Exodus 12:1-2: The Institution of the Sacred Calendar
"And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year."
Commentary:
"And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt" — Did God truly speak these words after Moses had departed from Pharaoh in anger (Exodus 11:9)? By no means. Moses departed on the day before the death of the firstborn, which occurred on the fourteenth day of the month. The Lord spoke these words before the tenth day of the month (v. 3), and more probably, at least some days earlier, since the entire nation needed to be instructed regarding the actions to be taken on the tenth day. However, the author deferred the narration of these words to this point, wishing to weave together a continuous account of the preceding plagues.
Bonfrerius: This matter is not related in strict historical order. This is also indicated by the phrase "in the land of Egypt"—that is, not outside Egypt, some time before the Exodus.
"This month shall be unto you the beginning of months" — The words of verse 2 are directed to Moses and Aaron alone; they state a thesis from which the law to be promulgated to the entire people (v. 3) flows. However, the thesis did not need to be transmitted to all with the same necessity as the law itself.
Another possible reason why verse 2 is directed to Moses and Aaron alone: As we observed in Exodus 3:14 and 6:2-5, matters that concern Moses—not indeed alone, but more intimately than the others—are spoken by God in discourse directed to him alone. Therefore, the fact that here in verse 2 God speaks to Moses and Aaron alone seems to confirm what is otherwise abundantly clear: that this passage concerns the sacred year. Matters pertaining to sacred worship were to be entrusted to the care of sacred ministers, not to the plebs. The priests of the old order, however, are not mentioned here.
Exodus 12:3-4: Selection of the Passover Lamb
"Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses."
Commentary:
"Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel" — Hebrew: "according to the houses of the fathers" (cf. Exodus 6:14). The term agnus (lamb) or capra (goat) is intended, for the Hebrew word שֶׂה (seh) designates either (cf. v. 5). The instruction is pro singulis domibus (for each household), not merely pro domo sua (for his own house).
Note on "domus": Therefore, domus (house) or patroecia (extended household) here has a broader scope than the nuclear families of individuals, which often would scarcely suffice to consume an entire lamb decently; it is a subdivision of a tribe.
Later developments: Subsequently, the unclean (Numbers 9:10ff.) were forbidden to celebrate the Passover with the rest, and only men were commanded to approach the sanctuary for its celebration (Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:5ff.). Thus, in a few respects, the rites of this first Passover could differ from later observances.
Regarding women: Although later laws do not command women to participate in the Paschal meal, that Moses' edict prohibited them from being present cannot be demonstrated by any argument. Since the laws concerning the unclean were inculcated by Moses only later, it is not surprising that this first law concerning the Passover did not establish an exception for them. Since on this one occasion the Paschal meal had the character not only of a sacred banquet but also of a true viaticum to be taken for an arduous journey about to be undertaken, I believe that on this occasion all were admitted to it. In later times, this law was circumscribed by narrower limits: thus Psalm-Jonathan insists that only men be counted, and indeed in a number of ten; and in the time of Josephus (cf. Bellum Iudaicum VII, 16), it was customary that guests admitted to the banquet be neither fewer than ten nor more than twenty.
"But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbor that is joined to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb."
Commentary:
"But if the number be less..." — This law was without doubt the first which Moses issued; and he issued it not merely by reviving an older law, but by promulgating a new one given to him by God. From the character of this law, therefore, it is evident that the Hebrews possessed laws even before Moses—whether these were written or transmitted only orally, we do not define.
On early legislation: The first laws of any people are brief and simple. Casuistry soon follows and raises infinite questions. Later laws follow, which so complete and unfold the first laws that they simultaneously define the questions raised by casuistry. Now, the law of verses 3-12 presupposes casuistry; it presupposes that the minds of the Hebrews were already accustomed not merely to apply some law in a rounded fashion, but immediately to fashion and propose various cases. Therefore, the Hebrews had human laws before Moses; certainly they were altogether accustomed to the application and explication of laws.
Objection: One might say that the explanations in our text could have been appended by someone to a law already established.
Reply: But this would conflict with the character of all the other laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Explanations are not inserted into laws, nor are corrections applied to them; rather, they are either appended to the end of a law, or what establishes something new is expressed in a distinct law—which by this very fact, though not explicitly, abrogates certain older provisions. The text of the law itself always remains sacred and intact.
Hebrew analysis: "Et si domus non sufficit..." — In this legal document, the style immediately appears more intricate. First, in verse 3, בֵּית אָב (beth av, "father's house") is explained by בֵּית אֲבֹתָם (beth avotam, "houses of their fathers"), so that it may be understood that by "houses" not individual families but extended households (patroeciae) are designated. But it could happen—and indeed did happen—that a certain patroecia consisted of a single family, and one not so numerous; therefore, verse 4 is added, where the object to be supplied for וְלָקַח (ve-laqach, "and he shall take") is left to be understood from the preceding sentence.
Further explanation: Moreover, an explanation is added concerning the word שְׁכֵנוֹ (shekheno, "his neighbor"): the neighbor is not to be chosen at will, but הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ (ha-qarov el-beito, "who is near to his house"). Here בֵּיתוֹ is to be understood as in verse 3, and קָרֹב (qarov) signifies not mere proximity of location but simultaneously affinity of blood (cf. Genesis 20:4; Isaiah 8:3). Moreover, those who were related also had their houses or tents joined together.
On numbers: Everything was straightforward whenever a neighboring family added to one's own family sufficed precisely for eating the lamb. But what was to be done if two [families] taken together were discovered to be too numerous? The added phrase כְּמִסְפַּר נְפָשֹׁת (ke-mispar nefashot, "according to the number of persons") responds to this question.
Vatable thought that one should seek that neighbor whose family would accurately complete the desired number. But in this way, one would sometimes arrive at someone who could scarcely be said to be "near to his house."
Sylvius (better): He shall not assume as many as he wishes, but as many persons as may suffice for eating the lamb. Moreover, the remaining persons from that household, if they were sufficiently numerous, ought themselves to sacrifice a lamb; if too few, they ought to be joined to some other household or family.
Objection: Now the matter seems entirely clear.
Reply: But there remains the danger that the phrase כְּמִסְפַּר נְפָשֹׁת might be pressed too strictly—for the number of guests is to be determined not merely arithmetically, but with attention to the capacity of those eating: whether they are old or young, etc. Therefore, the explanation is added: אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה (ish le-fi okhlo takossu al-ha-seh, "each one according to what he can eat, you shall reckon for the lamb").
Summary: In the law established in verse 3, verse 4 defined the scope of the word "house"; now verse 5 defines the scope of the word "lamb."
Exodus 12:5: Qualifications of the Victim
"It shall be a lamb without blemish, a male of one year: according to which rite also you shall take a kid."
Commentary:
"It shall be a lamb without blemish" — What comes under the name of "blemish," learn from Leviticus 22:22ff. There is no question of the color of the fleece.
"Male" — The more perfect sex. Only males were employed for holocausts (Leviticus 1:3, 10; cf. Malachi 1:14).
Calmet: Here the lamb was a type of Christ.
"Anniculus" — Lambs not yet seven full days old were subsequently prohibited (Leviticus 22:27). Therefore, anniculus declares the lamb to be one within a year, or at least not exceeding a year. But shall we call a lamb of one month anniculus? On the other hand, one cannot admit a lamb that has greatly exceeded a year. Therefore: a lamb of approximately one year.
Note: Elsewhere also this age of victims was required (Leviticus 1:10; 3:6; 22:27)—certainly because then the flesh was considered mature, and therefore the victim more worthy of God.
"according to which rite also you shall take a kid" — Hebrew: "you shall take from lambs and from kids"; the word שֶׂה (seh), which this verse uses, is shown to designate both species of animals. Therefore, not only then is a kid permitted when a lamb is lacking (Sylvius). Moreover, that et ("and") is not copulative but disjunctive, the practice of all the Jews and of Christ himself teaches (Theodoret), who did not sacrifice two animals simultaneously.
Exodus 12:6: Time of Immolation
"And you shall keep him until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice him in the evening."
Commentary:
"And you shall keep him until the fourteenth day of this month" — Hebrew: בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם (bein ha-arbayim, "between the two evenings"; cf. Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:3, 5, 11), for which Deuteronomy 16:6 and Joshua 5:10 read בָּעֶרֶב (ba-erev, "in the evening"). Therefore, concerning the sense of the expression there is no doubt; only the form of the dual is disputed. Cf. the similar expression צָהֳרַיִם (tzohorayim, "midday"; Genesis 43:16, 25; Deuteronomy 28:29). For explanations, of which none is sufficiently evident, see Dillmann.
Exodus 12:7-8: Application of the Blood and Manner of Eating
"And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce."
Commentary:
"And you shall take the blood thereof..." — And they shall spend the night [in those houses]—Psalm-Jonathan supplies this, demonstrating that for those who had eaten the lamb in another's house (v. 4), it would not have been safe to return to their own house for the purpose of sleep. Therefore, at that time in Egypt the Hebrews did not inhabit tents but houses.
"And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire," — Unleavened bread here, as in verses 34, 39, is a symbol of the haste with which the Exodus was accomplished. That haste and its future effect—that only unleavened bread would be available for the first Passover—God foresaw; He decreed that unleavened bread, in memory of that haste, should be employed at the Paschal meal in perpetuity. Hence, several days before the first Passover (12:8, 15ff.), He gave the law concerning the use of those breads at that meal. There is no contradiction here with verses 34, 39. Indeed, there was a special reason why God, foreseeing that the breads available for the first Passover would be only unleavened, prescribed by law the eating of those breads, lest the Hebrews, considering those breads something imperfect and unworthy of the sacred banquet, abstain from bread altogether while eating the lamb.
"With wild lettuce" — מְרֹרִים (merorim) are certainly certain bitter herbs (cf. Lamentations 3:15). There is no reason to affirm that they were all of one genus. The LXX translated πικρίδες, which are wild lettuces or chicory (cf. Dillmann).
Moreover, the word assas ("roasted") is explained in verse 9.
Exodus 12:9-10: Preparation and Consumption of the Victim
"You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning; it must be burned."
Commentary:
"You shall not eat thereof any thing raw..." — Already forbidden in Genesis 9:4ff. "Nec coctum aqua sed tantum assum igni" — The precept is clear and indubitable, although perhaps we cannot fully explain the reason for each detail.
Why not meat boiled in water? Perhaps for a practical rather than an allegorical reason: meat is roasted more quickly than it is boiled (Sylvius). Moreover, that entire banquet had to be both prepared and eaten with the greatest haste. More soundly also, freshly slaughtered meat is roasted than boiled.
Furthermore, verses 9ff. emphasize that the victim is to be eaten whole: "you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof." — שְׁקָיו (shaqav) designates the leg below the knee, which has little flesh. Certainly, as Clericus suggests, one should not supply a verb of cutting off, since this is not at all expressed, nor is the analogy of holocausts (Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 1:8ff., 12ff.; 8:20ff.; 9:13ff.) convincing—indeed, the Passover is a sacrifice of its own kind. Nor indeed does the text forbid those parts to be cut off (Dillmann), although this is forbidden in Numbers 9:12; but it simply commands that all be eaten. It is evident of itself that those parts which are entirely unfit for eating are not commanded to be eaten (Bonfrerius).
"Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning" — The reason for this law was the imminent journey, which the Israelites were about to undertake at early morning or while the night was still deep, and indeed with the greatest haste; in which haste it could easily have happened that any remaining flesh of the lamb, if any were left over, would be treated unworthily—either by the Hebrews themselves in their haste, or by the Egyptians, or even by beasts (Sylvius).
"It must be burned" — Fire is the quickest and purest manner of consuming a sacred thing (Jansenius). Moreover, it was to be burned usque mane (until morning)—which pertains to the fourteenth day, not at the dawn of the sixteenth day, because it cannot be burned on a feast day (Psalm-Jonathan).
The second part of the verse shows that the first part ought to be understood with a certain latitude: namely, not only bones and the like, together with any flesh that may have remained through imprudence, were to be burned (Bonfrerius), but whatever remained in any manner—for example, if the number of guests were discovered to be insufficient, if someone were suddenly seized by illness, etc. All flesh was to be eaten, or if any remained, to be burned.
Exodus 12:11: The Manner of Eating—Haste and Readiness
"And thus you shall eat it: you shall gird your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste: for it is the Phase (that is, the Passage) of the Lord."
Commentary:
"Thus you shall eat it..." — The rites of the banquet are now described, which Psalm-Jonathan notes were to be observed at that time, not in other generations. For it is gratuitously supposed by some that it was established by law that in celebrating later Passovers, each and every thing that had been observed in this first Passover should be observed. Nowhere are men commanded to eat the Passover holding staves in their hands. Christ and the apostles are read to have reclined, whereas the Hebrews in Egypt certainly did not recline, but stood with staves in their hands and shoes on their feet.
The context clearly shows that they ate the Passover standing, and that God wished it to be so at that time.
"You shall eat it in haste..." — Nor does the word חִפָּזוֹן (chipazon) express haste alone, but also precipitous flight and fear (cf. Isaiah 52:12). To this each detail corresponds: Eastern garments, which they wear loose at banquets, they gird for travel; footwear they remove when entering a house, they put on when setting out (Bonfrerius).
Moreover, the reason for the haste is assigned: est enim Phase—that is, the "Passage" of the Lord. The word פֶּסַח (pesach) is employed concerning God passing over the thresholds of the Hebrews (v. 13, 23), while in verses 12-13 His passage through Egypt is expressed by the word עָבַר (avar). The former passage is expressed directly, the latter indirectly, by the name Phase. That passage, although paternal [on God's part], was that of an avenging God—or of the glory of the Lord of ages (Psalm-Jonathan)—and therefore justly inspired fear; and since the Hebrews were soon commanded to follow the One passing through into the desert, it suggested haste. Since that passage was to be from Egypt into the desert, it was a passage from slavery into freedom (Cajetan).
Subsequently, from the passage the name Phase was transferred to the banquet and to the feast which were to commemorate that passage (Bonfrerius).
The sentence פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה (Pesach hu la-YHWH, "it is the Passover of the Lord") is explained in verse 27 by the words "Victima Phase est Iahve" ("The victim of the Passover is the Lord"), and is altogether to be compared with expressions like Leviticus 1:5: "Holocaustum est hoc" ("This is a holocaust"), "Mincha est hoc" ("This is a grain offering"). Therefore, the pronoun הוּא (hu) refers to the rite which was described in verses 1-11 and explained in verses 12ff.
But certainly the sense is not: "You shall eat in haste, for this signifies the passage." The reason for the haste in the first Passover is not the signification of the passage, but the passage itself. Therefore, the argument of certain innovators is vain: that the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") sound the same as "Hoc significat corpus meum" ("This signifies my body"), in the same manner as the words "Hoc est transitus Domini" ("This is the passage of the Lord") would sound the same as "Hoc significat transitum Domini" ("This signifies the passage of the Lord").
Note also: Phase became a proper name of the banquet and of the feast, but "Corpus meum" was never accustomed to be used as a proper name of the sacrament (cf. Jansenius).
Exodus 12:12-13: The Judgment on Egypt and the Sign of the Blood
"For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt from man even to beast, and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be unto you for a sign in the houses where you shall be: and I shall see the blood, and shall pass over you: and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I shall strike the land of Egypt."
Commentary:
"For I will pass through the land of Egypt.." — The Egyptians are punished, even "in cunctis diis Aegypti faciam iudicia" ("and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments")—either because in those judgments the gods will certainly be found guilty of the avenging (LXX), or: "Ego Dominus" ("I am the Lord")—therefore I can do what I say (Tostatus). There seems to be a kind of oath here: "As truly as I am truly the Lord, so truly will I do this" (Drusius, in Critici Sacri).
Indeed, by this formula not only the words of verse 12 are confirmed, but the entire law of verses 3-13.
Forced interpretation: Some explain "against all the gods of Egypt" (cf. Numbers 33:4) as meaning that among the firstborn of beasts to be slain would also be some of those animals to which the Egyptians at that precise time rendered divine worship—for example, the bull Apis (Knobel).
Jerome noted (Epistula 78 ad Fabiolam, Migne 22, 701) the Jewish commentary that on the night when the people departed, all the temples in Egypt were destroyed—either by earthquake or by lightning. Cf. Psalm-Jonathan. Indeed, some temples older than the Exodus still stand, but there is no trace of either lightning or earthquake.
Dillmann questions whether that part of the narrative which related and described those judgments against the gods has been lost.
Cajetan (more prudently): What sort of things these judgments were is not written, nor indeed was it ever written—neither by the Yahwist nor by another. Just as the God of the Hebrews was glorified by the liberation of the Hebrews, so the gods of the Egyptians were punished by the plagues of the Egyptians, especially by the death of Pharaoh's firstborn, who was considered the offspring of the gods (cf. Knabenbauer on Isaiah 19:1; cf. also Jeremiah 43:13; 46:25; Ezekiel 30:13).
"And the blood shall be unto you for a sign..." — The dative vobis ("for you") is a dative of advantage. The Hebrews are distinguished by this sign; God, seeing the sign, passes over—not as if He Himself has need of the sign, but the matter is conceived anthropomorphically, and simultaneously a type of the blood of Christ is established (Theodoret). Cf. Genesis 9:16.
Exodus 12:14: Perpetual Commemoration
"And this day shall be for a memorial to you: and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations with an everlasting observance."
Commentary:
"Habebitis autem hunc diem in monumentum" — μνημόσυνον (LXX); therefore, you shall celebrate it each year as it returns, each year. The fourteenth day of Nisan is understood, running from evening to evening, at the beginning of which day the lambs were slain (v. 6).
"And this day shall be for a memorial to you" — Just as "days of eternity" in Deuteronomy 32:7 do not indicate infinite past duration, so neither does "everlasting worship" here necessarily express infinite future duration. They were certainly bound to celebrate this feast as long as their entire legitimate worship persevered.
The Feast of Unleavened Bread: The Feast of Phase is followed by the seven days of Unleavened Bread, commemorating the hasty Exodus from Egypt, of which the first (Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:17) is the fifteenth day of the month—therefore, the day after the Phase was celebrated.
Note: The eating of leavened bread is not prohibited on the day of Passover except in that one sacred banquet; certainly the Hebrews are not forbidden to have leavened bread in their houses on that day.
"Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread: in the first day there shall be no leaven in your houses. Whosoever shall eat leavened bread, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall perish out of Israel."
Commentary:
"Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" — Which law is given not only for the time when the Promised Land is occupied (Bonfrerius), but for all subsequent time, even in the desert: the Phase was observed and unleavened bread was employed (Numbers 9).
"In the first day" — Which expression here sounds the same as a die primo ("from the first day") (Bonfrerius; cf. v. 19).
"there shall be no leaven in your houses" — Lest, attracted by the sweetness of leavened bread, they violate the precept (Bonfrerius). Jewish tradition subsequently exaggerated this law, as many others, excluding leaven from the middle of the day which precedes the first [day] of the feast (Psalm-Jonathan).
"Whosoever shall eat leavened bread, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall perish out of Israel" — Or, as the Chaldee rightly explains: "that man of Israel." "from the first day until the seventh" — By which not the penalty of death is decreed (Cajetan), but it is affirmed that he is to be deleted from the catalogue of the Israelites (Vatable; cf. what we have said on Genesis 17:14).
Comments
Post a Comment