As we come to the fifth and final objection against child participation in the Passover meal, we immediately recognize its close connection with Objection # 2 (Admission to the Passover Required Catechesis). That’s because there are two distinct but related claims associated with the Lord’s attendance at the feast as recorded in Luke 2. The first is about its timing (Jesus was twelve) and the second is about its purpose (he went to take his catechetical exam).
Therefore, in view of the overlap with Exodus 12:26, I’ll need to address both of these claims in this post. In preparation for that, here is the initial passage (Lk. 2:41-42) we will consider:
// His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast //
Objections & Answers
5. Jesus Attended Passover at the Age of Twelve
In his online publication entitled, Jesus’ First Passover (found here), Reverend Jim West presents an interesting case against child participation. In the main, his argument rests on the claim that, according to Luke 2:41-42, Jesus himself never attended Passover before the age of twelve.
However, with as many supporting points as he presents in this work, I would argue that his overall case is inconclusive for at least three reasons: 1) The inference he makes from the text is logically invalid, 2) The interpretation he renders is not required by the grammar, and 3) The evidence he offers is extra-biblical and therefore non-authoritative.
From Focus to Fact
Anyone who’s been involved with Christian apologetics knows that one of the favorite tactics of unbelievers is to present the Bible in a way that makes the writers look like they contradict each other. For example, since Matthew says two women came to the empty tomb and Mark says there were three, the unbeliever sees a blatant contradiction.
However, such a conclusion is a major slip in logic. The fact that Matthew mentions only two out of the three women is not the same as denying that there were three. To be a formal contradiction, he would’ve had to say that “only” two women came to the tomb—but, of course, he didn’t say that.
By way of analogy, Reverend West commits a similar error in his argument against paedocommunion. He too makes an unjustified leap from the focus of a writer to the facts of the case, not realizing that these are not the same thing. He assumes that when Luke says Mary and Joseph went up to Passover every year, it can only mean that Jesus never went with them. Notice how he draws that inference on pages 12 and 13:
// The Lucan account says that his parents went up to Passover every year (Luke 2:41). The focus here is upon their going—not his. They (not he) went up to the Passover every year //
// They went up annually, but the silence suggests that Jesus did not //
In no uncertain terms, Reverend West deduces the absence of Jesus from the presence of his parents. But just like in the case with the women at the tomb, this is a major slip in logic and should be answered in exactly the same way: The fact that Luke only mentions Joseph and Mary is not the same as denying that Jesus was there.
From Grammar to Interpretation
But what about the grammar? Reverend West also argues that there’s an obvious grammatical contrast between the attendance of Mary and Joseph (v. 41) and the attendance of Jesus himself (v. 42). To do this, he appeals to the Greek term, ginomai, which means: was, came to be, or even, began to be. On page 13, he writes:
// Ginomai is translated “was” when the real import of the verb is became. Thus, the implication of ginomai in Luke 2:42 is clear: Jesus’ becoming twelve was the reason they took him to Passover //
There are several difficulties with this conclusion, two of which I’ll mention in passing:
First, no matter how we translate ginomai, the term itself is connected to the age of Jesus, not to his attendance. In other words, the text says “when Jesus began to be twelve” not “when Jesus began to attend the feast.”
Second, no matter how we translate ginomai, the grammar is not as forceful as suggested. Notice that Reverend West wants the statement to be causal rather than simply temporal. He asserts that the “reason” Joseph and Mary took Jesus up to Jerusalem is that he “became” twelve, when the truth is that ginomai is preceded by hote which is known as the adverb of time. Thus, we have a classic case of confusing our interpretation of the grammar with the grammar itself.[1]
From Scripture to Tradition
Admittedly, one of the best parts of West’s publication is the section in which he makes the connection between the ages of Jesus (mentioned in the New Testament) and the requirements of God’s law. The problem, however, is that he takes a true and frequent occurrence and then presents it as an absolute rule. On page 9, he writes:
// Every time an age is predicated of him, it is in relationship to God’s law //
In this section, West provides a number of examples from the Bible, all of which are good. He reminds us that Jesus was circumcised at eight days old because that’s what God required (Lk. 2:21; Gen. 17:12). He was presented at forty days old because that’s what God required (Lk. 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8). He was baptized at thirty years old because, again, that’s what God required (Lk. 3:23; Num. 4:1-3).
Unfortunately, right when we’re ready to learn that Jesus first went to the Passover at the age of twelve because that’s what God required, West fails to deliver. Knowing that there is no such law or command in Scripture, he goes back and carefully restates his initial argument in completely different terms. On Page 10, he writes:
// Thus everything that Jesus did conformed to Old Testament law and custom. Whenever his age is affirmed, it is directly or indirectly linked to the Torah //
Now for the record, I have no problem with hearing and evaluating arguments grounded in church tradition. What I do have a problem with is the sleight of hand that we see here. I have a problem with arguments that start off sounding like biblical arguments, only to find that somewhere along the line the writer has led me off the path.
By the time we get to page 14, we realize that the whole publication is a string of inconclusive scriptural arguments and that these arguments can only be received as conclusive when they’re viewed through the lens of Jewish custom. In my mind, that just means the arguments themselves are ultimately inconclusive.
What About Tradition?
But what about tradition? Shouldn’t we at least consider the argument from Jewish custom? After all, Luke does say that they went up to the feast according to the “custom” of their day, right? Well, yes, but there are a few things that we should keep in mind:
First, even if the custom of Jesus’ day was such that women and children were excluded from the Passover meal, it does not follow that such a practice must continue as a pattern for the church today.
Second, it is disputable whether such a custom even existed in Jesus’ day, rendering the argument itself anachronistic. Something is anachronistic when it attributes a custom, event, or object to a period of time to which it does not belong.
To appreciate this second point, one should note that the particular “custom” that is often assumed in this connection is the Jewish practice of pre-bar mitzvah. On page 15 of his publication, West writes:
// The first Passover of Christ, in which He did not take part, anticipated his impending Bar Mitzvah one year later //
To substantiate this statement, West appeals to the Scottish Presbyterian theologian and historian, Alfred Edersheim (A.D. 1825-1889). Yet judging by the footnotes Edersheim provides (found here), we see that he was depending on other sources to substantiate his own statements; sources which include the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 200-500) and the medieval Jewish historian, Maimonides (A.D. 1138–1204).
This poses an obvious dilemma—Who gets to decide which historical sources are right and which are wrong?
Every Bible-believing Christian knows that, unlike the writers of Holy Scripture, the voices of history often contradict each other—which fact alone should remind us that no matter who we're talking about historiography is always a presuppositional discipline.
To press the point, I could ask a very simple question—namely: What if we decide that, instead of Maimonides, we want to listen to Josephus, who tells us that long before the time of Christ women and children did participate in Passover? I know one thing for sure; we would come to a completely different conclusion about the question at hand.
In his, Antiquities of the Jews (11.4.8, found here), Josephus writes:
// As the feast of unleavened bread was at hand, in the first month, all the people ran together out of the villages to the city, and celebrated the festival, having purified themselves with their wives and children, and offered the sacrifice which was called the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the same month, and feasted seven days //
Now for a better application, let’s ask another question: What if we decide that, instead of accepting the research of Jim West, we want to accept the research of James Jordan, who cites a number of other historical sources to show that Bar Mitzvah didn’t even exist in New Testament times? Again, we'd come away with a different conclusion.
In his, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation,[2] Jordan writes:
// Jesus’ appearance in the Temple at age twelve is sometimes linked with the bar mitzvah rituals of later Judaism. No such ritual custom existed in Jesus' day, however, and nothing in the text hints that this was the first time Jesus had ever been to Jerusalem to a feast. Moreover, Jewish children participate in Passover long before bar mitzvah! The writings of the rabbis give strong indication that children participated in the Passover meal at the time of Christ. See Christian L. Keidel, “Is the Lord's Supper for Children?” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 314ff, and Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should be Restored to Covenant Children (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Pub., 2002), 56ff //
In view of such discrepancies, one begins to appreciate the Reformed emphasis on the testimony of Holy Scripture as our highest and only infallible rule for faith and practice. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must ultimately look to it alone to prove all doctrinal points and resolve all disagreements of a traditional or historical nature.
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:10, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
I do hope it’s clear by now, at least to those who’ve been following my blog, that this is the principle I’m seeking to apply in this series. Historical testimony is often very helpful to the student of Scripture and Church History; but as the Confession reminds us, it is not something that we can ever rest in.[3]
Exposing Presuppositions
In this last section, I want to address the alleged purpose of Jesus’ attendance at the Passover. According to Reverend West, Jesus was taken up to Jerusalem so that, in keeping with the custom of his day, he might take (and pass!) his catechetical examination before the elders of the church.
Apparently, when Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the Temple “hearing and asking questions” this was Luke’s way of telling us that he was engaged in the customary, pre-confirmation interview that was normative in his day.
Consider the following statements from pages 20 and 21:
// Jewish history informs us that it was common during the ‘minor festival days’ after the Paschal lamb was eaten for the doctors to theologize and for the young to participate. Jesus was not teaching the doctors of the Law. They were interviewing him. Luke’s description is parallel to the modern practice of interviewing a catechumen when he is examined by the elders of the church prior to his first communion. In short, Jesus appeared in Jerusalem not as a wonder-child, but as a catechumen //
Now, from what’s already been said above, it should be clear that such an analysis, being grounded in the testimony of extra-biblical sources, is less than sure. But even that is not the biggest problem associated with this interpretation. The real difficulty is figuring out what to do with the other salient details of the text itself. Or, to put it into question form, we could ask: If what Jesus was doing in the temple was according to custom (i.e. if it really was his confirmation interview), then why didn’t his parents know where he was?[4]
Our knee-jerk reaction is to say that such a question seems too simple and too obvious to carry any force. But oftentimes it’s the obvious things that slip right past us if we’re not careful with our steps. So the question is a good one and it needs to be considered. If Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem specifically for his interview with the elders, then why were they so frantic when he showed up missing right at the appointed time? And even after they found him in the temple, Why were they still so confused?
Unfortunately, Reverend West makes no attempt at answering these questions, probably because they pose a direct challenge to the presuppositional factors at play in his analysis. I realize that saying such a thing could be offensive, but I’m only saying what I perceive to be the case.
And even if I’m wrong, and West is completely unaware of any presuppositional commitments he has, that still doesn’t prove that he doesn't have them. Nor does it mean that other men, who hold the same position and utilize the same interpretation as he does, are unaware of theirs.
For example, in his online article entitled, What Mean Ye (found here), Dr. Richard Bacon openly acknowledges that because of a pre-commitment to a certain theological “model” he comes to the text with an “expectation” to find what he needs to find.
After concluding that Jesus was “involved in what we would today call a catechism class,” Dr. Bacon makes a startling admission:
// Our model caused us to expect that in the case of children being admitted to the Passover we would see prior or contemporary catechetical instruction. That is precisely what we find in the New Testament, even in the case of our Lord // (p 13)
Without question, this statement amounts to an admission of eisegesis. And for those who aren’t familiar with this term, eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases. It is the act of reading into the text what you want the text to say, rather than deriving and discovering from the text (all and only) what is already there.
What’s Up Next?
So far, I’ve been focusing on the foundational question of child participation in the Passover and in doing so I first presented a positive case from Exodus 12 and then addressed the five most common objections to our interpretation. Every time, I overturned those objections by a simple demonstration of the Scripture itself. If you want to go back and review any of those posts, you can use the following list for easy navigation:
PART ONE: Introduction (here)
PART TWO: Positive Case from the Passover & Objection 1, The Passover Meal Was Unsuitable for Small Children (here)
PART THREE: Objection 2, Admission Required Catechesis and 3, The Language of the Text Disproves Child Participation (here)
PART FOUR: Objection 4, Later Attendance to Passover was Restricted to Adult Males (here)
PART FIVE: Objection 5, Jesus Attended Passover at the Age of Twelve (you are here)
Admittedly, there is still quite a bit more material to cover (and objections to answer) with regard to the Passover itself. But because we’ve spent so much time on this topic already, I will do my best to sum up the final points all in the next post. There, I plan to show from the word of God the Prime Connection Between Passover and the Lord’s Supper (D.V.)!
After that, I plan to provide a positive, pro-covenant communion treatment of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Then, finally, I can deal with the so-called “pillar text” of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and bring my studies to a close.
