Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 12

In the land of Egypt.—This section (Exodus 12:1–28) appears to have been written independently of the previous narrative—probably earlier, and as a part of the Law rather than of the history. It combines instructions on the subject of the Passover which must have been given at different times (Exodus 12:12; Exodus 12:17), some before the tenth of Abib, some on the day preceding the departure from Egypt, and some on the day following.

Up to Exodus 12:20, the section is wholly legal and would suit Leviticus as well as Exodus. From Exodus 12:20 onward, it has a more historical character, since it relates the action taken by Moses.

The beginning of months. —Previously, the Hebrews had begun the year with Tisri, at or near the autumnal equinox . By doing this, they followed neither the Egyptian nor the Babylonian custom. The Egyptians began the year in June, with the first rise of the Nile; the Babylonians in Nisannu, at the vernal equinox.

It was this month which was now made, by God’s command, the first month of the Hebrew year; but it did not yet have the name Nisan: it was called Abib (Exodus 13:4), the month of “greenness.” From then on, the Hebrews had two years, a civil and a sacred one (Josephus, 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 Nisan), six months earlier. It followed that the first civil month was the seventh sacred month, and vice versa.

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.

If the household be too little for the lamb. —There would be situations where the family would not be large enough to consume an entire lamb at one sitting. When this was the case, people were to join with their neighbors, either two small families joining together, or a large family sending some of its members to increase the numbers of a small one. According to Josephus (Bellum Judaicum, 6.9.3), 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, you shall count. In determining the number for any given Paschal meal, you shall “count men according to their eating,” admitting more or fewer, as they are likely to consume less or more.

Without blemish. —Natural piety teaches that we must not offer the blind, the lame, or the sick for sacrifice (Malachi 1:8). We must give to God from 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 particularly 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 considered superior to females and were especially appropriate here, since the victim represented the firstborn male in each house.

Of the first year —that is, not more than a year old. As children are most innocent when young, so animals too were thought to be.