The Covenant & Communion
Introduction
I grew up in a dispensational Baptist church. When I was in my early twenties (in the late 1980’s) I became a Calvinist and not long after that I gave up dispensationalism as a hermeneutical, ethical, and eschatological system. In time I came to understand and adhere to a Reformed Calvinist covenant theology as a complete system of thought. Once I grasped the basic tenants of the Reformed understanding of the covenant I quickly became convinced of covenant baptism, otherwise known as “paedobaptism.” Ironically, it was not the arguments of the paedobaptists that convinced me that covenant children ought to receive the initiatory rite of baptism. Rather it was the poorly argued and flawed exegesis of the credobaptists, particularly Paul K. Jewett. [1] At the time paedocommunion seemed only a logical doctrine to follow paedobaptism, but after hearing a few simple arguments in favor of credocommunion (mostly based on 1 Corinthians 11) I came to believe that one must have the cognitive ability to discern the elements of the sacrament and examine oneself for unconfessed sin before partaking of the sacrament. Consequently, I concluded that baptized covenant children must be able to articulate and give a profession of faith before they can eat the Lord’s Supper. To do otherwise would place them in danger of coming under the judgment of God.
Then just a short time ago the doctrine of paedocommunion was making its way around many Reformed churches. So I decided to write a paper refuting this growing doctrine in western Protestant denominations. However, after I read every available argument on the subject (both pro and con) and had written about 20 pages arguing against it I found that my position had changed. I became convinced that the various arguments against paedocommunion were exegetically flawed. In addition, I became convinced that credocommunion creates an unwarranted division in the church - the one loaf of the body of Christ. Like the credobaptists who convinced me of paedobaptism, the credocommunionists convinced me of paedocommunion.
As much as I would like to adhere to the dominant view in western protestant churches, especially Reformed and Presbyterian, I cannot in good conscience subscribe to the doctrine and practice of credocommunion. Nor can I in good conscience seek an office in a denomination that would require that I take an oath to withhold the sacrament from covenant children physically capable of partaking of the elements. To do so would be to join in a declaration in the partaking of the sacrament that is contrary to the gospel. Namely, I would be denying that Jesus died not only for Jews and Gentiles, slave or free, man and women, but also for our covenant children every time I administered the sacrament. While in the past paedocommunionists in Reformed denominations had no alternative denominations to join, in the providence of God this is no longer the case. Personally this is a difficult position to take for I know that it puts me at odds with the majority of my theological peers. But, unless I am convinced by Scripture and sound reasoning I can take no other position than what is argued in what follows.
Another personal difficulty in arguing for the paedocommunion position is that I will be arguing against credocommunionists whom I highly respect. These are men of sound doctrine and good reputation in Reformed churches from whom I have benefited greatly. Therefore, my arguments against them ought not to be taken as a slight on their personal ministry.
I do not intend to offer here every argument for the doctrine and practice of paedocommunion. Much has already been written and said in favor of it and I do not need to repeat what has already been well argued by others. However, there is much more to be said than what is already available in books and on the internet so I offer the following as my contribution to the debate.
Defining Terms
For a lack of a better term, “paedocommunion” is that view which holds that all baptized members of the church who are physically capable and are in good standing (they haven’t been excommunicated) are allowed, even commanded, to come to the Lord’s Table. The term “covenant communion” may be more precise since:
“... it defines the terms in which the child would partake of the Lord’s Supper. That is, the child is not communed because he is a child, not by virtue of a self-conscious profession of faith, but because he is a member of the covenant.” [2]
“Credocommunion” on the other hand is that view which denies that all baptized members may come to the table but rather insists that the sacrament of Passover/Lord’s Supper is only for those who can cognitively understand the sacrament and articulate a public profession of faith. There are two major credocommunion views, both of which are in conflict with each other.
The first credocommunion view argues that Passover in the Old Covenant and the Lord’s Supper in the New Covenant is a rite of passage from childhood to an age of discretion. This view denies that children in the Old Covenant partook of the Passover meal. [3] Hence, it argues that baptized children must be catechized for an extended period of time and when they reach an age that Jewish children would normally undergo a bar-mitzvah they may then come to the table. Thus, according to this view, Christian adolescents must give a public profession of faith to the elders and then the local church prior to being admitted to the Lord’s Table. For example, consistent with this position the Constitution of the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) Section 4 Article 192 states:
“Every pastor shall carefully prepare the youth in his pastoral care for communicant membership in the Church by diligently instructing them in the doctrines and duties of the Christian religion. The period of instruction shall, if possible, be so extended that the pupils memorize and are able to recite the entire Heidelberg Catechism before confirmation...”
A second view of credocommunion, while acknowledging that children partook of the Old Covenant Passover, argues that the New Covenant Lord’s Supper is not equivalent to, nor primarily equated with, the Passover of the Old Covenant. This view argues that while generally the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant is more inclusive, in the case of the Lord’s Supper the sacrament is less inclusive than the Old Testament Passover because of the stipulations given by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. In addition, this view also distances the Old Covenant Passover from the Lord’s Supper. [4]
Continuity Over Discontinuity
As one who holds to covenant theology and the regulative principle of worship I presuppose the continuity over the discontinuity of the Old and New Covenant. Hence, a commandment from the Old Covenant is binding in the New Covenant era unless explicitly, or by good and necessary consequence, the New Testament demands otherwise. God has given us His commandments and only He may change them. In some situations, the commands from the Old Covenant are still binding though the manner in which they are observed has changed. Therefore, I presuppose that the Old Testament commandments are binding and seek to follow the apostolic application and observance of those commandments in the New Covenant era. For example, the Sabbath had been moved from the 7th to the 1st day of the week as the commemoration of creation has been replaced by the commemoration of the new creation in Christ and His resurrection. Likewise, the everlasting covenant sacraments of circumcision and Passover have been replaced by baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While there are distinctions between the Old and New Covenant sacraments I presuppose continuity over discontinuity unless otherwise required by Scripture. Thus the new sacraments are essentially the same in their meaning and intent as those of the old as the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.” (27.5)
The Status Of Our Covenant Children
Related to sacramental theology is our understanding of Scripture’s teaching concerning the spiritual status of our covenant children. Since the fall everyone comes into this world by nature a child of wrath, not a child of God (Ephesians 2:3). Hence, everyone is in need of rebirth, of being made clean, which is signified by baptism. [5] However, this new birth is not according to human will or human decision but according to the will of God. Those who have received this new birth have the right to be called the children of God (John 1:12-13). By virtue of this new birth we have been granted repentance (Acts 5:31, 11:18). Hence Baptism also signifies repentance unto new life. The sacrament of baptism is given not only to those who from outside the covenant have come to profess Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior, but also to the children of covenant members. Just as the promise was given to Abraham and his children as an everlasting covenant who were to receive the initiatory rite of circumcision (Genesis 17), so too the promise and the corresponding sign is given to our children (Acts 2:38-39). While baptism requires repentance, the sign is given before we see such action. In fact, it is upon their covenant status of being in the Lord that Paul exhorts covenant children to obey their parents for they have a promise in the covenant for doing so (Ephesians 6:1-3). While we cannot read the hearts of our children (or anyone else for that matter) we are required by Scripture to think of our children and treat them according to the promises of God, not according to what cannot be known in the secret decree of God. What has been revealed by God in His Word belongs to us and our children (Deut. 29:29). While there are at times children of the covenant who sell their birth right for a pottage of stew, until they do so we are to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord by teaching them the promises and warnings of the covenant. Consequently, based on the promises of God we are to think of our children as saints and Christians who are holy, clean, sanctified, have been given the new birth and are among the elect in the body of Christ.
Our children are not holy by nature, but by the covenant promise in Christ. So long as one parent is a Christian and in good standing in the church the children of believers are to be considered holy (1 Corinthians 7:12-14; 1 Peter 2:9-10). There are only two categories, either you are unholy or you are holy. While there are degrees of holiness in terms of the progression of our sanctification our initial status is that we are holy. Unless we deny the faith, we are never positionally categorized as unholy.
Our children have been set apart as holy (sanctified) and consequently they are spiritually clean. This is signified by giving them the sacrament of baptism. Baptism does not make them clean in an automatic sense (ex opere operato) but rather we give them the cleansing rite because of their status in the covenant in Christ (1 Corinthians 7:12-14). You are either clean or you are unclean, there is no middle ground.
The Apostle Paul addresses Christians (even the ones sinning at Corinth) as “saints”, including the children (Romans 8:16-17; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1, 6:1-2). While we are all sinners by our actions, we are saints according to our status in Christ who has cleansed us and made us holy (Galatians 2:17). Hence, we are at the same time sinners and yet also saints. We are at the same time sinners and yet also justified. However, in the Scriptures the term “sinner” often times does not merely designate those who have sinned, but rather those who are outside the covenant (Galatians 2:15). This was particularly true of Gentiles, prostitutes or those who had betrayed the covenant people such as tax collectors (Luke 7:37, 39; 18:13; 19:7). Thus ultimately in these terms you are either a sinner or a saint. Our children are saints, not by nature but by means of the promise of the covenant in Christ.
Our children are also to be considered Christians. Consequently, our covenant children are members of the church, which is the body of Christ. Thus they are part of the “one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17). They are not children of the devil, pagans who are outside of Christ, but rather they are children of God. There are only two categories; you are either a child of God or a child of the devil. You are either in or out of Christ. There is no neutral category (Matthew 12:30).
Likewise, our children are to be considered believers. Our Baptist brothers say they believe in “believer’s baptism.” We do too, but not merely of those who come from outside the covenant and become Christians by virtue of a public profession of faith. We also believe that our children are believers unless they renounce the faith and are subsequently cut off. Most credocommunionists deny that covenant children are believers; in fact Leonard Coppes denies that they have “a personal vital faith.” [6]
Since one must be “born again” (regenerate) in order to see the Kingdom of God and baptism signifies that regeneration, we are to presume that our children are regenerate. This is not because there is any magical or mystical power in the sacrament of baptism, but rather because baptism is a holy sign and seal of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. The grace which is exhibited in or by baptism rightly used, is not conferred by any power in it; neither does the efficacy of the sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. There are only two categories; either you are dead in your sin or you have been made alive by the Spirit of God. Thus, by virtue of their covenant status in Christ and their baptism we are to believe that our children are born again (regenerate) until they prove otherwise. This view is rejected by many credocommunionists. You are either dead in your sins and trespasses, or you have been made alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:5). There is no middle, half way, or “almost” state of being born again.
Since Paul addresses children in the church along with the saints, they too are adopted sons and heirs of the promises of God. Covenant children have been “...sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14) They do not have the status of slaves or those under a pedagogue (Galatians 3:25), though every Christian (young or old) is in a state of progression in their spiritual growth. Being a babe in Christ is not a matter of physical age, but rather of maturity in the faith (1 Corinthians 3:2). Yet, Paul does not withhold the Lord’s Supper from the adult babes in Christ.
While we cannot know the secret decree of God, we can declare who is of the elect in terms of their membership in the Church. Paul calls the children along with the adult members of the predestined and elect in Christ (Ephesians 1:4-5)
Our covenant children are also members of the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 19:13-15 we read, “Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’ After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.” Jesus is not merely saying we that ought to humble ourselves and be like children with an implicit faith, rather He is asserting that the covenant children have a right to come to Him for they typify the Kingdom of God. Thus He is not merely articulating an example to be followed (“be like children”), but defending the place of these covenant children in His presence. [7] Either you are in the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of the devil. There is no half way position or middle ground.
Finally, our covenant children are fully in the covenant with all the titles and privileges therein. [8] As John Murray states:
“It is necessary, therefore, to understand that the children are reckoned as saints in terms of salvation in both epistles [Ephesians 6:1, 4; Colossians 3:20-21] and that they are not regarded as belonging to any different category in respect of the Saviorhood and Lordship of Christ. Everything points to the conclusion that children, equally with parents and servants and masters, belong to the body of Christ and are fully embraced in the fellowship of the saints.” [9]
We ought not to think of our children as mere future candidates of being full members in the Church. Many credocommunionists deny that our children have full covenant status and instead insist that they are only half way, or only externally, in the covenant. The scriptures know of no such status of anyone, let alone our children. You are either in the covenant, never were a member of the covenant, or have been cut off from the covenant. Our covenant children have the full rights of membership; they are fully in the covenant and have a right to the blessings of membership. As John Murray himself asserted, our little children belong to the Kingdom of God. They are to be received in Christ’s name. Little children, even infants, are among Christ’s people and are members of his body; they are members of kingdom and therefore have been regenerated. They belong to the church, in that they are to be received into the fellowship of the saints. [10]
Women also have these full membership rights along with slaves (Galatians 3:28). But this does not mean that they can have a position of authority in the church in holding the office of an elder. In fact, not all men can hold an ecclesiastical office. There are explicit qualifications that must be met. Women are not to have authority over men in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and men who do not rule their house well or who are new converts cannot hold the office of an elder or deacon (1 Tim. 3:6-10; Titus 1:6-9). Therefore, such offices are not part of the full rights of church membership. The Scriptures give an explicit condition which must be met before one can hold the office of an elder or deacon. However, neither Christ nor any of the apostles gave any such stipulations which must first be met to partake of the Lord’s Supper for baptized Christians. As I shall argue, neither does Paul institute a new list of requirements for Christians who are not in wanton rebellion against God or who are not dividing the church.
The Nature Of The Sacrament Of The Lord’s Supper
In order to determine who may partake of the Lord’s Supper, in addition to having a Biblical view of the status of our covenant children we must have a correct understanding of the nature and purpose of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is just as necessary for eternal life as baptism and as a repeated sacrament it is necessary food for our spiritual growth. In the eating of the sacrament a visible declaration of the gospel is made that Christ died for all who partake as they are all members of the body of Christ. Those who are outside of Christ or have been excommunicated are those who may not eat with the rest of the body (1 Corinthians 5:11).
Jesus said concerning baptism, “Truly, truly, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3, 5) Likewise, He says concerning the eating of His flesh sacramentally, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56) However, we must remember that the sign is not so closely tied to that which is signified that we confuse the one with the other or we believe covenant infants dying without baptism or the Lord’s Supper perish. But neither are we to separate the sign from that which is signified so as to deny their true spiritual benefits.
The Westminster Confession of Faith rightly states, “Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.” (Chapter 29.1)
The Old Covenant Passover
Baptism is most closely linked with circumcision, but it also incorporates all Old Covenant cleansing rites (Exodus 19:10, 29:4; Leviticus 6:27, 13:6, 15:5 etc.). Likewise, the Lord’s Supper is most closely linked with the Passover meal due to the time in which it was initiated by Christ and the elements that were used; it also incorporates all the Old Covenant meals. This clear and obvious biblical truth is ignored by all the credocommunionists who argue against paedocommunion. The only meals covenant children were excluded from were the ones eaten by the priests and their families alone. However, since the priesthood now consists of all believers this distinction of who may eat of the sacramental meal has been removed.
While paedocommunionists can argue for the right of covenant children to partake of the Lord’s Supper at the table solely from the New Testament [11], the argument is strengthened by the clear link between the sacraments of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Baptism corresponds to circumcision and all Old Covenant cleansing rites. The Lord’s Supper likewise corresponds to Passover and all Old Covenant sacramental meals. While covenant children could not offer sacrifices on the altar, they did indeed partake of the Passover meal and most Old Covenant sacramental meals. Therefore unless the New Covenant explicitly or by good and necessary consequence withdraws this covenantal right to partake of the sacramental meal they ought not to be barred from the table.
Exodus 12 and The Distinction Between The Altar and The Table
On the evening of the historical event of Israel’s exodus from the bondage to Egypt the Lord gave the necessary stipulations as to how the original Passover was to be kept. In addition, He also gave instructions as to how the commemorative Passovers were to be observed once they entered the promised land. They did not have to wait until they entered the land 40 years after wandering in the wilderness to receive God’s ordained order of worship. It was instituted on the night of redemption. On the night of the original Passover the blood of the lamb was put on the doorposts, a clear type of the cross that would later be symbolized by the altar. The meat from the sacrifice was then to be eaten with the entire household as part of a sacramental meal. While it was the head of the household who offered the animal to be slaughtered, and later he would offer it to the priest at the commemorative Passover, the entire family were “sharers in the altar” (1 Corinthians 10:16). Hence, only one who was a mature circumcised male in good standing (he wasn’t unclean) could offer the sacrifice. But the entire family shared in the altar at the table. The history of redemption demonstrates that there is a difference between the altar on which a sacrifice was made and the table on which the sacrifice was eaten. In the Old Covenant, while children (or women) could not offer the sacrifice and approach the altar (Exodus 12:3) they did share in the sacramental meals at the table. [12] As we read in Exodus 12:24, “And you shall observe this thing [i.e. Passover] as an ordinance for you and your sons [benim] forever.” Exodus 12:26 likewise states, “And it shall be, when your sons [benim] say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?” The same term “sons” or “children” (NASB) are used in both passages. The ability to ask the question in vs. 26 was not a prerequisite for partaking from the altar at the table, but rather it was an anticipated question to which the fathers were to give the correct answer. Note that it is the child asking the question, not the father. As Leonard Coppes admits, this is not a catechism question that the child must be able to answer, but rather the situation will naturally spawn questions from the children. [13] This is not unlike a child who asks, “Why do you put flowers on the graves of veterans on memorial day?” Such a question does not mean the child must be able to ask the question prior to be involved in the memorial, but rather such activities are a cause for such questions to be raised.
In addition to eating the sacrificed animal, they also ate unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exodus 12:8). It is often argued by credocommunionists who deny that children partook of the Passover meal that such elements would not be consumable by small children or infants. Such an argument causes me to wonder if these credocommunionists ever take their nose out of their books long enough to actually observe little children. Most mothers do not have a problem with what can go into their baby’s mouth, but rather trying to keep them from putting everything in their mouth! I have seen crawling infants eat dirt, bugs, paper and even try to swallow their own toes! In addition, do we not commonly give our little babes graham crackers and other easily dissolvable food items? If they can eat these things, surely they could eat unleavened bread and bitter herbs. While a child under a year old might not have the teeth to chew on a large piece of meat using forks and knives, they nevertheless can partake of most of the elements of the Passover. But not being able to eat physically does not mean that one is barred from eating. Just because an adult is in a comma or is unconscious and thus cannot eat, does not mean that they are barred from eating. The difference between being physically able to eat and being barred from eating is a point which most credocommunionists fail to notice. In consuming the Lord’s Supper, the covenant child’s ability to eat and drinking is even easier. Of course we would not give them a large dose of wine, but neither would we give them a large glass of milk. We give them what is appropriate to their age and what they have the ability to handle. We might even give them a “young wine” or “new wine” which would be naturally sweeter and contain far less alcohol. [14]
The only meal the children (and the women) did not partake of was those that were consumed by the Priest. Since the Levite priests had no partial of land allotted to them as the other tribes, this was their inheritance and source of income and support:
“Then the LORD spoke to Aaron, ‘Now behold, I Myself have given you charge of My offerings, even all the holy gifts of the sons of Israel I have given them to you as a portion and to your sons as a perpetual allotment. This shall be yours from the most holy gifts reserved from the fire; every offering of theirs, even every grain offering and every sin offering and every guilt offering, which they shall render to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons. As the most holy gifts you shall eat it; every male shall eat it. It shall be holy to you. This also is yours, the offering of their gift, even all the wave offerings of the sons of Israel; I have given them to you and to your sons and daughters with you as a perpetual allotment. Everyone of your household who is clean may eat it. All the best of the fresh oil and all the best of the fresh wine and of the grain, the first fruits of those which they give to the LORD, I give them to you. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the LORD, shall be yours; everyone of your household who is clean may eat it. Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours.” (Numbers 18:8-32)
Therefore, receiving the tithes and sacrifices was the priest’s means of supporting their families with food and material goods as other tribes supported their families from the sustenance of the land. While only the priest could approach the altar and offer sacrifices, the children (including daughters) of the priests could eat from various offerings.
However, since Christianity consists of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5), this distinction has come to an end in regards to who may partake of the sacrificial meal. Therefore it is crucial to properly understanding the Lord’s Supper that there has always been a distinction between the altar and the table. To fail to make this distinction leads one to a Roman Catholic understanding of the Lord’s Supper in which the table is referred to as an altar and the priest treats the host as if it were a resacrifice of Christ. The failure to make this distinction is a crucial error of the credocommunionist position, especially as argued by Leonard Coppes, Brian Schwertley, and Richard Bacon. [15] In fact, Coppes goes so far as to say that when Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper that they are approaching the altar. [16] Thus when they “take and eat” they are mirroring the priestly act of imputing sin to the sacrificial lamb represented by the bread, just as priests laid their hands on the sacrificial animal. [17]
Although an altar is not mentioned in relation to the initial Passover, the history of the offering of sacrifices prior to the exodus demonstrates that altars were customarily used for sacrifices (Genesis 8:20; 12:7-8; 22:9; 26:5; 33:20; 35: 1, 3, 7). Hence an altar was probably used. However, even if they did not use an altar at this initial Passover observance, the doorposts typologically were the same as an altar as they both are types of Christ’s work on the cross. In fact, the blood on the doorposts would form a mark of the cross as the side and top of the door way would mirror the blood on Jesus’ hands and head. The failure to make the connection between the Exodus 12 Passover’s blood on the doorposts and the altar is a crucial error of the credocommunionist argument. Although the children and women did not offer the sacrifice, they did partake of the sacrifice of the altar at the table. While some credocommunionists contest this (F.N. Lee, Brian Schwertley, Richard Bacon) other credocommunionists agree with paedocommunionists on this point and openly argue against their fellow credocommunionist’s assertions (Leonard Coppes) or at least acknowledge that children and women partook of the Passover meal.
Contrary to the assertion of Leonard Coppes, the Exodus 12 Passover was an expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice. [18] The initial Passover sacrifice covered the sins of Israel, especially the first-born. It protected them from the wrath of God as the angel of death came and killed all the first born who were not under the blood. This Passover sacrament marked the exodus (way out) of bondage to Egypt. Egypt in this manner has always been a type of sin in Christian theology. Hence, the Passover sacrament removes Israel from the bondage to sin and delivers them from the bondage of the evil one. In order for this to be accomplished God’s wrath had to be poured out on sin (Egypt). Therefore, typologically (for all O.T. bloody sacrifices are only typological of the cross of Christ) the Exodus 12 Passover sacrifice delivered God’s people from the bondage to sin (expiation) and satisfied the wrath of God (propitiation). This is not a novel interpretation of this passage for George Bush (1796-1859) wrote over a century ago concerning the blood being placed on the two side-posts in Exodus 12:7:
“They [the Israelites] were sinners as well as the Egyptians, and God might justly have punished them for their sins by taking the lives of their first-born. But he was pleased to show them mercy, and accept the life of a lamb as a substitute. Its blood was the signal of this, and all who obeyed the command of God and relied on his protection, were secure from the stroke of the avenger. Nothing could be a more significant and striking emblem of the application of Christ’s blood to the guilty conscience as the sole deliverance from the wrath to come. In him we have redemption through his blood. His is the true ‘blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel.’ It is better than the blood of the Passover-lamb, for it effects for us a far greater deliverance than that of the Israelites; it redeems us from the bondage of Satan and sin, from the fear of death and hell.” [19]
Post Exodus Commemorative Passover Meals
Whereas the original Passover was enacted in Egypt and in haste, the commemorative Passovers were observed in leaser in Jerusalem as we later see Jesus and His disciples reclining at a table and partaking of wine. Also, while the original Passover lamb was slaughtered and its blood placed on the doorposts, the commemorative lamb was slaughtered and its blood was placed on and around the corresponding altar. In both scenarios it was the federal head that offered the animal. Once the nation of Israel had been established with the order of the priesthood ordained, the sacrifice was offered by a priest and not the head of the household. However, the meal was still consumed in a household or a rented room as traveling Israelites who came from throughout the land made accommodations to observe the Passover meal when the arrived for the festival (Luke 22:7-20).
The post-exodus Passovers were a permanent commemoration of the initial Passover in Exodus 12 (cf. Exodus 12:14-22; 42-51; 23:15; 34:18; Leviticus 23:4-14; Numbers 9:1-4; Deut. 16:1-8). The nature of the commemoration is not a mere cognitive action but a reenactment of the historical event being remembered. The word “remember” (Hebrew word “zcar”; Greek word “anmnesis” from which we get the English word “amnesia”) does not merely mean a cognitive calling to mind an event or person. Rather in a Biblical context it has to do with a reenactment of a historical event and the redemptive work of God. Hence the act of the entire family building and getting into a booth is the remembrance of the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:42-44, “Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD”). Likewise, the entire family partaking of the Passover meal after the federal head offered the sacrifice on the altar is a reenactment of the original Passover. They were reenacting the redemptive-historical event when the firstborn were protected from the angel of death and all of Israel was delivered from the dominion of Pharaoh. Note that the children participated in the remembering acts of Israel by participating in the reenactment of the redemptive-historical event. After the generation of the exodus had passed away no one “remembered” in the sense of having a personal recollection of the night of redemption, for they were not participants in the original historic event. Thus “remembering” is not like our remembering our childhood, but rather it is like a nation commemorating the actions of its veterans who died on behalf of their country on Memorial Day. This “remembering” consists of participatory events to honor those who died on their behalf. Likewise, the “remembering” of the feast days consists of participatory events to honor God for His acts of redemption and deliverance. In fact, covenant children along with adults were required to “remember” God’s creation of the world in six days by keeping the Sabbath:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8-11)
The Sabbath day that is being remembered is not the day in which the Israelites were ceasing from their labor; rather it was the day the Lord ceased from His labor in creating the universe. Thus when Israel rested on the seventh day is was a day of commemorating or memorializing the week the Lord created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. The initial Sabbath was thousands of years ago when God created the world in six days. The day that Israel was to keep was a memorial of that day. But, other than the Triune God of the universe and His angels, who was there when God created all things? Neither Israel nor any of their descendants were present during the first five days of creation. Hence to “remember” the Sabbath is not a mere cognitive process in which the people of God recollect the activities of their descendants, but rather it is to keep holy the day of the week in which the Lord created the universe.
Notice that the children were required to be part of keeping this remembrance activity, “your son or your daughter.” Yet, Israel was not to so much as pick up sticks on the Lord’s Day. How could young children be expected to keep the stringent Sabbath laws for which one violator was put to death? (Numbers 15:32-36). I would argue that the Lord does not deal as strictly with the children in this regard for their incidental ignorant labors on the Sabbath day. While parents were to keep their children from unnecessary work I do not believe God would put to death a two year old for picking up a stick in ignorance. The man put to death in Numbers 15:32-36 did not act in ignorance of God’s law, but rather in defiance of it. In the same manner, in regards to the purity laws of those who eat the Passover, God primarily judges adults for their failure to observe in a knowingly improper manner. Likewise, the Lord judges adults who fail to remember the Passover or the Lord’s Supper rightly. The best way to protect our covenant children is not to keep them from the commemorative sacrament or day of the week. Rather, we ought to examine ourselves to see if we are living in wanton sin against God and our neighbor. We ought to be a good example for our children in teaching them how to remember Christ by keeping the day and partaking of the sacrament with us.
In the post exodus Passovers we see a continuance of the distinction between altar and the table. While the initial Passover sacrifice took place in Egypt, once Israel had entered the promised land the subsequent commemorative sacrifices took place in Jerusalem at the temple. In Deuteronomy 16:16 we read:
“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place in which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.”
Only the mature circumcised males were required to make the trek to Jerusalem (probably 13 years or older, after what later became known as the bar-mitzvah). The reason for this is obvious. To make the long journey from the outskirts of the land of Israel for women (especially if they were pregnant) and small children would be a burden. The Passover was to commemorate the release from the burden of the bondage to Egypt, not to impose another burden on the women and children.
Women and children were not barred from making the journey and partaking of the Passover meal. In fact, in Luke’s Gospel we see Joseph, Mary and Jesus without taking any bar-mitzvah exam going to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41). [20] Like the Exodus 12 Passover, women and children could not approach the altar and make a sacrifice. The males had to come to the age of discretion before they could take on the duties of adulthood such as fighting in wars, getting married, taking vows, or offering sacrifices. However, they were not barred from partaking of the commemorative Passover meals. They had a right to attend for the Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles was for all the covenant members, including the children and foreigners who had joined Israel were included (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3-5). Since the command for these two feasts is included along with Passover (Feast of Unleavened Bread) the right to attend cannot be separated.
While the distinction between the altar and the table was maintained, the right to approach the table did not grant the right to approach the altar. Women and children could partake of the sacrifice from the altar at the table, but they could not offer the sacrifice itself. Hence, the type of Christ as a man who offered the sacrifice (Himself) was maintained.
Those excluded from the Passover and other feast day meals are stated explicitly. The commemorative post exodus Passover meals required circumcision and ritual purity. Hence, Gentiles could not partake of the Passover unless they were first circumcised (Exodus 12:48). Women and men who did not meet the cleanliness requirements were delayed from partaking until they could meet the requirements (Numbers 9:6-1). Thus there is no need to guess or read between the lines of the text to determine who may and may not participate in the sacrificial meal. The text tells us explicitly what qualifications must be met in order to partake of the sacramental meal and who is barred from offering a sacrifice.
In this same manner, there is no need to guess as to who may partake of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted the sacrament about 30 years before Paul wrote to correct the errors at Corinth. Yet, He told all the disciples to eat of it (Matthew 26:27) including the one whom He knew would betray Him. Though there is no mention of women or children present at the Lord’s Supper, we do not keep women from the sacrament for this reason. Neither should this be a reason to bar children from the table. Neither Jesus nor Paul state that covenant children should barred from the table. Paul’s corrections of the problems at Corinth do not undo the common practice of the church which had existed for about 30 years prior to him writing the epistle. The stipulations of the Passover are given at its institution in Exodus 12 and further explained immediately afterward in the Law given at Sinai. There are no further stipulations given 40 years after the exodus for the Lord gives the stated requirements when the sacrament is instituted, not a generation later. All that the Lord does after they enter the land is rebuke and judge them when they neglect, abuse and misuse the ordinances He gave them.
The New Covenant Passover
There are two primary lines of argument that credocommunionists use to argue against the paedocommunionist position. As previously stated, the first credocommunionist argument is that partaking of the Passover/Lord’s Supper is given as a rite of passage from childhood to puberty. No distinction is made between who may approach the altar to offer a sacrifice and who may eat from the sacrificial meal at the table. Hence the requirements for the one are the same as the other. Therefore, in order for a child to partake of the Passover/Lord’s Supper he must go reach the age of puberty (about the age 13 or as late as 18) before he can partake in the sacrament. Hence a rite of passage otherwise known as a bar-mitzvah in Judaism or the making of a public profession of faith in Christianity is required before one may partake of the sacrament. Until that time, the child is only externally or half way in the covenant. This view is held by F.N. Lee, Brian Schwertley and Richard Bacon.
The second line of argument often made by credocommunionists, which is in conflict with the first, acknowledges that women and children did partake of the Old Covenant Passover. However, it is argues that the Lord’s Supper is not equivalent to the Passover but rather it is centered on the Great Atonement. Consequently, (according to this view) the requirement that must be met in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper is a New Covenant equivalency to being able to offer the sacrifice for the Great Atonement. [21] Like the first view, this argument fails to make a distinction between the altar and the table. It recognizes that children could not offer sacrifices at the altar and then asserts that to approach Lord’s Supper at the table is equivalent to approaching the altar. Therefore covenant children are not to partake of the Lord’s Supper until they have passed a Christian version of the bar-mitzvah - the public profession of faith. Since this view admits to paedopassover this position puts most of its weight on a poor exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11. This line of argument is held by Leonard Coppes and others. I shall demonstrate that both of these lines of argument are flawed exegetically and theologically.
The Initial Passover Of Christ
In the Gospel of John there are three accounts of Jesus observing the Passover on three separate occasions. It is from this record that we know that His earthly ministry lasted three years. However, at the third recorded Passover Jesus did something quite different than in the past. He gathered His 12 disciples to eat with Him to institute the New Covenant and thus change the meaning of the Passover. This would be the night in which the true Israel was being rebuilt on the foundation of the apostles, excluding Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14).
Like the initial Old Covenant sacrament that was instituted on the night of deliverance from Egypt, so also the Lord’s Supper was initiated during Passover on the night in which the Church was delivered from the bondage to sin (Luke 22:8). Just as the initial Passover was instituted on the actual night of the redemptive-historical event which was then commemorated by subsequent observances of the Passover, so too the initial Lord’s Supper was instituted on the actual night of the redemptive-historical event which was then commemorated by subsequent observances of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42). Thus the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Gospel accounts mirror the Exodus 12 Passover. On this night Jesus also gave the order of worship as the Lord did in Exodus 12. The church did not have to wait approximately 30 years for Paul to give the church an order of worship so that the sacrament might be rightly observed. We read in the gospels:
“While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; or this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’” (Matthew 26:26-28)
“And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:22-24)
Luke’s gospel gives us even more information concerning the normal manner in which the Passover was observed at the table:
“Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.’ They said to Him, ‘Where do You want us to prepare it?’ And He said to them, ‘When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. And you shall say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, ‘Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?’ And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there.’ And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.’ And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.’” (Luke 22:7-20)
Jesus and the disciples were in Jerusalem during Passover just as it was required of all circumcised male adults. Although the typological Passover sacrifice would be offered on an altar at the temple, it would be eaten in a home at a table. It was customary for those who dwelt in Jerusalem to have sojourning Jews in their homes for the Passover meal or for those who traveled to Jerusalem for the feast to make accommodations in some manner to observe the sacramental meal in an inn or borrowed room.
Just as the commemorative Passovers were memorials of the initial Passover initiated at the night of the exodus (which delivered God’s people from Egypt) so too the memorial observances of the Lord’s Supper commemorate the initial Lord’s Supper. Hence Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper parallels the Exodus 12 Passover and the commemorative observances of the Lord’s Supper parallel the commemorative observances of the Passover. In addition, just as baptism assimilates the Old Testament washings and yet it is most closely linked with circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), so too the Lord’s Supper replaces all Old Covenant feast days and yet is most closely linked with Passover. Consequently, the Old Covenant Passover exegetically takes a priority in its consideration.
Another factor that links the Passover to the Lord’s Supper is that Jesus used elements from the Passover meal and reinterpreted them to point to Himself. Jesus and the disciples were partaking of what would have otherwise been considered the normal annual Passover meal. He then took the elements and told the disciples not to partake in remembrance of the Exodus 12 event, but rather do it remembrance of Him and what He was about to do for them:
“And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.’”
If you read the Passover account in Exodus 12 and in the gospels you will notice that the elements of the meal have changed. First, there has been the addition of wine that was not part of the original meal. Between the time of the original institution of the Passover and the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry wine had been added to the Passover meal. Likewise, baptism had been added as a cleaning rite for Gentiles to enter into the covenant. Jesus incorporates both of these additions into the New Covenant sacraments. Hence, while wine was not part of the original sacrament it was part of the Passover meal when the Lord’s Supper was instituted. By incorporating wine into the sacrament Jesus ties other typological elements to the Lord’s Supper from the sacrificial system, namely the libation offering:
“Now this is what you shall offer on the alter: two one year old lambs each day, continuously. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight; and there shall be one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a libation [drink -offering} with one lamb. And the other lamb you shall offer at twilight, and shall offer with it the same grain offering as the morning and the same libation, for a soothing -aroma, an offering by fire to the Lord.” (Exodus 29:38-41)
The wine or libation offering was a type of Christ who humbled Himself by pouring, or emptying, Himself unto the point of death on the cross as if it were the altar of sacrifice (Phil. 2:6-8). In Christ the sacrificial lamb of Isaiah 53 who is “poured out for many” (vs. 12) as a wine offering is fulfilled by Him and typified in the Lord’s Supper. [22] In fact, the apostle Paul also makes a reference to the wine as part of the sacramental meal of Passover as he says, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)
Although Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), as the anti-type of the Passover lamb, He cannot point to the lamb of the Old Covenant Passover and say “Take eat, this is my body.” If He did so Jesus would not be putting an end to the sacrificial system that was a mere type and shadow. Rather Christians would be required to continue to sacrifice animals in order to keep the Lord’s Supper that He instituted. Therefore, Jesus changes the central elements of the sacrament from bloody (lambs) to non-bloody (bread). In doing so, He ties other typological elements to the Lord’s Supper such as the manna that was given in the wilderness. (John 6:30-58; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4) This is crucial to understanding the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which Leonard Coppes fails to notice. Instead he uses the change as a means to place a wedge between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. [23]
Finally, the Lord’s Supper also incorporates the Great Atonement. In Exodus 24:8 we read, “So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.’” Jesus echoes this when He institutes the Lord’s Supper and points to it as the beginning of “the new covenant in My blood.” Leonard J. Coppes repeatedly draws attention to this fact and claims it indicates that the Lord’s Supper is most closely tied to the Great Atonement rather than the Passover. However, if Jesus’ intent was to totally associate the new sacrament with the Great Atonement and thereby change who may partake of the elements would He not have instituted it on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) rather than on the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover)? In addition, the Great Atonement had no corresponding meal as it was accompanied by fasting rather than feasting. As Tim Gallant rightly point out, the only one involved in the Great Atonement was the high priest who offered the sacrifice only once a year and he did not eat anything from the sacrifice. Thus the point of Hebrews 8-10 is that it is Christ Himself who is the fulfillment of this type and has accomplished this priestly work on our behalf. [24] Therefore, to try to shift the Lord’s Supper from its close link to the Passover sacrifice to being centered around the Great Atonement sacrifice is to stretch all credulity.
The Commemorative New Covenant Passover
Like the Old Covenant Passover a distinction is made between the altar and the table. The literal altar is no longer a part of Christian worship for the final sacrifice has already been made, once for all (Heb. 7:27). The altar is in heaven, not on earth (Heb. 9:11-12, 24). No longer is a bloody sacrifice offered for Christ put an end to the bloody elements of the sacraments because He is the final sacrifice. Hence there is a transition from circumcision (a bloody rite) to baptism (non-bloody rite) and from Passover (a bloody rite) to the Lord’s Supper (non-bloody rite). While we all sacramentally share in the altar we do so at the table (1 Corinthians 10:21). To refer to the Lord’s Supper as an altar is to imitate the error of Roman Catholicism in their doctrine of the resacrifice of Christ in the Mass. In Roman Catholicism the priest lifts up the host (bread or Eucharist) as the literal transubstantiated body of Christ that is then offered as a sacrifice. The essence of Roman Catholic worship is an attempt to duplicate the types and shadows of the Old Covenant with the offering of a sacrifice, the use of incense, golden images, statues of angels above of the altar and other Old Covenant type of pageantry.
In the New Covenant the Church is the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16) and it follows the pattern of the synagogue. It originally met in homes and shared the sacramental meal in the home like the Exodus 12 Passover (Acts 2:46; 5:42). Thus the elders of the church do not approach an altar and neither do the heads of households. Rather, along with their families they share in the body of Christ at the table, which is the feeding (sacramentally) on that which was offered on the altar (the cross). Hence, if the Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant Passover and covenant children partook of the meal from the Old Covenant altar at the table, unless Scripture explicitly or by good an necessary now bars them from the table they ought to be included.
The Context of 1 Corinthians Chapters 10 - 11
The primary text which credocommunionists use to bar covenant children from the Lord’s Table is Paul’s exhortation in chapter 11 of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. Therefore, it will be necessary to discuss the text in its context to determine whether or not the passage demands a greater restriction for who may partake of the Lord’s Supper in the New Covenant than Passover did in the Old Covenant.
There are a few questions that must be asked concerning the application of the exhortations in 1 Corinthians. The first question that must be asked is, “Is the purpose of this letter to prescribe universal order of worship? Or is it only a list of commands to correct the problems which existed at the Church in Corinth?” If some of the elements of the given order of worship are only intended to solve problems and are only applicable to a Corinthian type situation, then the particular requirements in chapter 11 are not be universally applicable. Second, “Do the exhortations set a new higher standard in the New Covenant than were in the Old Covenant, or do we find similar circumstances and prescriptions in the Old Covenant as well?” If these commands and stipulations are to be applied universally but they are also found in the Old Covenant as well which included children in the Passover, then they cannot be seen as a requirement that exclude covenant children from the table. Finally, “How ought we apply Paul’s exhortation in a modern context?
When the Lord first instituted the Passover, He provided the order of worship on the very same night in which it was to be observed (Exodus 12:1-11). In addition, He also gave the order of worship for the commemorative meals which would follow as well in Exodus 12: 14-20. Israel did not observe the sacramental meal for 40 years only then to have the Lord give them additional instructions on the manner in which it ought to be observed. They had the instructions for observing the sacrament from the very beginning. Likewise, when the Lord Jesus instituted the New Passover, the Lord’s Supper, He too gave His followers instructions as to how it ought to be observed (Matthew 26:17-30; Luke 22:17-20). They did not have to wait 30 years to receive instructions from Paul as to know the Lord’s Supper was to be kept. Thus immediately after Pentecost, the newly born church began to follow the Lord’s instructions as the apostles taught them:
“So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (Acts 2:41-42)
This group included the covenant children and the Gentiles (i.e. “all who are far off” cf. Ephesians 2:12-14) who were also baptized, as Peter said only a few verses earlier, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:38-39) They did not have to wait to be catechized before they participated in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Rather they partook immediately after they were baptized. At the same time and place in which they were being instructed in the apostles’ teaching they were also being fed the Lord’s Supper.
Then about 30 years after the Lord’s Supper had been instituted problems arose in the Corinthian church. The gospel had by that time spread to the outer regions of the Roman Empire. During this time the church had converted a large number of Gentiles who were coming out of a pagan way of life, yet some of their former ways of life persisted. Consequently many ethical and theological problems arose in the church. This was particularly true of the church at Corinth.
The primary problems at Corinth were various types of divisions and schisms. Some were claiming to be of a particular party with their favorite apostle as their hero (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4-7). Some were boasting in claiming to have superior knowledge (1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 8:1), while others were causing division in the church by taking each other to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). There were some who were causing divisions by stumbling weaker brothers and causing scandal with the unbelievers over meat that had been sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 10:23-30). Others were causing divisions between the rich and the poor by creating class warfare in their agape feasts. [25] Consequently they were dividing the body of Christ (the “one loaf”) which contradicted the oneness of Christ at the Lord’s Table (1 Corinthians 10:17; 11:17-34). Some were claiming to be superior than each other and causing divisions with the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12), and causing the corporate worship to be anything but unified as they were all doing their own thing (1 Corinthians 14). In addition there were moral problems such as tolerating blatant sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 6:12-20). Some of the women were failing to show submission to their covenantal heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), and there was doctrinal heresy being taught by some who denied the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).
It is in this context that Paul gives his instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper. But were these types of sin new? Or had God’s people seen them before? Paul warns the church at Corinth that they are repeating the sins of Israel, most of whom “were laid low in the wilderness.” Because the Christians at Corinth were repeating these sins, they too were “weak and sick, and number sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:3). They were repeating the same type of sin and consequently they were suffering the same type of judgment.
Therefore, as Paul begins to address the issue of the Lord’s Supper and the division in the church he states in chapter 9 the motivation and purpose for all that he does, “And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (v. 23). He then goes on to use a sports analogy, which these Greek Christians would be very familiar with, to demonstrate the importance of living a self-disciplined Christian life:
“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore, run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.” (vv. 24-27)
Then in chapter 10 Paul states the reason why he is giving them these instructions. But this time he does not use not a contemporary sports analogy but rather an example from the history of Israel. God’s chosen people, after they had been freed from the bondage of Egypt (sin), turned their freedom into a means of licentiousness and rebellion against God. They ate the wilderness meals provided by God and yet turned against their neighbor for which the Lord judged them.
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-3)
At the time these events occurred the meals provided supernaturally (manna in the desert) which Israel consumed were not sacramental. These were not the feast days that were to be observed once a year. Rather, they were daily common meals provided in an uncommon manner. They were a type of the meal that Christ provided in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in the wilderness for His followers just prior to the Passover (John 6:4-15). But both of these events, with Israel in the wilderness and with Jesus and His followers, are interpreted sacramentally. They are both types of Christ. Israel ate the same “spiritual food” and drank the same “spiritual drink” from the rock and “the rock was Christ.” Likewise, Jesus says that He is the bread from heaven that must be eaten in order to have eternal life (John 6:33-58). These wilderness meals were not originally sacramental per se, yet both meals are typified and interpreted sacramentally.
Most paedocommunionists use Paul’s interpretation of the wilderness meals as an argument for including children in the Lord’s Supper. It is undeniable that at least weaned children did indeed eat the manna, which Jesus interpreted as a type of Himself (John 6:41). While the issue of who may partake is not at hand in this passage, it does indeed in a typological sense give us at least a leaning toward the universal distribution of the elements to all covenant members in good standing who are able to physically partake. It is not an argument that can stand on its own, but it does add weight to the paedocommunion side of the debate. Leonard Coppes argues against this line of reasoning stating that animals and sojourners also partook. [26] Of course no one would argue from this text that animals should partake of the Lord’s Supper. But that is the same complaint commonly given by credobaptists against paedobaptists who use this text in support of infant baptism. The fact that “households” were circumcised in the Old Covenant has always been a part of the classic argument for paedobaptism since households were baptized throughout the Book of Acts (10:47, 48; 11:14; 16:15, 33, 34) and in 1 Corinthians 1:16. [27] In fact, Reformed theologian and Biblical commentator Simon Kistemaker states that the “baptism into Moses” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10 is a link to Christian baptism in the New Covenant. [28] Yet, Baptists have always responded with the same complaint as Leonard Coppes, that animals were also part of “households” and in these wilderness meals and baptisms. It seems odd that Reformed theologians want to use this same text to argue for the inclusion of children in baptism and yet deny this text for the inclusion of children at the Lord’s Table.
Using the wilderness meals as an example and interpreting them typologically and sacramentally, Paul goes on to use the sin of Israel as a warning to the Christians at Corinth. The Corinthians were repeating some of the same errors of Israel and if they do not repent they too will be judged, in fact some of the Corinthians have already suffered the same judgment - death. Thus Paul goes on to say:
“Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.’ Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (vv. 5-12)
Because there were divisions in the Church when there should have been unity at the Lord’s Table, the church was being judged. As a means of church discipline, Paul had to give a very severe condemnation of their actions and prescribe a remedy to those who were causing the division in the body of Christ. What follows is not a new order of worship, but rather a set of instructions to solve a particular problem in a particular setting, in a particular church.
In chapters 8 and 10 Paul gave a set of instructions regarding the eating and purchasing meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Obviously Christians today do not have to be concerned with this issue. So other than the simple moral principle of not stumbling weaker brothers over matters of conscience, the general exhortation is not applicable today unless we are in a similar situation. Likewise, what follows from chapter 11 should not necessarily be construed as an order of worship that ought to be declared in every church context. Can you imagine if we read 1 Corinthians 11 in context every time we celebrated the Lord’s Supper? Ought we to say the following to our congregations who are not repeating the sin of Israel and of the Church of Corinth?:
“But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” (1 Corinthians 11:17-21)
To do so would be unthinkable. Yet, we ignore this portion of 1 Corinthians 11 and go on to read Paul’s solution to this particular problem given just a few verses later. Instead of reading this chapter in this manner we ought to interpret and apply this text according to its historical context.
After the exodus God judged Israel for their spiritual idolatry, misconduct in worship and mistreatment of their neighbor by sending them into exile under Gentile oppressors. They had caused the feast days to become a stench in God’s nose so that the very thing He ordained was now rejected by the Lord. In essence, the feast days had ceased to be genuine sacraments:
”I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings.” (Amos 5:21-22)
Why did He hate their festivals? Did He not ordain them? Yes, He did, but because, like the Corinthians, they mistreated the poor God rejected their sacrifices:
“Therefore because you impose heavy rent on the poor And exact a tribute of grain from them, Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone, Yet you will not live in them; You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine.” (Amos 5:11)
This is the exact same issue that Paul is addressing. The problem is not that the Corinthians were treating the Lord’s Supper as a common meal. Rather at the agape feasts which preceded the Lord’s Supper (which were patterned after Jesus’ administering the sacrament as well as the apostles) the rich were causing division in the church. They were oppressing the poor, which was a common problem of the day:
“Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.” (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
This social context, which was the root of the problem at Corinth, must be kept in mind. But this was not an isolated problem at Corinth. James had to address it as well:
“My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and you say to the poor man ‘You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,’ have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? but you have dishonored the poor man. Is not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:1-10)
The rich were being given a privileged place in the congregation which met in homes. The consequence was that there was a division in the assembly at the common meal of the agape feast (Jude 12) which then carried over to the sacramental meal as well.
“... as with the Last Supper itself, the meal took place in private houses, not in a special ‘church’ building. And there was a full meal served, during which special words were said over a particular loaf of bread and a particular cup of wine. The problem in Corinth was that this full meal had become a sign of social division that ran through the church.” [29]
James addresses this issue by telling the church that they cannot say they have faith and yet be without works (James 2:14). He is not talking just about any works, but specifically the failure to love the brethren - especially the poor. This same issue is also addressed by the apostle John as well who tells the rich that they cannot say they love God whom they cannot see and hate their brother whom they can see (1 John 4:20).
“We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for our brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and behold his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:16-17)
Paul then is addressing this issue at Corinth in the context of corporate worship and fellowship:
“Paul sees this doing two things. First, it shows contempt for God’s church, God’s assembled people, regarding this assembly as a mere convenience, a point at which one’s own spiritual (and social!) advantage may be furthered, but with little significance beyond that. Second, it shows not just contempt for those who have nothing, but actually, whether intentionally or not, a desire to put them to shame.” [30 ]
The result of their actions, of the rich oppressing the poor, was that the gospel itself was being destroyed. Two completely different messages were being given. The message of their actions was contradicting that which was being preached. These Christians said that they loved God and that they had faith in the gospel which reconciles to God both Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, slave or free but their actions were sending a completely different message:
“By carrying over into these meals a number of ‘privileged status’ aspects of both private and religious meals, the rich were in effect destroying the church as one body in Christ. The net result was to destroy the gospel itself.” [31]
Because of this sin God was judging the church. So, Paul recounts the night in which the original sacramental meal was instituted in which he sets a somber tone:
“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread...” (1 Corinthians 11:23)
In some fashion, in the very same manner in which Judas partook of the Passover and yet betrayed the body of Christ so too the Corinthians were acting like Judas. Therefore, Paul reminds them of the historical event that they were supposed to be commemorating rather than causing divisions in the body. Then Paul goes on to further recall the original night in which Jesus instituted the sacrament.
“...and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ “ (1 Corinthians 11:24)
I have already discussed what it means to “remember” in keeping feast days and sacraments. But it bears repeating that it is not a mere cognitive event, but rather it entails reenacting the original historical event being commemorated. As Gordon Fee states:
“In the OT ‘remembrance’ rarely carries the common English nuance of simply a mental activity. Very often ‘memory’ and ‘activity’ go together. God ‘remembers’ and ‘visits’ or ‘forgives’ or ‘blots out.’ So also Israel is to ‘remember’ by erecting a ‘memorial’ or by reenacting a rite (cf. Exodus 13:9). Of the various possibilities from the OT the most obvious as to what Jesus intended lies within the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, where the rite of the bread is specifically enjoined as a perpetual ‘remembrance’ before their eyes. Thus just as the Passover itself was a ‘remembrance’ to be kept forever in Israel, so Jesus is now reconstituting the ‘memorial’ for the true Israel that will gather around the table in his name to ‘remember’ its own deliverance through him. That is why he describes it as ‘my remembrance.’ It is not simply ‘in memory of him,’ but it is eat as a ‘memorial’ of the salvation that he has effected through his death and resurrection.” [32]
Like the Lord’s Supper and the Passover the children were explicitly told that they were to remember the Sabbath. Yet a high level of cognitive ability was not a prerequisite for children to obey the commandment but rather it was being involved in the act itself that they remembered the day. How did they learn to remember the Sabbath? By following and obeying their parents. Although Numbers 15 tells of a man who “high handily” disobeyed the Lord and consequently died, were children in danger of incidentally picking up a stick and being judged? Children suffer because of their parent’s sin “to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 20:4) Hence adults endanger their children by failing to remember and children are not immediately judged their incidental failures. Though children are required to remember the Sabbath and the Lord’s death, they do so by parents teaching them to keep the day holy. Not merely watching their parents keep the day, but by their own remembering as well. Likewise, parents ought to teach their children to remember the Lord’s death by their keeping of the sacrament. The ones judged in 1 Corinthians 11 are not the children, but the adults. Hence, if anyone is being endangered by the improper partaking of the sacrament it is not the children, but rather the adults. The ones endangering the children are the adults. The best way parents can protect themselves and their children is not to withdraw from the sacrament, but to “take and eat” in oneness with the church. Refusing to eat but causing division does not keep one safe from judgment. Rather, eating and keeping the unity keeps one safe from judgment. In fact, withdrawing from the sacrament is to commit the sin that Paul is rebuking, it is causing division. When in the history of the church have the covenant children ever caused a theological or personal division in the church?
In the act of taking and eating the elements of the sacrament, a public profession is being made in the very act itself. There is one preacher who reads and declares the Word of God in the sermon. But the entire congregation in their response to the declared Word are by their actions in partaking of the Lord’s Supper to declare the gospel. Thus Paul goes on to write, “For as often as you eat and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (v. 26) He is not saying that you must be able to make a public profession of faith before you can partake, but the very act of partaking of the bread and wine is the declaration itself. As Tom Wright says, “He means that when you enact the meal you announce Jesus’ death. Doing it says it.” [33]
Are women allowed to preach in the congregation? Are unordained men allowed to preach in the congregation? No, yet these unqualified men and women in their very actions can be part of the one declaration of the gospel by reenacting the night in which Christ died for our sin. So too covenant children along with their parents ought to make the same declaration, that Jesus died not just for the rich, the poor, the Jew, the Gentile but also for His little lambs. In the congregation’s eating of the “one loaf” and “one cup” they declare a message about Christ and their being part of His body. But in causing divisions in the church, in the common and sacred meal, the actions of the rich Christians were sending a message that was not compatible with the gospel.
“By going ahead with their own private meal, and thereby humiliating the ‘have-nots,’ the wealthy have also apparently lost touch with the meaning of the Supper itself. The words of institution are repeated to remind them of why they celebrate such a meal in the first place, a reason that goes back to Jesus himself. They do this to ‘remember him’ in a special way, namely to ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ Their actions are obviously not in keeping with the conscience of that proclamation.” [34]
The problem is not so much that they were failing to distinguish between the sign and the things signified, or whether the sacrament underwent transubstantiation or consubstantiation or whether it was a mere memorial. It was not an abstract theological issue at hand, but a moral and social issue which then declared a different gospel than the one Paul preached:
“With the word over the bread, the ‘proclaim’ that this bread is ‘Christ’s body broken for you (us).’ It points to his death, whereby he gave himself freely for the sake of others. Likewise the cup; it signifies Christ’s blood poured out in death, whereby he ratified the New Covenant between God and his people. It seems certain that their version of the meal is less than satisfactory right at this point, probably not so much because they were not ‘thinking on Christ’ properly, or failing to be in right communion with him, but because by their abuse of one another they were negating the very point of that death - to create a new people for his name, in which the old distinctions based on human fallenness no longer obtain.” [35]
At the church in Corinth there were adults who were declaring quite a different message. In Paul’s epistle to the Galatians we read that Peter, by his actions of not eating with the Gentile Christians, was declaring a message contrary to the gospel. The Gospel which Paul preached included the Gentiles by faith apart from any of the Mosaic Covenant distinctives, particularly circumcision. Because of this Paul rebuked him to his face “because he stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11) Peter’s divisive eating was declaring a different gospel than the one Paul preached (Galatians 1:8-9). Peter was causing a division in the church. That which the gospel united, Peter was tearing apart. Likewise, many of the adults in the congregation at Corinth were by their actions and divisive eating were causing a division in the body. Hence the manner in which they ate was declaring a different gospel. What God had joined together, they were tearing apart. Because of this, Paul had to give them a very stern warning:
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27)
What does it mean to eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an “unworthy manner”? Unfortunately this phrase is often ripped out of its historical context, even in Reformed and Presbyterian denominations:
“In the history of Reformed exegesis of this text, key phrases such as this one have become freighted with a meaning broader than that intended by the apostle. One way that the concept of ‘eating and drinking in an unworthy manner” has been understood is by identifying it with the danger of an individual’s coming to the Lord’s Supper who is not a true Christian, or truly regenerate. But the apostle is not speaking of this reality at all. The apostle nowhere suggests that the unworthy partaking of the Table is due to the unregenerate state of certain members of the Corinthian church. In fact he presumes that even the worst offenders among them are regenerate people, because he identifies the Lord’s ‘judgment’ upon them as his means of preserving them from being condemned with the world (vs. 32).... However profitable it is to review in one’s self of a saving work of God, such an exercise is simply foreign to the apostle’s concern in 1 Corinthians 11. There is no necessary connection made here between a due preparation for the Lord’s Table and the serious entertaining of that question, ‘Am I really a Christian?’” [36]
If we uphold the doctrine of sola Scriptura and the analogi fide, in which we interpret Scripture with Scripture rather than pour a meaning into the text from our own denominational prejudices, we will be forced to read Paul’s exhortations in their historical context. As T. Nathan Trice writes:
“If we resist abstracting these words from their context, we will recognize that he is speaking of attitudes and behavior that flagrantly contradict the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Table itself, thereby making the observance of the Table a farce... I would insist that the words of the apostle regarding eating and drinking ‘in an unworthy manner’ have in view, not the danger of partaking of the Table in an unregenerate state, nor the danger of partaking in a state of general spiritual ill-health, but to the danger of partaking of the Table in a profane and scandalous manner.” [37]
Both paedo and credo communionists agree this does not mean that the person partaking somehow has to merit the right to eat the Lord’s Supper. It is rather the manner in which the sacrament is being eaten is either worthy or unworthy. For example, in Ephesians 4:1 Paul says to the church, “...to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called...” The word “worthy” (Greek: axios) does not mean “having a status of worth.” Rather, it means “in the manner of” or “in accordance to.” Therefore, to walk in a way “unworthy” means “not in the manner of” or “not in accordance to” one’s calling. In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, to partake in an “unworthy manner” is to eat the sacramental meal as if it were one’s own supper rather than as if it were the Lord’s Supper. To eat in a worthy manner is to truly eat in unity with the rest of the “one loaf” (1 Cor.. 10:17). Gordon Fee rightly states:
“Partaking of this meal ‘in an unworthy manner’ is what the entire section is about. Unfortunately, this adverb was translated ‘unworthily’ in the KJV. Since that particular English adverb seems more applicable to the person doing the eating than the manner in which it is being done, this word became a dire threat for generations of English-speaking Christians. Paul’s concern is related directly to vv. 20-22, where some are abusing others at the Lord’s Table by going ahead with their own private meals. Such conduct is unworthy of the Table where Jesus’ death is being proclaimed until he comes.” [38]
To be divisive in the church and partake of what is a sign of unity (communion) with Christ and His body is contrary to the message which is suppose to be declared in the remembrance of Jesus Christ. This is why Paul confronted Peter to his face, because his divisive eating was like that of the Corinthians and hence if he did not repent he “stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11)
But are not the promises of the gospel for the entire body of Christ? Are not our children members of the body of Christ? Then how can we declare the gospel in our eating, a message which unifies the body, and yet exclude people who are part of that body? To declare a message which saves Jew, Gentile, slave, free, poor, rich and yet bar their baptized covenant children is a contradiction to the gospel. The divisive eating is not in manner worthy of the declaration. Ironically, it is the credocommunionist who is danger of violating the exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11, not the paedocommunionist.
Consequently, to be like Judas and betray Christ and His body or like Peter who was betraying Christ in his divisive eating to be “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” To be guilty of the blood of Christ is to betray Him by causing divisions in the body and like Peter stand condemned unless we repent. As Gordon Fee writes:
“To ‘profane’ the meal as they are doing is to place themselves under the same liability as those responsible for that death in the first place. Thus, to be ‘guilty of his body and blood’ means to be ‘liable for his death.’” [39]
For Gentile Christians, it is to trample on the cross of Christ by going back to one’s former way of life of Gentile hedonism which consists of all the sins for which Paul has been rebuking the Corinthian church. For Jewish Christians it is to return to the Old Covenant types and shadows of circumcision, old feast days, new moons and Sinaitical Sabbaths and seek to bring Gentiles under the Mosaic Covenant (Colossians 2:16-17; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:29). Therefore, Paul prescribes a solution to those who are in danger of committing such a sin that their partaking of the feast is despised by God:
“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the read and drink of the cup. For He who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and number sleep.” (v. 28-30)
There are two important questions from this text which are hotly argued in the paedo verses credo communion debate. First, in this context what does it mean to examine oneself?
For far too long this passage has been read Sunday after Sunday without taking to consideration the context in which it was given. The result is that many Christians have kept themselves from the blessing of the sacrament because they have spent more time looking at themselves than looking to Christ in the sacrament as our spiritual nourishment.
“This is especially true in the more pietistic sectors of the Protestant tradition. People are ‘unworthy’ if they have any sin in their lives, or have committed sins during the past week. This in turn resulted in reading v. 28 personally and introspectively, so that the purpose of one’s self-examination was to become worthy of the Table, lest one come under judgment. The tragedy of such an interpretation for countless thousands, both in the terms of the foreboding of the Table and guilt for perhaps having partaken unworthily, is incalculable.” [40]
If to partake in a worthy manner means to partake in such a way that the message of the gospel is being rightly declared, then should not also our children who part of the body of Christ also be included in that declaration? Is not the gospel for them as well?
The second question which must be answered from the context is, what does it mean to “judge the body rightly”? In 1 Corinthians 5:3 Paul uses the term “soma” (Greek: body) to refer own body in that even if he is absent from them in body he is present in spirit. Then in 6:13 he uses the word to refer to the human body of Christians in general and then in 6:16 he states when two have been joined (sexually) they been unified and become one flesh. Therefore Christians ought not to be joined with prostitutes for our physical body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19) but instead we ought to glorify God with our body. From this idea of “oneness” in joining bodies in chapter seven he states that the husband and wife are not their own but rather they have authority over each other’s bodies (7:4). Then he states that a woman who remains unmarried can devote her life to the Lord that “she may be holy both in body and spirit” (7:34). Paul says that he himself remains unmarried so that he can remain devoted solely to the Lord with undivided interests. In doing so that says that he disciplines his body “so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” (9:27) Then in chapter 13 he states that if he should go so far as to surrender his physical body to be burned and yet not have love that it would be worthless. Finally, in chapter 15:35, 37, 38, and 44 he discusses the physical body of Christians in terms of the resurrection. In all of these passages mentioned, Paul uses the term “soma” refers to literal individual physical bodies of Christians.
In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul uses the term “soma” to refer to the entire church in a metaphorical sense, as if each Christian is a part of the human anatomy. In doing so his point is that just as each part of the human body has different functions so too different Christians have various functions in the church, all of which are interdependent and absolutely necessary. (12:12-26) Then he states, “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.” (12:27) Just as the wife and the husband are “one flesh” so too the Church (the bride cf. Ephesians 5:27) and Christ (the husband) are spoken of as being one body because of the covenantal unity. Thus in this chapter Christ’s “body” refers to the church.
Then in 1 Corinthians 11:24 he writes, “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’” Finally, he states in his exhortation, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.” (11:27-29)
The first thing which must be determined here is what ‘body’ Paul is referring to in this verse. Second we must determine what it means to “judge” in this context. When interpreting any of portion of Scripture we must take into consideration both the immediate and broader context within the epistle. Then we must take into consideration and even larger context of the New Testament and then work our way back to the Old Testament for it is there that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:6, “Now these things happened as examples for us...”
In the immediate context Paul is discussing the Lord’s Supper. However, as noted in the previous chapter he ties the Lord’s Supper together with the church as the body of Christ, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” (10:17) In the following chapter he speaks of the body as the church. Can we imagine that somehow in this context that Paul is using “soma” in only a narrow sense of one meaning?
Some commentators want to argue that since the narrow context is the Lord’s Supper that it can only mean the bread which represents Christ. Hence the problem is theological in that they failed to make a distinction between the common and ordinary bread. For example, Charles Hodge says:
“The ground of the condemnation is, regarding and treating the elements in the Lord’s supper as though there was nothing to distinguish from the ordinary bread and wine.” [41]
This interpretation understands the general overall context of the problem at Corinth was that they were eating the Lord’s Supper as a common rather than a sacramental meal. This interpretation usually will point to Paul’s exhortation in 11:34 as the remedy to the problem, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.”
Others argue that Paul is referring to the church as the body of Christ since the overall context of the passage is an rebuke of the Church for how they are failing to have unity due to: having a party spirit (1:10-13; 3:1-9), suing each other in civil courts (6:1-8), stumbling weaker brothers (8:1-13), having economic class divisions between those who had plenty and those who had little at their agape feasts (11:18-22), and there were divisions concerning spiritual gifts (12:1-31). Therefore, according to this view failing to discern the “body” must be a moral rather than theological failure. Tim Gallant holds to this view when he states:
“The question that must be addressed is: What does Paul mean by "the Lord's body"? I believe that Paul is referring to the Church. The common objection to this is that Paul has referred to the "body and blood of the Lord" two verses earlier (11:27), clearly with reference to Christ's own physical body. It is suggested that the apostle would hardly have gone from one usage of "body" to another in such a short space, without warning. This objection, however, is not at all strong. First, the phraseology does not match. When Paul is speaking of Christ's physical body, he pairs body and blood, bread and wine (note 11:24-25, 27, 28; compare 10:16). In verse 29, however, Paul only says "body." Second, Paul does make this same movement in usage just one chapter earlier: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. [1 Corinthians 10:16-17] In verse 16, the communion (communal participation) of the body of Christ is paralleled with the communion of the blood of Christ - clearly, "body" in the first instance refers to the crucified body. But in verse 17, Paul infers from this "one body," i.e. the Church.” [42 ]
However, I believe both of these views are only half right as they miss the fact that Paul is drawing all of the various meanings of “body” together. If we take a step back and look at the two previous chapters as well as the one at hand we see Paul using “soma’ to refer to the bread used in the sacrament and it is spoken of as being Christ’s physical body. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 he states:
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”
Then in chapter 11 he quotes Christ’s institution of the Christian Passover on “the night in which He was betrayed” (v. 23) in which he said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me” (v. 24). In the institution of the Passover Jesus takes the sacrament which once referred to the exodus from Egypt and says that it now refers to the new exodus which He would accomplish through the crucifixion of His physical body and the shedding of His blood. Thus Hodge is correct when he states that “body” in 1 Corinthians 11:29 refers to the sacrament. However, Gallant is also right when he says that the main problem which Paul is addressing is not that the Corinthians were treating the holy sacrament as if it were an ordinary meal (contra Hodge) but rather it was the fact that they were divided when they should have been united. Therefore, we need to see the full meaning of the Lord’s Supper in order to understand what it means to “judge [discern] the body rightly.”
The bread of Lord’s Supper first points to Christ’s physical body. The sign and that which is signified are so close together that they are spoken of as if they were one and the same. Paul does the same thing when he refers to the Old Covenant types of the Sacraments which Israel failed to receive in faith:
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5)
Here Paul states in very literal terms, “...and the rock was Christ” and yet no one believes that some sort of transubstantiation took place in the wilderness. The two (body and bread) are “one” in the same way that a husband and a wife are one which reflects how Jesus and the church are one. This is why a husband ought not be joined with a prostitute for “he one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) The husband (Christ) and the bride (the church) are so closely unified that for a husband to love his wife is the same thing as loving himself as Paul states:
“So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.” (Ephesians 5:28-30)
Secondly the bread of Lord’s Supper points to the church which is Christ’s bride with whom Christ is one. This unified three part meaning of “soma” (Christ’s physical body, the bread, and the church) is reinforced when we see that when the congregation partakes of the Lord’s Supper each member, or even each household, does not have its own loaf of bread but rather they all partake of the one loaf for they ARE the one loaf of bread, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” (10:17)
Hence to “discern the body” is to recognize that by partaking of the one loaf we are all joined together and individual members of the one body (1 Corinthians 12:12) because we are all members of Christ’s bride who is unified with her husband by means of the covenantal bond. But if we are divided then how can we be recognizing the meaning of the one loaf from which we are partaking? If we are divided in our fellowship, such as in the agape feast, how can we then come together hypocritically at the Lord’s Table and claim to be “one” with Christ and each other? Thus to “discern the body” is both a theological (not in contemplating the element’s metaphysical nature) and ethical event for you cannot divide your ethics from your theology.
However, we must keep in mind that Paul is prescribing the solution to a problem in a particular church. Therefore, it is not to be thought of as a normal regular order of worship. As T. Nathan Trice states:
“It is my contention... that the apostle does not in this passage prescribe a broad exercise of self-examination that is uniquely a prerequisite to a proper partaking of the Table. Rather, his call is for due consideration and contrition over specific sins which he has already named!... The urgent need of self-examination, let on eat and drink judgment upon himself, is not... held out to every believer in every circumstance, as if it were a spiritual exercise uniquely required before the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it is a form of introspection that is urgently and incumbent upon those who are profaning the Table by ongoing, egregious sin.” [43]
If Paul is not prescribing “uniquely a prerequisite to a proper partaking of the Table” nor a “spiritual exercise uniquely required before the Lord’s Supper” and yet this statement is supposedly what keeps baptized covenant children from the Table, then why should they be kept from what they had partaken of in the Old Covenant? Paul then goes on to prescribe the solution to the leavening sin in the Corinthian church:
“But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another [or “welcome one another”]. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:31-34)
The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace. While we should not partake of the meal thoughtlessly, we are not partaking of a cup of curses but rather a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16). The issue at hand in Corinth was not some secret sin nor of failing to be able to recite a catechism question, but rather an open and scandalous denial of the gospel in their eating. Unless we are repeating this same sin we are not in danger. But if we do cause division in the body of Christ, which consequently the credocommunion view advocates, we might expect to suffer the consequences and our children will as well. Paul provides the solution to the Corinthian problem, which is that they ought to welcome one another.
“The solution is simple and direct: On the one hand, when they come together to eat they should ‘receive’ (‘accept,’ ‘welcome,’ ‘wait for’) each other; on the other hand, if they want to eat sumptuously, they should do that at home apart from this meal.” [44]
However, while most English translations state that they ought to “wait for one another” the text might be better translated “welcome one another” which seems to better fit the context. Gordon Fee comments:
“The problem lies in the verb ‘ekdechomai’ (‘receive,’ ‘wait for’), which has a particularly broad range of meanings, depending strictly on context for its precise nuance... it seems most likely that Paul here is urging the wealthy to demonstrate normal Christian hospitality (cf. Romans 12:13). They are to ‘welcome’ or ‘receive’ one another when they come together to eat.” [45]
The issue is not so much as to who ate first, but rather their lack of hospitality, communion and love for one another (1 Corinthians 13). At this point I would have to ask, “Are there any parallels between our manner of observing the Lord’s Supper and the way in which the Corinthians were dividing the church?” While we may not be dividing in a divisive manner between Jew and Gentile as did Peter or between the rich and the poor as did the Corinthians, are we not in some other fashion dividing the body of Christ when we bar the covenant children from the table? Lest we come under the judgment of God, I think we ought to seriously rethink our doctrine and practice.
Applying 1 Corinthians 11
Some may credocommunionists may disagree with part or all of the above exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10-11. In fact, there may be some paedocommunionists who might disagree with some of what I have written as well. However, what must be noted is that the paedocommunion view does not depend on any particular exegesis of this or that word or phrase in this portion of Paul’s epistle.
It is not so much that I disagree with the credocommunionist exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 but rather I disagree with his application of the passage. What I have had a problem with is the credocommunionist arbitrary application of the passage. Is Paul giving a regular order of worship 30+ years after the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ and kept by the church in which eating the Lord’s Supper followed immediately after the baptism of households (Act 2:38-42)? Or is he prescribing a cure for a particular problem? (i.e. adults causing division). If Paul is giving a universal order of worship to be applied in all times and in all situations? If so, then why doesn’t the credocommunionist order of worship look like that prescribed in 1 Corinthians chapter 14? There are some things which are universal (such as orderliness) but unless we have the same or similar problems of Corinth the prescription does not apply. Does the credocommunionist church have two or three persons standing up prophesying and others giving interpretations? Does the credocommunionist pastor tell his congregation not to ask where the meat came from at the butcher shop? (1 Corinthians 8) Does the credocommunionist pastor tell his congregation that when they gather it is NOT to eat the Lord’s Supper? (1 Corinthians 11:20) No, because they don not have a Corinthian problem in their church.
So then, why does Paul’s prescription for a particular problem 30+ years after household baptisms were immediately followed with partaking the Lord’s Supper suddenly become a cause for the removal of the sacrament from covenant children? Paedocommunionists believe in applying the prescription by Paul when the need arises. In the same way, if someone was using their Christian liberty to stumble a weaker brother we might apply 1 Corinthians chapter 8.. But nowhere in the text, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, is there a prescription for some sort of Christian bar-mitzvah in which a covenant child becomes a “communicant member” and is then allowed access to the table. Where is THAT in the Bible? In fact, in regards to discipline, Paul never prescribes merely removing the Lord’s Supper. Rather he excommunicates the sinning brother (1 Corinthians 5) and tells the church not to eat with him. Just as the Lord’s Supper is communion withdrawing the Lord’s Supper is excommunion. Hence, once the Matthew chapter 18 process has been followed if the sinner does not repent, they are not merely removed from the table but rather they are barred at the door because they are excommunicated. It follows then, that if children partook of the Passover in the Old Covenant and Paul’s prescription was to solve a particular problem in a particular church rather than a prescription for a universal order of worship, that his prescription does not remove this covenantal right from our children.
Miscellaneous Objections To Paedocommunion
Not only are the exegetical and theological assertions made by credocommunionists seriously flawed. But in reading their works I was shocked by the absurdity of many of their assertions. What follows are not necessary errors of the credocommunionist position, but they are typical of the type of arguments used against paedocommunion.
Objection: “How can the withholding of the Lord’s Supper be a means of discipline if covenant children may partake without prior public profession of faith?”
Answer: Scripture no where prescribes merely withholding the sacrament as a means of Church discipline. In fact, in all the books on Christian counseling and church discipline I have read not once have I ever come across the mere removal of the sacrament described as a step in the disciplinary process. Two of the most common texts referred to in the disciplinary process are as follows:
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” (Matthew 18:15-20)
“Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self condemned.” (Titus 3:10)
In both of these passages the offender is given a series of verbal warnings and then they are not merely barred from the table, but rather they are excommunicated from the fellowship at the door. Paul deals with such an offender at Corinth, a man who was committing sexual immorality with his father’s wife:
“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus. I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.... I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler - not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Corinthians 3:1-5, 9-11)
Paul says that we do not merely withhold the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the disciplinary process, but rather once the final stage of the three step disciplinary process of Matthew 18 has been completed, we are to have absolutely nothing to do with him until he repents. Then when the offender does truly repent they are to be fully restored with all rights and privileges including to the Lord’s Table.
“Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm you love for him. For to this end also I wrote that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. But whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes.” (2 Corinthians 2:6-11)
Objection: “Are we not feeding our children poison if they are not ‘discerners’?”
Answer: Unfortunately such an objection is usually derived from John Calvin who wrote:
“The Supper is intended for those of riper years.... He does not admit all to partake of the Supper - but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord.... ‘He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body’ [First Corinthians 11:29].... Why should we offer poison - to our young children? The Passover for which the Supper is substituted... was duly eaten only by those who were of age sufficient to ask the meaning of it. Exodus 12:26.” [46]
This notion is the result of failing to interpret Paul’s exhortation as a prescription to a divisive church. If you develop a “cut and paste” proof-text theology, the tendency will be to rip portions of Scripture out of their historical context. The result is that the Scriptures will be twisted to the destruction of Christian’s lives (2 Peter 3:16). Such a view of the Lord’s Supper leads the church away from the apostolic practice of frequent (weekly?) communion and in its stead impose a pietistic quarterly or yearly observance of the Lord’s Supper in which faithful but terror ridden Christians try to make themselves “worthy” in preparation for the sacrament. Even worse, many others withhold themselves from the Table altogether for fear that they may be judged and struck dead. Or even worse, many come to the table in a Pharisaical fashion thinking that they have actually made themselves worthy to partake!
What Calvin and others fail to observe is that the Lord’s Supper is not the only sacrament with a warning attached. Circumcision was a means of grace and yet if one forsook the covenant they would be cut off (Genesis 17:14). Likewise, in the Epistle to the Hebrews it states that if we have been baptized and partaken of the Lord’s Supper (“once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” Heb. 6:4-5) and yet turn back to the Old Covenant “...it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.” (Heb. 6:6). Both sacraments entail and possible judgment for those who abandon the covenant or declare a different gospel than what is declared by Paul and the sacraments (Galatians 1:8-9; 2:17). Yet, only Baptists suggest because of this we ought to withhold the sacrament of baptism from our children.
Objection: “Children shouldn’t drink wine, it is an intoxicating beverage!”
Answer: This objection is raised by many credocommunionists. However, these people are usually enophobic Americans. In many other cultures (Italian, French etc.) wine is a common element on every dinner table for all the family to enjoy in moderation. The amount of wine (if they don’t actually serve Baptist “wine” a.k.a Welch’s Grape Juice) served in most churches is but a thimble dose of wine. There is more alcohol in the average cough syrup which we give to our kids when they are ill than in such small doses of wine. It is hardly enough to cause anyone to get intoxicated. But even so, all children need is have a sip of wine in order to partake. Furthermore, as the 1988 OPC Majority Report states:
“...there are two clear examples in Scripture of little children drinking wine. First, while they participated in the sacrificial meals of the various peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 11, 17, etc.), they at the same time ate tithe offerings, which included wine (Deut. 12:17, 18; 14:22-27): ‘You must not eat in your towns the tithe of grain and new wine .... Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose - you, your sons and daughters...’ (12:17, 18). ‘Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice’ (14:26). If the presence of wine did not bar children from participating in these meals, why should it exclude them from the Lord's Supper? Obviously very small portions would have been given to children. Only a sip of wine is received in the Lord's Supper. Where is any danger of intoxication in that? A second illustration in Scripture of children drinking wine is found in Lamentations where we read of Jeremiah’s grief: ‘Because child and suckling faint in the city’s open places. To their mothers they say ‘Where is corn and wine’; as they faint like those wounded in the city's open places, as their life is poured out of the bosom of their mothers’(2:11, 12) They also drink wine. Beckwith, in a rather arbitrary way, suggests the word translated here as ‘wine’ refers in this context to ‘bunches of grapes’ (p. 128). But the word appears 135 times in the Old Testament and in every context is translated as wine to be used for drinking.” [47]
Objection: “The Lord’s Supper won’t have any real meaning for the children.”
Answer: I often wonder if people who raise such objections (such as saying that infants can’t eat bitter herbs or bread) if they ever observe little children. While little children may not be able to articulate what they understand, I have seen infants who have just learned learn to walk respond to their parent’s questions in simple sign language. While they may not be able to articulate a response they do to some degree understand what they hear. These same people who assert that the Lord’s Supper won’t have any meaning for young children will turn around and have birthday party for their child who just turned one or two years old with cake, ice cream, balloons and party hats. Therefore such objections lack any real substance but are a grasp at straws to hold to an entrenched human tradition. In addition, the 1988 OPC Majority Report states:
“Pastoral experience in the teaching of covenant children about the sacraments indicates that the fears of some that ‘young children cannot understand the sacraments’ is not well-grounded. Indeed the very opposite seems to be the case. Covenant children, not being laden with so much of the confusing intellectual baggage which many adult communicants carry, are often able at a very early age to come to a clear and accurate appreciation of the significance of the Lord’s Supper. It was not, after all, young children that invented the dangerous errors of ‘transubstantiation’ or the ‘sacrifice of the mass.’”[48]
Objection: “Baptism is ‘passive’ whereas the Lord’s Supper is ‘active.’”
My short answer to this objections is: so what? Is anybody suggesting that we give children the sacrament intravenously? The Passover meal was also to be eaten “actively” and yet children ate it. But even when children are nursing they are “active.” Do mothers have to cram milk down their throat? This objection only makes sense if one presupposes a high degree of cognitive contemplation is necessary before one may partake of the element.
Objection: “The New Testament does not equate the Lord’s Supper with the Passover, rather it says Jesus Himself is the Passover.”
Answer: The Apostle Paul writes, “Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the leaven, that you may be a new lamp, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:6-8)
This is an argument used by those who acknowledge that the children in the Old Covenant partook of the Passover. Thus it is an attempt to put a distance between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. The answer to this argument is a rather simple syllogism:
Major Premise: Christ is the New Covenant Passover (All C is P).
Minor Premise: The bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper is Christ (All LS is C).
Conclusion: Therefore the Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant Passover (All LS is P).
To assert that Jesus is the Passover and yet deny that the Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant Passover is to separate the sign from that which it signifies.
Objection: “Paedocommunion is rooted in pagan practices.”
Answer: This objection is not only nonsensical, the chief person who makes this objection himself borrows from pagan rites and practices to argue that the Passover/Lord’s Supper is a pubescent rite of passage. Francis Nigel Lee states that “confirming aspirant Communicants at puberty” is rooted in the law of nature. He then goes on to argue that the puberty rites among the pagan Early Britons and Anglo-Saxons are a result of the “Law of Nature.” Thus whereas they had a perverted version of God’s pubescent rite of Passage the Passover/Lord’s Supper is a God-given rite of passage in Scripture.[49] Oddly, while he asserts that the Protestant Reformation maintained this “Natural-Law and Early Celtic and Anglo-Saxon practices,” Roman Catholicism is syncretistic because it admits non-infant catechized teenagers and Eastern Orthodoxy is “mystic” because they admit speechless infants to “manducation at the Eucharist.” [50] Honestly, the self lauded “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee ought to reconsider his line of argument.[51]
Objection: “Paedocommunion is Anabaptistic and follows the errors of Michael Servatus.”
Answer: Like the above notion that Credocommunion rightly keep’s the “Law of Nature’s” pubescent rite of passage, this assertion is so absurd I am shocked that it is raised. The covenantal understanding of children and the sacraments is about as far from Anabaptist thinking as possible, yet it too is asserted by the self lauded “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee. How can a theological movement which denies the initiatory rite of baptism to its children be said to be a forerunner to paedocommunion which insists that the two sacraments are tied together and ought to be given to covenant children? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Objection: “Paedocommunion leads to a Roman Catholic-like doctrine that the sacrament works ‘ex opere operato .’”
Answer: This accusation is repeated by just about every anti-paedocommunnionist I have ever read. Yet, every advocate of paedocommunion I have read denies that the sacrament works “ex opere operato,” which literally means “from the work performed.” In other words, the sacrament rightly administered has the power to confer all that it signifies in itself. It seems to be a common practice amongst some Reformed writers and critics of the Federal Vision that they are free to tell lies about what is actually being taught. Consequently, no matter how many times they deny an assertion such as this one, the critics continue to repeat it. This my friends, is what the Bible refers to as “bearing false witness against thy neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16)
Objection: “John Gill says....”
Answer: One of the oddest arguments used repeatedly by credocommunionists such as Brian Schwertley and the “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee who are paedobaptists, is an often cited statement by John Gill concerning Jewish practices of children becoming a “son of the covenant” at the age of thirteen when they partake of the rite of passage in their bar-mitzvah. Why would a paedobaptist want to cite the “famous Baptist Theologian Revelation Dr John Gill” (as F. N. Lee calls him) since he would tell them to give up their doctrine and practice of paedobaptism for it is the doctrine of the Pope and the Antichrist as he wrote:
“The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain; I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive lustre and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper will be administered as they were first delivered clear of all present corruption and superstition; all which will be accomplished, when ‘The Lord shall be king over all the earth, and there shall be one Lord and his name one.’” [52 ]
The reason why a paedobaptist would want to cite a covenant hating theologian such as John Gill is clear. It is because they hold in common his doctrine of children being excluded from the covenant and the church, for they argue that the children of believers are only half-way or externally in the covenant.
Objection: Leonard Coppes, “The Lord’s Supper is a sanctifying meal. This means that it signifies and seals sanctification. As such it requires that the participant has already entered into the process of sanctification.” [53]
Answer: Coppes denies that children can have a vital faith with Christ and that we ought not to presume they are regenerate. In fact, he says that they ought not to give a formal profession of faith until the age of discretion. Hence, they are only half way ( or “ritually”) in the covenant and are thus not much more wet pagans.[54] Consequently, he does not believe that our children are sanctified or being sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. Such a view of covenant children demonstrates a seriously flawed understanding of the covenant and God’s work in our covenant children. Paul clearly teaches that our children are not only positionally sanctified (1 Corinthians 7:14), but they are to honor their parents “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-3). The phrase “in the Lord” does not merely mean “as if you were obeying the Lord Himself” but rather it conveys the nature of the relationship between the child and the Lord. For example, Paul refers to Timothy as “my beloved and faithful child in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 4:17) and later he says a Christian widow is free to remarry, “only in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 7:39) That is, the person the widow is to marry is to be one who also has a relationship with the Lord.
Objection: “Paedocommunion inhibits the catechizing of children.”
Answer: This is asserted by Leonard Coppes and the “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee. It makes me wonder, how many homes of Paedocommunionists have these men visited? In my experience, those who have a high view of their children’s status in the covenant and more attentive to the nurturing of covenant children because they treat them as Christians who are responsible before God. Consequently, they realize that all the promises and warnings of the covenant belong to them and their children. It would seem that Baptists could make similar arguments against paedobaptism, but then it doesn’t surprise me that these men who think like John Gill would think and act like Baptists.
Objection: The “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee says, “The children of the congregation should be involved in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper... even though manducation [The act of chewing] at the Lord’s Supper is excluded for those who have not yet professed their faith... the joy of the Lord’s Supper is for the whole congregation, both old and young.” [55]
Answer: Try this at the next birthday party you attend. Tell the children that they are part of the birthday celebration but they can’t eat any of the cake and ice cream.
Objection: Advocating paedocommunion in Reformed churches which subscribe to the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity causes division in the church.
Answer: In other words, you are united in your doctrine of being divided at the Lord’s Table and paedocommunionists are causing division by seeking to bring unity in the church at the Lord’s Table with those whom they believe are covenantally granted the right to come to Jesus at the sacred meal. While the manner in which some paedocommunionists conduct themselves in approaching this issue can be divisive, the goal is not to bring division but rather unity. In fact, this is not merely the goal but the result of granting what was clearly the right of covenant children under the old and weaker covenant before the first advent of Christ.
Objection: “Paedocommunion is anti-Protestant”
Answer: To say that “Paedocommunion is anti-Protestant” is like saying that John Huss was “Pro-Roman Catholicism.”
One of the oddest accusations that I have heard against the doctrine and practice of paedocommunion is that it is somehow anti-Protestant. However, Church history shows us that the very first protestants (anti-Romanists) were in fact paedocommunionists. Most Protestants think that Protestantism began on October 31, 1517 when Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. However, Luther did not make any arguments in that thesis which were particularly Protestant (as we think of Protestantism) as he himself had not yet come to the conclusion of the solas of the Reformation. Those views came several years later. About 100 years before Luther posted his thesis there was a group of Protestants against Rome. In fact, when Luther began to cause a stir in Germany it was his predecessor, John Huss, that came to everyone’s mind.
John Huss (c. 1369 - 1415) was a Czech (living in the area then known as Bohemia ) and his followers became known as Hussites. The Roman Catholic Church considered his teachings heretical. Huss was excommunicated in 1411 , condemned by the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415, in Konstanz (aka Constance), Germany.
John Huss was a precursor to the Protestant movement. He believed in predestination, regarded the Bible as the ultimate religious authority and argued that Christ, rather than any ecclesiastical official, is the true head of the church. He also attacked what he saw as corruptions within the church, including the sale of indulgences, pilgrimages, excessive veneration of saints and the low moral and intellectual standards of ordained priests. But what is most important in the current discussion is that John Huss believed in following Augustine in the practice of paedocommunion.
Therefore, paedocommunion is far from being an anti-Protestant doctrine and practice. If we were living in the 11th century, who would we most agree with - the Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church? While these two denominations have much in common which Western Protestants would rightly reject, the fact is if we were in the 11th century we would have more sympathy with the Orthodox church than the Roman church on the issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope).
Paedocommunion has always been a practice in the church. though not in the west. While we ought not to fall into the errors of Greek Orthodoxy the Protestant Paedocommunionist can at least see that his doctrine has two historical precedents: It has 2,000 years of historical practice in the church and it is anti-Roman Catholic.
Paedocommunion and The History Of The Church
While the primary purpose of this paper is to address the exegetical and theological issues related to covenant communion, the historical issues ought not to be ignored. However, I have often seen various sides of theological debates appeal to different early church fathers which supposedly support their position. This debate is no exception. To assert that the early church was unified in every jot and tittle of doctrine is to rewrite history. Therefore, the ultimate standard for deciding this issue ought to be, “What do the Scriptures say?”
In addition, many Reformed Christians are tempted to merely appeal to the John Calvin as if it is justifiable to say, “Calvin said it, I believe it, that settles it!” With all due respect to the great Reformer, he was wrong about a great deal of things and like many of the Reformers he was a product of his time. All one has to do is read his commentaries on Romans, Galatians, or 1 John to see he was preoccupied with the issues of his day and often poured the issues of the sixteenth century into the text of Scripture. Hence, according to Calvin the Antichrist in John’s epistles refers to the Pope and the Judaizers in Paul’s epistles were a first century version of Pelagians and Roman Catholics. Therefore, while I seek to stand on the shoulders of such a giant as John Calvin, I also want to uphold the Scriptures as the ultimate and final determiner of truth. The common claim of the Paedocommunionist is that covenant communion was:
“....the nearly unanimous position of the Church for the first twelve centuries. This view has been held throughout history by one branch of God’s Church or another and is still the view of the Eastern branch of the Church today. It was acknowledged as the orthodox position by the council of Macon in 585, at the council of Toledo in 675, and by the Gelasian Sacramentary of 425. You must realize that this position is not novel or unusual in the history of the church though it has not always been held by the majority of the Church (at least since the twelfth century to the present).” [56]
In more recent history, one of the most surprising papers I came across when researching and studying the subject of paedocommunion was that the “Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion: The 1988 Majority Report to the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.” It actually favors the practice of paedocommunion. The report says:
“On the basis of the parity of the sacraments, and the centrality of their objective meaning, we call upon the church to take more seriously the implications of these considerations for its current practices. The function of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper in the life of a member of the church should be evaluated in the context of the whole life of a member lived out in daily faithfulness and love. It should not be only, or even primarily, on the basis of subjective conditions at the time of administration. Church discipline should then be used to deal with sin in the lives of God's people. Our present practice has the effect of creating a kind of ‘halfway covenant’ within the church for noncommuning children and adults.” [57]
Yet, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church did not adopt the report’s recommendations. Somehow until I began studying this issue I never heard of this report. It seems the issue, until recently, died down as it was never mentioned when I was in seminary. So until the invention and common use of the internet it was not revived. It is my hope that Reformed and Presbyterian denominations will revisit this subject and reconsider the arguments offered here and elsewhere. The church must always be reforming and conforming itself to the Scriptures.
Summary Of Exegetical and Theological Errors of Credocommunion
The doctrine and practice of credocommunion (“discerner’s communion”) turns a means of grace into a pubescent rite of passage. Rather than being a means of spiritual nourishment it is a reward for the accomplishments of the partaker. It fails to distinguish between who may approach the altar and who may partake of the sacramental meal from the altar at the table. It fails to see the connection between the blood placed on the door posts at the original Passover and the altar in the commemorative Passovers. It unjustifiably distances the Lord’s Supper from the Passover. Furthermore, it is inconsistent in its hermeneutical principles in giving covenant children the initiatory rite (circumcision/baptism) and the commemorative rite (Passover/Lord’s Supper). It fails to see the typological link between the wilderness meals and its participants and the sacraments of the New Covenant. When interpreting 1 Corinthians 11 it fails to interpret and apply Paul’s prescriptions in its historical context. In addition, it inconsistently and arbitrarily applies the cognitive elements of 1 Corinthians 11 (remember, judge, discern) in failing to consistently apply the same standard to baptism the stronger cognitive requirement to repent. Consequently credocommunion leads to an unbiblical doctrine of the covenant and the place of our children in the body of Christ. The result is that, although unintentionally, it divides the church and hence proclaims a message contrary to the gospel. When Jesus said of the bread, “This is My body which is given for you...” (Luke 22:19) He included our children.
Summary Of The Exegetical Arguments For Paedocommunion
First, our covenant children are members of the body of Christ entitled to all the blessings of Christ. They are not merely half way in the covenant and future candidates for membership in the church. Because they are among the elect they are to receive the signs and seals of the covenant, “to confirm [their] interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world.” (WCF 27.1) Second, like the sacrament of baptism which incorporates all Old Covenant washings and yet is most closely tied to the cleansing rite of circumcision, so too the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper incorporates all Old Covenant sacramental meals and is mostly closely tied to the Old Covenant Passover. Since children partook in the Old Covenant sacramental meals they also ought to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Covenant children partook of the Old Covenant Passover and there is no explicit or implicit statement in the New Covenant to keep them from coming to the Lord at the table. In fact, just the opposite is commanded by Christ (Luke 18:16, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”). Third, the cognitive elements of Paul’s instructions (remember, declare, discern, judge) likewise are applied to baptism and yet we do not consider Acts 2:38-39 and such passages to be a hindrance of our covenant children to receiving the sacrament. In addition, these cognitive elements were also included in the Old Covenant sacraments as well and yet they were kept by children in their participating in the commemorative event which they remembered. Fourth, the order of worship for the Passover/Lord’s Supper was given on the night it was instituted, not a generation later. Hence, Paul’s instructions are not to be construed as a universal normative practice without taking into consideration its historical and social context. Finally, and most importantly, the Lord’s Supper declares the good news of the gospel which unites everyone in the covenant to Christ. To divide the body of Christ in the observance of the sacrament is to declare a message contrary to the gospel, whether intentionally or not. Therefore, we ought to declare the gospel of Christ in our eating along with all those who are united to Him through baptism.
End Notes:
[1] Paul K. Jewett, “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)
[2] Tim Gallant, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 21
[3] Those who make this argument include Francis N. Lee, Brian Schwertly, Kenneth Gentry, and Richard Bacon. However, the last three authors essentially borrow their arguments from Francis N. Lee.
[4] Those who make this argument include Leonard Coppes and many others.
[5] WCF 28. 1 “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of REGENERATION, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.” There is a sence in which we can speak of “baptismal regeneration.” As the Confesison states, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” Of course, we ought not to hold to an “ex opre operato” (the thing in itself does the work) as if the sacraments worked magically. However, neither ought we to separate the sign from that which it signifies nor deny the reality of what is being offered in the sacrament as the Confession goes on to state, “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” (WCF 27.1-3)
[6] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 75. On the issue of the faith of children I highly recommend Rich Lusk’s book, “Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents” Athanasius Press, 2005.
[7] Tim Gallant, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 24.
[8] For more study on this issue, I highly recommend reading: Lewis Bevins Schenk, “The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant” Wipf and Stock Pub., 2001.
[9] John Murray, “Christian Baptism” (Philadelphia, PA: P & R Publishing,1972), pg. 67
[10] John Murray, “Christian Baptism” (Philadelphia, PA: P & R Publishing,1972), pg. 65
[11] see Tim Gallant’s book, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002)
[12] However, though women could not approach the altar for offering a sacrifice for the Passover and other feast day sacrifices, they were required to offer an atoning sacrifice after giving birth (Lev. 12:6-8; cf. Luke 2:24).
[13] “It is natural to assume that the answer recorded above was in response from the son. The question arose from the eating of the meal. Furthermore, it seems to this writer that this instruction was given to the son who was eating the unleavened bread and constituted part of his catechetical training ” Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 196. In other words, the training occurred while in the process of eating, not as a prerequisite for eating the sacrament.
[14] While I cannot go into great detail at this point about the nature of wine, young or new wine would be that which is not fermented for a long period of time. In fact, less than a month. In Biblical times fine aged wine would probably more than six months (Isaiah 25:6, “ The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine.”) Grapes contain a natural yeast, which when the grapes are pressed turn the sugar into alcohol. As soon as grapes are harvested and put into a container the yeast immediately begins to go to work on its own. Modern wines (unless they are a desert wine or late harvest wine which have a much higher sugar content) contain no sugar in them as it has been completed converted into alcohol through a long fermentation process. However, in order to sustain such a process without spoiling the wine and turning it into vinegar great expertise is required. Consequently, new or young wine would have probably less than 5% alcohol (modern wines contain 11% to 18%) and would naturally be very sweet. Consequently, unless you want to argue that children never had grape juice whatsoever in the Old Testament it is impossible to assert that they never had a fermented beverage. The only way to keep grape juice from beginning to ferment is to kill the yeast or use refrigeration which would not have been possible in ancient times in the land of Israel.
[15] Richard Bacon, “What Mean Ye?” First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, 1996 http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
Lee, Francis Nigel “Paedocommunionism vs. Protestantism”
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
Brian M. Schwertley, “Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination”
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Paedocommunion.htm
Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988
[16] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 124
[17] Coppes goes even so far to deny that children should be able to formally and publically confess their faith in Christ because, “This aspect of laying on one’s hands is also part of the symmbolic significance of the Lord’s Supper which takes up all the symbolic meaning of those Old Tesatment rights.” Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 122
[18] Leonard J. Coppes states, “In the first or intital passover there was no removal of sin” in “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 202. Ultimately, none of the Old Covenant sacrifices removed sin in and of themselves. They were only efficacious in so much as they were a foretaste of the accomplished work of Christ. God put to the account of the Old Covenant Saints the righteousness of Christ. In this manner, it was like using a credit card in which one receives the benefits of the purchase before the bill is paid.
[19] George Bush, “Commentary on Exodus” (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1993), pg. 138
[20] Some credocommunionists try to argue that Jesus at this time was going through his normally expected bar-mitzvah at the temple. Hence, this proves that the Passover was a rite of passage. But such an assertion is nonsense. If Jesus was going through some supposed normal practice of a rite of passage why would His parents be so shocked that they had lost track of him? Wouldn’t he be doing what was expected of Him? We read, “When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, ‘Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.’ And He said to them, ‘Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?’” (Luke 2:48-49) If Jesus’ actions were part of a bar-mitzvah ritual, would not He have said so? And why would they be shocked at His actions? To try to argue from this text that Jesus is going through a rite of passage is to stretch all credulity and be clearly guilty of reading into the text a presupposed doctrine of credocommunionism.
[21] For a more complete response to this argument read: Leonard J. Leithart, “Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?: An Examination of Coppes’, ‘Daddy, May I Take Communion?’” (Niceville, Florida: Transfiguration Press, 1992)
[22] For further discussion on Philippians 2:6-8 as the fulfillment typology of the drink offering and Isaiah 53 see my paper, “Philippians 2:6-8 - ‘But Emptied Himself’?” in the Biblical Studies section of my web site at: http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location=8&action=display_one&story_id=128
[23] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg. 203
[24] “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 144
[25] The majority of conservative Reformed commentators on 1 Corinthians acknowledge that the agape feast was a normal part of early Christian life, beginning with Acts 2:42, and as mentioned in Jude 12. For example, Charles Hodge states, “Whatever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before us that at Corinth at least, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was connected to a regular meal.” in “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) Paperback Edition, pg. 215
[26] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg.78
[27] John Murray “Christian Naptism” (P& R: Phil, PA 1972), pg 68.
[28] Simon J. Kistemaker, “1 Corinthians” (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1993), pg. 323
[29] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003), pg.146
[30] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003), pg.146-147
[31] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 534
[32] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 553
[33] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge), pg. 149
[34] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 547
[35] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 557
[36] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Commitee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 22 Available at: www.opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV14N1.pd . T. Nathan Trice is currently serving as pastor of the Matthews Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Although he is not arguing for paedocommunion, his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 and treatment of Paul’s exhortations does leave one to wonder, “Given his exegesis and application of the text, why then should covenant children be kept from the Lord’s Table?”
[37] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Commitee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 23
[38] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 560
[39] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 561
[40] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg. 560. n. 10
[41] Charles Hodge, “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Paperback edition) (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1980) pg. 233.
[42] http://www.paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_discerning_the_body.php
[43] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Commitee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 23
[44] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 567
[45] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 568
[46] John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (IV:15:30)
[47] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm
[48] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm
[49] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 12-14
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[50] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 15
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[51] Francis Nigel Lee’s paper is one of the oddest I have ever read. It is rife with laudatory titles for those who agree with him such as the “Rev. Professor Dr. John Calvin.” In all the books I have ever read bearing or using the Reformer’s name, I have never come across anyone who felt the need to refer to him as anyone other than “John Calvin” or simply “Calvin.” In theological circles, no other name or title is needed. Is there any danger that we might not know who he is? Likewise, he constantly uses similar titles for others who agree with him, yet when refers to an advocate of paedocommunion who has earned the same title he simply refers to them by their first and last name. What is even stranger is that the “Rev. Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee constantly refers to himself in the third person throughout his paper and constantly quotes praises given to him by his fellow anti-paedocommunionists. He also asserts that paedocommunion leads to practicing a decline in catechizing which eventually leads to practicing satanism and joining street gangs! (pg. 35) His paper is condescending, ill-informed and reeks of the rantings of a man who needs to spend some time on a couch in front of a psychiatrist.
[52] John Gill, “Infant-Baptism: A Part And Pillar Of Popery”
[53] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg 67
[54] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg 67
[55] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 27
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[56] Steve Wilkins, “The Lord’s Supper and Our Children” (http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Wilkins/lordsupper1.html) For further reading on the various historical arguments see the works on church history cited in the Bibliography.
[57] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm
End Notes:
[1] Paul K. Jewett, “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)
[2] Tim Gallant, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 21
[3] Those who make this argument include Francis N. Lee, Brian Schwertly, Kenneth Gentry, and Richard Bacon. However, the last three authors essentially borrow their arguments from Francis N. Lee.
[4] Those who make this argument include Leonard Coppes and many others.
[5] WCF 28. 1 “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of REGENERATION, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.” There is a sense in which we can speak of “baptismal regeneration.” As the Confession states, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” Of course, we ought not to hold to an “ex opre operato” (the thing in itself does the work) as if the sacraments worked magically. However, neither ought we to separate the sign from that which it signifies nor deny the reality of what is being offered in the sacrament as the Confession goes on to state, “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” (WCF 27.1-3)
[6] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 75. On the issue of the faith of children I highly recommend Rich Lusk’s book, “Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents” Athanasius Press, 2005.
[7] Tim Gallant, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 24.
[8] For more study on this issue, I highly recommend reading: Lewis Bevins Schenk, “The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant” Wipf and Stock Pub., 2001.
[9] John Murray, “Christian Baptism” (Philadelphia, PA: P & R Publishing,1972), pg. 67
[10] John Murray, “Christian Baptism” (Philadelphia, PA: P & R Publishing,1972), pg. 65
[11] see Tim Gallant’s book, “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002)
[12] However, though women could not approach the altar for offering a sacrifice for the Passover and other feast day sacrifices, they were required to offer an atoning sacrifice after giving birth (Leviticus 12:6-8; cf. Luke 2:24).
[13] “It is natural to assume that the answer recorded above was in response from the son. The question arose from the eating of the meal. Furthermore, it seems to this writer that this instruction was given to the son who was eating the unleavened bread and constituted part of his catechetical training ” Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 196. In other words, the training occurred while in the process of eating, not as a prerequisite for eating the sacrament.
[14] While I cannot go into great detail at this point about the nature of wine, young or new wine would be that which is not fermented for a long period of time. In fact, less than a month. In Biblical times fine aged wine would probably more than six months (Isaiah 25:6, “ The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine.”) Grapes contain a natural yeast, which when the grapes are pressed turn the sugar into alcohol. As soon as grapes are harvested and put into a container the yeast immediately begins to go to work on its own. Modern wines (unless they are a desert wine or late harvest wine which have a much higher sugar content) contain no sugar in them as it has been completed converted into alcohol through a long fermentation process. However, in order to sustain such a process without spoiling the wine and turning it into vinegar great expertise is required. Consequently, new or young wine would have probably less than 5% alcohol (modern wines contain 11% to 18%) and would naturally be very sweet. Consequently, unless you want to argue that children never had grape juice whatsoever in the Old Testament it is impossible to assert that they never had a fermented beverage. The only way to keep grape juice from beginning to ferment is to kill the yeast or use refrigeration which would not have been possible in ancient times in the land of Israel.
[15] Richard Bacon, “What Mean Ye?” First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, 1996 http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
Lee, Francis Nigel “Paedocommunionism vs. Protestantism”
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
Brian M. Schwertley, “Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination”
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Paedocommunion.htm
Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988
[16] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 124
[17] Coppes goes even so far to deny that children should be able to formally and publically confess their faith in Christ because, “This aspect of laying on one’s hands is also part of the symbolic significance of the Lord’s Supper which takes up all the symbolic meaning of those Old Testament rights.” Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 122
[18] Leonard J. Coppes states, “In the first or initial Passover there was no removal of sin” in “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988 pg. 202. Ultimately, none of the Old Covenant sacrifices removed sin in and of themselves. They were only efficacious in so much as they were a foretaste of the accomplished work of Christ. God put to the account of the Old Covenant Saints the righteousness of Christ. In this manner, it was like using a credit card in which one receives the benefits of the purchase before the bill is paid.
[19] George Bush, “Commentary on Exodus” (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1993), pg. 138
[20] Some credocommunionists try to argue that Jesus at this time was going through his normally expected bar-mitzvah at the temple. Hence, this proves that the Passover was a rite of passage. But such an assertion is nonsense. If Jesus was going through some supposed normal practice of a rite of passage why would His parents be so shocked that they had lost track of him? Wouldn’t he be doing what was expected of Him? We read, “When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, ‘Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.’ And He said to them, ‘Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?’” (Luke 2:48-49) If Jesus’ actions were part of a bar-mitzvah ritual, would not He have said so? And why would they be shocked at His actions? To try to argue from this text that Jesus is going through a rite of passage is to stretch all credulity and be clearly guilty of reading into the text a presupposed doctrine of credocommunionism.
[21] For a more complete response to this argument read: Leonard J. Leithart, “Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?: An Examination of Coppes’, ‘Daddy, May I Take Communion?’” (Niceville, Florida: Transfiguration Press, 1992)
[22] For further discussion on Philippians 2:6-8 as the fulfillment typology of the drink offering and Isaiah 53 see my paper, “Philippians 2:6-8 - ‘But Emptied Himself’?” in the Biblical Studies section of my web site at: http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location=8&action=display_one&story_id=128
[23] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg. 203
[24] “Feed My Lambs” (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), pg. 144
[25] The majority of conservative Reformed commentators on 1 Corinthians acknowledge that the agape feast was a normal part of early Christian life, beginning with Acts 2:42, and as mentioned in Jude 12. For example, Charles Hodge states, “Whatever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before us that at Corinth at least, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was connected to a regular meal.” in “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) Paperback Edition, pg. 215
[26] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg.78
[27] John Murray “Christian Naptism” (P& R: Phil, PA 1972), pg 68.
[28] Simon J. Kistemaker, “1 Corinthians” (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1993), pg. 323
[29] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003), pg.146
[30] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003), pg.146-147
[31] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 534
[32] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 553
[33] Tom Wright, “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians” (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge), pg. 149
[34] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 547
[35] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 557
[36] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Committee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 22 Available at: www.opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV14N1.pd . T. Nathan Trice is currently serving as pastor of the Matthews Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Although he is not arguing for paedocommunion, his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 and treatment of Paul’s exhortations does leave one to wonder, “Given his exegesis and application of the text, why then should covenant children be kept from the Lord’s Table?”
[37] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Committee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 23
[38] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 560
[39] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 561
[40] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg. 560. n. 10
[41] Charles Hodge, “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Paperback edition) (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1980) pg. 233.
[42] http://www.paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_discerning_the_body.php
[43] T. Nathan Trice, “Drink it All of You” in “Ordained Servant” Vol. 14, No. 1 (The Committee on Christian Education of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, March 2005), pg. 23
[44] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 567
[45] Gordon D. Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pg 568
[46] John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (IV:15:30)
[47] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm
[48] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm
[49] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 12-14
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[50] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 15
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[51] Francis Nigel Lee’s paper is one of the oddest I have ever read. It is rife with laudatory titles for those who agree with him such as the “Revelation Professor Dr. John Calvin.” In all the books I have ever read bearing or using the Reformer’s name, I have never come across anyone who felt the need to refer to him as anyone other than “John Calvin” or simply “Calvin.” In theological circles, no other name or title is needed. Is there any danger that we might not know who he is? Likewise, he constantly uses similar titles for others who agree with him, yet when refers to an advocate of paedocommunion who has earned the same title he simply refers to them by their first and last name. What is even stranger is that the “Revelation Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee constantly refers to himself in the third person throughout his paper and constantly quotes praises given to him by his fellow anti-paedocommunionists. He also asserts that paedocommunion leads to practicing a decline in catechizing which eventually leads to practicing Satanism and joining street gangs! (pg. 35) His paper is condescending, ill-informed and reeks of the rantings of a man who needs to spend some time on a couch in front of a psychiatrist.
[52] John Gill, “Infant-Baptism: A Part And Pillar Of Popery”
[53] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg 67
[54] Leonard J. Coppes, “Daddy, May I Take Communion?” 1988. pg 67
[55] Francis Nigel Lee, “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism” pg. 27
http://www.paedocommunion.com/links.php
[56] Steve Wilkins, “The Lord’s Supper and Our Children” (http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Wilkins/lordsupper1.html) For further reading on the various historical arguments see the works on church history cited in the Bibliography.
[57] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/1988_opc_study_committee/majority_report_in_favor_of_paedocommunion.htm