Knowing the people's mind, does it not seem likely to you that if Hezekiah had not taken charge and forced them under the threat of the authority of the government, that if they did not do thus and such, it was not going to go well for them? That is exactly what he did. In order for him to control things, rather than allow the people to sacrifice the Passover lamb at their homes, he instead moved the operation to the Temple so he could personally watch and supervise what was going on.
Notice these differences between this Passover kept and celebrated in the days of Hezekiah, at the king's command, with what we have learned from Exodus 12 and Exodus 25 through 40. This is the very first time in the Bible that we have these things appearing.
Ezra was faithful to let us know that even in the days of Solomon and David when the nation had God's favor, it was not done this way. You would think that if they had God's favor there might be more leniency. But no, even in the days of Solomon and David no Passover was kept like this. Even though it was a Passover to God, it was different from what was commanded in Exodus. The main reason is because of the total paganization of the Judeans. They were so steeped in Baalism that it was not possible to trust them to keep a Passover at home.
That is exactly what Hezekiah attempted. He attempted, through a centralization of the worship, to somehow bring about a purification. It failed, but it was one good king's attempt to try to do something to turn the people around, and I have no doubt at all that God accepted it. It was better than no Passover at all. Even though God accepted it, this does not mean God changed His original command. It is very clearly seen the people understood this, because I gave you readings from books by Philo and Josephus that clearly showed that in the days of Christ the people were still offering the Passover sacrifice in their own homes.
The Passover under II Chronicles does not give authority for a change. It is only recording a very unusual circumstance in which the king took control of the situation. He tried to turn the nation around by centralizing the worship so that he could keep track of what the people were doing. This Passover led to even greater reform, but it did not change things for very long.
God mandated a couple of things before one could keep the Passover. One requirement was circumcision (Exodus 12:43-48), and the other was ceremonial cleanliness (Numbers 9:6-13; II Chronicles 30:17-20). This requirement of cleanliness prior to the Passover gives a seventh reason why the Passover does not fit the pattern of a sin offering. The general purpose of the sin offering is to cleanse from sin. But if the Passover provided cleansing, there would be no need for the people to be clean before eating it. On the other hand, if they were clean in anticipation of the Passover, then there would be no need to keep the Passover for a hypothetical second cleansing. The Israelites did not have to be ceremonially clean to make a sin offering, but they did in order to make, or partake of, a peace offering (Leviticus 7:20-21).
These prerequisites have New Covenant counterparts, including spiritual circumcision, which takes place at baptism. And the requirement of taking the Passover in a worthy manner shows the spiritual intent behind being ceremonially clean. It includes being free from carnal attitudes and approaches that defile, and which destroy the peace and well-being of the fellowship.
