In the first part, we discussed the biblical passages pertaining to the second Passover, i.e. Numbers 9 and 2 Chronicles 30. We read that those who were unable to partake of the first Passover [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Nisan, the first month in the Hebrew calendar], due to ritual uncleanness or absence because of a long journey, were allowed to take the second Passover. They would do so EXACTLY 30 days later [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Iyar, the second month in the Hebrew calendar], and in EXACTLY the same way as the first Passover was observed. We also saw that under King Hezekiah, the whole congregation kept the second Passover, and they proceeded to keep seven Days of Unleavened Bread, followed by another seven days of celebration.

In the past, there has been some confusion as to whether or not to keep the Days of Unleavened Bread [or some resemblance of abstaining from unleavened bread for seven days], following the second Passover.

For instance, it has been recommended that if a person keeping the second Passover did NOT observe the Days of Unleavened Bread after the first Passover, he or she should observe seven days of unleavened bread after taking the second Passover. It was also mentioned, however, that the first and last days of this period of unleavened bread following the second Passover would NOT be Sabbaths.

This approach does not seem to find biblical support. Numbers 9 does not mention anything about keeping any of the Days of Unleavened Bread after the second Passover. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out correctly that in Old Testament times, the second Passover was to be eaten “in the same manner as the first passover was eaten, Exodus 12:8; only no mention is made of keeping the feast of unleavened bread seven days…”

When reading about how the Jews observe the second Passover (“Pesach Sheni” in Hebrew), it is pointed out that the festival is only one day this time, rather than seven. In other words, a “shifting” takes place from a seven day festival to a one day event (the Jews consider the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as constituting one festival, calling it “Passover,” even though technically, the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread are two different festivals). They continue explaining that it is not necessary to remove leaven from one’s premises for seven days, following the second Passover, or to abstain from eating leavened products during that time.

When reviewing the incident in 2 Chronicles 30 under King Hezekiah, we find that the whole occurrence was quite unorthodox in that people partook of the second Passover who were, under the ritual law, not permitted to do so, due to their ceremonial uncleanness (verse 18), but that Hezekiah prayed to God for “atonement” (verse 18) and God listened to him and forgave and “healed” them (verse 20), while the Levites ate throughout the feast for seven days, “making confession” (verse 22). Subsequently, the whole assembly agreed to continue the celebration for another seven days (verse 23; notice that the words “the feast” in this verse are in italics, meaning that they are not in the original Hebrew). The 14-day observance after the second Passover was done voluntarily; there was no biblical command to do so.

We do not know how exactly those 14 days were kept. But in any event, this occurrence cannot be used as a precedence for those today who keep the second Passover, so that they would need to also keep seven days of unleavened bread, because IF we were to look at the occurrence under King Hezekiah as binding for us today, then 14 days would have to be kept in some way, not just seven.

We should also understand why God was willing to “overlook” or pass over the inaccurate observance of the Passover at that time. Until King Hezekiah, there is no record that the children of Israel and Judah even kept the Passover after Joshua and Samuel (compare 2 Chronicles 35:18). They might have done so, but not with the same zeal and dedication as they did under King Hezekiah. And it appears that they did not keep it again after Hezekiah, at least not with the same zeal, until the service was temporarily restored under King Josiah (2 Chronicles 35). In the incident of 2 Chronicles 30, under King Hezekiah, God forgave them their inadequacies as He looked at their new-found zeal and dedication to His Word, even though their understanding was not perfect. Even under Moses, it appears that only very few Passovers were actually held.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states the following pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“This is the third Passover in Israel’s history. The first two were kept under Moses–(1) in Egypt, when the Lord delivered them; (2) the second at Sinai, when He had ‘brought them unto Himself.’ (3) The third is on the other side [of the] Jordan under Joshua. Two belong to the Exodus, or going out; one to the Eisodus, or coming in… The law in Exodus 12:48 is, “no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” Hence, while they wandered in the wilderness, this uncircumcised generation could not keep the Passover.”

The Benson Commentary agrees, stating this pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“The children of Israel kept the passover — Which was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exodus 12.; the second at mount Sinai, Numbers 9.; the third here; for in their wilderness travels, these and several other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25. While they were in the wilderness, they were denied the comfort of this ordinance, as a further token of God’s displeasure. But now God comforted them again, after the time that he had afflicted them.”

Likewise Matthew Poole’s Commentary: “This [in Joshua 5:10] was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exo 12; the second at Mount Sinai, Num 9; the third here; for in their wilderness travels these and all other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25.”

Very little has been published in the past in Church of God literature about the specific circumstances allowing or even encouraging a person to take the second Passover, when he or she did not partake of the first Passover. If anything was said at all, it was stated that the person was “unable” to take the first Passover; that “he or she inadvertently misse[d] the first Passover due to circumstances beyond their control”; that “strenuous circumstances occurred”; or that they were “not able” to keep the first Passover “due to illness or other emergency circumstances.”

Commentaries are also very vague. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states that it “was understood in later days to include all good reasons which might prevent anyone from keeping the festival.” The Benson Commentary says that “the Hebrews think that other hinderances [sic] of like nature are comprehended; as if one be hindered by a disease, or by any other such kind of uncleanness.”

We are informed that the definition of “distant journey” has been interpreted very liberally by the rabbinic tradition.

In the Church of God, it has been understood for a long time that the examples in Numbers 9 are not exclusive. A baptized person who was unable to keep the Passover because of sickness (perhaps lying in a hospital bed without any privacy) was always permitted and encouraged to take the second Passover.

There might be additional unusual circumstances which might have to be scrutinized carefully; and it is important to provide here a few more specific details for the purpose of assisting and guiding in this process. The following comments are not introducing “new doctrine,” nor are they meant to be understood as providing definitive doctrinal or administrative decisions of the Church, but rather, to help sharpen our thinking pertaining to what might or might not constitute “unusual circumstances” in specific situations. However, converted members contemplating to take the second Passover should never do so without prior consultation and counsel with the ministry.

If baptized members did not take the first Passover because of what might be described as “spiritual uncleanness” (more on this term below), which was followed by genuine repentance, would they be allowed to partake of the second Passover, or would they have to wait another year and then partake of the next first Passover? Would this situation be analogous to the ritual uncleanness prohibiting a person to partake of the first Passover? Persons who were ritually unclean could not take the first Passover, but they could take the second Passover when they had become ritually clean. Would the spiritual analogy apply so that those who were “spiritually” unclean could not/should not take the first Passover (that is why it is always emphasized during the Passover ceremony that no one should take the Passover if he/she is harboring grudges against someone else), but once they became spiritually clean, they could partake of the second Passover?

[On the other hand, a person thinking that he or she should not partake of the first Passover because of “spiritual” uncleanness would make a mistake when unilaterally deciding not to do so. Such a person might very well be sinning, as Paul commands us to examine ourselves and then to TAKE the Passover (1 Corinthians 11:28). A decision in this regard, pro or con, should always be first discussed and counseled with the ministry.]

In addition, when someone is not baptized, he would not be spiritually “clean,” but once he is baptized, he would be spiritually “clean” and therefore able to take the Passover. Does this understanding help us in determining certain developments pertaining to the second Passover? Let us suppose that someone would be ready for baptism prior to the (first) Passover, but could not be baptized just before the Passover, because of practical problems, such as no minister being present prior to Passover. Would this person who becomes baptized a few days after the first Passover be allowed to take the second Passover? We saw that a person could not partake of the first Passover when he was ritually unclean, but he could partake of the second Passover if he became ritually clean in the meantime. Would this analogy apply to spiritual cleanness due to baptism; in other words, could the spiritual analogy apply that when an unbaptized person who is spiritually unclean and therefore prevented from taking the (first) Passover, as he or she would take it unworthily, would be able to take the second Passover after he or she becomes spiritually clean through baptism?

One argument against this concept might be that the ritually unclean person was physically circumcised; that is, he could have taken the first Passover if it had not been for his ritual uncleanness or his being on a journey. The spiritual analogy might mean that the person was baptized (spiritually circumcised), but could not take the first Passover for reasons other than not being baptized, while an unbaptized person could not have partaken of the first Passover in the first place. In addition, there is no biblical record that a man who was not physically circumcised could partake of the Passover. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there are very few biblical records when the Passover was kept in the first place, and the command of physical circumcision only applied to men, not women, but women did participate in the Old Testament Passover observances.

One might also consider that just because conditions prevented the baptism from taking place before the first Passover through no one’s fault, should this preclude taking the second Passover after baptism which took place right after the first Passover? Had all the relevant conditions been in place; e.g., availability of a minister and a suitable place for baptism, then the baptism would have taken place prior to Passover. The person had no fault in not being baptized in time for the first Passover. The Israelites who could not keep the Passover because they were defiled by the dead body of a man, asked Moses: “Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?” (Numbers 9:7). Today, a person presents himself, as a living sacrifice, to God the Father and Jesus Christ at Passover, while accepting THE Sacrifice of Christ for the ongoing remission of his sins.

We should also consider that in the situation under King Hezekiah, the first Passover could not be observed, among other reasons, as there were not enough Levites present who had “consecrated “ themselves (2 Chronicles 30:3). Could this analogy apply in a situation today when no minister was present prior to the first Passover to baptize a person?

In Matthew 18:18 we read Christ’s words to His ministry: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

It ultimately requires a decision by the Church ministry, considering all the facts and circumstances in a given situation, as to whether it should be recommended to a person who did not observe the first Passover to be allowed to observe the second Passover. It would have to be an individual decision of the local minister, reviewing all the facts and circumstances, whether to recommend the second Passover for someone who was baptized right after the first Passover, because the baptism could not take place before the first Passover, through no fault of the person. The same might apply when a baptized person did not take the first Passover due to “spiritual” uncleanness but subsequently genuinely repents and is desirous of taking the second Passover. This might also include a situation when an ill-advised “decision” by a member was made not to take the first Passover which might turn out to have been incorrect, due to a wrong evaluation of the circumstances or due to a wrong understanding of pertinent facts, and when the member repents of his or her mistake and has the strong desire to take the second Passover. In either case, an individual should not take it upon himself or herself, without the consultation with a minister, to take the second Passover on his or her own. Although the ultimate decision rests with the individual member, it is strongly recommended that he or she counsels first with the ministry on the matter of the second Passover.

From the way Numbers 9:10-12 is rendered in some translations, one might conclude that a person MUST take the second Passover if the situation warrants it, and that the person were to sin if he or she would not do it. The Authorized Version states that those who could not keep the first Passover “shall” keep it on the 14^th day of the second month. (The Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible state it in similar terms, i.e. “shall” keep it, or even “must” keep it). However, this is not what Numbers 9:10-12 seems to want to convey. Rather, the idea seems to be that when the second Passover is to be observed, it must be at that particular time; it must be “to the LORD”; and it must be in accordance with the ordinances of the (first) Passover. The New King James Bible renders these verses in this way, thereby accurately reflecting the intended meaning:

“… he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all of the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.”

Also compare the New International Version; the New American Bible (“he may still keep the LORD’s Passover”); and the New Jerusalem Bible (he “can still keep a Passover for Yahweh”).

In any event, applying the principles of Numbers 9 to the New Testament Church, it will be the ministry who is to make a recommendation in a given situation, as to whether it is advisable or recommended to take or not to take the second Passover, based on godly inspiration, conveying what God may bind or loose in heaven in a specific case. Undoubtedly, the ministry has been given authority to make decisions in such cases, as God has given the ministry authority to declare, based on godly-revealed wisdom and discernment, whether someone has repented of his or her sin, or not (John 20:23). However, if the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the second Passover “may” or “should be” taken, then a person’s decision to ignore the ministry and act contrarily might very well be sinful.

This would also be true for the first Passover when the ministry concludes, under godly inspiration, that there are no reasons to prevent someone from taking the first Passover, and the member just chooses to ignore such advice. The reverse is true as well: When the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the first or second Passover should not be taken under the particular circumstances, then the member might sin if he or she acts contrary to that conclusion and partakes of the first or second Passover anyhow. It really boils down to the question as to whether we believe that God inspires His ministry in cases like these, or whether we are entitled to just do whatever we please (compare Judges 17:6; 21:25). [Of course, if it is concluded that a second Passover should not or does not need to be taken, then the person is of course required to partake of the next first Passover, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, as discussed above.]

Another question is how the second Passover is to be kept. The answer is: Similarly as to how the first Passover is being kept at home by those who are scattered and unable to attend the Passover service in person. The Church of the Eternal God and its international affiliates have prepared pre-recorded material for those baptized Church members who are eligible to take the first (or second) Passover at home. Normally, the Passover service consists of three parts: The footwashing; the partaking of the bread; and the partaking of the wine. When only one person is observing the Passover at home, then the footwashing ceremony must be dispensed of, for obvious reasons.

When two or more persons are partaking of the Passover at home, then—if husband and wife—they would wash each other’s feet, and if additional men and women are participating, then men would wash the feet of the other men, and women of the other women. If a ministerial couple who had partaken of the first Passover are present for the second Passover in order to assist someone who might need help, then the minister could officiate the second Passover service, but he and his wife should not partake of the Passover themselves, as otherwise, they would keep the Passover more than once within a year, which would be against God’s Law.

In conclusion, we would strongly recommend that converted members who may be in doubt as to whether or not to take the first or second Passover, should not make a unilateral decision in this regard, but counsel first with the Church ministry for guidance and direction.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

There are two passages in the Bible which deal expressly with the “second Passover.” It is first introduced in Numbers 9:1-14, where we read:

“Now the LORD spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ‘Let the children of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time. On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight [literally, “between the two evenings,” designating the time between sunset and nightfall], you shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it.’ So Moses told the children of Israel that they should keep the Passover. And they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, at twilight, in the Wilderness of Sinai, according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did.

“Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day [compare Numbers 5:2; 19:11-12]; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day. And those men said to him, ‘We became defiled by a human corpse. Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?’ And Moses said to them, ‘Stand still, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you.’

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, “If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.

“‘”But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off among the people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time, that man shall bear his sin. And if a stranger dwells among you, and would keep the LORD’s Passover, he must do so according to the rite of the Passover and according to its ceremony; you shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and the native of the land.”‘”

In the Old and the New Testaments, the Passover was to be observed as a memorial once a year. In our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days“, we state:

“We read in 1 Corinthians 11:26: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.’ Many have interpreted this Scripture to say, ‘Take it as often as you please.’ But this is not what the Scripture teaches. By reading in context, we learn that Paul was reminding the disciples of the events that happened on the ‘same night in which He (Christ) was betrayed’ (verse 23). Paul stated that on that night, Christ took the bread and the wine, gave it to His disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat…do this in remembrance of Me… This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me’ (verses 24, 25)…

“Christ commanded His converted disciples to partake of the symbols of bread and wine ‘in remembrance’ of ‘the Lord’s death.’ This is clearly a memorial—as the first and last Days of Unleavened Bread are memorials—and memorials of momentous occasions are always observed annually—once a year—on the anniversary of the event they commemorate. It should be noted that God specifically denotes seven ANNUAL Sabbaths or Holy Days to be observed in their appointed times. These annual Holy Days are either memorials of events that have already taken place, or they foreshadow events that will still occur. It is during these annual observances that we are instructed to keep exactly what God has commanded.

“Christ and His disciples were keeping the Passover—an annual celebration of the time when Old Testament Israel was spared from death… the Israelites had to take some of the blood of the Passover lamb and put it on the two door posts and on the lintel of the houses where they ate the lamb (Exodus 12:7–8). God had promised to ‘pass over’ the Israelites when He saw the blood (Exodus 12:13, 23). The entire service was called the ‘LORD’S Passover’ or the ‘Passover sacrifice’ (Exodus 12:11, 27).

“Luke 22:15 tells us that Christ had ‘desired with fervent desire to eat this Passover.’ We read in Matthew 26:17–20 that the disciples had prepared the Passover, and that Christ and His disciples ate it—the Passover lamb—’when evening had come’ (Matthew 26:20; notice also Mark 14:12–18, 22). Christ changed the symbols that night from the flesh and the blood of a lamb, to the bread and the wine of the true ‘Passover Lamb’—Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)…

“By partaking of the bread and the wine on the Passover night, Christ’s disciples symbolically partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ for the continued forgiveness of their sins, as well as for their physical and spiritual healing, eventually leading to eternal life (John 6:58). So we see that it was the night of Jesus’ last Passover supper that He introduced the new symbols. Note that the Passover symbols were changed, not WHEN, or how often, Passover itself was to be observed.

“The Passover was kept once a year—’as a memorial.’ On the night when Christ was betrayed, He kept the Passover. The Passover was, at that time, celebrated as a supper—that is why it is called in Scripture ‘the Lord’s supper.’ Christians are today to continue keeping the Passover, but not as a meal—not as ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ They are only to partake of the symbols of bread and wine on the Passover night. They do not eat a full meal during the Passover service… Christians are told that they must ‘discern the Lord’s body’—they must distinguish the symbols of bread and wine from an ordinary meal (1 Corinthians 11:29). 1 Corinthians 11:20, 34 tells us, ‘Therefore when you come together in one place, it is NOT to eat the Lord’s Supper… But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.’ (As an aside, nowhere does the Bible describe the Passover service as ‘communion,’ when we are to partake of bread and/or wine)… Paul did NOT say in 1 Corinthians 11 that Christians should partake of the ‘Lord’s Supper,’ and that they can do so ‘as often as they please.’ Rather, they are partaking of the New Testament Passover symbols of bread and wine once a year—during the Passover service—in memory of and as a memorial of Christ’s death and sacrifice. Every year, when they do so, they proclaim Christ’s death until He returns.”

The introduction of the second Passover does not change anything in regard to what is stated above. Those who are allowed to observe the second Passover did NOT keep the first Passover. Those who have kept the (first) Passover would not keep it again one month later. That means, the Passover is still being kept only once a year.

As Israel forsook God and His laws, they also forgot to keep the Passover and the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread, which follow the Passover. In due time, King Hezekiah of Judah restored the proper worship temple service in Judah, and in the process, he told the Jews and those from the house of Israel who had not been taken away by the Assyrians to keep the Passover (2 Chronicles 30:1, 6). However, as “they could not keep it at [the] time [of the first Passover], because a sufficient number of priests had not sanctified themselves, nor had the people gathered together at Jerusalem” (verse 3), the king, his leaders and all the congregation in Jerusalem had agreed to keep the Passover in the second month (i.e., to keep the second Passover) (verse 2). Many of the remnant of the house of Israel refused to come to Jerusalem for the second Passover, but some “humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem” (verses 10-11). Some of those who assembled had not “cleansed themselves” “according to the purification of the sanctuary”, even for the second Passover, they “ate the Passover contrary to what was written.” Hezekiah prayed for God’s forgiveness for them, and God healed them (verses 18-20).

God had decreed that the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread were to be kept in the first month, following the (first) Passover. The king and the people proceeded to keep them however in the second month, following the second Passover (2 Chronicles 30:13, 21-22). And because of the restored feelings of gladness and joy, it was decided to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread for another seven days (verse 23). We read that “since the time of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem” (verse 26).

We note that the first Passover was not observed because there were not sufficient priests who had [ritually] sanctified themselves “because the cleansing of the temple was not finished until the sixteenth day, see 2 Chronicles 29:17 and… because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently; that is, a sufficient number of them were not sanctified, to slay all the passover lambs” (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible); and because the people had not gathered together in Jerusalem which “they could not do, because neither was the matter agreed upon, nor were the people summoned thither, till the proper time was past” (Benson Commentary).

In addition, we read that there were those who ate the second Passover even though they had not cleansed themselves. They were not ceremonially clean, but God forgave them upon the prayer of Hezekiah.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains that the priests slaughtered the Passover lamb for those who were ceremonially unclean (see verse 17), stating: “This was a deviation from the established rules and practices in presenting the offerings of the temple. The reason was, that many present on the occasion having not sanctified themselves, the Levites slaughtered the paschal victims… for everyone that was unclean. At other times the heads of families killed the lambs themselves, the priests receiving the blood from their hands and presenting it on the altar. Multitudes of the Israelites, especially from certain tribes (2Ch 30:18), were in this unsanctified state, and yet they ate the [second] passover—an exceptional feature and one opposed to the law (Nu 9:6); but this exception was allowed [better: it was not held against them] in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer (2Ch 30:18-20).”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible adds the following comments to verse 17: “For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified,…. Or purified from uncleanness, contracted either by idolatry, or through such things which, according to the ceremonial law, made them unclean, and from which they had not now time to cleanse themselves according to the law: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for everyone that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord; this they did for the masters of families, who were ceremonially unclean, who otherwise might have killed their passover lambs themselves, see Exodus 12:6, but now the Levites did it for them, that their passovers might be sanctified and consecrated to the Lord; for, as Philo the Jew says… one day in a year the whole sacrificed, everyone acted as a priest, and brought and slew his own sacrifice, meaning at the passover.”

The Benson Commentary adds this in commenting to verse 18:

“A multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves — Either they did not know, after such a long night of ignorance and superstition, what ceremonies were required, in order to their purification, or they had not time to use them. Yet having an eager and pious desire to commemorate their wonderful deliverance out of the Egyptian bondage, they were permitted, in their uncleanness, to eat the [second] passover, lest they should be discouraged if they were denied it, in this their return to the true religion. But Hezekiah prayed for them — It was his zeal that had called them together in such haste, and he would not that they should fare the worse for being straitened for time in their preparation. He therefore thought himself concerned to be an intercessor for those that ate the [second] passover otherwise than it was written. And he had confidence that God was so gracious that he would not, on account of the omission of some prescribed ceremony, be wroth with men whose hearts were upright before him.”

We need to emphasize that the second Passover is still to be observed today with the new symbols introduced by Jesus, but ONLY by those who did not and could not partake of the first Passover. We note that in Old Testament times, the second Passover was observed exactly in the same way as the first Passover, only that it was kept exactly one month later, but still on the 14th day of the (second) month, “at twilight” (between the two evenings of sunset and nightfall); with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; and with Passover lambs which were not to be kept until morning, and the bones of which were not to be broken. (Of course, blood was not put on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses during the first or the second Passover, as this was strictly done during the very first Passover night. That part of the original ceremony was not carried out during subsequent first and second Passover celebrations.)

We should also note that Numbers 9:10-12 does not say anything about observing Seven Days of Unleavened Bread AFTER the observance of the second Passover. We will discuss in the next installment as to how we are to understand and apply today the events described in 2 Chronicles 30.

In addition, we read that only those could observe the Old Testament Passover (both the first and the second Passover) if they were physically circumcised (compare Exodus 12:48). This fact has important ramifications for the observance of the New Testament Passover as Paul warns against partaking of it in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). In ancient Israel, a foreigner could not partake of the Passover if he was not physically circumcised, and from this, the Church of God has concluded and teaches that a person must be “spiritually” circumcised in order to partake of the Passover.

Note this from our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” regarding the Passover:

“The Old Testament demands that no male who was uncircumcised was to participate at the Passover… Even though physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for New Testament Christians, they are circumcised spiritually (Colossians 2:11–12; Romans 2:26–29). This can only occur through the indwelling Holy Spirit, which God gives us after proper baptism. Christ’s disciples had been baptized (even though, in the extraordinary case of the eleven apostles, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit—they would receive it, however, on the Day of Pentecost)…

“No male was allowed, in Old Testament times, to partake of the Passover, unless he was circumcised. True Christians are circumcised spiritually, in the heart, by and through the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, after proper baptism. Therefore, only properly baptized members of the spiritual body of Christ—the Church—who don’t hold grudges against anyone, and who do not have hate toward others in their hearts, are to partake of the annual symbols of bread and wine. In doing so, they reflect on the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. This teaching is supported by the fact that Jesus waited until Judas had left them, before He introduced the New Testament symbols of bread and wine…”

As there is, in spiritual application, “neither male nor female” in God’s Church today (Galatians 3:28), the requirement of having been “spiritually circumcised” by having been properly baptized and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit in order to partake of the Passover symbols applies to both men and women.

We should take note of the fact that the second Passover was for those who could not take the first Passover because, among other reasons, they were ritually unclean or defiled by having touched a corpse. When they became ritually clean, they could take the second Passover. In the next installment, we will discuss if and under what circumstances the spiritual analogy might apply when a person who is spiritually unclean and therefore prevented from taking the first Passover, as he or she would take it unworthily, would be able to take the second Passover after he or she has become spiritually clean. In this context, we will also address the important point that the men who were not able to keep the first Passover due to ritual uncleanness asked Moses why they should be deprived from presenting the offering of the LORD on Passover. Finally, we will explain how eligible participants should observe the second Passover.

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Norbert Link