3. Allowing the Bible to Define Its Terms

Another reason why godly people talk past one another is that they make assumptions about the meaning of words. The word “paedo” is fuzzy just as the words “sons,” “daughters,” and “children” can be fuzzy. For some people “paedo” means anyone who is a pre-teen. For others it means a toddler. For still others it means an infant. Obviously those are quite different categories.

On the opposite side of the debate are those who insist that only the adult male covenant heads of households partook of the Passover in the Old Testament and that this means communion is only for adults. Mature-communionists who are less consistent109 will switch gears in the New Testament because they want to be able to admit 12, 13, or 18-year-olds to the Table. Some have argued that these ages are “approaching adulthood” in terms of responsibility and maturity, or they will say that the New Testament has authorized a new younger age through Christ’s attendance at Passover at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-50). Even they cannot agree on whether Jesus partook of the Feast or whether this was his year of catechizing at the temple. There are two reasons for this division of opinion: First, the text does not explicitly say that He partook; it only says “they went up” when Jesus was “twelve.” Second, since the Bible never mentions any significance to the ages of 12 or 13, they have to go to the Talmud to define this new definition of adulthood. The problem is that the Talmud speaks of age 13, not age 12. Thus they have to say that Christ did not partake of Passover in Luke 2, but instead went up to be catechized in preparation for the next year. In all of this they are not allowing the Bible and the Bible alone to define terms. The Bible repeatedly defines adulthood as age 20 and above (see chapter 2, footnote 72).

In order to not talk past one another, I want to show how the Bible gives very specific definitions to each of the stages of development from birth to adulthood. These Hebrew terms are more precise than the term “paedo” and “mature” and have been recognized by a number of scholars as pointing to a developmental range.110 Though the Biblical relationship between these Hebrew terms and the sacramental meal is not a definitive argument, they make the most sense within a young-credo position.

Edersheim says, “Besides such general words as ‘ben’ and ‘bath’ — ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ — we find no fewer than nine different terms, each depicting a fresh stage of life,”111 with ish and ishah being used for adulthood. While “sons” and “daughters” could refer to a person of any age from infancy to adulthood, the following terms are generally used with much more precision:

yeled (יֶלֶד) — newly born baby. Used 495x.

This first term, yeled (masculine is יֶלֶד; feminine is יַלְדָּה) is admittedly the least precise of these terms.112 Nevertheless, Edersheim points out that the vast majority of references are to a newly born baby. The related verb yalad means, “to give birth,” or “to assist in childbirth” or “to be a midwife.”113 While yeled children were circumcised,114 there is no reference in the Bible to a yeled child partaking of a sacramental meal.115

The statistical relevance of this should not be overlooked: there are more occurrences of yeled in the Bible than of any other word related to the development of an infant into a pre-adult. If paedo-communion were as prevalent as some people claim, one would not expect no mentions of communion in the 495 occurrences of yeled — especially when we do see significant occurrences of communion with young people who are in the stages of gamul and above.116 The tedious statistical analyses I have done in this chapter fully support young-credo, undermine mature-communion, and are at a minimum very strange on the paedo-communion theory.

yonek (יוֹנֵק) — a suckling or nursing child (birth to 12 months). Used 18 times.

The second term, yonek (יוֹנֵק), means to suckle, and refers to a nursing child ranging from birth to 12 months of age. While nursing babes did attend worship (see nursing babes in Joel 2:16; Psalm 8:2), there is no reference to nursing babes partaking of the sacramental meal.

olel (עוֹלֵל) — nursing child that also eats some solids (12 months up to 3 years). Used 20 times.

According to Edersheim, the third term, olel (עוֹלֵל), marks a “third stage in the child’s existence, and a farther advancement in the babe-life.”117 Though the Hebrew word itself implies a continued “sucking” or nursing that is happening, the child “is no longer satisfied with only this nourishment, and is ‘asking bread,’ as in Lam. iv.4”118 So the olel child refers to children from 12 months of age to about 3 years of age. Again, while an olel child is welcomed into the worship service (Joel 2:16; Ps. 8:2), there is no reference to this pre-weaned child ever partaking of the sacramental meal even though he would have been capable of doing so physiologically. Samuel did not partake until he was past this stage (see next point). Granted, this term only occurs 20 times in the Bible, but statistically it is interesting that 4 out of 8 occurrences of the next term do include communion.

gamul (גמל) — a completely weaned child (3 years). Used of a weaned child only 8 times.

The word for the fourth stage of childhood, gamul (גמל) refers to a completely weaned child. In modern parlance, this would be a child who is completely past the use of bottles and sippy cups and is eating food like an adult. The general age for weaning was 3 years. This is the earliest stage of childhood for which I have been able to find any exegetical evidence for participation. If even one example can be found of a gamul child being admitted to communion, a strong case can be made for the young-credo-communion position. While some paedo-communionists have also used some of the following examples to prove that weaned children can partake, I seek to show that each of the following four possible cases of young-communion are indeed young-credo-communion where the children met the minimal conditions for worthy participation that have been outlined in chapter 2.

Genesis 21:8

The first case that has been presented by at least one variety of paedo-communion as a sacramental partaking has been the situation of Isaac in Genesis 21:8. The text says, “So the child [Isaac] grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned.” I will seek to show that if this is a sacramental feast (and I have recently been persuaded that this is indeed the case), Paul’s exposition of the passage still shows that more than the covenant admitted to the feast. I hope to prove that Isaac (the son of faith) partook while Ishmael (the son of the flesh) was excluded (Gen. 21:10,12). Though there are legitimate questions about whether this is even a sacramental feast, here are some reasons that make it probable:

First, though it is granted that the word for “feast” is the common word mishteh (מִשְׁתֶּה) rather than the specialized words hag (חַג — feast) or hagag (חגג — celebration), Keil and Delitzsch pointed out that mishteh is indeed used for covenant meals in Genesis (see Gen. 19:3; 26:30), the sacramental feast that Solomon made for the people (1 Kings 3:15), and the New Covenant feast described in Isaiah 25:6.119 Thus, the use of mishteh does not rule out its sacramental character if there are other indications that would point in that direction.

Second, the text “could be rendered: ‘And the child became great … [so] Abraham made a great feast.’”120 This wording may be one of three hints that Paul runs with when he insists that at this stage in Isaac’s life he was not only regenerate (Gal. 4:29121), a spiritual son of heaven (Gal. 4:31), and made new by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 4:29), but that Isaac had also made the transition from being an heir of the Abrahamic covenant who was no different than a slave (Gal. 4:1) to being a Spirit-indwelt son of God (Gal. 4:5-7) who was now “master of all” (Gal. 4:1). Paul’s whole argument in chapters 3-4 is that the covenant brings all of Abraham’s household into proximity to the law, but that it is faith alone that can usher them into sonship (Gal. 3:26). Just as the law is a tutor to push us to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:23-25), parents are “guardians and stewards” (Gal. 4:2) with the same purpose of bringing their children to faith in Christ (Gal. 4:6-7). According to Paul, all of this is illustrated in the story of this feast day.

In addition to the previous point, there may be two more facts that led Paul to the conclusions he came to. First, “the child grew” may be an indication of spiritual growth rather than merely physical growth, and that is why the literal Hebrew has the child’s “greatness” (גָּדַל) corresponding to the feast’s “greatness” (גָּדַל). Second, is the fact that God agrees with Sarah that Ishmael’s mocking was a direct attack upon Isaac’s right to enter into his inheritance.

In any case, Paul’s inspired interpretation indicates that this event was a highly significant and spiritual event, not merely a physical act of taking Isaac off the breast. This event was the celebration of Isaac’s transition from being a circumcised heir to being a communicant son of faith. Revelation 21:7 says that those who overcome enter into the inheritance of sonship, and those who overcome have the right to eat sacramentally (Rev. 2:7.17). Though outwardly in the Abrahamic covenant, “those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” at our “altar” (Heb. 13:10). According to both Hebrews and Galatians, the rights of sonship come through faith.

Third, chronology shows that Ishmael was 13-14 years older than Isaac.122 If Isaac was weaned at age 3, then Ishmael would have been 16-17. If he was weaned at age 5 (as some believe), Ishmael would have been 18-19 years old, and was a potential threat to Isaac’s inheritance since he was firstborn. Paul interprets Ishmael’s laugh as the son of the flesh persecuting the son of the promise (Gal. 4:29). He concludes that even though Ishmael had the sign of the Abrahamic covenant in his flesh (circumcision), he showed no sign of faith or sonship and so was still under the curse (Gal. 4:25). This was why he was barred from the feast (Gen. 21:10).

Fourth, the Regulative Principle of Worship mandates that all that we do in worship must be present in at least seed form within the Pentateuch (see chapter 4 for details). If we cannot find any weaned gamul children partaking within the Pentateuch (the Torah), then we would be forced to make the taph stage of childhood the minimum age for children partaking. However, we will show below that 2 Chronicles 31 clearly bases its practice of admitting at least some “three year old” children to the sacrament upon the Torah. Where do we find that, if not here? Since sacramental food was offered to two groups of children in 2 Chronicles 31 (“three years old” gamul children in verse 16 and 3-6 year old taph children in verse 18), and since that festival was kept according to what was “written in the Law of the LORD” (v. 3; see also vv. 20-21), then we would expect to find at least one example of three-year-olds and at least one example of 3-6 year old taph children written in the law. This is the only example that I could find of a 3 year old gamul child partaking within the Pentateuch.

1 Samuel 1

It is clear that Samuel was not admitted to the sacramental meal prior to being a fully weaned child, which would put Samuel in the gamul (גמל) stage of life (see “weaned” [גמל] in 1 Sam. 1:22-24). However, mature-communionists might argue that the text does not say how long after he became a gamul child that he was left at the temple. Indeed, since the word na’ar (נַעַר) is used of him in verses 24, 25, and 27, it may well be that they waited until he was somewhere between thirteen to nineteen years of age. So mature-communionists may well argue that I should have placed this text under the na’ar section later in this chapter. However, dictionaries point out that na’ar (while technically referring to a young man), is in at least one other passage used of a very young child — perhaps as a term of endearment. Even in English we will sometimes call a young child, “young man.” That 1 Samuel 1 is likely doing the same thing can be seen from the fact that the word na’ar is used in verse 22 where Samuel is clearly not weaned yet. This is why most commentators believe that Samuel was delivered to the temple when he was somewhere between three and five years of age.

Though the text doesn’t explicitly say that Samuel partook of the feast when Hannah came up (1 Sam. 1:24-2:11), I agree with paedo-communionists that he likely did (1 Sam. 1:24-28). Indeed, it appears that he was the only one who partook since the Hebrew of the clause “So they worshiped the LORD there” is “So he worshiped the LORD there.” Commentators have puzzled over the switch from “she…she…her…she…they [priests slaughtering]…she…I” to the masculine singular “he” in verse 28b.123 Some say that the “he” refers to Elkanah, but he is nowhere mentioned in the text. Others say that the “he” refers to a priest, but the priests are mentioned once in the plural “(they”). Others translate the singular as “they,” but with dubious warrant. Some think there was a mistake in the Hebrew and that it should say “she,” but God has preserved the Hebrew perfectly as “he.” The simplest and most straightforward reading of the text (especially when the immediately antecedent for the “he” is Samuel) is to say that the sacramental worship was done by the weaned gamul child, Samuel.

While paedo-communionists use this to try to prove their case of children partaking, I would point out that Samuel (whatever age he was) was old enough to meet the minimal conditions for worthy participation laid out in this book. Indeed, the immediate context shows a credo kind of communion on the part of Samuel. The text says “he worshiped the LORD” (1:28), “he ministered to the LORD before Eli the priest” (2:11), and he evidenced an active spiritual growth (“grew before the LORD” — 2:21), that was observable. Like Christ, Samuel “grew in stature and in favor both with the LORD and men” (1 Sam. 2:26). Thus this particular gamul child met the minimal qualifications for worthy participation that have been outlined in this book.

2 Chronicles 31

A third passage that is even clearer is 2 Chronicles 31:2-21. This occurred during the remarkable revival that happened under Hezekiah. Even the youngest children appear to have been profoundly affected. The passage explicitly mentions sacramental (or “holy”) food being distributed to those who were three years old or older (see 2 Chron. 31:16) if they met certain qualifications (see list of six qualifications in sub-point 4 below). The three year olds and the taph children who were admitted were admitted “because (כִּ֥י) in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). The word “because” (כִּ֥י) implies that without the conditions being met, they would not have been able to eat the food (even if they were physically capable of doing so at a younger olel age). It was not the ability to masticate the food that admitted the child to the holy food, or the olel children would have also been included. This text clearly excludes those younger than the gamul.

Some paedo-communionists and all mature-communionists question whether 2 Chronicles 31 is relevant to the communion debate since this was the food of the priests and constituted part of their pay (v. 17). The following considerations make me differ with them.

  1. First, what was being given to them was not common food, but portions from “the most holy things” (2 Chron. 31:14), which were specifically identified earlier in the chapter as including “peace offerings” (v. 2), the offerings of the feasts (v. 3), the firstfruits (v. 5), the “tithe of holy things which were consecrated to the LORD” (v. 6), “offerings, the tithes, and the dedicated things” (v. 12), and the “offerings of the LORD and the most holy things” (v. 14). The Pentateuch clearly identifies every one of those items as portions that were eaten sacramentally by the lay people at the temple and then shared with the priests.124 They could not be eaten in the towns. The law regulated these sacramental foods just as rigorously as it regulated the Passover and other Festival Days. If these foods being distributed were sacramental, then only the law could regulate who ate them and how they would be eaten. This is where the chapter on the Regulative Principle of Worship is very relevant.
  2. Second, only Levites could distribute the food (vv. 14-18). Thus, this was a pastoral function, not merely an administrative function. Other Levites receiving the food could not take that food on their own initiative — “Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the keeper of the East Gate, was over the freewill offerings to God, to distribute the offerings of the LORD and the most holy things. And under him were Eden, Miniamin, Jeshua, Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah, his faithful assistants in the cities of the priests, to distribute allotments to their brethren by divisions, to the great as well as the small” (vv. 14-15).
  3. Third, these priests did not simply distribute the food to the heads of households (as would be expected if this was common pay for labor). Instead we find that the Levites “distributed allotments…to the great as well as the small” (v. 15) and “to all who were written in the genealogy — their littles ones and their wives, their sons and daughters, the whole company of them” (v. 18). If it was simply pay for work, why would the allotments be distributed directly by the priests to the young and to the old? If this was simply “pay” it would undermine the jurisdiction of the father over his household. If this was sacramental food, then there would be no option but to have the priests distribute the food to all. The fact of the matter is that they were rigorously following the law of God for how the sacramental offerings were eaten by the families of the priests.
  4. Fourth, there were qualifications of who could eat and implications that some were excluded from this food. These qualifications included 1) minimum age (v. 16), 2) being in the genealogy (v. 16,18), 3) actively entering the house of the Lord (v. 16), 4) faithfulness (v. 18), 5) consecration (v. 18), 6) and holiness (v. 18). The law of God set forth a few other qualifications for who could eat this holy food, though those additional qualifications could easily fit under these six general conditions. For example, Leviticus 22:4,6 said that anyone who was unclean from leprosy, a bodily discharge such as semen, had touched the dead, etc. “shall not eat of the holy things.” Leviticus 22:12 says “if the priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she may not eat of the holy offerings.” They could eat common food, but they could not eat the sacramental portions. That meant that they were passive observers while the rest of the family participated in the sacramental food.
  5. It might be objected that the qualifications were only for the adults. However the qualifications are given in the same sentence that admitted “their little ones and their wives, their sons and their daughters” (v. 18). This makes it extremely unlikely that these qualifications could be isolated and only applied to the adults. It was precisely because it was the sacramental food that all without exception had to meet the qualifications of the law. None of this fits either the paedo-communion or the mature-communion viewpoints, but it certainly fits the position being advocated in this book, young-credo-communion.
  6. Finally, if the priests only distributed to those who met these qualifications, it implies that the Levites had the responsibility to determine who met these qualifications. That would take interviews, investigation, and knowledge of each individual. The families did not decide; the priests and synagogue Levites did. (For more on the involvement of elders and Levites in determining who was qualified, see chapter 2, footnote 34.)

If all of the above six points are true, then this is a passage that very clearly admitted believers as young as three years old to the feast. The fact that these believers had to meet certain conditions undermines the paedo-communion position. The fact that gamul and taph children are mentioned undermines the mature-communion position.

Isaiah 28:7-13

I do not present this passage with any degree of confidence because there is no consensus among commentators on the meaning or even the speakers involved in this difficult passage.125 Some see questions spoken by drunken priests and prophets who are belittling Isaiah as the teacher.126 Others see Isaiah as mocking the infantile prophets.127 I tentatively side with those who see the Lord as contrasting His past teaching (vv. 9-10) with his future more harsh teaching through enemies (vv. 11-13).128 Isaiah rebukes the priests who regularly approached his “tables” unworthily in pride and drunkenness (vv. 7-8) and contrasts them with the children who were being instructed to approach the same “tables” with teachable humility (vv. 9-10). Thus, instead of verse 9 ending with two questions (“Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breast?”), it would end with two statements given in answer to the questions. It would thus read:

Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk. Those just drawn from the breast. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

This follows the ancient Septuagint understanding of the Hebrew and much better explains the reason (“For”) given in verse 10. While most translations make verse 9 have three questions, the translation above is followed by Webster, Young’s Literal, and a minority of other translations.

If this viewpoint is correct, then there are several reasons why this may have a sacramental significance for gamul children.

  1. First, Paul applies verses 11-12 to New Covenant worship in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25. This is not merely a rebuke of people in society at large; it is a rebuke concerning worship.
  2. Second, Paul’s application is the same as Isaiah’s application when he says, “Brethren, do not be children in understanding…in understanding be mature” (v. 20).
  3. Third, it supports Paul’s central theme that without understanding there is no edification, which in turn supports our contention that when children do not understand the significance of the feast they are not edified by it.
  4. Fourth, if Isaiah 28:9-13 is part of the same pericope as verses 7-8, then it is tightly connected with the issue of unworthy participation in the sacramental meals. The word “tables” in the clause, “For all tables are full of vomit and filth” (v. 8), refers to a “ceremonial table…around which people gather for the sacrificial meal.”129

The model of humility, knowledge, and perception that is needed at the Lord’s Table is surprisingly made to be a gamul child who has been preparing himself to know the Lord. The priests would not receive God’s teaching, but these young children were:

If this instruction is the preparation needed for worthy participation, then it appears that God expects discipleship to precede communion. Just as David likened his approach to the Lord to the prepared behavior (discipleship) of a weaned child (Psalm 131), this passage is using the example of gamul children who were preparing for the sacrament by receiving instruction and learning precept upon precept. All of this was intended as a rebuke to those priests. Certainly the gamul child was expected to behave with humility, self-restraint, and hope in the Lord (Psalm 131) — something the priests were not doing.

Though there is legitimate debate about the relevance of this passage to communion, any alternative explanation should attempt to show why a gamul child is placed into a discussion of worthy participation in the sacramental meals of Israel. This is the only explanation I have seen that makes sense of both Paul’s use of the passage and Isaiah’s connection with the sacramental table.

In summary, the statistical occurrences of these terms ought not to be ignored. An astonishing 4 out of 8 occurrences of this word tie the gamul child to the sacrament in some way, and two are fairly clear about the gamul child partaking. In contrast, none of the 495 times that the yeled child is mentioned are such children explicitly said to be included in the sacrament.

taph (טַף) — a child that still clings to its mother (3-6 years old). Occurs 43 times.

The next stage in a child’s development is the taph (טַף) stage of childhood. Some dictionaries make note of the fact that taph children are usually associated with their mothers (cf. Gen. 34:29; 45:19; 46:5; Numb. 14:3; 16:27; 32:26; Deut. 3:19; 29:11; Josh. 1:14; 2 Chron. 20:13; 31:18). The literal meaning of the word taph is to “take quick little steps” (NIDOTTE) or “quick, tripping steps” (BDB). Thus, some have restricted its meaning to toddlers.130 But even the literal meaning related to walking is much broader than toddlers and refers to “those (as a class) not able or barely able to march” (Zondervan Hebrew). Since dictionaries show that the word taph is distinguished from the gamul and elem stages of childhood, and since it refers to children who would have a difficult time walking on long marches under their own power, and since taph children are often listed with their mothers, we agree with Edersheim that this word bridges the gap between gamul and elem (3-6). There is enough range of years in this category that it should not surprise us that some taph children have “no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut. 1:35), while others are ready to be taught knowledge so as to approach the table (Is. 28:7-10 - see exposition of that passage in this chapter), and other taph children already have sufficient maturity to be said to have “faithfulness” and to have “sanctified themselves in holiness” (2 Chron. 31:18). So this book is not advocating the automatic admittance of all taph children to communion - far from it. But to those who insist that no taph children should ever partook, I offer up the following examples of taph children who did indeed do so.

The first feast after the Egyptian Passover

When Moses said that he would go to have a feast to the Lord three days into the wilderness (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27; 10:9), Pharaoh asked who would go. Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters” (Ex. 10:9). While the word for “young” is general, Pharaoh wanted to prohibit one category of “young” from going — the taph children (“your little ones” — 10:10). After the next plague, Pharaoh permitted the taph children to leave (10:24). Since the purpose for going was to sacrifice to the LORD (10:25) and to “hold a feast to the LORD” (10:9), this at least implies that some of the taph children partook. It is certainly the taph children that were in dispute over this feast. Pharaoh wanted to prohibit them and Moses insisted that they would participate.

Deuteronomy 27-29 & Joshua 8

The same implication may be seen in in the covenant renewal ceremony commanded in Deuteronomy 27 and fulfilled in Joshua 8:30-35. God commanded, “You shall offer peace offerings, and shall eat there, and rejoice before the LORD your God” (Deut. 27:7). That peace offerings always had a sacramental aspect to them can be seen from Ex. 32:6, Lev. 7:15,18,20-21, Lev. 10:14, Deut. 27:7, and 2 Chron. 30:22. Who was involved in this sacramental renewal of covenant? Not yeled, or yonek, or olel children. The only children mentioned were the taph “little ones” (Josh. 8:35). They were included out of obedience to Deuteronomy which commanded involvement of all who were able to “enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath” (Deut. 29:12) — an oath that was taken by “all the men of Israel, your little ones (taph) and your wives” (Deut. 29:10-11). So Deuteronomy 27-29 and Joshua 8 are two passages that explicitly include taph children. Verses 10-12 imply that the the little ones were capable of taking an “oath” (v. 12).

2 Chronicles 31

The taph children mentioned in 2 Chronicles 31:18 also ate the sacramental meals by God’s authority (see discussion of 2 Chronicles 31:2-21 in the previous section). Again, it must be emphasized that taph children did not automatically participate. They had to meet the six conditions laid out in the previous section before partaking. If this was a lawful partaking, then there had to be precedent in the Torah — something which we have already demonstrated above.

elem (2x) or the feminine form almah (7x) — a child firming up (7 to teen years).

The next stage in childhood is captured by the Hebrew terms elem (עֶלֶם) for the male and almah (עַלְמָה) for the female. There is debate on the precise age range denoted by this word, but generally it covers the age of 7 into the teen years. The lack of evidence for this age group partaking may simply be due to how infrequently it occurs (note that gamul occurs fewer times, and has four mentions of the sacramental meal). In any case, if the minimum age were in the 7-13 range, one would expect this term to be mentioned in connection with the feasts. It is not.

na’ar (נַעַר) — youth that are starting to gain some independence (teens up to 19). נַעַר occurs 256x; נֹעַר 4x; נַעֲרָה 76x; נַעֲרָה 1x; total 337 x.

The next stage in development that is outlined by Edersheim is the na’ar youth. While this word is on at least one occasion used for a much younger person (2 Sam. 12:16; and possibly as a term of endearment in 1 Sam. 1:24-25,27) and while the term is also used to refer to a “servant” (see 2 Sam. 16:1), it is almost always used to describe people from the time of puberty through age 19. The key point that all are agreed on is that it never refers to a married person, and always refers to some person still under parental authority.131 It is translated as “a lad,” “an adolescent,” “a young man,” or “a servant.” The feminine form (נַעֲרָה) is translated as “girl, maiden, young woman” (TWOT). This person is clearly under the authority of parents (Numb. 30:3,16) or masters (Gen. 22:3; Numb. 22:22; Judges 9:54; 2 Sam. 13:17; etc.), and yet is able to make some independent decisions by which he or she can be bound (Numbers 30 particularly addresses the independent vows of a na’ar and na’arah).

Though there are many references to na’ar youth partaking of the sacramental meals, it is astonishing how many of those contexts have already mentioned much younger people having also taken the sacrament. In other words, the na’ar stage is not the beginning stage for the sacramental meal, and certainly not the only stage. Consider the following examples:

Exodus 10

Though the na’ar are mentioned as partaking in Exodus 10:9, so are the much younger “little ones” in the same context (Ex. 10:10,24).

Exodus 24

The sacrifices of peace offerings made by the young men in Exodus 24:5 was applied more broadly to “the people” in verse 8.

1 Samuel 2

The unworthy partaking of the sacrament by Eli’s young sons (na’ar in 1 Sam. 2:17) is immediately followed by the contrast of Samuel’s worthiness (v. 18).

1 Samuel 21; etc.

Though David’s “young men” partook of sacramental “holy bread” (1 Sam. 21:4-5), earlier in the story David was included in Samuel’s sacramental meal (1 Sam. 16:1-13).

The many other references to na’ar youth partaking of sacramental meals should not be surprising since they had already been admitted at a much earlier stage.

bachur (44x) — a ripened one; young warrior ready to marry and the feminine equivalent, bethulah (50x) — a young woman who is a virgin just prior to marriage. Used 94 times in the Bible.

The next stage is captured by the Hebrew terms bachur (בַחוּר) and bethulah (בְּתוּלָה). For males, the term bachur covers any age where the young man is mature, able to be a warrior, and ready for marriage, whether he is a late teen or in his early twenties. For females, the term bethulah refers specifically to a virgin who is ready for marriage, but not yet married.

It is interesting that there is not a single example of a bachur youth or a bethulah maiden being admitted to communion. If (as some mature-communion advocates claim) the minimum age for admitting to the table is ages 18-20 (that is, adulthood), then one would expect this term to have been used frequently as a condition for coming to communion — especially when it is used 94 times.

ish and ishah — adult men and women (usually, who are married). Occurs 3044 times.

The last terms, ish (אִישׁ) and ishah (אִשָּׁה) refer to adult men and women. It is not surprising that they are included in the sacramental meals when those much younger are as well. While there is one occasion when only elders partook of the meal (Ex. 18:12), the previous list makes it clear that elders are not the only ones qualified.

Though this survey of Hebrew terms is not a conclusive argument against either paedo-communion or mature-communion, it strongly favors the young-credo-communion position that has been articulated in this book. The clear inclusion of gamul and taph children into the sacramental meals and the complete silence with regard to the inclusion of yeled, yonek, olel participants is extremely strange if paedo-communion is the correct position. Likewise, the inclusion of gamul and taph children in the sacramental meals and not simply the elem, na’ar, bachur, and bethulah is extremely strange if the mature-credo-communion view is the correct position.

Up next

4. The Regulative Principle of Worship Violated