Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Exodus 12:1 - 12:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Institution of the Passover. - The deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt was at hand; also their adoption as the nation of Jehovah (Exo 6:6-7).
But for this a divine consecration was necessary, that their outward severance from the land of Egypt might be accompanied by an inward severance from everything of an Egyptian or heathen nature. This consecration was to be imparted by the Passover-a festival which was to lay the foundation for Israel's birth (Hos 2:5) into the new life of grace and fellowship with God, and to renew it perpetually in time to come. This festival was therefore instituted and commemorated before the exodus from Egypt. Vv. 1-28 contain the directions for the Passover: viz., Exo 12:1-14 for the keeping of the feast of the Passover before the departure from Egypt, and Exo 12:15-20 for the seven days' feast of unleavened bread. In Exo 12:21-27 Moses communicates to the elders of the nation the leading instructions as to the former feast, and the carrying out of those instructions is mentioned in Exo 12:28.
Exo 12:1-2
By the words, “in the land of Egypt,” the law of the Passover which follows is brought into connection with the giving of the law at Sinai and in the fields of Moab, and is distinguished in relation to the former as the first or foundation law for the congregation of Jehovah. The creation of Israel as the people of Jehovah (Isa 43:15) commenced with the institution of the Passover. As a proof of this, it was preceded by the appointment of a new era, fixing the commencement of the congregation of Jehovah. “This month” (i.e., the present in which ye stand) “be to you the head (i.e., the beginning) of the months, the first let it be to you for the months of the year;” i.e., let the numbering of the months, and therefore the year also, begin with it. Consequently the Israelites had hitherto had a different beginning to their year, probably only a civil year, commencing with the sowing, and ending with the termination of the harvest (cf. Exo 23:16); whereas the Egyptians most likely commenced their year with the overflowing of the Nile at the summer solstice (cf. Lepsius, Chron. 1, pp. 148ff.). The month which was henceforth to be the first of the year, and is frequently so designated (Exo 40:2, Exo 40:17; Lev 23:5, etc.), is called Abib (the ear-month) in Exo 13:4; Exo 23:15; Exo 34:18; Deu 16:1, because the corn was then in ear; after the captivity it was called Nisan (Neh 2:1; Est 3:7). It corresponds very nearly to our April.
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 this (i.e., the first) month, let every one take to himself שֶׂה (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,” בַּיִת, i.e., the family forming a household.
Exo 12:4
But if “the house be too small for a lamb” (lit., “small from the existence of a lamb,” מִן comparative: מִשֶּׂה הְיֹות 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.” מִכְסָה computatio (Lev 27:23), from כָּסַס computare; and מֶכֶס, 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.
Exo 12:5
The kind of lamb: תָּמִים 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); שָׁנָה בֶּן one year old (ἐνιαύσιος, 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).
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 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.
Exo 12:7
Some of the blood was to be put (נָתַן as in Lev 4:18, where יִתֵּן is distinguished from הִזָּה, 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.
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 נָא (“underdone” or raw), or בָּשֵׁל (“boiled,” - lit., done, viz., בַּמִּיִם מְבֻשָּׁל, done in water, i.e., boiled, as בָּשַׁל 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 כְּרָעִים and קֶרֶב 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 מַצֹות (ἄζυμα, azymi panes; lxx, Vulg.), i.e., (not sweet, or 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.” מְרֹרִים, 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 עַל (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. עַל 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.
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 בְּחִפָּזֹון, “in anxious flight” (from חָפַז 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 פֶּסַח 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 פֶּסַח, Aram. פִסְחָא, Gr. πάσχα, is derived from פָּסַח, 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 ὑπερβαίνειν, 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 (ὑπέρβασις, Aquil. in Exo 12:11; ὑπερβασία, 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 זֶבַח, 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 זָבַח is never applied to slaying alone, as שָׁחַט 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 (הִקְרִיב), 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 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.
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 (פָּסַח) 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 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.
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 לְמַשְׁחִית).
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,” לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם “in your generations,” i.e., for all ages, דֹּרֹת 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 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.
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 (אַךְ) 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 בָּרִאשׁון 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).
Exo 12:16
On the first and seventh days, a holy meeting was to be held, and labour to be suspended. מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ 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). מִקְרָא, from קָרָא 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.
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. גֵּר, 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. הָאָרֶץ אֶזְרַח, 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.
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:” מָשַׁךְ is intransitive here, to draw away, withdraw, as in Jdg 4:6; Jdg 5:14; Jdg 20:37. אֵזֹוב אֲגֻדַּת: a bunch or bundle of hyssop: according to Maimonides, “quantum quis comprehendit manu sua.” אֵזֹוב (ὕσσωπος) 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. וְהִגַּעְתֶּם, “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.
Exo 12:23-26
(cf. Exo 12:13). “He will not suffer (יִתֵּן) the destroyer to come into your houses:” Jehovah effected the destruction of the first-born through הַמַּשְׁחִית, the destroyer, or destroying angel, ὁ ὁλοθρεύων (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 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, הַמַּשְׁחִית 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 (עַד־עֹולָם in the same sense as עֹולָם, 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 עֲבֹדָה, “service,” inasmuch as it was the fulfilment of a divine command, a performance demanded by God, though it promoted the good of Israel.
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.
Exo 12:28
They then proceeded to execute the command, that through the obedience of faith they might appropriate the blessing of this “service.”