Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 12:9
Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast [with] fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
9. Eat not of it raw ] lest the blood should be eaten at the same time, against the standing prohibition, Lev 7:26 f., Exo 17:10-12, &c.
nor boiled at all with water ] Sacrifices partaken of by the worshipper are elsewhere regularly represented as boiled: see (in P) Exo 29:31, Lev 6:28; Lev 8:31, Num 6:19; cf. also Exo 1Sa 2:15, Zec 14:21, and the ‘boiling-places’ in Ezekiel’s restored Temple, Eze 46:20; Eze 46:24: there must thus be some reason for roasting being here so emphatically enjoined. What the reason was must remain matter of conjecture. Di. thinks that it was because in this case the fat (which might not be eaten, Lev 3:17; Lev 7:23-25, and had not, as in the case of the peace-offering, been removed previously, and burnt upon the altar, Lev 3:3-5; Lev 3:9-11; Lev 3:14-16) might drip down and be consumed in the fire. G. F. Moore, art. Sacrifice in EB. iv. 4187, thinks it a survival of archaic usage. ‘In the earliest times the carcase of the victim was probably roasted whole either over an open fire, or in a pit in the earth (as by the modern Samaritans), and the flesh sometimes eaten half raw or merely softened by fire. Deu 16:7 (see RVm.) prescribes that it shall be boiled, like other sacrifices partaken of by the worshipper. This, however, did not prevail; and P preserves the primitive custom.’
its head with, &c.] i.e. it is not to be divided (like the burnt-offering, for instance, Exo 29:17, Lev 1:8-9), but to be roasted whole (cf. v. 46).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Raw – i. e. half-cooked.
Sodden … with water – It was probably more common to seethe meat than to roast meat; hence, the regrets expressed by the Israelites for the seething pots of Egypt.
The purtenance thereof – or its intestines. This verse directs that the lamb should be roasted and placed on the table whole. No bone was to be broken (see Exo 12:46, and margin reference). The bowels were taken out, washed and then replaced. The Talmud prescribes the form of the oven of earthenware, in which the lamb was roasted, open above and below with a grating for the fire. Lambs and sheep are roasted whole in Persia, nearly in the same manner.
This entire consumption of the lamb constitutes one marked difference between the Passover and all other sacrifices, in which either a part or the whole was burned, and thus offered directly to God. The whole substance of the sacrificed lamb was to enter into the substance of the people, the blood only excepted, which was sprinkled as a propitiatory and sacrificial offering. Another point of subordinate importance is noticed. The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled by the head of each family: no separate priesthood as yet existed in Israel; its functions belonged from the beginning to the father of the family: when the priesthood was instituted the slaying of the lamb still devolved on the heads of families, though the blood was sprinkled on the altar by the priests; an act which essentially belonged to their office. The typical character of this part of the transaction is clear. Our Lord was offered and His blood shed as an expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice, but His whole Humanity is transfused spiritually and effectually into His Church, an effect which is at once symbolized and assured in holy communion, the Christian Passover.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. With the purtenance thereof.] All the intestines, for these were abused by the heathens to purposes of divination; and when roasted in the manner here directed they could not be thus used. The command also implies that the lamb was to be roasted whole; neither the head or legs were to be separated, nor the intestines removed. I suppose that these last simply included the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, &c., and not the intestinal canal.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Eat not of it raw, i.e. not thoroughly roasted, for such we also say is raw and so the Hebrew word is understood by the Jewish and other doctors. It signified that Christ should suffer, as well as save, to the uttermost, all that was done for our sins.
The purtenance; Heb. the inwards, which were to be taken and washed, and then to be roasted together with the rest. So do here except the fat, and caul, and kidneys which were reserved by God for himself, 2Ch 35:12,4. But that exception was not made till after this time, and it seems not certain that that exception extended to the paschal lamb. These and the heads and legs are here mentioned, not to exclude other parts, but because they are not commonly roasted; but God would have the whole lamb roasted and eaten, to signify that we must have either nothing of Christ, or the whole Christ, and all his benefits, hist Spirit to sanctify and rule us, as well as his blood to save us.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. Eat not of it rawthat is,with any blood remaining; a caveat against conformity to idolatrouspractices. It was to be roasted whole, not a bone to be broken, andthis pointed to Christ (Joh19:36).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Eat not of it raw,…. Not roasted enough; and so Jarchi says, that what is not sufficiently roasted, or is not thoroughly and down roasted, is in the Arabic language called u, the word here used; and so Maimonides w says it signifies flesh, on which the fire begins to operate, and is roasted a little, but not enough for eating. And indeed there seems to be no necessity of a prohibition of eating the flesh quite raw: some x derive the word from a root which signifies to break, and suppose that this rule forbids the breaking or cutting it in pieces; that as it was to be roasted whole, and not a bone of it to be broken, so it was to be brought to table whole, and the whole to be eaten; but then it could not be eaten without being cut to pieces. Abarbinel y takes the word in the usual signification of it, “now”, as if the sense was, ye shall not eat of it now, not before the evening of the fourteenth day; but whereas Moses had told them,
Ex 12:6, that the lamb was to be kept up until the fourteenth day, it was needless to tell them that they should not eat it now or immediately; the first sense is best, and this shows that Christ, the antitype of this lamb, is not to be eaten in a carnal but spiritual manner, of which our Lord treats in Joh 6:31, nor sodden at all with water; the Targum of Jonathan is,
“neither boiled in wine, nor in oil, nor in other liquor, nor boiled in water.”
This, with respect to the antitype, shows, that Christ is not to be received in a cold lukewarm manner, and with indifference; and that nothing is to be mixed, added, and joined unto him, but he alone is to be regarded in the business of our acceptance, justification, and salvation:
but roast with fire; for the reasons before given: the manner of roasting it, according to the Jewish canons z, was this, they bring a spit made of the wood of pomegranate, and thrust it into its mouth quite through it, and put the thighs and entrails within it; they do not roast the passover lamb on an iron spit, nor on an iron grate. Maimonides a is a little more particular and exact in his account; to the question, how do they roast it? he replies,
“they transfix it through the middle of the mouth to its posteriors, with a wooden spit, and they hang it in the midst of a furnace, and the fire below:”
so that it was not turned upon a spit, according to our manner of roasting, but was suspended on a hook, and roasted by the fire underneath, and so was a more exact figure of Christ suspended on the cross, and enduring the fire of divine wrath. And Justin Martyr b is still more particular, who was by birth a Samaritan, and was well versed in Jewish affairs; he, even in conversing with Trypho the Jew, who could have contradicted him had he said what was wrong, says, the lamb was roasted in the form of a cross; one spit, he says, went through from the lower parts to the head, and again another across the shoulders, to which the hands (or rather the legs) of the lamb were fastened and hung; and so was a very lively emblem of Christ crucified:
his head, with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof; or with its inwards c, these were all to be roasted together, the whole lamb with all that belonged to it, with which the above canon of the Jews agrees.
u “cruda fuit caro”, Golius, col. 2476. Semicocta, “cruda fuit caro”, Castell. Lex. col. 2296. Vid. Hottinger. Smegma Oriental. p. 169, 170. w Hilchot Korban Pesach. c. 8. sect. 6. x Oleaster apud Rivet in loc. Gusset. Comment. Ebr. p. 487, 488; so some in Aben Ezra. y So Marinus Brixianus in Arca Noe. z Misn. Pesach. c. 7. sect. 1, 2. a Hilchot Korban Pesach. c. 8. sect. 10. b Dialog. cum Trypho Jud. p. 259. c “et cum interioribus ejus”, Pagninus, Tigurine version, so Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(9) His head with his legs . . . The lamb was to be roasted whole: not a bone of it was to be broken (Exo. 12:46). Justin Martyr says that it was prepared for roasting by means of two wooden spits, one perpendicular and the other transverse, which extended it on a sort of cross, and made it aptly typify the Crucified One.
The purtenance thereof.Heb., its inside. The entrails were taken out, carefully cleansed, and then replaced.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 12:9. Eat not of it raw, &c. Particular caution is here given, that the lamb should be roasted with fire; that he should be roasted whole: his head, with his legs, and all which pertains to him. It was not to be eaten raw; that is rare, or half-roasted: it was to be thoroughly done, none of the blood remaining in it; in opposition (as Spencer thinks) to what the Egyptians did in the worship of Bacchus, i.e. Osiris, when they ate raw flesh: nor sodden with water, as they used in their sacrifices, says he, to their god Hori. It is particularly expressed, that it was to be roasted with fire; in opposition, as some think, to the custom of roasting their sacrifices in the sun; which was usual among some heathen nations. And it was to be roasted whole with its entrails; in opposition to the superstitious custom of the pagans, who used to consult the entrails of the victims; and to teach the Jews, that, in the paschal lamb, all was sacred, and to be considered as such.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The whole of the lamb became a striking figure that nothing short of a whole Christ can be sufficient for salvation. Reader! do notice this; and may the Lord the Spirit teach you and me from it that we need a whole Saviour, not a partial one.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast [with] fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
Ver. 9. His head with his legs. ] To let us see our need of whole Christ, and our most perfect communion with him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
sodden = boiled.
with = in.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
but roast with fire: Exo 12:8, Deu 16:7, Lam 1:13
Reciprocal: 2Ch 35:13 – roasted
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast [with] fire; his {f} head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
(f) That is, all that may be eaten.