I. THE OCCASION WHICH LED TO THIS SUPPLEMENTARY DIRECTION. From Exodus 12:25 and Exodus 13:5 it may be inferred that the passover was not intended to be statedly observed till the tribes should have received their inheritance in Canaan; and the inference is confirmed by the circumstance that there seems to have been no celebration of the passover during the thirty-eight years between the departure from Sinai and the crossing of the Jordan. For reasons not difficult to understand, the first anniversary of the night of deliverance, since it found the people still encamped at Sinai, was commanded to be observed. Hence the charge verses 1-5. This, since it was, in some sense, the first of all the regular passovers, was ordained to be kept with great solemnity. All the greater was the chagrin felt by certain men of Israel who, on account of a mischance which had befallen them, were disabled from taking part in the general solemnity. A relative or neighbour had died on the eve of the feast. They had not shirked the duty of laying out and burying the dead. Thus they were ceremonially unclean, and might not eat the passover. It seemed hard to be debarred from the joyous rite, especially since no blame attached to themselves in the matter. Was there no remedy? They brought the matter before Moses and Aaron; Moses brought it before the Lord, with the result to be presently described.

II. THE LAW FOR THOSE DISABLED IN PROVIDENCE FROM EATING THE PASSOVER IN THE APPOINTED SEASON (verses 10, 11).

1. The person disabled by uncleanness at the full moon of the first month might keep the feast at the full moon of the second. This was not a perfect remedy. The passover was a national solemnity. It was a witness to the religious unity of the tribes. It was designed at once to express and to foster the communion of the whole people in the faith and worship of the God of Abraham. These very attractive aspects of the ordinance failed to come into view when the passover was observed only by a few individuals, and on another than the appointed day. However, there were other and more private aspects of the ordinance to which this did not apply, so that the permission to keep the passover in the second month was a valuable concession.

2. The concession was extended not only to persons defiled by the dead, but to all who might be defiled from any cause beyond their own control For example, if a man happened unavoidably to be on a distant journey on the fourteenth day of the first month, he might keep the passover at the next full moon.

3. The concession was expressly extended to the foreigner as well as to the born Israelite. It ought never to be forgotten that, although the passover was so emphatically a national feast, provision was carefully made, from the first, for the admission of foreigners to it (Exodus 12:48, 49). Let the foreigner accept circumcision, "he and all his," and he is entitled to sit down at the paschal table, as a communicant in the Hebrew Church, just as if he had been born in the land. The Old Testament Church was not a missionary Church. It was not enjoined to preach to the Gentiles and compel them to come in. But if a Gentile desired to come in, he was to be made welcome. The law before us, besides presupposing the right of the proselyte to be admitted, emphatically declares the parity of right which was to be accorded him on his admission.

4. Care was to be taken not to abuse the concession. Liberty is one thing; license is another and very different thing; yet history and daily experience bear witness that the two are apt to be confounded. Many, when they hear liberty proclaimed, think that license is to reign. See how carefully this is guarded against in the present instance. In two ways: -

(1) Willful neglect to observe the passover in its appointed season was still to be deemed presumptuous sift (verse 13) - a warning which the habitual neglecters of the Lord's Supper would do well to lay to heart. We, as evangelical Protestants, believe that participation in the Lord's Supper is not the indispensable means of communion in the body and blood of the Lord; nevertheless, we hold that no man can habitually withdraw himself from the Lord's Supper without sin and loss.

(2) The supplementary passover was not, because supplementary, to be a passover of maimed rites (verses 11, 12). It was to be observed with all the rites ordained for the great festival of the first month. With this law compare the history of Hezekiah's passover in 2 Chronicles 30.

III. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH LIES AT THE BOOT OF THIS LAW is this, namely, that rigid exactness in points of external order ought to be waived when adherence to it would hinder the edification of souls. The same principle was laid down by our Lord in reference to the observance of the day of rest when he said, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." The principle must, of course, be used with discretion. It was dutiful and expedient that the passover should be observed, not by every man when he pleased, but on the anniversary of the exodus, and by the whole congregation at once. Nevertheless, this good rule was not to defraud of the passover those disabled from keeping it on the right day. If this principle was so carefully recognized under the comparatively servile dispensation, much more ought it to prevail under the dispensation of evangelical liberty. Points of external order are not to be despised, especially when they are such as have express warrant of Holy Scripture. The willful contempt of them may amount to presumptuous sin. Nevertheless, the edification of souls must ever be treated as the paramount consideration to which all else must yield. - B.

I. WITH REGARD TO THE VICTIM WHICH WAS CHOSEN. Was it a lamb? Christ is often so called on account of His innocence, meekness, and resignation (Isaiah 53:7; John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 5:6). Was it chosen from the flock? Christ was taken from among His brethren (Acts 3:22). Was it a male of the first year? Christ suffered in the prime of His days. Was it without blemish? Christ was altogether perfect (Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 1:19).

II. WITH REGARD TO THE OBLATION WHICH WAS MADE. AS the lamb was slain, so was Jesus (Revelation 5:9). As the lamb was slain before the whole assembly (Exodus 12:6), so Jesus was publicly put to death. As the lamb was slain between the two evenings, so Jesus was offered between three o'clock and six (Matthew 27:45). As the lamb was set apart four days before it was slain (Exodus 12:3, 6), so Christ entered the city four days before His crucifixion (Matthew 21:1, &c.).

III. WITH REGARD TO THE BLOOD WHICH WAS SPRINKLED. The blood was sprinkled with a bunch of hyssop (Exodus 12:22), dipped into the bason; so the blood of Christ is the blood of the everlasting covenant, the deposit of privileges, which all become ours by the exercise of faith. The blood was sprinkled upon the door-posts of their dwellings. So the blood of Christ is to be applied to the hearts and consciences of believers (Hebrews 9:13, 14; Hebrews 10:22). The blood was sprinkled upon the lintel and the side-posts; but not behind nor below the door. So the blood of Christ is not to be trodden under foot (Hebrews 10:29). The blood secured every family where it was sprinkled, it being within the limits of the Divine protection, so that the destroying angel was forbidden to hurt them. So the blood of Jesus is the only refuge for the guilty.

IV. WITH REGARD TO THE FLESH WHICH WAS EATEN. The flesh of the lamb was eaten roasted with fire, strikingly exhibiting the severity of our Saviour's sufferings (Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 52:14, 15; Psalm 22:14, 15). It was eaten whole, and not a bone broken, which was amazing]y fulfilled in reference to Christ (John 19:31-36). It was eaten in haste, with the staff in their hands, to intimate that Christ is to be received immediately without delay. It was eaten with bitter herbs, importing our looking to Christ with sorrow of heart, in remembrance of sin, as expressed in Zechariah 12:10. It was eaten with the loins girded, implying that we must be prepared for His coming (Ephesians 6:14). It was eaten with the feet shod, to remind us of the freedom and happiness which Christ imparts to the believing Israelites (compare Isaiah 20:2-4 with Romans 5:11). It was eaten with unleavened bread, because we are to receive and profess Christ with unfeigned sincerity (1 Corinthians 5:7, 8; John 1:47). Upon the whole, we learn from the subject the happy state of believers, who, though once afar off, are now made nigh by the blood of Christ; and likewise the unhappy state of unbelievers, who, rejecting the atonement, must inevitably perish.

(William Sleigh.)