1st Passover: Eating the lamb a requirement to stay safe?

[Gorgias]

I believe you are absolutely correct because of the very example you gave. The care that those who were not able to afford a lamb on their own were to share in eating the lamb with someone else.

Let’s be even more precise here – it’s not that they shared in the eating of the lamb with another household: they simply shared in the procuring of a lamb. The text would then seem to imply that the sacrifice of the lamb was something that each household did on their own. (The killing of the lamb would, of course, only take place once. However, the preparation of the meat was something that was part of the sacrificial offering – this would take place in each house, presumably. And, of course, each patriarch of each household was the “priest” of his household, prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood.)

So, this all fits nicely: procure the lamb as it makes sense to do so, financially. Each house takes its share of the blood and of the meat, prepares it, sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice, and shares in the consumption of the sacrifice. It’s not the Eucharist, or even (strictly speaking) the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant – but it sure prefigures and points to them!

 

[bmullins]

Let’s be even more precise here – it’s not that they shared in the eating of the lamb with another household: they simply shared in the procuring of a lamb. The text would then seem to imply that the sacrifice of the lamb was something that each household did on their own. (The killing of the lamb would, of course, only take place once. However, the preparation of the meat was something that was part of the sacrificial offering – this would take place in each house, presumably. And, of course, each patriarch of each household was the “priest” of his household, prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood.)

So, this all fits nicely: procure the lamb as it makes sense to do so, financially. Each house takes its share of the blood and of the meat, prepares it, sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice, and shares in the consumption of the sacrifice. It’s not the Eucharist, or even (strictly speaking) the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant – but it sure prefigures and points to them!

The text does not imply that they should only share in procuring the lamb. It says specifically that they will ‘share’ the eating of the lamb.

[bibledrb]Exodus 12:4[/bibledrb]

The text tells you specifically that they must take into account how much each person in each house will eat.

 

[in_servitude]

Let’s be even more precise here – it’s not that they shared in the eating of the lamb with another household: they simply shared in the procuring of a lamb.

As I see it, you are correct - and that is a critical distinction. Thanks for this!

So, this all fits nicely: procure the lamb as it makes sense to do so, financially. Each house takes its share of the blood and of the meat, prepares it, sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice, and shares in the consumption of the sacrifice. It’s not the Eucharist, or even (strictly speaking) the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant – but it sure prefigures and points to them!

The pointing to the Eucharist - that’s something that I’m just barely starting to figure out for myself. I knew that it was somehow in there, but I didn’t actually “get it.” I’d be willing to bet that I’ve heard it explained before (probably from both Scott Hahn and in Church) - but I somehow missed it. Thanks again - I appreciate it.

 

[Gorgias]

serv:

I haven’t checked out the link that’s provided in the thread, but I noticed this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=636901) here at CA. You might be interested in its discussion of “Passover as Eucharist”. (I’m just blindly counting on it to be good, but then again, the stuff around here generally seems very solid, so I don’t think I’m going out on a limb.)

Cheers,

G.

 

[TimothyH]

Let’s be even more precise here – it’s not that they shared in the eating of the lamb with another household: they simply shared in the procuring of a lamb. The text would then seem to imply that the sacrifice of the lamb was something that each household did on their own. (The killing of the lamb would, of course, only take place once. However, the preparation of the meat was something that was part of the sacrificial offering – this would take place in each house, presumably. And, of course, each patriarch of each household was the “priest” of his household, prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood.)

So, this all fits nicely: procure the lamb as it makes sense to do so, financially. Each house takes its share of the blood and of the meat, prepares it, sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice, and shares in the consumption of the sacrifice. It’s not the Eucharist, or even (strictly speaking) the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant – but it sure prefigures and points to them!

Am I not mistaken in remembering, from somewhere that the lamb had to be roasted whole? I did notice verse 9.

Do not eat any of it raw or even boiled in water, but roasted, with its head and shanks and inner organs. (Exodus 12:9)

I’m not challenging, just asking if my memory is correct.

But I really don’t see why they would have divided up the meat anyway. Not that it is important to the theology, but on such a frightening night, it is not unimaginable that many people gathered in a common home for the protection of numbers, prayer, etc. Today we hardly know the people who lived next door but in those days the person next to you was probably kin or related in some way, or you knew them as intimately as kin.

Like I said, not really important to the theology and I’m not trying to challenge.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that the Book “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre covers this subject at lenghth, and goes into how the Jews would have recognized Christ’s passion as a passover sacrifice rather than just another Roman execution.

It is a very interesting subject for me.

-Tim-

 

[Gorgias]

Am I not mistaken in remembering, from somewhere that the lamb had to be roasted whole?

I recall that phrase too … but I think it’s in the context of sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant (maybe a holocaust sacrifice? I’m thinking that’s because a holocaust didn’t provide any boiled meat to the priests who offered the sacrifice).

on such a frightening night, it is not unimaginable that many people gathered in a common home for the protection of numbers, prayer, etc.

Right – I was thinking about this aspect, too. But, that would mean that your household wouldn’t mark its door with blood – and there’s no indication that “shared lamb” meant “shared household”. Moreover, we might assume that the passing-over happened during the night; if you shared a meal, would you be required to stay in your neighbor’s house until the pass-over happened? There’s no indication of this in the text.

BTW – Pitre does do a great job on this topic. I’ve heard him speak on various aspects of it at St Vincent Seminary / College – very engaging!

 

[Link0126]

During the night, I spent time in prayer and thinking about this one aspect. The following thought occurred to me. This is actually the story of my protestant friend and his son.

The father tells his son, “I am sending you to college. I will pay for this first semester. I expect you to attend class, listen to your professors, study hard, put your best efforts into your assignments, prepare for the tests, and give your best efforts during tests to demonstrate your knowledge. Return to me with a report of a 3.5 GPA or better, and I will continue to pay for your college.”

If the son returns with a report of a 3.5GPA (but doesn’t go to college, doesn’t attend class, doesn’t…), the son has failed to do what the father has said. And, if the father learns of this deception, he would be angry - not happy that the son did as was requested.

At this point, I think it is actually a false teaching to say that blood on the door posts was the only thing required. Exodus 7 says:

So, it would be contrary to put blood where the lamb was not eaten.

And, since the Lord knows all - I think it is far more likely that it would have been disaster for the Jews that decided to just put out a false sign of compliance. That’s just what I’m seeing at this point, and again - I’m willing to admit that my weak mind may not have this captured correctly.

Thanks to everyone who has helped with this! I appreciate it so very much - you have no idea.

Yup, perfect example. You got him on that one.