Paedo-communion and the OT

[Reformed Covenanter]

I was having dinner last night with a couple of Baptists (one is a former RB pastor, the other is a well-known academic) and the subject of children taking communion as the logical consequence of paedo-baptism came up in conversation. I said that there was no clear scriptural warrant for infants taking the Passover. To which it was replied, "At what age did they take it?" To which I replied that it was a common sense issue and that Baptists have the same problem in relation to what is the proper age for baptizing children that profess faith.

But, getting back on point, what are the best arguments (and what is the best literature relating to the subject) against infants eating the Passover in the OT? I recall hearing an anti-paedo-communion sermon from Joe Morecraft a few years ago, in which he argued that young children did not partake of the Passover, but I was wondering if there was any other good material/arguments on the subject.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I was having dinner last night with a couple of Baptists (one is a former RB pastor, the other is a well-known academic) and the subject of children taking communion as the logical consequence of paedo-baptism came up in conversation. I said that there was no clear scriptural warrant for infants taking the Passover. To which it was replied, "At what age did they take it?" To which I replied that it was a common sense issue and that Baptists have the same problem in relation to what is the proper age for baptizing children that profess faith.

But, getting back on point, what are the best arguments (and what is the best literature relating to the subject) against infants eating the Passover in the OT? I recall hearing an anti-paedo-communion sermon from Joe Morecraft a few years ago, in which he argued that young children did not partake of the Passover, but I was wondering if there was any other good material/arguments on the subject.

*See Chris' post below on R. Bacon's paper.

Exodus 12.26-27a “And it will come about when your children say to you, `What is this service to you?’ that you will say, `It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord because He passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but delivered our homes.'”

Obviously, the concept of mastication and knowledge of what one is partaking of is instrumental.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dr. Bacon's piece is here: http://www.fpcr.org/Articles What Mean Ye By This Service.htm

 

[Miss Marple]

For the Lord's Supper to be taken we are clearly directed to examine ourselves. A small child is not capable of such a thing.

There is no such directive for Passover, although presumably if they were too young to eat lamb and etc. they did not eat.

 

[Romans922]

We are to examine ourselves. I know the PC-er will say, "That text in 1 Cor. 11 is a general command to those who were discerning, but it isn't a passage that is limiting the participant in anyway. So based on OT principles the infant/child is to partake as well."

 

[Cymro]

The application of the covenant sign and seal is performed when a child is without knowledge, and administered
by the command of God, the parents standing as surrogates. I am away from home so I cannot check, but Rev
John Kennedy has a section where he forcibly argues that the child that has been baptised, has to grow to an age
where it can use spiritual knowledge to discern the Lord's body. And by that reckoning could we not argue backwards
to the OT child, and apply the same principle?

 

[Peairtach]

Deuteronomy 16:16-17.

Only adult males were asked to take part in the commemoration of the Passover. We, for instance, don't read that our Lord's disciples had their wives and children with them in the Upper Room, either.

The Passover food is totally unsuitable for stuffing in a baby's mouth and he or she would probably spit it out.

Cornelis Venema wrote a good book on paedocommunion which was serialised in a church magazine and is probably online.

A person can be in the visible administration of the covenant by baptism, yet for various reasons not be entitled to take the Lord's Supper. Baptism is the outer door. The Lord's Supper is an inner door that can be opened or closed - depending. The Passover also was like this.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Only adult males were asked to take part in the commemoration of the Passover.

Ding, Ding, Ding!

The only thing I would modify is that the Lord didn't really ask them.

I think many miss the fact that there are 3 Feast Days during which Israelite men were commanded to travel:

“You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year’s end. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.” (Exodus 34:22–23, ESV)

In other words, it cannot be argued (on OT principle) that all those circumcised were, by definition, participants in all the OT "sacraments". There were certain sacraments that were commanded by the Lord for the males to appear before the Lord. Women and children could travel and participate but the sacrament was not required for them.

Edersheim points out that it was the Jewish custom to take a child up the year before his Bar-Mitsvah to participate in the feast and this is what we have recorded when Joseph and Mary leave Christ behind by accident.

It ought to be noted that many simply assume that the Lord's Supper is just a replacement for the Passover. It is not. It may have some parallels but there are other sacraments of the OT that we can parallel portions thereof. The Sacraments of the OT pointed forward to Christ and so they are abrogated (including the Passover). Even if we were to find that children were commanded to participate in the Passover and every other festival (which we do not), we don't use OT sacraments as the basis by which we adjudicate the practice of the Lord's Supper. We recognize, rather, that those sacraments are fulfilled and need only look to the institution of our Lord for the Lord's Supper.

 

[Andres]

I once contended the paedocommunion argument with a Baptist brother. Here is a short blog post I wrote in response to him stating, as your friend does, that paedocommunion is the "logical" conclusion of paedobaptism.

Clearing Up Some Myths Regarding Paedocommunion

 

[Pilgrim]

Cornelis Venema wrote a good book on paedocommunion which was serialised in a church magazine and is probably online.

For those who may be interested, it is part of the $1.99 RHB ebook sale (at WTS Books) that ends at 12pm EST on April 3.

 

[TylerRay]

Daniel,

Rev. Ruddell wrote a very helpful paper arguing that adult men only partook of the passover. He may be willing to share it if you send him a PM.

Rev. Ruddell's paper is online here. This paper was helpful for me as I was wrestling through this issue.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Thanks for the responses and suggestions; sorry that I am a bit late in responding, but my time and internet access has been somewhat limited over the last couple of days. I will start looking at the relevant sources in the near future (dv).