1.

Jesus First Passover

The Relevance of Jesus First
Pilgrim Passover upon the Age
of Coming to the Lords Supper
Rev. Jim West

IN recent years there has been a revival of baby-communion in many Churches. This revival has witnessed the publication of several persuasive articles that have for the most part been
left unchallenged. With the exception of Dr. Kenneth Gentrys tape
series, a booklet by Dr. Leonard Coppes, and a few other publications, such as the Westminster Theological Journal, established
denominations have been satisfied to stand pat, thinking perhaps
that its entrenched ecclesiastical majority, along with its implicit
anti-paedo-communion Confessions are more than enough to hold
the orthodox line. But as a result, many members and officers have
become silent adherents of the baby-communion position. They
have, perhaps, been bowled over by the logic of the position,
especially the logic that connects the Passover with the Lords Supper. This logic usually runs this way: The Passover is the covenant
meal for all the people of God, therefore all covenant children
should be welcomed to the Lords Supper, even during their tender
years. Thus, if we forbid covenant children to participate, we are
in effectexcommunicating them from Christs Church.
By choosing to study the Passover exclusively, I am aware that
that some will conclude that the only credible argument against
baby-communion is the ploy of severing the sacramental continuity
between the Passover and the Lords Supper. But this sincerely is
not my design. There are other credible arguments that could be
utilized, such as Hannahs decision for herself (?) and the boy Samuel not to go up to Shiloh until after the child was weaned (and
with Elkanahs blessing);1 the record in the New Testament of mul1.
Hannah obviously was not breaking any commandment by
choosing not to go to Shiloh.

1. Jesus First Passover

tiple household baptisms, but complete silence about family communions; the institution of the Lords Supper in First Corinthians 11
and its demand for a discerning faith that responds to the commands of take, eat, do, and examine; the fact that the Passover is described as a celebration instead of communion, and the
truth that in baptism (as in circumcision), the subject is passive,
whereas in communion the demand is for a knowledgeable taking and eating. Instead, I have chosen to deal exclusively with the
Passover, since this seems to be the stellar baby-communion argument. Yet, I have also chosen the Passover because the Passover is
the strongest argument against baby-communion and the strongest
argument for covenant confirmation when the young man of God
reaches years of puberty. One of the premature conclusions of babycommunionists is that there is no example in the Word of God of a
covenant child undergoing a ceremony or rite prior to Communion.
Ergo, it is mistakenly deduced that it is anti-Scriptural for a church
to withhold the Lords Supper from a child until he reaches years of
spiritual and physical maturity.
I am also aware that there are different nuances of paedo-communion. The baby-communion movement is not monolithic. Some
argue that a child should come to the Supper as soon as he has a
degree of cognition, and is able to confess, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. Others (the Eastern Orthodox) believe in
manducation, that is, that the child should be forced-fed, even in
infancy. Still others (the majority?) maintain that the infant should
be given the Supper after he is weaned (even though it might be
permissible to place wine droplets upon the infants tongue). Some
have even argued that the child receives the Lords Supper indirectly, even before birth, when his mother digests the bread and
wine. Thus, there is a prenatal, baby-communion position! The
purpose of this paper is not to critique these varieties. My burden is
for covenant children to be discipled and then received at the Lords
Table after they have come to years of spiritual understanding and
discernment. A closer examination of the Passover rite of Israel will
help us to achieve this goal.

10

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

Historical Prologue
to Jesus First Passover
At the beginning of the Jewish month Nissan, it was common for
messengers to be dispatched to all Israel, to summon the people to
the approaching Passover (2 Chronicles 30:1, 56, 10).
Although Israel enjoyed three feasts and was commanded by God
to appear three times a year, the Passover was the queen of the
feasts. This primacy was due to the significance of the Exodus,
which was the central redeeming event for the Old Testament people of God (Exodus 20:1; Hosea 11:1). This redemption was both
the prologue and the foundation of the Old Testament Law.
The Passover was instituted the night before the Exodus, when
God brought His people out of the land of Egyptsaving them from
idolatry and spiritual slavery (Exodus 12). The Passover was the
prelude to the climactic expression of Gods wrath against the Egyptians, who refused to let Gods people go. The tie that the Passover
has with the Lords Supper is so intimate that some Christian commentators have called the Passover the Lords Supper of the Old
Testament.2
This link was never intended to convey that the Lords Supper
and Passover are exactly the same meal, but it does mean that the
Paschal lamb is the center of both. Christ is that Paschal Lamb, the
Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1
Corinthians 5:7). In short, there is enough of the Lords Supper in
the Passover and enough of the Passover in the Lords Supper to
sustain the relationship of type and antitype.
The maiden Passover is described in Exodus 12 and therefore
must be construed as the classical passage with regard to the Passover. This does not mean that it is an exhaustive treatment of the
Passover, but it does mean that everything germinal and fundamental is to be found there. What is intriguing about the institution of
the Passover is the distinction between the Egyptian Passover and
the still future, Pilgrim Passover that would be observed once Israel
occupied the land (Exodus 12:19, 25, 48). Thus, Exodus 12
2. This does not mean that it is proper to speak of the Lords Supper as the Passover of the New Covenant. A type is not the antitype
anymore than a shadow is the same as the body that made the
shadow.

1. Jesus First Passover

11

acknowledges two Passovers, orbetterone Passover with

diverse participatory requirements. For the Family-Passover in
Egypt would differ from the Pilgrim Passover in the Promised Land.
The issue is not that God established the Pilgrim Passover after the
Egyptian Passover; but that God established the Pilgrim Passover
during the Egyptian Passover. Thus, for us to understand Jesus first
Passover (Luke 2), we must grapple with the dual Passovers in Exodus 12. The failure to discern these Passover nuances can be seismic, and even cause schism in the Church.
One such difference between the Egyptian and the future, Pilgrim
Passovers pertains to the Passover participants. The Egyptian Passover was celebrated with a lamb for a household, or family (Exodus 12:321). The lambs blood was applied to the doorposts and
lintels of the houses, meaning all the firstborn men, firstborn
women, and firstborn children were shielded from the fierce wrath
of God (Exodus 12:7). Also, the principal qualification for the Egyptian Passover repast pertained to appetite, literally, everyone
according to the mouth of his eating (Exodus 12:4). This same
qualification is found in Exodus 16:16, where it describes all who
could digest the manna in the wilderness. Although excluding very
young children, the terminology of everyone according to the
mouth of his eating implies that all of Gods people who could
digest lamb participated in the Egyptian Passover. The terminology
excludes the sick, many elderly, and all children who could not eat
solid food. Paradoxically, the very verse that is usually chosen by
baby-communionists to prove the absolute rights of all of Gods
people to come to the table, discriminates against legions of
Gods people.
However, Exodus 12 also legislates for the Pilgrim Passover that
would be enjoyed once Israel occupied the land. The first fourteen
verses of Exodus 12 legislate for the Egyptian Passover, but beginning at verse 15 the Pilgrim Passover becomes prominent. Israel
obviously was not able to eat unleavened bread for seven days in
Egypt (as verse 15 requires)! This would only be true when she
seized the land and ate the unleavened bread in an entirely new
mannerunhurriedly. Nor would Israels sons be able to receive a
full explanation about the meaning of the Passover-service until
after the Exodus and after Israel was entrenched in the land (Exodus 12:2527).
When the conquest of the land was accomplished, then additional Passover regulations came into play. For starters, the sons of

12

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

the children of Israel would have to be instructed about the meaning of the first Passover (vss. 2627). Another qualification is that
no outsider could eat it (this is contrasted to the mixed multitude,
who probably partook of the first Passovervs. 38). Above all, circumcision was a prerequisite for the Passover repastthe circumcision of all the males. Verse 48 reads:
And when a stranger sojourns 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.

Just as there was no time to feast for seven days in Egypt, (Israel
being commanded to leave Egypt that night), there would likewise
be no time to circumcise each and every male.3 But this would not
be true for the future, Pilgrim Passovers in the land. The man who
did not circumcise his males was in danger of being cut off, that
is, expelled from the people of God. Also, if a man ate leavened
bread during Passover week, he would also be cut off (vs. 15).
But while the people were in Egypt, the stranger, the mixed multitude, the uncircumcisedall who had stomachs for Passover food
and who were under the lintel blood, ate the Passover. Thus Exodus
12 introduces both the first, once-and-for-all Passover in Egypt, and
what was to be the normative, Pilgrim Passover in the land. In our
study of the Passover we must carefully distinguish between the two.
The Wilderness Passover
Between the time allotted for the Egyptian and Pilgrim Passovers
was the Wilderness Passover, which was more in keeping with the
3. Clearly, circumcising all of the males would have been counterproductive and crippled the armies of Israel from leaving Egypt (Exodus 34:24-25; Joshua 5:8). The statement in Joshua 5:10 about the second, collective Passover of all Israel is probably a contrast to the first,
collective Passover that occurred when Israel camped at Mount Sinai
in the first month of the second year, when they came out of Egypt
(Numbers 9). Thus, it is unlikely that the first, collective Passover
specified here happened in Egypt during the night of the Exodus. How,
then, do we explain the statement in Joshua 5 that says that all the
people who came out of Egypt were already circumcised (Joshua 5:5)?
The answer is that it does not specifically tell us when the people of
the Exodus were circumcised. The presumption is that they were circumcised at Mount Sinai before they partook of the second Passover.

1. Jesus First Passover

13

Passover regulations of Exodus 12:15ff, but not completely (Numbers 9:114).4 This was Israels second and last Passover before she
enjoyed the Sinaitic Passover some forty years later on the borders
of the Promised Land (Joshua 5). There are many things that distinguished this Passover from the Egyptian Passover. There was a
case about certain men who touched a dead body (Numbers
9:6), another case about a traveler who was away when the Passover was celebrated (vs. 9), and a question about what to do to a
circumcised man who sinfully declined to participate in the Passover (vs. 13). The premier feature about this second Passover is
uniformity of administration for the stranger and for him who was
born in the land (vs. 14). The reason that this was the second and
last Passover of Israel for forty years is due to the inhospitable circumstances in the wilderness. Where would Israel shop to find
meal to make unleavened bread?5 Since unleavened bread was a
Passover staple, Israel could not enjoy any additional Passovers
until she seized the Promised Land in faith. So, Israel would not
partake of another Passover for forty years.6 This meant that every
person below and above twenty years of age was effectively
debarred from the Passover Supper. Even obedient Israelites like
Joshua and Caleb, together with their families, did not partake of
the Passover. Thus, much like the Egyptian Passover, the Wilderness Passover also was celebrated abnormally. Both the Egyptian
and the Wilderness Passovers were irregular compared to the future
Pilgrim Passovers, when Israel would trek up to the temple in Jerusalem. These irregularities must be taken into account in order for us
4. The dissimilarities between the three Passovers remind us of
John the Baptists baptism, the baptism of Jesus and his disciples
(John 4), and Trinitarian baptism (Matthew 28:19-20). There are continuities and discontinuities between the three baptisms.
5. This is a problem even for the second Passover. It has been suggested that the Jews received flour from Midian, where Moses fatherin-law lived, as Midian was not far from Sinai (Exodus 3:1).
6. Amos 5:25 teaches that there were no sacrifices in the Wilderness for forty years. Incredibly, this implies that there were no Passovers or circumcisions in the wilderness (Joshua 5). Of course, Israel
was chastened by Gods fatherly wrath, too. Thus exclusion from the
Passover was an act of Church discipline.

14

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

to understand the reasons for the future changes in the Passover

ordinance, especially the question of who should participate.
The Masculinity of
the Pilgrim Passover
We must also magnify the male-centeredness of the Pilgrim Passover. The qualification is that all the males shall be circumcised.
Yet, this qualification is stated in language that suggests that only
the men partook. Exodus 12:48 declares that the father was to let all
his males be circumcised and, then, let him come near and keep
it... Nary a word is said about his young sons, or women, or males
who are not the heads of households keeping it (although Exodus
12:44 permits a mans servant to eat of it). This could mean that
they were either too young to eat the food or that they would not be
able to partake until they reached sufficient years of understanding
(e.g., being able to ask about the meaning of the Passover and willing to study the Biblical answerExodus 12:2627), or (and this is
more likely) that the text applies particularly to the stranger who
traveled to Israel without his family. Apparently, in order for the
stranger to eat, he must return home to circumcise his own children
first, before he alone returned to eat.
Nothing is said in Exodus 12 about a minimum age for Passover
participationnot until later in Exodus (Exodus 23:17). What is
more, Exodus 12:48 declares that no uncircumcised person shall
eat it. The word male is not used here and this may be deliberate, for God may be telling us not just that males who desire to partake must be circumcised, but only persons who are males are
permitted to eat the Pilgrim Passover.

Jesus First Pilgrim Passover

Exodus 12, then, is the historical background of Joseph and
Marys journey to Jerusalem for the Pilgrim Passover (Luke 2:41
50). But before giving a travelogue about their trek to the Holy
City, let me state two misunderstandings of this incident. First, it is
sometimes debated that the specific age of Jesus is of no outstanding importance. That Jesus was twelve when he attended the Passover is chalked up to pure happenstance. What is more, the
argument is made that the Lord had gone up many times, but on
this one occasion His age is specified for no specific purpose, other
than to underscore His meeting with the doctors of the Law in the

1. Jesus First Passover

15

temple. The second is that His sitting in the midst of the Jewish
doctors was the precise moment when He inaugurated His teaching
ministry. One writer calls it a Hellenist or Grecian depiction of a
kind of wonder child who teaches His teachers. It is our conviction that both understandings are errant; they both fail to appreciate the Torah and the paschal customs of Israel. For us to
understand why, we must now zero in upon Jewish law and tradition.
Jesus Was Made
Under the Law
We begin with the incontrovertible truth that the Lord Jesus
Christ was made under the law. This is signified in Galatians 4:4,
where Paul writes, But in the fullness of time God sent forth His
Son, born of a woman, made under the law. Jesus was made
under the law, that is, he was subject not only to the curse of
Gods law as our sin-bearer (Galatians 3:10), but also made to obey
the entire law of God. It is customary for theologians to speak of the
passive obedience of Christ, that is, what happened to Christ
when He was arrested, tried, and crucified. However, it is also customary to speak of the active obedience of Christ, that is, Christs
living and keeping the law for us. So, when the Scripture states that
He was made under the law, it includes His pre-Calvary, active
obedience under Gods law. This would also include the traditions
and circumstances of the law that did not contradict, weaken, or
nullify the authority of any of Gods commandments.
Christ placed His imprimatur upon every jot and tittle of the law
when He announced, I have not come to destroy the law, but to
fulfill (Matthew 5:18). The meaning of fulfill does not mean that
Christ kept it, and then after keeping it, scuttled it. If scuttling-byfulfilling-it was the sense, then Jesus words would be self-contradictory. The sense would be: I came not to destroy the law, but I
came to destroy the law by fulfilling it. The meaning is that when
He fulfilled the law, He filled it with meaning. The trick of
reversing the syllables of fulfill enable us to grasp the correct
meaning. Jesus came to fill the law full of meaning. Therefore
Jesus was made under the law in order to fulfill it, to obey it and
to fill it with meaning (Matthew 5). This explains His crucifixion
too, for the meaning of the cross is the violation of the law of God
(Galatians 3:1013). Calvary is explicable to us only in terms of the
sacrosanct character of Gods law. If Gods law was not that impor-

16

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

tant, then Jesus would not have needed to make atonement for our
sins. Both His active and His passive obedience were under the
law.
Therefore every action of Christ related directly to the law of God
or to an implication or custom associated with the law. He was
made under the law; He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill. He delighted in Gods lawthe law of God was written in His
heart (Hebrews 10:59). He was crucified because of the awesome
holiness of Gods desecrated law. He came to make law-breakers
law-keepers (Titus 2:14). He is the ideal Torah-keeper of Psalm 1!
Christ Lived His Whole
Life Under Gods Law
Every time an age is predicated of Him it is in relationship to
Gods law. Let us submit some examples.
First, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin
Mary. Since life begins at conception, His first day as the God-man
was when His human nature was conceived by the Spirit. His conception was the birthday of His biological life, to be followed nine
months later by His infant discovery of Israel.
Second, He was circumcised on the eighth day (as an eight-dayold). Luke 2:21 records this: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus,
which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the
womb. Every male was circumcised on the eighth day after his
birth: this was clearly commanded in the Law of Moses. Genesis
17:12 reads, And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised
among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in
the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of
your seed. When a child was circumcised, the sign of the covenant
was placed upon him. Circumcision was like a brand: God was
declaring the children to be His. Circumcision was also a sanguinary ritethe shedding of blood typifies the coming Male-Savior
Who would shed His own blood for our sins. The circumcision of
male babies foreshadowed the sacrifice of the male Savior on the
cross.
As to why Christ was circumcised on the eighth day, one explanation is that the eighth was the first day after His mothers impurity.
Thus, there would be no ceremonial contagion for the child.
Related to this is that the eighth day was a kind of new beginning.
Since children are born in sin, they need a new spiritual beginning,

1. Jesus First Passover

17

of which circumcision is a type (it being the first day after the seventh day). While this does not mean that Jesus Himself needed
cleansing, it does mean that as our Substitute He experienced the
curse of the law for us. Both his circumcision and His baptism by
John signified that He identified Himself with the sins of His people
for whom He died.
Third, Jesus was presented in the temple after Marys purification,
when he was forty days old (thirty-three days after His being circumcised). Luke 2:2223 says, And when the days of her purification
according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought
him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the
law of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord). Thus, a sacrifice according to the stipulations in
the Law of the Lord was offered, A pair of turtle doves, or two
young pigeons (vs. 24). This also was according to the Law (Leviticus 12:8 and Exodus 13:2.) Jesus was circumcised when an eightday old and brought to the temple when He was forty days old.
In each step of His physical development we see Jesus parents
fulfilling the Law: dotting every i and crossing every t. The reason is
that the Lord Jesus Christ was made under the law. As a covenant
child, he was under the authority of the law. We have seen this in
his conception, his birth, his circumcision, and His presentation in
the temple. This is how He was reared by his father Joseph, who
was a just man (Matthew 1:19).
Fourth, Jesus was also baptized when He was thirty (Luke 3:23).
Scripture is silent about Christs life from His childhood to when he
became thirty. There was a period of eighteen years of silence,
except for the record of His first paschal visit and His ensuing subjection to His parents (Luke 2:51).
Luke 3:23 presupposes the validity of the Old Testament law. The
Scripture reads that Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli. What was the significance of His being baptized when He
was thirtyif anything? And why did God command John to baptize Him when he was thirty?
Again, it is not mere happenstance that Jesus was baptized when
he became thirty. Let us remind ourselves again that He was made
under the law. What is the relationship between the law of Moses
and Jesus baptism? The answer is Numbers 4:13:

18

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

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

The priests were ordained to their office at the age of thirty and
could serve as priests until they were fifty. This may well explain
the meaning of the Jews who said to Christ, You are not yet fifty
years old, and have you seen Abraham? (John 8:57). It is clear that
the Levites retired at the age of fifty. Numbers 8:25 confirms this:
And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the
service thereof, and shall serve no more. Jesus was a priest and
since he was newly appointed to that office, the Jews accused Him
of inexperienceof being a rookie and thus unqualified to teach
them or anyone else. He certainly, according to their sarcastic argument, had never seen Abraham!
The point is that Jesus was baptized by John when He was thirty
years old. He was baptized at that age because that is when He
inaugurated his public ministry as prophet, priest, and king. This
was the time when the Spirit anointed Him to commence his public
ministry and when his Father declared, This is my Beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17). Thus everything that
Jesus did conformed to Old Testament law and custom. Whenever
His age is affirmed, it is directly or indirectly linked to the Torah.
We see something of this state of affairs under our own system of
law and government. For example, we may observe that Hank
became eighteen and voted. John became twenty-one and drank his
first glass of wine. Mrs. Bancroft turned sixty-five and applied for
Social Security. Henry turned seventy and began to draw on his
IRA. Michael turned fifty-nine and determined to sell his house (so
that he would be free from capital gains taxes). Each one of these
stated ages and their corresponding actions pertain to our own system of civil law. To understand why an action was performed at a
particular age can only be understood if we study the laws of the
body politic (in this case, the United States). It is likewise with the
specified ages and corresponding actions of Christ. Whenever
Jesus ages are spelled out, there are legal reasons for it. Thus, it
behooves us to study the laws and customs of Israel.

1. Jesus First Passover

19

Jesus Went Up to the

Passover When He
Became Twelve (Luke 2:42)
Before Jesus ascended to the temple in Jerusalem for the Pilgrim
Passover, He developed both physically and spiritually and learned
more and more of the Torah. Luke 2:40 informs us that the child
grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace
of God was upon him. This is not just a report about Christs physiological development; it is also a report about a maturing man of
God. This spiritual strengthening happened during his first twelve
years, when He lived among His family in Egypt, and then in Nazareth.
Jesus was a true man: He learned. He learned by what He suffered and since He suffered all His life, He certainly learned all
His life (Hebrews 5:8). So, the Holy Spirit records that before
attending the Passover, He attained spiritual strength and was filled
with wisdom. Gods grace was upon Him. Then, He ascended to the
holy city for the Passover.
The Lucan account also says that his parents went up to Passover
every year (Luke 2:41). Now his parents went to Jerusalem every
year at the feast of Passover. The focus here is upon their going
not His. They (not He) went up to the Passover every year. One of
the features of Lukes Gospel, indeed of all four Gospellers, is that
when Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are mentioned, it is Jesus Who
always receives the limelight.7 Thus Joseph and Mary would not
normally be magnified in a context if their son was also included in
their action. The absence of Jesus name here indicates that He had
not traveled with them to the Passover before. But Joseph and
Mary, as faithful Jews, did regularly attend the Passover. This
reveals their great zeal to keep every jot and tittle of Gods Law.
Scripture teaches that adult males, not entire households, were
commanded to attend the Passover (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy
16:16; Exodus 34:2324). There were theological, geographical, and
as we shall see, Messianic reasons for this alteration. Geographically, the yearly trip was taxing for women, children, and the elderly. The Pilgrim Passover, then, was chiefly designed for the hardy
7. This truth cannot be overstated. We particularly see it in the
nativity accounts where Joseph and Mary are always eclipsed by the
man-Child (Matthew 1:18-2:1-22; Luke 1-2).

20

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

men of Israel. But, theologically, the Passover was purposefully

linked to circumcision, too. When God issued the Pilgrim Passover,
He conformed it to circumcision. But this conformity did not consist in sameness of age (e.g., the eighth day), but in sameness of
gender.
To review, it is true that both Mary and Joseph went up (Luke
2:41). Additionally, they went up every yearthis was not their
first. This is significant. It is significant because there is a contrast
between their activity and the non-activity of Jesus. The implication
is that Joseph and Mary went up each year, but Jesus did not. Their
annual pilgrimage contrasts to Jesus. Bettertheir multiple treks to
the holy city for the Passover contrast with Jesus first Passover.
There are seven clues that lead us to believe that this was the initial
Passover of Christ.
First, there is the contrast between His parents regular attendance and His. They went up annually, but the silence suggests that
Jesus did not.
Second, there is an important verb that is often translated was.
It is translated, And when He was twelve years old, they went up
to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast (vs. 42). The
Greek verb is egeneto, which means became. This exact verb is
used in John 1:14, where it is translated became. And the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us... It is not, The Word was
flesh, but The Word became flesh. This is an important translation. Specifically, it refers to His being conceived by the Holy Spirit
in the womb of the virgin Mary. The eternal Godthe Word
became flesh. Another example is when Christ said to the Jews,
Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58). Once again, the use of
ginomai is translated was, when the real import of the verb is
became. The idea is that Jesus does not become. Abraham became,
but Jesus always is. Thus, the implication of ginomai in Luke 2 is
clear: Jesus becoming twelve was the reason they took Him to
Passover!
Consider the following mundane analogies: when Mary became
sixteen, she received her drivers license. Orwhen Hank became
fifteen, he obtained his learners permit. We would associate their
age with the prevailing laws and customs of the day. If we say that
when Mr. Smith became thirty, that he ran for the United States
Senate, we know exactly why. Thirty is the minimum Constitutional
age. Or, if Joe became sixteen and made request for his drivers
license, we know exactly why Joe requested his drivers license

1. Jesus First Passover

21

sixteen being the law of the State of California. So, it is very instructive that Scripture describes Jesus trek to Jerusalem for Passover
when He became twelve. It was not that He was twelve and then
Joseph randomly decided to take Him to the Passover.8
The third clue that argues that this was Jesus initial participation
in the Passover is indirect. Scripture teaches that Jesus was not the
only child of Joseph and Mary. He had four brothers and at least
two sisters (Matthew 13:5556). Because of His firstborn status and
their youth, the ages of His brothers fell short of the minimum age
of Passover participation (Exodus 34:23). Thus, although it was
customary for Joseph and Mary to attend the Passover, there is no
indication that their whole household made the pilgrimage, either
up to Jerusalem, down from Jerusalem, or back up to Jerusalem
when Joseph and Mary sought their lost son. Luke had no less
than three opportunities to report the presence of Jesus younger
brothers (up to Jerusalem, down from Jerusalem, and back up to
Jerusalem). How do we interpret this curious silence? Certainly,
that his brothers were not present. We also have a most instructive
double-contrast: it was not the household of Joseph and Mary
that attended the Passover, but Joseph and Mary. It was not Jesus
and his brothers attending the Passover, but Jesus alone. The failure
of Luke to report Jesus younger brothers meshes with the thesis
that Jesus at twelve attended His first Passover. In short, Jesus came
when He became twelve; the rest of His family remained at home
because they had not matured to the required years of puberty.9
A fourth factor is also compelling. Jesus was at an age when He
could be considered either a child or a young man. In Israel at this
time, thirteen years (not twelve) was considered the age when a
young man became a son of the commandment (Bar Mitzvah, as
the Jews continue to call it). When a child turned thirteen, he
reached spiritual majority (maturity). He became a son of the
8. Admittedly, the translation was may parallel the force of
became, except that became is more specific and causative, implying that Jesus went up because of His twelfth birthday.
9. Websters 1828 Dictionary defines puberty as the age at which
persons are capable of procreating and bearing children. This age is
different in different cultures, but is with us considered to be at fourteen years in males, and twelve in females. The same definition of
puberty is to be found in contemporary American dictionaries.

22

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

Toraha son of the commandment. So, the record of Jesus pilgrimage at twelve was not Bar Mitzvah; if it was, then there would
be an egregious historical error in the Bible. As we will see, history
informs us that it was customary for a young man to attend Passover before he reached his thirteenth birthday. He might even attend
at the age of eleven instead of twelve, but twelve years of age was
normative.
Alfred Edersheim, the great Christian and Jewish historian, has
researched the issue of Passover attendance and concluded that
lads should be brought up to the temple, and made to observe
[not, to participate inauthor] the festive rites. This was the Rabbinical law for males who were eleven or twelve. He wrote,
Unquestionably, it was in conformity with this universal custom
that Jesus went on the occasion named to the Temple.10 In other
words, the first Passover of Christ, in which He did not take part,
anticipated His impending Bar Mitzvah one year later.
Lukes knowledge of Jewish customs even caused the famous
Medieval scholar Maimonides to acknowledge the historical accuracy of Lukes account. He wrote: The common statement that
Jesus went to the temple because he was a Son of the Commandment is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other
hand, is Lukes accurate knowledge of Jewish customs... And,
Edersheim concurs: for the first time he went up to the Paschal
Feast in Jerusalem (emphasis added).
A fifth consideration concerns the extra-Biblical sources of Palestinian Judaism both before and during the incarnation. A valuable
source is the Book of Jubilees, which describes the Passover about
110 years before Jesus first Passover. It is both interesting and
instructive that for the first time in any literature, we witness wine
at the Passover meal. This is important, not just because wine is
additional Passover cuisine, but because Christ Himself honored the
wine when He commanded His disciples to drink ye all of it (Matthew 26:27). Even though wine for the Passover is not specifically
commanded in the Old Testament Scriptures, Christ still endorsed
the paschal wine-drinking.11 Likewise, Christ attended his first Passover with His parents when he reached twelve years (although that
age is never specifically earmarked in the Old Testament).
10. Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of
Christ (London: James Clark and Co., 1961), 120.

1. Jesus First Passover

23

Interestingly, the Book of Jubilees itself in chapter 49:17 required

every male Israelite of twenty and over, to celebrate the Pesah at the
temple court.12 Writes Dr. J. B. Segal:
It is probably that the age of majority, the minimum age at which
male Israelites became members of the qahal, and therefore
obliged to participate at the Pesah, was not, as in later times, thirteen, but twenty.13

Here, Segal focuses upon the Jewish age of civil majority as the
decisive qualifier for Passover participation. Thus, he seems to
explain the Passover commands directed to males in Exodus 23 and
34, and Deuteronomy 16 by the historical precedent recorded in the
Book of Jubilees. But he does say that sometime after the writing of
Jubilees, the minimum age was lowered so as to include male thirteen-year-olds and even married women. Why was the age lowered? Was reducing it a return to the pristine practice, or because of
the Jews realization that they must somehow distinguish between
spiritual majority and civil majority, or because the Jews concluded
that the Pilgrim Passover was no longer too taxing for young men
between thirteen and twenty, who normally would not be able to
journey alone, especially if they were a part of the Diaspora? Or,
was the age of civil majority at twenty years old always the standard, so that Jesus first Passover either violated tradition, or was
supererogatory? Of course, no command of Scripture and no sacrosanct custom was violated. If this was so, Luke, who honored
Israels customs, would have informed us (Luke 2:4143). All we do
know is that Christ and His godly parents, together with the imprimatur of the Gospel writer who was moved by the Holy Spirit, not
only legitimized the drinking of Paschal wine (Luke 22:1720), but
11. The reference in Jubilees 49:6 reads, And all Israel was eating
the flesh of the paschal lamb, and drinking the wine... The reference
describes what the Jews did in Egypt.
12. Jubilees says in chapter 49:1617, All the people of the congregation of Israel shall celebrate it in the appointed season. And every
man who has come upon its day shall eat it in the sanctuary of your
God before the Lord from twenty years old and upward;... Notice: In
Jubilees, the qahal, or congregation, is defined in terms of men twenty
years old and above.
13. J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover (London: Oxford University
Press, 1963), 135.

24

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

also twelve as the age for coming to the Passover. We may, then,
conclude that the premise behind Jesus prepPassover at twelve
was His actual Passover participation at thirteen. And the direct
mandate for this first, real Passover at thirteen was the good and
necessary inference drawn from Exodus 16 and Deuteronomy 23,
where the age of spiritual majority is laid down.
This leads us to a sixth consideration. Here we refer to the statement that after Jesus parents retrieved Him from Jerusalem He
went down to Nazareth and was subject unto them (Luke 2:51).
The common interpretation of this passage is that Luke wanted to
assure his readers that Jesus did not justify His business in the
house of God insolently or rebelliously. Thus, it is claimed, Luke
must show that Jesus always honored His father and mother. There
is, however, another interpretation that is just as credible and
strengthens our argument that the Jews partook of their first Passover when they reached thirteen years. The prerequisite for Bar
Mitzvah was not parroting theological facts nor woodenly restating
a catechism or creed. The emphasis was obedience to Gods commandments, particularly as these commandments were inculcated
by godly fathers and mothers (Proverbs 1:8, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 5:1;
6:20; 7:1). A child became a son of the commandment by means
of the command instruction of his father and mother (Genesis
18:19). This indicated that a true covenant child honored his father
and mother and subjected himself to them. By means of the seminary in the home he qualified for Bar Mitzvah when he reached
thirteen years. Therefore, the statement in Luke 2:51 about Jesus
submitting to his parents is a Paschal declaration. That Jesus was
subject to them proved not only that He honored the Fifth Commandment, but that He was preeminently qualified, as no Child
had ever been, to go up to the Passover upon His thirteenth birthday.
A seventh and final factor about Jesus first Passover is a brief
consideration of the word custom. Here we have an already
and not-yet contrast between Jesus and His parents. If we read
Lukes Gospel very carefully it will be easy to discern his careful
description of Christs life. Whatever Jesus did, as we have already
noted, was related to Gods law. He lived and moved and had His
being in the confines of Gods holy law. In His circumcision, presentation in the temple, etc., Joseph and Mary performed all
things according to the law of God (Luke 2:39). But in Luke 2:42
we are told that when Jesus became twelve, they went up to Jerusa-

1. Jesus First Passover

25

lem according to the custom of the feast. Here, the word custom
is introduced to us for the second time in the Book. In Luke 1:9 we
are informed about its first usage when the lot fell upon Zacharias
to burn incense according to the custom of the feast. When Luke
speaks of the Law, he emphasized the laws authority. However,
when he speaks about a custom, he emphasized what Gods people
customarily practiced. The question is: Was it customary for Jesus
to go up with His parents to the Passover prior to the event
recorded in Luke 2? If so, we would naturally expect Luke (on the
basis of his commitment to detail) to provide us with this information. But Luke never intimates that attendance at the Passover was
Jesus customary practice. Yet, still later on in His life, we are
informed that it was a custom for Jesus to do certain things, such
as to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). Why is there
a deliberate silence by Luke, a good doctor, whoas he should
beis punctilious to record the smallest detail about the customary
behavior of both Jesus and His family? We believe the question can
be answered best by comparing Joseph and Marys customary practice with what Jesus customarily did not do.
Thus, in the light of the previous two points, it would be quite
wrong to deduce that Jesus came to the Passover at twelve and ate
the Passover at thirteen because he reached a magic age. On the
contrary, what is accentuated is His wisdom and knowledge
attained before His twelfth birthday! Luke 2:40 declares, And the
child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the
grace of God was upon Him. He joined his parents for the pilgrimage when He had attained a mature knowledge of God, which in
turn produced robust spiritual strength. In terms of the knowledge
of God, He was, as some say, an old-young man. Being a young
man, He had put away childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
More pointedly, when a Jew put away childish things, he was ready
to eat the Lords Passover. The requirement to be strong in spirit
and filled with Gods wisdom was not (as some baby-communionists argue) rationalism invading the Church. It was the customary
spiritual requirement for all covenant children, who were made
under Gods law.

26

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

Jesus was Catechized

in the Temple (Luke 2:46)
It may be objected that Jesus was so different from us, that it is
quite unfair to use His first Passover as a model for ours, since His
knowledge far exceeds what any catechumen could ever attain. Yet,
while it is true that Jesus knowledge of the Law of God dwarfs
ours, we dare not press the difference so as to diminish the reality
of the incarnation. We must always remember that Jesus self-consciousness as the Messiah was a developing consciousness, and
that with respect to His humanity there were many things that He
did not know (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). This means that Jesus
was instructed and learned, just as any other young scholar was
taught and learned. It would be well, then, for us to review the
abcs of Jewish education.
1. At five years, he learned the law by extracts. He learned the
Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), the Hallel (Psalms 113118), which
were the Festival Psalms, and a catechism.
2. At twelve years, he became more directly responsible for obedience to the Law. The boys would be taken to Passover in anticipation for Bar Mitzvah the following year. When Jesus reached
twelve, he was at an age when He could be considered either a
child or a young man.
3. At thirteen years, there was Bar Mitzvah, which was the legal
reception of the child into the religious community. This was the
age of spiritual majority.
4. At twenty years old, the age of civil majority was reached (Exodus 30:14; Numbers 1:3). This was the time when a young man
reached full legal age with full legal rights.
Although erring about the actual age of Bar Mitzvah, Fred B.
Craddock describes the life of Christ well. He wrote:
At every significant period of his life he was in continuity with
Judaism. Those periods for a firstborn male child were circumcision at eight days; dedication or presentation to God, in this case
at six weeks, when his mother was purified; bar mitzvah at age
twelve; and public life at age thirty. 14
14. Fred B. Craddock, Interpretation of Luke (Louisville, KY: John
Knox Press, 1990), 41.

1. Jesus First Passover

27

Again, it will be argued that Jesus was in the temple instructing

the Jewish doctors of the Law. Was this not an extraordinary occurrence? And is it not precarious to enlist Jesus as a precedent for
when a child should eat his first Passover? The question rests upon
an errant premise, that Jesus somehow was, like Priscilla and
Aquila who corrected the mighty Apollos, showing the doctors a
more excellent way. When we read the account closely, we shall
understand what the text is really saying. It reads,
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the
temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both listening to them,
and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers (Luke 2:4647).

This event is often portrayed as if Jesus was lecturing the doctors

of the Law and putting proverbial holes in their drums. Nothing
could be more foreign to the text and to the history of Jewish education. Jewish history informs us that it was common during the
minor festival days after the Paschal lamb was eaten for the doctors to theologize and for the young to participate. Jesus was not
teaching the doctors of the Law; rather, He was hearing them and
answering their questions (Luke 2:47). They were interviewing
Him, not vice-versa. Lukes description is parallel to the modern
practice of interviewing a catechumen when he is examined by the
elders of the church prior to his first communion. But in this case,
the catechumen gave remarkable answers to their questions. Yet,
Jesus the confirmand did not teach His teachers, even though His
wisdom was astonishing.
The verbs in Luke 2:46 are also very significant. The text speaks
about Jesus hearing and His receiving. There was nothing
extraordinary about a young man mixing with the rabbis. This
means that Jesus did not appear in the temple as a charismatic
teacher. (This is a fiction promoted by the bogus Gospel of Thomas.15) On the contrary, Jesus appeared as a catechumen. He did
notlike the patriarch Joseph before his brotherspompously
parade His knowledge before His instructors. Had He done so, they
would have marveled more at His insolence than His knowledge
(vs. 47) Instead, they catechized Him and were astounded by His
answers, which revealed exceptional insight into the Word of God
15. This Gospel was very late in origin and was not written by the
Apostle Thomas.

28

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

and infinite understanding. This was the sole stimulus of their wonderment.
Of course, this does not mean that Jesus refrained from asking
the doctors questions. On the contrary, all catechumens questioned
their teachers. The classic question of all, in fact, concerns the precise meaning of the Passover! Exodus 12:26 portrays the children of
Passover fathers asking, What do you mean by this service (worship)? The answer would be: 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 (Exodus 12:27). It is sometimes maintained that the premise behind this
question is that the fathers alone were eating the Passover, hence
the children asked, What do you mean by this service? That is
possible. On the other hand, baby-communionists often downplay
the question, arguing that it was only a question and that we must
not make too much out of it. But what both sides fail to do is to
connect the catechetical question to Christs Pilgrim Passover in
Luke 2. We may assert this confidently because Exodus 12 itself
intimates that the question would be asked at the Pilgrim Passover.
God said, 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. Thus, the question is a Pilgrim-Passover-question. It does
not mean that the kids of Israel sat around tables in Egypt, or in the
wilderness, looking on the elements of the Passover, watching their
biological fathers heartily eat the Passover and asking them what it
all meant. What it means is that the male children who accompanied their fathers to the central sanctuary where the Passover was
celebrated would question the powers that be about the meaning
of the Passover. This is not so much young kids asking their fathers
about the Passover, but older children querying their elders and
teachersexactly the scenario we find in Luke 2! For a young man
to ask his teachers about the meaning of the Passover was equivalent to a young man today asking for a thorough explanation about
the meaning of redemption. It is a question that demands a comprehensive answeran answer that demands huge blocks of time to
expound carefully and thoroughly.16 This inquiry was probably normative for all men children who came to Jerusalem for their prepPassover. The procedure was equivalent today to a catechumen
undergoing a confirmation or discipleship class. This paschalredemption question asked by twelve-year-olds in Exodus 12 became

1. Jesus First Passover

29

the cardinal-catechetical question addressed to the doctors of the law

at the Pilgrim-Passover in Jerusalem.
In the young man Jesus there was no self-conceit and youthly
brashness. Jesus was not a pompous Caiaphas, who said, You
know nothing at all. In short, He appeared in Jerusalem not as a
wonder-child, but as a catechumen. It is in this context that Jesus
spoke His first recorded words: Why is it that you sought Me? Did
you not know that I must be about My Fathers business? This was
His response to Marys anxious word, ...Your father and I have
sought you... Jesus responded with Trinitarian theologyimplying
that He is the Son of God (Gods Natural Son instead of Josephs,
Luke 3:23). He said that He must be about His Fathers business.
His business was to be in the temple, with the teachers of the Law.
His business was to be a catechumen before the doctors. The
account, then, is not about the lost child; rather, it is about the lost
parents who failed to discern the emerging self-consciousness of
Jesus!
After his parents found him in the temple, the Scripture reports
that He (with them) returned to Nazareth as a young man and was
subject to them in all things (Luke 2:51). Alfred Edersheim appropriately concludes:
With His return to Nazareth began Jesus life of youth and early
manhood...Whether or not He went to Jerusalem on recurring
Feasts, we know not, and need not inquire. For only once during
that periodon His first visit to the templecould there have
been such outward forth-bursting of His real Being and Mission.

Passover Applications
What, then, are some of the things that we can learn from the
example of Jesus prep-Passover? First, from His example we learn
that He honored the custom of the day by attending the Passover a
16. We can get a better feel for the magnitude of the question when
we contemplate the books that have been written on the subject of
redemption. Consider the lengthy section in the Heidelberg Catechism
about redemption (questions 1285), or a work like John Murrays
Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. The answer to the question
entails far more than one or two theologically correct answers; it
involves years of instruction and discipleship.

30

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

year before His own Bar Mitzvah and first participatory Passover.
Thus, to attend the Passover at twelve was neither too young nor
too old. Nor was attending His first participatory Passover at thirteen too young or too old.
The second instruction is that there is a great chasm between a
childs understanding and a mans. Jesus grew in knowledge and in
wisdom. When He was a child He spoke like a child and thought
like a child; but when he became a man, He too put away childish
things (1 Corinthians 13:11). It is clear that His being a child was
not the right time for Him to attend the Passover. It was only when
He began to think like a man that His parents observed the custom
of the day and brought Him up for His first Passover. Clearly, spiritual knowledge and understanding qualified twelve-year-olds for
the Passover (Isaiah 11:2).17 Jesus self-consciousness was not just
Messianic, but the self-consciousness of a covenant Child come to
years. When a Jewish boy reached twelve or thirteen, he reached
manhood and full accountability to the qahal, or Congregation.
The third application is that Jesus first Passover provides us with
an approximate guide as to when a child/young man may participate in the Lords Supper. Although a guideline is not the same as a
hard and fast rule, it would seem difficult to justify participation in
the Lords Supper at an age dramatically less than Jesus own age.
To begin with, there was Jesus own age of thirteen years. In addition, Jesus maturity in spiritual things was most impressive. He
was not only a young man, but a young man of God. Then, there
was his pre-Paschal honoring of His parents. Finally, there was His
endorsement of the Jewish practice of Bar Mitzvah at thirteen years,
when He attended the prep-Passover as an observer and learner
To all this it could be argued that this is a Mount Everest standard
that no covenant child could ever climb. However, we can balance
that statement by remembering that the Lord Himself expects us to
imitate Him in all matters of obedience (as Paul commands us in
1 Corinthians 11:1). It would certainly be wrong to conclude that
because Jesus went up to His first Passover when He was thirteen,
17. The motion picture actor Kirk Douglas has spoken about a double Bar Mitzvah. A Jews second Bar Mitzvah would take place on his
82nd birthdaytwelve years after he reached three score years and
ten. But unlike the first Bar Mitzvah, the second Bar Mitzvah has not a
shred of biblical support.

1. Jesus First Passover

31

that all other children of similar years, but lesser godliness are to be
excluded. The criteria for keeping the Passover was faith, whether
strong or weak (Hebrews 11:28). We must remind ourselves that
just as Jesus ate the Pilgrim Passover with His disciples, He no
doubt went up to this Feast with thousands of other young men,
too.

The Original Passover

Revisited/Compared
It will be asked, Did not Jesus first Passover when He was thirteen violate the stipulations of the Egyptian Passover? One answer
is that Israels first Passover was instituted under emergency conditions. The first Passover was instituted the night that Israel left
EgyptGods people needed a hardy meal to strengthen them for
the journey and the war with Egypt. This Paschal-eating seemed to
include all ages and both sexes and might be compared to the show
bread consumed by David and his troops at the Tabernacle in
Shiloh, which was also an emergency meal, even though it was not
lawful for them to eat (1 Samuel 21:36). Consider only that the
Jews in Egypt were also commanded to eat the Passover with their
shoes on, too, which is clearly a duty that did not carry over into
future Passovers (Exodus 12:11). They were also commanded to eat
it with haste, which was another feature that did not transfer to
future Passover meals (Exodus 12:11). The idea of coming up to
Jerusalem at Passover at eleven or twelve had become a custom
in Israel, a custom that both Jesus and His parents studiously
obeyed. Thus, Jesus apparently attended His first Passover at twelve
in preparation for actual participation when He reached thirteen
years. This is important pedagogically, because we learn not only
by what He taught, but also by what He practiced (Acts 1:1).
Later in Israels history the requirement for coming to the Passover was no longer each one according to the mouth of his eating. Instead, it was circumcision plus growth in the knowledge of
God. Jesus demonstrated His knowledge before He came to Passover and when he was theologizing with the doctors of the law who
no doubt asked Him questions and instructed Him. The very word
circumcision, in fact, implies both instruction and knowledge in
the oracles of God (Romans 3:12).18

32

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

How could the doctors of Gods law really instruct Him, the Son
of God? To formulate a correct answer, we must study the word
stature. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature...
(Luke 2:52). Stature does not refer to His reputation or to mens
perception of his majestic greatness. Stature signifies His age and
physiological development (that is, puberty). This is crucial. We
dare not discount the physical maturation of Jesus, Who was a true
covenant Child. To be sure, mere biological development and an
empty stomach do not automatically qualify one for the Passover.
Yet, it is true that physical development and spiritual maturity usually work side-by-side. Therefore, Jesus attendance at the Passover
at twelve was the first time He engaged the Jewish doctors. His
increase in stature proved, then, as it continues to prove now, His
true humanity. Jesus learned not only by the things that He suffered, but He learned progressively as a covenant child under the
authority of his parents and the Jewish doctors of the law.

Other Passover Enquiries

Our account of Jesus Prep and first Passover inspires other questions. One such question relates to the presence of Mary at the Passover. Why, it may be asked, was Mary in Jerusalem for this
Passover and many others, if the law commanded attendance only
by the males? If Jesus first Passover was linked to the Law (as we
have argued), then should not Marys trek to Jerusalem also be tied
to the law? This is not a new question. John Martin Creed in his
commentary on Luke states that the attendance of women was not
prescribed in the Law, and the question of the appearance of
women and children at the feasts was at some early period a matter
of controversy.19 Scripture is clear in Exodus 23:17 and Deuteron18. Some paedo-communion writers, such as the Rev. Steve Wilkins,
actually argue for infant communion on the basis that if the Israelite
slaves who were pagans were circumcised so that they could partake
of the Passover, how much moreso our covenant children? Their
premise is that the slaves had no spiritual interest in the covenant and
were satisfied only with filling their bellies. This is a woeful misunderstanding of the spirituality of both circumcision and the Passover.
Scripture teaches that the Passover featured singing, celebrated deliverance from Gods wrath, and called Israel to return to her God (2 Chronicles 30:89, 21).

1. Jesus First Passover

33

omy 16:16 that only the men were to present themselves at the
Passover.20 Whether this automatically precluded the women is
very debatable. Certainly, the Lord only expected the men to attend,
as the Passover was tailored for them. Justification for Marys attendance can be ascribed to a number of factors, not the least being
that her attendance was a kind of work of supererogationshe
performed above what was required of her. Or, she as a faithful
companion, determined to be at her husbands side wherever he
went. More likely, it was the influence of the Rabbinic school of Hillel that was very prominent in Israel at that time. Frederic Godet
reminds us about the required attendance at the three major feasts:
There was no such obligation for women. But the school of Hillel
required them to make at least the Passover pilgrimage.21 The Hillel pedagogy was packed and backed by ecclesiastical authority.
Just as both Mary and Joseph obeyed the tax law of Caesar Augustus and returned to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be registered (Luke
2:15), so Mary, under the influence of the Hillel school, submitted
to the ecclesiastical authority. Certainly, there was no Scripture
commanding women to attend the Passover. And, it is improbable if
Mary, once in Jerusalem, even partook of the Passover.
Still another enquiry pertains to the covenant. One error of babycommunionists is to start with the Egyptian Passover and then, just
as abruptly, to stop at the first Passover! They think of the Egyptian
Passover as normative, unaware of its evolution over time until it
finalized in a national celebration in the Central Sanctuary. They
fail to discern that the Egyptian Passover became the Pilgrim Pass19. John Martin Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1930), 142. Scripture often reports non-scriptural
(not anti-scriptural) practices. A fair example is the sabbath days
journey in Acts 1:12.
20. The Hebrew word zakur (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 16:16)
occurs eighty-two times in the Old Testament and emphasizes maleness over femaleness. Its primary focus is the sex of the person named.
It can describe an adult or a male-child (Leviticus 12:7) or an adult
who once was a male-child. The other Hebrew word, enosh, (Exodus
34:23), describes men as collectives, describing either all males, or all
males and all females as generic men.
21. Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1887), 146.

34

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

over. This can be seen in the idealized image of a Jewish family celebrating the Passover in the confines of the privacy of their own
home at night, sitting around a table containing unleavened bread,
red wine, the Passover lamb, and bitter herbs. A candle or two adds
radiance and romance to the midnight, as wife and children gaze
covetously at the spiritual food before them. It is thought, Herein
is the covenant family! And, this is the way the Lords Supper
should be celebrated, too. Because of this and similar imagery
(which is also publicized by Hollywood propaganda, as well as decadent Judaism), it is not uncommon for baby-communion churches
to encourage the fathers of their families to distribute (and to withhold, if the child has been naughty) the elements of Holy Communion to their own children.22 This practice is obsolete, and even
usurps the authority of the elders of the church, who alone wield
the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:13ff and Matthew 18:15ff).
Also, the idealized image of entire families eating is foreign to the
Pilgrim Jews of the Old Testament, who knew only the Pilgrim Passover at the sanctuary in Jerusalem! And this includes Jesus, too,
who knew only the Pilgrim Passover.
The third enquiry relates to the Regulative Principle of Worship,
which is often defined as whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden. It may be asked, Where in Scripture does it command Jewish boys to partake of their first Passover at the age of thirteen?
The answer to this enquiry is that no commandment stating a specific age exists. Unlike the command for all the males to be circumcised on the eighth day, no explicit age is stated for the Passover.
Thus, the data about whether children or even infants partook of
the Pilgrim Passover must be gleaned from indirect evidence, such
as good and necessary inferences, examples, etc. The example of
Jesus attending the prep-Passover at the age of twelve is very compelling in this regard.
As we have noted, Jesus went up to the Passover because it was
customary for young men to do so a year or two before Bar Mitzvah. This was the requirement of the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4). The
question is: Is a custom that decrees a particular age for us to do
22. It would be interesting to see how consistent paedo-communion
fathers are on this score. Do they, out of principle as the covenant
heads of families, distribute the food and drink to their families during
the regular meals of the week?

1. Jesus First Passover

35

something Biblically-binding? And, what is the precise interplay

between such a custom and the Word of God? For example, should
a child be baptized immediately after his birth, on the eighth day,
or at an altogether different time? Scripture does not mandate a specific day. Likewise, the practice of young men appearing as observers at the Passover when they were twelve became a custom so
enshrined in Israel that Jesus and His parents punctiliously
observed it.
The issue of when a custom can be safely followed without violating the Scripture is far afield from this paper. Let us ask the following questions: (1) Does the custom contradict the Word of God?
(2) Does it nullify or invalidate some of Gods commandments? (3)
Does it tend to obscure or make nebulous another portion of Scripture? (4) Does it tend to diminish the authority and importance of
another Biblical doctrine? A fair example in the New Testament
were the Corinthians love feasts that became occasions of drunkenness and gluttony. These love feasts desecrated the sanctity of the
Lords Supper. Thus the love feasts were wisely discontinued. Yet,
precisely when a covenant child could partake of the Passover is an
open question, if we demand an age that is literally spelled out in
the Law of Moses. But all is not lost. Jesus honored the Jewish custom of young men observing their first Passover when He was
twelve, so that He could actually partake when he became thirteen. The Church today has no right to discount this covenantal
paradigm that was honored by the Son of God Himself.
Does this mean that Jesus and all other Jewish young men honored a custom that was totally arbitrary? We have already argued
that the Mosaic Law required all the males to trek up to Jerusalem
once a year (Exodus 23:14). From this command a good and necessary inference was deduced. The deduction was this: Since a
male became a young man at thirteen years, it was wise to bring
him to Jerusalem one year prior, and to be interviewed by the Jewish
doctors. Then, the following year when he reached his thirteenth
birthday, he would be ready to eat his first Passover meal. Thus,
attendance at the prep-Passover as an observer prepared the young
man for what was expected when he reached thirteen. And this
expectation was founded upon a good and necessary inference
from the Scripture itself. This is proven from Exodus 34:2324,
which reads:

36

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

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

This text shows that the command to attend the three feasts was
directed to the men children. It is clear that women and children
were not expected to attend the Passover. Also, this command could
only be performed when God cast out the Canaanites and enlarged
Israels borders. Israel would no longer fear the Canaanite or the
Amorite. This meant that no man (or nation) would covet this
land (vs. 24). They (the men children) could attend the feasts three
times a year without fear that both their land would be plundered
and their wives and children ravished.
What is more, this state of affairs concerning faithful attendance
at the Passover would transpire when Israel had occupied the land
and when it was safe to go up. The command was issued with
the expectation that Israel would occupy the Promised Land soon
after her redemption from Egypt. However, when the spies brought
an evil report about the good land, God disciplined his people for
forty years in the wilderness. The chastened people not only would
not occupy the land, but they would not be able to go up to
Jerusalem for the Passover Feast. The whole nation was under discipline; the wilderness period was a time of adolescence and training. Gods people were effectively debarred from the Passover. It
was only later when the land was seized by faith and when the
enemy was dislodged, that all the men children would be able to
comply with Gods command. During those days after the conquest
of the land, the men living in the suburbs of Israel would not
have to remain at home during the Passover season. God expected
them to appear three times a year. The other new norm pertained to
the Israelite women and children.
(1) God did not expect females and children to attend the Passover.
(2) There was no imperative for them to do so.
If God forbade or discouraged women to participate in the Passover, then how much moreso their children of tender years?
When we compare the language of Exodus 12:48 with that of
Exodus 34, we should see that Exodus 34 is a commentary on Exodus 12:48. That is, it reveals what is implicit in Exodus 12:48. It is

1. Jesus First Passover

37

decisively the clearer passage, with its emphasis upon the men
children and Israels future ecclesiastical station in the Promised
Land. This means that when Jesus went up to Jerusalem to observe
His first Passover at twelve, He did so in the expectation of obeying
the command of Exodus 34:2324, which He would do the next
year. Josephs and Marys (and Jesus) exegesis of Exodus 34:23
24 was that it referred to those who passed out of adolescence into
young manhood.
Our final enquiry is to determine the degree of certainty about
Jesus first Passover at thirteen years. Can we be certain of our position? Let us restate our argument.
The first choice is that God commanded all the Hebrew men to
bring their babies to the Passover. This is an obvious mistake. There
is no wiggle-room here at all. The entire thesis rests upon the erroneous premise that the Pilgrim Passover is a carbon copy of the
Egyptian Passover.
We repeat that Jesus experienced the prep-Passover at twelve, to
prepare for His participatory Passover at thirteen years. This is, as
we have argued, proven by the Jewish customs of the time and by
the command of Exodus 34:2324. This command was for all the
adult males to attend all three feasts of Israel three times a year.
Since a male-child reached spiritual majority at thirteen, it follows
that the Lord participated in His first Passover then.
The second possibility is that Jesus participated in his first Passover at twelve and that, consequently, the prevailing customs of the
day have little bearing on the question. It could even be maintained
that Luke 2:42 addressed Jesus as an adult at twelve, since he is distinguished notably from the custom of His parents. In other
words, the reason Jesus is singled out by Luke is because He had
already reached early manhood and was no longer regarded as a
child by His parents. His attaining twelve years would then be the
culmination of His training in the Torah at home. Thus the general
revelation of Israels prevailing cultural norms along with the testimony of Jewish history would be deemed irrelevant. But let it be
said that we are not prepared to close our eyes to this history,
unless it can be conclusively shown that undergoing a prep-Passover at twelve was a post-Apostolic development in Jewish history.
What is more, Luke is silent about Jesus actually eating the Passover when he was twelve. This is a strange silence if Christ
intended to eat the Passover for the first time. It is more likely that
Christ observed, not was served. The reason is that if Jesus last

38

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

Passover was detailed (Matthew 26:1730), how much more His

first, which would have been the celebration of His spiritual majority? Yet, in spite of our convictions to the contrary, we will concede
that little would be lost if twelve was the precise moment of Jesus
first participatory Passover.
The third view is that twenty years was the normal age of Passover participation until the age was reduced, or devolved to its pristine state. Why lowered? Was it for practical reasons, that the
pilgrimage was now safer because of the Pax Romana? that is, that
conditions in Israel had become tranquil compared to the violent
years of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolts. Or, was it
permissive? that is, that young men at thirteen years were now permitted to come, although not commanded? Or, was there a distinct
Messianic reason that paved the way for Jesus prep-Passover at
twelve and His first Passover at thirteen? (We will address that
question in the next chapter.) One problem with the twenty-yearold theory is that it eliminates the distinction between spiritual
majority and civil majority. Plus, it does not seem likely that the
command of Exodus 34:2324 targeted only twenty-year-olds to the
exclusion of younger men. That men fought in the Hebrew military
at twenty does not spell automatic exclusion of younger men from
the Passover. What is more, if twenty was the commanded age of
Passover participation, Jesus first Passover would have transgressed Gods Law. As far as we are concerned, the only viable ages
are twelve or thirteen, but with thirteen winning the day.

The Biblical-Covenantal
Theology of the Passover
We must affirm that the legislative additions to, and subtractions
from, the Egyptian Passover rite can only be accounted for because
of its increased Messianic focus. As the history of redemption
marched forward in the Old Testament, we begin to see more and
more the dawn of the Messianic era. The revelation of Jesus Christ
in the Old Testament was not only in types and shadows, but also
progressive.23 God assigned the women and children a diminishing
23. Biblical Theology is the study of the history of redemption and
revelation, which is progressive until it culminates in the final revelation of the Son of God (Hebrews 1:12).

1. Jesus First Passover

39

Passover role, not because they were excluded from His grace and
covenant blessing, but precisely the opposite. Gods message was
not, You are excluded from covenant blessing and grace. Rather,
the message is, The Messiah must increase so that I can shower
my grace upon you in Him. This is why the Old Testament regularly summoned circumcised men to the Passover.
When Jesus attended His first and last Passovers at the respective
ages of thirteen and thirty-three years,24 the Scripture was fulfilled,
saying, Three times a year all your men shall appear before the
Lord, the Lord God of Israel (Exodus 34:23). Although not a
prophecy that is specifically cited in the New Testament, its prophetic sense closely parallels the Passover-prophecy of Exodus
12:46, which says, ...nor shall you break one of its [the Passover
lambs] bones. This text is cited as a prophecy of Christs crucifixion by the Apostle John in John 19:36. The Apostle John says, For
these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, Not
one of his bones shall be broken. We would likewise argue that
the masculization of the Pilgrim Passover must be attributed to the
Messianic nature of the Passover. The Passover is not just about the
passive obedience of the male Lamb Who was slaughtered on the
cross for our sins; it also foreshadowed the actual pilgrimage of the
Self-same Male Lamb, Who went up to the temple in Jerusalem.
This greatly enhances our understanding of the obligatory nature of
this ordinance for all the adult males of Israel. There is indeed
something disturbing about an interpretation of an Old Testament
ceremony that removes the spotlight from Jesus to emphasize the
rights of all of Gods covenant people. We are compelled to assert
that the baby-communionist demand rests more upon democratic
concerns than true covenant theology. But baby-communionists do
not have a monopoly on this obsession. Likewise, the same problem applies to those who correctly discern the increased masculinity, and who emphasize it, but only as a club to defeat their babycommunion opponents. They, too, have lost sight of Jesus as the
God-man who must trek up to Jerusalem to fulfill the righteousness
of Gods law and to fulfill biblical prophecy.
24. Jesus was crucified when he was either thirty-three or thirtyfour, depending upon how many Passovers He attended after His baptism.

40

DISCERNING CHRISTS BODY

There is an instructive comparison between the increased masculinity of the Passover and John the Baptists humble assessment of
his waning ministry: He (Christ) must increase, but I must
decrease (John 3:30). It is noteworthy that the male occupied center stage in all the types and shadows of the ceremonial law. The
male always received top billing on the history-of-redemption marquee. The Paschal lamb was to be an unblemished male; only the
male children were circumcised; and the firstborn son of every family was to receive the inheritance and the birthright, the latter symbolizing His rule over the family. This priority of the male was
purposeful; not, of course, to justify masculine pride and vanity,
but to foreshadow Gods Firstborn Son, Who would become the
Firstborn over the Church and all creation (Colossians 1:15ff). The
decreasing stardom of John finds a corollary in the waning role of
females and children, and explains why God commanded only the
adult males to attend the yearly Passover. Only the women and children were not phased out gradually, but abruptly after the Egyptian
Passover.
The Messianic character of the yearly pilgrimage to the Passover
by males is so prominent that we can say that when Jesus attended
His first and last Passovers, the Scripture was fulfilled which said,
Three times a year shall all your men appear before the Lord...
Thus, baby-communionists who would argue a baby Passover tend
to press too much doctrinal juice out of the types and shadows of
the ceremonial law.

Conclusions
1. The principle criteria to discover who should partake of the
Lords Supper is found in the New Testament, not the Old Testament. This is true because the Passover was a type, and a type must
not be unduly pressed to prove something foreign to its true intention.
2. The Passover Meal may have been intended for all of Israel in
its inauguration, but as redemptive history moved closer to the
incarnation of Christ, its increased masculinity became prominent.
Thus the participation of women and children was either forbidden,
discouraged, or made virtually impossible by their changing geographical situation. Quite early the Egyptian Passover was transformed into the Pilgrim Passover.

1. Jesus First Passover

41

3. The command for the men children of Israel to come to the

Passover once the land was conquered, and Shiloh and Jerusalem
established as Passover centers, was exegeted correctly by the
Jews as referring to young men who reached the age of thirteen.
4. The increased masculinity of the Passover participants can be
explained by its Messianic orientation. It became increasingly masculine because of its Christ-centerednessnot because women and
children were denied Gods covenant blessing and grace.
5. Jesus attended His prep-Passover when he was twelve, so that
He might be prepared for His actual participation when he reached
the age of thirteen. He did this not as a private person, but as a covenant Child Who was made under the law and Who was doing
His fathers business. If Jesus attended His first Passover when He
was twelve, as preparation for His actual participation one year
later, then it is unjustified to argue for baby-communion on the
basis of the Passover.
6. Because of the hardy Passover cuisine (bitter herbs, roasted
lamb, unleavened bread, and later, wine), it is apparent that babies
would not have partook even of the Egyptian Passover.
7. Because of Israels geographical setting and establishment of
the temple in Jerusalem, it was expected that men only trek up to
the holy city once a year for the Passover (Acts 2:522). This foreshadowed the One Who would set his face like a flint toward Jerusalem to fulfill the entirety of the Passover typology.
8. The argument that children and women partook of the Passover throughout Israels history not only circumvents the Pilgrim
Passover requirements, but obscures its masculine typology, which
foreshadows the Pilgrim Man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
9. Exodus 23:14, Exodus 34:23, and Deuteronomy 16:16 are prophetic of Christs attendance at the Pilgrim Passovers.