6. Presuppositions of Various Mature-Communionists

As can be seen from chapter 2, there are even more mature-communion positions than there are paedo-communion positions. I would therefore urge the reader to not assume that every mature-communionist will embrace the presuppositions of any one of the following influential men. This is a difficult subject, and much more study needs to be done. I have tried to quote the most famous and influential of the mature-communionists below — especially if they have introduced new or novel presuppositions. If you are a mature-communionist who believes your presuppositions have not been represented below, by all means let me know. Future editions of this book will seek to be more representative. To get a feel for the diversity out there, I have listed most of the mature-communion books that I found to be helpful reads in the introduction.

Presuppositions of Leonard Coppes

Leonard Coppes’ book on adult communion²³⁰ has had a great deal of influence in convincing people in my circles to not allow any children to partake of communion. He is a great man and I have huge respect for him as a theologian and a godly pastor. Though I will strongly disagree with some of his presuppositions, I mean no disrespect to him personally. However, our arguments are only as good as their starting points, and it is those starting points that I will now address.

There are a series of presuppositions laid out by Coppes related to the feasts of Israel and the Fast Day of the Great Atonement.

Coppes’ first presupposition

No one Old Testament meal embraces all that it means to eat/commune with God. Hence no one meal is determinative for admission to the Lord’s Supper.²³¹

Since the Old Testament feast days clearly included children and little ones, this is an essential presupposition to his arguments. If Coppes had instead said that no one meal exclusively stands as an Old Testament counterpart to the Lord’s Table, or that no one meal exhaustively teaches us all that we need to know about the Lord’s Table, then this presupposition would be unexceptionable. The book makes clear that he believes that no Old Testament meal (and not even all of the Old Testament meals taken together) can authoritatively teach us about the conditions and participants for the Lord’s Table. Instead (as will be shown below) he chooses a fast day as the day that most fully informs us of the conditions and participants for the Lord’s Supper. Why would he do this? My guess is that he knows that allowing any Old Testament meal to inform us about the conditions or parties to the Table would be fatal to his thesis. So he is forced to come up with a much more complicated argument.

My verse-by-verse exposition of 1 Corinthians 10 (see chapter 10 of this book) will reinforce many of the other exegetical proofs that I have already given (see chapters 2-3) that this presupposition is misleading at best and false at worst. With all of the exegetical material I have provided in order to prove that the Old Testament sacramental meals are “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual drink” as the sacrament that we participate in (1 Corinthians 10), it is no surprise that the Bible can speak of the Lord’s Table as a Firstfruits (1 Cor. 10:3-5), a Passover (see Mark 14:12,14,16; Luke 22:8,11,13,15; 1 Cor. 5:7-8), a Pentecost (Acts 2:1,42,46), a Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16-21; John 7:2,37), a manna (John 7:27-71; 1 Cor. 10:3-4,9; Rev. 2:17), an Edenic Tree of Life (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), and a peace offering meal (1 Cor. 10:7-8). This first presupposition is clearly false.

Several other presuppositions given by Coppes

The next part of his argument relates to the Day of Atonement, and I will list several integrated presuppositions together from page 15. Coppes says:

The New Testament uses the Great Atonement as the epitome of the nature of the Lord’s Supper (Heb. 8-10).
All of the Old Testament meals (except the wilderness meals) related to the Great Atonement because they all involved sacrifices on the altar.
All the Old Testament meals depict some aspect of the Great Atonement. Each meal is part of the whole sacrificial system and the whole system finds its climax in the Great Atonement.
No one meal fully depicts the Great Atonement. There was no meal eaten as part of the rites commanded to be observed on the Day of Atonement.
The Lord’s Supper does fully depict the Great Atonement (Heb. 8-10).
The Lord’s Supper is distinct in nature insofar as it alone fully depicts the Day of Atonement.
Conclusion: since what the Lord’s Supper depicts and seals (its nature) is distinct from all the Old Testament meals, how it is to be observed and who is to be admitted (its design) is distinct from all the Old Testament meals.

The idea that the Day of Atonement alone adequately points to the Lord’s Table is repeated throughout the book. He believes that “the Lord’s Supper is the New Testament Great Atonement” (p. 13). He states that “The Lord’s Supper is distinct in nature insofar as it alone fully depicts the Great Atonement” (p. 15). “The Lord’s Supper is directly attached to the Great Atonement. No Old Testament meal was so directly associated with the Great Atonement” (p. 253). There are several major problems with this thesis:

First, the day of atonement was a fast day (Lev. 16:29,31; 23:27-32; Numb. 29:7), as Coppes himself admits. How can a meal fully depict a meal-less ritual or vice versa? Further, how can a ritual that has no meal give any guidance for who may or may not be admitted to a spiritual meal? If the Old Testament communion meals do not give us that information, then surely the New Testament would have clearly recorded that fact. Instead, Paul spent the first thirteen verses of 1 Corinthians 10 instructing New Covenant believers on worthy participation by looking at several feasts of the Old Testament. It is ironic that Coppes insists that the sacramental meals cannot be normative for admitting children, but a meal-less day can be.

Second, contrary to his statements above, nowhere is the Lord’s Supper specifically called a Great Atonement or the Day of Atonement in Hebrews 8-10. Coppes seems to imply that the references to the “new covenant” (Heb. 8:8,13; 9:15) and trampling the blood of Christ underfoot (Heb. 10:29) in connection with the call to weekly Sabbath gatherings (10:24-25) are sufficient to imply that the Lord’s Supper is being referred to — especially when Jesus likened the wine to “My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the writer intended us to see the Lord’s Table in those statements and intended the Day of Atonement to dictate the terms for admission to the Lord’s Table. This should force Coppes (if he were consistent) to reject infant baptism as well since Christian baptism is explicitly mentioned in Hebrews 10:22. If Coppes’ exegesis holds any water, then he should also say that the connection of the Great Atonement to baptism in Hebrews 8-10 means that all children are excluded from baptism. He obviously is not willing to go that far, showing the illegitimacy of the presupposition.

It is crystal clear that the Day of Atonement (clearly mentioned in Hebrews 9:7-9,11-15) is not the only thing that pointed to the “blood of the covenant” or the “new covenant” in Hebrews 8-10. A close examination of these chapters shows that the tabernacle and everything that happened in that tabernacle on a daily basis pointed to the new covenant of Christ. Consider the evidence:

1. Hebrews 8:1-13 shows that Christ (vv. 1-2) and His heavenly tabernacle (vv. 2-3) were typified by the earthly tabernacle and all of the “gifts and sacrifices” (v. 3) that went on there. Everything in the ceremonial law pointed to the new covenant (vv. 6-13), not simply the Day of Atonement.
2. Certainly Hebrews 9:7-9,11-15 refers to the Day of Atonement and its implications for the New Covenant, but the author then seamlessly moves in verse 18 to refer Exodus 24:6 where the first covenant was dedicated with blood. That was not a Day of Atonement. On the contrary, immediately after the dedication with blood (Ex. 24:4-8) there was a communion meal (Ex. 24:9-11). Coppes later admits this, but says that this meal was only participated in by the elders — i.e., those who had a high degree of holiness. He is missing the point that Hebrews does not tie the Lord’s Supper explicitly and/or exclusively to the Day of Atonement. He ties it to a communion meal. The statement, “Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD” (Ex. 24:5) may imply that at least those young men also partook of the peace offerings, since the one who made an offering partook of the offering. In any case, Hebrews 9:20 explicitly ties the new covenant with what was symbolized on that day — “saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you’” (Heb. 9:20).
3. Hebrews 9:21 then refers to the blood in Exodus 29:12-13.
4. In verse 22 he refers universally to all the sacrifices, saying, “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The last phrase is a reference to Leviticus 17, which gives instructions for all sacrifices that people sacrificed at the tabernacle and then ate from. Again, he is referring to meals, not the fast day of Day of Atonement.
5. In Hebrews 9:26 he goes back to the sacrifices of Genesis — long before the Day of Atonement.
6. Hebrews 10:1-2 he shows how the entire “law” is a shadow of the good things to come in the New Covenant, and explicitly speaks of “sacrifices, which they offer continually.”
7. Hebrews 10:8 has a comprehensive reference to the sacrificial system with the phrase, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin.” Again, the writer is comparing more than the Day of Atonement in these chapters.
8. Hebrews 10:11 refers to every sacrifice throughout the year when it says, “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices.” In the subsequent verses he contrasts Christ’s one offering with the multitude of offerings, and then applies all of these sacrifices mentioned to the new covenant (Heb. 10:15-16).
9. Certainly Hebrews 10:24-25 refers to our weekly Sabbath gatherings and verse 29 warns about trampling the blood of the covenant underfoot (10:29). When he immediately applies this, he does so by quoting Numbers 15:30, a reference to willful sin in connection with sin offerings.²³² It is immediately followed by a willful breaking of the Sabbath with a high hand (Numb. 15:32-36).
10. The warning issued to Christians in Hebrews 10:30 is a direct quote from Deuteronomy 32:35-36 — a passage that was read on the Festival of Tabernacles (see Deut. 31:10), rather than on the Day of Atonement.

All of these points reinforce my contention that the Scripture nowhere calls the Lord’s Supper the Day of Atonement or the Great Atonement. Indeed, as I will show below, to speak of the Lord’s Supper as an atonement at all is to fall into the error of Romanism. The fellowship meals followed the sacrifices but were not the sacrifices themselves. Christ’s sacrifice is the atonement. The Lord’s Table is not an atonement but follows the once-and-for-all-time-finished atonement of Christ.

Third, his implication from the Day of Atonement that holiness was required to approach the altar is meaningless for settling this debate. He wants to say that children are not capable of such holiness and therefore they did not approach the altar. Neither did women, men or other priests. Only the High Priest did. More importantly, not even the priests ate from the altar on that day. It has no relevance to who may come to the Lord’s Table.

Fourth, what does it mean for meals to be most restrictive when they are “close to the Great Atonement” and most inclusive when they are “most distant to the Great Atonement” (pp. 72ff)? There are two options, neither of which supports his thesis:

1. Does he mean close in time or close in proximity? It obviously cannot mean close on the calendar since the closest ceremonies to Atonement (Tishri 10) include little children: the feast of Tabernacles (Tishri 15-21) includes “men and women and all who could hear with understanding” (Neh. 8:2), namely all who could hear with understanding of the taph children authorized to partake in the law of God (see for example Deut. 31:12).
2. On the other hand, It cannot mean close to the altar (as he seems to mean) since Atonement was not the only sacrifice on the altar. There were sacrifices on the altar that were eaten by children as young as three years old. For example, 2 Chronicles 31:16 sets an absolute minimum age limit of three years (with conditions), but even the older taph children who were admitted to the “holy food” in that passage (v. 18) were obviously much younger than Coppes allows. Likewise, young Samuel ate from the altar (1 Sam. 1:24-28). It is also significant that when the priests are judged in Isaiah 28:7-9 God says that the only ones who partook worthily were “Those just weaned from milk. Those just drawn from the breast” (v. 9). The rest were drunken like those described in 1 Corinthians 11. Also less restrictive meals that were eaten by priests and their wives were also eaten by children (cf. eg. Numb. 18:11). The point is, there is no definition of “closer to the Great Atonement” that supports his position. You simply could not eat anything off the altar on the Day of Atonement since it was a fast day.

Fifth, the irony of equating the day of Atonement with the Lord’s Supper is that it proves too much. Only priests approached the altar, it is true, but every Israelite was responsible to “afflict their souls” in fasting under penalty of excommunication (Lev. 23:27-32). This “everyone” included infants since Joel 2:12-17 calls upon even “children and nursing babes” to participate in this fast day convocation. If the Great Atonement in any way tells us who may or may not partake of the Lord’s Supper, then either you exclude everyone except for Christ from the Lord’s Supper or you include infants. I do not believe either alternative is Biblical because you cannot regulate feast days by what happened on a fast day.

Sixth, Coppes has fallen into the Romanist error of equating the Lord’s Supper with the Old Testament sacrifices. Central to the Reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper is an absolute cleavage between the sacrifice and the meal which followed. The sacrifice pointed forward to the finished work of Christ on the cross. The fellowship meal that followed was a sign and a seal that God had accepted the sacrifice and that the offerer no longer faced God’s judgment. It is ironic that Coppes calls the Day of Atonement the only ritual that fully pictures the Lord’s Supper when the Day of Atonement was finished on the cross. We no longer sacrifice a Passover lamb, a peace offering, a heave offering or any other kind of sacrifice because of Christ’s declaration that “it is finished [the debt has been fully paid]” (John 19:30). The only thing left over from the Old Testament sacrificial system is the meal that followed the sacrifices.

Seventh, Coppes has also fallen into the Romanist error of measuring worthy partaking of a feast by looking to the priesthood as the paradigm of admission to the “altar”, rather than seeing the paradigm for admission in those who partook of the meal that the priests allotted to the laity. Even on the most restrictive offerings where only Levites could partake, the priest alone could offer the sacrifice, but the meal that followed was partaken of by children. Christ alone is worthy as a priest. He alone is worthy to approach the altar to offer a sacrifice. Our worthiness and our boldness in coming to the Holy of Holies (Heb. 10:19-25) comes after Christ has entered the Holy of Holies. It is evidence of Christ’s grace being lived out through us that makes us worthy. The only requirement given to us is that we come in “the full assurance of faith;” trusting in Christ’s finished priestly work and seeking to begin to live by His grace. It is direction, not perfection.

Eighth, Coppes says, “The Lord’s Supper is directly attached to the Great Atonement. No Old Testament meal was so directly associated with the Great Atonement” (p. 253). In light of how weak the connection is to the Day of Atonement, and in light of the fact that the Day of Atonement is a fast day and in no way resembles the Lord’s Supper, and in light of how many explicit statements there are tying the Lord’s Supper to Passover, manna, peace offerings, etc., it boggles my mind that Coppes can make this statement.

Ninth, Coppes downplays the self-examination that occurred in many of the Old Testament feasts. We have already proven that the Old Testament required self-examination prior to participating in the sacraments and even gave warnings of death similar to 1 Corinthians 11:30 (Isa. 1:10-20; Amos 5:18-27; Jer. 7:1-29; Zech. 7:5-7; Mal. 1:6-14; 2:13-14). How can all of the feasts that are alluded to in 1 Corinthians 10:1-10 be “examples” of the dangers of lack of self-examination (1 Corinthians 10:11) if self-examination was not required in the Old Testament?! If Paul’s admonitions for self-examination flow out of the Old Testament, and if the Old Testament allowed children to partake, then it is obvious that the kind of self-examination engaged in does not exclude children today.

Tenth, his thesis forces a conundrum for Coppes — how to exegetically support women coming to the table in the New Testament. Coppes applies Galatians 3:28 to the Lord’s Supper as his explanation of why women were barred in the Old Testament but are not now. The problem is, he has taken it out of context. Verse 28 is bringing to a climax the arguments in chapters 2-3 of circumcision giving way to baptism, and verse 28 is showing the changes between the covenants for “as many as have been baptized into Christ” (v. 27). If it applies any broader than baptism, then it is arbitrary to stop with the Lord’s Supper. It could then also mean there are no male/female distinctions for officers, marriage, etc. There simply are no explicit changes from Old Testament to New Testament on who can or cannot partake of the Lord’s Table. The feasts support a young-credo-communion position.

Coppes on federal headship and communion

The next two presuppositions are shared in common with other adult-communion advocates. First, Coppes believes that only federal heads could partake of Passover in the Old Testament.

When did that representation cease? When the child was no longer a child. This change of state took place when the child passed from childhood into adulthood. When he became an adult he was no longer under a representative head — he was the representative head (at least potentially) and could defend himself in the courts…Only male federal heads could approach the altar, or the presence of God…The one recognized as an adult was expected to assume adult responsibilities: marriage, making vows, approaching the altar, voting in the assembly, defending himself in courts (Ex. 22:22ff.). In most of these matters there is no specific text of Scripture which teaches an age of admission, but the general equity of Scripture teaches that adult responsibilities and adult privileges require that only an adult perform and enjoy them (Lk. 12:48)…It was the will of God that all males approach the altar worthily and as soon as possible, Deut. 16:16…[or they] would not have kept the law perfectly.²³³

There are several problems with this.

1. As chapters 2-3 have demonstrated, Coppes is simply not correct when he states that “Only male federal heads could approach the altar, or the presence of God.” For example, David set up the Tabernacle in 1 Chronicles 16. “Then they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God. And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD. Then he distributed to everyone of Israel, both man and woman, to everyone a loaf of bread, a piece of meat, and a cake of raisins” (1 Chron. 16:1-3). This presents a dilemma for Coppes. If Coppes responds that only David approached the altar, then he would violate his principle that all male heads were morally obligated to approach the altar. If he interprets the approach as being receiving the food from the altar, he ignores the fact that this verse has women partaking, and women were not federal heads. 2 Chronicles 31 shows that even the most holy food from the altar was partaken of by Levites, their wives, sons, and daughters — even taph and gamul children. Coppes is clearly not correct in this presupposition.
2. Second, contrary to his assertion, there are several specific texts of Scripture that specify ages of admission to the table (see chapter 3).
3. Coppes has to later contradict his own definitions by only prohibiting “those below puberty.”²³⁴ He does this in order to accommodate his next presupposition (see below). Nowhere are 12 or 13 year olds considered adults, and certainly they are not considered federal heads who can vote, contract marriage, etc.

Next presupposition: Luke 2 is Christ’s first Passover

Coppes’ next presupposition is that Jesus was only 12 when He partook of his first communion and as such, He stands as a model of when to come to communion. Coppes vacillates between ages 11, 12, and 13.

The example of Jesus leads to this conclusion, Luke 2:41-52.
Rabbinic sources teach that this was the age (officially 13, but possibly 11 or 12) of passing from childhood to adulthood by means of examination and formal introduction into the court of Israel (the rite marking this change of status is now known as bar mitzvah).
Jesus was subjected to this institution by God. This is implied by the rabbinic source just mentioned. Furthermore, what the Talmud says about Jewish practice best fits the assumption that this was Jesus’ bar mitzvah: (1) he was twelve, (2) on their way home his parents had travelled with relatives and missed him — most people went home on the third day of the feast and the women and children travelled in a group ahead of the men; thus, each parent would think Jesus was with the other parent (with Joseph because he had just changed status; with Mary because it would have been natural for him to be with his young friends); when they stopped for the night they found Jesus was absent, (3) he was found sitting in the court of the men talking to the rabbis — they only talked with ‘commoners’ in the court of Israel and on the third and following days of the feast, (4) only adult males, or young boys anticipating their bar mitzvah the next year could enter into the court, (5) Jesus’ reply to Mary’s rebuke set forth his new status; yet he returned home with his parents — how was this being about his father’s business? Answer: now he was a man of God, but did not yet enter his messianic ministry — Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the, Messiah, vol. 1, 235-236.
It was the will of God that all males approach the altar worthily and as soon as possible, Deut. 16:16.
Jesus approached the altar as soon as was willed by God.
Since Jesus was subjected to this institution by God the Father, this is the correct interpretation of God’s will. If in the Old Testament, God commanded all males to appear before him as soon as they were physically able to do so (Deut. 16:16) and if Jesus did not do this, then Jesus would not have kept the law perfectly.²³⁵

There are several faulty presuppositions in this argument.

First, there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible considered age 11, 12, or 13 to be the transition to adulthood or to even be a significant signpost in God’s religious economy. Valuations took into account one month old, and ages 5, 20, and 60 (Lev. 27:1-8), but not the age of 13. Adulthood is always treated as “twenty and above” in Scripture (Numb. 1:3; see also Ex. 30:14; 38:26; 27:3,5; Numb. 1:18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,38,40,42-43; 14:29; 26:2; 4; 32:11; etc.). This was the lowest age for the census (Ex. 30:14), for voting (2 Sam. 16:18), for affirmations concerning an honest tithe (Deut. 26:2-15), and for other issues that required adult-type decisions (Numb. 1:3; see also Ex. 30:14; 38:26; 27:3,5; Numb. 1:18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,38,40,42-43; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 32:11; etc.).

Second, his use of Luke 2:41-52 completely contradicts his earlier thesis that only federal heads partook of the sacraments in the Old Testament. He insists that a child is no longer a child when he is no longer under a federal head. Luke 2:51-52 is quite specific about two things that happened after Christ’s participation in Passover. These two facts completely contradict Coppes’ thesis:

1. First, Luke 2:51 says, “Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” It is obvious that Jesus considered Himself to still be subject to His parents. This means that He was not yet a federal head.
2. Second, Luke 2:51 says, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” This indicates that He had not matured to the point of adulthood. Yet He was admitted to the feast on at least that day (see below for earlier years).

Third, it is important to note that in Luke 2:41-42, neither verse says anything about Jesus going up. That is implied. It says, “His parents went…they went.” The only difference between verses 41 and 42 is the mention of Christ’s age because it is pivotal in showing what an unusual child Christ was to have such wisdom at such an early age. There is nothing in the text to imply that Jesus had not gone up before. Indeed, if the ESV is correct in its translation, it implies the opposite: “And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning,” etc. Or as the Amplified renders it, “And when He was twelve years [old], they went up, as was their custom.” On that translation it would mean that it was their custom to bring their whole family. Either way, it is reading into the text to say that this was His first feast.

Fourth, Coppes says that this verse is a reference to bar mitzvah and that Christ was catechized before He partook of the Passover. Even if it is bar mitzvah (which is extremely unlikely — see below), it has no relevance to whether Christ partook. Bar mitzvah has never been an initiating rite into Passover as any Jew will tell you (and as you can read in the Talmud for yourself). Very young children partake of Passover in unbelieving Jewish circles even to this day.

Fifth, what is astonishing to me is that Coppes is willing to base the age of admission on bar mitzvah (a Pharisaical addition to God’s Word) and ignore the clear Biblical statements of the Old Testament.

However, it is doubtful that this was bar mitzvah for two reasons. 1) Christ never submitted to even the most (apparently) innocent of Pharisaical additions to God’s law (cf. the apparently “innocent” rites He condemns in Mark 7). No matter how “innocent” additions may be, they violate the Regulative Principle of Worship (see chapter 4). It is clear that bar mitzvah was a tradition of the fathers, not a tradition of Scripture and would have received Christ’s condemnation. 2) Second, it is likely that the modern custom of bar mitzvah was not invented until well after the time of Christ. The Talmud began to be recorded in 166 AD, but did not take its final form until much later. The Talmud is Coppes’ only ancient source of information on bar mitzvah. In any case, it is clear that bar mitzvah has nothing to do with admission to the feasts.

His next presupposition

“Children did not fully consume any meal — the rabbis forbid children to drink wine.”²³⁶

The Pharisees (or someone else during the intertestamental period) introduced drinking wine as part of the Passover meal and forbade children to drink it. It seems unlikely that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus introduced a practice which would be highly offensive to the entire Jewish population. It is equally unlikely that in the New Testament there would be no explicit instruction concerning the admission of children to the cup, and therefore, to communicant membership.²³⁷

This presupposition (that children were not permitted to drink wine) supposedly proves that children were excluded from the Lord’s Supper because, 1) Jesus commands, “Drink from it, all of you” (Matt. 26:27), and 2) it would not have been lawful for Him to command children to drink wine. There are several problems with his argumentation here:

First, Jesus had no problem disagreeing with the Pharisees when they added or subtracted from God’s law. Consider his scathing denunciations in Mark 7:1-23 and his pronouncing “Woe” upon them in Matthew 23. His constant confrontations with and contradictions of the Pharisees led them to hate Him and crucify Him. He called upon all of His followers to avoid their unbiblical teachings. He said, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:16).

Second, it is simply not true that first century Jews did not serve wine to children. Their first taste of wine was at circumcision.²³⁸ The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “Throughout the OT, wine is regarded as a necessity of life and in no way as a mere luxury. It was a necessary part of even the simplest meal (Gen. 14:18; Judges 19:19; 1 Sam. 16:20; Isa. 55:1)…and was drunk by all classes and all ages, even by the very young (Lam. 2:12; Zech. 9:17).”²³⁹

Third, children were commanded to drink wine at the Old Testament sacramental meals (Deut. 12:1-19; 14:22-29; 16:13-17; 18:1-8; 26:1-15) and that they did so is recorded in several Scriptures (1 Sam. 1:3,9,13,24-25,28; 2 Chron. 31:5,16,18-19; Neh. 8:1-3 with vv. 9-12).

Fourth, though Coppes claims that Jesus introduced something new when He served wine at His Passover, that is not the case. The Reformers correctly taught that all of the feasts and sacrifices that were later added flowed logically from their prototype, the Passover.²⁴⁰ Peace offerings, for example, were integral to the Passover right from the beginning (see for example, Ex. 3:18; 5:1; 7:16; 10:9; 1 Chron. 30:22,24; 35:8-14), as Coppes admits. So if wine was commanded in the “offspring feasts” that flowed from Passover, it would logically be included in the Passover itself. Indeed, wine and bread were served at the sacramental meal of Genesis 14:18 long before the time of Moses.

There is more to Coppes’ argument than what has been listed in the above points. He also references laying on of hands, more arguments from the altar, and federal heads alone partaking in the Old Covenant. However, if you remove the presuppositions that I have outlined above, everything else in the book collapses.

Presuppositions of Francis Nigel Lee

Francis Nigel Lee is a hero of the faith, and it is only with reluctance that I disagree with him. He has written voluminously on the subject of communion and against paedo-communion. Though he disagreed with my position online, he respected my exegesis in the debates we had on capo.org. I highly respect Francis Nigel Lee as a man who towered above me in intellect and godliness. I wish he were alive so that he could interact with this book, but he has gone on to his reward in heaven. This section will not deal with all of his presuppositions (some of which I agree with), but only with the most significant presuppositions that led him to see no children or women at the sacramental meals of the Old Testament. This is a viewpoint that is shared by other great men that I respect, so I will not multiply quotes from others who hold the same opinion.

Lee’s first relevant presupposition

Q. 28. Does Exodus 10:9-25 imply also women and children co-sacrificed with the men?
A. 28. No, it says they would be with the men, while “those who are men” feasted – after Moses and Aaron and the menfolk brought “sacrifice to the Lord.”²⁴¹

This is one of many places where Francis Nigel Lee (FNL) tries to demonstrate that women and children never partook of the sacramental meals in the Old Testament. The simple reading of the text seems to indicate otherwise: “And Moses said, ‘We will go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds we will go, for we must hold a feast to the LORD.’” The “for” certainly seems to indicate that the “we” who are holding the feast includes the sons and daughters as participants, not simply observers. The tug-of-war over the children was a tug-of-war over the taph children (vv. 10,24). Pharaoh certainly understood that it would be more than the men who would hold the feast, for he said, “Not so! Go now, you who are men (הַגְּבָרִים֙ — mighty men), and serve the LORD” (v. 11). That Moses understood Pharaoh to mean “partake of the feast” by the word “serve” can be seen in verse 26 where Moses uses the same word “serve” and says, “Our livestock also shall go with us; not a hoof shall be left behind. For we must take some of them to serve the LORD our God, and even we do not know with what we must serve the LORD until we arrive there.” When the whole passage is taken together, it seems most natural to understand that the taph children (though not the younger yeled, yonek, or olel, children) would be included in a sacramental feast.

Lee’s second presupposition

FNL’s next presupposition is repeated frequently in the literature, but given special emphasis in this email note:

Ex. 3:22 text is very interesting. For it clearly says every woman /(‘ishshaah) shall borrow from her /[uncircumcisable] female-neighbour” — even as Ex. 12:4 says that every /[circumcised] *man /(‘iysh) in a little home shall take the Passover lamb together with his male-neighbour according to the number (cf. Ex. 12:37 & 12:44-49). Jots and tittles forever!²⁴²

His catechism on communion states the same thing:

Q. 30. Does Exodus 12:3-4 teach all would share the passover lamb with their neighbours?
A. 30. No, but that a few adult men should share the passover with their male neighbours.

Q. 31. Doesn’t Exodus 12:1-47 teach all the Congregation of Israel kept the Passover?
A. 31. That “Congregation” consisted only of adult males under the leadership of Elders.

Q. 32. How can you say that such “Congregation” excluded the women and children?
A. 32. God says it was “every man…according to the house of the fathers” (Exodus 12:1-3).²⁴³

Grover Gunn (a young-credo advocate) gave a superb analysis of the grammar stating,

Exodus 12:4 uses the word ish to refer to those who eat the Passover. The exegetical point is whether ish always implies the adult male human or whether it can be used strictly in its distributive function (“each”) with the reference determined by the context. If the former definition is true, then only adult males ate the Exodus 12 Passover. If the latter is true, then others beside adult males may have eaten the Exodus 12 Passover.²⁴⁴

The bored reader can skip over the rest of his analysis below that proves that ish does not need to mean male adults. Any dictionary will show that the distributive meaning is common. My book has circumvented this tough Hebrew analysis by looking at the later Passover feasts. If you desire to dig deeper, here is the rest of Grover Gunn’s analysis.

Look at 1 Chronicles 16:3:
ASV “And he dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to every one a loaf of bread, and a portion of flesh, and a cake of raisins.”
Here is a literal translation of the Hebrew; ish occurs three times, and I will enclose my translations of ish in asterisks:
And he distributed to all-each Israel (=everyone in Israel), from man even to woman (=both men and women), to each a loaf of bread, a portion and raisin cake.
The last phrase beginning with “to each” is a use of ish which obviously refers to both male and female. It is here used solely in its distributive function and not as an exclusive reference to the male adult human. This means that the use of ish in Exodus 12:4 does not prove that the Passover was eaten only by adult males.

This conclusion is further confirmed by the occasional use of ish to refer to inanimate things or to pieces of animals in Genesis 15:10. When ish is used in its distributive function, one can’t automatically assume that the reference is only to or even to the adult male human. One has to determine the reference from the broader context.

Job 42:11 says “They came” which is 3rd person, masc., plural. The subject is then specified, and it includes Job’s sisters. There is a series of 3rd person masc. plu. verbs all connected with the waw consecutive: they came, they ate, they consoled, they comforted, they gave. Does the ish associated with the last verb indicate that only the males gave gifts to Job? Or is ish there being used in only its distributive function, and are Job’s sisters included among those who gave Job gifts? The translations are divided largely based on date of translation. The translations which translate the subject of the last verb “every man” are KJV and ASV. The translations which translate this “each one” or “each of them” are NKJV, ESV, NASB and NIV.

Exodus 3:22 demonstrates the distributive use of ishsha, the Hebrew word for woman. The verse refers only to women.²⁴⁵

More presuppositions

FNL then gives several other assumptions/presuppositions about Exodus 12 in his catechism.

Q. 33. You say the “Congregation” was limited to circumcised and mature adult males?
A. 33. Yes; and they needed to be catechized before eating the Passover (Exodus 12:26-48).

Q. 34. Doesn’t Exodus 12:3 say “a lamb for each household” (including wives & babes)?
A. 34. No, it says “every man a lamb, according to the house of the fathers” not the mothers.

Q. 35. It also adds “a lamb for a house.”
A. 35. Yes, for “every man a lamb, according to the house of the fathers.”

Q. 36. Doesn’t Exodus 12:3-4 say “every person who has a mouth shall eat”?
A. 36. No, speaking of “the house of their fathers,” it says: “If the household is too small for the [male] lamb, let him [the male householder] and his male neighbour take it [the mature ram] according to the number of the souls of every man [or adult male] according to his eating and make your count for the lamb.”

Q. 37. Are you saying only the mature males who would eat of the lamb were counted?
A. 37. That’s what God says; and He adds that even the lamb to be used, is to be a mature male (Exodus 12:5).

While some of what he says is correct here, I would quibble with the following points:

1. First, whole households obviously partook. While he repeatedly quotes the first phrase “according to the house of his father,” he misses the next phrase in Exodus 12:3, “a lamb for a household” (Ex. 12:3). The norm was for a household to consume one lamb, obviously more than one man can eat. If only the head of each household partook of the lamb, “a lamb for a household” makes no sense. When verse 4 says, “And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons.” If only the heads of households partook, it makes no sense to say, “if the household is too small for a lamb.” It is obvious that God expected multiple people in a household to partake — not all, but multiple people.
2. Second, while a yearling lamb is not a baby, it is still not full grown.
3. He is again assuming that the distributive use of the word ish is not being used. That has already been disproved.

FNL makes the same mistakes that Coppes makes on 1) use of the Talmud, 2) assumptions about Christ’s participation in the Passover, and 3) the age at which a person becomes an adult. There are other issues that I have with his exegesis, but they have all been adequately answered in the other chapters of this book.

Richard Bacon

Richard Bacon, another man whom I dearly love, has written some helpful critiques of paedo-communion. The arguments he uses to prove adult-only communion are much weaker. I will give a few samples from his book, What Mean Ye?

The process of time in Genesis 4:3

Genesis 4:3-4 states that Cain and Abel brought offerings “in the process of time.” He claims that the Hebrew, מִקֵּ֣ץ יָמִ֑ים, means that enough years had gone by that they had grown up. It was as married adults (see v. 17) that they offered sacrifices, and not before then. Since Abel’s sacrifice came from “his flock” (v. 4) rather than his father’s flock, it is clear that both were old enough to manage their own farms. They were adults who had taken on the responsibilities of adulthood, including participation in the sacrificial meals. It was only the male adults who participated in these sacrifices. Since there is no mention of their children or wives participating, the children and wives did not partake. Cain’s offering was done according to his own imagination rather than following the Regulative Principle of Worship (what God had commanded) and it therefore was not accepted.

While this is an intriguing argument, Francis Nigel Lee’s exegesis of the phrase מִקֵּ֣ץ יָמִ֑ים (in his book on the Sabbath) seems much more straightforward. The Hebrew is literally at the end of the days, referring to the end of the week, the Sabbath.

Second, even if we concede the previous point, there is nothing in the text to say that this is the first time they ever offered sacrifices.

Third, the failure to mention wives or children is an argument from silence. The fact of the matter is that women could offer sacrifices (Lev. 12:6-8; 15:29).

The Passover Meal in Exodus 12

Bacon points out that the meal was not “open,” but was instead “fenced.” His proof is Exodus 12:43,45, which mandates that foreigners, sojourners, and hired servants must be barred from the meal. I have no argument with this.

His next point seems to read much more into the text than is there. He claims that verses 26-27 mandate catechism before partaking. This is not a parent asking a child questions. It is the reverse — a child asking, “What do you mean by this service?” I agree with Bacon that the “you” hints that the child asking that question was not partaking, but it is a major leap to go from the simple answer given about the origin of this feast in verse 27 to mandating the memorization of the Shorter Catechism before a person may partake.

Bacon also argues that the second Passover (Numbers 9) shows the necessity of examining participants. Certain men were unclean by attending a funeral, so by reason of their uncleanness, they could not partake of the Passover (Numb. 5:2-3). Since both men and women can contract ceremonial uncleanness (Numb. 5:3), and since only men approached Moses with this question of uncleanness, he says we are left to assume either 1) that no women attended the funeral or 2) that no women kept Passover. Indeed, roughly 25% of women should have approached Moses with the same question (because of uncleanness from their menses) if they had been allowed to partake of Passover. Finally, Moses’ solution benefited the men (have another Passover one month later), but would not have benefited the women since they would have been on the same cycle of uncleanness the following month. All of these things prove to Bacon that the women did not participate in the Passover.

The simple answer to this has already been discussed in this book — that women were exempted from the mandate to attend Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles (Ex. 23:17; 34:23). Did this mean they were not welcome to attend? No. Pentecost explicitly admitted daughters, female slaves, and widows (Deut. 16:9-12) and Tabernacles welcomed “your daughter…your female slave…the widow” (Deut. 16:13-17), “the women and little ones” (Deut. 31:9-13) and the “men and women and all who could hear with understanding” (Neh. 8:2), and Passover welcomed “everyone who prepares his heart to seek God” (2 Chron. 30:18c-19a).

Though I could outline other arguments that are given, I will refer the reader to chapters 10 and 11 where I go verse by verse through Exodus 12 and 1 Corinthians 10-11.