Paedo-Baptism Answers Paedobaptism but not Paedocommunion? Why?

[Simpleton Luke]

My pastor has guided me through a few books on paedobaptism, and through reading them I noticed that household fellowship in the visible church is a big focus, which is why infants are baptized in as a sign of some sort of covenant. It was explained to me that since circumcision was performed on infants as a sign of membership within the nation of Israel, Baptism follows suit for infants (being within the household) as a sign of membership within the church.

Being raised credobaptist, I had no idea this existed outside of the Catholic/Orthodox groups, but I am making steps towards comprehending this tradition. I think I understand paedo arguments about the translation of circumcision to baptism and how we cannot withhold that means of grace from infants, but I am curious about paedocommunion. It seems weird to me that the church should force bread and wine on an infant, but I also understand that the Passover was celebrated by the entire household, and was explained to children when they were old enough to comprehend it. (Exodus 12:3-4, 24-27)

The permanence of both circumcision and Passover (to you and your descendants) carry over into baptism and the Lord's Supper, but why do we continue to baptize households, but we do not celebrate the Lord's supper in like manner? Why would we allow the means of grace from one sacrament to infants, but not the other?

Thanks.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My pastor has guided me through a few books on paedobaptism, and through reading them I noticed that household fellowship in the visible church is a big focus, which is why infants are baptized in as a sign of some sort of covenant. It was explained to me that since circumcision was performed on infants as a sign of membership within the nation of Israel, Baptism follows suit for infants (being within the household) as a sign of membership within the church.

Being raised credobaptist, I had no idea this existed outside of the Catholic/Orthodox groups, but I am making steps towards comprehending this tradition. I think I understand paedo arguments about the translation of circumcision to baptism and how we cannot withhold that means of grace from infants, but I am curious about paedocommunion. It seems weird to me that the church should force bread and wine on an infant, but I also understand that the Passover was celebrated by the entire household, and was explained to children when they were old enough to comprehend it. (Exodus 12:3-4, 24-27)

The permanence of both circumcision and Passover (to you and your descendants) carry over into baptism and the Lord's Supper, but why do we continue to baptize households, but we do not celebrate the Lord's supper in like manner? Why would we allow the means of grace from one sacrament to infants, but not the other?

Thanks.

Welcome to the PB. Just as an aside, there are other threads and replies to very similar questions to yours asked by others. So I recommend scrolling or searching the site for additional replies. That said, I like answering questions, even many times.

The memorial Passover was to be celebrated, like the other 3X per year feasts, by those appointed: "all your [adult] males," Ex.23:17, etc. The son was expected to ask, and receive his answer, as to "what do you mean by this service?" thereby demonstrating the beginning or the fullness of his comprehension. There is actually very little unambiguous evidence from the text of the Scripture (OT & NT) that the memorial Passover feast in particular was a "household" meal, although the inaugural Passover is quite often interpreted thus.

But regardless of who was invited and those who may have come along (wives, children); for ANY of the feasts and celebrations of the altar of Israel, possession of national identity (e.g. by circumcision) was a necessary but insufficient criteria. No unclean person was permitted to partake, or else he risked cutting off from the nation, see Lev.7:20. Ceremonial uncleanness and the care of it was non-negotiable if desiring of ceremonial access. Therefore, it was incumbent on anyone who would participate in such altar-feasts that he "self-examine." This duty of the "externals" was intended to reflect the truth within, the state of the heart; and the requirement continues to be reflected in the duty to self-examine prior to attending the NT feast: the Lord's Supper, 1Cor.11:28.

This should answer your basic question, but feel free to follow up. Many assumptions NT folk make about the OT habits of Israel lack an actual basis in the text and study of the relevant passages. The fact is, children in the OT were expected to grow up into full participation in the religious life of the nation, not unlike our modern society's "gates" (e.g. getting your D.L. only at 16yrs or so). They were not simply granted full adult privileges until they could assume the responsibilities.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

Thank you sir for your patience and your reply. I found the posts you mentioned.

I will read through them and ask any follow-ups here.
In the meantime, can you explain what you mean by:

There is actually very little unambiguous evidence from the text of the Scripture (OT & NT) that the memorial Passover feast in particular was a "household" meal, although the inaugural Passover is quite often interpreted thus.

It seemed plain to me that the remembrance and celebration of the Passover commanded to the Israelites in Exodus 12 was celebrated by the entire household, (no work, no leaven) and that "all the congregation of Israel shall keep it," including the slaves within the household, provided they were circumcised.
I get that you cant really feed infants unleavened bread, but it seems obvious that children in the household avoided work and leaven regardless of their comprehension of the celebration.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Luke,
You ask, "Can you explain what you mean by:"
"There is actually very little unambiguous evidence from the text of the Scripture (OT & NT) that the memorial Passover feast in particular was a "household" meal, although the inaugural Passover is quite often interpreted thus."

It seemed plain to me that the remembrance and celebration of the Passover commanded to the Israelites in Exodus 12 was celebrated by the entire household, (no work, no leaven) and that "all the congregation of Israel shall keep it," including the slaves within the household, provided they were circumcised.
I get that you cant really feed infants unleavened bread, but it seems obvious that children in the household avoided work and leaven regardless of their comprehension of the celebration.

Instructions for the inaugural Passover are found in Ex.12:1-13. It includes not only instructions on preparation of the lamb, but also putting blood on the doorposts, the manner of eating, the accoutrements of travel. The manner of eating and of dress, and the marking of the doorway were unique to this event, and not repeated in future memorials. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is outlined in vv14-20, and the terms of it are echoed several times in the Pentateuch; but significantly the memorial Passover terms are not repeated in the other texts, being confined to this chapter; explicit memorial terms are found in vv43-49.

Because the arguments are technical and linguistic, I will not here present reasons why the language of vv3-4 is subject to more than one interpretation--including an adult male focus. I will simply grant the opinion that they refer to a whole house and all members within it without distinction. I judge that the requirement for circumcision (see v48 and v44) was expected for participation even on this occasion, however it is not made explicit at first. But for simplicity's sake, this argument does not insist on practically any restriction on those who were encouraged to participate in the inaugural Passover.

From v21 we have Moses delivering the Lord's instructions to the people, and although v24 might seem to oblige blood on the doorway in all future memorials, the fact was the Passover was a centralized feast in the land removing the people from their dwellings for celebration. The wandering Israelites lived in tents and there is no indication they put blood on their tent-doorways. So, we understand that not every detail of the first Passover was enjoined on future celebration. It was a substantive memorial, but certain facts of the inaugural were not treated to a slavish repetition (much like Lord's Supper memorials do not require participants to recline on couches like Jesus' disciples).

v25 gives another indication that the Passover will be repeated year after year. v26 follows with the well-known interrogation, which does not ask "Why do WE do this?" but "Why do YOU do this?" It does not sound like the question of a participant, unless one is already predisposed to think there was a general (household) admission not qualified by any other legal indicators also found in the law. On the other hand, it is the natural question of an inquirer, an onlooker.

v28 tells of the Israelites' obedience, and vv29-39 of the events of the Exodus. vv40-51 are the conclusion to the chapter, the Passover, and the Exodus itself, and includes the last of the festal commentary. In fact it is the most important of that commentary, being introduced by this language: "This is the ordinance of the Passover:" Many people are restricted from the meal by category. One category is insisted on (even limited to). These final vv are not meant to be read abstracted from the rest of the ch, but whatever else they do they especially speak to the memorial feast as it is to be remembered in the Promised Land. To know this ordinance, you cannot go to later in Exodus, or Leviticus, or Deuteronomy where it is not repeated; you have to read it here.

One verse (28) testifies to the experience of the Passover. The rest of the reference to Passover is split between commentaries on the event itself and its memorial. Unleavened bread removal (and refraining) was not confined to one place in Israel, but was to be for every house or tent. But as for eating the lamb, after the inaugural event came the Exodus and the assembly at Sinai; and thereafter Levitical priests oversaw the killing of the sacrifice at the altar. In the land, whether it was at the Sanctuary (later Jerusalem) or back at home with those who stayed, only unleavened bread was made and eaten. In that sense, everyone who ate properly during that time while living in the land experienced some aspect of the feast; but not in its essential participation: the Passover lamb.

"No leaven" was a week's worth of (mild) discipline the whole time (14th through 21st days, v18). The command to refrain from work was not for all the days, but for the Sabbaths (1st day and 7th day) of the festal week. Only food preparation was permitted. The point relative to households is this: removal of all leaven impacted everyone within the bounds of the nation--even non-Israelites, which no one imagines were fully engaged in the feast. Likewise for Sabbath-resting (not limited to Israelite citizens). Noting this demand, therefore, does not establish any "inclusive" principle relative to the Passover portion of the feast.

"All the congregation of Israel." The "congregation" term needs to be contextualized every time it is used. A cursory consultation of a concordance will demonstrate how flexible a term it is. There are times when it is a largely inclusive term referring to virtually every last Israelite. But other times, it refers to a representative body--either in formal representatives (ala governors), or those who gather in worship assembly, or another informal yet representative gathering of the people. In the context of Ex.12:47, given the assumed future context of settlement in the land and the centralized celebration of Passover, the best interpretation of "all the congregation of Israel" is that everyone who has come for the Passover (provided they are not disqualified) should intentionally be included. Those who have not come, presumably with an excuse or another good reason, cannot in the nature of the case participate. They do not get to sacrifice on their own, away from the lone Israelite altar (Dt.12:14).

Of course, there would be some who came for Passover, but were disqualified. Foreigners might come, but not participate. Israelites who were unclean could not participate, Lev.15:31, cf. Jn.18:28; Num.9:6; Lev.7:20-21. No unclean person in Israel was allowed to participate (outwardly) in the religious life of the people. Ceremonial cleanness was a barrier. Levites, priests, and most of all the high priest, were progressively more sanctified and ceremonially clean for the purpose of serving the people, doing on behalf of the many what they were never clean enough to do. The Nazirite vow was an extraordinary opportunity for an ordinary Israelite for a set period of time to live and labor in an elevated state of holiness, something like the lives of the priests. They were ceremonially cleansed and set apart for special religious service during the time of their vow.

So, not only the Passover, but all the feasts, and the altar, were only accessible (outwardly) by those who were clean. The religious life was extra demanding. The high priest was forbidden from making himself unclean by mourning for anyone dead in his own family, Lev.21:11. Why? Because it was more important that he remain clean for the sake of the people depending on him and the performance of his religious duties. Parents and leaders enforce the limitations of Sabbath-work and the availability of the kind of bread in the house for all its members. But the ceremonial Passover lamb was a sacrifice, the kind of religious duty that demanded willful and knowledgeable participation.

For the last word I'll include in this post, consider that eating the Passover lamb was not a meal but a ceremony of eating. Some suppose the inaugural Passover was a subdued party, and everyone had their fill of the barbecue. They don't know how little meat is on an ordinary, wobbly lamb. Our typical Lord's Supper celebration is dismissed by some of the same folk, who think it should be more than a mouthful. But it too is a ceremonial meal. OT or NT, these occasions are signs and seals. If we turn them into carnally filling/fattening events, we have less focus on the reality and the thing being signified. Both memorials, Passover and the Lord's Supper, are token feasts. They point beyond themselves. The face-to-face supper with our Lord and all the saints in the new heavens and earth will be the reality, when we are filled at last.

It is vital that our children understand this business before they make entrance on the symbolic table with its Sacrificial president Jesus at the head. It was vital that the OT Israelite children understood the business before they made entrance on their feasts and sacrificial altar pointing to the coming Christ.

 

[Polanus1561]

The institution of the LS parallels Ex. 24 where only the elders and Moses/Aaron ate and drank.

At the very least, this says that direct parallels are not justified.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The institution of the LS parallels Ex. 24 where only the elders and Moses/Aaron ate and drank.

At the very least, this says that direct parallels are not justified.

There is much truth in this observation, still we should not avoid the parallels while rather multiplying them. The truth is that ALL the OT ceremonies, sacrifices, feasts, along with the history and many significant persons serve the present age to enrich our understanding of what we have in present possession in Christ and in eternity. Inasmuch as the New Covenant celebratory feast must have been inaugurated on one of the OT festal occasions, the Passover was God's choice.

But this should not be taken to mean that the Passover alone then parallels and informs our table fellowship in NT terms. No, but also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Also Firstfruits and the Feast of Weeks. Also the Day of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Booths--and definitely include that inaugural banquet for the constitution of the nation in Ex.24. The Lord's Table is huge, for it is crammed with the entire Old Testament. As L.Coppes has written, Passover supplied the occasion for the Lord's Supper, but not a singular background feast from which correlates our current feast.

 

[TylerRay]

To add to what @Contra_Mundum said, among the few scriptural examples of the observance of the memorial Passover, we have he observance in Luke 2.

"Now 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 after the custom of the feast" (Luke 2:41, 42). Here, it appears that Jesus may not have gone up with his parents to the feast until he entered in to young adulthood (12 years old). Today, Jews do it at age 13.

Note, also, the observance of the Passover between by Jesus and his disciples before Jesus' death--no women or children are present, though some (all perhaps?) of the twelve were married, and at least some would no doubt have had children.

Granted, these are not clear, explicit statements that children were excluded from the Passover, but they are consonant with the notion that they were. In any case, the observance in the upper room shows that it was not a family meal; it wasn't one lamb per household like the Egyptian Passover (Ex 12:3).

 

[TylerRay]

I get that you cant really feed infants unleavened bread

Nor roasted lamb and bitter herbs (like horseradish). Nor, for that matter, is wine (used in both the Passover and Lord's Supper) suitable food for an infant. I can't think of anyone other than paedocommunionists who are in the habit of giving their babies wine.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to be clear, what was commanded in Deuteronomy 16:16 and Exodus 23:14–17 as a perpetual ordinance is that adult males must appear three times a year, including the Feast of the Passover. This is the reason that the Lord promises that, while they were gone, He would protect their families from their enemies. Now, that's not to say that wives and children did not come up for the Passover, but it is important to note how the Feast was instituted and that the "youngest present" was not intended to be a toddler but an adult person.

Tyler points out how John records that Jesus came up with His parents for the Passover. It was the tradition of the Jews to have their male children attend the Passover the year before bar mitzvah.

 

[DanSSwing]

Where's Doug Wilson when you need him?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Hi there, this e-book is really excellent as it deals thoroughly with all the recent paedocommunion arguments in a very easy to understand and comprehensive way:

EBOOK Children at the Lord's Table?: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion - EBOOK (Venema)

Puritan and Reformed books at discounted prices.

www.heritagebooks.org

 

[Simpleton Luke]

Thanks everyone for your replies and discussion.
At first, I was thinking that it was very inconsistent that we baptize infants, but do not accept them to the Lord's Table. After reading other threads and seeing your answers, I think it is a bit more nuanced than I assumed.

Unleavened bread was not suitable for nursing infants.
Only (some?) adult males sacrificed the lamb.

So if I'm getting this right -
The adult male appears before the Lord and sacrifices the lamb, eating it at the site of the sacrifice. (Deut 16:7) He then returns to his tent, where those within the household, which includes women, children, slaves, and circumcised alien sojourners withhold from leaven and observe sabbaths, and everyone able to eat unleavened bread does so. (Ex 12:18)

But this description (everyone able to eat unleavened bread) includes children who are able to eat unleavened bread and rest on the Sabbaths (thereby participating in the festival) but are not at the level of comprehension of the festival (who are able to ask "Why do you do this?") If this is the case, then comprehension is not necessary for participation in the Feast, but it is necessary for the Table?

Let me know if I'm missing anything.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So if I'm getting this right -
The adult male appears before the Lord and sacrifices the lamb, eating it at the site of the sacrifice. (Deut 16:7) He then returns to his tent, where those within the household, which includes women, children, slaves, and circumcised alien sojourners withhold from leaven and observe sabbaths, and everyone able to eat unleavened bread does so. (Ex 12:18)

Remember that leaven had been purged from the entire camp or national borders. There wasn't any bread to eat in Israel by two weeks into the first month of the year that had leaven in it, unless someone with the ability to bake acted out in public rebellion to the Lord. It's less a matter of ability, as it availability. Little children and foreigners and people with leprosy weren't forced to go hungry for a week, on account of their limitations, not being able to engage fully in the religious life of Israel. It did not require someone to be ceremonially clean to eat the common (if unleavened) bread, or simply keep Sabbath; but they would need to be ceremonially clean to join others shoulder to shoulder for worship, so as not to contaminate the crowd.

The period of time set aside for this religious celebration had an effect on everyone within the national scope, being made subject to the national "holiday." You might say: there was a different quality to the participation of the alien in eating the common bread, or pausing his business because the locals were all preoccupied with religious rest during the set-aside period. And he was not allowed anywhere near the sacrificial lamb that is the focus of the first day. As for Israelite children, they were being prepared year after year at this season in anticipation of their active engagement. Eating the unleavened bread during those days (and not going hungry) was part of their lessons along with observing other matters, learning and asking questions.

But this description (everyone able to eat unleavened bread) includes children who are able to eat unleavened bread and rest on the Sabbaths (thereby participating in the festival) but are not at the level of comprehension of the festival (who are able to ask "Why do you do this?") If this is the case, then comprehension is not necessary for participation in the Feast, but it is necessary for the Table?

A foreign visitor or servant (or slave) who was uninterested in learning the Israelite faith would still eat the same unleavened bread everyone else ate. But was he in any real way marking the Feast for its own sake? Doubtful. Those who ate the "bread of affliction" (Dt.16:3) from the heart--those were keeping the feast in its season. Others were putting up with it. They were present among the celebrators, but hardly participating. If one of them raided the sacrificial lamb of the first day, someone should have snatched that stolen morsel out of his hand; but no one forbade bread of anyone during the following week of memorials.

Another item to remember for when the Passover was celebrated in the land: travel time. On the way to the sanctuary the bread eaten might still have leaven. It might take a day, two days, three or more to get there by the 14th. It would take just as many days to return home. The week of Unleavened Bread was partly taken up by this journey home, and the primary foodstuff was this thin, almost tasteless bread. Making the most of this opportunity, devout Israelites trudging along the roads would reflect on their fathers exodus from Egypt looking for a home in a land of Promise. And even mothers and children and the infirm at home, by virtue of the common bread would have some virtual engagement in the progress of their loved ones.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

Remember that leaven had been purged from the entire camp or national borders...
A foreign visitor or servant (or slave) who was uninterested in learning the Israelite faith would still eat the same unleavened bread everyone else ate. But was he in any real way marking the Feast for its own sake? Doubtful. Those who ate the "bread of affliction" (Dt.16:3) from the heart--those were keeping the feast in its season. Others were putting up with it. They were present among the celebrators, but hardly participating. If one of them raided the sacrificial lamb of the first day, someone should have snatched that stolen morsel out of his hand; but no one forbade bread of anyone during the following week of memorials.

Thank you again Bruce and everyone else for your patience in answering my questions.
As I am reading other threads on the topic of paedocommunion, I am seeing that the feast of Unleavened Bread (and by extension all feasts imaging Christ's sacrifice and the institution of the Table) is celebrated on a national level, yet like you are saying there are degrees of participation and worshipful attitude towards it. While all of Israel "technically" celebrated the feast in some sense, I absolutely agree that this does not mean that all members of the visible church are meant to participate in the body and blood, it is only for those who are "discerning the body," and are therefore covered by the body and blood.
Membership in national Israel (circumcision) allowed you to participate in the feasts. (Ex 12:43-49) Likewise, membership in the Israel of God (circumcision of the heart) allows us to participate in the covenantal sign of his body and blood broken for us. (Rom 2:29, Gal 6:14-16)

If anyone has anything else to add, feel free.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to the conversation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you again Bruce and everyone else for your patience in answering my questions.
As I am reading other threads on the topic of paedocommunion, I am seeing that the feast of Unleavened Bread (and by extension all feasts imaging Christ's sacrifice and the institution of the Table) is celebrated on a national level, yet like you are saying there are degrees of participation and worshipful attitude towards it. While all of Israel "technically" celebrated the feast in some sense, I absolutely agree that this does not mean that all members of the visible church are meant to participate in the body and blood, it is only for those who are "discerning the body," and are therefore covered by the body and blood.
Membership in national Israel (circumcision) allowed you to participate in the feasts. (Ex 12:43-49) Likewise, membership in the Israel of God (circumcision of the heart) allows us to participate in the covenantal sign of his body and blood broken for us. (Rom 2:29, Gal 6:14-16)

If anyone has anything else to add, feel free.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to the conversation.

Judging from afar, I think you've made a good beginning of meditating on these serious and wonderful matters afresh. Having a new starting point in your church life/culture has prompted this, but it's not something that should come to a complete end. I suppose there is more development in store for your covenant-mind, growing clarity and definition for your spiritual vision. Speaking from personal experience, it is likely your regular return to the Lord's Table will prompt ongoing reflection on its gospel nature, which was no less embedded in the sacraments of the Old Covenant. As you ponder, and the years and decades go by, I hope your experience (like mine) is one of deepening insight and appreciation of the riches of our spiritual heritage told in the Scriptures.