Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 5

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.

---

NOTES:

[1] Interestingly, Reverend West admits that his rendering of the text is an interpretive call and not a grammatical necessity, writing in a footnote at the bottom of page 14: “Admittedly, the translation “was” may parallel the force of “became,” except that “became” is more specific and causative, implying that Jesus went up because of his twelfth birthday.”

[2] The Case for Covenant Communion, ed. Greg Strawbridge (Monroe, LA, Athanasius Press Pub., 2006), ch. 4, p 50. fn 1  

[3] The reader might be interested to know that in the 1977 R.C.U.S. committee report on Infant Communion (found here) the opening section acknowledges that for many centuries paedocommunion was the universal practice of the Christian Church:

// Infant communion was practiced in the Christian Church from the third to the eighth centuries, and in some areas as late as the twelfth century… In the twelfth century the practice was dropped due to the emergence of the doctrine of “transubstantiation” within the church //

For some reason, however, this long-standing testimony of church history and tradition is disregarded as “not germane to this present discussion.” The reason the committee gives for this is that the underlying theological basis for the historical practice was “not covenantal but sacramental or sacerdotal.” Thus, the careful reader should discern at least two things from this information:

1) Contrary to the impression we often get from anti-paedocommunionists, both parties involved in this debate are selective when it comes to the historical references they use, and yet,

2) Only one party is completely unscrupulous when it comes to its historical sources. Honestly, we should find it more than a curious thing to see the testimonies of men like Cyprian and Augustine rejected for their “bad theology” while the testimonies of unbelieving and anti-Christian sources like the Babylonian Talmud and Maimonides readily received.     

[4] This wording is taken and adapted from Tim Gallant's excellent work, Feed My Lambs : Why the Lord's Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children, pg. 52.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 4

At this point, I’m still working through the various objections to child participation in the Passover, so if you’re not up to speed with where we are, and how we got here, you’ll want to go back and read at least the last two installments, found here and here.

In this post, I want to pick up exactly where I left off last time and provide an answer to the next objection on the list.

Objections & Answers

4.  Later Attendance to Passover Was Restricted to Adult Males

In his 1988 paper entitled, The Paedocommunion Controversy, Reverend Ron Potter argues that a significant change in Passover legislation took place subsequent to its Egyptian celebration. This means that even if it could be shown that children partook of the first Passover, the change of legislation rules out their participation in the land. 

On page 12 he writes:

// The Passover in Sinai had clearly undergone a transformation… We observe from Exodus 23:14-17 that males only were to appear before the Lord at the three instituted feasts, one of which was the Passover //

On page 15 he writes: 

// In Deuteronomy 16:16-17 the legislation of Exodus 23 is restated. Males only (v. 16) who are recipients of God’s blessing on their productivity (v. 17) are to participate //

The Regulative Principle

For those who don’t know, the position outlined by Reverend Potter is an application of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Without getting into the finer distinction between elements and circumstances, the Heidelberg Catechism gives us a good working definition of this rule. In Question 96 it states that we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded us in His word.” 

This rule is very different from the normative principle which says: it is lawful unless God forbids it. To the contrary, the RPW says: it is unlawful unless God commands it. By appealing to this principle, Reverend Potter makes clear what he wants to argue. Namely, it was unlawful for women and children to partake of the Passover because the Bible did not command them to do so. 

Now on the surface of it, the argument looks good. But in my opinion it's a bad move because it ends up causing more problems than it solves. Especially when it's applied with precision and consistency.

Problem # 1, A Precise Application Leads to Heresy

In view of the potential danger here, my first response would be to advise against using the RPW in this connection. The reason I say that is that the commands of Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16 are not about who “eats” at the feast. Rather, they’re about who “appears” at the feast, and that makes all the difference in the world.

According to Keil-Delitzch:

// The command to appear, i.e. to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary, was restricted to the male members of the nation, probably to those above 20 years of age // 

In other words, when we take up this argument and apply it with real precision, we end up saying that anyone who didn’t fit these criteria, and yet still went up to the feast, was doing an unlawful thing. The implications of that are serious because the Bible says that women and children regularly traveled up to the feast. Even more problematic is the fact that this included Mary who “went up to Jerusalem every year to the Feast of the Passover” and Jesus himself, who also went up as early as “twelve years old” (Lk. 2:41-42).

Perhaps this is why those who wish to use this form of argumentation feel the need to switch it at the end. They see the necessary consequence of a precise application, so they turn the wheel to avoid the crash.

Reverend Potter writes:

// It must be pointed out that this male-only-to-the-sanctuary command did not necessarily prohibit women and children from accompanying the male head of the household to the Passover. But presence is not participation and the legislation is directed to who is to participate // (p. 12)

With all due respect to Reverend Potter, this is what we call "bait and switch" because the argument begins with one thing (the pilgrimage to the feast) and ends with another (participation in the feast). And he's not the only one who does this. In a recent reprint of his 2006 publication, now entitled, Toddlers at the Table, Reverend Jim West does the same thing.

On page 28 he writes:

// Would it have been disobedient for a woman to partake of the pilgrim Passover that was celebrated later when Israel occupied the land? Yes, since they were not commanded // 

This, too, is a case of bait and switch because, again, it's not just that the women received no command to “partake.” They also received no command to “attend.” Like Potter, Reverend West has to ignore that little detail in order to avoid the necessary consequence of a precise application, i.e. Mary and Jesus sinned by going up to the feast.

Problem # 2, A Consistent Application Proves Too Much

Another problem with this argument is that a consistent application of it proves too much. Even if we agree with the previous application (saying nothing of its equivocation) we are still faced with an important question: On what basis are women now allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper? In other words, why is it that those who claim women were excluded from the Passover simply because they were not commanded to participate, do not also exclude them from the Lord’s Supper for the very same reason? It’s true that we find no command for children to partake of the Supper, but where do we find such a command for women?

In my mind, this amounts to the (informal) fallacy of “special pleading” and it leaves us with a choice between two possible options. Either we can (1) Be consistent and bar women from the Lord’s Table, or (2) Drop the argument altogether. But we cannot have it both ways; we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Anyone familiar with Reformed Theology might recognize that a similar argument is often used to challenge the anti-paedobaptist. When our Baptist friends say that infants are not to be baptized “because the Bible nowhere commands it” we typically respond by exposing their inconsistency. In his Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof writes, “This objection is based on a canon of interpretation to which the Baptists themselves are not true when they hold that women must also partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Whether Berkhof would have admitted it or not, his response applies just as much to those who say that children should not partake of the Lord’s Supper… “because the Bible nowhere commands it.” Okay, so then where does it give any such a command to women?

A Better Interpretation

So far we’ve been focusing on the improper use of the post-Exodus legislation for Passover, but it still doesn’t answer the question: What is its proper use? Is there a better interpretation of passages like Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16? Ones that do not lead to heretical notions or further, unnecessary division at the Lord’s Table?

The answer is, Yes, and to summarize that interpretation we can say: It is better to argue that the post-Exodus legislation was meant to supplement the previous legislation, not replace it.

Historically speaking, by the time the Israelites received the additional legislation, they had already celebrated the Passover according to the instructions of Exodus 12. Therefore, lest we commit the hermeneutical fallacy of “repetitionism” we should expect a measure of continuity. This means: Whatever was to remain the same did not need to be repeated.

This interpretation makes sense when we look at the details of Deuteronomy 16. In verses 1-8, the LORD doesn’t have to mention who was included in the Passover because He was already clear about that in Exodus 12. As we saw before, God prescribed a lamb for every “household” (v. 3) saying that the whole “congregation” (v. 47) was to keep this feast.

Thus, the primary purpose of the additional legislation was to notify the people of God about what was being changed: namely, there would be a new centralized location, and Passover would no longer be celebrated in their homes (see vv. 2b, 5-6, 7b). 

That this interpretation is better than what we saw before is also made clear when we look at the details of the other two feasts as well. While the Passover had already been celebrated in Egypt, the Feast of Weeks (vv. 9-12) and the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13-15) had not. Therefore, the LORD had to be clear about who was to participate in these two feasts, just as he was with Passover back in Exodus 12. When he does, He tells us that once again women and children were included.

Deuteronomy 16:10-11

// Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks… And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God; you and your son and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 16:16-17

// You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles… And you shall rejoice in your feast; you and your son and your daughter //

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 3

In traditional Reformed churches, the Lord’s Supper is withheld from a covenant child until he can "sustain a satisfactory examination by the elders" regarding the genuineness of his faith.

In some churches, even before that child has access to such an exam, he's required to fulfill a prerequisite condition: he must memorize and recite the 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism. Of course, that usually means that the child is no longer a child by the time he makes it to the Lord’s Table. 

Now to be clear, I'm not arguing against the practice of catechetical training. In fact, I believe that one of the great tragedies of our day is that the regular, didactic use of the Reformed confessions and catechisms has been neglected by churches and families alike, and the results have been devastating to say the least. 

So the question here is not about using catechisms, the question is about exactly how a catechism should (and should not) be used. To state it clearly: Do we have the authority to exclude a covenant child from the covenant meal until he's completed the catechetical program of our church? 

Reasoning from Calvin

As far as I can tell, the origin of this practice can be traced, at least indirectly, back to John Calvin. It seems that when Calvin used Exodus 12:26 to support the claim that the Passover was eaten "only by those who were of a sufficient age to inquire into its meaning” (Institutes, 4.16.30), a certain application of this text was bound to emerge. 

And so it did. In fact, anyone familiar with the recent anti-paedocommunion literature can see that Calvin’s interpretation of this text provided just enough of the necessary basis upon which the imposition of a catechetical requirement could be justified. And here's how that works: 

First, the dialog mentioned in Exodus 12:26-27 is presented in Q&A format and that’s important because everyone knows that answering questions is a form of catechetical instruction. From there, it only needs to be emphasized that the dialog itself was commanded by the LORD. That too is important because if it was one of the prescribed features of the Passover, we're looking at a pretty strong case against the notion that young children were full participants in the feast. 

Why is that? Because this kind of exercise requires a certain level of maturity and spiritual discernment. And generally speaking, young children don't have the intellectual capacity to perform such a task. 

Thus, if we begin with a desire to align ourselves with Calvin’s interpretation, it puts us on a clear and definite trajectory. Not only can we deny that children partook of the Passover, we can also justify the imposition of a new catechetical requirement to regulate the Lord's Supper. And never mind that we’ve taken it from a one-question exercise to 129 questions and answers because that’s not the point. The point is that, in Calvin, we have a solid, historical, and theological argument for our practice. 

This brings us to the second (and third) argument(s) on my list of five common objections to child participation in the Passover (found here). 

Objections & Answers

2. Admission to the Passover Required Catechesis

Now as you’ll see, answering this objection is a lot easier than it appears. However, before we dive right into it, I should probably demonstrate that what I’ve presented here is not a strawman argument. To do this, I’ve chosen to interact with Dr. Cornelis P. Venema, author of the book, entitled, Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. 

Throughout his book, Dr. Venema speaks to the question of child participation at the Passover meal, and when we put a few of his statements together, we can identify the basic structure of his argument. 

On page 70 he writes:

// The Passover Feast included, as one of its prescribed features, a kind of “catechetical” exercise. At a certain point in the Passover rite, the children of the household were to ask, “What mean ye by this service?” (Ex. 12:26). In reply to this question, the head of the household was to declare, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (v. 27a) //

To his credit, Dr. Venema acknowledges that the presence of this exercise does not argue “conclusively” against the participation of young children. And yet, in another place, he argues that it does “suggest” that they were excluded.

On page 57 he writes:

// Each of these elements seems to have required a measure of maturity and spiritual discernment that would have excluded full participation in the Passover meal by infants and younger children // 

From these two comments, it should be clear that the position I’ve outlined above is an accurate representation of what Reformed theologians argue on this point. As I see it, however, there are at least two interpretive errors in this argument, and though they're relatively easy to make, they completely change the meaning of the text and, therefore, cannot go unchallenged.  

Error # 1, The Question Was Prescribed by the LORD

First of all, it is an error to use imperative language when describing the question in Exodus 12:26. For some reason, Dr. Venema calls it a prescribed feature, saying that it was something the children of the household were to ask. But that's simply not true. All the text says is, when your children ask you about the meaning of the Passover, here is what you should say. In other words, the answer is prescribed but the question is simply anticipated.

// And it shall come to pass, when your children say to you, What do you mean by this service? that you shall say, It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD //

Error # 2, The Question Was Tied to the Passover Rite

Second, it is also an error to present the question in Exodus 12:26 as a ritual feature, tied to the time of the celebration itself. Interestingly, Dr. Venema claims that this was a feature of the celebration that was to take place, specifically, at a certain point in the Passover rite. But this is misleading because there's nothing in the text that necessitates such a formal restriction. The wording in this passage is flexible and open-ended, showing that the child might ask this question any time.

In his essay, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, James B. Jordan writes:

// Exactly the same kind of question and prescribed answer is found in Deuteronomy 6:20-21 with reference to the law, and in Joshua 4:6-7 about the memorial stones at the Jordan River. These are not ritual events, but examples of a child's curiosity being satisfied in a perfectly normal manner // [1]

With all due respect to Dr. Venema, it seems that his treatment of this text reveals an inner bias. Of course, it’s also possible that he made an honest mistake in his wording on this point. In either case, the evidence is plain enough: the question of Exodus 12:26 was neither a prescribed question nor was it a ritual feature tied to the Passover rite.

Objections Continued  

3. The Language of the Text Disproves Child Participation

When I began this series, I originally planned to address this third objection in a separate post. But seeing that it’s so closely related to the second—being grounded in the very same verse—I decided to deal with it here. And though Dr. Venema makes no mention of this argument in his book, plenty of other theologians have.

For example, Brian Schwertley, in an online article entitled, Paedocommunion, A Biblical Examination (found here), writes:

// Interpreters who believe that females and young boys did not eat the bitter herbs and roasted lamb often appeal to the question, "What do you mean by this service?" (Ex.12:26) as evidence that small children were observers rather than direct recipients //

One of the interpreters Schwertley has in mind here is Morton Smith, who, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:

// The question would seem to indicate that the child was not one of the partakers // [2]

Here, we begin to see the crux of the argument, and though it’s subtle and might be difficult to discern, we need to recognize what’s really being said. The claim is that, if a child were doing something together with his father, he could not ask about the meaning it had for his dad. If he did, it would somehow prove that he himself was not involved.

In other words, the child would have said, what does this meal mean “for us” rather than what does this meal meal “to you.” But already, the argument is seen to be faulty, just by a simple application of logic. More problematic, however, are the theological implications of this reasoning, when applied to other passages of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 6:20-21

// When your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord our God has commanded you? then you shall say to your son: We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand //

In this passage, we have a situation very similar to the one in Exodus 12. The son is asking his father about the meaning of God's commandments, and the language of the text is: which the Lord our God has commanded you.

Does this mean that God’s commands applied only to the father and not also to the child? Obviously not. That’s a bad inference and such an individualistic paradigm contradicts the very nature of the Covenant of Grace.

When Moses spoke to “all Israel” in Deuteronomy 5:1, he told them that they were to observe the commandments because “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb” (v. 2).

** The important thing to note here is that the making of this covenant (i.e. the giving of the law) had taken place a full forty years earlier, so that no one who was now under thirty-nine years old was even there. But just in case any of them were tempted to excuse themselves from the obligations of the covenant, Moses reminded them that they were bound to those obligations, even by virtue of their birth.

// The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers [only], but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive // (v. 3)

Now, what Moses says in this text is directly related to the issue at hand. A child who was born in Israel was never born into an abstraction. Rather, he was always grafted into a set of concrete circumstances which the Bible describes as being “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). This means that covenant-law-keeping was the duty of every covenant child from the moment he was born into this world. It was not an additional responsibility to be acquired at a later time (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:1-3). 

From this, we can easily see that, when a young child asked about the laws that God gave to his father, he was asking about the laws that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about them says nothing against his participation in them. 

I think if we’re honest, and we desire to be consistent, we’ll acknowledge that this applies equally to the question of Exodus 12:26. When a young child asked about the feast that God gave to his father, he was asking about the feast that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about it says nothing against his participation in it. 

---

NOTES:

[1] James B. Jordan, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, ed. Greg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenant Communion (2006), p 57.

[2] Morton Smith, Systematic Theology (1994), p. 686-691, as quoted in Frances Nigel Lee, Paedocommunionism Verses Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (unpublished paper)

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 2

One of the best ways to overturn an undesirable conclusion is to deny one or more of the premises on which it depends. In my experience, this is what the bulk of the paedocommunion debate has been reduced to. Some deny the primacy of the sacramental connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, while others deny that children partook of the Passover in the first place.

In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it's just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.

A Definitional Argument

A few months ago, I taught a four-week crash course on the doctrine of Infant Baptism, from a distinctly Reformed perspective. When it came time to make a positive case for the practice, I used what I called at the time, a definitional argument. 

This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible? 

Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said: Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children, if and when they are present.

Now, to show that this definition is correct, consider just two passages from the word of God. In Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh commanded Joseph and his brothers to bring their “households'' back to Egypt. Then, when he repeats that command in verse 19, he defines their households as their “little ones and wives.”  Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul requires an Elder to rule his own “household” well. Then, when he explains what that means, he says that he must have his “children” in submission with all reverence. 

From these two passages (and there are more) it is abundantly clear that children are members of the biblical household—by definition. 

In terms of baptism, this means that, even if our Baptist friends could prove (which they cannot) that every member of the baptized households in the Book of Acts was a believing adult, those particular situations could never become the standard for households with covenant children. 

In other words, one household may have no children and another may have five. When the first household is baptized, children would not be included, but when the second household is baptized, the children would be included, and that by necessity. This is because, even though the situation may vary, the definition never changes: children are always included in the biblical household—if and when they are present.

Definitions at the Passover

As we move the discussion, now, from New Testament Baptism to the Old Testament Passover, we need to keep in mind that the same line of argumentation applies. Thus, it is nothing more than an act of unjustified presumption to think that we can rightly understand the import of the Passover instructions without first defining the terms that are being used.

For example, in Exodus 12:3, the LORD tells Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then, He specifies even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”

Now, unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.

When Joshua read the Book of the Law to the people on Mt. Ebal, the Bible says he read it before “all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones” (Jos. 8:35). Again, when Joel called for a national day of fasting, his command was to “gather the people and sanctify the congregation.” When he specified who was included, he said, “Assemble the elders, gather the children, and the nursing babes” (Joel 2:15-16).

So then, am I right, or am I right? If the definitional argument is good, then it's good, and we need to think more carefully before we say that children did not partake of the Passover meal.

A Road Map for What's Ahead

At this point, my primary task is to respond to the various questions and objections that arise, and as of right now, I have five of them in view:

1. The Passover diet was unsuitable for small children

2. Admission to the Passover required catechesis 

3. The language of the text disproves child-participation

4. Later attendance to Passover was restricted to adult males

5. Jesus attended Passover at the age of twelve

From what I've seen, these are some of the most common arguments employed against child participation in the Passover meal. There may be others, but these will be my focus in this particular series especially because, again, each of these has been used by those whom I personally know.

In this post, however, I can only start the process, so I'll use this opportunity to address just the first objection. The rest will have to wait for a later time.

Objections & Answers

1. The Passover Diet Was Unsuitable for Small Children 

Normally, those who raise this objection have two of the dietary items in mind; the roasted lamb and the (alcoholic) wine. The argument is that these items are, by the very nature of the case, unsuitable (if not impossible) for children to consume. Therefore small children did not partake of the Passover meal.

Roasted Lamb

In answering this objection, I want to begin with the obvious admission that small children are incapable of eating roasted lamb, depending, of course, on what we mean by small. There is little question that the Bible makes a distinction between those who can eat meat and those who are still in need of milk, with the latter consistently referred to as “babes” (1 Cor. 3:1-2 cf. Heb. 5:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:2). 

But—and here's my answer: this fact was not overlooked in the Passover meal, and you can see that by the specificity of the instructions found in Exodus 12. 

When the LORD told Moses that there was to be a lamb for a household, which, again, includes the children (v 3), He also specified that the size of the lamb should be chosen “according to the number of the persons” in each home (v 4). That all the children who were physically capable of eating that meal were included, is made clear because the instructions become even more precise: “each man, according to the mouth of his eating, shall make the count for the lamb” (v 4b). [1]  

Obviously, we always need to take into consideration, what this objection calls, “the nature of the case.” But this only means that an exception to the rule is based upon the natural limitations of God’s creation design. And really, that’s just common sense. If eating meat requires teeth, and by nature children are not born with teeth, then who can deny that they're entitled to a temporary exemption from eating the covenant meal?

Alcoholic Wine 

The second aspect of the Passover meal that causes some concern is the drinking of the wine. This objection says that, since wine is an intoxicant, it is inconceivable that this was ever intended for a child. My answer is at least twofold.

First, I agree that the intoxicating factor of wine should be taken into account. And yet, I would hasten to add that this presents a caution no less to the worshipping adult than it does to the little child. After all, there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes an appropriate, or even acceptable, state of mind. When Paul says, “Do not be drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18), he’s speaking to the entire church, not just the kids. Therefore, I would argue that, in the end, this objection proves too much.  

My second answer is that, even though the Bible prohibits drunkenness, it nevertheless commands the drinking of wine. What’s more, is that there are at least two clear sets of instructions that required children to partake of wine as members of the worshipping community.

To be specific, not only did they partake of the sacrificial meals of the peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 7, 11), but they were also to partake of the tithe offerings, which often included wine. 

Deuteronomy 12:17, 18

// You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine… but you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses: you, and your son, and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 14:23, 26

// And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine... You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice: you and your household //

Without stretching these passages to say more than they do, we can at least see that the intoxicating factor of wine was not a sufficient reason to bar children from any of these sacrificial meals. This being the case, the point should be clear: Why would it, then, have barred them from the meal of the Passover? Moreover: Why should it bar them now from the meal of the Lord’s Supper? 

Now, certainly, common sense has a definite role to play. There’s no question that, even in the various sacrificial meals, only small portions of wine would have been given to a little child. Likewise, today, only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. And so, while it’s a good thing to be concerned for the little ones God has entrusted to our care, we need to remember that ultimately, they belong to Him. And, as we see from the pages of His word, He invites them—and even commands them—to partake of His covenant meal. [2]

---

NOTES:

[1] A second objection here is that the term “man” in the phrase “every man according to the mouth of his eating” refers to adult males only. However, one does not have to be a Hebrew scholar to know that such a grammatical appeal is a stretch at best. In fact, this same phrase is found in only one other context (Exod. 16) where it’s used to describe the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv 16, 18, 21). Without a doubt, the phrase in that context shows that the distribution included the children, that is, all who were physically capable of eating the manna. How do we know that? Because there was nothing else for them to eat (!) 

[2] Another significant passage is found in Lamentations 2, where Jeremiah describes his sorrow for the suffering of God’s people. In verse 11, he says, “My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled. . . . because of the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city.” The mention of their “fainting” here is probably a reference to their hunger in a time of famine. Interestingly, as he articulates the cry of these little ones, he says in verse 12: “They say to their mothers, Where is grain, and where is wine?” Thus, this passage not only demonstrates that children can and do eat solids well before they’re weaned, but it also shows that wine itself was something they were known to consume.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 1

In this series, I want to respond to the many questions and objections that were (and still are) being raised against me for my transition to the practice of Covenant Communion.[1]

For the record, my hope is that the material I publish here will be received in the spirit in which I write it. It is not my purpose to hurt, harm, belittle, or insult the people who disagree. Rather, my only desire is to gain a fair and charitable hearing, first, among those who know and love me, and second, among those who happen to stumble across my blog. 

My purpose is to use this series as a way to explain my reasons for adopting a practice that, in my opinion, has been superficially dismissed on the basis of Reformed tradition, i.e. for falling outside of what we might call “confessional orthodoxy.” 

An Institutional Conundrum

As many of you know, I spent seven years in a traditional Reformed church and, therefore, one that practices the Rite of Confirmation to mark the change of status that covenant children undergo when they confess their faith publicly, before the entire congregation. 

Ironically, though, long before this “confirmation” these covenant children were baptized into the body of Christ as a sign and seal (i.e. confirmation) of their inclusion in the covenant of grace. Thus, in the directory of worship we used, the theological basis for their baptism is spelled out in clear, covenantal language:

// In the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of the faithful, born within the church, have interest in the covenant by virtue of their birth, and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. This is because the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both Testaments, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the New Testament //

At the time of their baptism, it is declared that the Triune God claims these covenant children “as His very own.” The congregation is reminded that our Savior “admitted little children into his presence, embraced and blessed them, saying, Of such is the kingdom of God.” It is also said that their baptism is the means by which they are “distinguished from the children of unbelievers and solemnly received into the visible church.”

All in all, this institution of infant baptism is beautiful and biblical at every point, and it’s not my purpose to detract from it in any way. Rather, my purpose is to show that when we take the wording of the institution seriously, it raises a number of questions that call for a more careful consideration.

For example, what does it mean that our children are included in the covenant of grace? If it simply means they have a right to the outward privileges of the church, then the question becomes: Where do the sacraments fit into that? Are we saying that Baptism is an outward privilege of the church while the Lord’s Supper is an inward privilege (whatever that means)? 

To say it differently: If the “covenant of grace” is a reference to the administration of the covenant rather than its substance, does that imply Baptism is for the visible church while the Lord’s Supper is for the invisible church? I doubt that anyone would affirm that but it’s certainly a valid question, given that we administer baptism to and withhold communion from the very same people.

So then, here’s the deal. I believe if a person is willing to wrestle with this discrepancy from a true and sincere heart, he will be forced into the following conclusion:

// If I want to take the wording of this institution seriously, I must affirm that my children were (by baptism) received into the visible church. Therefore, the only way the elders can now exclude them from the Lord’s Table, is if they either (1) Divide the Sacraments—by saying that Baptism is, but the Lord’s Supper is not, for the visible church, or (2) Divide the Visible Church—by saying that there are two levels of membership within it, and baptism only gets you to level one //

Apparently, most Reformed churches have chosen option number two (as strange as it all may sound). But this explains why the Rite of Confirmation has become a necessary tradition. It serves as the instrument by which our baptized children make it to level two. This is seen by the fact that, in the very last words of the rite itself, the minister declares to the one being confirmed: “Beloved, I now welcome you to full communion with the people of God.”

A Confessional Conundrum

I’m known as the guy who likes to repeat himself. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but I often feel like any point worth making is worth making again, in a slightly different way.

As a follow-up to the Institutional Conundrum we create when we bar covenant children from the covenant meal, there’s a Confessional Conundrum as well. And let me just be upfront with it: I would contend that in the interest of protecting a traditional practice, the Westminster Confession ends up creating an unnecessary tension between the principles of its sacramental theology and the application of those principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as "those that profess the true religion, together with their children" (25:2). It defines the sacraments as "signs and seals of the covenant of grace” and says that they’re designed to “put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world" (27:1). It also maintains that the sacraments of the Old Testament “with regard to the spiritual things signified, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" (27:5).

Now, if you’re Reformed, then you know as well as I do that it’s upon these principles that we base the practice of paedobaptism. But the question is: On what application of these same principles can paedocommunion be invalidated?[2]

It seems clear that to avoid the undesirable conclusion that children have a right to Communion as members of the covenant community, the meaning and purpose of this sacrament has to be changed.

• Rather than the Lord’s Supper being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (which includes our children), it must be changed into a sign and seal of the benefits that come with being “confirmed.”

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being used to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church (which includes our children) and the rest of the world, it must be used to mark the difference between the church and the true church in her midst.

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being the same in substance with regard to the spiritual things signified in the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (which always included children), it has somehow become a sacrament of such a different spiritual nature that the children must now be excluded. 

The fundamental question here is, How did this happen, and what is the biblical basis for such major theological discrepancies? In the end, it seems that we are driven to a similar conclusion as before, and again we must decide between two options, not unlike the options I mentioned above:

// If we accept the general sacramental theology of the Westminster Confession as biblical, we must either apply these principles consistently to both of the church's sacraments or provide a sound, biblical basis for suspending these principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper //

Obviously, Christians in traditional Reformed churches will opt for number two. Therefore, in the next post on this particular topic, we'll begin looking at the scriptural arguments they use in trying to prove their position and disprove mine.

---

NOTES:

[1] I like the term Covenant Communion because it distinguishes the Reformed practice from other traditions that serve children at the Lord’s Table. However, I am also perfectly okay with the term Paedocommunion as well, and often use them interchangeably with no intended difference in mind.

[2] For the record, I took this line of reasoning, and much of the wording, from Robert Rayburn’s, A Presbyterian Defense of Paedocommunion. That article was published in, The Case for Covenant Communion, edited by Greg Strawbridge.