Paedocommunion Part 1

Foundations in the Old Covenant for paedocommunion

What follows is a largely unedited paper I wrote back in the summer of 2020 on the topic of Paedocommunion. I wrote this as a Presbyterian, so there will be some areas that refer to Reformed confessions that I no longer adhere to (Though there is still much agreement I have with much of these confessions). I have decided it would be better to publish this largely as is, with minor corrections and edits, and add as an addendum before the concluding part any changes or comments I would like to make now as an Anglican. I will also add a section dedicated to touching on the history of Paedocommunion. This will be split into multiple parts, of which this is the first which will touch on the foundations laid in the Old Testament.

---

Introduction 

The subject of paedocommunion is, admittedly, not a subject given much credence despite its historical and theological pedigree. Very few within the Reformed tradition have embraced this position, and those who do today are typically viewed as dangerous, or “stepping stones” into apostasy into Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy (Though the merits of these statements must be evaluated critically, that is not the purpose of this paper). What is necessary for this endeavor is a humble recognition that we may not have everything right, even our codified confessional documents, and must approach the subject primarily from the Scriptures and what they have to bear on the matter of including our children at the Lord’s Table. We will look initially at the Old Testament practice of various feasts and sacrifices, as this paper operates under the assumption that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is the culmination and fulfillment of all these types. Then we will turn our attention to the language of the New Testament concerning the Lord’s Supper and the Kingdom of God, and how we are to approach our Lord’s table. 

Old Testament Types 

Before we can look at the New Testament texts concerning the Lord’s Supper, we must first consider the theology that undergirds it. The Lord’s Supper, as we shall see, is a culmination and fulfillment of all these types. As Hughes Oliphant Old notes, the roots of the Lord’s Supper go as far back as the covenantal meals celebrated by the Patriarchs of old. Abraham and Melchizedek, Abraham and the three heavenly visitors, Jacob and Isaac, etc… What is essential in these meals is that they established a profound relationship among the parties involved. We will consider the Passover and various other feasts found in Deuteronomy 16. We will gather important information from each of these passages that will help us to see a unified picture of the Lord’s Supper and what it signifies for us as a covenant meal between the Lord and His redeemed people in the New Covenant. 

The Passover

When we approach Exodus 12 to view the initial observance of the Passover, we will take note of a few key things. First, we should consider who was permitted to partake in this feast, and who was not. We see initially in verses 2-10 that this was to be a meal that began with the sacrifice of the lamb in the presence of the whole congregation of Israel (v. 6) and moved from the congregation to the household and it is in the household that the rest of the ritual feast would take place (Vv. 2-3). We read that the lamb was to be large enough for the entire household, or if the household was too small for the entire lamb the neighboring household was to be brought together to partake. The unit of measurement is interesting, as it says that they are to take it “according to the number of the souls” within the household, with the qualification of this numbering to be “according to his eating” (v.4). So from this, we learn that the number of those who are to partake is to be equal to those souls that make up the household, insofar that they are capable of eating. Further, we see that no foreigners or strangers are to partake of the Passover, but only those amidst the congregation of Israel. This is further denoted in verse 48 where The Lord says, “No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” Whether we take this expression to include the female members of the congregation (since all of the congregation was to keep the feast) or just the circumcised males only is of no relevance here, for we recognize that under the Old Covenant economy the males exercised more religious participation than females, but this division is removed in the New Covenant, where participation in covenant rites is more liberally celebrated. So what we see is that this meal was only for the covenant people of God, and not for those outside of the covenant. Anti-paedocommunionists argue that the children were not partakers due to their asking “What mean ye by this service?” However, arguments from verse 26 alone are found wanting. Nothing in the text indicates one way or the other that the child asking is merely an observer, or is asking while a participant. It is at best an argument from silence, yet the rest of the chapter gives a stronger indication that the child would have been partaking of the Passover—granted that they could eat and did in fact have a soul. 

Further, we can look at what was signified in this covenant meal by seeing the components behind it. Anti-paedocommunionists will argue that because this meal did not have a sacrifice to cover the guilt of sin, that it is not a proper correlation to the Lord’s Supper. While I agree that the Lord’s Supper is not a one-to-one parallel to the Passover, there are key points that carry over. Besides, the Lord Jesus saw fit to connect His Supper with the Passover in its institution in Matthew 26, and Jesus indeed is called our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7). Though an altar is not present, we cannot escape the fact that there are still key elements to the Passover that signify and represent God’s cleansing of His people by blood and their communion with Him by means of a memorial meal. 

First, we see that the lamb was to be slaughtered. This was an act of the entire congregation of Israel, as we noted above. This was an ecclesial act, an act where the people of God gathered by means of sacrificial blood. This blood was to be covered upon their doorposts. It acted as a covering of their household by which the Lord would look upon the blood and pass over the household, sparing them from the plague. Further with this, we see that hyssop was used to apply the blood. Despite the depictions we’re used to seeing where the blood appears to have been painted on with a regular paint brush from the hardware store (coated and smeared), we see instead that they were to dip the hyssop in the blood and sprinkle it upon their door posts by striking the lintel. Recognizing that hyssop is biblically symbolic of ritual cleansing and purification we should also see the parallel with the language of the New Testament connecting this with the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus as the means of our own purification. Next, we can also look at the plague in view. This plague upon Egypt was against the firstborn males in the land, both of man and beast (Ex. 12:29). The firstborn of Israel were included in this, except if the provision had been sought under the blood of the lamb. The distinguishing mark between the firstborn children of Israel and of Egypt was definitively their inclusion in the covering power of the Passover lamb's blood. It was this act of being marked out by the lamb’s blood that kept the firstborn males of Israel safe from the destructive plague. They were numbered among the faithful people of God, and not the unbelieving pagans surrounding them. The fact that children were the main focus of this plague should help us see the parallels with the children of Israel who were spared. Interestingly, the emphasis on the Passover isn’t on the blood being applied to the doorposts, but on the partaking of the meal. Much more attention and emphasis are put on the actual partaking of the meal than is given to the application of the blood on the doorposts. What’s signified here is not just the covering of the lamb's blood that spared the children from the plague, but one's communion with the lamb that provided the means of their salvation. The entire household rejoiced and partook of this meal because in it signified the saving power of God over their household. The plague came upon the houses of Egypt to their destruction and death, but the death of the lamb provided a meal that brought about their preservation of life and their salvation from the destructive plague. It would be quite odd for the child, who by the lamb was spared from death, to not partake of that communion meal that signified his deliverance. 

Brief mention must be made in regards to the claims that anti-paedocommunionists make in regard to the distinction between the initial Passover in Exodus 12, and its perpetual observance mandated in Deuteronomy 16. What we notice in the perpetual observance of the Passover is that it no longer takes place in the homes of the Israelites and that it appears only the males came to partake in the meal. This does nothing against the paedocommunion argument, however, because, for both paedocommunion and anti-paedocommunion advocates, the symbolism and typologies we draw from the Passover are drawn not from its perpetual observance in Deuteronomy 16, but in its initial observance in Exodus 12. In the perpetual observance, there is no mention of the lamb’s blood acting as a covering over the people or their household. Instead, we see that God calls the heads of households to come to the place that He has appointed, and therein the Passover is observed as a perpetual reminder of the redemptive-historical work that God had done for His people. The far descendants of the Israelites who were part of the Exodus did not partake in that deliverance physically as their ancestors had. They were not removed from Egypt. They did not plunder their oppressors and come out victorious by the mighty hand of God. But they did partake in this generationally. The Jews also understood, as did the early Christians, that this perpetual observation participated in and was a communion with the initial observance. In this way, the sacrament transcends time and brings into the present the past deliverance of God and makes it new. This perpetual observance was a monument, so to speak, set up to remind all of Israel of the mighty work that God had done on their behalf. So it matters not whether children or anyone other than the head of the household partook in its permanent observation. The point remains the same: The perpetual observance was a reminder of the initial observance wherein the children partook in the covenant meal that signified their deliverance. And now we will turn our attention to the other feasts mandated in the rest of Deuteronomy 16. 

The Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles 

Continuing our view of these covenant meals that the Lord established for His people, we look at the other two feasts mentioned after the perpetual Passover in Deuteronomy 16. While the perpetual Passover did not mention the household in its new observance, the feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles do, however, make mention of the household being participants. In verses 11 and 14 we see each member of the household listed as those who were allowed to come and “rejoice” in the feast with the head of the household. In these two feasts, the adult males of Israel were commanded to keep these feasts, and we also see that their whole household was welcome to come and participate as well. They were not turned away. Rather, instead, we see that sons and daughters were amongst those whom the Lord permitted to come and partake in these covenant meals—to rejoice in these feasts before the Lord. These feasts were covenant meals of blessing (v. 15) and required that none who approached were to come empty-handed (v. 16). 

Anti-paedocommunionists often argue that paedocommunionists try and pull too much from the Passover account in Exodus 12 and then pull from the perpetual observation of the Passover in Deuteronomy 16 as a means to show that in these perpetual feasts, only the heads of households were allowed to come and partake. Yet, they fail to look a few verses later at these other feasts (mentioned in the same chapter!) that explicitly include the children of believers. Perhaps if the Passover were the only covenant meal that Paedocommunionists pulled from, there might be grounds to deny children access to the table since in its perpetual observance they were excluded; but because we recognize the Lord’s Supper has roots that are much deeper and far wider than the Passover, we must look at these other feasts in which the Lord was pleased to bring the weakest and smallest of His covenant people together to feast before Him.