# Exodus 12 and paedo-communion



## JTB.SDG (Feb 8, 2018)

I haven't studied this text extensively, but I came across Exodus 12:48, which explains how Gentiles could also celebrate the Passover. They had to be circumcised first (and not only them, but their entire families), then they could celebrate. What I didn't notice until just now was the exact language used in this verse: "let all his males be circumcised, and then let HIM come near to celebrate it. . ." It struck me that it doesn't say: "let all his males be circumcised, and then let THEM come near to celebrate it. . ." SO: 1) The Gentile man believes; 2) All his males are to be circumcised; 3) But then (it seems) he alone celebrates the covenant meal. Is this drawing a line between communicant and non-communicant members even in the OT? Has this verse in particular been used in this way to argue against paedo-communion?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 8, 2018)

21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. 22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip _it_ in the blood that _is_ in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that _is_ in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite _you_. 24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 12:21–24.

25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, 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. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. 28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 12:25–28.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 8, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> I haven't studied this text extensively, but I came across Exodus 12:48, which explains how Gentiles could also celebrate the Passover. They had to be circumcised first (and not only them, but their entire families), then they could celebrate. What I didn't notice until just now was the exact language used in this verse: "let all his males be circumcised, and then let HIM come near to celebrate it. . ." It struck me that it doesn't say: "let all his males be circumcised, and then let THEM come near to celebrate it. . ." SO: 1) The Gentile man believes; 2) All his males are to be circumcised; 3) But then (it seems) he alone celebrates the covenant meal. Is this drawing a line between communicant and non-communicant members even in the OT? Has this verse in particular been used in this way to argue against paedo-communion?


That is exactly the position taken by Richard Bacon in his article "What Mean Ye?"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 8, 2018)

There are many valid arguments against PC.

Arguing on this slender basis (them vs. him) is definitely not a place to start; it may be a place to show support.

The purpose for household circumcision would be for proving an "inclusion" of some kind, rather than any factor of "exclusion." The key person in v48 is the notable "stranger who dwells with you." It is quite possible that "him" and "he" in the later part of the v is tied particularly to this principal.

But v48 is connected with v44, which clearly indicates that certain members of the house might eat when they were circumcised (not before). The "stranger" himself must also be numbered among them which are circumcised, v48--he is _within _the total. So, while the focus of v48 may be on the principal, we cannot discount the implication of the ritual cleansing that takes place for the rest of his members. This is made even more clear by the terms of v49.

It is legitimate, therefore, to infer connection between "him" and "he" to another particular "male of his" that is circumcised, since he is one of them. Then I am positive, being instructed in the faith, and ritually clean these too would be invited to partake (within a year of the inaugural Passover, many additional cleanliness requirements were in place). It is hard to take the final sentence of v48 as having no reference to members of the house-circumcision just mentioned.

There were communicant and non-communicant members in the OC. It had mainly to do with the requirements for judgment (chiefly self-examination) for ritual cleanliness. Little children were not "clean enough" to partake of the meal. Failure to be clean was blameworthy, Lev.5:2-3, but we might judge from v3, less so for the ignorant (including children). Lev.7:20-21 absolutely forbids an unclean person from ritual participation.

It is utterly self-serving to propose a different standard of cleanness for children, women, any other group, on the basis of some perceived lack of capacity to judge. Keeping a child or ignorant person from condemnation by the strictness of the law was tender mercy; they did no wrong who held them back (as PC accuses anti-PC of denying blessings).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 8, 2018)

Has anyone here read this book? I just started it earlier tonight. I thought the editors' introduction over emphasised Biblical Theology arguments against presuming if infants were admitted to the Passover that would not automatically mean that they should be admitted to the Lord's Supper. For a paedobaptist to argue thus seems to me to be a terrible concession to the opposition.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 9, 2018)

Iain Duguid's essay in _Children and the Lord's Supper_ deals with Exodus 12 in relation to paedo-communion (it is a superb chapter).


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 9, 2018)

Looks like a really good book. Wish they had it via Kindle as well; no WTS delivery to south asia, haha.


----------

