11. A Credo-Communion Commentary on Exodus 12

Though much more could be said on the meaning of Exodus 12 than I will give in this chapter, I will seek to clearly articulate why a credo-communion interpretation of every verse is the best one. Hebrews 11 says of Moses that “through faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood” (Heb. 11:28). There is no other way to faithfully keep the Passover than through faith since “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb. 11:6). In the addendum to chapter 14, we saw that Paul’s inspired interpretation of the Exodus 12 Passover mandated:

1. Repentance (“purge out the old leaven…not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness” – 1 Cor. 5:7-8)
2. Justification (“since you truly are unleavened” – 1 Cor. 5:7)
3. Discernment (“unleavened bread of sincerity” – 1 Cor. 5:8)
4. Knowledge (“Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast…with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” – 1 Cor. 5:7-8).

If Paul’s exegesis of the Passover is correct, then we would expect to see these conditions even in the original Passover. (Of course, earlier chapters in the book indicate that all the Passover passages must be considered to give a certain and clear interpretation of the first Passover meal.)

Douglas Stuart has pointed out that Exodus 12:

…includes in the list of those who may and must partake of the Passover all those who have faith in Yahweh and excludes all who do not, with males showing it physically and females showing it by their formal relationships. In Old Testament law the examples cited are never intended to represent an exhaustive listing, but a sampling from which all instances can be addressed by analogy.³⁷⁴

Thus, the issues that the later communion passages expand upon are contained in at least seed form in Exodus 12. Since they are in seed form, they can be easily missed or misunderstood without the later interpretive passages. So though I include this chapter for apologetic reasons (it is after all the go-to passage for both paedo-communionists and adult-only communionists), I urge the reader to never forget that we must look to the whole counsel of God on the subject of communion. Nevertheless, I am confident that Exodus 12 is a thoroughgoing credo-communion passage.

Verse 1

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,

Observation 1. The redemption of Passover happened “in the land of Egypt” (v. 1). Since most in Israel served the gods of Egypt (see Josh. 24:14), and since Egypt was a symbol of the world, this being redeemed “out of Egypt, to be His people” (Deut. 4:20) represented the fact that God’s people were once part of the world and were now being brought out as a separate people. Sixty times Scripture mentions going “out of Egypt” (see Ex. 3:10-12; 12:39; 13:3; etc.).

Verse 2

This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Observation 2. The month of Abib (later called Nisan) was to be a “beginning of months” (v. 2) to symbolize the fact that they now had a new life, a new Lord, a new liberty, a new law, and a new direction. Passover anticipates (via typology) the newness of the New Covenant.

Verse 3

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: “On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household.

Observation 3. Moses uses the corporate/representative meaning of the phrase “all the congregation of Israel,” not the “each-and-every-person” meaning. Of course, this is hotly contested by paedo-communionists who argue that “all the congregation” must include infants for three reasons: 1) In at least one passage (Joel 2:16), the “congregation” includes “children and nursing infants.” 2) The context of this verse includes “household” (vv. 4-5,27) and “families” (v. 21). 3) Since families include infants, they believe that we should assume that infants partook, or at least that they had the right to partake. My response is four-fold.

First, I fully agree that Joel 2:16 defines the congregation as including children and nursing infants. That is not in dispute since both the corporate/representational³⁷⁵ and the individualistic/comprehensive³⁷⁶ interpretations of this phrase include children; they just include children in different ways. What is in dispute is whether the representatives of those children are being addressed here, or whether the infants themselves are being addressed by Moses and expected to understand his speech.

Second, Moses has gone to the trouble of defining what he means by this phrase in two places. After being commanded to speak certain words (vv. 2-20), Moses obeys in verse 21, which says, “Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them” and then come his instructions. Unless Moses disobeyed God, it is clear that the phrase “all the congregation of Israel” must be equivalent to the phrase “all the elders of Israel.” Second, in verse 6 God gives the following command: “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.” The word “whole” is the same word used as “all” in this verse. It is obvious that infants did not butcher the lamb. Thus God clearly defines the phrase in our representational/corporate way. The speech was to the representatives and the representatives then were responsible to kill the lamb.

Third, the sheer size of Israel (an estimated 4 million citizens)³⁷⁷ indicates that it would not be logistically possible for 1) that many to gather in one place in Egypt before they had been released from slavery, 2) or for that many to hear Moses speaking to them even with sound amplification. This is yet another reason why the representational interpretation makes more sense.

Fourth, as has already been mentioned in a footnote, the corporate/representational meaning of the term is by far the most common meaning. When Moses says, “All the congregation shall certainly stone him” (Lev. 24:16), was it an each-and-every all (including infants) or was it certain representatives of Israel? Obviously the latter. A simple search of all 45 occurrences of that phrase indicates that the corporate meaning is the primary meaning.

Observation 4. A “lamb” was taken (v. 3) to symbolize Christ as the Lamb of God (John 1:29). The whole ceremony was a type of Christ’s redemption.

Observation 5. This lamb was taken on Nisan 10 (v. 3), which was four days before Passover, just as Jesus was anointed four days before Passover for His burial (Matt. 26:12).

Observation 6. God specified family solidarity within the church when He said “every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household” (v. 3b). Families were not dissolved when they joined the church through circumcision. Israel was not a democracy of individuals, but a republic of family governments. Though the chapter will speak of individual redemption, it will also show how those individuals are drawn to the Lord through their family structures. It begins with circumcision bringing the entire family into the protection of the covenant and then that family being drawn to faith through the proclamation of the word and the sacramental meal (see discussion of vv. 48-49). The “household” is clearly drawn into the church by God’s will, and God caused households to partake, not just the men. Those who hold that only adults partook cannot adequately explain this provision, or the next one in verse 4:

Verse 4

If a household is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join its closest neighbor in obtaining one; the lamb shall be divided in proportion to the number of people who eat of it. (NRSV; see also CEB, NAB, Complete Jewish Bible)

Observation 7. God expected more than the head of household to eat. Otherwise the phrase, “If a household is too small for a whole lamb” makes no sense. The conclusion is inescapable that God ordinarily expected several in a household to eat. This rules out the interpretation that says that only male heads of households partook of the Passover (a very common interpretation).

Observation 8. That infants did not eat is made explicit later in the chapter (see vv. 48-49), but it is also hinted at here by the fact that the count for the lamb was based upon how many communicants/eaters there were, not by how many people there were in the family. Obviously paedo-communionists and credo-communionists interpret and even translate this differently, but the four versions above bring out the meaning that credo-communionists emphasize quite well — it was to be “in proportion to the number of people who eat of it.”³⁷⁸

Observation 9. That this was not purely a family meal can be seen by two facts. First, the small family was not permitted to travel in order to meet with kin. He had to share with the neighbor who was “nearest” (הַקָּרֹ֥ב) to him, regardless of degrees of kinship. Since the size of the lamb dictated the number of people that partook of it, families could potentially be divided up: “Of course more than two families might unite, if some of them were childless. Also perhaps the gaps in smaller families might be filled by members from excessively large ones. Later tradition fixed upon ten as the normal number of participants.”³⁷⁹

Verse 5

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

Observation 10. The “Your” in “Your lamb” (v. 5) shows personal identification with the lamb. This is symbolic of the fact that Christ belongs to us. He is “your Lord” (Matt. 24:42; 25:21; John 13:14) by covenant. He possesses us and we possess Him.

Observation 11. This lamb was to be “without blemish” (v. 5) symbolizing the fact that Christ was without sin (1 Pet. 1:19; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Observation 12. The lamb was to be a “male” (v. 5) just as Christ was a male.

Observation 13. The lamb was to be a yearling (v. 5) just as Christ was sacrificed while he was still in His prime.

Observation 14. It could be either a “lamb” or a “goat” (v. 5) because either animal could function as a “peace offering” (Numb. 7:17,23; etc.). It was the peace offerings that were eaten as sacraments. This is one of several clues that tie the Passover in with all the other sacramental meals of the Old Testament.

Verse 6

Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.

Observation 15. The lamb was slaughtered on Nisan 14 just before nightfall (v. 6) to symbolize the fact that Christ was slain on Nisan 14 (John 19:14,31) and died just before nightfall (Mark 15:42).

Observation 16. God mandated that the “whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it” (v. 6) just as all Israel killed Christ (Matt. 27:20-23; Luke 23:18; Acts 2:23).

Observation 17. The Hebrew of “the whole (כֹּ֛ל) assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it” (v. 6) is parallel to “all (כֹּ֛ל) the congregation of Israel shall keep it” (v. 47). If one clause includes infants, it is arbitrary to exclude infants from the other. If infants are incapable of killing the lamb, at a minimum, infants should not be read into verse 47.

Verse 7

And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it.

Observation 18. The “they” in “And they shall take some of the blood and put in on the two door-posts” shows that all who partook were responsible for smearing some blood on the door-posts. There must be a personal appropriation of the Gospel by sharing in the blood of Christ. Paul says that the cup now symbolizes this “communion of the blood of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16). It seems unlikely that infants smeared blood on the doorposts.

Observation 19. The blood of the Passover had to be placed “on the two door-posts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it” (v. 7) to symbolize the fact that God claims believers and all that they own (including children, houses, animals, etc.). God’s kingdom has invaded that household and God’s intention is “for the saving of his household” (Heb. 11:7). See Luke 19:19; Acts 11:14. Thus the individual salvation of the adults brought protection to the children.

Observation 20. The first Passover took place inside of “houses.” All subsequent Passovers were mandated to take place at the tabernacle or temple. For example, Deuteronomy 16:5-7 says:

You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you; but at the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents.

This transition from the Patriarchal period to the Kingdom period is often missed by paedo-communionists who insist that the Passover is a family meal. We have seen that even under the Patriarchal period the sacramental meal was not a family meal. Certainly after the Red Sea crossing God took the sacrament out of the control of the Patriarchal extended family and gave it to the officers of the church. See chapter 7, “Separation of family, church, and state did not happen until the time of Moses.”

Verse 8

Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

Observation 21. To “eat the flesh” (v. 8) is remarkably similar to Christ’s mandate that his followers “eat My flesh” (John 6:51,54,56), something that could only be done by faith (John 6:29,36,37,40,44-45,47,64). Nevertheless, the wording powerfully shows that the Passover pointed to Jesus.

Observation 22. It was to be eaten at evening, not only to symbolize the finished work of Christ on the previous day (Jewish days ended at 6pm), but that Christ’s redemption was necessary before the dark of evil could be replaced with the dawn of Christ’s kingdom.

Observation 23. The lamb had to be “roasted in fire” (vv. 8-9) to symbolize the fire of God’s judgment upon Christ on the cross (Heb. 12:29; Isa. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:2).

Observation 24. It had to be eaten with “unleavened bread” (v. 8) to symbolize the fact that the leaven of evil had been removed (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:9). In the introduction to this chapter we saw that Paul’s inspired interpretation of this means that this symbolizes conditions of worthy participation. 1 Corinthians 5:9 says, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Because the sacrifice of Christ is finished once and for all, the only portion of the Passover food that continues into the New Covenant was the bread. The bread must be partaken of only by those with changed lives.

Observation 24. They had to eat “bitter herbs” (v. 8) to symbolize not only the bitterness of their bondage in Egypt, but to symbolize Christ redeeming us from the bitterness of sin (Acts 8:23).

Observation 25. All participants ate three things: lamb, bread, bitter herbs. It is highly unlikely that newborn infants could eat the roasted lamb or the bitter herbs.

Verse 9

Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire—its head with its legs and its entrails.

Observation 26. The whole lamb (including entrails and head) had to be roasted (v. 9) to symbolize Christ’s whole sacrifice. The fact that it could not be boiled, but had to be roasted, again shows that newborn infants would not have been able to handle it.³⁸⁰

Verse 10

You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire.

Observation 27. It was to be eaten immediately to symbolize the urgency of redemption. Hebrews 3 urges people to receive Christ immediately: “Today…Today…Today…Today” (Heb. 3:7,12-15; 4:7). 2 Corinthians 6:2 says, “In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you. Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”

Observation 28. Everything that was left over they were to “burn with fire.” This emphasized not only the holy nature of this food, but that non-communicants were excluded. Redemption is effective for the elect alone and is not universal (Rev. 5:9-10; John 11:49-52; 17:9-10).

Verse 11

This is how you shall eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh’s Passover. (WEB)

Observation 29. They were to eat it prepared immediately to travel to symbolize the fact that we must be ready to forsake all and follow Jesus. To have the “loins girded” was to have the robes tucked up so that they did not get in the way of the knees. This was the dress mode for fighting and running. They were to eat with “your shoes on your feet” to symbolize the readiness to immediately leave Egypt. The “staff in your hand” meant they were ready to travel even while eating. Eating in haste showed the urgency of the matter.

Observation 30. Infants don’t stand, so to have an infant’s loins girded (חֲגֻרִ֔ים) makes no sense. Infants don’t walk, so to have sandals or staff in an infant’s hand makes no sense. Everyone who partook of the meal was to partake in exactly this way because God commanded, “This is how you shall eat it: with your loins girded…” etc. The implication is that infants were not part of the “you” of this verse.

Observation 31. This was Yehowah’s Passover meal and as a meal belonging to Him and dictated by Him was set apart from all other meals. We should not compare our meals to His meal. By analogy, every member of a priest’s family could partake of the ordinary common food. The holy food had restrictions of who could partake, and other members of the family that were not qualified had to simply watch the ceremony (see exposition of verses 26 and 48-49; also see Lev. 22:10-16).

Verses 12-13

For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

Observation 32. This meal proclaims both gospel (“blood…pass over you”) as well as God’s holy judgment (“plague”). Gospel and judgment are not separate. Indeed, apart from Christ our Passover Lamb being judged for us, we too would face judgment. Obviously, all those who reject the Gospel will be judged (John 3:18).

Verse 14

So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.

Observation 33. Just as the Lord’s Supper is a memorial (see “this do in remembrance of Me” – Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25), the Passover is called a “memorial.” How can speechless infants and toddlers who do not yet understand the Gospel remember and commemorate these things? To admit a person who cannot memorialize is to admit someone who is missing a central feature of this feast.

Observation 34. For this to be an “everlasting ordinance,” it must in some way pass into the Lord’s Table, which it does (Luke 22:11,15; 1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Verse 15

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.

Observation 35. This is not the sacrament of initiation. This is the sacrament of growth and sanctification. Purging away the leaven symbolizes repentance over sin and commitment to a new life. After rebuking Corinth for failing to take sin seriously, he says:

1 Cor. 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Observation 36. If the previous observation is true, then this meal excludes those who lack the qualifications symbolized by this verse. All participants of communion should come “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8). Those (like infants) who lack the capacity for sincerity (εἰλικρίνεια) and truth (ἀλήθεια) should not participate because they are missing something that is essential to the Passover — so essential that deliberate violation of the symbol can lead to them being “cut off from Israel” or excommunicated (Ex. 12:15).

Verse 16

On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat—that only may be prepared by you.

Observation 37. Passover day was to be a Sabbath Day — a day entirely set apart to the Lord. It symbolized the fact that we rest from our works-righteousness and put our faith in Christ’s redemption alone. The one exception was the work needed to partake of Christ.

Verses 17-20

17 So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.

Observation 38. To “observe” (שָׁמַר) the Feast means far more than simply eating. The dictionary gives five aspects to this word, all of which infants are incapable of:

The basic idea of the root is “to exercise great care over.”…
Secondly it expresses the careful attention to be paid to the obligations of a covenant, to laws, statutes, etc. This is one of the most frequent uses of the verb…
A third ramification is “take care of,” “guard.” This involves keeping or tending to things such as a garden (Gen 2:15), a flock (30:31), a house (2 Sam 15:16). Or it may involve guarding against intruders, etc., such as the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life in Gen 3:24, or gatekeepers (Isa 21:11) or watchmen (Song 5:7)… Frequently the verb is used to speak of [Vol. 2, p. 940] personal discipline, the need to take heed in respect to one’s life and actions…
A fourth category is the meaning “regard,” “give heed to.” It is used of a man’s attitude of paying attention to, or reverence for, God or others. Thus in Hos 4:10, Israel has abandoned paying heed to God. Ps 31:6 [H 7] speaks of those who revere (שָׁמַר) vain idols…
The last category has to do with “preserving,” “storing up,” such as the anger against Israel which Edom cherishes and preserves (Amos 1:11), or knowledge in Mal 2:7. So also with food in Gen 41:35 and 1 Sam 9:24, or anything that is precious (Ex 22:7 [H 6]).³⁸¹

This again shows the radically different nature of the two sacraments. Circumcision was the sign of initiation, and as such, the receiver of the sacrament was entirely passive and acted upon. The sacramental meals were signs of sanctification, and as such, numerous conditions were given to ensure that every participant was very active. This distinction between the two sacraments is missed by paedo-communionists.³⁸²

Observation 39. Passover was a church function, not a state function. This can be seen by the use of the terms “congregation” and “stranger.” God says “that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land.” To be cut off from the congregation means to be excommunicated from the church, not removed from the nation. Likewise, a stranger who was not a citizen of the nation could still become part of the congregation once he converted and was circumcised.

Verse 21

Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb.”

Observation 40. What was earlier ascribed to the “whole congregation” is now ascribed to the “elders” who represented the whole congregation. What the elders do, the congregation is said to do.

Verses 22-24

22 And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which the LORD will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service.

Observation 41. Even though infants did not partake, they were protected by the parents’ covenant-faith in the Gospel “blood” that was applied to the “houses.” Indeed, this sign of the covenant preached the Gospel to the children and wooed them to personally profess the faith of their fathers (see. vv. 26-27). Thus, while circumcision included infants in the covenant for one generation, the Passover called them to personally embrace the covenant so as to keep the covenant succession going from generation to generation. That it did indeed act as a Gospel call to the children can be seen by the next verses:

Verses 26-27

26 “And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ 27 that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.’ “ So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.

Observation 42. Note that the children do not ask, “What do we mean by this service?” They ask the worthy participants, “What do you mean by this service?” This implies that the children were watching a ceremony of which they were not participants. Does that mean they received no value from the Passover? On the contrary, the Gospel was being proclaimed to them through that feast so that they might begin to desire what was symbolized thereby. If they had partaken of the food without showing evidence of grace, they may not have seen their need for grace. By hungering for the food, God calls them to hunger for the grace symbolized by that food. It is the call of the Gospel to the whole household.

Verse 28

Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.

Observation 43. These were all active participants. The Hebrew word for “did” (עָשָׂה) occurs two times. Both its general sense of “to do something with a purpose” or its second sense where “עָשָׂה is often used with the sense of ethical obligation,”³⁸³ it is a word that shows purposeful action. This too excludes the paedo-communion interpretation.

Observation 44. The children of Israel obeyed all the injunctions given earlier in the book. This means they kept observations 1-42. This is yet another proof against paedo-communion.

Verses 29-36

29 And it came to pass at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock. 30 So Pharaoh rose in the night, he, all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead. 31 Then he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, “Rise, go out from among my people, both you and the children of Israel. And go, serve the LORD as you have said. 32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone; and bless me also.” 33 And the Egyptians urged the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste. For they said, “We shall all be dead.” 34 So the people took their dough before it was leavened, having their kneading bowls bound up in their clothes on their shoulders. 35 Now the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. 36 And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.

Observation 45. Passover promises both blessing and cursing.

Verses 37-42 — more historical narrative

37 Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. 38 A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds—a great deal of livestock. 39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves. 40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. 42 It is a night of solemn observance to the LORD for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This is that night of the LORD, a solemn observance for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.

Observation 46. Verse 37 does not support the adult-communion contention that the “600,000 was the ‘count’ for the eating of the passover lamb (at Exodus 12:4),”³⁸⁴ and constituted the males 20 years old and above who were counted for war (see Numb. 1:46), and that the phrase “besides children” means that the children did not partake. There are several problems with this interpretation:

First, the main verb of verse 37 has nothing to do with the Passover (which had happened at 6pm the night before). It says, “Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children.” It is simply telling us how many soldiers traveled out of Egypt after Passover, and informing us that this count did not include children.

Second, for the word “besides” to have the connotation they give to it, would also mean that the children did not travel to Succoth — something clearly contradicted by later history.

Third, verse 41 defines what he means by the 600,000 as referring to all the armies of Israel.

Fourth, this interpretation faces the problems already mentioned under observations 6 and 7.

Observation 47. The twice repeated expression, “solemn observance” (שִׁמֻּרִים) is a reference to a mandated keeping awake through the night.³⁸⁵ This is not something infants are capable of.

Verse 43

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.

Observation 48. This verse speaks strongly against “open communion.” To admit those who are not members of the church is a violation of the law of God. Without exercising due diligence in discovering which visitor is or is not outside the church, it would be impossible to determine who was a “foreigner” (נֵכָר) and who was not. That the word “foreigner” is a religious term rather than an ethnic term can be seen from the fact that verses 48-49 explicitly allowed such strangers to partake if they had first covenanted with God and become Israelites. Jewishness was religious, not ethnic. In the time of Esther, “many of the people of land became Jews” (Esth. 8:17) and many of the “Jews” in the time of Moses were not ethnic descendants of Abraham (Caleb being one). Thus, only those who have joined the visible church and are in submission to its discipline are welcome at the Table.

Verse 44

But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it.

Observation 49. Though this verse in isolation could reasonably be taken in a paedo-communion direction, when the verse is interpreted within its context it teaches the opposite. It teaches that before circumcised slaves could partake of the Passover they had to embrace the true religion in faith. This means that there were two kinds of slaves. There were slaves who were circumcised and no different in privilege than a very young child of the believing parent (Gal. 4:1) and there were slaves who had faith in Christ, were adopted as sons, had the indwelling Holy Spirit crying out “Abba, Father!”, and who were therefore considered to be “no longer a slave but a son” when it came to spiritual privileges. (Gal. 4:7).

But first, let’s examine the typical paedocommunionist argument as presented by a syllogism that argues in favor of slaves and children coming to communion:

Premise one: Exodus 12:44 says that slaves were admitted to Passover without faith if they were circumcised.
Premise two: Galatians 4:1-2 says that there is no difference between a slave and a young child.
Conclusion: Therefore children were admitted to Passover without faith if they were circumcised.

While the syllogism is solid, the two premises are not. If either premise is imprecise or false, the conclusion is not a good and necessary consequence. We will demonstrate the lack of precision in premise two and the falsity of premise one.

First, premise two is imprecise because it leaves out two important facts from Galatians 4:1-2. The full verse says, “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all.” Can paedocommunionists demonstrate that slaves in the Old Testament were heirs of their master’s property? No. Second, can the phrase, “though he is master of all” ever apply to a slave? The clear answer is, “No.” So what does Paul mean when he says that the napios child “does not differ at all from a slave”? Paul is saying that with two exceptions (both of which refer to future privilege — an inheritance and a master status), a napios child has no more privileges or choices or rights than a slave does. Neither slave nor child chose to be part of the family. Neither slave nor child chose to receive circumcision — it was imposed upon 100% of them as a passive rite (Gen. 17:13,27). Neither slave nor child chose to follow the guardianship and stewardship of the parent/master. And neither slave nor child could receive the full privileges of the covenant yet.

But having said that, there is one additional similarity between both a napios child of the covenant and the slave: both could receive the full inheritance of sonship³⁸⁶ when (and only when) the same condition is met: they have faith in Christ (Gal. 4:1-7). This interpretation of Galatians 4 fits the flow of Paul’s argument in the whole pericope. Galatians 3-4 shows the trajectory of God’s purpose is always faith and the resulting inheritance. Just as the law was designed to be a tutor leading Old Testament saints to faith in Christ (Gal. 4:19-25), parents can anticipate the same trajectory for the children and slaves that God has given to them as “guardians and stewards” (Gal. 1:1-2). In both cases, the stewardship responsibility of a master/father is to lead all under his charge to adoption as sons by faith (Gal. 4:5-7). Thus, it is not only young children who change from no privilege (Gal. 4:1) to great privilege (Gal. 4:5-7), but it is also the slave who by faith changes his status to be “no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Gal. 4:7).

Thus we have a beautiful cycle of faith in this pericope.
1. Old Covenant members had the law as a tutor to lead them to Christ (Gal. 3:19-25).
2. Gentile believers were then added to that same Abrahamic covenant by baptism and were considered to be heirs of the Abrahamic promises (Gal. 3:26-29).
3. Since those baptized believers (whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female) can claim the Abrahamic promises that God would be a God to them and to their seed after them, it should not surprising to find the napios children of those believers to also be considered to be heirs of the promises (Gal. 4:1).
5. But what heir wants to stay an heir without receiving the full privileges of the covenant? No one should be satisfied with that. So both the baptized children and the baptized slaves have something to look forward to: full privileges once they profess faith in Jesus Christ. This is a personal faith that is able to sincerely cry out “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4:1-7). Every parent/master has a stewardship responsibility to move all under their charge to such faith and its consequent sonship privileges.
6. But that would start the cycle of faith all over again.

Thus, premise two is not nuanced enough. It fails to adequately show the differences and similarities between slaves in the household.

But everything we have said about premise two also falsifies premise one. Paul’s inspired interpretation of God’s purpose in the Abrahamic covenant was to lead both napios children and slaves to faith. The slave does not have “full access to covenant privileges” until such time as he is “no longer a slave” (Gal. 4:7). So even Galatians falsifies premise one.

But the following points will show that the exegesis of Calvin,³⁸⁷ and of many modern commentators,³⁸⁸ is definitely warranted when they conclude that the slaves of Exodus 12:44 had indeed embraced the covenant. The paedocommunionist exegesis of Exodus 12:44 fails to consider the following six exegetical issues.

First, Dorsey³⁸⁹ shows that chapters 12-13 are constructed in a chiastic pattern. A chiasm is a Hebrew form of parallelism that comes in an ABCDCBA pattern. In this case, the C sections that parallel each other and help to interpret each other are 12:21-28 and 12:43-50. This means that verses 21-28 help to interpret verses 43-50 and vice versa. They are not intended to be interpreted in isolation from each other. Since verse 28 says that the Jews kept all the commandments articulated in verses 1-28 (i.e., observations 1-42 that I have made above), that means that observations 1-42 are also applicable to the various categories of Gentiles being discussed in verses 43-50. This means that verse 44 assumes all the information earlier in the chapter — information that called for faith and understanding of the Gospel.

Second, even if we did not realize that these sections were parallel parts of a chiasm, the same conclusion would of necessity be reached from verse 49, which insists, “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” God did not have conditions for worthy participation for certain groups and no conditions (other than circumcision) for infants and slaves. All participants were required to submit to God’s laws. The implications are that the slave must likewise have faith:

Common sense includes in the list of those who may and must partake of the Passover all those who have faith in Yahweh and excludes all who do not, with males showing it physically and females showing it by their formal relationships. In Old Testament law the examples cited are never intended to represent an exhaustive listing, but a sampling from which all instances can be addressed by analogy.³⁹⁰

Third, there is a vast difference between saying “when they have circumcised him, then he may eat it” and mandating that he eat it.

Fourth, Scripture often treats circumcision as a synecdoche³⁹¹ for embracing the whole covenant by faith, and people are rebuked any time they saw physical circumcision as the only requirement of the covenant (see for example, Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; etc.). Thus the Abrahamic covenant is called “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). Implied in this circumcision was a faith that embraces the covenant. This is why verses 48-49 mention the new convert coming to the Lord’s Table, and not his children. The circumcision of the infants was a call for them to embrace the faith symbolized by circumcision, and until that happened, they were not qualified to come to the Table.

Fifth, Paul treated the slaves of the Abrahamic covenant that are listed in Galatians 3:28 as having embraced the covenant by faith. The pericope from which Galatians 4:1 comes (all of Galatians 3:26-4:7) presents the “child” as being the child of the believers who were baptized in 3:26-29. Those baptized believers were treated as “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 26) whether they were Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, or females (v. 28). Notice the inclusion of “slaves” in that list. Most of the people who entered the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 were Gentile slaves³⁹² and their wives and children, yet they were equally members of the covenant with Abraham and Isaac. Paul’s inspired interpretation of Genesis 17 makes it clear that Abraham’s slaves were not forced to adopt the religion of Abraham. Amongst the adults, it was only those who were “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 26) that were allowed to receive the sign of initiation. Since baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul says that it is only “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 26) who can then be “baptized into Christ” (v. 27), and within that covenant there is “neither slave nor free” (v. 28). Thus, even the baptized believing slave is Christ’s, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (v. 29). Of course, every promise given to Abraham was to Abraham and his seed. So it makes sense that Galatians 4:1-7 moves on to what happens to the children of those believing Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free, men, and women. Those children are heirs (4:1) under guardians and stewards (4:2) and when able to profess faith are adopted as sons (4:5-7) just like the parents had been, and at that stage can enter into the full privileges of the covenant. There are clearly two kinds of slave in this pericope: slaves who are sons by faith (Gal. 3:26-29) and slaves who (along with the child of verses 1-2) have not yet professed faith and have not yet entered the sonship of this pericope.

This is consistent with other passages where Paul gives exegesis of Genesis 17:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. (Rom. 4:11-12)

The 318 Gentiles that Abraham was the “father of circumcision” to were “those who believe, though they are uncircumcised” and those who were willing to “walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.” Paul insisted that even in Genesis 17, circumcision was a symbol of embracing the covenant for yourself and your children. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God” (Rom. 2:28-29).

Verse 45

A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.

Observation 50. Though sojourners and hired servants might be very close to the family, they did not have a covenantal relationship with God through all that was implied in the synecdoche of circumcision. This indicates that even though they were present, they could only witness others eating the sacrament. To have observers who do not partake is not a novel idea.

Verse 46

In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones.

Observation 51. Though failure to break any bones on the lamb would have made eating it very inconvenient, it was given as a prophetic foreshadowing of the fact that not a bone of Christ would be broken (see John 19:32-33).

Observation 52. It was eaten in one house even when more than one household partook for two reasons: First, the house with the blood on it protected them from the death angel. In subsequent Passovers this was removed from the house to the tabernacle/temple. Second, it was an exclusionary meal — Egyptians could not partake. Matthew Henry may have a legitimate point when he says, “The papists’ carrying their consecrated host from house to house is not only superstitious in itself, but contrary to this typical law of the passover, which directed that no part of the lamb should be carried abroad.”³⁹³

Verse 47

All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.

Observation 53. This was being eaten in solidarity with the whole body of Christ (Israel) even though it was eaten in scattered locations. In the same way, even though churches all over the world partake of communion, the meal symbolizes our unity with the whole bride of Christ. That the word “all” had exceptions has already been commented on (see comments under Observations 3 and 17).

Verse 48

And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

Observation 54. Participants must partake self-consciously “to the LORD.” This is not to God in general, but to the covenant God, Yehowah. Infants would likely eat this simply as a snack, not as a holy meal to the Lord.

Observation 55. This provision shows that God’s religion was not a purely ethnic religion. Gentiles could become proselytes and partake as full covenant members with Jews. Indeed, their circumcision assumes a conversion process.

Observation 56. Before a proselyte could partake of Passover, he had to show submission to the covenant, which would mean circumcising his whole household. Even though he was a believer, he could not come to the Passover without applying the sign of the covenant to his children — “let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it.” The “then” indicates a condition must be fulfilled before coming to the Table. This may have application to whether Baptists should be admitted to the Lord’s Table in Presbyterian churches when they refuse to baptize their children. This verse seems to indicate that a breaking of the covenant on the first sign excludes the sincere believer from the second sign of the covenant — the sacramental meal. This is something I have only recently come to realize. It was a blind spot in my exegesis.

Observation 57. Notice that there is unity among all participants (“come near…he shall be as a native of the land”). The Gentile convert is not a second class citizen. There is racial equality before the Table of the Lord. Paul applies this call to unity in his exposition of the Lord’s Table in 1 Corinthians 11.

Observation 58. Notice that circumcision is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table in the Old Testament. By the same token, baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table in the New Testament.

Observation 59. Notice that though this proselyte has circumcised his household, only he approaches the Passover. It does not say that when all his males are circumcised that all his males can come near. It says, “let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it.” This is a clear exclusion of unbelieving children from the Lord’s Table even if they have received the first sign of the covenant.

Observation 60. The Passover was a means of drawing near to the Lord. This is the Table of His presence.

Verse 49

One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

This application of “one law” to all means that all participants are subject to all conditions for worthy participation. Too many adult-communionists make conditions for children (memorization of the catechism) far higher than for a new adult convert (credible profession of faith). This is a violation of the one law for all. Paedo-communionists are willing to apply Paul’s conditions for worthy participation to adults but refuse to apply them to all children, thus again violating this principle.

Verses 50-51

50 Thus all the children of Israel did; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. 51 And it came to pass, on that very same day, that the LORD brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt according to their armies.

Observation 61. The reason Israel is said to leave Egypt on the same day as the Passover is because their days begin at 6pm (when Passover began to be eaten). So on a Western calendar they left Egypt the day after Passover, but on the Jewish calendar, they left Egypt on the same day as Passover. We have already shown the implications of this for understanding 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 in earlier chapters. The Red Sea did not initiate Israel into the sacramental meals — circumcision did.

While there may still be debate on the meaning of certain verses in this chapter, when this young-credo-communion interpretation is read in light of all the evidence in the book as a whole, a very strong case for our position stands. May this book bring increasing clarity to what further issues need to be discussed to achieve unity on the sacraments. God bless you. Amen.