One of the best ways to overturn an undesirable conclusion is to deny one or more of the premises on which it depends. In my experience, this is what the bulk of the paedo-communion debate has been reduced to. Some deny the primacy of the continuity between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, while others deny that children partook of the Passover in the first place.
In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it’s just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.
In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it’s just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.
A Definitional Argument
A few years ago, I taught a four-week crash course on the doctrine of Infant Baptism, from a distinctly Reformed perspective. When it came time to make a positive case for the practice, I used what I called at the time, a definitional argument.
This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the Book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible?
Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said:
"Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children if and when they are present.
To prove this, I considered two passages from the Word of God—one from the Old Testament and one from the New.
In the first passage, Pharaoh defines the “households” in verse 18 as the “little ones and wives” in verse 19. In the second, Paul equates a man’s household with his children. When these and similar texts are read together, the conclusion is unavoidable: children are members of the biblical household by definition.
Even if our Baptist friends could prove that every baptized household in the Book of Acts consisted only of believing adults, those particular situations could never be made normative for every household. Narrative instances do not redefine the category itself.
Households differ in size and composition, but the definition does not change with the numbers. One household may have no children and another may have five. A childless household does not include children because none exist there. But a household with children includes them necessarily, because they are constitutive members of it. The term “household” is elastic in application, not in meaning. Its breadth accounts for every possible configuration. The situation may vary from case to case, but the definition remains constant.
"Therefore, children are always included in the household if and when they are present."
This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the Book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible?
Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said:
"Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children if and when they are present.
To prove this, I considered two passages from the Word of God—one from the Old Testament and one from the New.
- In Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh commanded Joseph and his brothers to bring their “households” back to Egypt. Then, when he repeats that command in verse 19, he commands them to bring their “little ones and wives.”
- In 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul requires an Elder to “rule his own household well.” Then, to explain what that means, he adds, “having his children in submission with all reverence.”
In the first passage, Pharaoh defines the “households” in verse 18 as the “little ones and wives” in verse 19. In the second, Paul equates a man’s household with his children. When these and similar texts are read together, the conclusion is unavoidable: children are members of the biblical household by definition.
Even if our Baptist friends could prove that every baptized household in the Book of Acts consisted only of believing adults, those particular situations could never be made normative for every household. Narrative instances do not redefine the category itself.
Households differ in size and composition, but the definition does not change with the numbers. One household may have no children and another may have five. A childless household does not include children because none exist there. But a household with children includes them necessarily, because they are constitutive members of it. The term “household” is elastic in application, not in meaning. Its breadth accounts for every possible configuration. The situation may vary from case to case, but the definition remains constant.
"Therefore, children are always included in the household if and when they are present."
Definitions at the Passover
As we move the discussion to the Old Testament Passover, we need to keep the same line of argument in view. The question is not, first of all, what later practice we can imagine. The question is what the LORD’s own words mean. It is an act of unjustified presumption to think we can rightly understand the Passover instructions while leaving the key terms undefined.
In Exodus 12:3, the LORD commands Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then He tightens the language even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”
Unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.
Thus, if the definitional argument is sound for paedobaptism, then it is sound for paedocommunion too. Just as the “household” includes children, so too does the “congregation” of God’s people. Not only that, but the Passover instruction is explicitly addressed to the congregation and ordered through the covenant household. That means we should think far more carefully before we speak as though covenant children were somehow excluded from the Passover meal.
In Exodus 12:3, the LORD commands Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then He tightens the language even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”
Unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.
- When Joshua read the Book of the Law on Mt. Ebal, he read it before “all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones” (Jos. 8:35).
- When Joel called for a national day of fasting, his command was to “gather the people and sanctify the congregation.” When he specified who was included, he said, “Assemble the elders, gather the children, and the nursing babes” (Joel 2:15-16).
Thus, if the definitional argument is sound for paedobaptism, then it is sound for paedocommunion too. Just as the “household” includes children, so too does the “congregation” of God’s people. Not only that, but the Passover instruction is explicitly addressed to the congregation and ordered through the covenant household. That means we should think far more carefully before we speak as though covenant children were somehow excluded from the Passover meal.
A Road Map for What’s Ahead
The task at this stage is to address the principal questions and objections that have been raised. Five in particular require careful treatment:
These are among the more common arguments raised against child participation in the Passover meal. Others could be added, but these will serve as the focus of this series.
In this installment, only the first objection will be addressed. The remaining arguments will be considered in due course.
- The Passover diet was unsuitable for small children
- Admission to the Passover required catechesis
- The language of the text disproves child-participation
- Later attendance to Passover was restricted to adult males
- Jesus attended Passover at the age of twelve
These are among the more common arguments raised against child participation in the Passover meal. Others could be added, but these will serve as the focus of this series.
In this installment, only the first objection will be addressed. The remaining arguments will be considered in due course.
Objection One
The Passover Diet Was Unsuitable for Small Children
Those who raise this objection usually have two elements of the meal in mind: the roasted lamb and the alcoholic wine. The argument is that these items are, by the nature of the case, unsuitable, if not impossible, for small children to consume. Therefore, it is concluded, small children did not partake of the Passover meal.
Roasted Lamb
In answering this objection, it should be admitted at the outset that small children are incapable of eating roasted lamb, depending, of course, on what is meant by “small.” The Scriptures plainly distinguish between those who can eat solid food and those who are still in need of milk, with latter consistently referred to as “babes” (1 Cor. 3:1–2; Heb. 5:12–13; 1 Pet. 2:2).
This fact, however, was not overlooked in the Passover instructions. The specificity of Exodus 12 makes this clear.
Thus, the language accounts for variable capacity, so that participation is regulated according to actual ability to eat. This means that a child’s inability to eat meat is resolved by simple consideration: it is a natural but temporary limitation that results in a natural and temporary restriction.
In other words, we might ask: Since eating meat requires teeth, and infants are not born with teeth, does their natural inability to eat solid food place them outside the covenant community? Certainly not. It simply means they must wait for their teeth to grow in before they can enjoy what already belongs to them.
This fact, however, was not overlooked in the Passover instructions. The specificity of Exodus 12 makes this clear.
- When the LORD commanded that there be a lamb for each household, which includes the children, He also specified that the size of the lamb was to be chosen “according to the number of the persons” in the home (v. 3-4a).
- That all who were physically capable of eating the lamb were intended is made clear because the instructions become even more precise: “each man, according to the mouth of his eating, shall make the count for the lamb” (v. 4b). 1
Thus, the language accounts for variable capacity, so that participation is regulated according to actual ability to eat. This means that a child’s inability to eat meat is resolved by simple consideration: it is a natural but temporary limitation that results in a natural and temporary restriction.
In other words, we might ask: Since eating meat requires teeth, and infants are not born with teeth, does their natural inability to eat solid food place them outside the covenant community? Certainly not. It simply means they must wait for their teeth to grow in before they can enjoy what already belongs to them.
Alcoholic Wine
The second dietary concern is the presence of wine. Because wine is intoxicating, it is argued that it is inconceivable that children were ever intended to partake.
Two points must be made.
First, the intoxicating nature of wine must indeed be acknowledged. Yet that concern applies no less to adults than to children since there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes appropriate. When Paul writes, “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation” (Eph. 5:18), he addresses the church as a whole. Drunkenness is prohibited categorically, not selectively. If the mere possibility of abuse invalidated the element itself, then wine would have to be excluded for everyone.
Second, although drunkenness is forbidden, the drinking of wine in covenant worship is explicitly commanded. There are clear Old Testament instructions in which children partake of other covenant meals that include wine.
The language is unambiguous. The command explicitly includes “your son,” “your daughter,” and even “your household.”
Following the reasoning, we can say:
We should add that no doubt prudence always governed the distribution. In the Passover, participation was enjoyed according to the capacity of the recipient. A small child would receive what was fitting for a small child. So also, in the Lord’s Supper, a child receives only a small amount of bread and wine. Thus the principle has always been proportion, not prohibition.
Covenant children are not spectators in the worship of God. They are addressed, summoned, and included. Therefore, if their exclusion from the Supper is to be maintained, it must be demonstrated from the Word of God, not inferred from assumptions about what seems natural, safe, or appropriate.
Two points must be made.
First, the intoxicating nature of wine must indeed be acknowledged. Yet that concern applies no less to adults than to children since there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes appropriate. When Paul writes, “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation” (Eph. 5:18), he addresses the church as a whole. Drunkenness is prohibited categorically, not selectively. If the mere possibility of abuse invalidated the element itself, then wine would have to be excluded for everyone.
Second, although drunkenness is forbidden, the drinking of wine in covenant worship is explicitly commanded. There are clear Old Testament instructions in which children partake of other covenant meals that include wine.
- “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine… but you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses: you and your son and your daughter” (Deut. 12:17–18).
- “And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine… You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deut. 14:23, 26).
The language is unambiguous. The command explicitly includes “your son,” “your daughter,” and even “your household.”
Following the reasoning, we can say:
- If the intoxicating character of wine was not regarded as sufficient grounds to exclude children from these covenant meals, then there is no obvious reason it should have barred them from the Passover. And if it did not bar them from the Passover, then the argument that it now excludes them from the Lord’s Supper must be demonstrated rather than assumed. 2
We should add that no doubt prudence always governed the distribution. In the Passover, participation was enjoyed according to the capacity of the recipient. A small child would receive what was fitting for a small child. So also, in the Lord’s Supper, a child receives only a small amount of bread and wine. Thus the principle has always been proportion, not prohibition.
Covenant children are not spectators in the worship of God. They are addressed, summoned, and included. Therefore, if their exclusion from the Supper is to be maintained, it must be demonstrated from the Word of God, not inferred from assumptions about what seems natural, safe, or appropriate.
- A second objection argues that the term “man” in the phrase “every man according to the mouth of his eating” refers only to adult males. But such a grammatical appeal is strained. The same phrase appears only once elsewhere, in Exodus 16, where it governs the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv. 16, 18, 21). There, the distribution certainly included the children, since we not only have confirmation of that in 1 Corinthians 10:3–4, but there was also nothing else for them to eat in the wilderness.
- Another significant passage appears in Lamentations 2, where Jeremiah describes his grief over the suffering of God’s people. In verse 11 he writes, “My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled… because of the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city.” Their “fainting” is likely a reference to hunger during famine. As he gives voice to their cry, he says in verse 12, “They say to their mothers, ‘Where is grain and wine?’” This passage therefore shows not only that children begin to eat solid food before they are fully weaned, but also suggests that wine was something they were accustomed to receive.
Recent
Archive
2026
February
April
2025