Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 4

At this point, I’m still working through the various objections to child participation in the Passover, so if you’re not up to speed with where we are, and how we got here, you’ll want to go back and read at least the last two installments, found here and here.

In this post, I want to pick up exactly where I left off last time and provide an answer to the next objection on the list.

Objections & Answers

4.  Later Attendance to Passover Was Restricted to Adult Males

In his 1988 paper entitled, The Paedocommunion Controversy, Reverend Ron Potter argues that a significant change in Passover legislation took place subsequent to its Egyptian celebration. This means that even if it could be shown that children partook of the first Passover, the change of legislation rules out their participation in the land. 

On page 12 he writes:

// The Passover in Sinai had clearly undergone a transformation… We observe from Exodus 23:14-17 that males only were to appear before the Lord at the three instituted feasts, one of which was the Passover //

On page 15 he writes: 

// In Deuteronomy 16:16-17 the legislation of Exodus 23 is restated. Males only (v. 16) who are recipients of God’s blessing on their productivity (v. 17) are to participate //

The Regulative Principle

For those who don’t know, the position outlined by Reverend Potter is an application of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Without getting into the finer distinction between elements and circumstances, the Heidelberg Catechism gives us a good working definition of this rule. In Question 96 it states that we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded us in His word.” 

This rule is very different from the normative principle which says: it is lawful unless God forbids it. To the contrary, the RPW says: it is unlawful unless God commands it. By appealing to this principle, Reverend Potter makes clear what he wants to argue. Namely, it was unlawful for women and children to partake of the Passover because the Bible did not command them to do so. 

Now on the surface of it, the argument looks good. But in my opinion it's a bad move because it ends up causing more problems than it solves. Especially when it's applied with precision and consistency.

Problem # 1, A Precise Application Leads to Heresy

In view of the potential danger here, my first response would be to advise against using the RPW in this connection. The reason I say that is that the commands of Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16 are not about who “eats” at the feast. Rather, they’re about who “appears” at the feast, and that makes all the difference in the world.

According to Keil-Delitzch:

// The command to appear, i.e. to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary, was restricted to the male members of the nation, probably to those above 20 years of age // 

In other words, when we take up this argument and apply it with real precision, we end up saying that anyone who didn’t fit these criteria, and yet still went up to the feast, was doing an unlawful thing. The implications of that are serious because the Bible says that women and children regularly traveled up to the feast. Even more problematic is the fact that this included Mary who “went up to Jerusalem every year to the Feast of the Passover” and Jesus himself, who also went up as early as “twelve years old” (Lk. 2:41-42).

Perhaps this is why those who wish to use this form of argumentation feel the need to switch it at the end. They see the necessary consequence of a precise application, so they turn the wheel to avoid the crash.

Reverend Potter writes:

// It must be pointed out that this male-only-to-the-sanctuary command did not necessarily prohibit women and children from accompanying the male head of the household to the Passover. But presence is not participation and the legislation is directed to who is to participate // (p. 12)

With all due respect to Reverend Potter, this is what we call "bait and switch" because the argument begins with one thing (the pilgrimage to the feast) and ends with another (participation in the feast). And he's not the only one who does this. In a recent reprint of his 2006 publication, now entitled, Toddlers at the Table, Reverend Jim West does the same thing.

On page 28 he writes:

// Would it have been disobedient for a woman to partake of the pilgrim Passover that was celebrated later when Israel occupied the land? Yes, since they were not commanded // 

This, too, is a case of bait and switch because, again, it's not just that the women received no command to “partake.” They also received no command to “attend.” Like Potter, Reverend West has to ignore that little detail in order to avoid the necessary consequence of a precise application, i.e. Mary and Jesus sinned by going up to the feast.

Problem # 2, A Consistent Application Proves Too Much

Another problem with this argument is that a consistent application of it proves too much. Even if we agree with the previous application (saying nothing of its equivocation) we are still faced with an important question: On what basis are women now allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper? In other words, why is it that those who claim women were excluded from the Passover simply because they were not commanded to participate, do not also exclude them from the Lord’s Supper for the very same reason? It’s true that we find no command for children to partake of the Supper, but where do we find such a command for women?

In my mind, this amounts to the (informal) fallacy of “special pleading” and it leaves us with a choice between two possible options. Either we can (1) Be consistent and bar women from the Lord’s Table, or (2) Drop the argument altogether. But we cannot have it both ways; we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Anyone familiar with Reformed Theology might recognize that a similar argument is often used to challenge the anti-paedobaptist. When our Baptist friends say that infants are not to be baptized “because the Bible nowhere commands it” we typically respond by exposing their inconsistency. In his Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof writes, “This objection is based on a canon of interpretation to which the Baptists themselves are not true when they hold that women must also partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Whether Berkhof would have admitted it or not, his response applies just as much to those who say that children should not partake of the Lord’s Supper… “because the Bible nowhere commands it.” Okay, so then where does it give any such a command to women?

A Better Interpretation

So far we’ve been focusing on the improper use of the post-Exodus legislation for Passover, but it still doesn’t answer the question: What is its proper use? Is there a better interpretation of passages like Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16? Ones that do not lead to heretical notions or further, unnecessary division at the Lord’s Table?

The answer is, Yes, and to summarize that interpretation we can say: It is better to argue that the post-Exodus legislation was meant to supplement the previous legislation, not replace it.

Historically speaking, by the time the Israelites received the additional legislation, they had already celebrated the Passover according to the instructions of Exodus 12. Therefore, lest we commit the hermeneutical fallacy of “repetitionism” we should expect a measure of continuity. This means: Whatever was to remain the same did not need to be repeated.

This interpretation makes sense when we look at the details of Deuteronomy 16. In verses 1-8, the LORD doesn’t have to mention who was included in the Passover because He was already clear about that in Exodus 12. As we saw before, God prescribed a lamb for every “household” (v. 3) saying that the whole “congregation” (v. 47) was to keep this feast.

Thus, the primary purpose of the additional legislation was to notify the people of God about what was being changed: namely, there would be a new centralized location, and Passover would no longer be celebrated in their homes (see vv. 2b, 5-6, 7b). 

That this interpretation is better than what we saw before is also made clear when we look at the details of the other two feasts as well. While the Passover had already been celebrated in Egypt, the Feast of Weeks (vv. 9-12) and the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13-15) had not. Therefore, the LORD had to be clear about who was to participate in these two feasts, just as he was with Passover back in Exodus 12. When he does, He tells us that once again women and children were included.

Deuteronomy 16:10-11

// Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks… And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God; you and your son and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 16:16-17

// You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles… And you shall rejoice in your feast; you and your son and your daughter //