“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed” —Deut. 16:16.
In the previous installment, we examined the arguments drawn directly from Exodus 12 and showed that the text itself does not support the exclusion of covenant children from the Passover.
But lest we lose the forest for the trees, we must remember that the real question is not about the Passover. It is about the Lord’s Supper, and whether baptized covenant children are to be admitted to the Table. And because the Lord’s Supper stands in continuity with the Passover, that question is not incidental.
If circumcised children were excluded from the Passover, it would provide a natural basis for excluding baptized children from the Supper as well.
That’s why, in a very real way, the battle is first over the Passover.
So at this point, a different argument is often made (to exclude both children and women from the Passover), and because it is so frequently raised, it deserves to be stated and refuted as clearly and fairly as possible.
In the previous installment, we examined the arguments drawn directly from Exodus 12 and showed that the text itself does not support the exclusion of covenant children from the Passover.
But lest we lose the forest for the trees, we must remember that the real question is not about the Passover. It is about the Lord’s Supper, and whether baptized covenant children are to be admitted to the Table. And because the Lord’s Supper stands in continuity with the Passover, that question is not incidental.
If circumcised children were excluded from the Passover, it would provide a natural basis for excluding baptized children from the Supper as well.
That’s why, in a very real way, the battle is first over the Passover.
So at this point, a different argument is often made (to exclude both children and women from the Passover), and because it is so frequently raised, it deserves to be stated and refuted as clearly and fairly as possible.
A Significant Change
In a 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, that change rules out their participation in the land, and with it any basis for their admission to the Lord’s Table.
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.”
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
The position outlined by Reverend Potter is an application of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Without getting into the finer distinctions (between elements and circumstances), the Heidelberg Catechism gives us a good working definition of this rule. In Question 96 it teaches 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 what is often called the “normative principle,” which says that something is lawful unless God forbids it. To the contrary, the RPW says that something is unlawful unless God commands it.
By appealing to this principle, Reverend Potter makes clear what he is arguing. Namely, that it was unlawful for women and children to partake of the Passover, since in the later legislation they are not commanded to do so.
On the surface, that argument carries a certain weight. But in my judgment, it ends up creating more problems than it solves, especially when it’s applied with precision and consistency.
By appealing to this principle, Reverend Potter makes clear what he is arguing. Namely, that it was unlawful for women and children to partake of the Passover, since in the later legislation they are not commanded to do so.
On the surface, that argument carries a certain weight. But in my judgment, it ends up creating more problems than it solves, especially when it’s applied with precision and consistency.
Problem #1: A Precise Application Leads to Heresy
The danger with Reverend Potter’s argument is that the command in these passages is about who “appears” at the feast, not who “eats” at the feast, as Keil & Delitzsch make clear in their commentary:
“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.” 1
If that is the case, then applying the RPW to this issue renders all voluntary pilgrimages to the Passover unlawful. It places anyone who attends the feast without being commanded to do so in violation of God’s word, since it violates the very principle of biblical worship being invoked (the RPW).
The real problem is that Scripture explicitly tells us that not only Mary “went up to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover,” but also that Jesus himself went up as early as “twelve years old” (Lk. 2:41–42). To be consistent, then, Reverend Potter would have to affirm that both Mary and (God forbid!) the Lord Jesus were guilty of this transgression (since he was not yet 20 years of age).
This would be rank blasphemy, as it would strip Christ of his sinless obedience, disqualify him as the spotless Lamb, and collapse the entire gospel. For if Jesus broke the law even once, he could not have died in our place. (I will deal with Luke 2 and Jesus’ so-called first Passover in the next post).
But perhaps this is why those who use this form of argumentation feel the need to adjust it at the end. They see the necessary consequence of a precise application of the RPW to this matter, and so they turn to avoid it.
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 a bait and switch. He begins by appealing to texts that regulate attendance at the feast (who is commanded to appear) but then shifts the argument to participation in the feast (who is permitted to eat).
And he is not alone in making this move. 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. It is not just that women (and children) received no command to partake; they also received no command to attend. So the logic presses the issue: either their attendance was unlawful, or the argument cannot be sustained. This brings us to the second problem.
“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.” 1
If that is the case, then applying the RPW to this issue renders all voluntary pilgrimages to the Passover unlawful. It places anyone who attends the feast without being commanded to do so in violation of God’s word, since it violates the very principle of biblical worship being invoked (the RPW).
The real problem is that Scripture explicitly tells us that not only Mary “went up to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover,” but also that Jesus himself went up as early as “twelve years old” (Lk. 2:41–42). To be consistent, then, Reverend Potter would have to affirm that both Mary and (God forbid!) the Lord Jesus were guilty of this transgression (since he was not yet 20 years of age).
This would be rank blasphemy, as it would strip Christ of his sinless obedience, disqualify him as the spotless Lamb, and collapse the entire gospel. For if Jesus broke the law even once, he could not have died in our place. (I will deal with Luke 2 and Jesus’ so-called first Passover in the next post).
But perhaps this is why those who use this form of argumentation feel the need to adjust it at the end. They see the necessary consequence of a precise application of the RPW to this matter, and so they turn to avoid it.
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 a bait and switch. He begins by appealing to texts that regulate attendance at the feast (who is commanded to appear) but then shifts the argument to participation in the feast (who is permitted to eat).
And he is not alone in making this move. 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. It is not just that women (and children) received no command to partake; they also received no command to attend. So the logic presses the issue: either their attendance was unlawful, or the argument cannot be sustained. This brings us to the second problem.
Problem #2: A Consistent Application Removes Women from the Lord’s Table
Another problem with this argument is that a consistent application of it proves too much. Even if we agree with the previous application, we are still faced with an important question. Leaving aside the children for the moment, on what basis are women now allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper?
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 them to partake of the Passover, but where do we find such a command for the Table?
This amounts to the fallacy of “special pleading” and 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 bread and eat it too.
Anyone familiar with Reformed Theology will know that we use the same argument 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 regarding the other sacrament.
For example, 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 simply because the Bible nowhere commands it.
And this brings us back to the heart of the matter. In the Reformed doctrine of paedocommunion, the admission of women and children to the Lord’s Supper rests on a point of continuity between the old covenant and the new.
Since they partook of the old covenant meal, they have the continuing right to partake of the new covenant meal, even in the absence of an explicit command.
But if Reverend Potter is right that women and children were removed from the Passover under the later legislation, then that continuity was broken, and we are left with no basis for their participation in the Supper at all.
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 them to partake of the Passover, but where do we find such a command for the Table?
This amounts to the fallacy of “special pleading” and 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 bread and eat it too.
Anyone familiar with Reformed Theology will know that we use the same argument 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 regarding the other sacrament.
For example, 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 simply because the Bible nowhere commands it.
And this brings us back to the heart of the matter. In the Reformed doctrine of paedocommunion, the admission of women and children to the Lord’s Supper rests on a point of continuity between the old covenant and the new.
Since they partook of the old covenant meal, they have the continuing right to partake of the new covenant meal, even in the absence of an explicit command.
But if Reverend Potter is right that women and children were removed from the Passover under the later legislation, then that continuity was broken, and we are left with no basis for their participation in the Supper at all.
A Better Interpretation
Is there a better interpretation of Deuteronomy 16 (cf. Exod. 23)? One that does not lead to heretical notions or further, unnecessary division at the Lord’s Table by excluding our women and children?
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.
By the time the Israelites received the additional legislation of Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16, they had already celebrated the Passover according to the original instructions given in Exodus 12 (that same night in Egypt, Exod. 12:28, and again in the wilderness, Num. 9:1-5). In both cases, the women and children were included.
Therefore, lest we disregard the historical precedent and commit the hermeneutical fallacy of "repetitionism" (the notion that God must repeat his commands for them to remain in force), we should assume a default posture of continuity, obeying all he has commanded in the past unless he repeals it.
This hermeneutical rule is different from the one our opponents use, but it is simple to understand:
Whatever continues does not need to be repeated; whatever discontinues must be explicitly repealed.
When we apply this rule, which according to Greg Bahnsen is the core operating principle of covenant theology, (2) we begin to see clearly what is happening, and what is not happening, in the legislation of passages such as Deuteronomy 16.
First, what is happening with the Passover (Deut. 16:1–8)
In verses 1–8, the LORD didn’t mention who was to be included in the Passover because he already made that clear in Exodus 12 that there was to be a lamb for every “household” and that the “all the congregation” was to keep the feast (Exod. 12:3-4, 47).
The primary purpose of this additional legislation, then, was not to remove participants, but to notify the people about what was being changed. Namely, that there would now be a centralized location. The Passover would no longer be celebrated in their homes.
Deuteronomy 16:2, 5–7
“You shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name… You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates; but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover… And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses.”
Second, what is happening with the other two feasts (Deut. 16:9–15)
Because God was now introducing the Feast of Weeks (vv. 9–12) and the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13–15), he had to be clear about who was to participate in them, just as he was with Passover back in Exodus 12. Therefore, he made it clear (and explicit) that in these feasts, women and children were also to be 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 16:14–15
“You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles… And you shall rejoice in your feast: you and your son and your daughter.”
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.
By the time the Israelites received the additional legislation of Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16, they had already celebrated the Passover according to the original instructions given in Exodus 12 (that same night in Egypt, Exod. 12:28, and again in the wilderness, Num. 9:1-5). In both cases, the women and children were included.
Therefore, lest we disregard the historical precedent and commit the hermeneutical fallacy of "repetitionism" (the notion that God must repeat his commands for them to remain in force), we should assume a default posture of continuity, obeying all he has commanded in the past unless he repeals it.
This hermeneutical rule is different from the one our opponents use, but it is simple to understand:
Whatever continues does not need to be repeated; whatever discontinues must be explicitly repealed.
When we apply this rule, which according to Greg Bahnsen is the core operating principle of covenant theology, (2) we begin to see clearly what is happening, and what is not happening, in the legislation of passages such as Deuteronomy 16.
First, what is happening with the Passover (Deut. 16:1–8)
In verses 1–8, the LORD didn’t mention who was to be included in the Passover because he already made that clear in Exodus 12 that there was to be a lamb for every “household” and that the “all the congregation” was to keep the feast (Exod. 12:3-4, 47).
The primary purpose of this additional legislation, then, was not to remove participants, but to notify the people about what was being changed. Namely, that there would now be a centralized location. The Passover would no longer be celebrated in their homes.
Deuteronomy 16:2, 5–7
“You shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name… You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates; but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover… And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses.”
Second, what is happening with the other two feasts (Deut. 16:9–15)
Because God was now introducing the Feast of Weeks (vv. 9–12) and the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13–15), he had to be clear about who was to participate in them, just as he was with Passover back in Exodus 12. Therefore, he made it clear (and explicit) that in these feasts, women and children were also to be 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 16:14–15
“You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles… And you shall rejoice in your feast: you and your son and your daughter.”
A Possible Objection
Some have sought to reject this interpretation and defend Reverend Potter's position instead. Pastor Sam Ketcham, for example, appeals to the meaning of the term "appear" and argues that the male-only command to appear at the Passover meant that only males were to "participate directly in the ordinance."
Apparently (and I’m no scholar), the Hebrew verb behind "appear" is רָאָה (raʾah) in the Niphal stem, and the same form is used in 1 Samuel 1:22, where Hannah brings Samuel to "appear before the LORD" in formal cultic presentation at the sanctuary.
On this reading, then, "appearing" at the feast is not mere attendance but formal covenantal transaction. And since the Mosaic legislation consistently runs covenantal representation through the male head of the household, it would be fitting for active participation in the Passover to be restricted to the men, with women and children present but not formally partaking.
In response, I would make a few observations.
First, cross-referencing 1 Samuel 1 is not a good move for the anti-paedocommunionist, since verses 21–22 show that Samuel was no more than three years old when he “appeared” before the LORD in Shiloh.
“Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him that he may appear before the LORD.”
Moreover, this appearing of the child included his eating of the family’s annual sacrifice. We learn from verse 4 that Elkanah’s yearly practice was to distribute portions of the offering to his whole household:
“And whenever the time came for Elkanah to make an offering, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters.”
And when Hannah finally brought Samuel up after weaning, the text makes clear that he was brought into that same family meal:
“Now when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bulls, one ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD in Shiloh. And the child was young. Then they slaughtered a bull, and brought the child to Eli... So they worshiped the LORD there.” (1 Sam. 1:24–25, 28)
In other words, the very passage Pastor Ketcham appeals to in order to establish a male-only, adult-only definition of “appear” turns out to be a textbook case of paedocommunion. A three-year-old child appears before the LORD at the central sanctuary and partakes of the sacrificial meal with his family.
Second, and more importantly, I would caution against leaning too heavily on etymology, since biblical terms are not univocal (having a single meaning) but equivocal (having a semantic range), so that the precise meaning of any term is ultimately determined by the context in which it is used.
My question, then, is this: what about the appearing in Deuteronomy 16:16, or its context, should lead us to conclude that it refers only to partaking of the Passover meal?
“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which he chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles.” (Deut. 16:16)
While I believe that is a fair question, I would hasten to add that even if Pastor Ketcham's specific definition applies to this text, it ironically rules out the very conclusion he wishes to establish. In fact, it only strengthens the case for paedocommunion. Here is how.
In this passage, all the males are commanded to “appear” before the LORD three times a year: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), at the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and at the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). Yet the fact that all three appearances are governed by a single use of this word tells us that appearing at the Passover is no different than appearing at the other two feasts.
In other words, Pastor Ketcham’s argument is yet another case of special pleading. The same word governs all three feasts, yet he loads it with one meaning for the Passover and another for Pentecost and Tabernacles. But if “appear” means “participate,” then either women and children were excluded at every feast, or they participated at every feast. He cannot have it both ways.
And because the context explicitly commands the participation of women and children at Pentecost and Tabernacles (cf. Deut. 16:11, 14), the conclusion is unavoidable: they were also commanded to participate in the Passover.
Apparently (and I’m no scholar), the Hebrew verb behind "appear" is רָאָה (raʾah) in the Niphal stem, and the same form is used in 1 Samuel 1:22, where Hannah brings Samuel to "appear before the LORD" in formal cultic presentation at the sanctuary.
On this reading, then, "appearing" at the feast is not mere attendance but formal covenantal transaction. And since the Mosaic legislation consistently runs covenantal representation through the male head of the household, it would be fitting for active participation in the Passover to be restricted to the men, with women and children present but not formally partaking.
In response, I would make a few observations.
First, cross-referencing 1 Samuel 1 is not a good move for the anti-paedocommunionist, since verses 21–22 show that Samuel was no more than three years old when he “appeared” before the LORD in Shiloh.
“Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him that he may appear before the LORD.”
Moreover, this appearing of the child included his eating of the family’s annual sacrifice. We learn from verse 4 that Elkanah’s yearly practice was to distribute portions of the offering to his whole household:
“And whenever the time came for Elkanah to make an offering, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters.”
And when Hannah finally brought Samuel up after weaning, the text makes clear that he was brought into that same family meal:
“Now when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bulls, one ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD in Shiloh. And the child was young. Then they slaughtered a bull, and brought the child to Eli... So they worshiped the LORD there.” (1 Sam. 1:24–25, 28)
In other words, the very passage Pastor Ketcham appeals to in order to establish a male-only, adult-only definition of “appear” turns out to be a textbook case of paedocommunion. A three-year-old child appears before the LORD at the central sanctuary and partakes of the sacrificial meal with his family.
Second, and more importantly, I would caution against leaning too heavily on etymology, since biblical terms are not univocal (having a single meaning) but equivocal (having a semantic range), so that the precise meaning of any term is ultimately determined by the context in which it is used.
My question, then, is this: what about the appearing in Deuteronomy 16:16, or its context, should lead us to conclude that it refers only to partaking of the Passover meal?
“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which he chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles.” (Deut. 16:16)
While I believe that is a fair question, I would hasten to add that even if Pastor Ketcham's specific definition applies to this text, it ironically rules out the very conclusion he wishes to establish. In fact, it only strengthens the case for paedocommunion. Here is how.
In this passage, all the males are commanded to “appear” before the LORD three times a year: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), at the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and at the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). Yet the fact that all three appearances are governed by a single use of this word tells us that appearing at the Passover is no different than appearing at the other two feasts.
In other words, Pastor Ketcham’s argument is yet another case of special pleading. The same word governs all three feasts, yet he loads it with one meaning for the Passover and another for Pentecost and Tabernacles. But if “appear” means “participate,” then either women and children were excluded at every feast, or they participated at every feast. He cannot have it both ways.
And because the context explicitly commands the participation of women and children at Pentecost and Tabernacles (cf. Deut. 16:11, 14), the conclusion is unavoidable: they were also commanded to participate in the Passover.
Headship and Accommodation
But now, let me answer the question directly. If all of God’s people were welcome at his three annual feasts, why did he issue the command to the men alone?
The first reason is covenantal headship.
This is not a Mosaic innovation but a creational principle, woven into the very structure of the world.
Adam stood as the federal head of the human race (Rom. 5:12–19), and from that pattern flows every subsequent covenantal arrangement. The husband stands as the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23), the father as the head of his children, and the male head of household as the representative of his family before God.
So when Noah entered the ark, his household entered with him (Gen. 7:1). When Abraham received the sign of circumcision, his whole house received it through him (Gen. 17). When the Passover lamb was killed in Egypt, it was the head of the house who applied the blood to the doorposts on behalf of his family (Exod. 12:7).
And when Deuteronomy 16:16 commands the males to appear before the LORD three times a year, it follows the same creational pattern: the male bears the public covenantal duty of standing before God on behalf of the household.
The wife and children appear with him and are represented by him, but the obligation rests on his shoulders.
The second reason is gracious accommodation.
We may be looking at a careful distinction between rights and requirements, since the Passover was now tied to pilgrimage. When the place of celebration changed from the homes of the people to a new, centralized location, that shift brought a number of practical difficulties for families traveling long distances. A nursing mother, a small child, an aged grandmother, none of them could be expected to make the journey to the central sanctuary three times a year without hardship.
Therefore, the LORD made a gracious provision: only males twenty years old and above were required to attend.
The rest of the household was excused from the obligation but not stripped of the privilege.
In this way, the additional legislation of Deuteronomy 16 was not designed to remove women and children from the covenant meal but to accommodate their needs as a covenant household on pilgrimage.
And this is precisely what we should expect from a God who is the Father of his people. Throughout Scripture, the LORD makes provision for the weak even as he lays his commands on the strong:
The whole law is shot through with this kind of pastoral provision.
So when the LORD restricts the pilgrimage obligation to the males twenty years and older, he is doing what he has always done. He distinguishes between what is required of the strong and what is welcomed from the weak. He honors the head of the household by laying the obligation on his shoulders, and he honors the whole household by inviting them to come and rejoice with him.
So when we read Deuteronomy 16:16 in the light of Deuteronomy 16:1–15 and the original legislation of Exodus 12, the picture comes into full focus.
The men were commanded to appear. The women and children were welcomed to come. And all of them, together as a covenant household, partook of the meal.
The first reason is covenantal headship.
This is not a Mosaic innovation but a creational principle, woven into the very structure of the world.
Adam stood as the federal head of the human race (Rom. 5:12–19), and from that pattern flows every subsequent covenantal arrangement. The husband stands as the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23), the father as the head of his children, and the male head of household as the representative of his family before God.
So when Noah entered the ark, his household entered with him (Gen. 7:1). When Abraham received the sign of circumcision, his whole house received it through him (Gen. 17). When the Passover lamb was killed in Egypt, it was the head of the house who applied the blood to the doorposts on behalf of his family (Exod. 12:7).
And when Deuteronomy 16:16 commands the males to appear before the LORD three times a year, it follows the same creational pattern: the male bears the public covenantal duty of standing before God on behalf of the household.
The wife and children appear with him and are represented by him, but the obligation rests on his shoulders.
The second reason is gracious accommodation.
We may be looking at a careful distinction between rights and requirements, since the Passover was now tied to pilgrimage. When the place of celebration changed from the homes of the people to a new, centralized location, that shift brought a number of practical difficulties for families traveling long distances. A nursing mother, a small child, an aged grandmother, none of them could be expected to make the journey to the central sanctuary three times a year without hardship.
Therefore, the LORD made a gracious provision: only males twenty years old and above were required to attend.
The rest of the household was excused from the obligation but not stripped of the privilege.
In this way, the additional legislation of Deuteronomy 16 was not designed to remove women and children from the covenant meal but to accommodate their needs as a covenant household on pilgrimage.
And this is precisely what we should expect from a God who is the Father of his people. Throughout Scripture, the LORD makes provision for the weak even as he lays his commands on the strong:
- He accommodates Moses by giving him a brother to speak for him when Moses pleads his slow tongue (Exod. 4:14–16).
- He commands the gleaners to leave grain in the corners of the field for the poor and the stranger (Lev. 19:9–10).
- He excuses the new husband from military service for a year so that he may bring joy to his wife (Deut. 24:5).
- He builds into the Sabbath, the most strictly guarded ordinance of the old covenant, provisions for human need: the hungry may pluck grain (Matt. 12:1–8), the wounded may be healed (Matt. 12:11–12), and the donkey fallen into a pit may be lifted out (Lk. 14:5).
- He permits David and his men to eat the showbread that was lawful only for priests (1 Sam. 21:1–6, Matt. 12:3–4), because ceremonial law always bends to moral law.
The whole law is shot through with this kind of pastoral provision.
So when the LORD restricts the pilgrimage obligation to the males twenty years and older, he is doing what he has always done. He distinguishes between what is required of the strong and what is welcomed from the weak. He honors the head of the household by laying the obligation on his shoulders, and he honors the whole household by inviting them to come and rejoice with him.
So when we read Deuteronomy 16:16 in the light of Deuteronomy 16:1–15 and the original legislation of Exodus 12, the picture comes into full focus.
The men were commanded to appear. The women and children were welcomed to come. And all of them, together as a covenant household, partook of the meal.
- The threshold of twenty years reflects a recognizable pattern in the Mosaic legislation, where twenty is the age of public covenantal responsibility: the census of fighting men (Num. 1:2–3; 26:2) and the half-shekel temple tax (Exod. 30:14) both fall on males from twenty years old and above. The pilgrimage obligation appears to follow the same logic.
- “We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from the Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are—important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God’s word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of ‘covenant theology’ over against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New Testaments.” Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985; repr. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2008), 2.
Recent
Archive
2026
February
April
2025