If you’re following the comments on this post, you will note that one of the readers (Chris) has argued that the rules for the passover in the book of Exodus weren’t really rules – Exodus only described a memorial. Therefore, the rules in Deuteronomy were the “real” rules to observe — those were the ones that Israelites were to follow. Hence there are no content changes from Exodus to Deuteronomy. This is incoherent for several reasons, but I want to ask that any of you who agreed with this (and of course Chris) answer the questions below that derive from that position.
Before the questions, let’s review one major difference I see (and basically every major commentator I know of sees): in Exodus, the passover is to be offered in one’s home; in Deuteronomy, it is to be offered at “the place where the Lord sets his name” and not any towns or cities in Israel. This “place where Lord shall set his name” phrase in Deuteronomy, I argued, speaks of the temple (and again, there is wide agreement here). It indicates that the Deuteronomy Passover rules were composed at a time later than Moses.
Here are my questions:
1. Where is the predictive language in Deuteronomy 16, so that the rules for Deuteronomy are futuristic predictions? I’d like to see words like “now when you eventually get into the land and eventually build a temple, then follow these rules for Passover.” Deut 16 reads matter-of-factly without any predictive language. I submit it was written that way because it was written at a time when those rules made sense (i.e., at a time when the temple existed). Since the phrase (and Chris argues this) “the place where the Lord will set his name” can refer to the Tabernacle, Chris cannot argue that it refers to a temple predictively. He could argue both, but not either exclusively. To argue it’s only the tabernacle means that Deuteronomy is NOT predictive in language (the Tabernacle was already in existence). To argue that it is only the temple means he’d agree with me. But “both” doesn’t solve the real problems.
Chris argued that “the place where I will set my name” refers to the Tabernacle, so as to avoid any Deuteronomic changes. A search of the three lemmas (maqom = “place”; shem = “name”; shakan = “set, establish, cause to dwell”) in Deut 16:6 shows that they occur in only nine verses in the OT. All but three are in Deuteronomy. Only one could possibly refer to the tabernacle (Jer. 7:23) and not the temple proper, though the reference to Shiloh is viewed retrospectively by Jeremiah. But we’ll assume that the Tabernacle could be described by this phrase, though. Here are the rest of my questions:
2. I’d like to see a single instance of the Passover being observed according to the Deuteronomic procedure that was PRIOR to the temple being in existence — that is, produce a single example that Passover was practiced at the Tabernacle (as opposed to in everyone’s house as in Exodus) in accordance with the “real” passover laws in Deuteronomy before there was a temple.This would offer actual data from Scripture to support the idea that the people took Chris’ position (!) – that they understood the real Passover laws were in Deuteronomy and acted on that, prior to there being a temple. If there is no example, then this is an argument from silence, which is no argument at all.
3. In the absence of an example for number two, then I’d also like an explanation for how the Deuteronomic instruction to offer the passover sacrifice “at the place where the Lord will set his name” = every individual’s house. I doubt we can scripturally argue that the presence of Yahweh was in every Israelite tent or house).I want to see that in the text.
4. More generally, I’d like Chris to show us that the Scripture itself makes the distinction for which he argued apparent in the text. Where do we find a Scriptural statement to the effect that, “the Exodus laws aren’t really how you are to do Passover – the things written in Exodus 12 are a one-time memorial, and that’s it.” That’s the lynchpin for his view, so I’d like to see atleast one biblical writer say that.
My point with these questions is that Deuteronomy’s language denotes A REAL CHANGE in Passover, a change that reflects a different set of theological circumstance. If Deuteronomy’s rules were the “real rules” as Chris suggests, and the people were never supposed to follow the exodus rules since they were “a memorial,” then he must account for the practice.
Just in case readers wonder, there are in fact examples of the Passover being celebrated at the temple, in concert with the Deuteronomic rules (Hezekiah – 2 Chron. 30; Josiah – 2 Chron 35). I need not argue from silence. In regard to Josiah’s offering, note 2 Chron. 35:13 – where the passover lambs were boiled in water (pots, cauldrons) and distributed to the people to eat. This practice was forbidden in the Exodus rules (Exod. 12:9). The Deuteronomic allowance (I would argue) is NOT a contradiction in Scripture — it is a pragmatic change in the passover law to make a huge, centralized (the temple) passover feast possible in logistic terms. It’s a clear difference.
RE: Scripture Proof for your No. 2
Mike,
How about this:
21 And the king commanded all the people, ?Keep the Passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant. 22 ?For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah. 23 But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was kept to the Lord in Jerusalem.”
2 Ki 23:21-23
AND
16 So all the service of the Lord was prepared that day, to keep the Passover and to offer burnt offerings on the altar of the Lord, according to the command of King Josiah. 17 And the people of Israel who were present kept the Passover at that time, ?and the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days. 18 ?No Passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet. None of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as was kept by Josiah, and the priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah this Passover was kept.”
2 Ch 35:16-19
I am not being dogmatic….I am asking: are these texts saying that there had not been a passover kept like Josiah’s since the day of the Judges and Samuel? Therefore, would they not be equating the more ancient pre-temple passovers with the modern temple passovers? Would this not tell us then that these huge changes that you allege are not as huge as we think because when Deuteronomy said “wherever I set my name” he did not mean just the tabernacle. He actually meant wherever he sets his name…whether it be at a tabernacle for 400 years or at a temple for thousands of years or in the person Jesus Christ for eternity…..you will celebrate it no matter where I set my name.
Or it could also be saying that Josiahs passover was unique from any other passover that has ever occurred….
what do you think?
RE: Your No. 1
Mike,
Why can’t Deut. 16 just be saying exactly what it is saying….”but at the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice.” First of all, is this not providentially left open, so that the people conduct the passover sacrifice WHEREVER the Lord puts his name…whether it be in the tabernacle, the temple, or at Cavalry in the person of Jesus Christ. Aren’t you being way too rigid with the text?
My view does not have to say the text means the tabernacle, the temple, or anywhere else–it does not have to prove present or future. My view says that wherever God put his name…his people would conduct pasach…whether it was on the mercy seat or the Porto-John…..God left it open for a reason…so that it can mean the tabernacle…the temple…AND the person Jesus. Why can’t you accept that? Why can’t you accept that the text is worded the way it is so that we can apply it to the temple, the tabernacle, OR to Christ…remember that the Greek is clear in Luke that Jesus’ coming was a second exodus. The Lord’s supper should be clear enough that God intended Deut. 16 to be applied in a typical sense even to the Son of God and not just to the temple as you suppose.
RE: Your NO. 3
Mike,
You and I both know that God’s presence was never locally in the houses of the chosen people. God being locally present to his people is something unique for the new covenant through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
So I must contend with your No. 2 in order to let my view tread the waters.
Re: Contradiction
Mike,
You say that in 2 Chronicles 35 that Josiah violates Exodus 12. But I think this is a mistake. Does not it say, “And they roasted the Passover lamb with fire according to the rule”–what rule? They are following the rules of Exodus 12:8-9, Deut: 16:7.
They are boiling the holy offerings…not the passover lamb…these holy offerings are probably the same that we are told about in detail in I Samuel 2: 13-15
Again your support is falling from underneath you, now you do not have any scriptural support of Josiah breaking any law of the passover.
RE: Your No. 4
Mike,
First a correction: I never pushed Ex. 12 just to being merely a one-time memorial. I said that Ex. 12 is both a narrative of God’s command for the very first passover and he installs some rules for the ceremonial passover that will memorialize the VERY-FIRST and UNIQUE passover. If you remember, I relegated vs. 14-20 of Ex. 12 to be just those rules setting forth the ceremonial passover that will be practiced throughout the generations.
Remember that the text says THIS DAY will be a memorial, this points to the timing and salvation event of having God’s wrath passover them by the blood of the lamb…this is what was memorialized…and this is what God willed that must be preserved in the rules of the law because this is WHEN the Son of God will become the sacrificed Lamb of God–at passover in the month of Abib–and this is WHAT the Son of God did for us–his blood sprinkled upon us caused the wrath of God to passover us.
And to answer your question…I did set forth Scripture that made this distinction…remember Exodus 13
“And when the Lord brings you into ?the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which ?he swore to your fathers to give you, a land ?flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month.”
Notice–“when the Lord brings you into the Land”–“You SHALL keep this service” Mike, is this not telling us that there is a distinction between WHEN IN THE PROMISED LAND, and WHEN NOT IN THE PROMISED LAND…maybe this is not what you are looking for?
Let me know.
@cwmyers007: so, which set of Passover laws were followed? I gave you the second passage you note – not sure what the point is, since these examples already had a temple.
@cwmyers007: I still want clear answers to the questions asked. Where are the passages relevant to those questions – I need them since I’ve outlined how I see Deuteronomy in this instance. None of what you’ve given explains the changes of where Passover is to be held, for example. You create exceptions, but where are the passages?
@cwmyers007: yes, it was in the temple – the glory fills the temple when it is completed. It isn’t ONLY there and isn’t imprisoned or confined, but it’s there (1 Kings 8). IF it’s not there, what is the point of the glory departing later in Ezekiel?
@cwmyers007: The text itself does not make the distinction you outline here – you are supplying it.
RE: Josiah breaking the sacrifice laws
Mike,
You want the 2 Chron 35 to be breaking Ex. 12, but this is clearly not the case because it clearly says that they ROASTED the passover lamb according to the RULE of Moses. I believe the boiling here is the same thing happening that is narrated in 1 Samuel:
“13 The custom of the priests with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priests servant?3 would come, while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, 14 and he would thrust it into the pan or kettle or cauldron or pot. All that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is what they did at Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there. 15 Moreover, ?before the fat was burned, the priests servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, Give meat for the priest to roast, for he will not accept boiled meat from you but only raw. 16 And if the man said to him, Let them burn the fat first, and then take as much as you wish, he would say, No, you must give it now, and if not, I will take it by force. ”
1 Sa 2:13-16
There is a distinction between that which is sacrificed (and roasted) and that which is a offering (from the same animal) to the priests (which is boiled). THIS IS NOT BREAKING THE LAWS OF EX. 12 because the actual sacrifice part is not boiled, but roasted!
This seems so clear, why will you not accept this in 2 Chronicles 35?
@cwmyers007: There is some ambiguity here due to the elasticity of the Hebrew word bashal (used in both passages for what is okay and what is prohibited). But I’ll give you this one; not a good example on my part. On the other hand, you still haven’t proven at all that the Exodus Passover laws were ONLY a memorial and its rules not to be the norm in favor of Deuteronomy’s rules being the norm. You also haven’t accounted for celebrating Passover publicly and not in homes as a clear change. Moreover, where is your example of celebrating the Passover at the tabernacle, prior to the temple, to account for the Deuteronomic language.
Mike,
First, I have already said that Exodus 12 is not merely a Memorial, but contains both things that were not intended to be repeated (placing blood on doorposts) and things that are meant to be statutes for the passover (the timing especially, among other things).
Secondly, I give you this one–I think you are right that there is an obvious change from passover in the home to where the Lord sets his name (so Deut 16), but I think it is obvious that this was provisional and meant only to last until the Lord set his name somewhere specific (the tabernacle). Remember there was not a priesthood right away—that does not happen until later–and so they had to have it in their homes until God set up the priesthood and set his name on the tabernacle (and I do have text proofs for that).
Third, Mike, I think I found it! How about this:
Lev. 17 says, “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the Lord has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”
My question to you is: How can this not also apply to the passover sacrifice?
The Lord gives a provisional commandment in Ex. 12 because the tabernacle is not built yet (Exodus chs. 26-27 and 30 and 35:30-40:33), the priesthood is not formed yet (Exodus chs. 28-29 and 39), the glory of the Lord has not set upon the tabernacle yet (Ex. 40:34-38), and the priests were not trained yet (Leviticus 1-16). So from Leviticus 17 on is the time when the temporary instructions of Ex. 12 is replaced and refined with Lev. 17 because of all that I have mentioned above. Therefore, Deut. 16’s “change” is merely a retelling of what Leviticus 17 had already established.
Cool Right!
Chris
@cwmyers007: Lev 17 isn’t about the Passover. If it was, it would say so. At best, this is an argument from silence. Oxen were not admissible as a Passover sacrifice. Sheep and goats were okay. I assume from this that you can’t produce any clear examples of the Passover being connected to the Tabernacle. This is understandable because Exodus 12 says it is to be performed in the home. It’s very clear. You have made up the idea that Exodus 12 wasn’t the real procedure, but Deut 1 was, purely to avoid the implication of a change in Passover regulations due to the presence of a temple. (Just a summary for those trying to get caught up in comments).
You’re right, Lev. 17 is not specifically about the passover, rather it is about ANY and EVERY sacrifice that involves a LAMB, ox, or goat and this therefore INCLUDES the passover. So what–you think that the passover sacrifice is excluded from the command of Lev. 17? On what basis–I think you must explain why the passover as a sacrifice SHOULD be excluded from Lev. 17.
@cwmyers007: My basis is the changes between Exodus 12 and Deut. 16. Lev. 17 would not add to Passover without mentioning it. Think about it–ALL sacrifices in the Israelite system were to be taken to the tabernacle EXCEPT Passover because of the legislation of Exodus 12. Passover was unique due to what it commemorated. It was an annual event, not like one of the daily or Sabbath sacrifices. It’s procedures were unique, as Exodus 12 makes clear. Logistic issues and the newly-enforced centralization of the cult in Deuteronomy (in the wake of removing all the other places of sacrifice in the land – even the GOOD ones that were associated with events in the life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) motivated the changes in Deut 16. Also, the tabernacle was moved INSIDE the temple when it was built, which is why (after we have a temple) every sacrifice was a temple issue. The system makes very good sense unless you want Exodus 12’s very clear regulations ignored in this case. The only motivation for doing so is to resist the idea of changes in the text.
>Where is the predictive language in Deuteronomy 16, so that the rules for Deuteronomy are futuristic predictions?
Does the fact that the law say “The place that God WILL choose….” sort of imply a prediction of something that has not been chosen, but will in the future?
Can you please explain the contradiction between boiling vs. roasting? Exodus has roasting.
Deut. has boiling
Book of Jubilees has roasting.
Obviously, this can’t be an issue of the divine providence inspiring contradictory practices. So which is it? Did the author of Deut have a different tradition?
Was the final editor too scared to alter the readings and just came kept both?
I just discovered this site documenting all the contradictions in the bible
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/
Maybe you can have a “Contradiction of the week” post 🙂
Funny – “contradiction of the week”!
Answer: Of course it can be providence. There is more than one way to approach this issue, but I’ll pick one. Let’s say that Deut. is a real difference (with a distinction) and would therefore present as you refer to it, a contradiction. All would agree that the differences between the Passover procedures (where it is eaten is the biggest difference, BTW) reflects a situation before and after occupation of the land (Deut = after). Those who see Deut. written much later than the Mosaic period (time of Josiah or so) would say THAT was when Deut was composed (not just edited). Whether composed or edited, a providential view of inspiration has no problem. It’s simple. Cannot the Law-Giver (God) change his own law? Of course he can. He has that authority. He’s God. If God wants to influence a writer or editor to amend the laws in Deut for new national conditions (they occupy the land now), he can. Are we really going to tell God he can’t do something with his own law?
Those who would want to argue that Moses wrote Deut. at roughly the same time as exodus would argue that God foresaw the different condition (being in the land) and therefore altered the language in Deut. This view would have to argue that he gave Moses that insight, but that doesn’t require dictation either.
Comment readers should know that these are very old questions (and good ones). A standard commentary that engages the text (as opposed to a devotional or homiletical commentary) will address these sorts of issues.
It just sounds weird. In exodus it is roast, than it is broil, than in later books it’s back to roast? If Deut changes in law are due to post-occupation, what about Chronicles or Book of Jubilees? That is post occupation and yet goes back to Roast.
>Cannot the Law-Giver (God) change his own law? Of course he can.
That is something for the philosophers to quibble about. I am not sure the answer is so easily as you make it. Of course God “can” do anything. The question is, “would” He? Part of law is its predictability. A society knows that every year we pay taxes in April. We prepare. We know. There ought to be good reason for changes.
It’s also strange that deut. it warns not to add or subtract from the law. Is there a difference between laws that are said to be eternal vs ones that are not?
BTW – I was not kidding about the Contradiction of the Week. So much of critical scholarship revolves on what they see as contradictions and therefore say it is different, competing traditions.