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

[in_servitude]

I had lunch today with a protestant friend of mine, and we got onto the topic of the 1st passover. I made the statement, “The lamb had to be eaten in order for the 1st born son to be saved from death.” I have heard this spoken by my priest, who I trust. Also, I remember this, I think, from a Scott Hahn CD. My friend took issue with this. Now I have gone back and read Exodus 12 - and I see where the Spirit passes over any house with blood on the door frame. This statement taken in isolation seems to indicate that it does not matter if the lamb was actually eaten in that house.

But, then again later in Ch. 12 - it gives very specific regulations about the passover - and that does in fact state that the lamb must be eaten for it to conform to the regulations.

I like the way that the “must eat the lamb” part of this mates nicely with John 6 where one must eat the flesh of Jesus to have life. I thought that this could be a way to help a protestant better understand the Eucharist.

My protestant friend claims that if someone ran around putting blood over doorways of the Egyptians - then they would not have been killed that night. From what I see in Exodus 12 - that does look to be true.

Any pointers to information that will clarify if the lamb had to be eaten would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Barbkw]

That’s correct, the Israelites had to stand and eat the lamb, whose blood they’d used to mark the door posts.

 

[Gorgias]

The Israelites were required to eat the lamb (and unleavened bread, and with “loins girt”, and to mark the doorposts with blood of the sacrifice, etc, etc). So yes, this was required of them.

The “passover”, however, happened by virtue of the blood of the lamb. So, while they were required to eat the lamb, Exodus 12 places the reason that first-born sons would not be killed solely as a function of the blood.

 

[NotWorthy]

I had lunch today with a protestant friend of mine, and we got onto the topic of the 1st passover. I made the statement, “The lamb had to be eaten in order for the 1st born son to be saved from death.” I have heard this spoken by my priest, who I trust. Also, I remember this, I think, from a Scott Hahn CD. My friend took issue with this. Now I have gone back and read Exodus 12 - and I see where the Spirit passes over any house with blood on the door frame. This statement taken in isolation seems to indicate that it does not matter if the lamb was actually eaten in that house.

But, then again later in Ch. 12 - it gives very specific regulations about the passover - and that does in fact state that the lamb must be eaten for it to conform to the regulations.

I like the way that the “must eat the lamb” part of this mates nicely with John 6 where one must eat the flesh of Jesus to have life. I thought that this could be a way to help a protestant better understand the Eucharist.

My protestant friend claims that if someone ran around putting blood over doorways of the Egyptians - then they would not have been killed that night. From what I see in Exodus 12 - that does look to be true.

Any pointers to information that will clarify if the lamb had to be eaten would be appreciated. Thanks!

This is a little erratic on your friends part… and I guess its because he wants you to steer away from the obvious Eucharistic foreshadowing of the Passover episode.

First, your friend takes literally that the Angel of the Lord would passover every house with blood on the door.

Then, your friend ignores all the numerous “you must do this…” that the Lord COMMANDS in the same chapter. When describing the eating of the Lamb, the Lord says, “You WILL do this…”

6*** You will keep it*** (the Lamb) until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole community of Israel assembled, it will be slaughtered during the evening twilight.
*7 They will take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.
8 They will consume its meat that same night, eating it roasted with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. *

In my opinion, in the line that says,*******But for you the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you," *** the Lord is assuming that those who mark their mantels with blood have also abided by all the other commandments that the Lord gave to them.

 

[NotWorthy]

Incidentally, the Isrealites were showing a great leap of faith for the Lord when they put the blood on the doorposts.

You see, there was an Egyptian god that took the form of a sheep. The killing of the lambs and putting the blood on the doorposts would be considered a sacrilege and blasphemy on the part of the Jews, and they knew it. This would be one of the reasons that God instructed them to gird themselves and be prepared for a hasty exit.

Hence, in order for the Israelite to comply with this commandment, he had to place a great deal of faith that the Lord would protect him from the Egyptians anger and revenge.

 

[in_servitude]

Incidentally, the Isrealites were showing a great leap of faith for the Lord when they put the blood on the doorposts.

You see, there was an Egyptian god that took the form of a sheep. The killing of the lambs and putting the blood on the doorposts would be considered a sacrilege and blasphemy on the part of the Jews, and they knew it. This would be one of the reasons that God instructed them to gird themselves and be prepared for a hasty exit.

Hence, in order for the Israelite to comply with this commandment, he had to place a great deal of faith that the Lord would protect him from the Egyptians anger and revenge.

Thank you, NotWorthy, for your comments.

This aspect adds to the story quite a bit, and if you have any pointers to books or something I can use as a source for doubters - that would be huge. I can easily see how this aspect of the passover would cause the Jews to refrain from running around splashing blood on the door posts. Also, why would they do this when they are seeking freedom anyway?

One part of the lunch discussion was my friends assertion that some Egyptians were spared by just the blood alone. I have looked for that in Exodus and I can’t find that. I think it is from the 10 Commandments movie from a few decades ago.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you, NotWorthy, for your comments.

This aspect adds to the story quite a bit, and if you have any pointers to books or something I can use as a source for doubters - that would be huge. I can easily see how this aspect of the passover would cause the Jews to refrain from running around splashing blood on the door posts. Also, why would they do this when they are seeking freedom anyway?

One part of the lunch discussion was my friends assertion that some Egyptians were spared by just the blood alone. I have looked for that in Exodus and I can’t find that. I think it is from the 10 Commandments movie from a few decades ago.

Ha! Beware of people that use Cecille B. Demille for their Bible Studies!!!

If that were the case, we would have Damien and his “priests” challenging Moses at Mt. Sinai rather than years later!

But, in your regards to sources, I’ll have to see. Its been years since I learned this, but I THINK its from the book, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, by Scott Hahn. I’ll try and see tonight.

 

[Barbkw]

usccb.org/bible/exodus/exodus12.htm

Death of the Firstborn.

29g And so at midnight the LORD struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon, as well as all the firstborn of the animals.

30Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians; and there was loud wailing throughout Egypt, for there was not a house without its dead.

 

[in_servitude]

I agree with Barbkw. I think that Exodus12 goes out of its way to say that not a single Egyptian household was spared.

I can now see how thin the argument is that people were saved with just by blood on the doorpost. I thought that it was a good argument at first, but perhaps today’s lawyer/contract driven society changes the way we perceive the written words. The intent had to be different - why would they do only a portion of the regulations? That makes no sense.

Thanks a ton for your help!!

 

[Gorgias]

I can now see how thin the argument is that people were saved with just by blood on the doorpost. I thought that it was a good argument at first

You mean other than the fact that this is what the text says?

I don’t see how that can be considered a “thin argument”…

 

[in_servitude]

You mean other than the fact that this is what the text says?

I don’t see how that can be considered a “thin argument”…

Yes, the text says that if blood is seen, then the Spirit will pass by.

However, it doesn’t make sense that any house adhering to the commandments of God would follow this one aspect - putting blood over the door way - but not doing the other aspects - preparing and eating the lamb. At least the way I see it - it’s one activity. I agree with NotWorthy that looking for one aspect of the passover was sufficient to validate the entire procedure.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I say “thin” because there is some room for argument. It would seem to me that if it was otherwise, there would be an example provided where a household was saved through the blood-only sign.

I’m not an expert - and I will humbly accept corrections to my thinking on this. But at this point, to me, it does seem like a thin argument to say that the Lord would accept partial compliance with his commands.

Perhaps “thin” is the wrong word too?

Thanks Gorgias for your comments - they help me to work my way through this.

 

[puzzleannie]

That’s correct, the Israelites had to stand and eat the lamb, whose blood they’d used to mark the door posts.

moreover they had to eat the lamb and the rest of the meal exactly as prescribed, loins girt, sandals on etc.

 

[Gorgias]

However, it doesn’t make sense that any house adhering to the commandments of God would follow this one aspect - putting blood over the door way - but not doing the other aspects - preparing and eating the lamb.

Well, you’re right there. It doesn’t stand to reason that they’d only do the blood thing. In fact, God pretty much insists on participation – when He’s telling Moses that this must become a perpetual observation, it’s described in no uncertain terms: if someone doesn’t participate in the Passover observation, s/he is no longer to be considered a Jew.

But at this point, to me, it does seem like a thin argument to say that the Lord would accept partial compliance with his commands.

Right – no partial compliance. Nevertheless, the survival of the first-born is tied only to the blood of the sacrifice.

 

[NotWorthy]

Also think about it. Do you think any Israelite was willing to risk their life by thinking, “*God didn’t **say *we’d die if we put blood on the door, but didn’t follow through on His command to eat the lamb”?

 

[in_servitude]

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:

They will take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.

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.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Yet, this isn’t the claim that you started with. You initially said, "“The lamb had to be eaten* in order for* the 1st born son to be saved from death.”

So, were there more things required than blood on door posts? Yes. What does the text say about what causes the passing-over? The blood.

Two different statements, and two different answers.

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

This is a good point; we would expect that where we find blood, we find a lamb being eaten. The two go hand in hand. However, formally, blood is the cause of the passing over.

 

[nordskoven]

“You must eat My Body and drink My Blood to have eternal life.” --Jesus Christ
Yes. The Passover is given as an ETERNAL ORDINANCE in the Old Testament/Tanach. That’s why Church attendance at Easter is mandatory. Christ is the Lamb of God. You don’t eat, you die. Period. But…Those who eat and drink unworthily, not discerning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, eat and drink damnation as John states.

 

[in_servitude]

What does the text say about what causes the passing-over? The blood.

I’m not able to see this. It says that the blood is a mark - an indication - a sign. Signs point to other things - a mark is not the thing itself. The mark says, “lamb eaten here.” When the Spirit sees the mark saying, “lamb eaten here”, it moves on. At least from what I can tell so far, the mark itself pointed to what saved them - the lamb.

Gorgias, I humbly request that you keep up the challenges - it’s helping me either cement my understanding - or modify it to fit reality. I don’t care to be right - for what matter is it that I am right if I lack the Truth? In fact, much better for me to be proven wrong and learn the Truth than to adhere to fallacy. Thanks!

 

[in_servitude]

In my prayers and meditation last night, another couple of thoughts came to mind.

When I started this thread - I made the mistake of separating the two - the eating of the lamb and the blood on the door posts. I think that’s an error.

There’s no support that the two can be separated - and there is care to combine them. Additionally, care is taken to handle the situation where one family was too small to consume an entire lamb - it is fairly obvious to me now who critical it was that both the eating of the lamb and the blood on the door posts were required. If it was so important to say that it was “just the blood” then there would be examples where households were saved by the mark alone. No such example is given.

Therefore, I think the proper answer to my original question is to say that it’s the wrong question. The real question is, “can the eating be separated from the mark of blood on the door posts?” And, I currently believe the answer is no.

 

[bmullins]

In my prayers and meditation last night, another couple of thoughts came to mind.

When I started this thread - I made the mistake of separating the two - the eating of the lamb and the blood on the door posts. I think that’s an error.

There’s no support that the two can be separated - and there is care to combine them. Additionally, care is taken to handle the situation where one family was too small to consume an entire lamb - it is fairly obvious to me now who critical it was that both the eating of the lamb and the blood on the door posts were required. If it was so important to say that it was “just the blood” then there would be examples where households were saved by the mark alone. No such example is given.

Therefore, I think the proper answer to my original question is to say that it’s the wrong question. The real question is, “can the eating be separated from the mark of blood on the door posts?” And, I currently believe the answer is no.

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. If the lamb were just a byproduct to get the ‘blood’, then God would have simply instructed those who killed a lamb to paint the doors of those who could not. Instead he told them to do both, not just the blood but to eat the body as well.