children of Israel ... four hundred and
thirty years — The Septuagint renders it thus: “The sojourning of the children and of
their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt.”
These additions are important, for the period of sojourn in Egypt did not exceed two

228. hundred fifteen years; but if we reckon from the time that Abraham entered Canaan and
the promise was made in which the sojourn of his posterity in Egypt was announced,
this makes up the time to four hundred thirty years.
K&D, "Exo_12:40-41
The sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt had lasted 430 years. This number is not
critically doubtful, nor are the 430 years to be reduced to 215 by an arbitrary
interpolation, such as we find in the lxx, ᅧ δᆯ κατοίκησις τራν υᅷራν ᅾσραήλ ᅫν κατሬκησαν
(Cod. Alex. αᆒτοᆳ καᆳ οί πατέρες αᆒτራν) ᅚν γሀ Αᅶγύπτሩ καᆳ ᅚν γሀ Χαναάν, κ.τ.λ. This
chronological statement, the genuineness of which is placed beyond all doubt by
Onkelos, the Syriac, Vulgate, and other versions, is not only in harmony with the
prediction in Gen_15:13, where the round number 400 is employed in prophetic style,
but may be reconciled with the different genealogical lists, if we only bear in mind that
the genealogies do not always contain a complete enumeration of all the separate links,
but very frequently intermediate links of little historical importance are omitted, as we
have already seen in the genealogy of Moses and Aaron (Exo_6:18-20). For example, the
fact that there were more than the four generations mentioned in Exo_6:16. between
Levi and Moses, is placed beyond all doubt, not only by what has been adduced at Exo_
6:18-20, but by a comparison with other genealogies also. Thus, in Num_26:29., Exo_
27:1; Jos_17:3, we find six generations from Joseph to Zelophehad; in Rth_4:18., 1Ch_
2:5-6, there are also six from Judah to Nahshon, the tribe prince in the time of Moses; in
1Ch_2:18 there are seven from Judah to Bezaleel, the builder of the tabernacle; and in
1Ch_7:20., nine or ten are given from Joseph to Joshua. This last genealogy shows most
clearly the impossibility of the view founded upon the Alexandrian version, that the
sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt lasted only 215 years; for ten generations, reckoned at
40 years each, harmonize very well with 430 years, but certainly not with 215.
(Note: The Alexandrian translators have arbitrarily altered the text to suit the
genealogy of Moses in Exo_6:16., just as in the genealogies of the patriarchs in Gen 5
and 11. The view held by the Seventy became traditional in the synagogue, and the
Apostle Paul followed it in Gal_3:17, where he reckoned the interval between the
promise to Abraham and the giving of the law as 430 years, the question of
chronological exactness having no bearing upon his subject at the time.)
The statement in Exo_12:41, “the self-same day,” is not to be understood as relating to
the first day after the lapse of the 430 years, as though the writer supposed that it was on
the 14th Abib that Jacob entered Egypt 430 years before, but points back to the day of
the exodus, mentioned in Exo_12:14, as compared with Exo_12:11., i.e., the 15th Abib
(cf. Exo_12:51 and Exo_13:4). On “the hosts of Jehovah,” see Exo_7:4.
CALVI , "40. ow the sojourning of the children of Israel. The beginning of this
period is not reckoned from the coming down of Jacob, for it is very clear from
other passages, that, from the time that Jacob entered into Egypt to the Exodus, not
more than 230 years at most had passed. (147) The Jews generally only reckon 210;
but Moses includes also the period during which Abraham and his children were
not in possession of the promised land. The meaning therefore is, that from the time
that the inheritance of the land of Canaan was given to Abraham, the promise was
suspended for 400, years before his posterity enjoyed their right. For Paul also thus
explains this difficulty, (Galatians 3:17,) where he says, that God had confirmed his

229. covenant with Abraham 430 years before the law was promulgated. Moses,
therefore, dates the commencement of this period from the sojourning of Abraham,
when he was still the lord of the land of Canaan by the just title of donation. With
respect to the omission of the thirty years in the 15th chapter of Genesis, in this
there is no contradiction, because the land had already been promised to Abraham
some years previously, though, so far from obtaining dominion over it, he had
scarcely been permitted to occupy it as “a stranger.” Therefore God apprizes him,
that 400 years still remained before he would put his descendants into possession of
it; and, consequently, that the little time which had elapsed was not sufficient for the
trial of his patience, but that both for himself and for his posterity there was need of
extraordinary endurance, lest they should faint under the weariness of the long
delay. Moreover, there is no departure from the usual manner of speaking, in His
not exactly reckoning the number of years. More than 400 years, some twenty, or
thereabouts, indeed, remained; but, since God had no other object than to exhort
His people to patience, He does not accurately compute or define the exact number
of years, because it was sufficient to put before them 400 years in a round sum. In
the same way, it is added in the next verse, “at the end of 430 years,” viz., from the
time that Abraham had begun to be the legitimate lord of the land; for Moses
wished to show, that although God had long delayed the fulfillment of His promise,
still His truth and faithfulness were certainly proved, not only because He had
precisely performed what He had proraised, but because He had observed the:
foreappointed time. He calls the people, weak as they were, by an honorable title,
“the hosts of the Lord,” both to enforce again the power of God’s blessing, and to
give due honor to His grace in ruling and marshalling so confused a band. Although
soldiers may be accustomed to obedience, and have learnt from exercise to keep
their ranks; although they may have generals, commandants, and captains, and
banners also under which to range themselves, still it is a very difficult thing to
march an army of 20,000, or 30,000 men by night without. confusion, and in good
order; how great a miracle was it, then, for 600,000 men, with women and children,
much baggage, herds, and flocks, and other encumbrances, to pass by night through
the midst of enemies, and all to escape safely without a single exception! To the same
effect, Moses repeats in the last verse of this chapter, that “the Lord did bring the
children of Israel out — by their armies,” as much as to say, that there was no
confusion in that immense multitude; since God performed the part of an
incomparable Leader in His marvelous power.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:40. Who dwelt in Egypt — Or sojourned. We must observe,
that it is not said, The sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was four
hundred and thirty years; but the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt — That is, the sojourning of the Israelitish nation, from the time that
Abraham left his native country to sojourn in Canaan, to the release of his posterity,
who were long sojourners in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. Therefore,
the Samaritan copy hath it, Who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt. So the
Vatican edition of the LXX. It was just four hundred and thirty years from the
promise made to Abraham (as the apostle explains it, Galatians 3:17) at his first
coming into Canaan, during all which time the Hebrews were sojourners in a land
that was not theirs, either Canaan or Egypt. So long the promise God made to

230. Abraham lay dormant and unfulfilled, but now it revived, and things began to work
toward the accomplishment of it. The first day of the march of Abraham’s seed
toward Canaan was four hundred and thirty years (it should seem, to a day) from
the promise made to Abraham, Genesis 12:2, “I will make of thee a great nation.”
What reason have we then to admire the exact accomplishment of God’s promise!
otwithstanding the various revolutions and changes of all worldly affairs that must
necessarily have happened in the space of four hundred and thirty years, yet God’s
promise stands sure amidst them all. Yes, God’s word will stand fast for ever and
ever! Heaven and earth may pass away, but his word cannot pass away.
COKE, "Exodus 12:40. The sojourning of the children of Israel, &c.— That the
children or descendants of Israel did not sojourn or dwell four hundred and thirty
years in Egypt, may be easily and has been frequently demonstrated, says Dr.
Kennicott: some therefore would fancy, that, by Egypt, are to be understood here,
both Egypt and Canaan: but this greater latitude of place will not do the business,
since the children of Israel, including Israel their father, did not sojourn four
hundred and thirty years in both countries, before their departure out of Egypt:
others, therefore, sensible of a deficiency still remaining, would not only have Egypt
to signify Egypt and Canaan; but would have the children of Israel to signify
Israel's children, and Israel their father, and Isaac the father of Israel, and part of
the life of Abraham the father of Isaac. Thus, indeed, we arrive at the exact sum:
and, by this method, we might arrive at any thing except truth; which, we may
presume, was never thus conveyed by an inspired writer. The Samaritan text
appears to give us the true reading; for there, the verse runs thus: now the
sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the
land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. This
same sum is given by St. Paul, Galatians 3:17 who reckons from the promise made
to Abraham, when God commanded him to go into Canaan, to the giving of the law,
which soon followed the Exodus of the Israelites: and this apostolical chronology is
exactly concordant with the Samaritan Pentateuch: for, from Abraham's entering
Canaan to the birth of Isaac, was twenty-five years, Isaac was sixty years old at the
birth of Jacob, and Jacob was a hundred and thirty at his going down into Egypt;
which three numbers make two hundred and fifteen years: and then, Jacob and his
children having continued in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years more, the whole
sum of four hundred and thirty is regularly completed. Thus Josephus says
expressly, b. 2 Chronicles 15 that the departure out of Egypt was four hundred and
thirty years after Abraham came into Canaan, and two hundred and fifteen years
after Jacob's descent into Egypt. Thus also the Greek version (Alex. & Ald. Edit.)
reads, but the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in the land
of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers, was four hundred and
thirty years: And thus, St. Augustin, in his forty-seventh question on Exodus. See
State of printed Hebrew text, p. 396. Mr. Locke explains this passage agreeably to
the interpretation given in the Samaritan text; and the learned reader will find Dr.
Kennicott's Criticism, at large, in Houbigant's Prolegomena, p. 68.
ELLICOTT, "(40) The sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt.—
Heb., which they sojourned in Egypt

231. Was four hundred and thirty years.—Comp. the prophecy:—“Thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs [Egypt, not Canaan], and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years and also that nation whom they shall
serve will I judge” (Genesis 15:13-14). The genealogy of Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:22-
27), which places him in the eleventh generation from Jacob, accords well with this
term of years. The other genealogies are more or less abbreviated.
PETT, "Exodus 12:40-41
‘ ow the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was
four hundred and thirty years, and it happened at the end of four hundred and
thirty years, even the selfsame day it happened, that all the hosts of Yahweh went
out from the land of Egypt.’
The ‘sojourning’ of the children of Israel in Egypt is stated to have been for four
hundred and thirty years. However this figure may be based on the ‘four hundred
years’ of Genesis 15:13 (i.e. four generations - Genesis 15:16) with a complete
‘thirty’ years added. It is highly questionable, and would be totally without
precedent, if a year by year calendar was kept of the passage of time. The thirty
years may reflect a complete period (three intensified) added to the four hundred
years to indicate the perfection of God’s working and timing. Alternately the thirty
years may connect with some specific event which we are unaware of which was
seen as the commencement of the deliverance. That could explain the reference to
‘the selfsame day’. But this latter may also be just a way of stressing that God
worked to an exact timetable.
If it is to be taken literally then it would suggest the date of the Exodus to be 13th
century BC, the fifteenth century date taking us back too far in time.
The position is complicated by the fact that here the LXX has a different reading for
it reads ‘in Egypt and in Canaan’. This may have been the original text but it looks
more like an attempt to solve a difficulty caused by the fact that Exodus 6:16-20
does contain four generations from Levi to Moses (compare Leviticus 10:4 also
umbers 26:5-9 of Korah. 1 Chronicles 6:1-3 is taken from here). However, that is
probably not intended to be a complete genealogy. ote for example that there were
a greater number of generations from Ephraim to Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:20-27).
Indeed we now know that in these genealogies it was often considered necessary
only to put in the important names so that generations were omitted with no
difficulty and ‘begat’ simply indicated ‘was the ancestor of’ and ‘son of’ meant ‘the
descendant of’. This is archaeologically evidenced again and again in many cultures.
The four generations of Moses and Aaron were most probably intended to signify
tribe, sub-tribe, clan and family, or may have been selected in order to bring out the
fact that they were in a foreign land, for four is the number indicating the world
outside the covenant (consider four rivers outside Eden (Genesis 2), four kings from
foreign parts against Abraham (Genesis 14), four beasts representing world empires
(Daniel 2, 7)). Thus Amram and Yochebed may have been only ‘descendants of’

232. Kohath or may even have been ancestors of Moses and not his direct father and
mother. So we must be careful about attempting to apply our own criteria to figures
and genealogies in the Old Testament. We must ask ourselves what they themselves
meant, and remember that in the case of genealogies what mattered to them was the
line from which they came.
“Even the self same day.” This probably refers back to Exodus 12:14, the self same
day as the deliverance. This is confirmed by Exodus 12:42.
41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all
the Lord’s divisions left Egypt.
GILL, "And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years,.... As
soon as completed:
even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out
from the land of Egypt; which was the fifteenth of Nisan; and Jarchi says it was on
the fifteenth of Nisan that the decree was made known to Abraham between the pieces,
concerning the affliction of his posterity four hundred years in a land not theirs; but this
is not to be depended on; yet it looks as if at the close of the four hundred and thirty
years, from the date of them, exactly to a day, the children of Israel, the armies of the
Lord, came out of Egypt in great order: however, it seems certain by this that they all
came out the same day, which was very wonderful that such a large number should be
collected together, and that they should march out of the land on one and the same day;
and it is pretty plain it was in the daytime, and very likely in the midst of the day; for
they were not to stir out of their houses till morning, and then they had what remained
of the passover to burn, as well as many other things to do, it is very probable, and some
which they could not do; so that they did not go by night, or by stealth, but openly at
noon day; and the words will bear to be rendered, "in the strength or body of the day"
(r), when it is at its height, as it is at noon; and so the Jews represent the Lord speaking
after this manner (s),"If I bring out Israel by night, the Egyptians will say, now he does
his work after the manner of thieves; but behold, I will bring them out in the midst of the
day, in the strength of the sun, as is said, "and it was in the selfsame day", &c.''

233. JAMISO , "even the selfsame day — implying an exact and literal fulfilment of
the predicted period.
COKE, "Exodus 12:41. Even the self-same day—all the hosts of the Lord—
Archbishop Usher supposes, that as this day of their Exodus was Abib 15th, or May
5th, of this year, so Abraham's coming out of Charran was Abib 15th of that year.
REFLECTIO S.—1. Moses embraces the favourable moment. The people march
immediately, an immense body; besides a mixed multitude, who, from curiosity, or a
conviction of the truth, went out with them. ote; In the church there is a mixed
multitude of professors, but there are many Egyptians among them. 2. Observe the
memorable night: just four hundred and thirty years from the date of the promise
to Abraham. The Egyptians remembered this night to their sorrow, the Israelites
with unspeakable joy in their future generations. If temporal deliverances are so
worthy a memorial, how should we be affected with that eternal redemption, which
Jesus has obtained for his faithful people, from a servitude more intolerable than
Egyptian, into a country infinitely superior to Canaan!
ELLICOTT, "(41) The selfsame day . . . all the hosts . . . went out.—All started, i.e.,
on one and the same day—the fifteenth of the month Abib. Some would start during
the night, some in the morning, others at different periods of the day. They had
different distances to traverse in order to reach the appointed halt, Succoth.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "The Message of the Book of Exodus
Exodus 12:41
The story of Exodus is the story of a Divine deliverance.
I. This story of deliverance is in its first stage a story of an awakening. When God
came to Israel in Egypt he found her in bondage. She was the slave of Pharaoh,
fulfilling his purpose and doing his work. But Pharaoh had no right to Israel"s
services—Israel belonged to God. What she needed was awakening to a sense of her
true dignity and her high destiny. ow this awakening God brought about in a
twofold way:—
1. By increasing the severity of the oppression until it became unbearable. Then the
children of Israel sighed by reason of their bondage, and they cried, and their cry
came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
2. And then, just as this national conscience was awaking, God sent Moses to nurse
it into vigorous life.
II. The awakening past, the story begins.
A story of struggle. When Israel awoke to desire deliverance and to work for it,
there began one of the greatest struggles in the world"s history. Israel never knew

234. how strong the arm of Pharaoh was until she tried to shake herself loose from it—
just as no man knows what a grip sin has on him until he strives to Be free from it;
but the moment Israel awoke it began. God then fought for Israel, as He always
fights for the soul who is seeking to be His.
So the story of struggle becomes a story of deliverance. In this story of deliverance
two things are specially emphasized: (1) that from beginning to end the deliverance
was the work of God; (2) that this deliverance was a deliverance through blood-
shedding. All the might of the first nine plagues did not avail. It required the knife
that shed the blood of the Paschal Lamb to sever the cords that kept the Israelites
slaves.
III. Having recorded the Deliverance, the book takes a step forward and becomes a
story of Guidance and Instruction. With this story the greater part of the book is
filled. From the Red Sea Israel is led to Sinai. Instruction is the necessary sequence
of deliverance. So Israel is brought to Sinai to receive it. There God gives a law,
obedience to which will furnish the fullest expression for a godly life.
But after the laws for the regulation of life have been given there follow laws for the
regulation of worship. It is important then for us to note this: While our whole life is
to be a life of worship, recognition of this must not prevent our engaging in special
acts of worship. But when we worship God, God desires that in our worship we
should accept His guidance. Therefore after the laws for the regulation of life come
the directions for the making of the Tabernacle. And then the current of the book is
for the time changed to remind us that, in the life of the saved, there is always the
possibility of backsliding. The book of Exodus would be distinctly less valuable, and
its picture of the spiritual life distinctly less complete, had it not contained the story
of the Golden Calf.
The last six chapters of the book are devoted to a record of how Moses, in implicit
obedience to the orders he had received, made the Tabernacle.
And how does the story close? "So Moses finished the work... and the glory of the
Lord filled the Tabernacle." That was the supreme reward of Israel"s obedience. By
her obedience she became a people among whom God dwelt. The Lord her God was
in the midst of her, blessing her, saving her, guiding her in all her journeys, until he
led her right into the promised land.
—G. H. C. Macgregor, Messages of the Old Testament, p17.
42 Because the Lord kept vigil that night to bring

235. them out of Egypt, on this night all the Israelites
are to keep vigil to honor the Lord for the
generations to come.
CLARKE, "A night to be much observed - A night to be held in everlasting
remembrance, because of the peculiar display of the power and goodness of God, the
observance of which annually was to be considered a religious precept while the Jewish
nation should continue.
GILL, "It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord,.... Or "a night of
observations" (t), in which many things are to be observed to the honour and glory of
God, as done by him, wherein his power, wisdom, goodness, truth and faithfulness, are
displayed; partly by the destruction of the Egyptian firstborn, and particularly
for bringing them, the children of Israel:
out from the land of Egypt: with the leave, and even pressing importunity of the
Egyptians, and with so much wealth and riches, having found great favour in their sight,
which was from the Lord:
this is that night of the Lord to be much observed of all the children of Israel
in their generations in successive ages unto the coming of the Messiah, for the
reasons before given; and the selfsame night is worthy the remembrance of all the
spiritual Israel of God, of all true believers in Christ; for that very night after Christ had
ate the passover with his disciples, he was betrayed by one of them; and to perpetuate
the memory of this, and of his sufferings and death, an ordinance is appointed to be
observed until his second coming, see 1Co_11:23, and the ancient Jews themselves have
had some notion of the appearance of the Messiah at this time; for they not only expect
his coming at the time of the passover, and speak of their redemption by him in the
month of Nisan, as before observed on Exo_12:14, but of this very night, among the four
observable things in it, the fourth they say is, Moses shall go out of the midst of the
wilderness, and the King Messiah out of Rome; so it is said in the Jerusalem Targum on
the place.
K&D, "Exo_12:42
This day therefore was ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֻ ִ‫שׁ‬ ‫יל‬ ֵ‫,ל‬ “a preservation-night of the Lord, to bring them out
of the land of Egypt.” The apax legomenon ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֻ ִ‫שׁ‬ does not mean “celebration, from ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬

236. to observe, to honour” (Knobel), but “preservation,” from ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ to keep, to preserve; and
‫ה‬ָ‫ּו‬‫ה‬‫י‬ ַ‫ל‬ is the same as in Exo_12:27. “This same night is (consecrated) to the Lord as a
preservation for all children of Israel in their families.” Because Jehovah had preserved
the children of Israel that night from the destroyer, it was to be holy to them, i.e., to be
kept by them in all future ages to the glory of the Lord, as a preservation.
CALVI , "42.It is a night to be much observed. He shows that the Israelites have
good cause for sacrificing to God with a solemn ceremony year by year for ever, and
for celebrating the memory of that night; and that the Passover was instituted in
token of their gratitude. But this admonition was very useful, in order that the
Israelites should retain the legitimate use of this solemn feast-day, and that it might
not grow into a mere cold ceremony, as is often the case; but that rather they might
profitably, and to the advancement of their piety, exercise themselves in this emblem
of their redemption. At the same time, he teaches that this so inestimable a benefit
was not to be celebrated in one, or two, or three generations, but that as long as the
people should remain it was worthy of eternal remembrance, and that it might
never be forgotten, the Passover was to be sacredly observed.
Moreover we must remark, that the generations of the ancient people were brought
to an end by the coming of Christ; because the shadows of the Law ceased when the
state of the Church was renewed, and the Gentiles were gathered into the same
body.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:42. This first passover night was a night of the Lord, much to
be observed; but the last passover night, in which Christ was betrayed, was a night
of the Lord, much more to be observed, when a yoke heavier than that of Egypt was
broken from off our necks, and a land better than that of Canaan set before us.
That was a temporal deliverance, to be celebrated in their generations; this an
eternal redemption, to be celebrated world without end.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Exodus 12:42
The lesson taught to Pharaoh and to Israel on that awful, that joyous night of
deliverance, is still a living lesson; not one jot of its force is abated. God neither
slumbers nor sleeps. He watches ever. ot one slip passes unrecorded in the
heavenly volume.... This is the first lesson taught by our watch-night—the lesson of
the sleepless justice of God, which brings home at last the sin to the guilty, and
which remembers pitifully, lovingly, every suffering soul that sin has wronged.
—Morris Joseph, The Ideal in Judaism, p65.
PETT, "Exodus 12:42
‘It is a night of watching to Yahweh for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This
same night is a night of watching to Yahweh for all the children of Israel throughout

237. their generations.’
The importance of the night is linked to Yahweh’s watch over the people on
Passover night. To Him it was ‘a night of watching’ as He watched over them to
protect them and then to deliver them. And when they in future celebrated the
Passover they too would be aware of Him watching over them, in the same way as
this, throughout their generations, for they too were His people. The result will be
that they too would ‘watch’ as they considered His goodness and mercy, on the
anniversary of that night, into future generations.
We have here a reminder to us too that as we go forward with God on the journey to
which He calls us He will be watching over us to protect and lead us, and to enable
us to deal with the Enemy, and that we must always be watching Him.
Verses 42-50
The Mixed Multitude, And Those Who Will, Can Enter God’s Covenant and Share
the Passover (Exodus 12:42-50).
The extra instructions that follow were partly necessary because of the mixed
multitude that had joined up with them, and they are thus introduced at this point.
But they are also important as indicating the make up of ‘the children of Israel’.
They are seen as including genuine descendants of Jacob and his sons, descendants
of all family servants in their households who had been circumcised and their
descendants, and all resident aliens who sought to enter the covenant through
circumcision. It was in fact open to almost anyone to become one of the ‘children of
Israel’ as long as they were willing to be committed to Yahweh.
a The ordinance of the Passover is now spoken of so that instructions can be
given concerning it (Exodus 12:43 a)
b o resident alien is to eat of it, but a man’s servant bought with money may
eat of it once he has been circumcised and thus brought within the covenant
(Exodus 12:43-44)
c A foreign settler or foreign hired worker shall not eat of it (Exodus 12:45).
d It must be eaten within the one house. o part of the flesh may be take out of
the house, and no bone of it may be broken (Exodus 12:46).
e All the congregation of Israel shall keep it (Exodus 12:47)
d A foreigner who resides with them permanently and wishes, with his family,
to keep the Passover must first be circumcised with all the males of the family, and
then they may then eat of it. He will then be as one born in the land (Exodus 12:48
a).
c o uncircumcised person may eat of it (Exodus 12:48 b).
b There will be one law for the homeborn and for the resident alien who dwells
among them (Exodus 12:49).
a Thus did all the children of Israel as Yahweh commanded Moses, and so it
came about that that selfsame day Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the
land of Egypt by their hosts (Exodus 12:50).
With regard to ‘a’, the ordinance of the Passover was the ordinance of deliverance,
thus in the parallel to keep it was to celebrate the bringing of the children of Israel

238. out of Egypt by their hosts. In ‘b’ a resident alien who had not committed himself by
being circumcised may not eat of it while a circumcised bought-in servant may, the
parallel indicating that all will receive complete fairness of treatment, all will be
treated the same according to these regulations, whether homeborn or foreign. The
whole question of acceptability rests on whether they are willing to be circumcised
into the covenant. In ‘c’ no foreigner may eat of it, nor in the parallel may any
uncircumcised person. In ‘d’ it may not be taken outside the house nor may any
bone of it be broken. It is a holy meal. It must be eaten entire within the household
so that its holiness may be maintained. And in the parallel a household of foreigners
may, as long as all the males are circumcised, partake of the holy meal, for then they
will be as the homeborn and the holiness of the meal will be protected. Both
ordinance are concerned to protect the holiness of the meal. And finally and
centrally all the congregation of Israel must keep the Passover.
Exodus 12:42-45
‘And Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover. o
alien shall eat of it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, once you have
circumcised him, then shall he eat of it. A foreign settler and a hired servant shall
not eat of it.” ’
When the Passover was kept those who partook could only be those who had
entered the covenant community of ‘the children of Israel’. Thus a purchased man,
once he was circumcised, could enter the covenant, and then belonged and could
partake, because he was permanently among them. But those who were just passing
through, such as a hired man who would one day leave, or a sojourner who was
temporary (compare Exodus 12:48), could not eat of the Passover because they were
not members of the covenant. They were not committed to Yahweh. But in verse 48
provision is made for them to enter the covenant if they were willing to become
permanently committed by being circumcised.
“ o alien shall eat of it.” That is, one who is outside the covenant (see Exodus
12:48). He will be a worshipper of other gods and belongs to another community.
“A foreign settler.” Someone who settles among them on a temporary basis. (The
one who wishes to become permanent and enter the covenant can do so (Exodus
12:48)).
Passover Restrictions
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are

239. the regulations for the Passover meal:
“ o foreigner may eat it.
BAR ES, "And the Lord said - From this verse to Exo_13:16 are instructions
regarding the Passover. Such instructions were needed when the Israelites were joined
by the “mixed multitude:” of strangers; and they were probably given at Succoth, on the
morning following the departure from Rameses.
No stranger - Literally, “son of a stranger.” The term is general; it includes all who
were aliens from Israel, until they were incorporated into the nation by circumcision.
CLARKE, "This is the ordinance of the passover - From the last verse of this
chapter it appears pretty evident that this, to the 50th verse inclusive, constituted a part
of the directions given to Moses relative to the proper observance of the first passover,
and should be read conjointly with the preceding account beginning at Exo_12:21. It
may be supposed that these latter parts contain such particular directions as God gave to
Moses after he had given those general ones mentioned in the preceding verses, but they
seem all to belong to this first passover.
There shall no stranger eat thereof - ‫נכר‬ ‫בן‬ ben nechar, the son of a stranger or
foreigner, i.e., one who was not of the genuine Hebrew stock, or one who had not
received circumcision; for any circumcised person might eat the passover, as the total
exclusion extends only to the uncircumcised, see Exo_12:48. As there are two sorts of
strangers mentioned in the sacred writings; one who was admitted to all the Jewish
ordinances, and another who, though he dwelt among the Jews, was not permitted to eat
the passover or partake of any of their solemn feasts; it may be necessary to show what
was the essential point of distinction through which the one was admitted and the other
excluded.
In treatises on the religious customs of the Jews we frequently meet with the term
proselyte, from the Greek προσηλυτος, a stranger or foreigner; one who is come from his
own people and country to sojourn with another. All who were not descendants of some
one of the twelve sons of Jacob, or of Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph,
were reputed strangers or proselytes among the Jews. But of those strangers or
proselytes there were two kinds, called among them proselytes of the gate, and
proselytes of injustice or of the covenant. The former were such as wished to dwell
among the Jews, but would not submit to be circumcised; they, however, acknowledged
the true God, avoided all idolatry, and observed the seven precepts of Noah, but were not
obliged to observe any of the Mosaic institutions. The latter submitted to be circumcised,
obliged themselves to observe all the rites and ceremonies of the law, and were in
nothing different from the Jews but merely in their having once been heathens. The
former, or proselytes of the gate, might not eat the passover or partake of any of the
sacred festivals; but the latter, the proselytes of the covenant, had the same rights,
spiritual and secular, as the Jews themselves. See Exo_12:48.

240. GILL, "And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron,.... At the same time he
acquainted them with the above things:
this is the ordinance of the passover; as before delivered, and these the laws and
rules, according to which it is to be observed, as now related, both with respect to the
lamb, and to the unleavened bread; and the following is an account of the persons that
were to partake of it:
there shall no stranger eat thereof, one that is of another country, an entire
Heathen, and unacquainted with, and does not profess the Jewish religion, which was
the religion of God.
HE RY 43-51, "Some further precepts are here given concerning the passover, as it
should be observed in times to come.
I. All the congregation of Israel must keep it, Exo_12:47. All that share in God's
mercies should join in thankful praises for them. Though it was observed in families
apart, yet it is looked upon as the act of the whole congregation; for the smaller
communities constituted the greater. The New Testament passover, the Lord's supper,
ought not to be neglected by any who are capable of celebrating it. He is unworthy the
name of an Israelite that can contentedly neglect the commemoration of so great a
deliverance. 1. No stranger that was uncircumcised might be admitted to eat of it, Exo_
12:43, Exo_12:45, Exo_12:48. None might sit at the table but those that came in by the
door; nor may any now approach to the improving ordinance of the Lord's supper who
have not first submitted to the initiating ordinance of baptism. We must be born again
by the word ere we can be nourished by it. Nor shall any partake of the benefit of Christ's
sacrifice, or feast upon it, who are not first circumcised in heart, Col_2:11. 2. Any
stranger that was circumcised might be welcome to eat of the passover, even servants,
Exo_12:44. If, by circumcision, they would make themselves debtors to the law in its
burdens, they were welcome to share in the joy of its solemn feasts, and not otherwise.
Only it is intimated (Exo_12:48) that those who were masters of families must not only
be circumcised themselves, but have all their males circumcised too. If in sincerity, and
with that zeal which the thing required and deserves, we give up ourselves to God, we
shall, with ourselves, give up all we have to him, and do our utmost that all ours may be
his too. Here is an early indication of favour to the poor Gentiles, that the stranger, if
circumcised, stands upon the same level with the home-born Israelite. One law for both,
Exo_12:49. This was a mortification to the Jews, and taught them that it was their
dedication to God, not their descent from Abraham, that entitled them to their
privileges. A sincere proselyte was as welcome to the passover as a native Israelite, Isa_
56:6, Isa_56:7.
II. In one house shall it be eaten (Exo_12:46), for good-fellowship sake, that they
might rejoice together, and edify one another in the eating of it. None of it must be
carried to another place, nor left to another time; for God would not have them so taken
up with care about their departure as to be indisposed to take the comfort of it, but to
leave Egypt, and enter upon a wilderness, with cheerfulness, and, in token of that, to eat
a good hearty meal. The papists' carrying their consecrated host from house to house is
not only superstitious in itself, but contrary to this typical law of the passover, which
directed that no part of the lamb should be carried abroad.
The chapter concludes with a repetition of the whole matter, that the children of Israel

241. did as they were bidden, and God did for them as he promised (Exo_12:50, Exo_12:51);
for he will certainly be the author of salvation to those that obey him.
K&D 43-48, "Regulations Concerning the Participants in the Passover. - These
regulations, which were supplementary to the law of the Passover in Exo_12:3-11, were
not communicated before the exodus; because it was only by the fact that a crowd of
foreigners attached themselves to the Israelites, that Israel was brought into a
connection with foreigners, which needed to be clearly defined, especially so far as the
Passover was concerned, the festival of Israel's birth as the people of God. If the
Passover was still to retain this signification, of course no foreigner could participate in
it. This is the first regulation. But as it was by virtue of a divine call, and not through
natural descent, that Israel had become the people of Jehovah, and as it was destined in
that capacity to be a blessing to all nations, the attitude assumed towards foreigners was
not to be an altogether repelling one. Hence the further directions in Exo_12:44 :
purchased servants, who had been politically incorporated as Israel's property, were to
be entirely incorporated by circumcision, so as even to take part in the Passover. But
settlers, and servants working for wages, were not to eat of it, for they stood in a purely
external relation, which might be any day dissolved. ְ ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ፎ, lit., to eat at anything, to take
part in the eating (Lev_22:11). The deeper ground fore this was, that in this meal Israel
was to preserve and celebrate its unity and fellowship with Jehovah. This was the
meaning of the regulations, which were repeated in Exo_12:46 and Exo_12:47 from
Exo_12:4, Exo_12:9, and Exo_12:10, where they had been already explained. If,
therefore, a foreigner living among the Israelites wished to keep the Passover, he was
first of all to be spiritually incorporated into the nation of Jehovah by circumcision
(Exo_12:48). ‫פס‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ְ‫:ו‬ “And he has made (i.e., made ready) a passover to Jehovah, let
every male be circumcised to him (i.e., he himself, and the male members of his house),
and then he may draw near (sc., to Jehovah) to keep it.” The first ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ denotes the wish
or intention to do it, the second, the actual execution of the wish. The words ‫ר‬ ָ‫כ‬ֵ‫ן־נ‬ ֶ , ‫ר‬ֵ,
‫ב‬ ָ‫ּושׁ‬ and ‫יר‬ ִ‫כ‬ ָ‫,שׂ‬ are all indicative of non-Israelites. ‫ר‬ ָ‫כ‬ֵ‫ן־נ‬ ֶ was applied quite generally to any
foreigner springing from another nation; ‫ר‬ֵ was a foreigner living for a shorter or longer
time in the midst of the Israelites; ‫ב‬ ָ‫ּושׁ‬ , lit., a dweller, settler, was one who settled
permanently among the Israelites, without being received into their religious fellowship;
‫יר‬ ִ‫כ‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ was the non-Israelite, who worked for an Israelite for wages.
CALVI , "43.This is the ordinance of the passover. Since the passover was the
sacred bond whereby God would hold the elect people in obligation to Himself, He
forbids all strangers from partaking of it; because a promiscuous permission to eat
of it would have been an unworthy profanation. And in fact, since this is a
supplement to the First Commandment, it only addresses itself to those unto whom
is directed the preface of the Law, “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
We know that among the Gentiles none but the initiated (318) were admitted to
their sacred rites. This was an absurd imitation (319) of this true and lawful
ordinance; because such a condition is only applicable to the institution of God, lest

242. strangers should promiscuously usurp the testimonies of His grace, with which He
honors His Church alone. For circumcision was then like a hedge, which should
distinguish heathen nations from the holy race of Abraham; if, then, any should
wish to celebrate the passover together with the elect people, it was necessary that he
should be circumcised, so as to attach himself to the true God; though God did not
merely refer to the outward sign, but to the object, viz., that all who were
circumcised should promise to study sincere piety. Moses, therefore, first of all,
excludes all strangers who were unclean through their uncircumcision; and then he
adds two exceptions, viz., that servants bought with money should be circumcised,
(which was a necessary requirement;) and that free and independent persons, if they
chose to embrace the same alternative, should also be received to the passover.
Hence it appears that this rite was not only peculiar to God’s people, but that it was
a sign of the future redemption. For strangers could not testify that they were
sharers in that redemption which had been promised to the race of Abraham alone;
and, therefore, the ceremony of the sacred feast would have been vain and useless to
them. or does Moses refer only to that mixed multitude which had followed the
Israelites out of Egypt; but prescribes a law respecting all strangers, who for many
succeeding ages should come on business into the land. o doubt but that, in
celebrating the passover, they would have expected another redemption; since that
which was already vouchsafed to the children of Abraham had not extended to
them. For although they might be reckoned among the people, yet did no portion of
the land in consequence fall to their lot, nor was their condition improved as to
temporal rights; (320) but it was only that they might become members of the
Church. From the analogy between the Holy Supper and the Passover, this law
remains in force now, viz., that no polluted or impure person should intrude himself
at the Lord’s table, but that only the faithful should be received, after they have
professed themselves to be followers of Christ. (321) And this is expressed also in the
words, “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger,” etc.,
Exodus 12:49; viz., that the ordinance of the sacrament should be solemnly observed
by all, and that thus they should equally participate in the grace offered to them in
common, and that in this respect the condition of all should be equal, though it
differed as to their inheritance of the land.
COFFMA , "Verses 43-51
"And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover;
there shall no foreigner eat thereof; but every man's servant that is bought for
money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and
a hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not
carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone
thereof. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall
sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be
circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is
born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to
him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Thus did
all the children of Israel; as Jehovah commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
And it came to pass the selfsame day, that Jehovah did bring the children of Israel
out of the land of Egypt by their hosts."

243. The deliverance of Israel was at that point achieved. This chapter is the pivot upon
which the entire O.T. turns. This record reveals the deliverance of both the Old
Israel and the ew Israel, which is the church of Christ. And before the narrative is
completed the typical nature of the deliverance of Israel will appear in such bold
and impressive events that it must be held impossible to miss their significance.
" either shall ye break a bone thereof ..." See under Exodus 12:11, above, where
this was discussed out of sequence.
The rules by which non-Israelites would be permitted to join in the Passover were
important in showing that, "it was never God's intention that only Jews should
receive salvation." The great promise to Abraham himself was given in order that
"in him ... all the peoples of the earth" might be blessed, and a token of that
fulfillment is here in this great mixed multitude that went out of Egypt. In time, the
Jews forgot or ignored this purpose altogether.
Before leaving this marvelous chapter, we shall rehearse some of the things in it that
are typical of the Lord Jesus Christ, and most of which things, are specifically
declared in this chapter.
CHRIST; OUR PASSOVER
There was no salvation for Israel except through the blood of the Passover. There is
no salvation for any person apart from the blood of Christ.
The lamb was typical of Christ as follows:
It was innocent.
The innocent suffered for the guilty.
It was submissive and uncomplaining in death.
ot a bone of it was broken.
The lamb was offered from the foundation of the world (Abel's offering).
God purposed to send Christ "before the world" was.
It was in "eating" the Passover that people were rescued from death.
It is in eating Christ (John 6:56) that all people are saved.
The lamb was kept up four days before it was killed. Christ was in Jerusalem four
days before the crucifixion.

244. The lamb was a male in the prime of life without spot or blemish, in short, perfect.
So exactly was Jesus Christ.
Both the lamb and the Lord Jesus Christ suffered death "between the two evens,"
(3:00 p.m.).
Both suffered death on the 14th of Abib ( isan).
The great ordinances commemorating the two deliverances, namely, the Lord's
Supper, and the Jewish Passover, were both instituted and set up before the great
events they were designed to commemorate.
There were of course marked differences between the passover and the Lord's
Supper, but these resemblances are impressive. As we continue Exodus, we shall
observe many other things that are typical of Jesus Christ and the Deliverance
which he has brought to all people.
CO STABLE, "Verses 43-51
4. Regulations regarding the Passover12:43-51
Before any male could eat the Passover he had to undergo circumcision. Moses
stressed this requirement strongly in this section. The rationale behind this rule was
that before anyone could observe the memorial of redemption he first had to
exercise faith in the promises God had given to Abraham. Furthermore he had to
demonstrate that faith by submitting to the rite of circumcision, the sign of the
Abrahamic Covenant. This requirement should have reminded the Israelites and all
other believers who partook of the Passover that the Passover rite did not make a
person acceptable to God. Faith in the promises of God did that. Foreigners who
were non-Israelites could and did become members of the nation by faith in the
Abrahamic Covenant promises and participation in the rite of circumcision. There
were both circumcised and uncircumcised foreigners who lived among the Israelites
during the wilderness march.
Here Moses revealed the requirement that the Passover host was not to break a bone
of the paschal lamb ( Exodus 12:46; cf. Exodus 12:3-9). ot a bone of the Lamb of
God was broken either ( John 19:36).
ELLICOTT, "Verse 43
(43) o stranger.—Comp, Exodus 12:48 for limitations. If a stranger wished to join,
and would accept circumcision for himself and the males of his family, he might
partake in the rite.
Verses 43-51
FURTHER DIRECTIO S RESPECTI G THE PASSOVER.
(43-51) This is the ordinance.—These directions, together with those which follow
with respect to the sanctification of the firstborn (Exodus 13:1-16), seem to have

245. been given to Moses at Succoth, and were consequently recorded at this point of the
narrative. They comprise three principal points:—(1) The exclusion of all
uncircumcised persons from the Passover (Exodus 12:43); (2) the admission of all
full proselytes (Exodus 12:48-49); and (3) the injunction that no bone of the lamb
should be broken (Exodus 12:46).
ISBET, "Verse 43
THE PASSOVER
‘This is the ordinance of the passover.’
Exodus 12:43
Between the announcement of the closing plague and the night of its actual
accomplishment, a considerable interval must have elapsed. Time was given, in the
wise delay of God, for the widespread preparations that were necessary; a last
opportunity was afforded Pharaoh to realise the awful consequences of his
obstinacy; and Moses was instructed, in this lull before the storm, how to celebrate
the Passover Feast, so that it should not only answer the purpose of the moment, but
be a witness to succeeding generations. What, then, was to be the manner of this
feast? It was to be a feast, not of leisure, but of haste. It was not to be eaten at ease
and with happy lingering; men were not to be dressed as if for some quiet repast.
Loins must be girded, shoes must be on the feet, the hand of every man must grasp a
staff; it was a feast of expectancy and eagerness; of men on the point of starting on a
journey. Everyone knows what the feast itself consisted of—it was a lamb without
blemish, a male of the first year. The lamb was to be roasted with fire, and
unleavened bread was to be prepared, then with the unleavened bread and bitter
herbs it was to be eaten. But first, the blood of the lamb was to be gathered in a
basin, and with that blood the doorposts and the lintels of every house which
sheltered a family of Israelites was to be sprinkled.
I. Such, then, were the directions of Moses, and they were loyally and literally
obeyed. From north to south, wherever the Hebrews dwelt, all things were ready on
the fateful night. A deepening sense of doom spread over Egypt, a growing certainty
of deliverance stirred in Israel; everything pointed to the striking of an hour when
the arm of Almighty God would be revealed. And as before a storm there is often an
ominous hush, and ature seems conscious of impending ruin, so was it in the
doomed country of the Pharaoh. At midnight on the fourteenth of isam the blow
fell. In the palace, in the lonely cottage, in the prison-cell, wherever there was a
bloodless lintel there was death. And such a cry arose of agony and heartbreak as
rang in the Hebrews’ ears for many a day. To the Egyptians it was a cry of woe; but
to the Israelites it was the call of freedom—what strange diversities of meaning God
can bring out of the accents of a single voice! The wail that spoke of desolated homes
spoke also of release from bitter hardship. For Pharaoh rose up in the night with all
his servants, and he called for Moses and Aaron there and then. He said, ‘Rise up,
get you forth from among my people, and go, serve the Lord as ye have said.’ So on
the early dawn of the fifteenth day of isam the children of Israel started on the
journey of which they had dreamed through many a weary day, but which was to be
so different from their dream.

246. II. There were both safety and sustenance in the lamb.—On the night of the
Passover God commanded the Israelites that none of them should stir beyond the
door. Outside—in the street—there was no promise of protection; inside, they were
absolutely safe. ow why was that? Was it lest in the darkness the angel of
destruction might misknow them? ot so; it was that all might learn that nowhere
was there safety but behind the blood. And what was that blood that was sprinkled
on the doorposts? It was the blood of the lamb that had been slain. And what was
the flesh that the waiting people fed on? It was the flesh of that same lamb whose
blood was sprinkled. So through the one lamb they were redeemed from death, and
sustained for the labours and trials of their journey. Is not that true also of the
Lamb of God?—a name that immediately recalls this scene. He does not merely
redeem us and then leave us. He saves us and He satisfies us too. Sprinkled with His
blood we fear no destroying angel; fed with His flesh we are strong to take our
journey:—
Bread of Heaven, on Thee we feed,
For Thy flesh is Meat indeed.
III. We should make a study of the Lamb as it occurs in Scripture.—In that parable
and picture of the Saviour, there is a widening and expanding glory. First, we have
the lamb for the individual, when Abel offered the firstlings of his flock. Then here,
in the story of the Passover, we have an instance of the lamb for the family. In a
later chapter (Exodus 29:38-39) we meet with the lamb for the people; in the words
of the Baptist we have the Lamb for the world; and the glorious expansion reaches
its greatest in Revelation (Revelation 7:14) where we find the Lamb for all heaven.
Illustration
(1) ‘Let me be sure that I have clear conceptions of Christ my Passover. If one
should ask me what meanings I attach to Him and to His work and redemption, I
would have a definite answer to return.
And let me ring out my joy in Christ my Passover. A greater deliverance than the
exodus from Egypt He has wrought for me. How cowardly it is, how sinful, to be
silent regarding His mighty deeds! ay, come and hear, children, friends,
neighbours, all; and I will tell what He has done, and is doing, and will continue to
do for ever and ever.’
(2) ‘Is it not well for me to recall the years of the right hand of the Most High? Is it
not wise to remember my Lord’s mighty doings in the past? “It is a night to be much
observed.”
The God of those who went before me was a living God. People question to-day
whether there is any Maker and Governor of the world. But my fathers, for whom
He did great things, were sure of Him, and would have doubted their own
personality sooner than doubt His. They bid me believe and be persuaded that He
lives.

247. And the God of the ancient saints was an accessible God. In their hours of need they
spoke to Him, spoke simply and fervently and every day. And they were confident
that He answered them; they had innumerable convincing proofs of it.
And the God of my progenitors was a promise-keeping God. They leaned on His
engagements. They pleaded them at His throne. They ensnared and enmeshed Him
in His own words, as Luther says the Syrophenician mother entangled Christ. And
soon He rose from His place; He girt His Church with strength and beauty. So I am
rebuked for fainting on the day of adversity; I am sent on my way with a merry
heart.’
LA GE, "Exodus 12:43-45. The ordinance of the Passover.—‫ָה‬‫קּ‬ֻ‫ח‬, i q.‫ֹק‬ ‫,ח‬ law,
statute. As Israel now begins to become a people and a popular congregation, the
main features of their legal constitution are at once defined. It all starts with the
Passover as the religious communion of the people, for which now circumcision is
prescribed as a prerequisite. As circumcision constitutes the incipient boundary-line
and separation between Israel and the life of secular people, so the paschal
communion is the characteristic feature of the completed separation. First, the
congregation is instituted; then follows the preliminary institution of the priesthood
in the sanctification of the first-born; then the first, trace of the fixed line of
distinction, in the ordinance of the feast of unleavened bread; then the first
provision for the permanent sacrificial service, in Jehovah’s claiming for Himself
the first-born of beasts, Exodus 13:12, while a distinction is at the same time made
between clean and unclean beasts, Exodus 12:13; and finally the intimation is made
that the natural sacerdotal duty of the first born shall be redeemed and transferred
to a positive priesthood. The circumstance that Israel thereby came into a new
relation to foreigners, “that a crowd of strangers joined themselves to the departing
Israelites” (Keil), can only be regarded as one of the occasions for that fixing of the
first features of the law which was here quite in place.— o stranger.—What is said
of the ‫ָר‬‫כ‬ֵ‫נ‬‫ֶן־‬‫בּ‬, or non-Israelite, in general, is more particularly said of the sojourner
(‫ב‬ ָ‫)תּוֹשׁ‬ and of the hireling, day-laborer (‫ִיר‬‫כ‬ ָ‫.)שׁ‬ The latter, if not an Israelite, is a ‫ֵר‬‫גּ‬
who resides a longer or shorter time among the Israelites. Yet the exclusion is not
absolute, except as regards the uncircumcised; every servant, on the other hand,
who submits to circumcision (for no one could be circumcised by force, although
circumcision was within the option of all) assumes the privileges and obligations of
the communion. Thus, therefore, the distinction of classes, as related to the
communion of the people of God, is here excluded.
BI 43-48, "The ordinance of the Passover.
Minute instructions in reference to the observance of the Passover
I. That God not only institutes ordinances for men, but also shows in what way they are
to be observed.
II. That God will not allow any stranger to the death of Christ to partake of His Holy
Sacrament. “There shall no stranger eat thereof.”
III. That a mere hired and nominal relation to the Church does not give a true right to

248. the Holy Sacrament. “An hired servant shall not eat thereof.”
IV. That circumcision of heart is necessary (Exo_12:48). (J. S. Exell, M. A.).
44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you
have circumcised him,
BAR ES, "Servant - The circumcision of the slave, thus enjoined formally on the
first day that Israel became a nation, in accordance with the law given to Abraham, (see
the margin reference) made him a true member of the family, equally entitled to all
religious privileges. In the household of a priest the slave was even permitted to eat the
consecrated food: Lev_22:11.
GILL, "But every man's servant that is bought for money,.... And so his own
property:
when thou hast circumcised him; as such an one ought to be, according to the
covenant of circumcision given to Abraham, Gen_17:13, though one should think not
without his consent; wherefore care was to be taken to purchase such servants as would
be willing to conform to that rite, and pains were to be taken with them to instruct them
in it, and persuade them to it; to which, when they had submitted, they had a right to eat
the passover, but if they did not, it was not allowed:
then shall he eat thereof; but not otherwise.
ELLICOTT, "(44) Every man’s servant.—Slaves born in the house were required to
be circumcised on the eighth day, like Israelites (Genesis 17:13). Bought slaves were
allowed their choice. It is noticeable that the circumcised slave was to be admitted to
full religious equality with his master.
45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker
may not eat it.

249. BAR ES, "A foreigner - or sojourner: one who resides in a country, not having a
permanent home, nor being attached to an Israelitish household.
CLARKE, "A foreigner - ‫תושב‬ toshab, from ‫ישב‬ yashab, to sit down or dwell; one
who is a mere sojourner, for the purpose of traffic, merchandise, etc., but who is neither
a proselyte of the gate nor of the covenant.
And a hired servant - Who, though he be bought with money, or has indented
himself for a certain term to serve a Jew, yet has not become either a proselyte of the
gate or of the covenant. None of these shall eat of it, because not circumcised - not
brought under the bond of the covenant; and not being under obligation to observe the
Mosaic law, had no right to its privileges and blessings. Even under the Gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, he is the author of eternal salvation only to them who Obey him,
Heb_5:9; and those who become Christians are chosen to salvation through
Sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, 2Th_2:13; for the grace of God, that
bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared, teaching us that, Denying Ungodliness and
Worldly Lusts we should live Soberly, Righteously, and Godly, in this present world;
Tit_2:11, Tit_2:12. Such persons only walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are
called.
GILL, "A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. One of another
nation, and one that was only hired by the day, week, or year; as they were not obliged to
circumcision, so without it they had no right to eat of the passover, none but such as
became proselytes of righteousness.
BE SO , "Exodus 12:45; Exodus 12:48. A hired servant — Unless he submit to be
circumcised. All the congregation of Israel must keep it — Though it was observed
in families apart, yet it is looked upon as the act of the whole congregation. And so
the ew Testament passover, the Lord’s supper, ought not to be neglected by any
that are capable of celebrating it. o stranger that was uncircumcised might eat of
it. either may any now approach the Lord’s supper who have not first submitted
to baptism; nor shall any partake of the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice, who are not
first circumcised in heart. Any stranger that was circumcised might eat of the
passover, even servants. Here is an indication of favour to the poor Gentiles, that the
stranger, if circumcised, stands upon the same level with the home-born Israelite;
one law for both. This was a mortification to the Jews, and taught them that it was
their dedication to God, not their descent from Abraham, that entitled them to their
privileges.
ELLICOTT, "(45) An hired servant.—It is assumed that the hired servant will be a
foreigner; otherwise, of course, he would participate.

250. 46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of
the meat outside the house. Do not break any of
the bones.
BAR ES, "In one house - i. e. “in one company.” Each lamb was to be entirely
consumed by the members of one company, whether they belonged to the same
household or not.
Break a bone - The typical significance of this injunction is recognized by John, (see
the margin reference.) It is not easy to assign any other satisfactory reason for it. This
victim alone was exempt from the general law by which the limbs were ordered to be
separated from the body.
CLARKE, "In one house shall it be eaten - In one family, if that be large enough;
if not, a neighboring family might be invited, Exo_12:4.
Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh - Every family must abide within
doors because of the destroying angel, none being permitted to go out of his house till
the next day, Exo_12:22.
Neither shall ye break a bone thereof - As it was to be eaten in haste, (Exo_
12:11), there was no time either to separate the bones, or to break them in order to
extract the marrow; and lest they should be tempted to consume time in this way,
therefore this ordinance was given. It is very likely that, when the whole lamb was
brought to table, they cut off the flesh without even separating any of the large joints,
leaving the skeleton, with whatever flesh they could not eat, to be consumed with fire,
Exo_12:10. This precept was also given to point out a most remarkable circumstance
which 1500 years after was to take place in the crucifixion of the Savior of mankind, who
was the true Paschal Lamb, that Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world; who,
though he was crucified as a common malefactor, and it was a universal custom to break
the legs of such on the cross, yet so did the providence of God order it that a bone of Him
was not broken. See the fulfillment of this wondrously expressive type, Joh_19:33, Joh_
19:36.
GILL, "In one house shall it be eaten,.... For though there might be more lambs
than one eaten in a house, where there were a sufficient number to eat them; and there

251. might be more societies than one in a house, provided they kept themselves distinct, and
were large enough each of them to eat up a lamb; yet one lamb might not be eaten in
different houses, a part of it in one house, and a part of it in another; which may denote
the unity of the general assembly and church of the firstborn, and the distinct separate
congregations of the saints, and the right that each have to a whole Christ, who is not to
be divided from his ministers, word, and ordinances; See Gill on Mat_26:18,
thou shall not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house: into
another house; for where there was not a sufficient number in one house to eat a lamb,
their neighbours in the next house were to join with them; but then they were not to part
it, and one portion of it to be eaten in one house, and the other in another, but they were
to meet together in one of their houses, and there partake of it; thus, though Christ may
be fed upon by faith any where by particular believers, yet in an ordinance way only in
the church of God:
neither shall ye break a bone thereof; any of its tender bones to get out the
marrow; and so the Targum of Jonathan adds,"that ye may eat that which is in the midst
of it:''this was remarkably fulfilled in Christ the antitype, Joh_19:32.
CALVI , "46. either shall ye break a bone thereof. I am not certain why God
desired no bone to be broken; unless that this might also be a sign of haste; because
people at table seldom partake of the marrow, unless when their entertainment is
protracted. For I fear there is too much subtlety in the explanation which some give,
that the virtue of Christ, which is represented by the bones, is not diminished whilst
we feed on His flesh. But the former opinion which I have glanced at above, as it is
the simplest, so also it is by no means unsuitable here; that they were commanded,
when they were standing in readiness for their journey, and eating hurriedly, to
burn the bones in order to prevent all delay. What God commanded as to the lamb,
He chose to have openly fulfilled in the person of His only-begotten Son; that the
truth corresponding with its type, and the substance with its shadow, might shew
that God would be reconciled to His people by no other blood than Christ’s. Whence
it is again clear that the ancients under the Law were instructed by the Paschal
Lamb as to the future redemption, for otherwise this passage could not have been
properly accommodated to Christ. But when the Evangelist quotes it, (John 19:33,)
he takes it for granted that thus was typically shewn what God would bestow by His
Son. Hence it came to pass that He was distinguished by this visible mark, which
proved Him to be the true Passover. But, in order that no bone of Christ’s should be
broken, God’s providence wonderfully interfered. The soldiers were commanded to
hasten the death of Christ, no less than that of the robbers, by breaking their bones.
They execute their intention on the robbers, but lest they should attempt the same
on Christ, it is certain that they were restrained by a divine power, so that the
wholeness of His bones might be a presage of the approaching redemption.
COKE, "Exodus 12:46. either shall ye break a bone thereof— o other comment
can be necessary on these words, than a reference to the completion of the type,
John 19:33; John 19:36.
ELLICOTT, "(46) either shall ye break a bone thereof.—In the case of all other

252. victims, the limbs were to be separated from the body. Here the victim was to be
roasted whole, and to remain whole, as a symbol of unity, and a type of Him
through whom men are brought into unity with each other and with God. (See John
19:33-36.)
PETT, "Exodus 12:46-47
“It shall be eaten in one house. You shall not carry out any of the flesh outside from
the house, nor shall you break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall do it.”
Stress is laid on the fact that nothing of the Passover lamb may be taken out of the
house in which it was killed. It must be burned inside (Exodus 12:10). Furthermore
no bone of it must be broken. This was because the flesh and body were seen as holy
and perfect, and as belonging to Yahweh, and must be kept perfect. These sacrificial
animals were His gift to His people but they remained His. They may eat of them in
the place commanded but they were not to be seen as just ordinary food. They were
sacrificial food in a way that other sacrifices eaten by the people, which did not all
have to be eaten on the same day, were not, demonstrating that the people who
partook were set apart for Him and unified with Him. That this is stressed again
(compare Exodus 12:10) with the new addition of the preservation of the bones
demonstrates how important it was seen to be. There must be no blemish even after
death. (Compare John 19:6 where John applies this same idea to the death of Jesus.
He was offered up in His perfection as God’s Passover Lamb and not a bone of Him
was broken). The purpose in mentioning this here is to indicate why only those
within the covenant may eat of it. It is especially holy, and it belongs to God.
“All the congregation of Israel shall do it.” There were to be no exemptions for the
children of Israel. All of them must partake wherever possible. Like circumcision
into the covenant the Passover was the sign of those who were His. ‘The
congregation’. That is, all those who gather to worship Him because they are
circumcised into the covenant and have submitted to Yahweh.
LA GE, "Exodus 12:46. In one house shall it be eaten.—A new enforcement of the
law that the communion, as such, must be maintained. The significance of the
words: “Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad,” the mediæval
Church had little conception of.[F 13]
47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate
it.

253. GILL, "All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. The passover, and the feast of
unleavened bread only; for a Gentile was first to be circumcised, and be joined to the
congregation, and then partake of it, and not before.
48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to
celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the
males in his household circumcised; then he may
take part like one born in the land. o
uncircumcised male may eat it.
CLARKE, "And when a stranger - will keep the passover, etc. - Let all who
sojourn among you, and who desire to partake of this sacred ordinance, not only be
circumcised themselves, but all the males of their families likewise, that they may all
have an equal right to the blessings of the covenant.
GILL, "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, Who by so doing became a
proselyte of the gate, he observing the commands of the sons of Noah:
and will keep the passover of the Lord; is desirous of being admitted to that
ordinance:
let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near, and keep it:
first himself, and then all his male children and male servants, and then, and not till
then, he might approach to this ordinance, and observe it; for by this means he would
become a proselyte of righteousness, and in all respects as an Israelite, or son of
Abraham, as it follows:
and he shall be as one that is born in the land; a native and proper inhabitant of
Canaan, enjoying all the privileges and immunities of such:
for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof; these laws and rules concerning
those persons that were to eat of the passover are such as were to be observed in all
successive generations, to the coming of Christ; and were the rather necessary to be
given now, because of the mixed multitude who now came up with

254. PETT, "Exodus 12:48-49
“And when a stranger sojourns with you and wants to keep the Passover to Yahweh,
let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it. And he shall
be as one born in the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law
shall be to him that is homeborn and to him that sojourns among you.”
But anyone who wished to enter into the privileges of Yahweh’s covenant with the
fathers and eat the Passover might do so by commitment and circumcision. By this
they would be declaring their intent to become ‘children of Israel’, and must be
welcomed on equal terms. They could now partake of the holy meal because they
had been made a part of the holy people, and were thus themselves holy to Yahweh.
This is why the ‘mixed multitude’ (verse 38) could join the covenant, become
members of the children of Israel, and keep the Passover. But in order to do so they
must be committed to being circumcised.
“As one born in the land.” God is looking forward to that time when they have
reached the land He has promised them (Exodus 3:8 compare Exodus 13:5). It is
then that strangers will regularly come among them and be faced with the choice
described.
The importance of these words for our understanding of how the church fits in with
Israel cannot be overemphasised. Jesus’ Apostles and the all Jewish church went out
to call men to follow Jesus and join the community of the true Israel, ‘the true vine’
(John 15:1-6), and soon learned that Gentiles too could be welcomed into ‘the
church of Christ’ (Matthew 16:18), which was built on the Apostles of Jerusalem
not on the church of Rome. Indeed Rome could not have been in mind for the idea
was to build a new ‘congregation (ekklesia) of Israel’, and this had to be founded on
believing Jews. Believing Gentiles were thus grafted into the olive tree and became
part of the Israel of God (Romans 11:17; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12-22), while
unbelieving Jews were ‘cut off’. The church was seen as the renewed Israel, the
genuine continuation of the Israel of God confirmed at Sinai. When Paul argued
that they did not need to be circumcised it was not on the grounds that they were
not entering Israel, it was on the grounds that they were already circumcised with
the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11; Colossians 2:13).
49 The same law applies both to the native-born
and to the foreigner residing among you.”

255. CLARKE, "One law shall be to him that is home-born, etc. - As this is the
first place that the term ‫תורה‬ torah or Law occurs, a term of the greatest importance in
Divine revelation, and on the proper understanding of which much depends, I judge it
best to give its genuine explanation once for all.
The word ‫תורה‬ torah comes from the root ‫ירה‬ yarah, which signifies to aim at, teach,
point out, direct, lead, guide, make straight, or even; and from these significations of the
word (and in all these senses it is used in the Bible) we may see at once the nature,
properties, and design of the law of God. It is a system of Instruction in righteousness; it
teaches the difference between moral good and evil; ascertains what is right and fit to be
done, and what should be left undone, because improper to be performed. It continually
aims at the glory of God, and the happiness of his creatures; teaches the true knowledge
of the true God, and the destructive nature of sin; points out the absolute necessity of an
atonement as the only means by which God can be reconciled to transgressors; and in its
very significant rites and ceremonies points out the Son of God, till he should come to
put away iniquity by the sacrifice of himself. It is a revelation of God’s wisdom and
goodness, wonderfully well calculated to direct the hearts of men into the truth, to guide
their feet into the path of life, and to make straight, even, and plain that way which leads
to God, and in which the soul must walk in order to arrive at eternal life. It is the
fountain whence every correct notion relative to God - his perfections, providence, grace,
justice, holiness, omniscience, and omnipotence, has been derived. And it has been the
origin whence all the true principles of law and justice have been deduced. The pious
study of it was the grand means of producing the greatest kings, the most enlightened
statesmen, the most accomplished poets, and the most holy and useful men, that ever
adorned the world. It is exceeded only by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is at once the
accomplishment of its rites and predictions, and the fulfillment of its grand plan and
outline. As a system of teaching or instruction, it is the most sovereign and most
effectual; as by it is the knowledge of sin, and it alone is the schoolmaster, παι δαγωγος,
that leads men to Christ, that they may be justified through faith. Gal_3:24. Who can
absolutely ascertain the exact quantum of obliquity in a crooked line, without the
application of a straight one? And could sin, in all its twistings, windings, and varied
involutions, have ever been truly ascertained, had not God given to man this perfect rule
to judge by? The nations who acknowledge this revelation of God have, as far as they
attained to its dictates, the wisest, purest, most equal, and most beneficial laws. The
nations that do not receive it have laws at once extravagantly severe and extravagantly
indulgent. The proper distinctions between moral good and evil, in such states, are not
known: hence the penal sanctions are not founded on the principles of justice, weighing
the exact proportion of moral turpitude; but on the most arbitrary caprices, which in
many cases show the utmost indulgence to first-rate crimes, while they punish minor
offenses with rigour and cruelty. What is the consequence? Just what might be
reasonably expected: the will and caprice of a man being put in the place of the wisdom
of God, the government is oppressive, and the people, frequently goaded to distraction,
rise up in a mass and overturn it; so that the monarch, however powerful for a time,
seldom lives out half his days. This was the case in Greece, in Rome, in the major part of
the Asiatic governments, and is the case in all nations of the world to the present day,
where the governor is despotic, and the laws not formed according to the revelation of
God.

256. The word lex, law, among the Romans, has been derived from lego, I read; because
when a law or statute was made, it was hung up in the most public places, that it might
be seen, read, and known by all men, that those who were to obey the laws might not
break them through ignorance, and thus incur the penalty. This was called promulgatio
legis, q. provulgatio, the promulgation of the law, i.e., the laying it before the common
people. Or from ligo, I bind, because the law binds men to the strict observance of its
precepts. The Greeks call a law νοµος nomos, from νεµω, to divide, distribute, minister to,
or serve, because the law divides to all their just rights, appoints or distributes to each
his proper duty, and thus serves or ministers to the welfare of the individual and the
support of society. Hence where there are either no laws, or unequal and unjust ones, all
is distraction, violence, rapine, oppression, anarchy, and ruin.
GILL, "One law shall be to him that is homeborn,.... A proper Israelite, one that
is so by descent:
and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you; that becomes a proselyte to
the true religion; these were both bound by the same law, and obliged to observe the
same rites and ceremonies, and partook of the same ordinances, benefits, and privileges;
this was a dawn of grace to the poor Gentiles, and presignified what would be in Gospel
times, when they should be fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
be fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of the promises of Christ by the Gospel,
Eph_2:19.
JAMISO , "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the
stranger — This regulation displays the liberal spirit of the Hebrew institutions. Any
foreigner might obtain admission to the privileges of the nation on complying with their
sacred ordinances. In the Mosaic equally as in the Christian dispensation, privilege and
duty were inseparably conjoined.
K&D, "There was one law with reference to the Passover which was applicable both to
the native and the foreigner: no uncircumcised man was to be allowed to eat of it.
PETT, "Exodus 12:49
‘Thus did all the children of Israel. As Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron so
they did.’
Most probably this is a comment on the whole chapter stressing the obedience of
Israel to God’s commandments through Moses, as verse 50 might be seen as
confirming. Alternately, but less likely, it may connect only with the last section
confirming that Israel later carried out Yahweh’s requirements concerning the
Passover.
In the latter case it might be seen as confirming that the mixed multitude, who were
now recognised as being potential children of Israel, did agree to fulfil God’s

257. requirement and gave their commitment to be circumcised under the aegis of the
‘homeborn’. In the event it would have to await a suitable occasion when they could
have time to recover, but the intention would be there and would be accepted. The
impression given elsewhere is in fact that circumcision was not carried out in the
wilderness, even for the children of the ‘homeborn’, something which had to be
remedied when they arrived in the land (Joshua 5:2-9). But it would certainly seem
that the mixed multitude were included at the covenant ceremony at Sinai. There is
no suggestion anywhere that they were not.
50 All the Israelites did just what the Lord had
commanded Moses and Aaron.
GILL, "Thus did all the children of Israel,.... They slew a lamb, and roasted and
ate it, with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, and took a bunch of hyssop, and dipped
it in the blood, and struck the lintel and the side posts of the doors of their houses: this
they did on the night of their deliverance out of Egypt:
as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they; being instructed by
them; which is an instance of their ready and cheerful obedience to the divine will, which
they were under great obligation to perform, from a grateful sense of the wonderful
mercy and favour they now were made partakers of.
K&D, "Exo_12:50 closes the instructions concerning the Passover with the statement
that the Israelites carried them out, viz., in after times (e.g., Num_9:5); and in Exo_
12:51 the account of the exodus from Egypt is also brought to a close. All that Jehovah
promised to Moses in Exo_6:6 and Exo_6:26 had now been fulfilled. But although v. 51
is a concluding formula, and so belongs to the account just closed, Abenezra was so far
right in wishing to connect this verse with the commencement of the following chapter,
that such concluding formulae generally serve to link together the different incidents,
and therefore not only wind up what goes before, but introduce what has yet to come.
PETT, "Exodus 12:50
‘And it came about the selfsame day that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out
of the land of Egypt by their hosts.’
This relates back to ‘the self same day’ in Exodus 12:41 confirming that the words
of Yahweh to Moses and Aaron in Exodus 12:43-49 were given that day, and to

258. Exodus 12:14 where it is the day of the Passover, and stressing that the deliverance
began on the day that Yahweh had chosen. It is a triumphant declaration that
Yahweh did what He had promised with none to thwart Him. This was what the
celebration of the Passover was all about, the deliverance of their firstborn through
the shedding of blood, and their own deliverance from Pharaoh through the power
of Yahweh.
ote for Christians.
We can imagine the joy of the Israelites as they streamed from the places where they
had lived for so long, and had found themselves in bondage, to a new life. They
knew little of what lay before them. All they knew was that because of the power of
Yahweh Pharaoh had had to let them go, and they were free. Every true Christian
has experienced that deliverance, although in our case the Passover was of Christ
the Passover lamb sacrificed for us (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7), and the freedom
was from the bondage of the guilt of sin. And we too have commenced our pilgrim
journey (1 Peter 2:11). But the difference between us and them is that their trek
leader was Moses, and while he was a great man of God, he was a man of like
passions as they were, while our Trek Leader is the Lord Jesus Christ, made into a
perfect Trek Leader through His own sufferings (Hebrews 2:10), and able to save to
the uttermost those who come to God by Him because of His continual heavenly
intercession for us. Do you sometimes begin to feel alone? ever forget that there is
One Who always sees you, and continually makes intercession for you without
ceasing (Hebrews 7:25).
CALVI , "50.Thus did all the children of Israel. This chiefly refers to the slaying of the Paschal
lamb with its adjuncts, although I do not deny that allusion is also made to the other
circumstances attending their sudden departure. But it is not so much their promptitude and
alacrity which are praised, as the wondrous power of God in fashioning their hearts, and directing
their hands, so that, in the darkness of the night, amidst the greatest disturbances, in precipitate
haste, with nothing well prepared, they were so active and dexterous. Meanwhile, Moses
concludes, from the obedience of the people, that nothing was done without the command and
guidance of God; from whence it is more clearly manifest that He was the sole author of their
deliverance.
51 And on that very day the Lord brought the
Israelites out of Egypt by their divisions.

259. CLARKE, "By their armies - ‫צבאתם‬ tsibotham, from ‫צבא‬ tsaba, to assemble, meet
together, in an orderly or regulated manner, and hence to war, to act together as troops
in battle; whence ‫צבאות‬ tsebaoth, troops, armies, hosts. It is from this that the Divine
Being calls himself ‫צבאות‬ ‫יהוה‬ Yehovah tsebaoth, the Lord Of Hosts or armies, because the
Israelites were brought out of Egypt under his direction, marshalled and ordered by
himself, guided by his wisdom, supported by his providence, and protected by his might.
This is the true and simple reason why God is so frequently styled in Scripture the Lord
of hosts; for the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their
Armies.
On this chapter the notes have been so full and so explicit, that little can be added to
set the subject before the reader in a clearer light. On the ordinance of the Passover, the
reader is requested to consult the notes on Exo_12:7, Exo_12:14, and Exo_12:27. See
Clarke’s note on Exo_12:7. See Clarke’s note on Exo_12:14. See Clarke’s note on Exo_
12:27. For the display of God’s power and providence in supporting so great a multitude
where, humanly speaking, there was no provision, and the proof that the exodus of the
Israelites gives of the truth of the Mosaic history, he is referred to Exo_12:37. And for
the meaning of the term Law, to Exo_12:49.
On the ten plagues it may be but just necessary, after what has been said in the notes,
to make a few general reflections. When the nature of the Egyptian idolatry is
considered, and the plagues which were sent upon them, we may see at once the
peculiarity of the judgment, and the great propriety of its being inflicted in the way
related by Moses. The plagues were either inflicted on the objects of their idolatry, or by
their means.
1. That the river Nile was an object of their worship and one of their greatest gods,
we have already seen. As the First plague, its waters were therefore turned into
blood; and the fish, many of which were objects also of their adoration, died. Blood
was particularly offensive to them, and the touch of any dead animal rendered
them unclean. When then their great god, the river, was turned into blood, and its
waters became putrid, so that all the fish, minor objects of their devotion, died, we
see a judgment at once calculated to punish, correct, and reform them. Could they
ever more trust in gods who could neither save themselves nor their deluded
worshippers?
2. Mr. Bryant has endeavored to prove that frogs, the Second plague, were sacred
animals in Egypt, and dedicated to Osiris: they certainly appear on many ancient
Egyptian monuments, and in such circumstances and connections as to show that
they were held in religious veneration. These therefore became an awful scourge;
first, by their numbers, and their intrusion into every place; and, secondly, by their
death, and the infection of the atmosphere which took place in consequence.
3. We have seen also that the Egyptians, especially the priests, affected great
cleanliness, and would not wear woolen garments lest any kind of vermin should
harbour about them. The Third plague, by means of lice or such like vermin, was
wisely calculated both to humble and confound them. In this they immediately saw
a power superior to any that could be exerted by their gods or their magicians; and
the latter were obliged to confess, This is the finger of God!
4. That flies were held sacred among the Egyptians and among various other nations,
admits of the strongest proof. It is very probable that Baal-zebub himself was
worshipped under the form of a fly or great cantharid. These, therefore, or some

260. kind of winged noxious insects, became the prime agents in the Fourth plague; and
if the cynomyia or dog-fly be intended, we have already seen in the notes with what
propriety and effect this judgment was inflicted.
5. The murrain or mortality among the cattle was the Fifth plague, and the most
decisive mark of the power and indignation of Jehovah. That dogs, cats, monkeys,
rams, heifers, and bulls, were all objects of their most religious veneration, all the
world knows. These were smitten in a most singular manner by the hand of God;
and the Egyptians saw themselves deprived at once of all their imaginary helpers.
Even Apis, their ox-god, in whom they particularly trusted, now suffers, groans,
and dies under the hand of Jehovah. Thus does he execute judgment against all the
gods of Egypt. See Exo_12:12.
6. The Sixth plague, viz., of boils and blains, was as appropriate as any of the
preceding; and the sprinkling of the ashes, the means by which it was produced,
peculiarly significant. Pharmacy, Mr. Bryant has observed, was in high repute
among the Egyptians; and Isis, their most celebrated goddess, was considered as
the preventer or healer of all diseases. “For this goddess,” says Diodorus, Hist., lib.
i., “used to reveal herself to people in their sleep when they labored under any
disorder, and afford them relief. Many who placed their confidence in her
influence, παραδοξως ᆓγιαινεσθαι, were miraculously restored. Many likewise who
had been despaired of and given over by the physicians on account of the obstinacy
of the distemper, were saved by this goddess. Numbers who had been deprived of
their eyes, and of other parts of their bodies, were all restored on their application
to Isis.” By this disorder, therefore, which no application to their gods could cure,
and which was upon the magicians also, who were supposed to possess most
power and influence, God confounded their pride, showed the folly of their
worship, and the vanity of their dependence. The means by which these boils and
blains were inflicted, viz., the sprinkling of ashes from the furnace, was peculiarly
appropriate. Plutarch assures us, De Iside et Osiride, that in several cities of Egypt
they were accustomed to sacrifice human beings to Typhon, which they burned
alive upon a high altar; and at the close of the sacrifice the priests gathered the
ashes of these victims, and scattered them in the air: “I presume, says Mr. Bryant,
“with this view, that where an atom of their dust was wafted, a blessing might be
entailed. The like was done by Moses with the ashes of the furnace, that wherever
any, the smallest portion, alighted, it might prove a plague and a curse to this
cruel, ungrateful, and infatuated people. Thus there was a designed contrast in
these workings of Providence, an apparent opposition to the superstition of the
times.”
7. The grievous hail, the Seventh plague, attended with rain, thunder, and lightning,
in a country where these scarcely ever occur, and according to an express
prediction of Moses, must in the most signal manner point out the power and
justice of God. Fire and water were some of the principal objects of Egyptian
idolatry; and fire, as Porphyry says, they considered µεγαν ειναι θεον, to be a great
god. To find, therefore, that these very elements, the objects of their adoration,
were, at the command of a servant of Jehovah, brought as a curse and scourge on
the whole land, and upon men also and cattle, must have shaken their belief in
these imaginary deities, while it proved to the Israelites that there was none like
the God of Jeshurun.
8. In the Eighth plague we see by what insignificant creatures God can bring about a
general destruction. A caterpillar is beyond all animals the most contemptible,

261. and, taken singly, the least to be dreaded in the whole empire of nature; but in the
hand of Divine justice it becomes one of the most formidable foes of the human
race. From the examples in the notes we see how little human power, industry, or
art, can avail against this most awful scourge. Not even the most contemptible
animal should be considered with disrespect, as in the hand of God it may become
the most terrible instrument for the punishment of a criminal individual or a guilty
land.
9. The Ninth plague, the total and horrible darkness that lasted for three days,
afforded both Israelites and Egyptians the most illustrious proof of the power and
universal dominion of God; and was particularly to the latter a most awful yet
instructive lesson against a species of idolatry which had been long prevalent in
that and other countries, viz., the worship of the celestial luminaries. The sun and
moon were both adored as supreme deities, as the sole dispensers of light and life;
and the sun was invoked as the giver of immortality and eternal blessedness.
Porphyry, De Abstin., l. 4, preserves the very form used by the Egyptian priests in
addressing the sun on behalf of a deceased person, that he might be admitted into
the society of the gods: δεσποτα ᅯλιε, και Θεοι παντες, οᅷ την ζωην τοις ανθρωποις
δοντες, προσδεξασθε µε, και παραδοτε τοις αιʷδιοις Θεοις συνοικον, “O sovereign lord
the sun, and all ye other deities who bestow life on mankind! Receive me, and
grant that I may be admitted as a companion with the immortal gods!” These
objects of their superstitious worship Jehovah showed by this plague to be his
creatures, dispensing or withholding their light merely at his will and pleasure;
and that the people might be convinced that all this came by his appointment
alone, he predicted this awful darkness; and that their astronomers might have the
fullest proof that this was no natural occurrence, and could not be the effect of any
kind of eclipse, which even when total could endure only about four minutes, (and
this case could happen only once in a thousand years), he caused this palpable
darkness to continue for three days!
10. The Tenth and last plague, the slaying of the first-born or chief person in each
family, may be considered in the light of a Divine retribution: for after that their
nation had been preserved by one of the Israelitish family, “they had,” says Mr.
Bryant, “contrary to all right, and in defiance of original stipulation, enslaved the
people to whom they had been so much indebted; and not contented with this,
they had proceeded to murder their offspring, and to render the people’s bondage
intolerable by a wanton exertion of power. It had been told them that the family of
the Israelites were esteemed as God’s first-born, Exo_4:22; therefore God said: Let
my son go, that he may serve me; and if thou refuse - behold, I will slay thy son,
even thy First-Born, Exo_4:23. But they heeded not this admonition, and hence
those judgments came upon them that terminated in the death of the eldest in
each family; a just retaliation for their disobedience and cruelty.” See several
curious and important remarks on this subject in a work entitled, Observations
upon the Plagues inflicted on the Egyptians, by Jacob Bryant, 8vo., 1810.
On the whole we may say, Behold the goodness and severity of God! Severity mixed
with goodness even to the same people. He punished and corrected them at the same
time; for there was not one of these judgments that had not, from its peculiar nature and
circumstances, some emendatory influence. Nor could a more effectual mode be adopted
to demonstrate to that people the absurdity of their idolatry, and the inefficacy of their
dependence, than that made use of on this occasion by the wise, just, and merciful God.
At the same time the Israelites themselves must have received a lesson of the most

262. impressive instruction on the vanity and wickedness of idolatry, to which they were at all
times most deplorably prone, and of which they would no doubt have given many more
examples, had they not had the Egyptian plagues continually before their eyes. It was
probably these signal displays of God’s rower and justice, and these alone, that induced
them to leave Egypt at his command by Moses and Aaron; otherwise, with the dreadful
wilderness before them, totally unprovided for such a journey, in which humanly
speaking it was impossible for them and their households to subsist, they would have
rather preferred the ills they then suffered, than have run the risk of greater by an
attempt to escape from their present bondage. This is proved by their murmurings, Exo_
16:2, Exo_16:3, from which it is evident that they preferred Egypt with all its curses to
their situation in the wilderness, and never could have been induced to leave it had they
not had the fullest evidence that it was the will of God; which will they were obliged, on
pain of utter destruction, to obey.
GILL, "And it came to pass the selfsame day,.... That the above ordinance was
instituted and celebrated in the night:
that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, by
their armies; by their several tribes, which were like so many armies, marching in
large numbers, and with great order and regularity; see Gill on Exo_7:4.
COKE, "Exodus 12:51. The self-same day— See Exodus 12:41. Thus the Lord
wonderfully delivered his people, and appointed a solemn festival to perpetuate the
memory of this great event: some traces of which, however corrupted and imperfect,
were preserved in the most distant nations. Strabo, in particular, says, there was a
report that the Jews were descended from the Egyptians; and that Moses was an
Egyptian priest, who possessed a certain part of that country; but, being dissatisfied
with the present state of things, he forsook it; and many worshippers of the Deity
followed him, &c. See Strab. geog. lib. 16: Justin, lib. 36: cap. 2 and Tacit. lib. 5:
cap. 3.
Reflections on the ordinance of the passover as typical of Christ.
The fatal night was now arrived, when the destroying angel was to smite all the
first-born of Egypt, and the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham. This
last and sorest plague shall break the unrelenting heart of Pharaoh, and dismiss the
oppressed Israelites from his cruel yoke. But mark the goodness of their God, in
providing for their safety amid the general devastation! They are directed to
sprinkle on their door-posts the blood of a lamb, whose qualities, the manner of its
death, and the rites wherewith they were to eat its flesh, are left on record for the
generations to come. The messenger of death, they were assured, would not presume
to enter these hallowed doors, though a thousand fell at their side, and ten thousand
on their right hand. Then it was that the Egyptian idols felt also the vengeance of
the true God: and so memorable was the night, that the month in which it fell, was,
in succeeding ages, to be the beginning of months. A ceremony indeed it was, which
seemed but weak, unmeaning, and unprofitable; but, penetrating the outward vail,

263. let us try to discern the hidden mystery, by that same faith, through which Moses
kept the passover and the sprinkling of blood. Its meaning we are not now left to
explore merely by our own understanding; for, that it was a prophetical type, and
very expressive of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, an apostle
gives us to know, by telling us, that "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us," l Cor.
Exodus 5:7.
A Lamb was chosen out of the flock: Emblem of him who was taken from among
men, and raised up from among his brethren, and, like that lovely creature, did
injury to none.—It was a male of the flock, of a year old; for Christ is a Son given
unto us, and suffered in the flower of his age; but without blemish and without spot.
Though descended from an impure race of ancestors, he brought no stain of sin into
the world with him; and though he long conversed with sinful men, and grappled
with strong temptations, he contracted not the smallest taint. Even Judas and Pilate
attested, that he was just and upright; the last, before he condemned; and the first,
after he betrayed him.—On the tenth day of the month Abib, the lamb was fetched
from the field, and, on the fourteenth day at even, it was killed. Even so he, of whom
these things were spoken, went up to Jerusalem five days before the passover,
where, with wicked hands, he was taken, crucified, and slain.—The lamb was
roasted with fire. It was the fire of the Father's wrath, O immaculate Lamb of God,
which forced thee to complain, "My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my
bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd: my tongue cleaveth to my jaws,"
Psalms 22:14-15.—A bone of the lamb was not to be broken, and none of it was to be
left till the morning. To accomplish the first, the soldiers brake not his legs as usual;
and, to fulfil the last, he was taken down from the cross the same evening on which
he died.—In vain had the Israelites killed the lamb, if they had not also sprinkled its
blood with the hyssop upon the door-posts: and Christ is to us dead in vain, unless
applied by faith to the conscience. His blood must not be sprinkled behind the door,
for we must publicly profess that we are not ashamed of the cross of Christ; nor
below the door, for it must not be trodden under foot: but above, and on every side,
on all that we are, on all that we have, and on all that we do. Indeed, by his all-
penetrating eye, the doors of the house and heart are seen with equal clearness. Had
a presumptuous Israelite despised this ordinance of God, and neglected to sprinkle
his doors with blood, he would not have been within the limits of the Divine
protection; yea, had he ventured abroad in that perilous night, the angel was not
bound to spare him. So when the arrows of destruction are flying thick and fast, the
blood of Jesus is our only sanctuary. Of this alone can we say, "Behold, O God, our
shield," Psalms 84:9. We are guilty of death, this is the sacrifice which thou
requirest: accept this blood; which we sprinkle by thy command, instead of our
own, which deserves to reek upon our door-posts. O Jesus, we are indebted to thy
atoning blood for blessings that far transcend deliverance from Egyptian bondage,
or from temporal death. By thy blood we are delivered from the wrath which is to
come. Thou art our Hiding-place. Under this covert of thy blood, we shall not be
afraid of sudden fear, nor of the desolation of the wicked; but shall dwell in
peaceable habitations, sure dwellings, and quiet resting-places, nigh which no
plague shall come.—Many a time the haughty tyrant of Egypt was frighted by the
awful prodigies wrought by Moses; but never was he thoroughly subdued, till the

264. blood was sprinkled. Then the prey was taken from the mighty. In vain he pursues
after them, for never more shall they wear his chain. So many a time, the prophecies
of Christ might fright the black prince of hell, but never was he thoroughly
subdued, till on the cross the Great Messiah spoiled principalities and powers, and
made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Even so his faithful people
are said to overcome the enemy of their salvation by the blood of the lamb. By this
same blood, the idols are abolished. As in that night of desolation, the temples of
Egypt were not spared more than the palaces; so in the days of the Messiah, shall a
man cast his idols of silver and gold, which he made for himself to worship, to the
moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the
ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his Majesty, when he ariseth
to shake terribly the earth. Well may this happy period be unto us the beginning of
months. If the beginning of the year was changed to the Israelites, and the seventh
became the first month, much more may the beginning of the week be altered to the
Christians, and the seventh day be exchanged for the first, for a Sabbath unto the
Lord; for on that day a much more glorious work was finished, than when he
brought Israel out of Egypt, or even than when he finished the heavens and all their
host, and laid the foundation of the earth.
We have seen how the blood of the lamb was sprinkled, and the happy consequences
of this symbolical action. Let us now observe, how its flesh was to be eaten, and how
we are made partakers of Christ, who is at once our Shield to protect us from
danger, and our Food to preserve our soul in life. It was eaten roasted; for Christ is
savoury to faith. A bone must not be broken; and mysteries must not be too
curiously pryed into. A whole lamb must be eaten in every house; and a whole
Christ received by every believing soul. It must be eaten in haste; and whatsoever
our hand findeth, should be done with all our might. The bitter herbs may signify
the bitterness of contrition for sin, and of the tribulation we shall have in this world.
Unleavened bread represents sincerity and truth. The loins girt, and feet shod,
signify the girding up the loins of the mind, and the preparation of the Gospel of
peace, or a readiness to every good work. The staff in the hand might signify, that
here we have no continuing city. Here let us end, adoring that condescending love,
which has appeared towards us sinners of the Gentiles. At the first passover we were
uncircumcised and unclean, by reason of death; we were afar off, and without God
in the world. But us hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; and
in Jesus Christ we, who sometime were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of
Christ. Therefore let us keep the feast; for even Christ our second, our best passover
is sacrificed for us.
ELLICOTT, "(51) This last verse of the chapter would more appropriately
commence Exodus 13, with which it is to be united. Translate—“And it came to
pass, on the self same day that the Lord brought the children of Israel out of the
land of Egypt by their armies, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,” &c.
By their armies.—See ote 2 on Exodus 13:18.