From Passover to the Lord's Supper
/The practice of Covenant Communion is easy to establish by an argument from the continuity of the sacraments—specifically, from the Passover to the Lord's Supper. However, when I present that argument to my NAPARC friends, they usually respond in one of two ways. Either they deny that children partook of the Passover, per Calvin, or else they admit that fact and simply look for ways to avoid the inevitable conclusion—namely, that covenant children, therefore, have a right to the Lord's Supper.
In my experience, their most common reply is to say, "But there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Passover and the Lord's Supper!"
Now, for those who appeal to Calvin, I usually point them to this article: https://www.pauliberati.com/blog/access-granted-studies-on-covenant-communion-pt-3, and then seal the deal with a lengthy quotation from Herman Witsius.[1]
But for those who try to avoid the conclusion by saying that there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, I begin with a very simple question: Is there a one-to-one correspondence between Circumcision and Baptism?
You see, the fact is that no Reformed theologian, whether he holds to Covenant Communion or not, has ever taught or even tacitly assumed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments. But the point here is that there doesn't have to be.
Just like there doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between Circumcision and Baptism for us to conclude that our covenant children should be baptized, so also there doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between the Passover and the Lord's Supper for us to conclude that they should also be admitted to the Lord's Table.
In other words, all that is necessary for the practice of Covenant Communion to obtain is for the sacraments of the New Testament to occupy the place and role of those of the Old. And, according to Reformed Theology, that is precisely the case.
// As Baptism has, therefore, succeeded Circumcision, so the Lord’s Supper has succeeded the Passover in the New Testament // [2]
End Notes:
[1] In his classic work, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, published in 1677, Herman Witsius set forth what many Reformed theologians today consider the finest treatment on Covenant Theology ever written. Whether that’s the case or not, one thing is indisputably clear, namely, that contrary to the anti-paedocommunion rhetoric so common in our day, Witsius taught that from the beginning, and down through the centuries, both women and children did in fact partakere of the Passover. Indeed, he showed that according to Scripture, they not only ate but had a right to eat of that sacramental meal. Here is what he writes in 4.9.11-14:
// As to the guests, they were in the first place all true-born Israelites, if they were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For, Exodus 12:6, 47, “all the congregation of Israel” is commanded to solemnize the Passover; and then the proselytes, who “were circumcised and became Jews,” Esther 8:17; whether they were bondmen born in the house, or bought with money, or mercenary, or inmates of the land of Canaan, subject to no bondage, or in fine, those whom they called proselytes of righteousness, who, upon being circumcised, had a right also to eat the Passover, Exodus 12:48. It is a question, whether women were likewise excluded by the same law that the uncircumcised were, especially as the law commanded the males only to travel to the three festivals, Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16. It would seem they were not.
// First, because women cannot be numbered among the uncircumcised, nor accounted as such, for circumcision did not belong to them, but they were reckoned along with their circumcised parents or husbands. Second, because “all the congregation of Israel” as we have just shown, is commanded to celebrate the Passover. But the women make a part of this congregation, Deuteronomy 29:11.
"Thirdly, that the women together with the men celebrated these solemn festivals, appears from the example of Elkanah, who yearly carried with him his two wives, with his sons and daughters, to Shiloh to the solemn festivals, 1 Samuel 1:3, 4. Joseph also and the holy virgin, traveled yearly to Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, Luke 2:41. From which it appears, that the same thing may be concluded concerning all the pious women in those times.
// Fourthly, from a parity of reason; because in other eucharistical sacrifices, or שלמים, peace-offerings, women also had their portion: thus Elkanah gave to his wife Peninnah, and to all her sons and daughters, parts of the sacrifice; but to Hannah, whom he loved, a worthy, a double portion, 1 Sam. 1:4, 5. When David likewise offered eucharistical sacrifices, he dealt out a part of them to all Israel, as well to the women as men, 2 Sam. 6:18. And the daughters of the priests ate of the sacred food, Numb. 18:11, 19. And why may we not suppose that women also partook of the Passover, which was a kind of eucharistical sacrifice or peace-offering?
// Fifthly, we add the testimony of Maimonides, who says that women were not only admitted to the paschal feasts, but also at times there was a company which consisted only of women, de Pasch. c. ii. §. 5. But the command concerning women’s appearing at Jerusalem to keep the Passover is nowhere to be found in express terms. Hence it is said in Talm. Hierosol. Tract. Kidduschin, fol. 61, col. 3, “the Passover of women is a discretionary thing.” But those women who were led by a zeal for religion, were accustomed to present themselves before God, in order to partake of this sacrifice, Lightfoot, ad. Luc. 2:43.
// The guests who partook of the paschal lamb, are commanded to meet by houses or families, Exodus 12:3. But if a house had not a number sufficient to consume a lamb, the neighbours were to be called in, till a just number was made up, verse 4. The Jewish masters took care that the number of guests should not be under ten, nor above twenty. Which Jonathan’s paraphrase on Exodus 13:4, and Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. xvii. c. vii. observe. In those companies or societies, called φρατρίας by Josephus, by the Hebrews, חבורות, men and women sat down together, old men and young, whole and sick, masters and servants, and in fine, every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding even young children //
[2] Zacharias Ursinus trans. by G. W. Williard, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 440