Exodus 12:9 provides Yahweh’s rationale for the prescribed method of roasting the lamb: “Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts.” As the verse opens, Yahweh expresses concern both for the
out in the text of Scripture, the unleavened bread was to serve as a symbolic reminder of the pain that the Hebrew people had experienced while in Egypt, for after all, in Deut 16:3 the bread is called “the bread of affliction” (emphasis added).
55I simply assume that the bitter herbs have a symbolic significance. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 91, comments, “It may be taken for granted . . . that unless the bitter herbs (merorim) were invested with some particular significance, they would hardly have merited special mention as a mere popular condiment among the solemn instructions about the paschal lamb.” As to the precise identification of the “bitter herbs,” commentators vary. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 269, writes that they are “most likely a variety of lettuce.” Kaiser, Exodus, 425-26, prefers “lettuce and endive.” Mackay, Exodus, 208, suggests
“endives and chicory,” while Segal proposes “bitter lettuce or chicory.”
56See Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 91.
57Several commentators see a connection between the “bitter herbs” in Exod 12:8 and the
“bitter” service of Exod 1:14. These commentators include Bruckner, Exodus, 111; Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, 242; Kaiser, Exodus, 425; Mackay, Exodus, 208; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 1:259; and Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 382. Less convincing are Theodor Herzl Gaster, Passover: Its History and Traditions (New York: Henry Schuman, 1949), 18, who contends that the inclusion of bitter herbs in the Passover meal was to simply “neutralize impurities” in the food, and Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 170, who suggests that the bitter herbs served as a “prophylactic against evil spirits.”
enjoyment of the feast and the welfare of his people. As Stuart has noted, to eat meat that was raw (or insufficiently cooked) would be “both distasteful and dangerous to health.”58 Roasting the meat thoroughly would prevent untoward possibilities, such as food
poisoning. Further, the lamb was not to be “boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts.” To boil the animal in water would surely mean dissecting its parts in order to fit it into a cooking vessel, and Yahweh wanted the animal whole.59 Since boiling was a more lengthy and inconvenient process it would not align with the tenor of the Passover feast, which was haste.60
In Exodus 12:10, the reader is given hints concerning the sacred nature of the lamb and its meat.61 Yahweh commands, “And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn” (cf. Num 9:12; Deut 16:4b). The comment of Alexander is sensible: “The sacred nature of the meat explains why the Israelites are to burn any that is left over, after first ensuring that they roast only as much as they can eat.”62 Barbecued meat is delicious on the second day, but in the case
58Stuart, Exodus, 277. With Segal, I have included the possibility that the word א ָנ, in Exod 12:9, might be translated “insufficiently cooked” (instead of “raw”). He points out that א ָנ in Exod 12:9 is a hapax legomenon, and that a different (more common) Hebrew word was available to express the idea of
“raw” (namely,י ַח; see Lev 13:10, 14, 15, 16; 1 Sam 2:15). Thus perhaps a slightly different shade of meaning than “raw” is intended in Exod 12:9. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 166.
59Houtman, Exodus, 180.
60Stuart, Exodus, 277. Both Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 171; and Larsson, Bound for Freedom 83, suggest that Yahweh commanded undivided, non-dissected, whole animals because such animals would symbolize the unity and unbroken wholeness of the people. Houtman, Exodus, 181, also concurs, “Those eating the meal constitute a complete unity by completely consuming the in-one-piece animal.” The whole people were about to tread out of Egypt en masse, and dining on a lamb left whole was perhaps symbolic of their unity.
61So Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, 134; Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, 1:243; and Tremper Longman III, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 189.
62Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, 134.
of Passover, to consume the meat on the day following would be inappropriate and a violation of Yahweh’s instruction.
In Exodus 12:11, the focus shifts from what is eaten to the diners themselves and what must characterize their eating. Yahweh declares, “In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover.” First, all those eating the Passover feast were to be dressed ready to leave Egypt; sandals on, staff in hand, belt fastened.
Victor Hamilton is helpful in his description of the phrase “belt fastened”:
The reference here is to a long, ankle-length tunic or robe, which needs to be tied at the waist with a girdle or belt when one is (a) setting out on a journey (Exod. 12:11;
2 Kings 4:29; 9:1), (b) beginning to run (1 Kings 18:46), or (c) engaging in war and spiritual warfare (Jer. 1:17; Ezek. 23:15). The common denominator is that the phrase underscores preparation for anything strenuous or difficult.63
Those eating were to come to the table dressed for the occasion; prepared to set out on the long journey out of Egypt and toward the land promised to Abraham. Their eating was to be done in “haste” (Hebrew: ḥippāzôn). The noun ḥippāzôn derives from the root ḥpz, and often the concept of “fear” or “trepidation” is conveyed when words of that root appear.64 It is hardly a stretch to detect the element of “trepidation” or “alarm”
in the use of ḥippāzôn in Exodus 12:11.65 After all, for God’s people the feasting was to commence while just outside their walls human beings were dropping dead in divine judgment. The reflection offered by James Bruckner is apropos:
This was not a celebratory feast. The people were not to be indifferent to the suffering outside the walls of their homes, even the suffering of their enslavers
63Hamilton, Exodus, 183.
64For example, consider the following ways in which the ESV translates the verb ז ַפ ָח in the qal stem: “panic” (Deut 20:3); “frightened” (Job 40:23); “alarm” (Ps 31:22[23]; 116:11). With regard to ז ַפ ָח, Jack P. Lewis, “ז ַפ ָח,” in Theological Wordbook, 310, writes, “‘Flee in terror’ may summarize its meanings.”
65Contra Anthony Tomasino, “זפח,” in New International Dictionary, 310, who says that the use of ḥippāzôn in Exod 12:11 “implies no fear on the Israelites’ part . . . but only anticipation of their imminent departure.”
(Prov. 24:17). They should eat with the haste of alarm, since their deliverance was purchased at such a cost of human and animal life.66
The last sentence of Exodus 12:11 reads, “It is the LORD’s Passover.” The word “it” in this final sentence of Exodus 12:11 refers primarily to the slain, roasted, eaten lamb.67 “It” (the lamb) is Yahweh’s “Passover.” The English word “Passover” is translated from the Hebrew noun pesaḥ, but the English term seems not to capture the precise meaning of the Hebrew.68 In the verses leading up to Exodus 12:11, what has been described is a divine provision of protection for Israel: a lamb is to bleed and die, providing everything necessary for the people to be protected from God’s wrath. Thus, context would suggest that the phrase “Yahweh’s pesaḥ” (i.e. Yahweh’s lamb victim) meant “Yahweh’s protection.”69 Further, in Isaiah 31:5, the verb pāsaḥ carries the sense of “protection,” and both Exodus 12:23 and 12:27 reflect Yahweh protecting Israel while Egypt is judged. Yahweh was providing protection for Israel in the form of a lamb slain, and the reason why such protection was essential is laid out in Exodus 12:12-13.