~ Children and the Lord's Supper ~
Part 2
There are a number of objections to the position set forth in the last chapter. It is important not to ignore these serious arguments from opponents to covenant communion:
Objection #1
The first Passover was not normative but unique. Later, when God set down more permanent directives for the observance of the Passover, it was required that only the men participate ( Deuteronomy 16:16: "Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty handed."). Thus, (it is argued) normally men only participated in the Passover.
This would explain the presence of men exclusively at the Passover observance the night before our Lord was crucified -- there were no women or children present when the Lord's Supper was instituted. Thus under the normal Passover, only men partook together with those male children who had reached an age of discernment (as Jesus whom, Luke notes, was twelve years old when he attended his first Passover). There are a number of things that must be noted in answer to this objection:
1. It is quite likely that children participated in the second and third Passovers, at Mt. Sinai ( Numbers 9:1ff) and at Gilgal ( Joshua 5:2-12). In both instances, all the "children of Israel" kept the Passover. In both accounts the whole nation is commanded to participate.
Apparently, Israel did not celebrate the Passover in the wilderness after their rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea. Circumcision (the sign of covenant union with Jehovah) was necessary for partaking the Passover. Since the children had not been circumcised, the Passover had not been kept (as a chastisement upon the rebellion of the nation). If God had allowed the Passover to be kept during this time, the children would have been excluded (i.e., the discipline would have fallen upon the wrong parties since it was the parents who sinned and not the children).
Yet even in the midst of their rebellion, God still supplied the manna and water from the rock which testified of His continued covenant faithfulness and actually was communion with Christ ( I Corinthians 10:1-5). [Notice that Paul expressly mentions the order of baptism first then communion. All who were baptized communed.]
These extraordinary sacraments were substituted during the time the ordinary sacrament was kept from them. Significantly, when the Passover is re-instituted in Gilgal (the return of the ordinary sacramental means of grace), we read the manna ceased (v. 12) -- indicating that the ordinary means was now to be resumed with the renewal of the covenant.
Thus, we must first note that there is indication that the Passover continued to be observed essentially in the same manner after the original observance in Egypt. This is further substantiated by a second point:
2. The other recorded incidences of the Passover imply that all the congregation participated. The Passover under the reign of Hezekiah ( II Chronicles 30:2,25), the Passover under the reign of Josiah ( II Chronicles 35:13.17-18), and the one observed after the return from exile ( Ezra 6:21). It appears that even with the stipulations of Deuteronomy 16, children were not excluded from participation in the Passover meal.
3. It seems plain that God only required the adult males to participate in the three feasts because of the peculiar provisions of the Old Covenant in which God required worship to be performed at a specifically designated place. This requirement for males to attend the Passover had nothing to do with the inability of children to understand the significance of the Passover, but was the result of making the Passover conform to the new form of worship centering around the tabernacle and temple in the land of Canaan ( Deuteronomy 12:5-7).
No longer would it be permissible to offer sacrifices anywhere (as apparently it was in the day of Noah and Job). Now, with the blessing of the land, God would choose a particular place and cause His name to rest there in a special sense.
4. The requirement of males to attend, does not imply the absolute prohibition of women and children from participating.They were obviously allowed to attend (and to take part in the service) but were not required on pain of excommunication. This was so apparently because of the peculiar requirement to worship in a central location which would require pilgrimages to the place God designated -- first Shiloh and afterwards, Jerusalem. Women and children would not always be able to make such journeys and thus, only the covenant head was required to do so.
5. Women and children normally participated in the sacramental meals of the Old Covenant. The males were required to attend not only the Passover, but also the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles at the place God chose ( Deuteronomy 16:16). Were women and children prohibited from these other two feasts since only males were required to attend? No. The preceding verses describe the celebrants as, "your son and your daughter and your male and female servants and the Levite who is in your town and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your midst..." ( Deuteronomy 16:11,14). Women and children had the option of attending but were not required to attend. You see this in operation in I Samuel 1:3ff as Elkanah, the husband of Hannah, took his entire family to the yearly feasts in Shiloh.
God required that families participate in the other sacrificial meals:
- Deuteronomy 12:4-7,11-14 -- All the offerings were to be made in the place where God designated and the entire family was to participate.
- Deuteronomy 14:22-26 -- The "festival tithe" was to be eaten at the central location (unless it was too far) and again, all the family is to participate.
- Deuteronomy 15:19-20 -- The offering of the firstborn animal was to be observed in the central location and all the household was to participate.
In each case, though the heads of households were responsible for the proper observance of the ordinances, the entire family is allowed to participate. Membership in the covenant is the determining factor. Leviticus 22:12-13 may be illustrative of this point. The priest's daughter was not allowed to eat the holy offerings if she broke covenant by marrying a stranger. However, if she were widowed or divorced and had returned to her father's house "as in her youth" she was allowed to eat. The implication is that she was allowed to eat "in her youth" by virtue of being the priest's daughter. But no outsider [i.e., no one who was not a member of the covenant community] was to eat.
If this was the normal way of observing the sacrificial meals, we would expect special instructions if the Passover was to be observed differently. Yet, there are none.
In fact, the indication is that what was true of the other "sacramental meals" was also true of the Passover. The Talmud allowed that "if a child can eat an olive size of roast meat, the Paschal Lamb may be slaughtered on his behalf, as it is said, "According to the eating of every man'" (quoting from Exodus 12) [the Gemara, Sukkah 42b]. An earlier reference states, "Our Rabbis taught: 'a lamb for a household': this teaches that a man can bring (a lamb) and slaughter (it) on behalf of his sons and daughters, if minors..." [Aboth 5:21, quoted in Keidal, "Is the Lord's Supper for Children?," op. cit., p. 314] It should be noted that in Luke 2:41-42, Luke records that both Mary and Joseph were accustomed to attending the Passover. This apparently was not at all unusual.
The only members of the covenant community prohibited from participating in the Passover were those who were "on a journey" or ceremonially "unclean" for one reason or another. Family members were free to participate -- though, because of circumstances and geographical limitations, they were not required to do so.
The Father as the covenant head, was to offer the sacrifice and all who were able in his household were to eat it. The Passover was the only sacrifice that could be made by every covenant head whether priest or not. This sacrifice anticipated the New Covenant privilege of the priesthood of believers.
Objection #2
If this is so, why is it that Jesus first attended the Passover at the age of 12? ( Luke 2:40-50) Why does Luke mention that Jesus was 12 years old when he went to Jerusalem? Doesn't this indicate that the children had to be of years of discernment to partake? And doesn't the fact that he was apparently catechized by the priests while in Jerusalem show that this was the common procedure?
We should look carefully at the language of Luke 2. All it says is that on this particular occasion, Christ was twelve. It does not say this was the first Passover He attended.
Even if one insists that this was the first Passover for our Savior, it does not solve the problem for the anti-covenant communionists, for the Jewish law required that a son be thirteen before he was required to take the Passover.
Why then would Mary and Joseph let an underage son attend if they knew it was improper according to Jewish tradition? If anything, Jesus' presence at the Passover at age twelve tends to prove the very point we are making -- i.e. that it was permissible though not required that women and children attend.
Further, the text indicates it was Jesus who was asking the questions of the Priests, not the other way round ( vv. 46-47). If this was a catechism class, Jesus was the one doing the catechizing! No one argues that children should not be catechized or taught to grow in their understanding of what God has done. This issue is rather, is this the basis for their admission to the Lord's table?
It is most likely that Jesus had been to the Passover before unless the circumstances in his family prohibited him from making the trip to Jerusalem (remember that he did have a rather large family -- at least two brothers and two sisters). It is too much to insist that this incident teaches the prohibition of children from the table. At most all one could prove is that Jesus was concerned to fulfill the law (which required all adult males -- all those over the age of accountability -- to attend the Passover. Yet still the problem is not avoided because he was still "under age."
Objection #3
Doesn't all this demonstrate that under the Old Covenant, men were admitted to the sacrament purely on the basis of physical membership in the covenant and not on the basis of repentance and faith? The Old Covenant (it is contended) did not require faith and repentance for right participation, the only requirement was circumcision. Now the requirements are different.
Is this true? Were faith and repentance not required by God for acceptable worship under the Old Covenant? Of course they were! God has not changed. It was never sufficient to worship Him without faith and repentance. NOTE:
Isaiah 1:10-17 -- Here God expresses His displeasure with Israel's worship (He is sick of it vv. 10-14). He hates their appointed feasts (including the Passover). But notice why it is that He hates them (v. 15 "When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.") They were participating in the appointed feasts with impenitent hearts. He thus calls them to repent (vv. 16-17) and warns them (just as Paul would warn the Corinthians later) that if they didn't, they would perish.
True repentance and faith were always required for acceptable worship ( Leviticus 23:27-29; I Samuel 15:22,23; Psalms 51:16,17; Jeremiah 14:10-12; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8). God has never been pleased with anything less than "spiritual" worship ( John 4:23-24).
Over and over, God requires repentance and faith for acceptable worship. Men have always been required to comply with the terms of the covenant. Right participation always required repentance, faith, and obedience, yet this was not the basis of admission to the sacraments. In spite of this, children were admitted to the table until and unless they rebelled against God and refused to repent and believe.
If covenant children were admitted to the Passover and the sacramental meals of the Old Covenant, they should be admitted to the Lord's table. If it is wrong to admit undiscerning, baptized children to the table under the New Covenant, it was wrong to allow undiscerning, circumcised children to the meals of the Old Covenant.