Download pdf - Jesus' First Passover

1. Jesus’ First PassoverThe Relevance of Jesus’ First Pilgrim Passover upon the Age of Coming to the Lord’s Supper

Rev. Jim West

IN recent years there has been a revival of baby-com-munion in many Churches. This revival has witnessed the publica-tion of several persuasive articles that have for the most part beenleft unchallenged. With the exception of Dr. Kenneth Gentry’s tapeseries, a booklet by Dr. Leonard Coppes, and a few other publica-tions, such as the Westminster Theological Journal, establisheddenominations have been satisfied to stand pat, thinking perhapsthat its entrenched ecclesiastical majority, along with its implicitanti-paedo-communion Confessions are more than enough to holdthe orthodox line. But as a result, many members and officers havebecome silent adherents of the baby-communion position. Theyhave, perhaps, been bowled over by the “logic” of the position,especially the logic that connects the Passover with the Lord’s Sup-per. This logic usually runs this way: “The Passover is the covenantmeal for all the people of God, therefore all covenant childrenshould be welcomed to the Lord’s Supper, even during their tenderyears. Thus, if we forbid covenant children to participate, we are—in effect—excommunicating them from Christ’s Church.”

By choosing to study the Passover exclusively, I am aware thatthat some will conclude that the only credible argument againstbaby-communion is the ploy of severing the sacramental continuitybetween the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. But this sincerely isnot my design. There are other credible arguments that could beutilized, such as Hannah’s decision for herself (?) and the boy Sam-uel not to go up to Shiloh until after the child was weaned (andwith Elkanah’s blessing);1 the record in the New Testament of mul-

1. Hannah obviously was not breaking any commandment bychoosing not to go to Shiloh.

1. Jesus’ First Passover 9

tiple household baptisms, but complete silence about family com-munions; the institution of the Lord’s Supper in First Corinthians 11and its demand for a discerning faith that responds to the com-mands of “take,” “eat,” “do,” and “examine”; the fact that the Pass-over is described as a celebration instead of “communion,” and thetruth that in baptism (as in circumcision), the subject is passive,whereas in “communion” the demand is for a knowledgeable “tak-ing and eating.” Instead, I have chosen to deal exclusively with thePassover, since this seems to be the stellar baby-communion argu-ment. Yet, I have also chosen the Passover because the Passover isthe strongest argument against baby-communion and the strongestargument for covenant confirmation when the young man of Godreaches years of puberty. One of the premature conclusions of baby-communionists is that there is no example in the Word of God of acovenant child undergoing a ceremony or rite prior to Communion.Ergo, it is mistakenly deduced that it is anti-Scriptural for a churchto withhold the Lord’s Supper from a child until he reaches years ofspiritual and physical maturity.

I am also aware that there are different nuances of paedo-com-munion. The baby-communion movement is not monolithic. Someargue that a child should come to the Supper as soon as he has adegree of cognition, and is able to confess, “I believe that JesusChrist is the Son of God.” Others (the Eastern Orthodox) believe inmanducation, that is, that the child should be forced-fed, even ininfancy. Still others (the majority?) maintain that the infant shouldbe given the Supper after he is weaned (even though it might bepermissible to place wine droplets upon the infant’s tongue). Somehave even argued that the child receives the Lord’s Supper indi-rectly, even before birth, when his mother digests the bread andwine. Thus, there is a prenatal, baby-communion position! Thepurpose of this paper is not to critique these varieties. My burden isfor covenant children to be discipled and then received at the Lord’sTable after they have come to years of spiritual understanding anddiscernment. A closer examination of the Passover rite of Israel willhelp us to achieve this goal.

10 DISCERNING CHRIST’S BODY

Historical Prologue to Jesus’ First Passover

At the beginning of the Jewish month Nissan, it was common formessengers to be dispatched to all Israel, to summon the people tothe approaching Passover (2 Chronicles 30:1, 5–6, 10).

Although Israel enjoyed three feasts and was commanded by Godto appear three times a year, the Passover was the queen of thefeasts. This primacy was due to the significance of the Exodus,which was the central redeeming event for the Old Testament peo-ple of God (Exodus 20:1; Hosea 11:1). This redemption was boththe prologue and the foundation of the Old Testament Law.

The Passover was instituted the night before the Exodus, whenGod brought His people out of the land of Egypt—saving them fromidolatry and spiritual slavery (Exodus 12). The Passover was theprelude to the climactic expression of God’s wrath against the Egyp-tians, who refused to let God’s people go. The tie that the Passoverhas with the Lord’s Supper is so intimate that some Christian com-mentators have called the Passover “the Lord’s Supper of the OldTestament.”2

This link was never intended to convey that the Lord’s Supperand Passover are exactly the same meal, but it does mean that thePaschal lamb is the center of both. Christ is that Paschal Lamb, theLamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1Corinthians 5:7). In short, there is enough of the Lord’s Supper inthe Passover and enough of the Passover in the Lord’s Supper tosustain the relationship of type and antitype.

The maiden Passover is described in Exodus 12 and thereforemust be construed as the classical passage with regard to the Pass-over. This does not mean that it is an exhaustive treatment of thePassover, but it does mean that everything germinal and fundamen-tal is to be found there. What is intriguing about the institution ofthe Passover is the distinction between the Egyptian Passover andthe still future, Pilgrim Passover that would be observed once Israeloccupied “the land” (Exodus 12:19, 25, 48). Thus, Exodus 12

2. This does not mean that it is proper to speak of “the Lord’s Sup-per as the Passover of the New Covenant.” A type is not the antitypeanymore than a shadow is the same as the body that made theshadow.


acknowledges “two” Passovers, or—better—one Passover withdiverse participatory requirements. For the Family-Passover inEgypt would differ from the Pilgrim Passover in the Promised Land.The issue is not that God established the Pilgrim Passover after theEgyptian Passover; but that God established the Pilgrim Passoverduring the Egyptian Passover. Thus, for us to understand Jesus’ firstPassover (Luke 2), we must grapple with the dual Passovers in Exo-dus 12. The failure to discern these Passover nuances can be seis-mic, and even cause schism in the Church.

One such difference between the Egyptian and the future, PilgrimPassovers pertains to the Passover participants. The Egyptian Pass-over was celebrated with “a lamb for a household,” or family (Exo-dus 12:3–21). The lamb’s blood was applied to the doorposts andlintels of the “houses,” meaning all the firstborn men, firstbornwomen, and firstborn children were shielded from the fierce wrathof God (Exodus 12:7). Also, the principal qualification for the Egyp-tian Passover repast pertained to appetite, literally, “everyoneaccording to the mouth of his eating” (Exodus 12:4). This samequalification is found in Exodus 16:16, where it describes all whocould digest the manna in the wilderness. Although excluding veryyoung children, the terminology of “everyone according to themouth of his eating” implies that all of God’s people who coulddigest lamb participated in the Egyptian Passover. The terminologyexcludes the sick, many elderly, and all children who could not eatsolid food. Paradoxically, the very verse that is usually chosen bybaby-communionists to prove the absolute rights of all of God’speople to come to the table, “discriminates” against legions ofGod’s people.

However, Exodus 12 also legislates for the Pilgrim Passover thatwould be enjoyed once Israel occupied the land. The first fourteenverses of Exodus 12 legislate for the Egyptian Passover, but begin-ning at verse 15 the Pilgrim Passover becomes prominent. Israelobviously was not able to eat unleavened bread for seven days inEgypt (as verse 15 requires)! This would only be true when sheseized the land and ate the unleavened bread in an entirely newmanner–unhurriedly. Nor would Israel’s sons be able to receive afull explanation about the meaning of the Passover-service untilafter the Exodus and after Israel was entrenched in the land (Exo-dus 12:25–27).

When the conquest of the land was accomplished, then addi-tional Passover regulations came into play. For starters, the sons of


the children of Israel would have to be instructed about the mean-ing of the first Passover (vss. 26–27). Another qualification is thatno outsider could eat it (this is contrasted to the “mixed multitude,”who probably partook of the first Passover—vs. 38). Above all, cir-cumcision was a prerequisite for the Passover repast—the circumci-sion of all the males. Verse 48 reads:

And when a stranger sojourns with you and wants to keep thePassover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and thenlet him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of theland. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

Just as there was no time to feast for seven days in Egypt, (Israelbeing commanded to leave Egypt that night), there would likewisebe no time to circumcise each and every male.3 But this would notbe true for the future, Pilgrim Passovers in the land. The man whodid not circumcise his males was in danger of being “cut off,” thatis, expelled from the people of God. Also, if a man ate leavenedbread during Passover week, he would also be “cut off” (vs. 15).But while the people were in Egypt, the stranger, the mixed multi-tude, the uncircumcised—all who had stomachs for Passover foodand who were under the lintel blood, ate the Passover. Thus Exodus12 introduces both the first, once-and-for-all Passover in Egypt, andwhat was to be the normative, Pilgrim Passover “in the land.” In ourstudy of the Passover we must carefully distinguish between the two.

The Wilderness Passover

Between the time allotted for the Egyptian and Pilgrim Passoverswas the Wilderness Passover, which was more in keeping with the

3. Clearly, circumcising all of the males would have been counter-productive and crippled the armies of Israel from leaving Egypt (Exo-dus 34:24-25; Joshua 5:8). The statement in Joshua 5:10 about the sec-ond, collective Passover of all Israel is probably a contrast to the first,collective Passover that occurred when Israel camped at Mount Sinaiin the first month of the second year, when they came out of Egypt(Numbers 9). Thus, it is unlikely that the first, collective Passoverspecified here happened in Egypt during the night of the Exodus. How,then, do we explain the statement in Joshua 5 that says that all thepeople who came out of Egypt were already circumcised (Joshua 5:5)?The answer is that it does not specifically tell us when the people ofthe Exodus were circumcised. The presumption is that they were cir-cumcised at Mount Sinai before they partook of the second Passover.


Passover regulations of Exodus 12:15ff, but not completely (Num-bers 9:1–14).4 This was Israel’s second and last Passover before sheenjoyed the Sinaitic Passover some forty years later on the bordersof the Promised Land (Joshua 5). There are many things that distin-guished this Passover from the Egyptian Passover. There was a“case” about “certain men” who touched a dead body (Numbers9:6), another case about a traveler who was away when the Pass-over was celebrated (vs. 9), and a question about what to do to acircumcised man who sinfully declined to participate in the Pass-over (vs. 13). The premier feature about this second Passover isuniformity of administration for the stranger and for him who wasborn in the land (vs. 14). The reason that this was the second andlast Passover of Israel for forty years is due to the inhospitable cir-cumstances in the wilderness. Where would Israel shop to findmeal to make unleavened bread?5 Since unleavened bread was aPassover staple, Israel could not enjoy any additional Passoversuntil she seized the Promised Land in faith. So, Israel would notpartake of another Passover for forty years.6 This meant that everyperson below and above twenty years of age was effectivelydebarred from the Passover Supper. Even obedient Israelites likeJoshua and Caleb, together with their families, did not partake ofthe Passover. Thus, much like the Egyptian Passover, the Wilder-ness Passover also was celebrated abnormally. Both the Egyptianand the Wilderness Passovers were irregular compared to the futurePilgrim Passovers, when Israel would trek up to the temple in Jerus-alem. These irregularities must be taken into account in order for us

4. The dissimilarities between the three Passovers remind us ofJohn the Baptist’s baptism, the baptism of Jesus and his disciples(John 4), and Trinitarian baptism (Matthew 28:19-20). There are conti-nuities and discontinuities between the three baptisms.

5. This is a problem even for the second Passover. It has been sug-gested that the Jews received flour from Midian, where Moses’ father-in-law lived, as Midian was not far from Sinai (Exodus 3:1).

6. Amos 5:25 teaches that there were no sacrifices in the Wilder-ness for forty years. Incredibly, this implies that there were no Pass-overs or circumcisions in the wilderness (Joshua 5). Of course, Israelwas chastened by God’s fatherly wrath, too. Thus exclusion from thePassover was an act of Church discipline.


to understand the reasons for the future changes in the Passoverordinance, especially the question of who should participate.

The Masculinity of the Pilgrim Passover

We must also magnify the male-centeredness of the Pilgrim Pass-over. The qualification is that all the males shall be circumcised.Yet, this qualification is stated in language that suggests that onlythe men partook. Exodus 12:48 declares that the father was to let allhis males be circumcised and, then, “let him come near and keepit...” Nary a word is said about his young sons, or women, or maleswho are not the heads of households keeping it (although Exodus12:44 permits a man’s servant to eat of it). This could mean thatthey were either too young to eat the food or that they would not beable to partake until they reached sufficient years of understanding(e.g., being able to ask about the meaning of the Passover and will-ing to study the Biblical answer—Exodus 12:26–27), or (and this ismore likely) that the text applies particularly to the stranger whotraveled to Israel without his family. Apparently, in order for thestranger to eat, he must return home to circumcise his own childrenfirst, before he alone returned to eat.

Nothing is said in Exodus 12 about a minimum age for Passoverparticipation—not until later in Exodus (Exodus 23:17). What ismore, Exodus 12:48 declares that “no uncircumcised person shalleat it.” The word “male” is not used here and this may be deliber-ate, for God may be telling us not just that males who desire to par-take must be circumcised, but only persons who are males arepermitted to eat the Pilgrim Passover.

Jesus’ First Pilgrim Passover

Exodus 12, then, is the historical background of Joseph andMary’s journey to Jerusalem for the Pilgrim Passover (Luke 2:41–50). But before giving a “travelogue” about their trek to the HolyCity, let me state two misunderstandings of this incident. First, it issometimes debated that the specific age of Jesus is of no outstand-ing importance. That Jesus was twelve when he attended the Pass-over is chalked up to pure happenstance. What is more, theargument is made that the Lord had gone up many times, but onthis one occasion His age is specified for no specific purpose, otherthan to underscore His meeting with the doctors of the Law in the


temple. The second is that His sitting in the midst of the Jewishdoctors was the precise moment when He inaugurated His teachingministry. One writer calls it a Hellenist or Grecian depiction of akind of “wonder child” who teaches His teachers. It is our convic-tion that both understandings are errant; they both fail to appreci-ate the Torah and the paschal customs of Israel. For us tounderstand why, we must now zero in upon Jewish law and tradi-tion.

Jesus Was Made Under the Law

We begin with the incontrovertible truth that the Lord JesusChrist “was made under the law.” This is signified in Galatians 4:4,where Paul writes, “But in the fullness of time God sent forth HisSon, born of a woman, made under the law.” Jesus was made“under” the law, that is, he was subject not only to the curse ofGod’s law as our sin-bearer (Galatians 3:10), but also made to obeythe entire law of God. It is customary for theologians to speak of the“passive obedience” of Christ, that is, what happened to Christwhen He was arrested, tried, and crucified. However, it is also cus-tomary to speak of the “active obedience” of Christ, that is, Christ’sliving and keeping the law for us. So, when the Scripture states thatHe was “made under the law,” it includes His pre-Calvary, “activeobedience” under God’s law. This would also include the traditionsand circumstances of the law that did not contradict, weaken, ornullify the authority of any of God’s commandments.

Christ placed His imprimatur upon every jot and tittle of the lawwhen He announced, “I have not come to destroy the law, but tofulfill” (Matthew 5:18). The meaning of “fulfill” does not mean thatChrist kept it, and then after keeping it, scuttled it. If scuttling-by-fulfilling-it was the sense, then Jesus’ words would be self-contra-dictory. The sense would be: “I came not to destroy the law, but Icame to destroy the law by fulfilling it.” The meaning is that whenHe “fulfilled” the law, He filled it with meaning. The “trick” ofreversing the syllables of “fulfill” enable us to grasp the correctmeaning. Jesus came to “fill” the law “full” of meaning. ThereforeJesus was made under the law in order to fulfill it, to obey it and“to fill it” with meaning (Matthew 5). This explains His crucifixiontoo, for the meaning of the cross is the violation of the law of God(Galatians 3:10–13). Calvary is explicable to us only in terms of thesacrosanct character of God’s law. If God’s law was not that impor-


tant, then Jesus would not have needed to make atonement for oursins. Both His active and His passive obedience were “under thelaw.”

Therefore every action of Christ related directly to the law of Godor to an implication or custom associated with the law. He wasmade under the law; He came not to abolish the law, but to “ful-fill.” He delighted in God’s law—the law of God was written in Hisheart (Hebrews 10:5–9). He was crucified because of the awesomeholiness of God’s desecrated law. He came to make law-breakerslaw-keepers (Titus 2:14). He is the ideal Torah-keeper of Psalm 1!

Christ Lived His Whole Life Under God’s Law

Every time an age is predicated of Him it is in relationship toGod’s law. Let us submit some examples.

First, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virginMary. Since life begins at conception, His first day as the God-manwas when His human nature was conceived by the Spirit. His con-ception was the “birthday” of His biological life, to be followed ninemonths later by His infant “discovery of Israel.”

Second, He was circumcised on the eighth day (as an eight-day-old). Luke 2:21 records this: “And when eight days were accom-plished for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus,which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in thewomb.” Every male was circumcised on the eighth day after hisbirth: this was clearly commanded in the Law of Moses. Genesis17:12 reads, “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcisedamong you, every man child in your generations, he that is born inthe house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not ofyour seed.” When a child was circumcised, the sign of the covenantwas placed upon him. Circumcision was like a brand: God wasdeclaring the children to be His. Circumcision was also a sangui-nary rite—the shedding of blood typifies the coming Male-SaviorWho would shed His own blood for our sins. The circumcision ofmale babies foreshadowed the sacrifice of the male Savior on thecross.

As to why Christ was circumcised on the eighth day, one explana-tion is that the eighth was the first day after His mother’s impurity.Thus, there would be no ceremonial contagion for the child.Related to this is that the eighth day was a kind of new beginning.Since children are born in sin, they need a new spiritual beginning,


of which circumcision is a type (it being the first day after the sev-enth day). While this does not mean that Jesus Himself neededcleansing, it does mean that as our Substitute He experienced thecurse of the law for us. Both his circumcision and His baptism byJohn signified that He identified Himself with the sins of His peoplefor whom He died.

Third, Jesus was presented in the temple after Mary’s purification,when he was forty days old (thirty-three days after His being circum-cised). Luke 2:22–23 says, “And when the days of her purificationaccording to the law of Moses were accomplished, they broughthim to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in thelaw of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be calledholy to the Lord).” Thus, a sacrifice according to the stipulations inthe Law of the Lord was offered, “A pair of turtle doves, or twoyoung pigeons” (vs. 24). This also was according to the Law (Lev-iticus 12:8 and Exodus 13:2.) Jesus was circumcised when an eight-day old and brought to the temple when He was forty days old.

In each step of His physical development we see Jesus’ parentsfulfilling the Law: dotting every i and crossing every t. The reason isthat the Lord Jesus Christ was “made under the law.” As a covenantchild, he was under the authority of the law. We have seen this inhis conception, his birth, his circumcision, and His presentation inthe temple. This is how He was reared by his father Joseph, whowas a “just man” (Matthew 1:19).

Fourth, Jesus was also baptized when He was thirty (Luke 3:23).Scripture is silent about Christ’s life from His childhood to when hebecame thirty. There was a period of eighteen years of silence,except for the record of His first paschal visit and His ensuing sub-jection to His parents (Luke 2:51).

Luke 3:23 presupposes the validity of the Old Testament law. TheScripture reads that “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years ofage, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the sonof Heli.” What was the significance of His being baptized when Hewas thirty—if anything? And why did God command John to bap-tize Him when he was thirty?

Again, it is not mere happenstance that Jesus was baptized whenhe became thirty. Let us remind ourselves again that He was “madeunder the law.” What is the relationship between the law of Mosesand Jesus’ baptism? The answer is Numbers 4:1–3:


And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Take thesum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, aftertheir families, by the house of their fathers, from thirty years oldand upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host,to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

The priests were ordained to their office at the age of thirty andcould serve as priests until they were fifty. This may well explainthe meaning of the Jews who said to Christ, “You are not yet fiftyyears old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57). It is clear thatthe Levites retired at the age of fifty. Numbers 8:25 confirms this:“And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon theservice thereof, and shall serve no more.” Jesus was a priest andsince he was newly appointed to that office, the Jews accused Himof inexperience—of being a rookie and thus unqualified to teachthem or anyone else. He certainly, according to their sarcastic argu-ment, had never seen Abraham!

The point is that Jesus was baptized by John when He was thirtyyears old. He was baptized at that age because that is when Heinaugurated his public ministry as prophet, priest, and king. Thiswas the time when the Spirit anointed Him to commence his publicministry and when his Father declared, “This is my Beloved Son, inwhom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). Thus everything thatJesus did conformed to Old Testament law and custom. WheneverHis age is affirmed, it is directly or indirectly linked to the Torah.We see something of this state of affairs under our own system oflaw and government. For example, we may observe that Hankbecame eighteen and voted. John became twenty-one and drank hisfirst glass of wine. Mrs. Bancroft turned sixty-five and applied forSocial Security. Henry turned seventy and began to draw on hisIRA. Michael turned fifty-nine and determined to sell his house (sothat he would be free from capital gains taxes). Each one of thesestated ages and their corresponding actions pertain to our own sys-tem of civil law. To understand why an action was performed at aparticular age can only be understood if we study the laws of thebody politic (in this case, the United States). It is likewise with thespecified ages and corresponding actions of Christ. WheneverJesus’ ages are spelled out, there are legal reasons for it. Thus, itbehooves us to study the laws and customs of Israel.


Jesus Went Up to the Passover When He Became Twelve (Luke 2:42)

Before Jesus ascended to the temple in Jerusalem for the PilgrimPassover, He developed both physically and spiritually and learnedmore and more of the Torah. Luke 2:40 informs us that “the childgrew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the graceof God was upon him.” This is not just a report about Christ’s phys-iological development; it is also a report about a maturing man ofGod. This spiritual strengthening happened during his first twelveyears, when He lived among His family in Egypt, and then in Naza-reth.

Jesus was a true man: He “learned.” He learned by what He suf-fered and since He suffered all His life, He certainly “learned” allHis life (Hebrews 5:8). So, the Holy Spirit records that beforeattending the Passover, He attained spiritual strength and was filledwith wisdom. God’s grace was upon Him. Then, He ascended to theholy city for the Passover.

The Lucan account also says that his parents went up to Passoverevery year (Luke 2:41). “Now his parents went to Jerusalem everyyear at the feast of Passover.” The focus here is upon their going—not His. They (not He) went up to the Passover every year. One ofthe features of Luke’s Gospel, indeed of all four Gospellers, is thatwhen Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are mentioned, it is Jesus Whoalways receives the limelight.7 Thus Joseph and Mary would notnormally be magnified in a context if their son was also included intheir action. The absence of Jesus’ name here indicates that He hadnot traveled with them to the Passover before. But Joseph andMary, as faithful Jews, did regularly attend the Passover. Thisreveals their great zeal to keep every jot and tittle of God’s Law.

Scripture teaches that adult males, not entire households, werecommanded to attend the Passover (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy16:16; Exodus 34:23–24). There were theological, geographical, andas we shall see, Messianic reasons for this alteration. Geographi-cally, the yearly trip was taxing for women, children, and the eld-erly. The Pilgrim Passover, then, was chiefly designed for the hardy

7. This truth cannot be overstated. We particularly see it in thenativity accounts where Joseph and Mary are always eclipsed by theman-Child (Matthew 1:18-2:1-22; Luke 1-2).


men of Israel. But, theologically, the Passover was purposefullylinked to circumcision, too. When God issued the Pilgrim Passover,He conformed it to circumcision. But this conformity did not con-sist in sameness of age (e.g., the eighth day), but in sameness ofgender.

To review, it is true that both Mary and Joseph went up (Luke2:41). Additionally, they went up “every year”—this was not theirfirst. This is significant. It is significant because there is a contrastbetween their activity and the non-activity of Jesus. The implicationis that Joseph and Mary went up each year, but Jesus did not. Theirannual pilgrimage contrasts to Jesus. Better—their multiple treks tothe holy city for the Passover contrast with Jesus’ first Passover.There are seven clues that lead us to believe that this was the initialPassover of Christ.

First, there is the contrast between His parent’s regular atten-dance and His. They went up annually, but the silence suggests thatJesus did not.

Second, there is an important verb that is often translated “was.”It is translated, “And when He was twelve years old, they went upto Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast” (vs. 42). TheGreek verb is egeneto, which means “became.” This exact verb isused in John 1:14, where it is translated “became.” “And the Wordbecame flesh and dwelt among us...” It is not, “The Word wasflesh,” but “The Word became flesh.” This is an important transla-tion. Specifically, it refers to His being conceived by the Holy Spiritin the womb of the virgin Mary. The eternal God—the Word—“became” flesh. Another example is when Christ said to the Jews,“Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Once again, the use ofginomai is translated was, when the real import of the verb isbecame. The idea is that Jesus does not become. Abraham became,but Jesus always is. Thus, the implication of ginomai in Luke 2 isclear: Jesus’ becoming twelve was the reason they took Him toPassover!

Consider the following mundane analogies: when Mary becamesixteen, she received her driver’s license. Or—when Hank becamefifteen, he obtained his learner’s permit. We would associate theirage with the prevailing laws and customs of the day. If we say thatwhen Mr. Smith became thirty, that he ran for the United StatesSenate, we know exactly why. Thirty is the minimum Constitutionalage. Or, if Joe became sixteen and made request for his driver’slicense, we know exactly why Joe requested his driver’s license—


sixteen being the law of the State of California. So, it is very instruc-tive that Scripture describes Jesus’ trek to Jerusalem for Passoverwhen He became twelve. It was not that He “was” twelve and thenJoseph randomly decided to take Him to the Passover.8

The third clue that argues that this was Jesus’ initial participationin the Passover is indirect. Scripture teaches that Jesus was not theonly child of Joseph and Mary. He had four brothers and at leasttwo sisters (Matthew 13:55–56). Because of His firstborn status andtheir youth, the ages of His brothers fell short of the minimum ageof Passover participation (Exodus 34:23). Thus, although it wascustomary for Joseph and Mary to attend the Passover, there is noindication that their whole household made the pilgrimage, eitherup to Jerusalem, down from Jerusalem, or back up to Jerusalemwhen Joseph and Mary sought their “lost son.” Luke had no lessthan three opportunities to report the presence of Jesus’ youngerbrothers (up to Jerusalem, down from Jerusalem, and back up toJerusalem). How do we interpret this curious silence? Certainly,that his brothers were not present. We also have a most instructivedouble-contrast: it was not the “household” of Joseph and Marythat attended the Passover, but Joseph and Mary. It was not Jesusand his brothers attending the Passover, but Jesus alone. The failureof Luke to report Jesus’ younger brothers meshes with the thesisthat Jesus at twelve attended His first Passover. In short, Jesus camewhen He became twelve; the rest of His family remained at homebecause they had not matured to the required years of puberty.9

A fourth factor is also compelling. Jesus was at an age when Hecould be considered either a child or a young man. In Israel at thistime, thirteen years (not twelve) was considered the age when ayoung man became a “son of the commandment” (Bar Mitzvah, asthe Jews continue to call it). When a child turned thirteen, hereached spiritual majority (maturity). He became ‘a son of the

8. Admittedly, the translation “was” may parallel the force of“became,” except that “became” is more specific and causative, imply-ing that Jesus went up because of His twelfth birthday.

9. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines puberty as “the age at whichpersons are capable of procreating and bearing children. This age isdifferent in different cultures, but is with us considered to be at four-teen years in males, and twelve in females.” The same definition ofpuberty is to be found in contemporary American dictionaries.


Torah’—a son of the commandment. So, the record of Jesus’ pil-grimage at twelve was not Bar Mitzvah; if it was, then there wouldbe an egregious historical error in the Bible. As we will see, historyinforms us that it was customary for a young man to attend Pass-over before he reached his thirteenth birthday. He might even attendat the age of eleven instead of twelve, but twelve years of age wasnormative.

Alfred Edersheim, the great Christian and Jewish historian, hasresearched the issue of Passover attendance and concluded that“lads should be brought up to the temple, and made to observe[not, to participate in—author] the festive rites.” This was the Rab-binical law for males who were eleven or twelve. He wrote,“Unquestionably, it was in conformity with this universal customthat Jesus went on the occasion named to the Temple.”10 In otherwords, the first Passover of Christ, in which He did not take part,anticipated His impending Bar Mitzvah one year later.

Luke’s knowledge of Jewish customs even caused the famousMedieval scholar Maimonides to acknowledge the historical accu-racy of Luke’s account. He wrote: “The common statement thatJesus went to the temple because he was a Son of the Command-ment is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the otherhand, is Luke’s accurate knowledge of Jewish customs...” And,Edersheim concurs: “for the first time he went up to the PaschalFeast in Jerusalem” (emphasis added).

A fifth consideration concerns the extra-Biblical sources of Pales-tinian Judaism both before and during the incarnation. A valuablesource is the Book of Jubilees, which describes the Passover about110 years before Jesus’ first Passover. It is both interesting andinstructive that for the first time in any literature, we witness wineat the Passover meal. This is important, not just because wine isadditional Passover cuisine, but because Christ Himself honored thewine when He commanded His disciples to “drink ye all of it” (Mat-thew 26:27). Even though wine for the Passover is not specificallycommanded in the Old Testament Scriptures, Christ still endorsedthe paschal wine-drinking.11 Likewise, Christ attended his first Pass-over with His parents when he reached twelve years (although thatage is never specifically earmarked in the Old Testament).

10. Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days ofChrist (London: James Clark and Co., 1961), 120.


Interestingly, the Book of Jubilees itself in chapter 49:17 requiredevery male Israelite of twenty and over, to celebrate the Pesah at thetemple court.12 Writes Dr. J. B. Segal:

It is probably that the age of majority, the minimum age at whichmale Israelites became members of the qahal, and thereforeobliged to participate at the Pesah, was not, as in later times, thir-teen, but twenty.13

Here, Segal focuses upon the Jewish age of civil majority as thedecisive qualifier for Passover participation. Thus, he seems toexplain the Passover commands directed to males in Exodus 23 and34, and Deuteronomy 16 by the historical precedent recorded in theBook of Jubilees. But he does say that sometime after the writing ofJubilees, the minimum age was lowered so as to include male thir-teen-year-olds and even married women. Why was the age low-ered? Was reducing it a return to the pristine practice, or because ofthe Jews’ realization that they must somehow distinguish betweenspiritual majority and civil majority, or because the Jews concludedthat the Pilgrim Passover was no longer too taxing for young menbetween thirteen and twenty, who normally would not be able tojourney alone, especially if they were a part of the Diaspora? Or,was the age of civil majority at twenty years old always the stan-dard, so that Jesus’ first Passover either violated tradition, or wassupererogatory? Of course, no command of Scripture and no sacro-sanct custom was violated. If this was so, Luke, who honoredIsrael’s customs, would have informed us (Luke 2:41–43). All we doknow is that Christ and His godly parents, together with the impri-matur of the Gospel writer who was moved by the Holy Spirit, notonly legitimized the drinking of Paschal wine (Luke 22:17–20), but

11. The reference in Jubilees 49:6 reads, “And all Israel was eatingthe flesh of the paschal lamb, and drinking the wine...” The referencedescribes what the Jews did in Egypt.

12. Jubilees says in chapter 49:16–17, “All the people of the congre-gation of Israel shall celebrate it in the appointed season. And everyman who has come upon its day shall eat it in the sanctuary of yourGod before the Lord from twenty years old and upward;...” Notice: InJubilees, the qahal, or congregation, is defined in terms of men twentyyears old and above.

13. J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1963), 135.


also twelve as the age for coming to the Passover. We may, then,conclude that the premise behind Jesus’ “prep–Passover” at twelvewas His actual Passover participation at thirteen. And the directmandate for this first, real Passover at thirteen was the “good andnecessary inference” drawn from Exodus 16 and Deuteronomy 23,where the age of spiritual majority is laid down.

This leads us to a sixth consideration. Here we refer to the state-ment that after Jesus’ parents retrieved Him from Jerusalem Hewent down to Nazareth and was “subject unto them” (Luke 2:51).The common interpretation of this passage is that Luke wanted toassure his readers that Jesus did not justify His “business” in thehouse of God insolently or rebelliously. Thus, it is claimed, Lukemust show that Jesus always honored His father and mother. Thereis, however, another interpretation that is just as credible andstrengthens our argument that the Jews partook of their first Pass-over when they reached thirteen years. The prerequisite for BarMitzvah was not parroting theological facts nor woodenly restatinga catechism or creed. The emphasis was obedience to God’s com-mandments, particularly as these commandments were inculcatedby godly fathers and mothers (Proverbs 1:8, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 5:1;6:20; 7:1). A child became “a son of the commandment” by meansof the command instruction of his father and mother (Genesis18:19). This indicated that a true covenant child honored his fatherand mother and subjected himself to them. By means of the ‘semi-nary in the home’ he qualified for Bar Mitzvah when he reachedthirteen years. Therefore, the statement in Luke 2:51 about Jesus’submitting to his parents is a Paschal declaration. That Jesus wassubject to them proved not only that He honored the Fifth Com-mandment, but that He was preeminently qualified, as no Childhad ever been, to go up to the Passover upon His thirteenth birth-day.

A seventh and final factor about Jesus’ first Passover is a briefconsideration of the word “custom.” Here we have an “already”and “not-yet” contrast between Jesus and His parents. If we readLuke’s Gospel very carefully it will be easy to discern his carefuldescription of Christ’s life. Whatever Jesus did, as we have alreadynoted, was related to God’s law. He lived and moved and had Hisbeing in the confines of God’s holy law. In His circumcision, pre-sentation in the temple, etc., Joseph and Mary “performed allthings according to the law of God” (Luke 2:39). But in Luke 2:42we are told that when Jesus became twelve, they went up to Jerusa-


lem “according to the custom of the feast.” Here, the word “custom”is introduced to us for the second time in the Book. In Luke 1:9 weare informed about its first usage when the lot fell upon Zachariasto burn incense “according to the custom of the feast.” When Lukespeaks of the Law, he emphasized the law’s authority. However,when he speaks about a custom, he emphasized what God’s peoplecustomarily practiced. The question is: Was it customary for Jesusto go up with His parents to the Passover prior to the eventrecorded in Luke 2? If so, we would naturally expect Luke (on thebasis of his commitment to detail) to provide us with this informa-tion. But Luke never intimates that attendance at the Passover wasJesus’ customary practice. Yet, still later on in His life, we areinformed that it was a “custom” for Jesus to do certain things, suchas to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). Why is therea deliberate silence by Luke, a good doctor, who—as he shouldbe—is punctilious to record the smallest detail about the customarybehavior of both Jesus and His family? We believe the question canbe answered best by comparing Joseph and Mary’s customary prac-tice with what Jesus customarily did not do.

Thus, in the light of the previous two points, it would be quitewrong to deduce that Jesus came to the Passover at twelve and atethe Passover at thirteen because he reached a magic age. On thecontrary, what is accentuated is His wisdom and knowledgeattained before His twelfth birthday! Luke 2:40 declares, “And thechild grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and thegrace of God was upon Him.” He joined his parents for the pilgrim-age when He had attained a mature knowledge of God, which inturn produced robust spiritual strength. In terms of the knowledgeof God, He was, as some say, “an old-young man.” Being a youngman, He had put away “childish things” (1 Corinthians 13:11).More pointedly, when a Jew put away childish things, he was readyto eat the Lord’s Passover. The requirement to be strong in spiritand filled with God’s wisdom was not (as some baby-communion-ists argue) rationalism invading the Church. It was the customaryspiritual requirement for all covenant children, who were madeunder God’s law.


Jesus was Catechized in the Temple (Luke 2:46)

It may be objected that Jesus was so different from us, that it isquite unfair to use His first Passover as a model for ours, since Hisknowledge far exceeds what any catechumen could ever attain. Yet,while it is true that Jesus’ knowledge of the Law of God dwarfsours, we dare not press the difference so as to diminish the realityof the incarnation. We must always remember that Jesus’ self-con-sciousness as the Messiah was a developing consciousness, andthat with respect to His humanity there were many things that Hedid not know (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). This means that Jesuswas instructed and learned, just as any other young scholar wastaught and learned. It would be well, then, for us to review theabc’s of Jewish education.

1. At five years, he learned the law by extracts. He learned theShema (Deuteronomy 6:4), the Hallel (Psalms 113–118), whichwere the Festival Psalms, and a catechism.

2. At twelve years, he became more directly responsible for obe-dience to the Law. The boys would be taken to Passover in anticipa-tion for Bar Mitzvah the following year. When Jesus reachedtwelve, he was at an age when He could be considered either achild or a young man.

3. At thirteen years, there was Bar Mitzvah, which was the legalreception of the child into the religious community. This was theage of spiritual majority.

4. At twenty years old, the age of civil majority was reached (Exo-dus 30:14; Numbers 1:3). This was the time when a young manreached full legal age with full legal rights.

Although erring about the actual age of Bar Mitzvah, Fred B.Craddock describes the life of Christ well. He wrote:

At every significant period of his life he was in continuity withJudaism. Those periods for a firstborn male child were circumci-sion at eight days; dedication or presentation to God, in this caseat six weeks, when his mother was purified; bar mitzvah at agetwelve; and public life at age thirty. 14

14. Fred B. Craddock, Interpretation of Luke (Louisville, KY: JohnKnox Press, 1990), 41.


Again, it will be argued that Jesus was in the temple instructingthe Jewish doctors of the Law. Was this not an extraordinary occur-rence? And is it not precarious to enlist Jesus as a precedent forwhen a child should eat his first Passover? The question rests uponan errant premise, that Jesus somehow was, like Priscilla andAquila who corrected the mighty Apollos, showing the doctors a“more excellent way.” When we read the account closely, we shallunderstand what the text is really saying. It reads,

And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in thetemple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both listening to them,and asking them questions. And all that heard him were aston-ished at his understanding and answers (Luke 2:46–47).

This event is often portrayed as if Jesus was lecturing the doctorsof the Law and putting proverbial ‘holes in their drums.’ Nothingcould be more foreign to the text and to the history of Jewish edu-cation. Jewish history informs us that it was common during the‘minor festival days’ after the Paschal lamb was eaten for the doc-tors to theologize and for the young to participate. Jesus was notteaching the doctors of the Law; rather, He was hearing them andanswering their questions (Luke 2:47). They were interviewingHim, not vice-versa. Luke’s description is parallel to the modernpractice of interviewing a catechumen when he is examined by theelders of the church prior to his first communion. But in this case,the catechumen gave “remarkable” answers to their questions. Yet,Jesus the confirmand did not teach His teachers, even though Hiswisdom was astonishing.

The verbs in Luke 2:46 are also very significant. The text speaksabout Jesus “hearing” and His “receiving.” There was nothingextraordinary about a young man mixing with the rabbis. Thismeans that Jesus did not appear in the temple as a charismaticteacher. (This is a fiction promoted by the bogus Gospel of Tho-mas.15) On the contrary, Jesus appeared as a catechumen. He didnot—like the patriarch Joseph before his brothers—pompouslyparade His knowledge before His instructors. Had He done so, theywould have marveled more at His insolence than His knowledge(vs. 47) Instead, they catechized Him and were astounded by Hisanswers, which revealed exceptional insight into the Word of God

15. This “Gospel” was very late in origin and was not written by theApostle Thomas.


and infinite understanding. This was the sole stimulus of their won-derment.

Of course, this does not mean that Jesus refrained from askingthe doctors questions. On the contrary, all catechumens questionedtheir teachers. The classic question of all, in fact, concerns the pre-cise meaning of the Passover! Exodus 12:26 portrays the children ofPassover fathers asking, “What do you mean by this service (wor-ship)?” The answer would be: “It is the Passover sacrifice of theLord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egyptwhen He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households” (Exo-dus 12:27). It is sometimes maintained that the premise behind thisquestion is that the fathers alone were eating the Passover, hencethe children asked, “What do you mean by this service?” That ispossible. On the other hand, baby-communionists often downplaythe question, arguing that it was only a question and that we mustnot make too much out of it. But what both sides fail to do is toconnect the catechetical question to Christ’s Pilgrim Passover inLuke 2. We may assert this confidently because Exodus 12 itselfintimates that the question would be asked at the Pilgrim Passover.God said, “It will come to pass when you come to the land whichthe Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep thisservice.” Thus, the question is a Pilgrim-Passover-question. It doesnot mean that the kids of Israel sat around tables in Egypt, or in thewilderness, looking on the elements of the Passover, watching theirbiological fathers heartily eat the Passover and asking them what itall meant. What it means is that the male children who accompa-nied their fathers to the central sanctuary where the Passover wascelebrated would question the “powers that be” about the meaningof the Passover. This is not so much young kids asking their fathersabout the Passover, but older children querying their elders andteachers—exactly the scenario we find in Luke 2! For a young manto ask his teachers about the meaning of the Passover was equiva-lent to a young man today asking for a thorough explanation aboutthe meaning of redemption. It is a question that demands a compre-hensive answer—an answer that demands huge blocks of time toexpound carefully and thoroughly.16 This inquiry was probably nor-mative for all men children who came to Jerusalem for their prep-Passover. The procedure was equivalent today to a catechumenundergoing a confirmation or discipleship class. This paschal-redemption question asked by twelve-year-olds in Exodus 12 became


the cardinal-catechetical question addressed to the doctors of the lawat the Pilgrim-Passover in Jerusalem.

In the young man Jesus there was no self-conceit and youthlybrashness. Jesus was not a pompous Caiaphas, who said, “Youknow nothing at all.” In short, He appeared in Jerusalem not as awonder-child, but as a catechumen. It is in this context that Jesusspoke His first recorded words: “Why is it that you sought Me? Didyou not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” This wasHis response to Mary’s anxious word, “...Your father and I havesought you...” Jesus responded with Trinitarian theology—implyingthat He is the Son of God (God’s Natural Son instead of Joseph’s,Luke 3:23). He said that He “must” be about His Father’s business.His business was to be in the temple, with the teachers of the Law.His business was to be a catechumen before the doctors. Theaccount, then, is not about the lost child; rather, it is about the lostparents who failed to discern the emerging self-consciousness ofJesus!

After his parents “found” him in the temple, the Scripture reportsthat He (with them) returned to Nazareth as a young man and was“subject to them in all things” (Luke 2:51). Alfred Edersheim appro-priately concludes:

With His return to Nazareth began Jesus’ life of youth and earlymanhood...Whether or not He went to Jerusalem on recurringFeasts, we know not, and need not inquire. For only once duringthat period—on His first visit to the temple—could there havebeen such outward forth-bursting of His real Being and Mission.

Passover Applications

What, then, are some of the things that we can learn from theexample of Jesus’ prep-Passover? First, from His example we learnthat He honored the custom of the day by attending the Passover a

16. We can get a better feel for the magnitude of the question whenwe contemplate the books that have been written on the subject ofredemption. Consider the lengthy section in the Heidelberg Catechismabout redemption (questions 12–85), or a work like John Murray’sRedemption: Accomplished and Applied. The answer to the questionentails far more than one or two theologically correct answers; itinvolves years of instruction and discipleship.


year before His own Bar Mitzvah and first participatory Passover.Thus, to attend the Passover at twelve was neither too young nortoo old. Nor was attending His first participatory Passover at thir-teen too young or too old.

The second instruction is that there is a great chasm between achild’s understanding and a man’s. Jesus grew in knowledge and inwisdom. When He was a child He spoke like a child and thoughtlike a child; but when he became a man, He too put away childishthings (1 Corinthians 13:11). It is clear that His being a child wasnot the right time for Him to attend the Passover. It was only whenHe began to think like a man that His parents observed the customof the day and brought Him up for His first Passover. Clearly, spiri-tual knowledge and understanding qualified twelve-year-olds forthe Passover (Isaiah 11:2).17 Jesus’ self-consciousness was not justMessianic, but the self-consciousness of a covenant Child come toyears. When a Jewish boy reached twelve or thirteen, he reachedmanhood and full accountability to the qahal, or Congregation.

The third application is that Jesus’ first Passover provides us withan approximate guide as to when a child/young man may partici-pate in the Lord’s Supper. Although a guideline is not the same as ahard and fast rule, it would seem difficult to justify participation inthe Lord’s Supper at an age dramatically less than Jesus’ own age.To begin with, there was Jesus’ own age of thirteen years. In addi-tion, Jesus’ maturity in spiritual things was most impressive. Hewas not only a young man, but a young man of God. Then, therewas his pre-Paschal honoring of His parents. Finally, there was Hisendorsement of the Jewish practice of Bar Mitzvah at thirteen years,when He attended the prep-Passover as an observer and learner

To all this it could be argued that this is a Mount Everest standardthat no covenant child could ever climb. However, we can balancethat statement by remembering that the Lord Himself expects us to“imitate” Him in all matters of obedience (as Paul commands us in1 Corinthians 11:1). It would certainly be wrong to conclude thatbecause Jesus went up to His first Passover when He was thirteen,

17. The motion picture actor Kirk Douglas has spoken about a dou-ble Bar Mitzvah. A Jews’ second Bar Mitzvah would take place on his82nd birthday—twelve years after he reached three score years andten. But unlike the first Bar Mitzvah, the second Bar Mitzvah has not ashred of biblical support.


that all other children of similar years, but lesser godliness are to beexcluded. The criteria for keeping the Passover was faith, whetherstrong or weak (Hebrews 11:28). We must remind ourselves thatjust as Jesus ate the Pilgrim Passover with His disciples, He nodoubt went up to this Feast with thousands of other young men,too.

The Original Passover Revisited/Compared

It will be asked, Did not Jesus’ first Passover when He was thir-teen violate the stipulations of the Egyptian Passover? One answeris that Israel’s first Passover was instituted under emergency condi-tions. The first Passover was instituted the night that Israel leftEgypt–God’s people needed a hardy meal to strengthen them forthe journey and the war with Egypt. This Paschal-eating seemed toinclude all ages and both sexes and might be compared to the showbread consumed by David and his troops at the Tabernacle inShiloh, which was also an emergency meal, even though it was “notlawful” for them to eat (1 Samuel 21:3–6). Consider only that theJews in Egypt were also commanded to eat the Passover with theirshoes on, too, which is clearly a duty that did not carry over intofuture Passovers (Exodus 12:11). They were also commanded to eatit with haste, which was another feature that did not transfer tofuture Passover meals (Exodus 12:11). The idea of coming up toJerusalem at Passover at eleven or twelve had become a “custom”in Israel, a custom that both Jesus and His parent’s studiouslyobeyed. Thus, Jesus apparently attended His first Passover at twelvein preparation for actual participation when He reached thirteenyears. This is important pedagogically, because we learn not onlyby what He taught, but also by what He practiced (Acts 1:1).

Later in Israel’s history the requirement for coming to the Pass-over was no longer “each one according to the mouth of his eat-ing.” Instead, it was circumcision plus growth in the knowledge ofGod. Jesus demonstrated His knowledge before He came to Pass-over and when he was theologizing with the doctors of the law whono doubt asked Him questions and instructed Him. The very word“circumcision,” in fact, implies both instruction and knowledge inthe oracles of God (Romans 3:1–2).18


How could the doctors of God’s law really instruct Him, the Sonof God? To formulate a correct answer, we must study the word“stature.” Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and “stature...”(Luke 2:52). “Stature” does not refer to His reputation or to men’sperception of his majestic greatness. “Stature” signifies His age andphysiological development (that is, puberty). This is crucial. Wedare not discount the physical maturation of Jesus, Who was a truecovenant Child. To be sure, mere biological development and anempty stomach do not automatically qualify one for the Passover.Yet, it is true that physical development and spiritual maturity usu-ally work side-by-side. Therefore, Jesus’ attendance at the Passoverat twelve was the first time He engaged the Jewish doctors. Hisincrease in “stature” proved, then, as it continues to prove now, Histrue humanity. Jesus “learned” not only by the things that He suf-fered, but He learned progressively as a covenant child under theauthority of his parents and the Jewish doctors of the law.

Other Passover Enquiries

Our account of Jesus’ Prep and first Passover inspires other ques-tions. One such question relates to the presence of Mary at the Pass-over. Why, it may be asked, was Mary in Jerusalem for thisPassover and many others, if the law commanded attendance onlyby the males? If Jesus’ first Passover was linked to the Law (as wehave argued), then should not Mary’s trek to Jerusalem also be tiedto the law? This is not a new question. John Martin Creed in hiscommentary on Luke states that “the attendance of women was notprescribed in the Law, and the question of the appearance ofwomen and children at the feasts was at some early period a matterof controversy.”19 Scripture is clear in Exodus 23:17 and Deuteron-

18. Some paedo-communion writers, such as the Rev. Steve Wilkins,actually argue for infant communion on the basis that if the Israeliteslaves who were pagans were circumcised so that they could partakeof the Passover, how much moreso our covenant children? Theirpremise is that the slaves had no spiritual interest in the covenant andwere satisfied only with filling their bellies. This is a woeful misunder-standing of the spirituality of both circumcision and the Passover.Scripture teaches that the Passover featured singing, celebrated deliver-ance from God’s wrath, and called Israel to return to her God (2 Chron-icles 30:8–9, 21).


omy 16:16 that only the men were to present themselves at thePassover.20 Whether this automatically precluded the women isvery debatable. Certainly, the Lord only expected the men to attend,as the Passover was tailored for them. Justification for Mary’s atten-dance can be ascribed to a number of factors, not the least beingthat her attendance was a kind of “work of supererogation”–sheperformed above what was required of her. Or, she as a faithfulcompanion, determined to be at her husband’s side wherever hewent. More likely, it was the influence of the Rabbinic school of Hil-lel that was very prominent in Israel at that time. Frederic Godetreminds us about the required attendance at the three major feasts:“There was no such obligation for women. But the school of Hillelrequired them to make at least the Passover pilgrimage.”21 The Hil-lel pedagogy was packed and backed by ecclesiastical authority.Just as both Mary and Joseph obeyed the tax law of Caesar Augus-tus and returned to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be registered (Luke2:1–5), so Mary, under the influence of the Hillel school, submittedto the ecclesiastical authority. Certainly, there was no Scripturecommanding women to attend the Passover. And, it is improbable ifMary, once in Jerusalem, even partook of the Passover.

Still another enquiry pertains to the covenant. One error of baby-communionists is to start with the Egyptian Passover and then, justas abruptly, to stop at the first Passover! They think of the EgyptianPassover as normative, unaware of its evolution over time until itfinalized in a national celebration in the Central Sanctuary. Theyfail to discern that the Egyptian Passover became the Pilgrim Pass-

19. John Martin Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London:Macmillan and Co., 1930), 142. Scripture often reports non-scriptural(not anti-scriptural) practices. A fair example is the “sabbath days’journey” in Acts 1:12.

20. The Hebrew word zakur (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 16:16)occurs eighty-two times in the Old Testament and emphasizes male-ness over femaleness. Its primary focus is the sex of the person named.It can describe an adult or a male-child (Leviticus 12:7) or an adultwho once was a male-child. The other Hebrew word, enosh, (Exodus34:23), describes men as collectives, describing either all males, or allmales and all females as generic men.

21. Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (Edin-burgh: T & T Clark, 1887), 146.


over. This can be seen in the idealized image of a Jewish family cel-ebrating the Passover in the confines of the privacy of their ownhome at night, sitting around a table containing unleavened bread,red wine, the Passover lamb, and bitter herbs. A candle or two addsradiance and romance to the midnight, as wife and children gazecovetously at the spiritual food before them. It is thought, “Hereinis the covenant family! And, this is the way the Lord’s Suppershould be celebrated, too.” Because of this and similar imagery(which is also publicized by Hollywood propaganda, as well as dec-adent Judaism), it is not uncommon for baby-communion churchesto encourage the fathers of their families to distribute (and to with-hold, if the child has been naughty) the elements of Holy Commun-ion to their own children.22 This practice is obsolete, and evenusurps the authority of the elders of the church, who alone wieldthe keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:13ff and Matthew 18:15ff).Also, the idealized image of entire families eating is foreign to thePilgrim Jews of the Old Testament, who knew only the Pilgrim Pass-over at the sanctuary in Jerusalem! And this includes Jesus, too,who knew only the Pilgrim Passover.

The third enquiry relates to the Regulative Principle of Worship,which is often defined as “whatsoever is not commanded is forbid-den.” It may be asked, “Where in Scripture does it command Jew-ish boys to partake of their first Passover at the age of thirteen?”The answer to this enquiry is that no commandment stating a spe-cific age exists. Unlike the command for all the males to be circum-cised on the eighth day, no explicit age is stated for the Passover.Thus, the data about whether children or even infants partook ofthe Pilgrim Passover must be gleaned from indirect evidence, suchas good and necessary inferences, examples, etc. The example ofJesus’ attending the prep-Passover at the age of twelve is very com-pelling in this regard.

As we have noted, Jesus went up to the Passover because it wascustomary for young men to do so a year or two before Bar Mitz-vah. This was the requirement of the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4). Thequestion is: Is a custom that decrees a particular age for us to do

22. It would be interesting to see how consistent paedo-communionfathers are on this score. Do they, out of principle as the covenantheads of families, distribute the food and drink to their families duringthe regular meals of the week?


something Biblically-binding? And, what is the precise interplaybetween such a custom and the Word of God? For example, shoulda child be baptized immediately after his birth, on the eighth day,or at an altogether different time? Scripture does not mandate a spe-cific day. Likewise, the practice of young men appearing as observ-ers at the Passover when they were twelve became a custom soenshrined in Israel that Jesus and His parents punctiliouslyobserved it.

The issue of when a custom can be safely followed without vio-lating the Scripture is far afield from this paper. Let us ask the fol-lowing questions: (1) Does the custom contradict the Word of God?(2) Does it nullify or invalidate some of God’s commandments? (3)Does it tend to obscure or make nebulous another portion of Scrip-ture? (4) Does it tend to diminish the authority and importance ofanother Biblical doctrine? A fair example in the New Testamentwere the Corinthians love feasts that became occasions of drunken-ness and gluttony. These ‘love’ feasts desecrated the sanctity of theLord’s Supper. Thus the love feasts were wisely discontinued. Yet,precisely when a covenant child could partake of the Passover is anopen question, if we demand an age that is literally spelled out inthe Law of Moses. But all is not lost. Jesus honored the Jewish cus-tom of young men observing their first Passover when He wastwelve, so that He could actually partake when he “became” thir-teen. The Church today has no right to discount this covenantalparadigm that was honored by the Son of God Himself.

Does this mean that Jesus and all other Jewish young men hon-ored a custom that was totally arbitrary? We have already arguedthat the Mosaic Law required all the males to trek up to Jerusalemonce a year (Exodus 23:14). From this command a “good and nec-essary inference” was deduced. The deduction was this: Since amale became a young man at thirteen years, it was wise to bringhim to Jerusalem one year prior, and to be interviewed by the Jewishdoctors. Then, the following year when he reached his thirteenthbirthday, he would be ready to eat his first Passover meal. Thus,attendance at the prep-Passover as an observer prepared the youngman for what was expected when he reached thirteen. And thisexpectation was founded upon a “good and necessary inference”from the Scripture itself. This is proven from Exodus 34:23–24,which reads:


Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before theLord God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations beforeyou, and enlarge your borders: neither shall any man desire(covet) your land when you shall go up to appear before the Lordyour God thrice in the year.

This text shows that the command to attend the three feasts wasdirected to the “men children.” It is clear that women and childrenwere not expected to attend the Passover. Also, this command couldonly be performed when God cast out the Canaanites and enlargedIsrael’s borders. Israel would no longer fear the Canaanite or theAmorite. This meant that no man (or nation) would “covet” thisland (vs. 24). They (the men children) could attend the feasts threetimes a year without fear that both their land would be plunderedand their wives and children ravished.

What is more, this state of affairs concerning faithful attendanceat the Passover would transpire when Israel had occupied the landand when it was safe to go “up.” The command was issued withthe expectation that Israel would occupy the Promised Land soonafter her redemption from Egypt. However, when the spies broughtan evil report about the good land, God disciplined his people forforty years in the wilderness. The chastened people not only wouldnot occupy the land, but they would not be able to “go up” toJerusalem for the Passover Feast. The whole nation was under dis-cipline; the wilderness period was a time of adolescence and train-ing. God’s people were effectively debarred from the Passover. Itwas only later when the land was seized by faith and when theenemy was dislodged, that “all the men children” would be able tocomply with God’s command. During those days after the conquestof the land, the men living in the “suburbs” of Israel would nothave to remain at home during the Passover season. God expectedthem to appear three times a year. The other new norm pertained tothe Israelite women and children.

(1) God did not expect females and children to attend the Pass-over.

(2) There was no imperative for them to do so.If God forbade or discouraged women to participate in the Pass-

over, then how much moreso their children of tender years?When we compare the language of Exodus 12:48 with that of

Exodus 34, we should see that Exodus 34 is a commentary on Exo-dus 12:48. That is, it reveals what is implicit in Exodus 12:48. It is


decisively the clearer passage, with its emphasis upon the “menchildren” and Israel’s future ecclesiastical station in the PromisedLand. This means that when Jesus went up to Jerusalem to observeHis first Passover at twelve, He did so in the expectation of obeyingthe command of Exodus 34:23–24, which He would do the nextyear. Joseph’s and Mary’s (and Jesus’) “exegesis” of Exodus 34:23–24 was that it referred to those who passed out of adolescence intoyoung manhood.

Our final enquiry is to determine the degree of certainty aboutJesus’ first Passover at thirteen years. Can we be certain of our posi-tion? Let us restate our argument.

The first choice is that God commanded all the Hebrew men tobring their babies to the Passover. This is an obvious mistake. Thereis no wiggle-room here at all. The entire thesis rests upon the erro-neous premise that the Pilgrim Passover is a carbon copy of theEgyptian Passover.

We repeat that Jesus experienced the prep-Passover at twelve, toprepare for His participatory Passover at thirteen years. This is, aswe have argued, proven by the Jewish customs of the time and bythe command of Exodus 34:23–24. This command was for all theadult males to attend all three feasts of Israel three times a year.Since a male-child reached spiritual majority at thirteen, it followsthat the Lord participated in His first Passover then.

The second possibility is that Jesus participated in his first Pass-over at twelve and that, consequently, the prevailing customs of theday have little bearing on the question. It could even be maintainedthat Luke 2:42 addressed Jesus as an adult at twelve, since he is dis-tinguished notably from “the custom” of His parents. In otherwords, the reason Jesus is singled out by Luke is because He hadalready reached early manhood and was no longer regarded as achild by His parents. His attaining twelve years would then be theculmination of His training in the Torah at home. Thus the “generalrevelation” of Israel’s prevailing cultural norms along with the testi-mony of Jewish history would be deemed irrelevant. But let it besaid that we are not prepared to close our eyes to this history,unless it can be conclusively shown that undergoing a prep-Pass-over at twelve was a post-Apostolic development in Jewish history.What is more, Luke is silent about Jesus actually eating the Pass-over when he was twelve. This is a strange silence if Christintended to eat the Passover for the first time. It is more likely thatChrist observed, not was served. The reason is that if Jesus’ last


Passover was detailed (Matthew 26:17–30), how much more Hisfirst, which would have been the celebration of His spiritual major-ity? Yet, in spite of our convictions to the contrary, we will concedethat little would be lost if twelve was the precise moment of Jesus’first participatory Passover.

The third view is that twenty years was the normal age of Pass-over participation until the age was reduced, or devolved to its pris-tine state. Why lowered? Was it for practical reasons, that thepilgrimage was now safer because of the Pax Romana? that is, thatconditions in Israel had become tranquil compared to the violentyears of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolts. Or, was itpermissive? that is, that young men at thirteen years were now per-mitted to come, although not commanded? Or, was there a distinctMessianic reason that paved the way for Jesus’ prep-Passover attwelve and His first Passover at thirteen? (We will address thatquestion in the next chapter.) One problem with the twenty-year-old theory is that it eliminates the distinction between spiritualmajority and civil majority. Plus, it does not seem likely that thecommand of Exodus 34:23–24 targeted only twenty-year-olds to theexclusion of younger men. That men fought in the Hebrew militaryat twenty does not spell automatic exclusion of younger men fromthe Passover. What is more, if twenty was the commanded age ofPassover participation, Jesus’ first Passover would have trans-gressed God’s Law. As far as we are concerned, the only viable agesare twelve or thirteen, but with thirteen winning the day.

The Biblical-Covenantal Theology of the Passover

We must affirm that the legislative additions to, and subtractionsfrom, the Egyptian Passover rite can only be accounted for becauseof its increased Messianic focus. As the history of redemptionmarched forward in the Old Testament, we begin to see more andmore the dawn of the Messianic era. The revelation of Jesus Christin the Old Testament was not only in types and shadows, but alsoprogressive.23 God assigned the women and children a diminishing

23. Biblical Theology is the study of the history of redemption andrevelation, which is progressive until it culminates in the final revela-tion of the Son of God (Hebrews 1:1–2).


Passover role, not because they were excluded from His grace andcovenant blessing, but precisely the opposite. God’s message wasnot, “You are excluded from covenant blessing and grace.” Rather,the message is, “The Messiah must increase so that I can showermy grace upon you in Him.” This is why the Old Testament regu-larly summoned circumcised men to the Passover.

When Jesus attended His first and last Passovers at the respectiveages of thirteen and thirty-three years,24 the Scripture was fulfilled,saying, “Three times a year all your men shall appear before theLord, the Lord God of Israel” (Exodus 34:23). Although not aprophecy that is specifically cited in the New Testament, its pro-phetic sense closely parallels the Passover-prophecy of Exodus12:46, which says, “...nor shall you break one of its [the Passoverlamb’s] bones.” This text is cited as a prophecy of Christ’s crucifix-ion by the Apostle John in John 19:36. The Apostle John says, “Forthese things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, ‘Notone of his bones shall be broken.’” We would likewise argue thatthe masculization of the Pilgrim Passover must be attributed to theMessianic nature of the Passover. The Passover is not just about thepassive obedience of the male Lamb Who was slaughtered on thecross for our sins; it also foreshadowed the actual pilgrimage of theSelf-same Male Lamb, Who went up to the temple in Jerusalem.This greatly enhances our understanding of the obligatory nature ofthis ordinance for all the adult males of Israel. There is indeedsomething disturbing about an interpretation of an Old Testamentceremony that removes the spotlight from Jesus to emphasize the“rights” of all of God’s covenant people. We are compelled to assertthat the baby-communionist demand rests more upon democraticconcerns than true covenant theology. But baby-communionists donot have a monopoly on this obsession. Likewise, the same prob-lem applies to those who correctly discern the increased masculin-ity, and who emphasize it, but only as a club to defeat their baby-communion opponents. They, too, have lost sight of Jesus as theGod-man who must trek up to Jerusalem to fulfill the righteousnessof God’s law and to fulfill biblical prophecy.

24. Jesus was crucified when he was either thirty-three or thirty-four, depending upon how many Passovers He attended after His bap-tism.


There is an instructive comparison between the increased mascu-linity of the Passover and John the Baptist’s humble assessment ofhis waning ministry: “He (Christ) must increase, but I mustdecrease” (John 3:30). It is noteworthy that the male occupied cen-ter stage in all the types and shadows of the ceremonial law. Themale always received top billing on the history-of-redemption mar-quee. The Paschal lamb was to be an unblemished male; only themale children were circumcised; and the firstborn son of every fam-ily was to receive the inheritance and the birthright, the latter sym-bolizing His rule over the family. This priority of the male waspurposeful; not, of course, to justify masculine pride and vanity,but to foreshadow God’s Firstborn Son, Who would become theFirstborn over the Church and all creation (Colossians 1:15ff). Thedecreasing stardom of John finds a corollary in the waning role offemales and children, and explains why God commanded only theadult males to attend the yearly Passover. Only the women and chil-dren were not phased out gradually, but abruptly after the EgyptianPassover.

The Messianic character of the yearly pilgrimage to the Passoverby males is so prominent that we can say that when Jesus attendedHis first and last Passovers, the Scripture was fulfilled which said,“Three times a year shall all your men appear before the Lord...”Thus, baby-communionists who would argue a baby Passover tendto press too much doctrinal juice out of the types and shadows ofthe ceremonial law.

Conclusions

1. The principle criteria to discover who should partake of theLord’s Supper is found in the New Testament, not the Old Testa-ment. This is true because the Passover was a type, and a type mustnot be unduly pressed to prove something foreign to its true inten-tion.

2. The Passover Meal may have been intended for all of Israel inits inauguration, but as redemptive history moved closer to theincarnation of Christ, its increased masculinity became prominent.Thus the participation of women and children was either forbidden,discouraged, or made virtually impossible by their changing geo-graphical situation. Quite early the Egyptian Passover was trans-formed into the Pilgrim Passover.


3. The command for the men children of Israel to come to thePassover once the land was conquered, and Shiloh and Jerusalemestablished as Passover centers, was “exegeted” correctly by theJews as referring to young men who reached the age of thirteen.

4. The increased masculinity of the Passover participants can beexplained by its Messianic orientation. It became increasingly mas-culine because of its Christ-centeredness—not because women andchildren were denied God’s covenant blessing and grace.

5. Jesus attended His prep-Passover when he was twelve, so thatHe might be prepared for His actual participation when he reachedthe age of thirteen. He did this not as a private person, but as a cov-enant Child Who was “made under the law” and Who was doingHis father’s business. If Jesus attended His first Passover when Hewas twelve, as preparation for His actual participation one yearlater, then it is unjustified to argue for baby-communion on thebasis of the Passover.

6. Because of the hardy Passover cuisine (bitter herbs, roastedlamb, unleavened bread, and later, wine), it is apparent that babieswould not have partook even of the Egyptian Passover.

7. Because of Israel’s geographical setting and establishment ofthe temple in Jerusalem, it was expected that men only trek up tothe holy city once a year for the Passover (Acts 2:5–22). This fore-shadowed the One Who would set his face like a flint toward Jerus-alem to fulfill the entirety of the Passover typology.

8. The argument that children and women partook of the Pass-over throughout Israel’s history not only circumvents the PilgrimPassover requirements, but obscures its masculine typology, whichforeshadows the Pilgrim Man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

9. Exodus 23:14, Exodus 34:23, and Deuteronomy 16:16 are pro-phetic of Christ’s attendance at the Pilgrim Passovers.