Introduction: In All Things Charity

Why historical theology might give us charity among the brethren

In our denomination, the Covenant Presbyterian Church (CPC), congregations are allowed to take exception to the Westminster Standards on the issue of paedo-communion.¹ This concession may seem strange, given the emotion and vitriol with which proponents of both paedo-communion and credo-communion have sometimes debated,² but the CPC has had a peaceful coexistence of both kinds of churches for a long time. While this book takes a decided stand in favor of young credo-communion, I want to acknowledge my deep respect for my brothers who disagree and either hold to automatic paedo-communion (infant-communion) or mature-communion (a degree of holiness, maturity, and doctrinal awareness, and often a minimum age of 10, 12, or even 20).

There is some historical precedent for this kind of charity because various viewpoints and practices have been held throughout church history. This has been a difficult subject and one that the church has debated as far back as Augustine (354-430)³ and possibly as far back as Cyprian (writing around AD 250).⁴ Thus, I do not believe that either paedo-communion or credo-communion has been able to exclusively claim to be the ancient ‘catholic’ faith since neither side of the debate has all three qualifications for being considered “catholic”: 1) antiquity, 2) consent of the church, and 3) universality of practice.⁵ While I believe that credo-communion has a more ancient pedigree than paedo-communion does (see next section), the date of AD 250 certainly speaks of a degree of antiquity as well. When it comes to consent of the church and universality of practice, neither view has a rock-solid case, and church fathers have sometimes been twisted by both sides of the debate.⁶ Given the historical differences that have existed for at least 1500 years, there should be some patience on doctrines that show two or more divergent streams of interpretation in Historical Theology.

Our denomination has practiced that charity by allowing each local congregation to make that determination for its session and its own congregants. In writing this book, it is not my intention to be divisive. I believe that this presuppositional study has the potential of helping some of us stop talking past one another, but it was primarily written to help members of our local congregation to understand the Biblical basis for our views.

Evidence from the earliest fathers for credo-communion

Some paedo-communionists have overstated their case and have uncharitably claimed that credo-communion has no support from church history whatsoever and that it is outside the scope of the “catholic” or universal faith. In the spirit of expecting that a similar charity be extended to credo-communionists, I offer a few of the many examples of clear credo-communion testimonies that are earlier than any paedo-communion statements:

Justyn Martyr (AD 100-165) said:

We call this food the Eucharist, of which only he can partake who has acknowledged the truth of our teachings, who has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of his sins and for his regeneration, and who regulates his life upon the principles laid down by Christ.⁷

The words, “only he,” preclude any exceptions to the rule, and the rest of the statement shows that there are conditions that all participants must exhibit before partaking. This is clearly a credo-communion statement.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) states that the Lord’s Supper “is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”⁸ Apart from faith he denied any benefit. While he acknowledged that converts could partake of the Lord’s Supper as soon as they were baptized, infants could not. He based this conclusion on Paul’s statements that the sacramental broma (βρῶμα) food of 1 Corinthians 10:3 was said by Paul to be inappropriate for either napios (νηπίοις) children or for unspiritual church members (3:1-3).⁹ That is as explicit a rejection of paedo-communion as he could give. He also spoke of the absolute imperative of self-examination before partaking of the Lord’s Table:

Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom, enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One’s own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.¹⁰

Tertullian (AD 155-240), the only church father to speak (theoretically) against the practice of infant baptism never once mentions infant communion. Surely consistency would have made him oppose both if both were practiced.

Although Cyprian (AD 210-258) may have held to paedo-communion, he insisted that “the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honour.”¹¹

Alleged documents that include references to paedo-communion in the early Eastern church have been proven to be pseudepigraphal and of much later composition.

As will be seen in chapter 8, Historical Theology is a helpful check and balance to Exegetical Theology. I believe huge forward progress was made by the Reformers who studied this hot issue. This progress in the development of theology was not done without considering other viewpoints. The Reformers were aware that Augustine advocated paedo-communion. They were also aware that the Hussites practiced paedo-communion and had eloquent advocates for it. Paedo-communionists sought to plead their case as late as the 1700s.¹² Ultimately the paedo-communion position was rejected by every Reformed Creed (over 50 creeds in all).¹³ I mention this to point out that the Reformers did not adopt credo-communion without a great deal of prayerful study and exegetical debate. This is not a new issue. This progress in historical theology should at least be given due consideration before judging credo-communionists harshly (see chapter 8).

My own personal pilgrimage has been from paedo-communion to young credo-communion

Personal testimony: While I held to paedo-communion for six years (1981-1987), I was forced by the evidence to eventually take a moderating position between automatic infant-communion on the one end of the spectrum and mature-communion on the other. The position being advocated in this book takes the best arguments of both paedo-communion and adult-communion without the exegetical problems inherent in either view. I define my view as “young credo-communion” — that people are admitted to the table upon a credible profession of faith, with an absolute minimum age of three, but with no automatic age of admission. It is very close to the official view of the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but does not necessarily coincide with every congregation’s practice in those denominations.

A later chapter will seek to show that all three positions have very strong exegetical evidence in their favor, but only the young credo-communion position can adequately account for the strongest points of both paedo-communion and mature-communion. I respectfully submit this book as supplying my own reasons for having changed my position, not as an exhaustive exegetical treatment of the subject. Many have asked me for a reason for our practice. This book gives that reason, even though it is still very introductory in nature.

My pilgrimage relates to presuppositions, a subject that undergirds the rest of the book. Over time I have gradually become aware of how powerfully our presuppositions impact our exegetical conclusions. This has made me realize that people can sincerely (though wrongly) interpret the same facts that I am interpreting and come to different conclusions. It is my hope that by lovingly talking at the presuppositional level, brothers who disagree can at least understand where each one is coming from. By explicitly laying out my own presuppositions, I have made myself vulnerable to critique — and I want to be open to challenge. If I can be shown to be wrong on my presuppositions, it will automatically modify some of the conclusions. Likewise, if the reader sees some of his own presuppositions not standing up in the light of scrutiny, then he too can humbly grow. Therefore, I will hasten to say that though this book contains my current conclusions, critiques by others are certainly welcome as we seek to grow in our understanding of the whole counsel of God.

Books and articles consulted in this study

In case the reader is curious about which articles and books I have consulted over the years, I offer the following bibliography. This is by no means complete. Nor do I recommend all of the following titles as being the best representatives. I welcome any suggested articles that may have been overlooked. And sadly, I am forced to bifurcate these readings into two groups, rather than the fourteen I outline in chapter 2.

Pro Paedo-communion (in alphabetical order)

1. Bliek, Ken. unpublished letter.
2. Brouwer, Kamp, Lunshof, Polman: Committee to Study Clarification of Public Profession of Faith for Covenant Children, “Report B” to Synod 1995 (CRC)
3. Community Presbyterian Church. “Covenant Communion: Defining the Issue.” Paper giving the official position of Community Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY in 2006. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52ed7849e4b00e157ba 533f7/t/54241b34e4b0bfeb02063d0f/1411652404050/ Covenant-Communion.pdf
4. Elliott, Michael. “Admission to the Lord’s Table.” (Unpublished paper, nd).
5. Faith Formation Committee, “Children at the Table: Toward a Guiding Principle for Biblically Faithful Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper” at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.562.2879&rep=rep1&type=pdf
6. Fodor, Rev Fr Patrick S. “Should Baptized Infants Be Communed?” Available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/18759332/A-Case-for-Infant-Communion-in-the-Lutheran-Church-Missouri-Synod
7. Futrell, Richard. “Does Our Lord Invite Baptized Infants to His Supper?” Available at https://kimberlinglutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Infant-and-Early-Communion-with-Appendix.pdf
8. Gallant, Tim. Paedocommunion Debate (vs Steve Schlissel) Available at http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=1027
9. Gallant, Tim. “Brief Theses on Communion and Covenant Children” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php
10. Gallant, Tim. “Covenant Communion” (MP3 format download)
11. Gallant, Tim. “Discerning the Body: 1 Corinthians 11:29 & Paedocommunion” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/ gallant_discerning_the_body.php
12. Gallant, Tim. “Examination and Remembrance” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_examination_and_remembrance.php
13. Gallant, Tim. “Paedocommunion & the Church Fathers: A Catena of Quotations” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/ articles/fathers_quotations.php
14. Gallant, Tim. Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002)
15. Gehlbach, Rev Gary V. “The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church” Available at http://wctc.net/~gehlbach/IC/Papers/infant%20comm%20-%2096%20paper.htm
16. Graveling, Rev. James. “Paedocommunion and Women and Children’s Participation Under the New Covenant.” Unpublished paper.
17. Hielema, Syd. “A Precious Feast, A Tangled Web: A Case for Welcoming Children at the Table” Available at https://worship. calvin.edu/resources/resource-library/a-precious-feast-a-tangled-web- a-case-for-welcoming-children-at-the-table
18. Horne, Mark. “A Brief Response to Rev. Richard Bacon’s Opposition to Paedocommunion” Available at http://hornes.org/ theologia/mark-horne/a-brief-response-to-rev-richard-bacons- opposition-to-paedocommunion
19. Horne, Mark. “A Response to Rev. Bacon’s Argument that Manna was not a Sacrament” http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/a-response-to-rev-bacons-argument-that-manna-was-not-a-sacrament
20. Horne, Mark. “John Calvin and Paedocommunion” Available at http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/john-calvin-paedocommunion
21. Horne, Mark. “You and Your Son and Daughter: Christ’s Communion with Young Children” http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/you-and-your-son-and-daughter
22. Jordan, James. “Theses on Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers (Tyler, TX: Geneva Divinity School, 1982)
23. Jordan, James. The Sociology of the Church. (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries 1986), p. 246ff.
24. Keidel, Christian L. “Is the Lord’s Supper for Children?” WTJ 37 (1975)
25. Lee, Tommy. “Appendix: The Theology of Paedocommunion”
26. Lee, Tommy. “The History of Paedocommunion: From the Early Church Until 1500.”
27. Leithart, Peter J. “Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?” Available here — https://theopolisinstitute.com/daddy-why-was-i-excommunicated/
28. Leithart, Peter J. “Paedocommunion, the Gospel, and the Church, I”
29. Leithart, Peter. “Response to George Knight on Paedocommunion.” In E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Seminary Press, 2004)
30. Lusk, Rich. “For the Children’s Sake: An Alternative Angle on the Paedocommunion Debate”
31. Lusk, Rich. Paedofaith. Montroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2005.
32. Meyers, Jeffrey. “Presbyterian, Examine Thyself”
33. Miscellaneous. Debate on Capo.org between paedocommunionists, adult-communionists, and young credocommunionists. This site no longer exists.
34. Musuclus, Wolfgang. (1497-1563) was a leading reformer in the cities of Augsburg and Berne. Some translation of his Latin writing favoring paedocommunion can be found here https://paedocommunion.com/articles/musculus_common_places.php
35. North, Gary. A fictional dialogue between Ronald Reagan’s legal guardian and a Presbyterian Pastor — https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/paedocommunion-excommunication-ronald-reagan.23350/
36. Numerous other magazine, privately written, and email articles by various authors.
37. Pearcy, David L. “Infant Communion Part I: The Historical Practice,” Currents in Theology and Mission 7 (1980):43-47
38. Pierce, James. An Essay in Favor of Paedocommunion a reprint of a 1728 publication (Present Reign Publications, 2016).
39. Purcell, Blake. “The Testimony of the Ancient Church,” in The Case for Covenant Communion, ed. Gregg Strawbridge, (Monroe, AL: Athanasius Press, 2006), 131-45. Also, I had the privilege of reading his unpublised masters thesis that delved into this in much more depth. I consider his master’s thesis to be the best overview of paedocommunion in the early church, though I believe he has overstated the case with a few fathers.
40. Purcell, Blake. The Holy Eucharist (St. Petersburg, Russia: 2006), at https://www.scribd.com/document/245712493/Self-Suspension-and-the-Holy-Eucharist
41. Rayburn, Robert S. “Studies in Exodus (No. 13): Exodus 12:1–49”
42. Rayburn, Robert S. “Our Historic Practice is Invisible in the Bible”
43. Rayburn, Robert S. “PCA Minority Report” (Both the majority and minority reports are available at the PCA website). Also see his sermon on Passover and Paedocommunion at https://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2008/01/passover-paedocommunion.html
44. Simmons, Ray. “Ray’s Notes on Phil Kayser’s Communion Debate Book. Note: Dr. Kayser’s Book is Only Draft At This Point” (a very respectful interaction from a godly intern)
45. Strawbridge, Gregg. “Eucharist Participants in the Early Centuries: Biblical and Historical Evidence for Paedocommunion.”
46. Strawbridge, Gregg, ed. “The Case for Covenant Communion” (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006)
47. Sutton, Ray. “Household Communion,” Covenant Renewal, vol. 11, #9.
48. Sutton, Ray. “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition. Available here https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf
49. Wandel, Bryan. (Aug. 21, 2015 paper)
50. Williamson, G. I., et al, “OPC Majority Report”
51. Wilson, Douglas, Peter Leithart, et al, “That Wonderful Cup” in Credenda Agenda 18-1.

Various forms of anti-paedo-communion (in alphabetical order)

1. Allison, Peter. “Covenant Communion or Credo-Communion? A Question of Authority.” Unpublished paper (2014).
2. Allister, Donald. “Admitting Children to Holy Communion,” Churchman 113 (1999): 295-306. Available here: http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_113_4_Allister.pdf. This is not strongly pro, but examining some of the problems in the debate within the Anglican Church.
3. Bacon, Richard. “What Mean Ye by this Service?” Web paper published in 1996.
4. Bass, David A. “Paedocommunion: A Return to or Departure from Biblical Practice” http://www.newgenecaopc.org/pb.asp
5. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper,” WTJ 38 (1976): 123-151. Also available at https:// churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/085/Cman_085_1_Beckwith.pdf
6. CAPO. Debate on Capo.org between paedocommunionists, adult-communionists, and young credocommunionists. This site no longer exists.
7. Coppes, Leonard. “OPC Minority Report (#1)” Available at https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#minority1
8. Coppes, Leonard. Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonardy Coppes, 1988)
9. Deddens, Dr. K. “May Children Partake of the Lord’s Supper?” Available http://www.spindleworks.com/library/deddens/ paedo.htm
10. Gordon, T. David. “Paedocommunion.” Word document available at http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/ecclesiology_worship_polity/paedocommunion.doc.
11. Gunn, Grover. Unpublished letter defending young credocommunion.
12. Johnson, Gregory. “Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing Down a Curse?” Unpublished paper.
13. Keister, Lane. “Exceptions Required to be Taken by Paedo-Communion Adherents” (2009). Available at https://greenbaggins. wordpress.com/2009/06/16/exceptions-required-to-be-taken -by-paedo-communion-adherents/
14. Lachman, David. Study Committee on Paedocommunion: Minority Report. Philadelphia Presbytery, May 1986.
15. Lee, Francis Nigel. “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (A Short History of the Modern Quasi-Protestant Paedocommunion Novelty).” Available at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/paedocommunionism-versus-protestantism/.
16. Lee, Francis Nigel. “Summary Against Paedocommunion.” Available at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/summary-against-paidocommunion/.
17. Lefebvre, Michael. ‘Communion: Who Participates? A Working Position-Paper on the Question of Paedocommunion (2005)’, www.mlefebvre.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/communion.pdf.
18. Lillback, Dr Peter A. “OPC Minority Report (#2)” Available https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#minority2.
19. Pipa, Joey. “Paedocommunion: A Wrong View of Membership and Sacrament.” Available at https://byfaithonline.com/paedocommunion-a-wrong-view-of-membership-a-wrong-view-of-the-sacrament/.
20. Reformed Church of the United States, Committee to Investigate the Situation at Westminster Seminary in Regard to Infant Communion
21. Schlissel, Steve versus Tim Gallant, Paedocommunion Debate — Available at http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=1027 He argues for the age of puberty.
22. Schwertley, Rev. Brian M. Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/ PAEDOCOMMUNION-Schwertley.htm.
23. Venema, Cornelis P. Children at the Lord’s Table? (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009). Also see his 2015 article, “Old Testament Evidence regarding Paedocommunon,” https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/old-testament-evidence-regarding-paedocommunion. Also see, “The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion,” https://www.reformedfellowship.net/the-new-testament-evidence-regarding-paedocommunion-part-one.
24. Waters, Guy and Ligon Duncan, eds., Children and the Lord’s Supper (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2011).

1. Presuppositions Do Affect Exegesis

Why do godly people differ so significantly on such a fundamental doctrine as the Lord’s Supper? Why do different sides look at exactly the same passages and come to quite different conclusions about what they mean? For example, why can one scholar look at Exodus 12 and conclude that only adults partook of that Passover¹⁴ while another equally capable scholar looks at the same facts in Exodus 12 and concludes just as strongly that even newborn babies partook?¹⁵ Why, for that matter, are there 14 quite distinct views on worthy participation (see the next chapter)? Why can paedo-communionists look at Christ’s command “Drink from it all of you” (Matt. 26:27) as a command that includes children, while some mature communion advocates insist that only the apostles were at the meal and that the “all” was not meant to include children? Why do paedo-communionists take some “facts” found in 1 Corinthians 10-11 as being relevant to children,¹⁶ while explicitly teaching that most other “facts” in the same text only apply to adults?¹⁷ On the other hand, why do mature-communion advocates often emphasize the second set of “facts” and conclude that those “facts” clearly exclude all children — even though children were indeed included in at least some of the examples that Paul uses in chapter 10 to teach us about worthy participation?

I believe that a big part of the problem involves unnoticed presuppositions that have been imported into the exegesis. Just as evolutionists and creationists can look at the same “facts” of geology, paleontology, or biology, and come to radically different conclusions, it is very easy for Christians to unintentionally bring presuppositions to a text¹⁸ that make us blind to certain features of that text. Some hermeneutics books speak of this problem as the “pre-understandings” we might have of what the text can mean before we have even read the text. The more conscious we are of our presuppositions, the easier it is to have those presuppositions corrected and refined by the Bible.

Just as an illustration of this hermeneutical issue, I have seen Calvinists and Arminians try to “explain away” certain “problem passages” that do not seem to fit their paradigm. Their system is dictating what the text should say. Just to be clear, I am a five point Calvinist and I do not think that there is any Scripture that contradicts these doctrines. But I have learned the hard way that God is not honored when we seek to explain why a passage does not mean what it seems to mean. When a passage does not seem to “fit,” rather than forcing that passage into our system, we should allow that Scripture to stand sovereign over our opinion and to challenge our interpretive framework (our worldview). If we humbly do this enough times, the so-called “problem passages” may actually prove to be keys that open up our understanding more fully to other seemingly unrelated doctrines. In my own experience, the so-called “problem passages” of Calvinism have become beautiful keys that have helped to correct and refine my eschatology, covenant theology, and even ecclesiology.

Many interpreters seem not to realize that they are bringing presuppositions to the text of Scripture. They seem to assume that they are neutrally examining the evidence without any influence of friends, career, other doctrines, etc.

I am suggesting that we are in a much safer position if we recognize that while “there is no presuppositionless exegesis or biblical research,”¹⁹ we can continually allow the text of Scripture to challenge and adjust our presuppositions themselves. This book will be examining a number of presuppositions that can radically affect our exegesis and will be asking the reader to see if those presuppositions are warranted from the Bible. By approaching this subject presuppositionally, it is my hope that I can cut through the misunderstandings that make the various sides talk past each other. As Graham Stanton worded it,

Once exegesis is seen as an on-going dialogue between the interpreter and the text, the interpreter’s starting point becomes less important than his willingness and readiness to run the risk that the pre-understanding with which he comes to the text may well be refined or completely renewed: he must be prepared to be interpreted by the text. That is the necessary presupposition with which he must attempt to operate.

The exegete cannot allow either his own personal bias or prejudice or his pre-understanding to dominate the text. They cannot be avoided completely, but they must be no more than a door through which the text is approached. The text is prior: the interpreter stands before it humbly and prays that through the scholarly methods and the questions with which he comes to the text, God’s Word will be heard afresh. This is the exciting task to which the interpreter is called. But it is also a dangerous task: God’s Word sweeps away my comfortably secure presuppositions; it is a Word of judgment as well as of grace.²⁰

How can we be successful in allowing our presuppositions to be challenged by God? Obviously, prayer and a humble approach to the Scripture is essential. God has given teachers of the past to help us as well. Moises Silva points out that there are several ways in which the God-given teachers of the past can be utilized to refine our presuppositions and make them more biblical.

First, there is Exegetical Theology, which gives us objective rules of interpretation. If we ever have to fudge on the normal grammatical-historical rules of interpretation, our exegesis is suspect. I have discovered violations of basic rules of hermeneutics in several paedo-communion²¹ and mature-communion books²² — they are hijacking texts that have nothing to do with communion to try to prove their point, and in the process are violating other rules of interpretation.

Next, there is Systematic Theology, which shows us how this truth relates to other established doctrines of the Scripture. If our exegesis of one passage contradicts an established doctrine laid out elsewhere in the Scripture, our exegesis is suspect. Likewise, it is helpful to see if a conclusion on this subject would negatively impact another doctrine by logical conclusion. An examination of Tim Gallant’s presuppositions in a later chapter will illustrate the unintended consequences of paedo-communion on other established doctrines. Later chapters will be showing how the doctrines of election, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc. help to correct errors within both the doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Third, there is Historical Theology, which looks at the history of the interpretation of a doctrine to see if there are any things we can learn from the debates of the past and any mistakes we can avoid from the past. Realizing the wide divergence of opinion has given me more humility on this subject, but it has also given me hope that there has been progress on this doctrine and will continue to be progress as the church wrestles through these issues. It is yet another reason why I have sought to inject some new thinking into the debates. Historical Theology assumes that God is gradually advancing the church’s understanding of the Bible “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God… that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:12-14). Though our own Westminster Confession affirms that all creeds and confessions can err,²³ I am usually very slow to disagree with the Reformed confessions, which constitute a huge advance in the church’s understanding. This is especially true when the Reformed confessions are unanimous on a subject — as they are on credo-communion.

Fourth, there is Practical Theology, which looks at the Biblical implications of a doctrine in everyday life. Paedo-communionists insist that excluding children from the table will have damaging consequences to the children and to the church as a whole.²⁴ Mature-communion advocates argue just as passionately for the opposite pastoral concerns — 1) That if children are admitted without faith they will feel no need for faith. 2) That if children partake unworthily they will receive judgment (1 Cor. 11:29-31). 3) They also argue that watching others partake has the huge practical benefit of wooing such children to lay hold of the Gospel (1 Cor. 11:26) and to receive the benefits that flow from faith in Christ. There are many other practical implications (pro and con) that are worthwhile evaluating.

Fifth, there is Biblical Theology, which looks at the development of theological ideas over the course of Biblical history — especially as these ideas were applied by God to different social settings and geographical locations. For example, most would agree that there was a massive change in the sophistication of sacramental theology and practice from the patriarchal period to the Mosaic period. To neglect regulations governing later Passover practices and to only focus upon Exodus 12 flattens out the reasons for the changes from the Patriarchal, to Mosaic, to New Covenant era. Likewise, while there is some continuity between the patriarchal “firstborn” to the Mosaic Levite to the New Testament elders, changes in redemptive history show a development as well. To flatten out the Patriarchal data as proving a “household communion” is to miss the fact that the patriarchal household included far more than the nuclear family²⁵ and that the Levites took over the function of the firstborn (Numb. 2:12,41,45,46; 8:18) and changed the practice from the home to the temple (Deut. 16:6; etc). See appendix B for the changes that God authorized with respect to which officers would administer the sacrament.

Finally, since logic is embedded in Scripture and reflects the God of truth, logic calls us to avoid all contradictions.²⁶ This book will occasionally seek to show the logical fallacies in certain arguments. This is simply an exercise in seeking to be more and more consistent with the unity of truth in the Bible.

There is also an inter-relationship between all of these disciplines. Thus, Scripture says that faulty exegesis is often an ethical problem (2 Peter 3:16-17), and faulty ethics can be an exegetical problem (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4). Likewise Paul insists that history has ethical implications for our lives (1 Cor. 10:6-14) and also teaches that men in ethical rebellion will distort history (2 Pet. 3:5). Silva points out another interesting inter-relationship that God has put in place:

The reader may sense something of a paradox here. Our formulation of a theological doctrine depends on the text of Scripture, yet our understanding of that text depends on our prior doctrinal knowledge. This interconnection is an aspect of the so-called hermeneutical circle…²⁷

So in some ways bringing presuppositions to the text is unavoidable since everyone reads all facts of life through the lens of a worldview. Since a worldview is a network of assumptions or presuppositions by which we consciously or unconsciously interpret the facts of life,²⁸ it is critical that we allow our assumptions/presuppositions to be challenged and corrected. This chapter is a call to re-examine the subject of worthy participation from a presuppositional perspective. I will be presenting my own presuppositions in chapter 7 so that the reader can have the opportunity to challenge them. Of course, I will freely state my presuppositions throughout this book.

2. Presuppositional Narrowing of the Field from 14 to 1

When godly people hold strongly to views that are quite contradictory of each other, it is likely that they have at least some biblical evidence for their position. If their position cannot naturally explain all of the evidence, another solution should be sought.

Avoiding a Faulty Dilemma Opens Our Eyes to Other Possible Solutions

One of the faulty assumptions that many people bring to this topic is that there are only two views that need to be evaluated (one version of paedo-communion versus one version of credocommunion — usually infant-communion versus adult-communion). This fallacy of the faulty dilemma (believing that we must choose either paedo-communion or adult-communion) makes people think that they need to fit every Scripture into one or the other of two views rather than letting the so-called “problem passages” push us to a third alternative.

Those who have studied paradigm shifts²⁹ know how resistant people can be to “facts” that don’t fit their paradigm. Even if those facts are not ignored, they might be “put on the back burner for later study” rather than being utilized immediately for figuring out a new paradigm. The problems of the faulty dilemma and resistance to paradigm shift are complicated by a third related problem — it is much easier to argue against one view than to argue against two or more views, and most readers will tend to take the easy (lazy) way out and choose a view (however many unanswered questions there are) that seems to fit their presuppositions (and desires) the best.

What if neither view that is being analyzed adequately accounts for all the “communion facts” in Scripture? The reality is that there have historically been at least fourteen different views on the age at which people may Biblically come to communion and the conditions for their proper partaking. This by itself should make us willing to be less dogmatic and to be willing to evaluate which of these fourteen (if any) fit all of the Biblical evidence. We should not be content until every piece of the puzzle fits in place without being bent or forced.

Fourteen Perspectives on Communion

Before I outline a plan for examining the evidence, let’s look at the options that scholars have placed before us in the past. It may be that none of these fourteen paradigms are Biblical and that a fifteenth may need to be suggested by someone else. It is helpful to use historical theology to see which options people have wrestled with before I explain in this chapter why I believe one of the views listed below does indeed fit every piece of evidence. The fourteen views I have read are:

1. Womb communion — the view that infants already receive communion via their mother’s umbilical cord in the womb and via the mother’s breast milk after birth, and should continue to receive communion after that.³⁰ This is logically and exegetically different from the next two. It does not see church elders or baptism as admitting to the Table. According to them, infants have never known a time when they were not partaking of the means of grace.
2. Baptism communion with intinction — the view that infants can automatically start receiving communion at their baptism. Intinction usually refers to placing a piece of bread soaked in wine into the mouth, though it can also refer to placing a drop of wine on the baby’s tongue.³¹ Those who hold to view #1 see no need to do this since they falsely think that the baby receives communion through the mother’s milk. This second version of paedo-communion absolutely rejects that idea and insists that infants should be fed communion by mouth. James Jordan holds to a mixture of 1 & 2. He believes the baby is excommunicated by God upon birth and is only re-communicated eight days later after circumcision. He says, “When the baby is born, he is separated from the spiritual protection of the womb, excommunicated as it were, and must be baptized into the Church before he can once again partake of the Lord’s Supper.”³²
3. Solid-food-stage paedo-communion. For some this is a pragmatic position (or even inconsistently left up to the parents³³), but for others this is a principled stance that requires babies to be able to eat solid food. The latter group base their position on the Biblical admonition that infants are not able to eat solid food, for “babes in Christ…[are] fed with milk and not with solid food; for …[they] are not able to receive it” (1 Cor. 3:1-3; cf. Heb. 5:12-14). They teach that if the inspired Bible says that babes are not able to receive solid food, they should not be force-fed communion. These paedo-communionists only allow children to partake of the elements when they are able to consume some solid food at home on a regular basis, even if they are still breast feeding.³⁴ Often this happens before age one.
4. Weaned child paedo-communion. This position says that children can partake of communion as soon as they are weaned from the breast, but that they must first be fully weaned from the breast³⁵ (and some would say even from bottles and sippy cups). Though this may seem very similar to views 3 and 5, they see themselves as holding to a principled view. Some in this group appeal to Genesis 21:8, 1 Samuel 1:22-24, Psalm 131:2, Isaiah 28:9, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, and Hebrews 5:12-14 as justification for this position.
5. Automatically admitting all children to communion at the age of three. Though this may seem similar to the previous position, it is actually a principled stance that three is the minimum age of partaking even if weaning has happened one or two years earlier.³⁶ They see it as a biblical condition, not a pragmatic position.
6. Credocommunion with no minimum age.³⁷ This is so close to the next view that I will later lump them together, but many believe that this is the only consistent view.
7. Credocommunion with a minimum age of three, but not an automatic age of admission.³⁸ This is my view.
8. A minimum age of seven.³⁹
9. Age 10 after extensive memorization of the catechism.⁴⁰
10. Adulthood required — defined as age 12 after catechizing.⁴¹
11. Adulthood required — defined as age 13 after a year or more of catechizing.⁴²
12. Adulthood required — defined as sometime after puberty and after catechizing and evidence of a high degree of holiness and the presence of adult-like responsibilities.⁴³
13. Adulthood required — defined as age 18.⁴⁴
14. Adulthood required — defined as age 20.⁴⁵

It is astonishing that there is so much diversity on age and conditions for partaking. Is the Scripture really that unclear? I do not believe so. Later chapters will systematically critique presuppositions that lead to twelve of these conclusions, but this chapter will seek to analyze them in a high-level way and hopefully eliminate several of the options in the process. Here is how I see all of these positions logically grouped together:

Seven Principles Where There Is Enough Agreement That the Fourteen Can Be Grouped into Three

Group #1 — Paedo-Communion

Though there are clearly differences among paedo-communion positions 1-5, virtually all them will self-identify as being generally in the same camp on at least seven of the following eight issues. 1) None require faith or repentance in order to partake. 2) All affirm that it is the covenant that admits children to the Lord’s Table (and thus the name “covenant communion”), though only positions 1 and 2 have any consistency with this starting principle. 3) All affirm that an age of discretion is irrelevant. 4) All affirm that the children of believers may partake before they are able to understand the Gospel. 5) All except for view 5 affirm that infants and/or toddlers can partake, though some insist that they must be able to chew. 6) There is no urgency for calling children to faith in order to partake, and most affirm that older children (under 20) can continue to partake automatically without a profession of faith. 7) All affirm that Bible passages related to worthy partaking are only relevant to those who are able to repent. 8) They often presume regeneration, faith, and/or election as the basis for admission to the Table (though not all do).

Group #2 — Young-Credocommunion

Though there is a more defined minimum age with viewpoint #7, both viewpoints #6 and #7 are almost in total agreement in how they differ from paedo-communion on the above eight issues. Because of their agreement on these eight issues, I will lump these two viewpoints together.

Group #3 — Mature-Credocommunion

I have never seen any biblical justification for the minimum ages given in viewpoints #8 and #9, but since they are very similar on qualifications to viewpoints #10-14, I will lump them in with mature-credocommunion. All of these views differ from the previous two groups on exactly the same eight issues. They all add something to a profession of faith, so they are not consistently credocommunion, though many of them will self-identify as credocommunion.

These three groups can be visualized on the following chart:

Whether representatives of these fourteen views like being lumped together with others or not is immaterial. The fact that they share 6-8 common beliefs that stand in stark contrast to the common beliefs of two other groups makes the exercise in this chapter a simple and legitimate way of winnowing down the options to a manageable three.

Then, if it can be shown that the common beliefs in any one column are wrong, that column can be eliminated. Of course, this chapter will only be a preliminary and high level approach. The rest of the book will analyze the Biblical data in much greater depth to see if our preliminary conclusions are correct. We must be able to account for all the Scriptural “facts” related to communion.

The Strongest Arguments of Each Group

As already hinted at, this chapter will not get into every nuance for all three of these views. Instead, it will seek to give the strongest and most salient arguments for each major grouping. It will quickly become apparent that this book agrees with the strongest proofs of both paedo-communion and mature-communion, while paedo-communion and mature-communion can only account for a portion of these proofs. Later chapters will examine other presuppositions, arguments, and exegetical details.

The Strongest Arguments for Paedo-Communion

I believe the strongest case that can be made for paedo-communion is that young children did indeed partake of the sacrament in the Old Testament festivals. How young will be seen in the next chapter, but the following evidence seems to rule out at least adult-only communion:

Paul Makes a Strong Connection between the Lord’s Supper and the Old Testament Sacramental Meals

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul makes a tight connection between the Old Testament sacramental meals and the Lord’s Supper. This connection is either ignored or denied in most of the discussions that I have read from various viewpoints represented in the third column. Some will go so far as to say that even the Passover is not “determinative for the Lord’s Supper.”⁴⁶ Given the fact that the meal where the institution of the Lord’s Supper was given is explicitly called a Passover (see Matt. 26:20-23; Mark 14:17-26; Luke 22:14-23), and given the fact that Paul gives instructions from the Passover for our observance (1 Cor. 5:6-13, including the discipline of “not to eat with such a person”), I find this argument quite astonishing. Others (like Francis Nigel Lee) argue for a connection with Passover, but not a connection with the other sacramental meals. The reason this is a critical point is that all commentators agree that at least some Old Testament festival feasts included children. Let’s examine the evidence:

1 Corinthians 10 refers to sacramental meals that were consumed after the first Passover and after the Red Sea crossing and those meals are said to be sacramentally the “same” — “all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:3-4). This would not be possible if Passover was the only exemplar for the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, all of the Old Testament sacramental meals are explicitly said to be “examples” to us (cf. vv. 6,11) of what constitutes worthy participation that finds blessing and what constitutes unworthy participation that finds judgment (chapters 10-11). Each unworthy participation and judgment is applied to the Corinthians’ unworthy participation in the Lord’s Table. The only way this would be possible is if all those Old Testament meals were in some way parallel to the Lord’s Supper. Consider how many Old Testament sacramental meals are being connected to the Lord’s Table:

1. In verses 2-3 Paul refers to a communion meal (or meals) that took place early upon their entrance into the wilderness. Whether this was the feast “three days” later (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26), or the ongoing weekly sacraments using the manna and the Rock (see Exodus 16 for start of manna and Exodus 17 for start of water), their sacrament was essentially the “same” in “spiritual” efficacy and intent to ours, and their sacrament continues to teach us about worthy participation (what results in blessing or judgment) — “Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted” (v. 6).
2. Verse 7 warns of the sacramental judgment that came in Exodus 32:5-6: “And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’”
3. Verse 8 warns us with the sacramental judgment that killed 23,000 in Numbers 25-26: “Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.” These examples make it clear that the sickness and death that the Corinthians were receiving from unworthy participation (1 Cor. 11:30-32) is nothing new. It was common in Old Testament times as well.
4. Verse 9 appeals to the judgment that fell when the Israelites despised the manna (Num. 21:4-8): “nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents.”
5. Verse 10 applies the judgment of murmurers in Numbers 16:1-49) who despised the authority of the priests to administer the General Tabernacle rituals (see Num. 15):⁴⁷ “nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.”
6. Verse 18 makes application of the temple sacrifices/meals to the Lord’s Table: “Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”

From these examples that Paul gives, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all the Old Testament sacramental meals can teach us about worthy participation. Too many books focus on the Passover alone. If the Lord’s Table sums up and replaces all the Old Testament sacramental meals, and if those Old Testament sacramental meals continue to instruct us on how we should partake of the Lord’s Supper, then we have a much broader base of Scriptures to instruct us on worthy participation. And indeed, Paul explicitly says that those meals were a pattern (τύπος) for us (v. 6). It was not just the Passover, but “all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (v. 11).

Old Testament Sacramental Meals All Included children

If the previous presupposition is correct, then we should include children in the New Covenant meal since they were always included in the Old Testament sacramental meals (see next chapter for proof). This logically excludes all adult-communion positions (as well as positions 8 & 9) because the broader set of sacramental meals clearly included quite young children. On at least this point, paedo-communionists are correct. Some of their proof texts are more subject to criticism than others.

Paul’s Application of Old Covenant Meals in 1 Corinthians 10-11

Though paedo-communionists spend a lot of time in Exodus 12 to prove their case, most of their books seem to regard 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 as the proof-text for paedo-communion. Their argument for including infants seems fairly straightforward (though we will later see that the mature-communionists can fairly easily overturn it). Paedo-communionists claim that the partaking in verses 3-4 was as extensive as the baptism in verses 1-2. Paul says that “all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Verse 5 makes clear that most of those who ate were not regenerate — “But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” Paedo-communionists conclude that 1) verse 5 rules out regeneration as being a qualification for communion, 2) the only pre-requisite mentioned was baptism, and since infants were baptized, they should be communed.⁴⁸

Corresponding to this logic is 1 Corinthians 10:17, which says that “we though many are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (10:17). Paedo-communionists insist that sacramental partaking of Christ is required of all who are members of the covenant.⁴⁹ While they ignore other contextual indicators that excluded some children, on the surface, this seems to be a strong argument. Paul had already stated that the children of believers are “holy” at least covenantally (7:14). If 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 makes the “all” to include children, then Paul’s emphasis in these chapters to not divide the “fellowship” or “koinonia” means that we should not partake of the Lord’s Table in any way that divides the body into segments (such as rich and poor, adults and children). They claim that the practice of excluding infants from the Lord’s Table strikes at the heart of what the sacrament calls for — the unity of Christ’s body. Though this is a fairly powerful argument for paedo-communion, we will see that it falls apart when the mature-communionists examine it (below).

General Provisions at Unspecified Old Testament Feasts.

Their appeal to the Old Testament feasts is a much stronger argument. The general provisions that God gave for all his feasts included as participants: “you and your households” (Deut. 12:6-7), “sons and daughters” (vv. 11-12), “you and your household…and the fatherless… and widow” (Deut. 14:22-29). While sons and daughters are generic terms that could be interpreted in various ways, “the fatherless” are only mentioned in contexts that indicate disadvantaged orphans who were underage and thus in a vulnerable position. The granularity of age will have to wait until the next chapter. Here it is at least clear that underage children partook and households partook.

The Passover Meal

Paedo-communionists claim that the Passover meal clearly included the “household” (Ex. 12:3-4),⁵⁰ “your sons” (12:24), “your children” (12:26), and “your son” (13:8,14). Paedo-communion advocates also point out that “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it [the lamb] at twilight” (v. 6), and since the whole congregation in Joel 2:16 includes children and nursing babes, nursing babes must have partaken in Exodus 12. We will reserve the adult communion critique of importing the “nursing babes” from the fast of Joel 2:16 into this context, but for now it should be clear that at least children and households partook. If 1 Samuel 1 is referring to the Passover,⁵¹ then this would be another example of portions going “to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters” (1 Sam. 1:4). This does not specify how old the youngest of these were, but it is clear that more than adults were admitted to this feast. While this would rule out adult-communion, it does not rule out the credo-communion position of this book. Our church has several families where all the sons and daughters partake of communion.

The Feast of Firstfruits

The Feast of Firstfruits included “you and your house…the fatherless, and the widow” (Deut. 26:1-15). That these fatherless needed special care implies their under-age status. In the Feast of Firstfruits that was planned to start three days after the Egyptian Passover (see Ex. 3:18; 5:3; 8:27), Moses insisted on including “our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters…for we must hold a feast to the LORD” and he refused to obey Pharaoh’s restrictions on the “little ones” (Ex. 10:10; cf. v. 24). In the next chapter we will look at the interesting specificity involved in the Hebrew term for “little ones.” Paedo-communionists import an unbiblical definition into it. At least they recognize that small children can partake.

The Feast of Pentecost

The Feast of Pentecost included “you and your son and your daughter…and the fatherless” (Deut. 16:9-12). Again, the mention of the “fatherless” implies those who were underage.

The Feast of Tabernacles

The Feast of Tabernacles included “you and your son and your daughter…and the fatherless” (Deut. 16:13-17). At this feast God commanded, “Gather the people together, men and women and little ones” (Deut. 31:9-13). Of course, we will later see that each of the passages that discuss this feast (including Nehemiah 8) qualify which little ones partook.⁵² But having said that, Paedocommunionists are correct that little ones are not adults or even twelve-year-olds. Interestingly, the Feast of Tabernacles is the feast that particularly pointed to the New Covenant times of the Gentiles (Zech. 14:16-21). The times of the Gentiles were symbolized by offering up seventy bulls for the seventy nations of the world. These provisions were not time-bounded by the Old Covenant or the Old Covenant people. Zechariah uses the feast to anticipate the participants of the New Covenant.

Peace Offerings at Covenant Renewal

The peace offerings at the covenant renewal ceremonies in Deuteronomy (Deut. 27:1-30:20) included “your little ones and your wives” (29:11). The covenant renewal ceremonies under Joshua included “all the congregation, the women, the little ones, and the strangers who were living among them” (Josh. 8:30-35). While this rules out mature-communion, it does not rule out our young-credocommunion position since our church has “little ones” who have been examined by the elders, made a credible profession of faith, and begun to partake of the feast. (Again, the granularity of Hebrew terms in the next chapter must be considered.)

The Priestly Portions of the Sacramental Meals in 2 Chronicles 31:10-16, and the Priestly Portions of the Wave and Heave Offerings in Lev. 10:14-15; Num. 18:11,19; etc.

The wave and heave offerings belonged to the priests, but they also included their families, saying, “you shall eat in a clean place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you” (Lev. 10:14-15; cf. Num. 18:11,19). The priestly portions of the sacramental meals mentioned in 2 Chronicles 31 included “males from three years old and up who were written in the genealogy” (v. 16) “and to all who were written in the genealogy — their little ones and their wives, their sons and daughters — for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). While conditions are mentioned, this text is quite explicit that the sacramental meals were not simply intended for adults — they included children “three years old and up” and included “little ones.” In the next chapter we will examine other passages that include at least some three-year-olds.

If the evidence I have given above was the only evidence that we had, and if there were only two positions to evaluate, there would be strong presumption in favor of automatic paedo-communion. Typically, the mature-communion books almost completely ignore these inconvenient “facts” or discount them in various ways. Their paradigm dictates that they do so. So it is no wonder that so many Christians have embraced paedo-communion in recent years. They are seeking to be faithful to very clear passages that admit children.

The Strongest Arguments for Mature-Communion

As we will now see, the paedo-communionists are just as guilty as the mature-communionists of ignoring a large body of inconvenient “facts.”⁵³ If we examine the strongest arguments of mature-communionists, their arguments seem to almost completely rule out the paedo-communionist position. Obviously the paedo-communionists will present strong counter-arguments that we will examine later. This high-level approach is simply designed to introduce you to the fact that while paedo-communionists can explain the Scriptures that call us to admit “little ones” and while mature-communionists can explain the Scriptures that require active faith on the part of recipients, only the young-credocommunion position can adequately explain both sets of data. Consider the strongest mature-communion arguments:

Old Testament Sacramental Meals Continue to Instruct for the New Testament Sacramental Meal

While mature-communionists will often deny that the Old Testament sacramental meals can inform us on the participants or the qualifications for the Lord’s Table⁵⁴, at least some have taken the challenge and insisted that all the Old Testament sacramental feasts had qualifications. I will deal with the passages in the same order as I brought them up under paedo-communion, even though mature-communion adds more passages.

Paul’s Application of Old Covenant Meals in 1 Corinthians 10-11

Just as paedo-communionists appeal to 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 to prove that children partook, many mature-communionists point to the same passage, and indeed all of chapters 10-11, to prove the exact opposite.⁵⁵

First, they will point out that the word for “food” in the phrase “same spiritual food” is the Greek word βρῶμα, or “solid food.” Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul had told the Corinthians that it was not appropriate for children under the age of three or four (νήπιος)⁵⁶ to eat βρῶμα. In 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 he told them, “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to children (νήπιος) in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with βρῶμα; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.” Paul would not now contradict himself by implying that infants and toddlers partook of βρῶμα. The very word βρῶμα shows how incompatible paedo-communion is with Paul’s statement.

Second, the word “spiritual” (πνευματικός) in the phrases “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual (πνευματικός) drink” points in the same direction. Paul had already told the Corinthians that very young children (νήπιος) do not have what it takes to be considered “spiritual” (1 Cor. 3:1-3) because partaking of spiritual things required the following conditions:

1. A capacity for “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13).
2. The ability to “receive the things of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:14).
3. A certain degree of knowledge — “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them…But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14,16).
4. Discernment — “because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
5. The ability to judge — “But he who is spiritual judges all things” (1 Cor. 2:15).
6. Some degree of maturity — “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1). Here the νήπιος child is clearly contrasted with the spiritual (πνευματικοῖς).

Mature-communionists will also point out that there is no reference to infants in 10:1-4. On the contrary, they say that the “all” being discussed throughout the paragraph is defined quite clearly as “all our fathers (πατέρες)” (v. 1). Likewise, the “them” of verse 5 clearly excludes the children and refers back to the fathers alone — “But with most of them God was not pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (v. 5). The bodies of the children were not scattered in the wilderness; only the bodies of the older generation were (Num. 14:26-38). Indeed, the children grew up to be one of the most faithful generations in Israel’s history — taking the conquest of Canaan by faith. Therefore the phrase, “most of them” cannot apply to the children. But “their fathers [were] a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart aright, and whose spirit was not faithful to God” (Ps. 78:8).⁵⁷

To anticipate a potential rebuttal to this line of reasoning, paedo-communionists might insist that the same “all” who were baptized in verse 2 were the “all” who partook of the spiritual food and drink of verses 3-4. Since the infants were baptized along with the adults, both groups partook of both sacraments in verses 1-4. Therefore, the reference to “all our fathers” must de facto be a reference to every man, woman, and child in Israel, not simply the adult male representatives of the families. Mature-communionists will respond with several arguments that show the opposite.

First, they will point out that there is nothing in the context to indicate that the reference to being “baptized” in verse 2 is in any way equivalent to our baptism. The opposite is true. This baptism did not admit any of them into the covenant since circumcision had already admitted them to the covenant in Exodus 12 (see vv. 44,48). That means that whatever baptism is being talked about in 1 Corinthians 10, it has a radically different function from our baptism. Our baptism admits to the covenant.

Second, this baptism did not admit them to the sacramental meals since circumcision had already done that with the Passover in Exodus 12. This too is a radical departure from the purpose of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. Whatever baptism is being referred to, it came after communion, not before it.

Third, (though this is a debatable point), many adult-communionists argue that this baptism was not even a sacrament since all sacraments are signs and seals of a relationship to Christ. Though the sacrament of eating was feeding on “Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4), the baptism mentioned in verse 2 was by definition non-sacramental since they were “baptized into Moses” (v. 2) rather than being “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).

Fourth, in contrast to the “one baptism” of the New Testament (Eph. 4:5), this was one of many “baptisms” (Heb. 6:2) of the Old Covenant that continued to be applied to covenant members for various purposes, and therefore it was not a baptism of initiation. Hebrews 9:10 calls these “different baptisms” (διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς). The first word, διάφορος, means “pertaining to that which is different.”⁵⁸ This is different from our baptism on many levels. It was not a baptism that initiated into the covenant or into the sacrament (as Exodus 12 clearly shows). It was not a baptism performed by man. It was a baptism into Moses that showed a commitment to his leadership.

Fifth, if it is insisted that everyone who walked through the Red Sea was qualified to partake of the wilderness sacraments, and if every meal of manna was a sacramental meal (as opposed to being one of the elements eaten when the sacrament was served by the Levites), and if every sip of water that flowed from the rock was sacramental (as opposed to being common water being made sacramental only when it was served with the sacraments by the Levites), then it proves too much. It proves that the wilderness sacraments were self-serve sacraments rather than being administered by the Levites as dictated by the law.⁵⁹ It proves that they had sacramental meals multiple times a day (something contradicted by the law of God, which required blood sacrifice before a fellowship meal could be enjoyed — Lev. 7:11-21; 17:1-16; 19:5-8; etc.).⁶⁰ It proves that the “mixed multitude” (Ex. 12:38) also ate of the sacrament because they also walked through the Red Sea and also ate manna. The term “mixed multitude” (עֵ֥רֶב רַ֖ב) refers to foreigners that have not fully embraced the faith.⁶¹ But this would mean that uncircumcised people ate of the sacrament — something even paedocommunionists admit is forbidden by the law of God. Nehemiah “separated all the mixed multitude from Israel” (Neh. 13:3). Though Gentiles could dwell in Israel, they were not considered part of the covenant community and therefore could not partake of communion. Though the “fathers” who went through the Red Sea did partake, not all who went through the Red Sea partook — certainly not the mixed multitude. The mixed multitude had to eat, and they ate the manna as common food, not as sacramental food. But if they were excluded, there is no reason to take the “all” in the absolute way that paedocommunionists do. It was all of some category (fathers), but not all of Israel.

Likewise, there were lepers in Israel. Were they qualified to partake? No (Lev. 7:20-21; 22:4; etc.). Just walking through the sea did not baptize the mixed multitude, the cattle, and sheep in any way that would make them qualified for the sacramental meal. Paedo-communionists will sometimes insist that even the cattle drank sacramentally because Numbers 20:11 says that “water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank” (Num. 20:21). However, all sacramental meals were administered by the Levites. It was the Levites who had authority “over the freewill offerings to God, to distribute the offerings of the LORD and the most holy things” (2 Chron. 31:14).⁶² Not every manna meal was a sacramental meal because there was no sacrament without the shedding of blood. Though bread/manna was served with the meat of the peace offerings, Old Covenant sacraments did not exist without peace offerings, and the peace offerings were eaten under Levitical oversight. So not every manna meal was a sacramental meal. Not every drink from the Rock was a sacramental drinking of Jesus. There were common meals composed of manna and there were sacramental meals composed of manna.

Sixth, if all sacramental meals involved meat in the Old Testament, then most paedo-communionists⁶³ will readily admit that newborns did not partake because they could not chew the meat. If paedo-communionists add a condition for partaking (the ability to chew), then there is no logical reason to ignore the other qualifications for the sacrament that are strewn throughout the Old Testament and repeated in the New — especially when several of those passages explicitly apply the conditions to young children. Paedo-communion at that point becomes no more “covenant communion” than any of the other views. Only views 1 & 2 (womb communion & baptism communion with intinction) can (strictly speaking) say that the covenant alone admits to the Table.

The above observations show that walking through the Red Sea was not enough. There were other qualifications that had to be in place for worthy participation. And it is precisely these qualifications that excluded and included in the Old Testament that are the qualifications Paul sets forth in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Paedo-communionists treat these qualifications as irrelevant to infants, but they are jumping the gun. If “all” in 1 Corinthians 11:3-4 has exclusions (see above) then their proof for infant participation vanishes. As we will see, Paul is simply being faithful in interpreting the Old Testament sacramental meals when he insists that there is no sacrament when the qualifications are not met (1 Cor. 11:20).

We have already seen that the mature-communionist insists that the “all ate” is defined by “all our fathers” and not by “all” without exception. If this is true, then there is no reason to reject the numerous qualifications that are strewn throughout 1 Corinthians 10-11. These qualifications nullify the division-of-the-body argument that paedo-communionists present from 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. The inability of an infant to chew the meat of the next verse (v. 18) does not cut that infant off from Israel and therefore Paul’s logic cannot mean that the inability of an infant to chew bread will cut that infant off from the body of Christ.

Interestingly, though “the people who came out [of Egypt] had been circumcised” (Josh. 5:5), once they were excommunicated in Numbers 14, they were no longer allowed to apply the sign of the covenant to their children. Why? Because of “unbelief” (Heb. 3:12). Since they lacked the condition of faith they were not able to partake of the other sacrament either, and their children were consequently excluded from the sign of faith (circumcision). Thus, there was a mass circumcision of the younger generation and their children in Joshua 5 upon profession of faith of the fathers. During at least 38 of the 40 years, the fathers and the children did not partake of any communion since circumcision was a prerequisite for partaking. This means that for 38 years, the manna eaten was not eaten in a sacramental way.

As will be demonstrated later in this chapter and also in the next chapter, there are stages of development of members within Christ’s body as they take on new responsibilities and privileges. The transition from “an heir” by right of birth and baptism (Gal. 4:1) to the privileges of sonship by faith (Gal. 4:1-7) is the first of several entrances into privileges. Galatians 3:26-4:7 shows that heirs must profess faith to receive the privileges of sonship. Do all those who prove to be sons have the privilege of voting? No. Scripture explicitly says that only males who are twenty years of age can vote.⁶⁴ The next chapter will nail down the Biblical granularity of development. The point is that requiring qualifications for subsequent privileges does not divide the body; it assumes growth and development within the body.

In this context, mature-communionists show that the flow of the whole of 1 Corinthians 10-11 defines what it means to eat and drink in “an unworthy manner” (11:27,29). Paul applies that phrase not simply to adults, but to “whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner.” The English word, “whoever,” is made up of two Greek words, ὃς ἂν, which indicate each and every one who partakes. To arbitrarily exclude children from this warning is not warranted. The conditions apply to 100% of the participants in such a way that whoever “eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27). So how does Paul define worthy participation?

First, worthy participation requires some degree of maturity. It involves putting off self-centered “lust” (10:6), not simply eating because one is hungry or because one wants the food (11:21-22), and “not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many” (10:32-33). Indeed, Paul said, “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (10:24). The “no one” and “each one” is as extensive as participation in the meal (the subject of chapters 10-11). As can be seen by the context of who is being addressed, age alone is not sufficient. Paul is calling for maturity. In terms of the level of maturity required, all we have to do is look to the Old Testament sacraments that Paul was appealing to in chapter 10. If Paul’s application of the meat meals of the Old Testament (10:1-11) and the peace offering meals of the temple of his day (10:18) have a one-to-one correspondence to worthy partaking, then it would appear that the absolute minimum ability that is required is weaning. Other conditions require more than weaning, but it seems that some of the indicators of maturity in this paragraph correspond to at least David’s maturity when he was weaned, as described in Psalm 131. The maturity of this weaned child in Psalm 131 parallels the conditions Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Mature-communionists push this level of maturity well beyond the level of children, but at least some maturity is clearly required.

Second, worthy participation requires the presence of active faith and repentance. Just as Jesus pointed out that without faith no one could partake of His flesh and blood,⁶⁵ these chapters indicate that without faith people do not eat the Lord’s Supper but simply eat bread and drink wine (11:20). To receive the tradition (παράδοσις) that Paul delivered (παραδίδωμι) from Jesus to those participating in this meal (11:23-26) requires understanding and faith. This meal preaches the Gospel of Christ to all observers (11:26) and calls them to embrace that Gospel by faith. That this is an active faith can be seen by the active verbs, “take,” “eat,” (11:24) “this do in remembrance of Me” (11:24), “drink it in remembrance of Me” (11:25), “you proclaim the Lord’s death” (11:26).

Since faith and repentance are flip sides of the same coin, where one is found, the other will be found as well. These chapters call for a conscience that is not simply governed by man, but is governed by God (10:25,27-30). They call all participants to repent of and put off idolatry (10:7), sexual immorality (10:8), testing of authority (10:9), and complaining (10:10). This implies that all participants are able to discern such things as being evil and to put off such things. Though we will see that at least some “little ones” are able to have such discernment (see especially Isaiah 31:18), any “little ones and children… who today have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut. 1:39) would be disqualified. Certainly those who have no ability “to discern between their right hand and their left” (Jonah 4:11), would likewise not be qualified. Worthy participation involves some degree of overcoming temptation (10:13) and fleeing from idolatry (10:14). These all illustrate the presence of more than seed faith; they showcase an active faith and repentance.

Third, worthy participation requires the presence of some knowledge and discernment — at least an understanding of the basics of the Gospel. Paul said, “I speak as to wise persons; judge for yourselves what I say” (10:15). Worthy participation involves sufficient insight that they can “watch out” (βλέπω in 10:12) and develop a good “conscience” (10:29). It involves sufficient discernment to be able to imitate Biblical examples (10:6,11) in order to please God (10:5). It involves some ability to “judge” what Paul was saying (10:15), to “examine himself” (11:28), to “judge ourselves” (11:31), and to discern the difference between a snack (11:21-22) and “the Lord’s Supper” (11:20). Infants are not capable of any of those things. Worthy participation involves the ability to bless the cup when we partake (10:16). Giving thanks is a rational concept (10:30), as is eating and drinking to the glory of God (10:31). It requires that we remember Christ’s death (11:24-25) and “proclaim Christ’s death” (11:26) “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup” (11:26). The “as often” knows of no exceptions. These repeated conditions of discernment and knowledge rule out infants.

Fourth, worthy participation requires some degree of repentance and overcoming sin. This much should be clear from the constant admonitions in chapter 10 related to Old Testament disciplines for unworthy participation.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Cor. 10:11-13)

These are obviously admonitions to those who are able to discern between good and evil and are able to heed the ethical admonitions given by Paul. Consider the statements in chapter 10: “became our examples,” “do not become idolators,” “nor let us commit sexual immorality,” “nor let us tempt Christ,” “nor complain,” “take heed,” “will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able,” “flee from idolatry,” “I speak as to wise persons,” “judge for yourselves what I say,” “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

Likewise, consider the statements in chapter 11 that Paul applies to worthy participation — “I do not praise you,” “you come together not for the better but for the worse,” “there are also factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you,” “do this in remembrance of Me,” “you proclaim the Lord’s death,” “whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” “But let a person examine himself, and so let him eat,” “if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged,” “we are chastened by the Lord,” “when you come together,” “wait for one another.”

Paedo-communionists will often respond that conditions are also given for the sacrament of baptism⁶⁶ in the New Testament and for the sacrament of circumcision⁶⁷ in the Old Testament. If those conditions didn’t hinder infants from receiving those sacraments, why should they hinder them from receiving the Lord’s Supper?

Mature-communionists will respond that the two situations are not comparable. First, no one doubts the admission of infants to the sacrament of circumcision since that was explicitly authorized in Genesis 17, but the majority of Reformed writers do not see infants partaking of a sacramental meal in any of the Old Testament sacramental feasts. A contested “implication” is not the same as an explicit inclusion of infants. We have an explicit inclusion of infants into the initiatory sign of the covenant, but we have no explicit inclusion of infants into the active sacrament of communion.

Second, the only condition for circumcision in the Old Testament was that one of the parents had to be a believing Jew (Gen. 17; Ex. 12:48-49; Luke 1:59; Rom. 4:11-12). That was not the case with regard to Old Testament sacramental meals. There were numerous mentions of requirements for worthy participation — as this chapter abundantly demonstrates.

Third, we will devote an entire chapter to the Regulative Principle of Worship, in which God mandates explicit authorization for everything that occurs in worship. The fact of the matter is that there is no explicit mention of infants partaking of any Old Testament sacramental meal. The most that paedo-communionists can achieve is to show what they consider to be logical deductions.

Third, we will devote an entire chapter to the Regulative Principle of Worship, in which God mandates explicit authorization for everything that occurs in worship. The fact of the matter is that there is no explicit mention of infants partaking of any Old Testament sacramental meal. The most that paedo-communionists can achieve is to show what they consider to be possible implications. However, if these implications were a good and necessary consequence, one would expect more Reformed Creeds to have kept the practice.

Last, if there is not a certainty that infants partook, then we cannot ignore the conditions for worthy participation that are strewn throughout the Old and New Testaments. We will now turn to that extensive evidence.

Revelation’s application of Old Testament meals

The book of Revelation has four references to the New Covenant meal helping us to feed upon Jesus in heaven. Each of these apply the symbols of the Old Covenant sacramental meals in a way that excludes those who 1) do not have an active faith 2) and are thus not “overcomers” who obey the Lord.

Revelation 2:7 — Those who are admitted to communion

Christ states, “To the one who overcomes I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of my God.” Christ uses the first sacramental meal mentioned in the Bible (the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden) as a symbol of what New Testament believers can be restored to. Notice, though, it is “the one who overcomes” who is granted permission to eat by Christ. This symbol of eating the Tree of Life is the first of three more references to the Lord’s Supper. Overcomers in Pergamos are promised “the hidden manna” (2:17), overcomers in Laodicea are promised to “dine with Him” (3:20), and the Tree of Life is presented as a symbol once again in Revelation 22:14: “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life.” The right to eat is not automatic. If these references are indeed Old Covenant symbols for the New Covenant communion meal, then each of these passages are instructive for our own use of the Lord’s Table. The following are some deductions.

Deductions from Revelation 2:7 on the conditions for communion

1. This passage speaks of conditions for worthy participation.

   This passage outlines four conditions for communion. The first condition is regeneration. The phrase, “He who has an ear,” is not referring to external ears, but to the inner ears produced at the point of regeneration.⁶⁸

   The next phrase, “let him hear,” indicates that it is not enough to be regenerate (to have the inward spiritual ears of the soul). Those ears must be actively able to listen and respond to the Word. Is this possible for infants who do not understand words yet?

   The third condition is the ability to understand the Scripture. We see this in the phrase, “let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” At a minimum, a child needs to be able to understand what the Bible says about the Gospel and the Lord’s Table.

   The fourth condition is found in the phrase, “To the one who overcomes.” Overcoming implies the active obedience of faith. On occasion, adult-communion advocates will over-apply this condition by appealing to 1 John 2:14, which says:

   I have written to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.

   They claim that overcoming in these verses shows a high degree of maturity — that of a spiritual warrior. While I will later show that they overstate their case — since even “little children” are said to “have overcome them” (1 John 4:4), they do make a legitimate case that evidence of regeneration, faith, submission, and overcoming are indeed conditions for coming to the table.

2. This passage indicates that not all in the church may participate.

   The clause, “To the one who…I will grant to eat” shows that not all in the congregation have the right to eat. The last phrase is rendered variously as “I will give to eat” (NKJV), “I will give permission to eat” (NRSV), “I will give the right to eat” (NIV, NAB, HCSBS, CNT), or “I will permit him to eat” (NET). Being a member of the church is not a sufficient condition to eat. Only those church members who meet the conditions have permission to eat.

3. Christ alone has authority to admit to the Table.

   The phrase “I will grant to eat,” implies that communion must be given by Christ’s authority alone and cannot simply be taken by men (as is done in private communion). Nor can it be given by elders apart from explicit authorization by Christ in the Scriptures. Since He is talking to people who are already church members, He implies that not all in that church were given the right to eat by Jesus. This completely destroys automatic covenant communion. There is something more than the covenant that gives that right.

4. Officers must reflect Christ’s authority in the sacrament.

   Since the officers of the church are stars on Christ’s hand (1:16,20; 2:1) and represent His authority, they should not “grant” to members what Jesus is not willing to “grant.” If Jesus sets conditions for partaking of communion, so too should the officers representing His authority.

5. Faithful administration of the sacraments means care in admission and exclusion.

   If these words imply an authority to admit to the table, the words also imply that Jesus has the authority to remove the right to eat from the Tree of Life. What is implied here is explicitly stated elsewhere in Revelation (see Rev. 3:20; 22:14,19). This admission and removing from the table is an aspect of church discipline. While “those who do His commands…have the right to the tree of life” (22:14), Revelation says that those in the church who rebel against His Word will find that God will “remove his share from the tree of life” (22:19). If this is an Old Covenant symbol of communion, then Revelation 22:19 indicates that these church members have their share in communion removed. Though inside the church, they are like Jews who “have no right to eat” from our altar (Heb. 13:10).

6. Thus there is a difference between being an heir and receiving all the inheritance.

   This further means that though all members of the church are in the covenant and are considered heirs of its promises, not all have fully entered into every privilege of that inheritance. This is the same deduction Paul will show in Galatians 3:26-4:7. Paul insists that though the young napios child is an “heir” of the covenant promises (Gal. 4:1) “he does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all.” The enjoyment of all covenant privileges is bestowed on that heir when he by faith experiences sonship and can personally cry out “Abba, Father!” in faith and by the indwelling Spirit (Gal. 4:3-7). At that stage the child can fully enjoy the promises he is already heir to. Revelation 2:7 is doing something similar when it is requiring evidences of sonship in church members before giving a right to eat of the tree of life.

7. Communion feeds on Christ’s redemption.

   A seventh deduction we can make is that this is a symbolic way of saying that communion feeds on Christ’s redemption. Just as the Lord’s Table symbolizes partaking of Christ and of the benefits of His redemption, eating of the “Tree of Life” is a symbol of partaking of the wisdom of Christ and of the benefits of His redemption.⁶⁹ This is supported by the fact that Wisdom in Proverbs personifies Christ’s revelation and this personified Wisdom is said to be the tree of life (Prov. 3:18). This was the official interpretation of the Western church for over 1000 years.⁷⁰ Just as Jesus is the vine of which we partake (John 15:1-8), His revelation is the Tree of Life of which we partake.

8. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper by faith, we are caught up into the heavenlies.

   Notice the location of this symbolic communion meal. It is “the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of my God.” We are to seek those things which are above where Christ is because “Christ is our life” (Col. 3:1-4). When we lack faith, we are simply chewing on earthly bread and drinking earthly wine (compare 1 Cor. 11:20b). When we come to communion in faith, we are lifted in spirit up “to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:21-24). In other words, we are lifted up to the Paradise of God where we truly feed on all that Christ purchased for us and therefore “dine” with Christ (Rev. 3:20). The communion with God that was lost to Adam and Eve in the first paradise is restored in the heavenly paradise.

Revelation 2:17 — Those who are admitted to communion

The second Old Testament symbol of communion is given in Revelation 2:17, which says:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To the one who overcomes I will grant to eat from the hidden manna eat. And I will give him a white pebble, and on the pebble a new name written, which no one knows except the receiver. (Wilbur Pickering translation)

There are several deductions we can make from this verse.

1. There is a promise of intimacy and fellowship.

   Jesus gives a marvelous promise of sweet fellowship and intimacy to those who are willing to take His message seriously. This intimacy is symbolized with two metaphors: food (“manna”) and admittance to the feast (“a white pebble”).

2. There is a condition for partaking: overcoming.

   The condition for admission to the manna-like sacrament is overcoming — “To the one who overcomes.” Nor may people take this privilege to themselves since Christ alone has the authority to “grant to eat.” Leaders may not grant what Jesus does not grant.

3. There was a fencing of the table.

   Another hint that the table is fenced is that the manna is “hidden” from some in the church at the same time that it is open to others and eaten by others. In the Old Testament, the hidden manna was hidden from all, including the high priest (Ex. 16:32-36; Heb. 9:4). Only the high priest could come close, and that once a year. Now overcomers are welcomed to partake of it.

4. Participation was by invitation.

   Another possible hint that the table is fenced is that unless the member has “on the pebble a new name written” he has no authority to partake. Beale points out that Jesus could be blending the image of the manna and an additional idea of an invitation stone being given. The manna was twice likened to a white bdellium stone in appearance (Ex. 16:31; Num. 11:7). The suggestion is that white stones were used as tokens to gain admission to the feast. So the manna refers to the feast, and the white stone refers to the token that admits to that same feast. Earlier Reformed churches often took this literally and required a token to be presented by a member to the elder before he could partake of the Lord’s Table. The token was only given to those whom the elders had determined could partake worthily of the feast.

5. This is more than a snack. There is incredible intimacy we have been invited to share in.

   The language describing these two images of the Lord’s Table also speaks to the incredible level of intimacy that believers can have with God. The “hidden manna” is a reference to the manna Moses stored in a golden pot inside the ark of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). No one in the Old Testament would have dared to look inside the ark where the manna was hidden, let alone to eat of it.

   Many people were amazed at the degree of closeness to God that the High Priest had once a year to be able to merely approach the mercy seat. Now Jesus says that we have something infinitely better than those types. The earthly tabernacle, the Holy of holies, the ark of the covenant, and the manna were all simply symbolic of the heavenly temple, Holy of holies, heavenly ark, and heavenly manna (see Heb. 8:5; 9:9). In John 6, Jesus declared Himself to be the true fulfillment of the manna (John 6:35,41,48,51) and said that we must feed upon Him (John 6:51,54,56). So this is one of many passages that speak of our being caught up to the heavenlies (where Jesus is) when we partake of the Lord’s Table (see comments on Revelation 2:7).

6. Balancing the corporate nature of the sacrament, there is a very individualistic aspect to the sacrament as well.

   Not only are we invited to feed on Christ in heaven, but Jesus says, “I will give him a white pebble, and on the pebble a new name written, which no one knows except the receiver.” Many paedo-communionists overemphasize the corporate dimension to the neglect of the individual dimension,⁷¹ but this passage speaks of intimacy with Christ in the sacramental feast in a very individualistic way. This is a secret between you and Jesus and you can tell when he calls you by name. In John 10:3, Jesus said about the good shepherd: “The sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.”

Revelation 3:20 — Those who actually dine with Jesus

Revelation 3:20 is a third passage related to communion. In that verse Jesus states, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” There are two things we can deduce from this passage:

1. The benefits of the Lord’s Supper are not automatic.

   This verse implies that Jesus was outside the door of the church. He was offering to come in and fellowship with them, but at this point He was so offended that He did not even grace their worship services with His presence. This means that just as Paul told the Corinthians that “when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), but was instead a meal that had no more benefit than a supper at home (vv. 21-22), Christ is here stating that he was not dining with anyone (young or old) in that congregation because they lacked the qualifications for communion. The point is that the benefits of communion do not operate ex opere operato. They are only received by faith.

2. Jesus lays out two conditions for coming to the Table.

   Notice the conditions given before Jesus will eat the Lord’s Table with us. The first is the ability to hear His voice speaking in the Scriptures (“if anyone hears My voice”), and the second is an active faith that reaches out “and opens the door.” While it might be conceivable for an infant with “seed faith”⁷² to hear Christ’s voice, it is hard for me to imagine an infant opening the door. The two conditions mentioned here are the same two conditions given in 1 Corinthians 11 - spiritual discernment and active faith. To the other churches He said that they need to be overcomers to come to the Table, but that really is a synonym since repentance is the flip side of the coin with faith. An overcomer is a person who has an active faith since “whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith” (1 John 5:4). The modern church should fence the Lord’s Table with the same requirements: spiritual discernment and faith in Christ’s provisions.

Old Testament Meals

Even in the Old Testament, the conditions of partaking help to qualify which sons and daughters partook. Using the same list of feasts that the paedo-communionists do, the mature-communion advocates can point out the same conditions that are found in the book of Revelation.

General provisions at unspecified feasts.

Though paedo-communion advocates cite Deuteronomy 12 as including sons, daughters, and households, mature-communion people will point out that there is no mention of infants. They will point out that this is significant since this chapter begins and ends with the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), which commands us not to add or take away anything from the law. RPW requires that without granularity of explicit authorization, people may not partake. The meaning of these general feasts are summed up in “statutes and judgments” (v. 1) that each one must “be careful to observe” (v. 1). Likewise, the chapter ends (verses 31-32) with the Regulative Principle of Worship being enforced — “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way…Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” The Regulative Principle of Worship articulated in those verses mandates that we may not include children on assumptions; we need explicit authorization. Mature-communion advocates carry this too far, failing to recognize the clear Scriptures in the previous section and the granularity of authorization in the next chapter. Paedo-communion advocates also violate the Regulative Principle of Worship by including infants when infants are nowhere authorized to partake.

Mature-communion advocates also rightly point to a number of very active verbs that those partaking are expected to be able to do. These sacraments committed participants to “utterly destroy” all idolatry (vv. 2-3), to avoid false worship (v. 4), to “seek” the temple (v. 5), to “take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks” (v. 6) and “eat before the LORD your God” (v. 7). Adult-communionists will argue that the logic seems to indicate that those who sacrificed, tithed, vowed, opposed idolatry, and exercised their “freewill” were also the ones who ate.

Though it is true that Deuteronomy 12 mentions the “households” partaking (v. 7), the grammar indicates that “you and your households” are to “rejoice in all to which you have put your hand” indicating a conscious joining of the household in recognizing that “the LORD your God has blessed you.” This is contrasted with what “every person” was currently doing — “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today — every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes” (v. 8). Apparently “every person” who was partaking was “doing whatever is right in his own eyes,” something that would require rationality beyond an infant’s ability. In verse 12, every category of persons who partake are called to “rejoice before the LORD,” not just the head of household. They were to “Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God” (v. 28).

The Passover Meal

While paedo-communion advocates will appeal to the Passover as an example of children partaking (see the exposition of their perspective in the previous section), they almost always restrict their exegesis to the Passover mentioned in Exodus 12. When all the Passover passages are interpreted together, it is clear that they support some kind of credocommunion. But even Exodus 12 shows that not all partook.

Mature-communion advocates strongly disagree with the paedo-communion exegesis of Exodus 12, stating that it does not say “every mouth of the household” eats, but rather it says that there was to be the right amount of lamb for “each mouth’s eating” (v. 16). Those are quite different meanings. The purpose of the commandment was to prevent any piece of the sacrament being left over till the next day (v. 10; cf. Deut. 16:4). In any case, the literal Hebrew implies that some mouths would not be eating. Since a newborn infant couldn’t eat lamb, he would not be counted.

Likewise they point to the explicit exclusion of children in the counting in verse 37, which says, “about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children,” or as the NAB translates the Hebrew “six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children.” One literal rendering of לְבַ֥ד מִטָּֽף that is possible is “in isolation from the children.” Gentry claims that if they were not counted, they did not eat since every “mouth” that ate was counted (see previous paragraph). It is certainly deducing more than is warranted from the text⁷³ when he says, “They had just counted so that they had the right number of lambs. And then, when the children of Israel leave Egypt, they know how many men are leaving because they just made the count for the lambs.”⁷⁴

Concerning those men, the text says that “they baked unleavened cakes of dough which they had brought out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves” (v. 39). Their unwarranted conclusion is that only those who did the baking could partake. However, if other passages explicitly include the children (טַף — “little ones”)⁷⁵ in the sacrament, then this too may be an unwarranted conclusion.

We saw that one paedo-communion argument from this passage is that the “congregation” (Qahal — קָהָל) in Joel 2:16 must equal the “whole congregation” in Exodus 12:6, and therefore must include the “nursing infants” of Joel 2:16. Mature-communionists will respond that the word for “congregation” has several meanings, including “assembly…those summoned…the cultic community…council…legal community…multitude”⁷⁶, and only the context can specify who was in it. In Joel 2:16, God specifically mentioned infants since the word קָהָל by itself is not specific enough to necessarily include infants without extra words. There are many passages in the Pentateuch that use the phrase “all the congregation” in a way that explicitly excludes the children. For example, “all the congregation” and the “whole congregation” raised their voices against God and rebelled against Him (Num. 14:1-2). Infants did not. Indeed, God said that “all” this congregation that had gathered against Him would die in the wilderness (Num. 14:35), but verse 29 said that none who were under 20 would die, so obviously those under 20 were excluded from God’s definition of “all the congregation” and “the whole congregation.”⁷⁷ In the same way, Exodus 12 explicitly excludes infants for two reasons: 1) Verse 6 says that “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it [the lamb] at twilight,” and an infant cannot kill a lamb, therefore “congregation” does not include infants in this context. 2) The broader context only admits those who have made a profession of faith to the feast (see below). Furthermore, even paedo-communionists will admit that lepers, the unclean, and menstruating women were explicitly excluded from the Passover, so the term “congregation” here was clearly not as universal as in Joel 2:16. Therefore this usage of the word qahal must have either the definition of “cultic community” or the definition of “those summoned.” They and only they who were able to kill the lamb also partook of the lamb.

Third, mature-communionists often point to Exodus 12:26, where the “children” ask, “What do you mean by this service?” Every other time this Hebrew verbless sentence is used, the speaker is not a participant in what is being pointed to. Thus, mature-communionists conclude that since the children (plural) ask, “What do you mean by this service?” rather than “What do we mean by this service?” that those children were merely observers and that only the adults partook. Though an adult-only conclusion is unwarranted (since it doesn’t say that all children ask this question or that only adults were being asked), the young-credocommunion view can certainly account for both the grammar and the use of “you” by saying that some children did not yet partake and were simply observers.

Fourth, Gentry points to Exodus 12:48 as a strong argument against the children automatically partaking. The text states that if a Gentile wants to partake of the Passover, he must first be converted and receive the sign of that conversion (circumcision) in his flesh, and like all other converts apply the sign of circumcision to all the males in his household (see Genesis 17). Thus far in the text there is nothing controversial — all acknowledge that when a Gentile converts, he and his male children had to be circumcised. The text goes on to say about the second sacrament of Passover, “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” It is not all the circumcised members of the household that came near. Only the converted adult⁷⁸ was allowed to come near to keep the Passover. This shows a distinction between circumcision/baptism, which is applied to all in the household of a convert, and the Lord’s Supper, where only converts (those who have confessed Christ) may partake. The next verse insists that this rule applies to all — “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you” (v. 49). Those two verses taken together indicate strongly that professing believers partook, while the rest of their families watched.

Fifth, mature-communion advocates will argue that it would be impossible for a newborn baby to masticate and safely swallow lamb. As Paul words it, “babes in Christ…are…not able to receive” the “solid food” (1 Cor. 3:1-3) since “solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:12-14). Paul does not deny that babes can be in Christ. In fact he affirms it “babes in Christ”). However, he distinguishes between what such napios children are capable of and what more developed people (τέλειος) are capable of. While mature-communion advocates push the translation of “full age” (τέλειος) beyond the limits of what this chapter and the next chapter will allow (they bar them till age 12, 13, 18, or even 20), the issue of ability and discernment is one that paedo-communionists do not adequately respond to either. Though some paedo-communionists will admit that newborn infants would not be able to eat the lamb, they insist that they had the right to it. Paul’s application of ability to receive solid food to stages in spiritual maturity must be taken into consideration.

The Passover in Numbers 9 indicated that no one unclean could partake of Passover. God made a provision exactly one month later for men who had touched a dead body (vv. 6-11). This provision would not have helped women who missed it because of the menses — with a monthly cycle they would have been unclean at that same time in the next month too. This highlights the fact that men were required to attend Passover (Ex. 34:23), but women and children were excused (Ex. 23:17; cf. 34:23). This should at least temper the arguments of paedo-communionists who insist that children are being harmed if they are not able to partake. If partaking were as critical as some make out, then you would think that God would make a provision for a second Passover to be two weeks later or six weeks later (thus giving time for an unclean woman to partake).

Deuteronomy 16:2 calls participants to “remember” the spiritual significance of the Passover (v. 3) much like the Lord’s Table does in 1 Corinthians 11. Second, it is one of several passages that remove the Passover from the context of the households (where the first Passover took place) and indicate that the permanent Passover had to be celebrated before the tabernacle (and later before the Temple). This tabernacle/temple provision explains why “the Levites had charge of the slaughter of the Passover Lambs” (see 2 Chron. 30:17). As will be explained in more detail in chapter 7, the pastoral role shifted from the patriarch and his elders to the Levite and elders.⁷⁹

At the Passover celebrated in 2 Chronicles 30, active faith, repentance, and obedience were required. God called Israel to “return to the LORD God” (v. 6) and “do not be stiff-necked…serve the LORD” (v. 8). All those who partook of Passover were required to “sanctify themselves” (vv. 17-19), and when Israelites ate without having sanctified themselves to the Lord (vv. 17-18), God brought discipline upon them and made them sick (v. 20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:30-32). Hezekiah prayed for their healing. His prayer for the assembly was indicative of who should partake. He prayed, “May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary” (vv. 18-19). Clearly preparation of heart to seek God was required in order to partake worthily. “And the LORD listened to Hezekiah and healed the people” (v. 20). And lest it be thought that the people who were healed were different than the people who partook, the same word is used throughout. The people (עַם) that the Levites prepared to gather for the feast (vv. 3) were the same “people” (עַם) who “gathered at Jerusalem to keep the Feast” (v. 13), and were the same “people” (עַם) who “had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written” (v. 18), and were the same “people” (עַם) for whom Hezekiah prayed (v. 18), and the same “people” (עַם) whom the Lord healed (v. 20), and were the same “people” (עַם) whose prayer was heard by God and who were blessed (v. 27). The people who partook were people who had abilities to profess their faith (see also next paragraph).

There are other indicators of an active faith — those who kept the feast did so “with great gladness” (v. 21). They were all “taught” by the “Levites” “the good knowledge of the LORD; and they ate throughout the feast seven days, offering peace offerings and making confession to the LORD God of their fathers. And the whole assembly agreed to keep the feast another seven days” and “they kept it another seven days with gladness” (v. 23). “The whole assembly of Judah rejoiced…and their prayer came up to His holy dwelling place, to heaven” (vv. 25-27). All of this speaks of an active receiving of the sacrament by faith by the whole assembly that partook, not a passive being acted upon (as in circumcision). Confession of sins, entering into agreement, rejoicing, and praying were all done by the very ones who partook of the Passover. Since there is no explicit mention of infants partaking in any Passover meal, these numerous references to conditions for worthy partaking must be taken as determinative.

Feast of Firstfruits & general requirements for rejoicing tithe

While paedo-communionists appealed in the previous section to the Feast of Firstfruits to prove that households partook, the passage doesn’t say that every member of those households partook. Mature-communionists apply the same arguments used in the previous two sections, which I will not repeat here. In addition they point out a few things:

Children were not condemned for not eating. Indeed, Exodus 23:14-19 explicitly exempted women from having to come to this feast (v. 17; cf. 34:23). Adult-only advocates will appeal to Exodus 34:23, which says, “Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel” (Ex. 34:23). They insist that only adult males partook of these three feasts. (Paedo-communionists rightly point out that exempting women from the necessity of coming does not mean that they were unwelcome. I would point to this verse to show that God sees no long-term harm coming to these women and children when they were providentially hindered from coming — and being members of a non-paedo-communion church is a providential hindrance. So it is a helpful verse to temper the rhetoric of some that barring children does them irreparable damage.)

Later passages on Firstfruits fill out the picture on this sacramental meal. Deuteronomy 26:3ff insists that a vow be taken by each participant when he offers his rejoicing tithe and firstfruits offering. This is not a vow that can be taken by infants:

“I declare today to the LORD your God that I have come to the country which the LORD swore to our fathers to give us.” Then the priest shall take the basket out of your hand and set it down before the altar of the LORD your God. And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God: “My father was a Syrian, about to perish, and he went down to Egypt and dwelt there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. But the Egyptians mistreated us, afflicted us, and laid hard bondage on us. Then we cried out to the LORD God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and looked on our affliction and our labor and our oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders. He has brought us to this place and has given us this land, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’; and now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land which you, O LORD, have given me.” (Deuteronomy 26:3-10)

While paedo-communionists will say that this is only required of the head of household (v. 11), mature-communionists will say that if verse 11 does not require the vow of others in the household, then it does not require it of “the Levite and the stranger who is among you.” This contradicts the earlier passages that made it clear that “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you” (Ex. 12:49). This paradigm is repeated for the sacrifices and sacramental meals over and over (Ex. 12:19,48-49; Num. 9:14; 15:13-16). While I believe the adult-communionist may be taking this too far,⁸⁰ it is an interesting argument.

Peace offerings at covenant renewal Though mature-communion people don’t deal adequately with the reference to “little ones” at the covenant renewals in Deuteronomy 27-30 (see 29:11) and Joshua 8:30-35, they do point to conditions for partaking worthily of the “peace offerings” in this covenant renewal.

1. God required regeneration.

   He said, “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deut. 30:6).

2. God required faith.

   Throughout these chapters we see God requiring a God-ward awareness (Deut. 27-30) in which the participants actively “return to the LORD your God and obey His voice…you and your children, with all your heart and all your soul” (30:2).

3. God required an ongoing commitment to repentance/holiness.

   In addition to an understanding of the Gospel portrayed in the offerings (27:6-7), God required an understanding of the essence of the law (27:2-3,10), a life of holiness (Deut. 27:1), and an ability to say “Amen!” intelligently to the curses given in the law (27:11-26). Note that it wasn’t just the representatives that said, “Amen!” Several times it mentions, “And all the people shall say ‘Amen!’” (vv. 15-26). So however you define “all the people” (27:1,9,11) that partook of the “peace offerings” (27:6-7), that same “people” were able to understand the curses, receive the curses, and say “Amen!” to the curses. Deuteronomy 28:1-14 gives a long laundry list of blessings that will come upon those who are faithful to the covenant by obeying God’s law (28:1) and chapter 28:15-68 gives an even longer laundry list of curses that will come upon those who are unfaithful to the covenant by disobeying God’s laws (28:15).

4. Oath-taking and other abilities implied.

   Other indications of worthiness for that particular feast included the men, women, and little ones taking an oath (29:11-14), which implies the ability to take an oath. No one was worthy if their “heart turns away” from the Lord (29:18) or if they have “bitterness” (29:18). Inward heart disposition is important:

   …and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, “I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart”— as though the drunkard could be included with the sober. The LORD would not spare him; for then the anger of the LORD and His jealousy would burn against that man. (Deuteronomy 29:19-20)

   Just as unworthy partaking led to sickness in Corinth, God promised that it would lead to “sickness” in Israel (29:22). God expected the revelation of the Scriptures to be understood and kept — all the words of this law (29:29).

The priestly portions of the sacramental meals in 2 Chronicles 31:10-16, and the priestly portions of the wave and heave offerings in Lev. 10:14-15; Num. 18:11,19; etc.

The last category that paedo-communionists bring up is the sacramental meals from the offerings that the lay people could not eat. I have not seen mature-communion books deal with these passages other than to dismiss them as wages for the priests. Paedo-communion advocates will not let these be dismissed so easily since the food is not common food, but “holy” food (Ex. 29:33-34; Lev. 6:16,18,26,29; 7:6; 10:12-13,17-18; 21:22; 22:4,7; Hag. 2:12), or “holy things” that are eaten (Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65; 1 Cor. 9:13), or “holy things which were consecrated to the LORD their God” (2 Chron. 31:6). And as we saw under the paedo-communion arguments, this holy sacramental food was eaten by “males from three years old and up who were written in the genealogy” (v. 16) “all who were written in the genealogy — their little ones and their wives, their sons and daughters — for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). Note the general fulfillment of the conditions to coming to this were met by the three-year-olds as well, indicating that the many conditions placed upon partakers of the priestly sacramental meals were able to be kept by the children who did partake. This is significant, as the passages cited above for holy food and holy things that were eaten are passages that have virtually every condition that mature-communion advocates were able to deduce from the texts. (See exposition of 1 Chronicles 31 in chapter 3.)

How young-credocommunion solves the impasse between paedo-communion and mature-communion

While infant-communionists can explain the many Scriptures that call us to admit “little ones” to the sacrament and while mature-communionists can explain the Scriptures that require active faith on the part of recipients, only the young-credocommunion position can adequately explain both.

This has been a long chapter because there is a large body of “facts” that paedo-communionists believe mature-communionists completely ignore, and there is a large body of facts that mature-communionists believe that paedo-communionists completely ignore. I believe I have demonstrated how both sides of that debate have failed to adequately answer at least some of the “facts” presented above. How do we get past this impasse?

I believe that there are two positions (and only two) that have the ability to resolve this impasse. The PCA’s pure credocommunion position⁸¹ answers virtually every fact presented except the “three-year-old-minimum” issues that were briefly raised. Secondly, my young-credocommunion position with a minimum age of three answers every “fact” presented by both sides. Though I am conscience-bound by the Scriptures that appear to set a minimum age of three, I am certainly open to and can understand the pure credo view that sets no age limit.

Mature-communionists will object that I have not taken seriously Revelation’s declaration that only “the one who overcomes” (Rev. 2:7,17) and “those who do His commandments” (Rev. 22:14) can have “the right” to eat. They insist that it takes more than seed faith to be a nikao (νικάω) overcomer, victor, or person who prevails against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It takes the ability to apply the blood of Christ and to handle His Word (Rev. 12:11). It takes a process of time since this overcoming is compared to Christ’s overcoming — “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21).

However, John does not just apply that word to adults. While he does say, “I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one” (1 John 2:14), he also says, “You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). It is not the strength of our faith, but the strength of the God whom faith embraces that leads to overcoming. Indeed, the faith that flows from a regenerate heart enables overcoming, for “this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God” (1 John 5:4-5). Thus, profession of faith (the credo) is sufficient to meet this qualification.

There is nothing that the paedo-communionist can throw at my position that the mature-communion advocates have not adequately answered above. In contrast to mature-communion, I do admit every category of child that the paedo-communionist has been able to cite Scripture for. We admit entire “households,” where those households meet the conditions established for admittance. We admit “sons,” “daughters,” “children,” orphans (“fatherless”), the “weaned,” “three year olds,” and “little ones” when they meet the conditions of those passages — and many do.

On the other hand, we as elders make sure that all the mature-communion conditions that could not be challenged by Scripture are also met by our children. If the children meet the conditions at age three, they are admitted. If they do not meet the conditions until age 10, they are not admitted till age 10. If they never meet the conditions, they are cut off from the community at age 20. Lest we think the Scriptures are perfectionistic about these conditions, consider the following guidelines:

The presence of minimal faith and repentance in the life of a child

Though I believe the mature-communionists have given adequate proofs that there must be clear evidence of faith in the Gospel and repentance over sin, this does not in any way rule out very young children having such faith. Deuteronomy 29:10ff makes it clear that even “your little ones and your wives — also the stranger who is in your camp” (v. 11) were required to “enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath” (v. 12). While an infant cannot take an oath, a believing child can. But to those who consider faith and repentance non-essential to partaking, consider the following passages that require faith for all:

• “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart — these O God, You will not despise…Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of the righteous, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar” (Psalm 51:17-19). (Remember that the communion meal was always the second part of these sacrifices. Christ is the final sacrifice, so there are no more sacrifices, but the fellowship meals continue.)
• “But on this one I will look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isa. 66:2 — the context is the rejection of the sacrament of those who fail to do so [vs. 3-4]).
• Hezekiah prayed for people diseased because they were partaking without being cleansed in the first Passover celebration, and they were healed. In the course of praying he mentions who came to the meal — “everyone who prepares his heart to seek God” (2 Chron. 30:18b-19a). Note the “everyone.” This would include children who are able to prepare their hearts to seek God. Seeking God is a synonym for faith.
• In the next sacramental celebration (2 Chronicles 31), it says “because in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness.” Faithfulness requires faith/repentance. So does setting themselves apart to the Lord.
• “The poor shall eat and be satisfied” (Psalm 22:26 — the eating in context is to “eat and worship” v. 29). To be poor in spirit implies an abandonment to God and His Gospel alone.
• “I will wash my hands in innocence; so I will go about Your altar, O LORD” (Psalm 26:6).
• The passage that the New Testament repeatedly bases the Lord’s Supper upon is Jeremiah 31. This passage reproves the widespread unbelief in the broken Old Covenant and points to a prophetic day when the New Covenant people will keep God’s desires because “all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Entrance into this New Covenant supper appears to require knowing the Lord and seeking forgiveness. Notice that it says “all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” The “least of them” refers to the “little ones” and the “young” who partook of the Lord’s Supper in the Old Testament. All of them had faith. There are none without faith who partake.⁸²
• Thus Revelation 3:20 says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” To hear Christ’s voice and open is a synonym for faith. He dines with only such. Here was a church that Christ had left because of the pervasiveness of carnality. Christ was outside the church. He wasn’t communing with anyone. He now says that anyone who lays hold of Him by faith will be able to dine with Him in communion. Clearly hearing and opening the door were pre-requisites to dining.
• Likewise Hebrews 11 sums up the Old Testament requirements when it says, “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (v. 6).

Clarification

Does God require strong faith? No. Repeatedly he told the disciples that they had “little faith” (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; etc.), yet he admitted them to the sacramental meal. Christ’s measure of faith is not some miracle worker or some amazing theologian. He tells us, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me” (Matt. 18:3-5). The disciples did not have a clear understanding of what Christ meant in John 6 when He told them they could have no life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood. He accepted them nonetheless because they confessed in that chapter a simple faith “we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Parker, in his classic book on Calvin summarized Calvin’s teaching on this, saying:

The medieval teaching on confession demanded a puritanical standard impossible of attainment, with worthy reception of the Holy Communion dependent on ethical purity and an adequate contrition and confession. We come worthily to the Lord’s Supper when we offer God our unworthiness that he may forgive us and thus make us worthy by his mercy. We should not even ask about the quality of our repentance, faith, and love. Only their existence is relevant.⁸³

Understanding/ability to learn the basics of the Gospel

This second condition logically comes after the first one because it is “by faith we understand” (Heb. 11:3). Understanding the meaning of the Lord’s Table (Ex. 12:26-27; 1 Cor. 10-11) and even understanding propriety at the table (1 Cor. 11:1-16;⁸⁴ 17-22) is important for us to be able to benefit from the supper. Westminster Larger Catechism 173 says that those who are “ignorant…ought to be kept from the sacrament…until they receive instruction.” I believe that the mature-communion position goes too far when it requires a much higher age, memorization of the catechism, or a high degree of knowledge. It is clear that the Larger Catechism does not call for a mature understanding of the faith since “one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation” and one who is a “weak and doubting Christian” may partake of the Lord’s Supper if there is a desire to cleave to Christ (WLC 174). It is ignorance of the simplicity of the Gospel that bars from the Table.

Are young children capable of this? Yes. Paedo-communionists doubt that the “little ones” could meet such conditions. However, the “little ones” admitted to the feast in Nehemiah 8 were “all who could hear with understanding” (Neh. 8:2) and “those who could understand” (Neh. 8:3). Without understanding there can be no benefit from the Gospel being preached in the sacrament. Hosea 6:6 says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Deuteronomy 1:39 explicitly indicates that there were taph children who had “no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut. 1:39). So, though some taph children did have such knowledge (see 2 Chron. 31:18), those who did not have had the requisite understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Table or the Gospel to benefit. This does not mean that God does not accept them and protect them. He does so by baptizing them into the covenant, by assigning angels to them (Matt. 18:10), and giving them several other benefits (see below).

As these toddlers grow up seeing the Lord’s Table calling them to embrace the Christ (1 Cor. 11:26), it creates a hunger in the child and stirs up the faith that can bring them to the feast. It appears to be precisely this purpose that is spoken of in Exodus 12:26-27 when a non-participating child⁸⁵ of the home asks, “What do you mean by this service?” and the father gives instruction (see also Exodus 13:8,14-15). Unless he understands the significance of the sacrament, he should not participate.

Clarification

Does God require great knowledge? No. Christ called His twelve apostles “foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe” (Luke 24:25). He rebuked their lack of understanding (Matt. 16:9) and lamented that they were “without understanding” and did “not perceive” what should have been perceived (Mark 7:18). John observed that “His disciples did not understand these things at first” (John 12:16) and they themselves admitted, “We do not know what He is talking about” (John 16:18). Yet Jesus admitted His apostles to the table because they were able to understand the basics of the Gospel and they clung to Him in their weakness. They didn’t understand what He meant when He told them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood (do you?). Christ accepted them to the Lord’s table because they had a basic understanding of their salvation. In the same chapter (John 6) they said:

Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69)

It is clear that the degree of knowledge required by some mature-communionists is not required by the Bible. You cannot extrapolate years of catechism from Exodus 12:26-27. As has already been mentioned in the last footnote, you can extrapolate that the child could not partake because the child did not understand the significance of the sacrament yet.

As another example, though Samuel was exceedingly young at three years of age (1 Sam. 1:22-28) he partook of a communion meal. He had enough understanding that the text could say that he immediately “served the LORD before Eli the priest” (1 Sam. 2:11; cf. v. 18). His knowledge of the Lord may have been simple, but it contrasted with the sons of Eli “who were corrupt; they did not know the LORD” (2:12). They may have known a great deal more theology than Samuel did, but they did not know the Lord. It is a personal knowledge of the Gospel and of the Lord that we look for in children, not a formal knowledge of all kinds of doctrine. It is very unlikely that the three-year olds who partook of the feast in 2 Chronicles 31:16-15 had an extensive knowledge of doctrine. It is obvious that they knew something “for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18b).

An ongoing lifestyle of self-examination, repentance, and obedience toward God

The third major condition that the mature-communionists have clearly articulated in the section above is an ongoing lifestyle of repentance and obedience that gives evidence of a regenerate heart that follows God. Psalm 21:3 says, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more when he brings it with a wicked mind?” Isaiah 1 expresses God’s rejection of and disgust with the worship and the communion meals of those who refused to put evil away from their lives. “Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil” (Isa. 1:14,16-17; see whole context). The sacramental eating of Isaiah 66:2 was acceptable to God when the following condition was met: “But on this one I will look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isa. 66:2). Verses 3-4 rejected the sacrament of those who were unholy. See also such passages as Isaiah 1:10-20; Amos 5:18-27; Jer. 7:1-29; Micah 6:6-8; Zech. 7:5-7; Mal. 1:6-14; 2:13-17, and the many conditions that were laid out in the exposition by the mature-communionists above.

Clarifications

What kind of self-examination does God require? How holy does He expect us to become? He wants us to confess all known sin and to confess that we are weak on our own. As He told His disciples, “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Against the Roman Catholics whose doctrine of “self-examination” led them to finally admit only priests to the sacrament, Calvin insisted that we subvert the meaning of grace pictured in the Lord’s Supper if we make the quality of faith/repentance and self-examination the issue. The quote on Calvin’s theology that was given above, is also relevant to this issue, and warrants being repeated:

The medieval teaching on confession demanded a puritanical standard impossible of attainment, with worthy reception of the Holy Communion dependent on ethical purity and an adequate contrition and confession. We come worthily to the Lord’s Supper when we offer God our unworthiness that he may forgive us and thus make us worthy by his mercy. We should not even ask about the quality of our repentance, faith, and love. Only their existence is relevant.⁸⁶

Samuel is a good example of this. He didn’t have his full act together when he partook of communion in 1 Samuel 1 at the age of 3: “Samuel grew in stature, and in favor both with the LORD and men” (1 Sam. 2:26). We may not favor everything children do when they first partake, but we should ask, “Is there growth?” Without self-examination & repentance (all of which shows a desire to grow in holiness), there can be no growth in favor with God and man. This requirement is what the Old Testament repeatedly referred to when it called upon people to “sanctify themselves to the Lord in holiness.” 2 Chronicles 31:16 mentions that at least some three year olds partook of sacramental meals, but verse 18 clarifies by saying, “their little ones and their wives, their sons and daughters, the whole company of them — for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness.” The implication of the “for” (כִּ֥י = “because”) is that if this faithful sanctification in holiness had not been present, the three year olds would not have been able to participate.

Are we robbing our children of their covenantal heritage?

Elders should work diligently to see children come to faith. We should not presume that children have all the benefits of the covenant at birth and that there is nothing more for them to embrace by faith. Paedo-communionists disagree. Tim Gallant says:

Those who are baptized into Christ possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges (Gal. 3:26-29).⁸⁷

He claims that if we bar them from any covenantal privilege, we are robbing them of their heritage. Indeed, many go further and claim that for the credo-communionist position to be true, baptism accomplishes nothing. It confers zero privileges upon a child. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Privileges that are possessed by all baptized children

We do not presume regeneration, faith, or election in order to baptize our children. (See chapter 5, which deals with paedo-communion presuppositions.) There are several benefits that our children have before they come to communion.

The moment one adult comes to Christ and is baptized, his whole family is set apart for the working of God’s Spirit and His holy angels (see “sanctified”, “holy” in 1 Cor. 7:14). This does not mean that the family is regenerated. Indeed, verse 16 denies that “holy” has this meaning in the case of the unbelieving spouse. Instead, being “set apart” or “holy” gives hope that “you will save your husband…[or] save your wife” (v. 16). God’s kingdom has invaded that family and there are instant protections that the family begins to enjoy.

The first benefit is that the child receives ceremonial cleansing through baptism (v. 14): “otherwise your children would be unclean” (1 Cor. 7:14). The word for clean and unclean is a synonym for baptized or unbaptized.⁸⁸ The unbelieving adult is still unclean, even though he is set apart, but the child is both set apart and clean. Just as baptism took Cornelius from a symbolically unclean to a clean status, baptism takes this baby from a symbolically unclean to a clean status. This makes the child able to join in the singing of the corporate worship service (Ps. 8:2; Matt. 21:16) without that worship being rejected as an abomination (Prov. 15:8; 21:27).

Another benefit is that since God’s kingdom has invaded that family, good angels have also invaded that family to protect it. Every covenant child has at least one angel. Jesus said, “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matt. 18:10-11). Notice that just as there is a salvific purpose for being set apart in 1 Corinthians 7:14-16, there is a salvific purpose for the angels assigned to these little ones. He doesn’t assume they are saved yet, but they are set apart for the kingdom to be at work in their lives, and that kingdom includes angels. Having angels is a huge benefit children receive prior to communion.

Christ cares for the lambs even before they are mature enough to eat “grass.” “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young” (Isa. 40:11). Are lambs starved before they can eat grass? No, they have milk. Covenant children benefit from the singing, prayers, and Word preached every Sunday even before they partake of the meat of communion.

My book on baptism⁸⁹ shows many other benefits that children have long before they come to the Lord’s Table. They are not robbed of covenant blessings. They are richly endowed.

Ten covenant privileges that infants do not yet have

Though God has His hand upon our children from the womb,⁹⁰ He intends for children to gradually be ushered into other covenant privileges. Circumcision had to wait until the eighth day (Gen. 17). Partaking of the priestly holy food had to wait until “three years old and up” (1 Chron. 31:16). Service was expected at the age of five, and that is why the Levitical valuation went up at five.⁹¹ Voting was restricted to males who were at least twenty years old. It too was a privilege of the covenant, but there was a wait for that privilege.⁹² Marriage is a covenant privilege, but it too had requirements of age, finances, etc. Internship for the office of deacon began at age 20⁹³ while the office itself could not be entered until age 25.⁹⁴ People could not enter the office of elder until age 30.⁹⁵ Special privileges came at the age of 60, especially retirement from heavy lifting, though not retirement from work.⁹⁶ There was special covenantal honor accorded the gray-headed.⁹⁷ So it is simply fallacious for Gallant to say that infants “possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges.”

Scripture recognizes a difference between being an heir and being a son.

Indeed, the very Scripture that Gallant cites completely overturns his theory. It says that “an heir, as long as he is a child (νήπιος) does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards” (Gal. 4:1-2). A napios child is defined as “a small child above the age of a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years of age.”⁹⁸ Paul says that this child does not have all the covenant privileges at that age. Galatians 4:1-2 contradicts Gallant’s bold assertion that “Those who are baptized into Christ possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges (Gal. 3:26-29).” While there are many privileges that slaves and children were ushered into under Abraham (see list of some benefits above), until they embraced their sonship by faith in Christ, they could not claim the communion of sonship. According to Paul, communion is a covenant ceremony and not a family meal (1 Cor. 11:20-22). This means that it is inappropriate to use the analogy of a family meal to dictate the participants in a church covenant ceremony.

Paul’s whole discussion in Galatians 3:26-4:7 shows the importance of faith in Christ. It is faith alone that ushers Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, females into sonship (3:26). Once they are sons of God, they are also “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (3:29). As heirs of the covenant, they receive the sign of an “heir,” namely, baptism (3:27). It is not just the believing adults who are heirs. Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, the children of those believers are also heirs (Gal. 4:1). This means that the children of those believing converts are in the covenant and receive baptism. All heirs receive baptism.

Notice that being a baptized heir does not usher that child into all his covenant privileges. While Galatians 4:1-7 speaks of tutors, stewards, and guardians who urge the children to embrace Christ, it recognizes a step that must be taken before they can be treated as sons. Until a child consciously embraces sonship by faith, he should be treated as an heir with the status of a slave, for “an heir, as long as he is a child (νήπιος) does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards” (Gal. 4:1-2). Under Abraham, all slaves were circumcised and added to the covenant, whether they embraced the faith or not (Gen. 17:23-27). But they did not partake of the covenant meal until they made profession of faith.⁹⁹

This does not in any way demean that child’s covenantal status. That the parents are spoken of as guardians and stewards (Gal. 4:2) shows that the child belongs to God. The child is a stewardship trust and is in God’s kingdom. This means that though the child is barred from certain privileges, he is not barred from the covenant or the covenantal privileges that were listed above. The hearing of the law is actually another privilege that Paul listed for circumcision (Rom. 3:1-4), and by implication it is a privilege that our baptized children have. What is the purpose of the law? The law is a tutor/guardian to bring us to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:22-25). Once that child professes Christ, he is no longer treated as having the same status as a slave (Gal. 4:1), but has the privileges of sonship (Gal. 4:2-7), one of which is the Lord’s Table.

This is the pattern beautifully displayed in Isaiah 44:1-5 which speaks of God’s gradual moving of our children from heirs to sons (the same pattern of Galatians 3:26-4:7). Isaiah 44 speaks of: - Election (v. 1) - Formation of the child in the womb (v. 2) - Baptism with water and the Spirit (v. 3a) - Growing up and maturing (v. 4) - Then taking a personal stand for the covenant orally and in writing (v. 5)

Elders should seek to move children to embrace the Gospel

It is rare to find covenant children in our church who have not been attracted to the Gospel like a magnet after watching others enjoying the benefits of the Gospel. Watching others partaking when they themselves are not partaking is a wonderful call for our children to personally embrace the Gospel. That is the most natural outcome of a sacrament whose goal is to “proclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Cor. 11:26).

If parents have not been taking their stewardship role seriously (Gal. 4:2) and have not been drawing the hearts of their children to the Gospel (Gal. 4:1-7), the elders can encourage them in that role. Indeed, elders should frequently be talking with the children and the parents to see what progress has been made. Often it is the parents who recognize a child’s faith the earliest, and they can help the elders to know that a child is ready. One of John the Baptist’s roles was to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children in order “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). There are many implications from Num. 30, Deut. 21:18-21, Josh. 4:21-24, Ezek. 34, and 2 John that would call for elders to communicate well with the parents in examining the spiritual state of the children. The sacrament itself preaches Christ to all who witness it (1 Cor. 11:26).

What happens when covenant children never profess faith?

All covenant members who become adults (defined by Scripture as 20 years old and above¹⁰⁰, whether male or female¹⁰¹), should embrace the covenant with reaffirmation of their faith and their commitment to their adult responsibilities via vows. Sometimes such vows were signed on paper¹⁰² but certainly all adults needed to covenant with the church¹⁰³ in a public way¹⁰⁴ under the oversight of the elders.¹⁰⁵ If such profession of faith has not taken place within one year of their twentieth birthday,¹⁰⁶ after admonition from the elders for failing to bear fruit, such a person should be removed from the rolls as an act of discipline no later than their 21st birthday.¹⁰⁷ Every effort should be made to convince such covenant members of the importance of maintaining their membership and of entering into the adult privileges of those who are covenanted, and should be warned of the dangers of being cut off from the covenant.¹⁰⁸

The next chapter will examine the Hebrew terms for every stage of a child’s life. This will give more granularity to the discussion of which children may partake. The goal of this chapter was simply to show that neither paedo-communion nor mature-communion meets all the “facts” that either side presents. It takes young-credocommunion to do that.

3. Allowing the Bible to Define Its Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis 21:8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Samuel 1

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

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

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

2 Chronicles 31

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 28:7-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first feast after the Egyptian Passover

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

Deuteronomy 27-29 & Joshua 8

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

2 Chronicles 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus 10

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

Exodus 24

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

1 Samuel 2

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

1 Samuel 21; etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Regulative Principle of Worship Violated

It may seem strange that I would consider the Regulative Principle of Worship to be a presupposition that can help to settle this question. After all, there are people from all three basic camps that affirm their belief in the Regulative Principle of Worship. However, there are two reasons why this chapter is critical.

First, it is my opinion that most modern versions of the Regulative Principle of Worship are not Biblically defined or consistent. The first part of this chapter will show that the Bible is much more granular in its specification of what is allowable in worship than most modern Reformed people realize. The second part of the chapter will seek to show various ways in which both paedo-communionists and mature communionists have unwittingly violated the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Second, most of us tend to have blindspots. I only came to recognize my blindspots with regard to the subject matter of this book when I was challenged to prove the granularity of my views. I had already begun to recognize other blindspots through similar challenges to my other prejudices. For example, I was asked why I would be uncomfortable with lifting hands in prayer and praise when we are explicitly commanded to do so — “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless the LORD” (Ps. 134:2); “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands” (1 Tim. 2:8); etc? Why was I uncomfortable with kneeling in prayer when we are explicitly commanded to do so — “O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD our Maker” (Ps. 95:6)? Why was I uncomfortable with a loud “Amen!” from the congregation, when we are explicitly commanded to give such an “Amen!” — “And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen!’” (Deut. 27:15-26); “Let all the people say, ‘Amen!’” (Ps. 106:48); etc? After repenting of being regulated by something other than Scripture on these issues, I became much more conscious of other ways in which my practice was violating the Regulative Principle of Worship.

It is for this reason that I believe that one of the core presuppositions that must be settled before we can make progress in this debate is the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is not enough to ask, “Where does Scripture forbid infants from partaking?” We must instead ask, “Where in Scripture does the Bible explicitly authorize infants to partake?” Given all the conditions for worthy partaking that all sides agree are given in connection with communion, we would expect God to give an explicit exception for infants, who are not capable of fulfilling those conditions. Instead we have found examples of infants and toddlers being explicitly excluded. Chapters 2-3 have demonstrated that there is no explicit reference to infants partaking of the Passover Lamb, and there are many indications that faith, obedience, and minimal understanding were required prior to partaking. It is the Reformed perspective that every detail of our worship must be explicitly authorized in Scripture. At the time of the Reformation, this was a major difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches that continues to this day.¹³²

Definition of the Regulative Principle of Worship

An even broader principle that was held to by the Puritans was that everything in the government of the church must be explicitly authorized by the Bible. This was known as Divine Right Presbyterianism. The Regulative Principle of Worship was a necessary subset of the broader principle of the Regulative Principle of Government¹³³ which can be briefly summarized as follows: Christ as the King and only Lawgiver,¹³⁴ has given to His Church a system of government, discipline, and worship that is complete.¹³⁵ This historic jus divinum¹³⁶ principle of ecclesiology requires that all laws,¹³⁷ methods,¹³⁸ and goals¹³⁹ of church government, discipline, and worship must be either expressly set down in Scripture¹⁴⁰ or be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence,¹⁴¹ with nothing being added¹⁴² or taken away¹⁴³ by mere human authority.¹⁴⁴

Sometimes people will disregard the Regulative Principle of Worship with respect to what they call “circumstantial issues.” However, the Westminister Confession of faith is quite clear that all circumstantial matters must still be ordered “according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”¹⁴⁵ What is meant by that phrase? It means first of all that no circumstance of the church’s worship and government is unaddressed by the Scriptures in some fashion. Without this, we would not have divine right Presbyterianism.

Secondly, it means that where Scripture gives two or more options, it leaves the decision up to the sanctified judgment of the church’s leaders. That is not a liberty independent of Scripture but a liberty given by Scripture and defined by Scripture. For example, since there are numerous passages of Scripture that show worship in the open air as well as worship within the shelter of a building, the Scottish reformers were perfectly justified in leaving the official church buildings in times of persecution and worshiping in rainy mountain recesses away from threatening soldiers. The early church was certainly justified in worshiping in the catacombs. No one could complain that the worship was illegitimate since it did not occur within a “church building.” God had authorized worship inside and outside of buildings, and thus there was a liberty of choice that was left up to the sanctified wisdom of the church leaders.

Likewise, since Scripture gives liberty to preach while standing on a stage (Neh. 8:5; 9:3; 2 Chron. 24:2) or to preach while sitting on a chair (Luke 4:20-24), it is the Scripture itself that has authorized leaders of the church to make that decision based upon “the light of nature, and Christian prudence.” The fact that the Bible did not dictate one or the other posture does not mean that the Scripture did not address it or authorize it. It explicitly gave liberty to do either.

Likewise, if the Scripture gives liberty to have the congregation stand while listening to a sermon (Lev. 9:5; Neh. 9:5) or to sit when doing so (Deut. 33:3; Ezek. 33:31), we should not conclude that Scripture has failed to speak to the subject. Scripture has given the church a liberty of choice that others may not take away without violating the Regulative Principle of Worship.¹⁴⁶ Those Scriptures allow us to make a decision within the general boundaries of propriety and expedience.

Likewise, when Scripture gives several different orders of worship (all of which contain the same elements of worship),¹⁴⁷ then we have liberty to pick one of those orders of worship (or to use each of those Scriptural orders at different times).

Scripture addresses even the tiniest technical details of the church – like a working sound system,¹⁴⁸ instruments being in tune,¹⁴⁹ and whether it is legitimate to put words on the wall for the whole congregation to read responsively.¹⁵⁰ Some people mock the regulative principle of government by saying that the Bible does not authorize electric lights or air conditioning, but I believe to the contrary that it does indeed address such subjects through its general principles.¹⁵¹

Even the circumstances of church worship and government (such as administrative details that help us to do things decently, in order, and for edification)¹⁵² are governed by the general rules of Scripture and must not go to the right hand or to the left hand of the liberties given in Scripture.

Thus, this portion of the Confession makes it clear that there is nothing that the church may do (circumstances included) which is not regulated by the general principles of the Word. What the divines had in mind was that when Scripture gives flexibility on an issue, we are not authorized to go the right or to the left of the liberties given, but within those Scriptural bounds (“the general rules of the Word”), leaders can make their choices according to “the light of nature, and Christian prudence.” The historic Presbyterian position is that “the only voice that should be heard in the church is the voice of God speaking through the Scriptures.”¹⁵³

How this impacts the debate on communion

It is my contention that both the paedo-communion and mature-communion positions unwittingly violate the Regulative Principle of Worship. They do so by 1) adding things to the Word that are not explicitly there, 2) taking away things that are explicitly there, 3) and making assumptions that are not “good and necessary consequences” of the Scriptures they appeal to. Obviously this section will be subject to debate, but if we take the Regulative Principle of Worship seriously when it says that we may not “add to” or “take away” anything from worship that God has not explicitly authorized (Deut. 12:31-32), then this is a serious accusation that needs to be carefully evaluated. We have already seen in chapter 2 that mature-communionists “take away” the “little ones” from the table, and that paedo-communionists “take away” the numerous conditions to worthy partaking and make them inapplicable to children. In addition, both groups will occasionally appeal to the Talmud or other extrabiblical sources to prove their points — something that violates Paul’s dictum “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” in the Bible (1 Cor. 4:6).

How logic is being misused and does not constitute “good and necessary consequence”

We will see that the Puritans believed that logic (what they call “good and necessary consequence”) is a Scriptural issue and is integrally bound up with the Regulative Principle of Worship. Since both sides seem to believe that they have logic on their side to justify failing to apply the “body of facts” that the other side throws at them, it will be important for us to discuss the issue of logic. For example, since mature-communionists are so convinced that young children cannot meet the conditions laid out concerning the sacramental meals, they feel duty-bound to come up with an answer as to why children never partook or no longer partake. Since paedo-communionists are absolutely (and rightly) convinced that young children did partake of the sacramental meals, and since they extrapolate that infants must have also partaken, they have to come up with an explanation of why infants are not subject to the conditions that are clearly connected to all the covenant meals. Both sides believe that their conclusions are logically necessary.

True logic (as opposed to assumptions, or a sense of what is going on) must be rigorous to match up to the Confessions’ biblical requirement that it it be “good and necessary consequence” (WCF 1:6). Our Confessional writers insisted on the importance of logic in discovering the whole counsel of God.¹⁵⁴ They also insisted that rationality was an ethical issue. For example, the Larger Catechism sees as a violation of the third commandment not only faulty exegesis (“misinterpreting” Scripture), but also faulty deductions (such as “misapplying” Scripture¹⁵⁵ and theology).¹⁵⁶ The Confession treats as a violation of the first commandment the following: “ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions…vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, [and] misbelief.”¹⁵⁷ In other words, these writers saw any form of irrationality as both a theological problem and an ethical problem. The irrationality may be deliberate rebellion or may be the secondary affects of Adam’s fall (noetic affects of the Fall). It is clear that the Westminster Assembly believed that irrationality led to having other gods than the rational Jehovah (first commandment) and that irrationality led to inconsistencies with wearing the name of God as His followers (third commandment). I say all of this to emphasize that to meet the Westminster Standards’ definition of the Regulative Principle of Worship, a logical conclusion for any of the fourteen positions on communion (my own included) must meet the rules of formal logic.

Sometimes both sides have numerous “assumptions” that form the basis for later argumentation. These assumptions are just that. For example, paedo-communionists sometimes assume that “if children asked about the meaning of Passover, then it seems as if they were participating,”¹⁵⁸ while mature-communionists sometimes assume “if they had to ask about the meaning, it appears that they were not yet eating” or “it appears that they were being catechized.”¹⁵⁹ These are assumptions, not explicit authorizations from Scripture. The Regulative Principle of Worship requires explicit permission from the Bible.

Paedo-communion violates the Regulative Principle of Worship

Paedo-communion adds to God’s Word

How does paedo-communion “add” to the Word of God? It does so by insisting that infants partook. We saw in chapter 3 that there is not a single verse that shows yeled (newborns), yonek (first year), or olel (nursing along with some solids) children partaking of the sacramental meals of either the Old Testament or the New Testament; yet many paedo-communionists insist that all three categories of childhood had the right to participate. Because there are no explicit references, paedo-communionists rely on logical deductions or inferences. If these arguments constituted “good and necessary consequence,” then we should all be paedo-communionists. Credo-communionists believe that all of their deductions either fail on the “good” side or the “necessary” side of rigorous logic.

For example, in chapter 1 of Tim Gallant’s book, Feed My Lambs, we see the following statement:

The table of the Lord belongs to the family of the Lord. The family of the Lord includes believers and their children…To His table then, is where our children ought to come, and He will receive them.¹⁶⁰

When broken down into syllogistic format, the argument seems to be:
- Premise 1 — The table of the Lord belongs to the family of the Lord.
- Premise 2 — The family of the Lord includes believers and their children.
- Conclusion — Therefore, all of our children are welcomed (“He will receive them”) and commanded (“ought to come”) to eat at His family table.

Why is the conclusion not an example of “good and necessary consequence”? For at least three reasons: 1. The fallacy of deriving “ought” from “is.” 2. The fallacy of failing to distinguish (as Galatians 4:1-7 does) between possessing a privilege as an “heir” and having the right to exercise that privilege at a “time appointed by the father” (v. 2ff.). 3. A definitional ambiguity in the terms “children” and “family.” I will expand on each of these problems in the argument.

First, premises 1 and 2 are statements of fact (not moral imperatives) whereas the conclusion inserts an “ought to come,” which implies an ethical command. This fallacy is sometimes called the “is-ought problem” and other times is labeled the “fact-value” fallacy. Claims of what ought to be (commands, values, imperatives, ethics) cannot be proven from statements about what is. Another way of wording it is that there is a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be). This is precisely the issue that I have with paedo-communion — there is no explicit command to include infants that could potentially justify ignoring the numerous preconditions to partaking. While paedo-communionist appeals to the Biblical commands for “sons,” “daughters,” and “children” to partake are cogent arguments against adult-communion, they are not cogent arguments for paedo-communion. Our young-credo-communion position admits sons, daughters, children, and “little ones” (the taph children) if (and only if) they are able to meet the conditions for worthy participation. Nowhere are infants (who cannot keep the conditions) invited, commanded, or even exemplified as partaking of communion.

Second, this argument assumes what it needs to prove — that the possession of privileges (being an heir) is the same as the exercising of privileges (achieving qualifications). Not to beat a dead horse, but Galatians 4:1 asserts that a napios child is an “heir” to all the promises and “is master of all.” Until certain qualifications are met (including “time” qualifications — see v. 2), he “does not differ at all from a slave…but is under guardians and stewards” (vv. 1-2). Hebrews 11 asserts that even the adult heroes of the faith were possessors of certain promises by way of being heirs, “but did not receive the promise” in a way that they could exercise the privilege (vv. 38-39). The bottom line is that Gallant’s argument does not distinguish between being heirs and exercising every privilege in the covenant. Since God set qualifications for worthy participation, having a mouth that can eat is not sufficient. A toddler’s mouth no more qualifies him for the Lord’s Table than sexual organs qualifies him for marriage. There are spiritual qualifications that all participants must meet. This book has demonstrated that every category of child that the Bible authorized to partake was able to meet those conditions.

Third, there are definitional ambiguities in this argument. I have already dealt with the fact that the term “children” has a wide range of meaning. While Gallant’s argument certainly overturns the adult-communion position, he needs to give some granularity of definition to the term “children.” Which children does God admit to the feast? Chapter 3 demonstrated those categories with precision.

There is also ambiguity in the meaning of the term “family.” In Gallant’s book Feed My Lambs, he moves between two definitions of the word “family” when he calls it a “family meal.” After stating the above argument (p. 26), Gallant repeatedly concludes that all in our families are in God’s family, and that any apostasy of a child would be an anomaly. The meaning of “our families” (descendants of a literal father) and God’s family (adoptees of the heavenly Father) are quite different terms. What needs to be proved (and not assumed) is either that 1) there is no distinction between the visible and invisible church or 2) that all in the visible church are indeed in God’s family. He tries to prove something along the lines of the second point by appealing to Jeremiah 31:31-34 (see p. 26ff.), where God says about the New Covenant that “all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them (Jer. 31:34). Then he qualifies the “all shall know me” by saying that “it will no longer be normal” for our children to apostatize, but “all” is not the same as “most.” If Jeremiah is referring to the visible church, then he must be referring to some time in history when 100% of people will be saved (obviously still future to us). If Jeremiah is referring to the invisible church, then we cannot logically conclude something about the visible church. It is not talking about assumptions. It is giving an ironclad guarantee that “all shall know me.”

Both the Hebrew and the Greek words for “family” refer to a grouping of people who have a shared father. Of the 321 occurrences of the word “family,” all but one have the literal meaning of a genetically related nuclear, extended, or tribal family. The one passage that uses the term metaphorically is Ephesians 3:14-15, which says, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” Paul’s argument in Ephesians about being in God’s family does not relate to the visible church (a church that contains tares and wheat; non-elect and elect; Isaacs and Ishmaels). Instead, Paul clearly points to the invisible church of the elect. He says that God has “predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5). Though we are not genetically related sons, we are adopted sons. This adoption is based on being “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3; cf. 1:4,6-7,10-11,13,15,20; etc.). Those (and only those) who are savingly united to Jesus have His Father as their Father and His family as their family. To all others in the visible church, Jesus will say, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23). Jesus will not say, “I knew you once as brothers, but now you are kicked out of the family.” No. He said, “I never knew you.” Those who go out of the visible church “were not of us” in the first place (see 1 John 2:19). Therefore all “our children” is not necessarily identical with all “His family” — at least in the way that Ephesians uses the term “family.” The syllogism (and especially Gallant’s conclusions from that argument in pages 26ff.) seem to use these terms interchangeably. For the sake of the argument, let’s concede this point and assume that the visible church is indeed God’s family. Does that settle the ambiguities in the argument? No.

Even with this concession, his first premise (“The table of the Lord belongs to the family of the Lord”) is still assuming what it needs to prove — that the Scripture explicitly makes the Lord’s Table “a family meal” to which “all in the family” may come — something that is not obvious to me or other credo-communionists. Given that the word “family” is only used of the church in Ephesians 3:14-15, I fail to see the connection. Gallant tries to make a connection with a number of verses on pages 26-42, but none of them show that God’s claims upon our children usher them into all the privileges of the covenant. Galatians 4:1-2 denies that napios heirs have the full privileges that adopted sons (vv. 5-7) have. The natural carnal sons do not have the same privileges as the spiritual sons (1 Cor. 2:11-3:4). In 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul explicitly excludes napios children from being able to eat the βρῶμα (translated “solid food” in 1 Cor. 3:2) that the professing “fathers” ate in 1 Corinthians 10:3 (βρῶμα is there translated as “food”). Just as lambs don’t automatically eat grass in the shepherd’s pasture, certain children don’t eat the Lord’s Table.

I want to comment further on Gallant’s frequent use of the phrase, “a family meal.” Is the essence of the meal inclusion of the whole family? If that was the case, then Moses violated the spirit of the sacramental meal when he celebrated the sacramental meal with Jethro and the elders alone in Exodus 18.¹⁶¹ The context indicates that others watched, but only the elders ate. Like the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:6), it was a covenantal testimony, not a family meal. I do not deny that others (including children) ate on other occasions, but they too ate as a covenantal testimony. It takes only one example of a non-family sacramental meal to show the falsity of Gallant’s arguments related to it being essentially a family meal, and there are others: Exodus 24 shows an example where only the nobles ate with God while everyone else watched.¹⁶² Christ established the Lord’s Table only with His apostles and Him alone.¹⁶³ This means that their wives and children were not present. This would be impossible if the essence of this meal was that it was a family meal. There is much more going on in the feast than what is assumed in the first two premises.

I won’t take the time to expose all of Gallant’s logical fallacies, but here are two more examples to alert the reader that the Regulative Principle of Worship requires “necessary consequence” to define any aspect of worship. In the same chapter, Gallant says:

“Let the children come to Me,” Christ says. And where is He that they are to come to Him? He promises us that He is at His table, awaiting us. To His table, then, is where our children are to come, and He will receive them. For His kingdom, and therefore the feast of that kingdom, are for such as these.¹⁶⁴

His logic seems to be:
- Premise one — Christ commands children to come to Him.
- Premise two — Christ is waiting for them at His table.
- Conclusion — We disobey Christ (and are keeping children from Christ) when we keep children from the table.

Even our discussion of his previous argument is enough to show that there is something wrong with his logic. We need to ask, “Is coming to the table the only way that children can come to Christ?” No. The very verses Gallant cites (Matt. 19:13-14) have no sacramental meal in them at all. Obviously Jesus thought children could come to Him without coming to a meal. What are some ways they can come to Him? They come to Him in baptism. They come to Him in salvation. They come to Him in singing. They come to Him in prayer. They come to Him in service. Would a child have been able to come into the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament? Obviously not. He would come to God on God’s terms. We need to be careful about making deductions from Scriptures that do not meet the standards of logic — especially when we are dealing with as serious an issue as the Regulative Principle of Worship.¹⁶⁵

Implicit in the logic of the above argument (and explicit elsewhere in the book and in the title of His book, “Feed My Lambs”) is that by denying infants the Lord’s Table, we are denying them their rightful food. Is the Table the only place that Jesus promises to feed us? No. He feeds us throughout the worship service. Indeed, those who witness others partaking are being called by the Gospel to embrace Christ. Gallant is failing to recognize that lambs receive a different source of food than grass while they are nursing. There are stages of life, as our discussion of Galatians 3:26-4:7 shows in the previous chapter. When Galatians 4:1 says, “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave.” It uses the word νήπιος, which corresponds to the Hebrew yonek and olel stages of birth to age 3 or 4.¹⁶⁶ It is clear that such a child does not have the same privileges as older children.

Paedo-communion takes away from God’s Word

We have examined how paedo-communion adds to the Word of God. Let us now examine how it also takes away from the Word of God (contrary to Deut. 12:32). Paedo-communion takes away from God’s Word by refusing to apply the many conditions of worthy partaking to those “infants” that it assumes were participants. They will say that infants are not able to keep those commands, so they do not apply. That is begging the question. As we have already demonstrated in this book, every category of child that God’s word explicitly welcomes to the table is able to keep the conditions, so it is arbitrary to remove those conditions from any participants — especially since so many passages apply the conditions to the very “children” that partook.

How many paedo-communion books mention that the “little ones” who partook of the sacramental meals in 2 Chronicles 31 were explicitly said to have met the conditions laid out in 1 Corinthians 11? The “little ones” exhibited “faithfulness,”¹⁶⁷ “consecrated” themselves entirely to the Lord,¹⁶⁸ and pursued “holiness”¹⁶⁹ (v. 18). Obviously the “little ones” were not infants. In chapter 3, I showed how taph children ranged in age from 3-6 years old. It is clear that “little ones” did not automatically get admitted. The “because” indicates that they were only admitted because they met God’s conditions for worthy participation. With examples like this, it is arbitrary to dismiss the application of conditions to anyone unless the paedo-communionist can show a clear case of an infant partaking.

How many paedo-communionists will acknowledge that the children who partook of the sacramental meals in Nehemiah 8 were specifically defined as “those who could hear with understanding” (v. 2) and “those who could understand” (v. 3)? It is not enough to appeal to the terms “sons,” “daughters,” “little ones,” and “children” as proof that all children partook. Our elders have admitted such children if (and only if) they meet all the Biblical conditions. What is needed by the paedo-communionist is an explicit inclusion of infants, or he has violated the Regulative Principle of Worship by both adding (infants) and taking away (removing conditions).

James Jordan tries to put the burden of proof upon Francis Nigel Lee, stating:

There is no hint that children are excluded from communion, only that Paul is not addressing them here… Nothing Lee quotes or refers to hints at the exclusion of baptized children from the Lord’s Supper.¹⁷⁰

That is irrelevant, though. Given the overwhelming evidence that all children who did partake of the sacramental meals referenced in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 were old enough to be able to meet the conditions for worthy participation means that the burden of proof is upon the paedo-communionist to show that children should suddenly not need to heed conditions that they did keep in the Old Testament.

Assumptions do not constitute proof. J. Wright, in his defense of paedo-communion uses language such as “I believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals…it is safe to assume that in the days of Jesus and the early church this was still the practice of the Jewish people…nowhere in the New Testament is paedo-communion explicitly denied. It is inferred from 1 Corinthians 11:26-29. It seems to me… this probably…I know I am making a lot of assumptions but I guess you could sum up my argument as an argument from omission.”¹⁷¹ The Regulative Principle of Worship requires explicit permission from Scripture.

Typical paedo-communion response

The typical paedo-communion response is to say we are inconsistent. They argue that if repenting and believing is a condition that is suspended for infants with respect to baptism, then examining oneself should be suspended for children coming to the Lord’s Table in an age appropriate way. This is not an argument that fits within the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle would insist that if we cannot justify infants receiving the sign of baptism, then we should repent of infant baptism, not justify it by ignoring Biblical admonitions. The fact of the matter is that circumcision and baptism are parallel on many levels, and we are not left in the dark on what they symbolize:

Nor is the New Testament silent on infants being baptized. As my book on Infant Baptism points out,¹⁷² New Testament baptism is explicitly said to sum up Old Testament baptism, which was applied to male infants on the eighth day and to female infants on the sixteenth day. While circumcision (as a bloody rite) has passed away, infant baptism has not. My book shows how the New Testament uses the term “unclean” in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a synonym for “unbaptized,” so that it could be paraphrased, “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” Galatians 3:26-4:7 makes clear that it is not just believing adults who are heirs of the Abrahamic promises (every one of which was to Abraham and his seed), but the children of those believers are also heirs now just as they were heirs under Abraham (Gal. 4:1). Galatians 4:1 also makes clear that just because they are heirs through their parents’ faith does not make them automatically possessors of every privilege of the covenant. Indeed, it affirms the opposite — “now I say that the heir, as long as he is a toddler, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father” (vv. 1-2). They are under stewards and guardians to lead them to faith (Gal. 4:1-7).

Here is the bottom line issue: The evidence for infants passively receiving the first sacrament (circumcision) is totally clear, unambiguous, and contested by no one. At least ten passages speak of God authorizing the sign of the Abrahamic covenant to be applied to infants eight days old.¹⁷³ Consistent with the Regulative Principle of Worship, later circumcisions were done “on the eighth day…as God had commanded” (Gen. 21:4). Applying the first sign and seal to infants meets the qualifications of the Regulative Principle of Worship. In striking contrast, I have never seen a clear and unambiguous command for yeled, yonek, or olel children to partake of the sacramental meal. Thus, this paedo-communion objection does not hold water. It is an issue of authority — by what authority do adult-communion advocates exclude believing children and by what authority do paedo-communion advocates include non-professing children in the Lord’s Table?

Even the nature of the two sacraments helps to explain why this analogy simply does not work. Circumcision/baptism is an utterly passive sacrament for both children and adults¹⁷⁴ and as a passive sacrament is totally appropriate for passive recipients who are acted upon and admitted to the church. We have already demonstrated that the Lord’s Supper is an active sacrament¹⁷⁵ that is only appropriate for those who can obey the command to “Take, eat” and who have an active faith that characterizes them as overcomers (see exposition of Revelation’s sacramental meals in chapter 2). In Baptism we are acted upon (symbolizing monergisic grace in God’s initiatory regeneration), but in the Lord’s Table we are active agents (symbolizing the fact that both God and man must be active for sanctification to take place). You cannot argue from one sacrament to the other in a strictly logical sense. The Regulative Principle of Worship does not allow us to assume anything with regard to our children — they must be authorized by explicit mention to come to the Lord’s Table.

The final thing that I would say is that even in the first passage that deals with Passover, we see the distinction between circumcision and Passover. Exodus 12:48 says:

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

Notice that all his males are circumcised whether they have faith or not (consistent with God’s command to circumcise Ishmael, though he was an unbeliever). There is a difference mentioned in the second sacrament of Passover. Before the believing Gentile can partake of the Passover, he must obey God by circumcising everyone in his household. Once he has done that circumcising, do all who are circumcised partake? No. It says, “let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it.” Only the professing believer is admitted to the feast. So even the foundational passage for sacramental meals (Exodus 12) makes a clear distinction between who may be circumcised and who may partake of the Passover. The first sacrament was applied to all the children of professing believers while the second sacrament was only given to professing believers.

The Regulative Principle of Worship applied to Passover

There are at least some features of the Passover meal that both adult-communionists and paedo-communionists fail to adequately apply. The variety of adult-communion advocates who say that children did not partake until they were age 12 or 13 (see chapter 2) can to some degree explain the phrase “a lamb for a household” (Ex. 12:3; cf. vv. 4,27) and “according to your families” (Ex. 12:21) since children are still part of the household even at the age of twelve and thirteen. Those who insist that only adult males partook of the Passover (see chapter 2 for this group) are not taking seriously the “household” references at all since (on their theory) neither the wife nor the rest of the household or family partook of the lamb. I fail to see how the word “household” in Exodus 12 fits the adult-only view of communion. Unlike the most consistent adult-communionists, both paedo-communionists and young credo-communionists do indeed take that word seriously. In both cases, a household is partaking as soon as each member of the household is providentially enabled to keep the conditions.

Adult-communionists do bring up at least some legitimate things related to Passover that they believe paedo-communionists are failing to apply. I have already dealt with those issues in the exposition of the Passover in chapter 2.

In addition to the objections in chapter 2, I would raise one additional objection that only applies to the variety of paedo-communion that admits infants. It is of the very essence of the Passover to partake of the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs (horseradish). The insistence on “one law” or “one ordinance” for all who partook (Ex. 12:49; Numb. 9:14; cf. 15:15-16) seems to imply that no exceptions could be allowed for anyone who partook. Every word of the Passover instructions should apply to every participant. This being so, it is legitimate to ask, “Did newborn infants partake of the lamb or the horseradish?” It is extremely unlikely that they did. Some have thought that the parent could chew up the meat or soften it in other ways, but the instructions are quite clear that the meat could not be mixed with water at all, but had to be eaten as roasted (Ex. 12:9). Nor could any parts be left out, but “they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it” (Ex. 12:8). Those paedo-communionists who see the trouble with this have gone one of two routes: 1) they have either claimed that the child receives the communion through the mother’s milk (and while in the womb through the placenta)¹⁷⁶ or 2) they add conditions of ability or age.¹⁷⁷

There are several reasons to reject the idea that babies received the Passover in the womb. The first is that Exodus 12:48 was quite clear that “no uncircumcised person shall eat it,” and babies in the womb would be uncircumcised. Second, when a stranger converted and wanted to partake, he had to first circumcise his entire family, but even then, only the professing believer was admitted to the feast (Exodus 12:48 — “let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it;”). Third, it is not bread or lamb that the babies are eating. Certainly in the womb they aren’t eating at all; they are receiving nutrients through the placenta, but the nutrients are not in the form of bread, lamb, or bitter herbs. Fourth, this treads dangerously close to the Roman Catholic ex opere operato view of the sacrament and can easily lead to superstition. God did not seem to treat the non-communion of children and wives (when providentially hindered) as being nearly as detrimental to their spiritual health as some paedo-communionists do. Exodus 23:14-19 exempted women from having to come to this feast (v. 17; cf. 34:23).

If they take the second route and add conditions of age or ability, then they have no consistent way to object to the other Biblical conditions being applied to this feast. Certainly the Bible does seem to prohibit feeding newborn infants solid food (at least some paedo-communionists admit this). However, the ability to masticate food is not a sufficient qualification since the same Scriptures that refer to solid food also connect solid food with the ability to discern good and evil: “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). See also 1 Cor. 3:1-4, where Paul uses the illustration of babes who drink milk and are not able to receive solid food to illustrate lack of spirituality. When these Scriptures are compared with each other it is legitimate to conclude that God Himself links eating solid food with the condition of some maturity and some understanding and discernment. This would exclude all yeled, yonek, and olel children, and as we noted in the last chapter, it might exclude many taph children as well. If a child (or an adult for that matter) does not have enough understanding “to discern between their right hand and their left” (Jonah 4:11), they are not benefiting from table and for sure are not meeting the needed qualifications laid out by God to come.

The Regulative Principle of Worship applied to other meals

What is true of the Passover is also true of the other Old Testament sacramental meals. There are some features of those other sacramental meals that at least some paedo-communionists and some adult-communionists fail to adequately account for in their system.

Adult-communionists take away commands to include children in the holy food. The holy food of the Levites was for “you, your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are your due and your son’s due, which was given from the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel” (Lev. 10:14). Certainly adult-communionists will object that this was the pay for Levites. See the six objections that I raise in chapter 3 (under the discussion of 2 Chronicles 31) for why these meals were not the Levites’ common food, but were their sacramental food following all the rules related to sacraments. The various passages assume that the children of Levites will express faith quite young (see for example 2 Chronicles 31:16,18). While there is no evidence that the yeled newborns, the yonek one year olds, or the olel nursing children ever partook of the sacramental meals, we have shown clear evidence that at least some children of every other age above that did. The sacramental meals explicitly included “you and your children” (Deut. 12:25), “you and your household” (Deut. 14:26; 15:20), and other terms for children outlined in chapters 2-3. It is just as much a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship for mature communionists to “take away” those terms as it is for paedo-communionists to “add” the younger categories of children.

Paedo-communionists appeal to the language of children that we have outlined in chapters 2-3, but then they broad-brush the assumption that all children were included. We demonstrated in the previous two chapters that the only children that are explicitly included in the feast are the ages of children who are also capable of adhering to the qualifications for worthy participation that even Gallant agrees are laid out in Isaiah 1 and 1 Corinthians 10-11. I would add that we have already demonstrated that those conditions were laid out in the law of God as well. To “take away” conditions when God has not directly authorized us to take them away for children is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

The Regulative Principle of Worship applied to 1 Corinthians 10-11

Adult-communion advocates have sometimes argued that in the Old Covenant, only adult males partook of the sacramental meals. Then they switch gears in the New Covenant and magically add in females on the basis of Galatians 3:28, a passage that says nothing about the Lord’s Table, but only relates to baptism (v. 27). The reason I say that this violates the Regulative Principle of Worship is that we demonstrated in the beginning portion of this chapter that everything in the New Covenant can be shown to exist in the law at least in seed form. Acts 26:22 says that Paul based 100% of his teaching upon the Old Testament “saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come.” This is why he praised the Bereans for searching the Old Testament Scriptures to check the truthfulness of everything Paul was saying (Acts 17:11). What the Bereans were doing would have been a pointless exercise if Paul had added new ideas (women coming to the Lord’s Table) that could not be found in the Old Testament. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians was “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). If indeed women were barred from participating in the Old Testament, then we violate the Regulative Principle of Worship if we allow women to participate in the New Testament because we are adding to the law. On the other hand, if women, children, families, households, and “little ones” partook of the sacramental meals in the Old Testament, then we violate the Regulative Principle of Worship if we “take away” those participants today — especially when Paul explicitly links all those sacramental meals to the Lord’s Table in 1 Corinthians 10 (see chapter 2).

Paedo-communionists “add” to the law of God if they choose to add infants, and they take away from the law of God when they do not apply the conditions of the law for worthy participation. As Gallant points out, Paul is not saying anything that the law did not say when he gave his conditions in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Because he has not looked at the granularity of God’s law related to children that we discussed in chapter 3, he comes to the wrong conclusion that these statements do not apply to certain participants (infants).¹⁷⁸ Without explicit authorization for infants to participate in this sacrament (such as we have with circumcision/baptism), we “take away” from God’s law for certain participants.

Note that Paul applies his admonitions to “each one” who is partaking of the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:24; 11:21) and to “whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup” (1 Cor. 11:27) and to “anyone” (1 Cor. 11:34). To add exceptions to these universal descriptions is to “add” to the law. There are no exceptions to his qualifications for worthy participation stated anywhere, and exceptions cannot be assumed. “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:29).

Notice that Paul treats each participant as if he is actively partaking (as opposed to having food put into his mouth) — “each one takes his own supper” (1 Cor. 11:21), “partake with thanks…food over which I give thanks” (1 Cor. 10:30), “Take, eat” (1 Cor. 11:24), “you proclaim” (1 Cor. 11:26), “let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. 11:28), “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged” (1 Cor. 11:31). Paul speaks to each participant when he says, “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (1 Cor. 10:24). Paul gives no hint whatsoever that there would be participants who are unable to to do these things.

With this in mind, consider Paul’s extended admonitions related to worthy participation and ask your conscience if these things can be “taken away” without clear explicit warrant from the law. In chapter 10 he says, “became our examples” (v. 6), “do not become idolaters” (v. 7), “nor let us commit sexual immorality” (v. 8), “nor let us tempt Christ” (v. 9), “nor complain” (v. 10), “take heed” (v. 12), “will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able” (v. 13), “flee from idolatry” (v. 14), “I speak as to wise men” (v. 15), “judge for yourselves what I say” (v. 15), “Observe Israel” (v. 18), “I do not want you to have fellowship with demons” (v. 20), “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (v. 21), “you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons” (v. 21), “Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy” (v. 22), “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (v. 23), “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (v. 23), “partake with thanks…food over which I give thanks” (v. 30), “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (v. 31), “Give no offense” (v. 32).

In chapter 11, Paul gives more admonitions on worthy participation — “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (v. 1), “keep the traditions” (v. 2),¹⁷⁹ “every man praying” (v. 4), “every woman praying” (v. 5), “for a man indeed ought not to cover his head” (v. 7), “a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (v. 10), “I do not praise you” (v. 17), “you come together not for the better, but for the worse” (v. 17), “those who are approved¹⁸⁰ may be recognized¹⁸¹ among you” (v. 19), “each one takes his own supper ahead of others” (v. 21), “I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” (v. 23), “Take, eat” (v. 24), “do this in remembrance of Me” (v. 24), “This do as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (v. 25), “you proclaim the Lord’s death” (v. 26), “whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27), “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (v. 28), “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning¹⁸² the Lord’s body”¹⁸³ (v. 29), “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged” (v. 31), “wait for one another” (v. 33), “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home,¹⁸⁴ lest you come together for judgment” (v. 34).

Peter Allison on the paedo argument from baptism to communion

Peter Allison deals with an objection sometimes raised by paedo-communionists. He writes:

Some baptized communion advocates charge the reformed creeds with inconsistency on their paedo baptism and credo-communion position. They argue that if the repenting and believing can be suspended for children in baptism, then examining oneself in communion can also be suspended for children or carried out in an age appropriate way. This does not adequately deal with the fact that there are no commands in Scripture regarding the objects of baptism that need to be suspended for children.

This is a significant difference between circumcision/baptism and the Passover/Lord’s Supper. Both sacraments are commanded, but only the Lord’s Supper imposes requirements on the manner of participation that require an understanding which few, if any, small children could have. A few examples illustrate this difference.

Mat 28:19 — Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,

This institution of baptism is a command to the disciples to teach and to baptize. It specifies no preparatory action on the part of the subjects of baptism. This is what we see the apostles doing. They teach, people believe, and they are baptized.

Mark 1:5 — and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

These people were baptized, confessing their sins.

Mark 16:16 — He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be.

Jesus here prescribes two conditions for salvation — repentance and baptism. Those who repent and are baptized will be saved. It doesn’t command people to confess their sins in preparation for baptism. It simply makes a statement about who shall be saved.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is a command to do two things: repent and be baptized. The Holy Spirit is promised to those who do so. The text does not command people to repent in order that they might be baptized nor does it attach a sanction if someone is baptized without repenting and believing.

While repentance without baptism is an incomplete repentance, baptism without repentance is not an improper baptism. The baptism of those who believe for a while (Luke 8:13) and then fall away due to trials or the cares of this world does not retroactively become an improper or an invalid baptism. Their baptism becomes a testimony against them, increasing the heinousness of their unbelief and the severity of their punishment (Luke 10:13-14). Their sin was not in being baptized, it was in falling away.¹⁸⁵

A few additional examples are provided below where baptism is recorded following people believing, but there is no explicit statement that people must repent before being baptized nor is there a warning about coming under judgment for being baptized without believing.

Acts 8:12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

In at least one case, the order is even reversed with baptism being listed ahead of being justified:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

The only possible exception to this is Acts 8:37, a verse not in the majority text (or the critical text).

A comparison of the preceding passages regarding participation in the Lord’s Supper and baptism shows that while unworthy participation in both communion and the Passover brings sanctions on the participants, there are no examples of judgment falling on unworthy participants in either circumcision or baptism. There are examples of sanctions for those that don’t administer circumcision (Exodus 4:24ff) and there are examples of the Apostles inquiring about people’s baptisms and baptizing again where necessary (Acts 19:3-5) showing that participation is important. There is no example anywhere of people being rebuked or judged for unworthy participation and the Scriptures never warn against unworthy participation in baptism or circumcision.

To baptize children obeys the command in Genesis 17 and does not require ignoring any commands regarding participation. To give communion to young children requires ignoring the commands regarding preparation and examination (at least with respect to children) and assuming a command which does not exist for them to partake. While this observation may be true, it should always be viewed in relation to the commands underlying the different treatment of children and not the basis of that difference. Children are baptized by the command of Scripture and refused participation in communion because there is no command to admit them. They are not refused participation in the Lord’s Supper merely because of their inability or diminished ability, relative to an adult, to properly examine themselves.¹⁸⁶

5. Presuppositions of Various Paedo-Communionists

As can be seen from chapter 2, paedo-communionists are not united in their arguments any more than other viewpoints are. This means that not every paedo-communionist would agree with every presupposition articulated in this chapter. In order to be as fair as I could, I have tried to cover the presuppositions I have run across from the most famous adherents of this position. Future editions of this book may highlight presuppositions that I have missed from other paedo-communion defenses. If you are a paedo-communionist who believes that I have missed key presuppositions that need to be addressed, let me know.

Presuppositions given by Tim Gallant

Tim Gallant is probably one of the most famous and most widely read of all the paedo-communionists. His gracious tone and willingness to engage the Scripture with skeptics have made him very popular. I think his books should be read by all who are wrestling through the question of worthy participation. For the reader’s convenience, the introduction of my book has listed his and other paedo-communion writings that I have studied.

Tim Gallant has very conveniently summarized the whole of his system of paedo-communion in eleven “theses” that stand at the heart of his defense of paedo-communion.¹⁸⁷ If one or more of these presuppositions can be shown to be wrong, then it brings his system into question. If all of his presuppositions are in error, then the entire foundation for his version of paedo-communion collapses. Let’s examine each one:

Gallant’s first thesis

The children of believers are saints (1 Cor. 7:14), possessors of the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 19:13-14), and therefore members of Christ’s Church.¹⁸⁸

This complex thesis has three faulty assumptions or presuppositions. I will deal with one presupposition at a time:

First, if the word “holy” in 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes children “saints,” then it also makes the unbelieving spouse a “saint” since he/she is also said to be “holy” or “set apart.” The meaning and implications that we attribute to the word “holy” in the first part of the sentence must be consistent with the meaning and implications of the same word in the second part of the sentence. The text is variously translated as, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (ἁγιάζω — or “set apart” or “made holy”) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified (ἁγιάζω — or “set apart” or “made holy”) by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are sanctified (ἅγιος — or “set apart” or “made holy”).” The same root word for holiness, sanctification, or set-apartness is used of both the child and the unbeliever.

This completely undermines the implications that Gallant wants to draw from this verse. Earlier in the book he claims that “Their status as saints means that they must be regarded as fit participants in the sacrament [of the Lord’s table.]”¹⁸⁹ If wearing the title of “saint” (or holy or sanctified) makes the child worthy of the table, then since the unbelieving spouse wears the title “saint” (or holy or sanctified), he/she too must be admitted to the table. It is clear that his argument proves too much, which shows that his deduction is not an example of “good and necessary consequence.” Either his definition of ἅγιος is wrong, or the implications he seeks to deduce from it are not legitimate deductions.

It is helpful to give a bit more precision to the term ἅγιος and the verbal form ἁγιάζω. The basic meaning of the word is to be “set apart,” and the Bible speaks of two different ways of being set apart: 1) It can apply to inward holiness of those who are regenerate and whose spirits have been set apart to God (1 Thess. 3:13). 2) It can apply to outward holiness of things or people who have been outwardly set apart to God’s presence (Matt. 24:15).

If we take the first option, it refers to regeneration and inward holiness. This seems to be the way that Gallant uses the term elsewhere.¹⁹⁰ Based on the above discussion we know that the word “holy” cannot possibly mean that the child is saved (or even presumed to be saved), since this would mean that the “holy” unbelieving spouse is also saved, something contradicted by verse 16. Paul commands the believer to not divorce the unbeliever, “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” Obviously being “holy” does not make that unbelieving spouse saved. If we are to be consistent with Paul’s usage of the term, we would have to say that Paul did not intend for it to mean that the child is saved either. (He may be or may not be, but that is not Paul’s point.)

The other option is that the term ἅγιος and the verbal form ἁγιάζω means to be outwardly set apart. This is a very common meaning of the term. In the Old Testament, the closer to God’s Shekinah Glory Cloud Presence that you traveled, the more holy the people and things were outwardly considered to be. So Israel was the holy land (Zech. 2:12), and within Israel Jerusalem was the holy city (Neh. 11:1,18; Isa. 52:1; Dan. 9:24), and within Jerusalem the temple mount was the holy mountain (Isa. 27:13; Ezek. 20:40), and on the mount there was a separation of “the holy district” from “the city’s property” (Ezek. 45:7). Then there was the holy temple (Ps. 5:7), the holy place (Ex. 26:33; 29:31; etc.), and the Holy of Holies, which was otherwise called the “Most Holy Place” (Ex. 26:33-34; 1 Kings 6:16; 7:50; etc.). There were walls “to separate the holy areas from the common” (Ezek. 42:20). Certain fields could be holy (Jer. 31:4), as could garments (Ezek. 42:14; 44:19), animals (Lev. 27:9), and even pots and pans (Ex. 40:9-10).

Which kind of holiness is meant in 1 Corinthians 7:14? Since we have already shown that the context (v. 16) rules out the inward holiness, the only option left is an outward setting apart of people to the Lord’s presence. In effect, Paul is stating that the moment an adult comes to Christ, God’s kingdom invades that family and God’s angels begin to be at work in that entire family.¹⁹¹ That entire family is set apart to kingdom influence. As Geoffrey Bromiley summarizes it:

…in virtue of the other’s faith he or she is separated to God…and comes into the sphere of evangelical action and promise with a hope of future conversion. The same is true of the children. (How much more so, one might suppose, when both the parents are confessing Christians.)¹⁹²

This outward setting apart is totally consistent with an outward cleansing that the child receives in 1 Corinthians 7:14. I agree with Gallant that the term “unclean” is used as a synonym for “unbaptized” in the Bible,¹⁹³ so that 1 Corinthians 7:14 could be paraphrased, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are sanctified.” Or as Gallant words it, “our children are not unclean…Their bodies have been washed with the pure water of baptism” (cf. Heb. 10:22). Though I disagree with his conclusion in the next phrase, “so that they may partake of the feast of the Lord.”¹⁹⁴

Just as with being “set apart,” there are two ways that the word “(un)clean” is used in the Bible: There is outward (covenantal) cleansing such as “the purifying (καθαρος n) of the flesh” by ritual baptisms (Heb. 9:13),¹⁹⁵ and there is inward cleansing spoken of as the “purifying (καθαρος v) of their hearts” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:9). Since verse 16 has already denied the legitimacy of assuming regeneration, the implication of being clean versus unclean must refer to baptism, since baptism is the only New Testament ritual that is said to purify the flesh. All of this completely undermines Gallant’s first presupposition that is embedded into his first thesis.

What about his second presupposition — that Jesus made the children of believers “possessors of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:13-14)”? Again, there are two ways that people can possess the kingdom. They can be outwardly in the kingdom as church members (something I also affirm) or they can be inwardly in the kingdom as the elect (something that may be true, but is not true of every situation). “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Failure to clearly make the confessional distinctions between the visible and invisible church and the visible and invisible kingdom can easily lead to confusion in the conclusions.

Technically Matthew 19:13-14 does not say that all children of believers possess the kingdom of heaven — something explicitly contradicted by the stories of Ishmael (Gal. 4:21-31; Rom. 9:6-10) and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13), and contradicted by Paul’s conclusion that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham” (Rom. 9:6-7). It is clear in Romans 9 that election cuts down through the covenant and differentiates between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of God” and says that the children of the flesh “are not the children of God” (Rom. 9:8).

Instead of assuming that children are automatically united to Christ, Christ tells us to let the children come to Him for “of such (τοιούτων) is the kingdom of heaven.” First, “of such” does indeed imply that at least some infants are in the kingdom. Additionally, the “of such” implies that some are not in the kingdom.

Second, it is especially significant that Jesus says about the covenant children who were already outwardly in the kingdom that they should be urged to come to Him. If they are already possessors of the kingdom of heaven in every sense of that term, why are they further urged to “come to Me”? Would that not be a superfluous commandment if all of the children were already united to Jesus by grace? The reason Jesus urges the parents to let those covenant children come to Him is that Scripture is replete with examples of covenant children who are not regenerate and who do not believe (as was the case with Ishmael and Esau). There is no guarantee that all children will be like Isaac, or we would not have apostate churches like Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, or liberal Protestant churches. Apostate denominations seem to have arisen precisely because of such presumption.

Obviously the kingdom of heaven has children in it, but Ishmael and Esau stand as warnings that we must not assume anything about their heart condition. As mentioned already, Galatians 3-4 makes a big difference between being an heir of the covenant promises and being a son who possesses those promises. Being an heir comes by baptism into the visible church and being a possessor comes by being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the invisible church.

If he had left the previous two premises out, I could have agreed with his conclusion — “and therefore members of Christ’s Church.” We don’t need to presume the first two premises to come to the conclusion that children are included in the church by baptism. Genesis 17 very clearly affirmed that the sign of the covenant must be applied to our children, whether they are regenerate (like Isaac) or unregenerate (like Ishmael and perhaps some slaves). We don’t need to assume that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. It did (Gal. 3:26-4:2; Col. 2:11-12). We don’t need to assume that children were baptized. 1 Corinthians 7:14 affirms that the children of believers are not only set apart, but they were baptized. In other words, we don’t need the faulty first two presuppositions to conclude (his “therefore”) with his third presupposition. That presupposition stands on solid exegetical ground from other portions of Scripture.¹⁹⁶

Gallant’s second thesis

The children of believers are therefore rightly baptized, to signify and seal their real relationship with Jesus Christ, even as infants were circumcised under the old covenant (Gen. 17:10-14; cf. Col. 2:11-12).¹⁹⁷

This too has muddled reasoning. The “therefore” refers back to the faulty assumptions in the first thesis. Depending upon what he means by a “real relationship with Jesus Christ,” there may be another faulty assumption imported here. Obviously God claims our children as “My children” (Ezek. 16:21) whom God has placed under parents as “stewards” (Gal. 4:1-2) who have a duty to lead them to faith (Gal. 4:1-7). So there is a relationship there. We must distinguish between a covenantal relationship and a living relationship. Both are “real” relationships, but only the latter is saving.

Just to illustrate, God said of the firstborn, “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine” (Ex. 13:2). There is a difference between saying that every firstborn child is consecrated to God, and saying that every firstborn child is regenerate, something explicitly contradicted by many Scriptures. He said, “the Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12), but that was no guarantee that all Levites were regenerate. Israel was declared to belong to God, but “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). These passages all illustrate two types of real relationship — an outward covenantal one and an inward living one.

If by that phrase “real relationship” he means that the stewards of the covenant (Gal. 4:2) are constantly calling those circumcised/baptized members of the church to believe in Christ and submit to Christ, then yes, there is an outward covenantal relationship.

If by “real relationship” he means that they are in the invisible church or are spiritually united to Christ, then I would say, No. This is also illustrated by the very chapter that Gallant appeals to in Genesis. God had already told Abraham that He would not establish His covenant with Ishmael (Gen. 17:18-21), but God made Abraham apply the sign of the covenant to Ishmael anyway (Gen. 17:10-13,23-27). He got the sign of the covenant without actually possessing the covenant. Paul calls Ishmael unregenerate (Gal. 4:21-31). So obviously circumcision did not sign and seal a real inward relationship with God. It signed and sealed the claim of God’s law and the promise of the Gospel to all who believe. It showed he was outwardly in the covenant and in the visible church, but God had already shown that he had no real union with Him. Once he reached adulthood without embracing the faith personally, he was cast out of the visible church (Gen. 21:10,12-21; Gal. 4:30).

Likewise, God hated Esau long before he was born (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13), yet God made it clear that Isaac was still required to apply the sign of the Abrahamic covenant to Esau. If God hated Esau in the womb, it is obvious that Esau did not have a “real relationship with Jesus Christ” in the inward sense even though he was outwardly in the covenant and responsible to its laws. Indeed, Genesis 17 says that all Abraham’s slaves were circumcised (all 318 of them — see Gen. 14:14), yet there is no indication that all were in real union with Christ or that all even remained faithful to the covenant in later chapters. It has been popular in recent years to jettison the Westminster Confession’s important distinction between the visible and invisible church, but a rejection of this distinction leads to muddying the difference between Isaacs and Ishmaels.

Gallant’s third thesis

Those who are baptized into Christ possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges (Gal. 3:26-29).¹⁹⁸

There are two problems with this thesis. The first is that Gallant fails to distinguish between being an “heir” of the Abrahamic promises and “possessing full inheritance rights.” Galatians 4:1 denies this presupposition’s accuracy when it states that “the heir, as long as he is a little child¹⁹⁹ does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” He is an heir of the inheritance, but not yet a possessor of the inheritance.

The logic of Galatians 3:26-4:7 is as follows: adult Gentiles enter the Abrahamic covenant by faith (3:26) and baptism (3:27), after which they are treated as “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (3:29). Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, the infants of those believers are also heirs of the promises (4:1). Paul’s logic is clear that “the heir, as long as he is a little child [literally a “not yet speaking child” (νήπιος)] does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we…were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:2-5). The law’s purpose within the covenant is to be “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. After faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24-25). In other words, though our children are heirs of the promises, they do not get to exercise all of the covenant’s privileges as long as they are napios children. What is the significance of the napios stage of childhood? It cannot express its faith. Why would that matter, since we have at least two examples of faith in the womb? Well, it appears that the next rights of membership after baptism include the need for adults to hear expressions of faith.

Contrary to the assumptions of adult-communion, if faith alone ushers us into the privileges of sonship (3:26; 4:5-7), then children quite young should be able to be seen as sons. We do see children expressing faith as early as age three. This was the pattern set in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19, which allowed sacramental food to be distributed to those who were “three years old and up” if and only if they met the six conditions mentioned earlier in this book, one of which shows a Godward faith. This was the pattern set in Isaac who was not allowed to the feast until a later age (estimated by some to be between 3 and 5).²⁰⁰ In the same way, the two-year-old napios child of Galatians 4:1-2 was not allowed to have full sonship privileges until he had gone past the napios stage, even if he was regenerate.

The next faulty presupposition is that if the child possesses full inheritance rights, he should be “therefore included in all its privileges.” There are many privileges of the covenant that children obviously cannot immediately enter. Marriage is “by covenant” (Mal. 2:14), yet a young child is physically incapable of taking on the covenant privileges of marriage. Though it is good for all covenant members to emulate the characteristics of officers, such as being “temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior”, etc. (see 1 Tim. 3:1-13), children are not included in the covenant offices of elder or deacon. Though voting for your covenant representatives is a covenant privilege, it is a privilege only allowed for males 20 years old or above to actually practice.²⁰¹ Though teaching is a covenant privilege, Scripture says, “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). Scripture distinguishes between those in the church who are able to only drink milk and those who are able to eat solid food. Both “milk” and “solid” food are obviously covenant privileges (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2). “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14).

Therefore, to say that all children of believers are included in all covenant privileges is definitely overstating the case. Many covenant privileges require ability. If there are exceptions to infants possessing “all” covenant privileges, then we should look to the Scriptures for explicit proof that children younger than three can partake of the Lord’s Table — especially when both the Old and New Testaments explicitly set forth conditions for worthy partaking.

Gallant’s fourth thesis

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is one of these privileges which belong to the baptized body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).²⁰²

Gallant’s thesis makes initial sense if there is no distinction between the visible and invisible church. See our discussion of his second thesis on the “real relationship” to Christ.

Gallant’s thesis also makes sense if we ignore Paul’s distinction between heirs and sons in Galatians 3-4. Esau was a circumcised heir, but not a son of faith. Jacob was an heir and a son through faith.

Gallant’s thesis also makes sense if we ignore the numerous conditions for worthy participation that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Those verses must be interpreted within a context. Since chapter 2 demonstrated that the conditions Paul gave for worthy participation in 1 Corinthians 10-11 are true for “every” communion participant, then we should not admit those who can’t meet those conditions unless we have explicit warrant from Scripture. Even if we were to concede the previous two paragraphs, we could then ask, “When does each baptized person enter into his privileges?” The answer would be, “When he meets God’s conditions for worthy participation.”

Gallant’s fifth thesis

Sacraments are signs and seals which depict spiritual realities, and are not meant to be severed from those realities (cf. Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 10:16).²⁰³

Agreed, those signs and seals must continually point to what they sign and seal. There is an equal danger in confusing the sign with the reality to which it points. Consider the following things that the Scripture explicitly says that circumcision and baptism sign and seal, and ask if all (or even a majority) of the children so signed and sealed actually had the reality:

Justification by faith is signed and sealed by circumcision (Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:25-29; Phil 3:3) and baptism (Acts 8:37; 2:38). God sovereignly granted justification to Isaac and Jacob but did not grant justification (the spiritual reality) to Ishmael or Esau. “For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?” (Rom. 3:3). Paul’s conclusion is “No.” Paul did not confuse the sign with the reality. Instead, he pressed the claims of the sign and seal upon the people who were outwardly in the covenant. He was acting as a steward and tutor to lead them to Christ.

Cleansing from defilement is signed and sealed by circumcision (Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:14) and baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14). Did all of Israel get cleansed in heart? No. That does not nullify the “profit of circumcision” (Rom. 3:1) which was beneficial in many ways (Rom. 3:2ff).

Both circumcision (Ezra 9:2; Isa. 6:13; Mal. 2:15) and baptism (1 Cor. 7:14) signed and sealed being set apart to God. But paedocommunionists should not assume it is an inward setting apart (i.e., inward sanctifation) since in context even the unbelieving spouse is set apart to God in some sense: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (v. 14). Yet verse 16 makes clear that they are not yet saved. It is better to understand these passages as saying that God’s kingdom invades a family the moment one member becomes a believer because that saved person has the Spirit of God, has angelic ministers, and experiences the powers of the age to come. All of this makes the whole family outwardly sanctified (set apart) and all of this gives hope of the salvation of the whole household. But as verse 16 makes clear, such salvation is not automatic. We are called to lead those family members to Christ.

Both circumcision (Josh. 5:9 with verses 2-9) and baptism (Rom. 6:3-4) signed and sealed death to the world (“Egypt”) and entrance into new life. The history of the church shows that there are no guarantees. We must constantly be pressing our children into the duty of “improving our baptism” by faith.²⁰⁴

Both circumcision (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7-8; Col. 2:11) and baptism (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8) signed and sealed union with God. Ishmael neglected those promises and Esau hated his birthright. God explicitly said that Ishmael did not possess the spiritual reality (see Gen. 17:17-21) of the sacrament of circumcision that was administered to him (Gen. 17:23-27).

Both circumcision (Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4; Deut. 10:16; 30:6) and baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11-12) signed and sealed the necessity of an inner experience, namely the spiritual circumcision of the heart and the spiritual baptism of the Spirit. This is our hope for all of our children, and in the New Covenant there is far greater expectation that this will happen, but the record of both the Old and New Testaments makes it clear that we should not bank our hope on the sign itself, and that the sign is not sufficient to make worthy partakers of the Lord’s Table.

Both circumcision (Gen. 17:10,23-27) and baptism (Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16) signed and sealed that God’s covenant grace moves in generations and embraces households. Those household individuals must look to what the sign points to and believe.

Gallant’s sixth thesis

Therefore, the whole baptized Church is in principle given authority to partake of the Lord’s table, since the bread and the body are coextensive (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Biblically, barring from the table is an administration of discipline (excommunication), to declare on Christ’s authority that the barred person is under the judgment of the kingdom (1 Cor. 5:1-8; Matt. 18:15-20).²⁰⁵

There are a number of faulty presuppositions here:

First, since the “therefore” refers back to the earlier faulty presuppositions, there is no valid conclusion that can be inferred. The earlier faulty presuppositions will automatically lead to faulty conclusions.

Second, it is not accurate to say that “the bread and the body are coextensive” or there would be no basis for the Biblical steps of discipline known as 1) definite suspension of a “brother” from the table, 2) indefinite suspension of a “brother” from the table, or 3) shunning. Consider the following points:

1. Suspension does not remove the offender’s membership or office, but temporarily removes the privileges of such membership and/or office. This is illustrated in 1 Corinthians 5, where a man in the Corinthian church was guilty of heinous sin (vv. 1-2,9,11). This man was not yet excommunicated since he was still “among you” (1 Cor. 5:1), was still “inside” the church (v. 12), had not yet been delivered over to Satan (v. 5), had not been purged out (v. 7), was not yet in the world (v. 10) and was still “named a brother” by the church (v. 11). Shunning is a stage prior to excommunication where the whole church shuns a brother who is still a member of that church, and they do so to bring him to shame and repentance. Once excommunication happens, the person is no longer acknowledged as a “brother” who is “inside” the church (vv. 9-13) but is considered “outside” and part of the world (5:12-13). In a previous letter, Paul had instructed the Corinthians to shun immoral people in the church as a stage of discipline (v. 9). But the Corinthians had misunderstood Paul. They thought he was telling them to shun those outside the church as well. So in 1 Corinthians, Paul clarifies that shunning is only for those “named a brother”, those still within the church (vv. 10-11). Paul then instructs the Corinthians to excommunicate the immoral man and cast him out of the church. (v. 13). Once a person is cast out of the church, you can relate to them as anyone else in the world — some you might avoid, and some you might eat with just like Jesus did. When suspension has happened, no one may eat fellowship meals with the person (“not even to eat with such a person” – v. 11), even though they are still members. So suspension is not identical with excommunication.
2. The optional shunning portion of suspension deserves more treatment. It is not the same as excommunication and can be more extensive than simply suspension from the Lord’s Table. Jonathan Edwards makes an error in his exegesis when he claims that believers should never have anything whatsoever to do with those who are excommunicated. He arrives at this conclusion by mistakenly applying the shunning of 1 Corinthians 5 to all excommunicates. As has already been demonstrated in the previous point, the person in 1 Corinthians 5 has not yet been excommunicated and is still a member. While shunning some excommunicated people is wise, especially if the excommunicated person is particularly vile or a dangerous teacher, Jay Adams demonstrates²⁰⁶ that this is not a requirement for all excommunicated people. Edwards’ chief exegetical error is to apply verses that are clearly being applied to members (see previous point) and misapplying them to non-members. Consider the following contrasts between full excommunication and shunning: A) Matthew 18:17-19 deals with those cast out of the church while 1 Corinthians 5 deals with those who have not yet been cast out (see previous point). B) Matthew 18:17 treats the disciplined person as a heathen and publican, while 1 Corinthians 5 explicitly tells us not to treat the shunned person as we would those who are already in the world (vv. 11-13), but only to shun a person who is still being “named a brother” (v. 11). Christ explicitly forbids us from naming excommunicates as brothers. C) Third, how did Jesus treat heathens and tax collectors? He ate with them (Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30), preached the Gospel to them calling upon them to repent (Matt. 21:32f; Mark 2:15f; Luke 19:2ff), called them to follow Him (Luke 5:27) and was a friend to them (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). In other words, He did not shun them. Paul admonishes us “not to keep company” with the person being shunned (vv. 9,11) and “not even to eat with such a person” (v. 11). D) There is no longer a need to judge an excommunicated person since they are already handed over to Satan and are already experiencing God’s heavy hand of judgment (1 Cor. 5:12-13), but we are commanded to keep judging the person being shunned (1 Cor. 5:12) until the point when he is “put away” in excommunication (v. 13). So on every level, the shunning/suspension being discussed is clearly distinguished from excommunication.

Third, not all absence from the table is church discipline. We must distinguish between 1) being barred from the table via discipline, 2) being excused from the table because of incapacity or other biblical excuses, and 3) not yet being eligible for the table. Those are three quite distinct categories that are mentioned in the Bible. It is irresponsible exegesis to say that non-communicant members are excommunicated non-members.

Who were excused from the table in the Old Testament? Women and children. Only men were mandated to come (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). This was not an excommunication of women and children. It was a concession or an excusing of women and children, though they were obviously welcome (Luke 2:42). Because Old Covenant people had to travel far, it might be impossible for the women who were pregnant to travel. Likewise, they might have had a new baby to care for, had sick ones at home, etc. They were permitted by the law to be excused from the sacramental meals.

In addition to being excused because of inconvenience, there were also conditions that would keep a person from being qualified for partaking. A leper from birth might have been regenerate, but he would not have been qualified to partake. A woman who was in the midst of her menstrual period was likewise not qualified to partake. There were plenty of reasons why only the men were required to attend. Jesus was in Egypt for two years and unable to come to the feasts (Matt. 2:13-23). Was he excommunicated? No.

The main issue that is frequently troubling to paedo-communionists (and rightly so) is that children are being cut off from the means of grace. However, Reformed Christians have never seen Baptism and the Lord’s Table as the exclusive means of grace. Consider the rich privileges that our covenant children have apart from the Lord’s Table:

1. Their first means of grace, baptism, continues to exert a wonderful call upon their lives.
2. Being in the community of Christ (“holy”) automatically makes the child the subject of the Holy Spirit’s working.
3. The covenant as a whole gives a protective banner which a truly excommunicated person would be taken out from under. A child who is not communing is still under the protective canopy of the covenant and is not “handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1Cor. 5:5). The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop working simply because Christians aren’t coming to the table.
4. Being under the preaching of the Word is to live within the sphere of the Spirit’s working.
5. Family devotions is another clear means of grace.
6. Being under a believing father and mother’s nurture is a great privilege.
7. Prayer is obviously a covenant privilege that our children are not denied.
8. The Aaronic blessing every Sunday is another means of grace that brings blessing to our children.

I understand that Calvin didn’t even baptize one of his children who died in infancy. He believed that children must be baptized in the congregation, but his Institutes make clear that baptism, while a means of grace, is not the only means of grace. God can save babies (and does save babies – as witness David’s son) without the sacraments. To put such emphasis upon the Lord’s Table does not even comport with the fact that Old Testament saints frequently could not partake of communion for more than three times a year because of distance. Yet they had access to other means of grace in their synagogues.

Gallant’s seventh thesis

The calling for remembrance and self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11 stands in the pattern of the character of the sacraments of the old covenant (e.g. Ex. 12:14; Isa. 1:10-20).²⁰⁷

The apparent implication of this thesis can be summarized in the following syllogism:

1. Premise one: Israel was required to engage in the same self-examination and remembrance that Paul called for in 1 Corinthians 11.
2. Premise two: Exodus 12 admitted infants who were incapable of such self-examination and remembrance.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, calls to remembrance and self-examination do not apply to infants and should only be applied to older children in accordance with their capacity.

Premise two is precisely what is being contested. Unless there is clear admittance of infants to the sacrament, we are not authorized to admit them. The Regulative Principle of Worship prohibits adding to or subtracting from the Biblical laws. Assumptions are not allowed. Nowhere in Exodus 12 or anywhere else in the Old Testament are infants said to partake of the sacrament. We have already provided evidence that they were excluded.

This being the case, the calls to remember and to engage in self-examination prior to eating must be obeyed by all who partake. Gallant admits that the Passover was called a “memorial” (Ex. 12:14) just as much as the Lord’s Supper is (1 Cor. 11:24-25). He also admits that Isaiah bars people who refuse to engage in self-examination at the sacrament (Isa. 1:10-12) just as much as Paul does for the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:27-32). I do not in any way deny that “children” partook of the sacramental meals in Isaiah 1, but they too were judged by God as “children who are corrupters” (v. 4) and they too were expected to examine themselves since those children had “provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel” (v. 4). Interestingly, the word for “children” is the generic banim (בָּנִ֖ים) and does not specify an age. The only children mentioned are children who were able to remember and engage in self-examination and were held accountable by God for failing to do so. The Scriptures he cites prove the opposite of what Gallant intended.

Gallant’s eighth thesis

These old covenant sacraments admitted children into participation (e.g. Dt. 16:11, 14).²⁰⁸

This has already been admitted by me. Unlike adult-communion advocates, I follow the mandate of including children in the sacrament of communion. We have already shown that these children met the conditions of worthy participation. Even the passage he cites calls for remembrance (Deut. 16:3,12) and putting away the leaven of sin (vv. 4,12). There is no mention of infants partaking in that passage — only “your son and your daughter” (v. 11). Our position clearly admits sons and daughters if they are able to meet the conditions laid out for the Old and New Testament sacrament of communion.

Gallant’s ninth thesis

Therefore, the requirements of 1 Corinthians 11 may not be employed to bar covenant children from the sacrament, since similar requirements in the old covenant did not bar them.²⁰⁹

The word “children” is a broad term covering 19 years of life, and Gallant is trying to import into his conclusion a different category of “children” than can be exegetically supported in his previous theses. The question that needs to be proved in thesis eight is that infants (or even slightly older children incapable of meeting the clear conditions laid out in the Old and New Testaments) were permitted to partake. That evidence is lacking. In any case, there is both a logical and a Scriptural problem with this argument:

Gallant’s logic can be summed up in a syllogism: 1. Premise one: The command to discern before partaking in 1 Corinthians 11 is no different than the command to discern before partaking in the Old Testament (his seventh thesis).
2. Premise two: Despite the conditions found in the previous premise, children were admitted into participation (his eighth premise)
3. Conclusion: The command to discern does not apply to children.

The problems in the logic may escape the reader if he is not careful to see what Gallant is doing with his terms. Gallant must realize that he cannot use the term “infants” or “toddlers” in premise two (thesis eight) since the Bible nowhere explicitly admits infants or toddlers, so he sticks to the generic term “children.” Nowhere in this syllogism has he proved that the “children” referred to are “all children” or “children incapable of obeying the command.”

If “infant” or “toddler” replaces the word “children” in premise two, it is clearly false. There is strong exegetical support to prove that “children” were admitted, but as chapter 3 has shown, that is a very broad term with at least eight clear stages of childhood. I also demonstrated that the first three stages of childhood are never mentioned in Scripture as participating in communion, though they are mentioned as participating in circumcision and baptism. It has been the contention of this book that every category of “children” that partook of the Old Testament sacramental meals were children who were capable of meeting the conditions for partaking.

If “infant” is only inserted into the conclusion, then it would be an invalid formulation of the argument since a different term (infant) than is in the premise (children) is being used. There is a huge difference in the Hebrew between children and infants. To ignore the repeated mandates for worthy participation without crystal clear Biblical evidence for doing so is a clear violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship (the previous chapter).

Third, his statement, “since similar requirements in the old covenant did not bar them,” is false. We have proved in chapters 2-3 that there are numerous statements in the Old Testament that explicitly excluded infants. The children who partook of the sacrament in Nehemiah 8 were only children “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). Yes there were “little ones” who partook in 2 Chronicles 31, but they were qualified to partake “for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18), and the minimum age of three was specified in verse 16. I won’t repeat all the proofs that I gave in the earlier chapters, but there is no indication that anyone in the Old Covenant was allowed to ignore the commandments for worthy participation.

Gallant’s tenth thesis

When Paul gives the requirement of self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28), in context, his purpose is to prevent Christians from coming to the table of the Lord in a divisive manner. The barring of covenant children from the table, however, is itself a divisive practice: it divides children from ‘mature’ members and implicitly makes them second-class citizens in the kingdom of heaven (directly contrary to Christ’s assessment in Mt. 19:13-14).²¹⁰

If the previous presuppositions are faulty, this is a house of cards that does not hold up. Let me ask a few questions to clarify the poor logic involved:

1. When Paul commands, “let a man examine himself, and so (οὕτως) let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (v. 28), is Paul being divisive by prohibiting those without self-examination from partaking? No. He is simply giving conditions for partaking “for the better” rather than “for the worse” (v. 17). It is love for a child that makes him wait until he/she can partake “for the better.” Lepers in the Old Testament were not second-class citizens. They just didn’t meet the qualifications for communion.
2. Is Scripture dividing between the body (being divisive) when it only allows males who are twenty and above to vote? No. It sees that covenantal duty as a duty that has qualifications. The fact that infants can’t vote does not make them second-class citizens. It is simply a recognition that these precious ones need to mature more.
3. Is Scripture being divisive when it says, “let not many of you become teachers” (James 3:1)? I have heard people claim that they are “second-class citizens” if they are not allowed to teach. It is better to interpret James’ warning as a kindness that is seeking to spare the average Christian from the higher judgment that teachers receive (3:1b).
4. Is the Scripture being divisive when it recognizes that not all are able to eat solid food but are only capable of drinking milk (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2)? Obviously not. Several church fathers applied these passages to explain why children could not partake of communion until their senses were exercised to discern good and evil.

All of these qualifications are given to help the whole body grow and develop in maturity. Not all are ready for marriage, voting, teaching, or the Lord’s Supper, but that does not make them any less precious. This is not to deny that children are members of the visible church. I fully affirm that they are. By analogy, it is similar to citizenship in the United States of America. Our children are citizens by birth, but there are certain privileges that they must grow into, such as voting, driving a car, drinking, etc. Or to use another analogy, lambs are in the flock, but they are initially restricted to mother’s milk until their stomachs mature sufficiently to digest grass.

The really frightening trajectory of Gallant’s reasoning is radical egalitarianism. On his website he states:

The irony of the appeal to 1 Corinthians 11, in service to an argument against paedo-communion, is severely profound. In this chapter — and indeed in this epistle — Paul is fighting for the unity of the Church. There are to be no ‘spiritual’ or ‘social’ superiors/inferiors at the table, for all are one body in Christ. And yet the anti-paedo-communionist appropriation of this text institutionalizes precisely such disunity.²¹¹

While I agree that we are all spiritually equal and all have equal access to the Father, it is simply not true to say that there are no social superiors/inferiors at the Table. If that were the case, why was it that only Levites could serve Passover (2 Chron. 30:15,17; 35:11,18)? Why is it that only elders can admit to the table or bar from the table?²¹² That automatically implies that there are (as Larger Catechism 118, 124-130, 151 words it) superiors and inferiors.

Was not a denial of God’s authority structure and over-application of the universal priesthood of believers the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in Numbers 16? They told Moses, Aaron, and the Levites, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (v. 3). Why did Christ distribute the sacrament rather than letting each apostle take it themselves? In the single unit bringing reformation to Corinth’s worship (chapters 10-14), why does Paul make distinctions of who can talk and who cannot, specifically excluding women from speaking in church:

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Women were observing preaching, but could not preach. Does that make them second-class citizens? Biblically the answer is, “No.” But logically, Paul is violating Gallant’s rule of conduct when Paul admonishes women to silently learn rather than to participate in teaching. Why does Paul explicitly make distinctions between children and adults, saying, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11)? That is making a clear distinction between a νήπιος toddler²¹³ and the rest of the church — and that distinction occurs in a chapter on love that unites! You can still be spiritually united without denying social differences. Indeed, in the very heart of Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Table is his discussion of long hair, short hair, coverings for women, and men being uncovered. That section is very relevant to the Lord’s Table, yet it is full of distinctions. Indeed, it highlights the social distinctions of inferior/superior while upholding the spiritual equality of all. Paul says,

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

Paul makes that totally consistent with spiritual equality when he says,

11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12)

If Gallant’s thesis is correct, then it applies equally to Paul as it does to us.

Gallant’s eleventh thesis

The ancient Church admitted the children of believers to the Lord’s Supper (see Cyprian, On the Lapsed, ch. 9, 25-26). This practice was essentially abandoned around the twelfth century in the Western (Roman Catholic) Church, largely due to superstitious views concerning the Mass. This discontinuance of ancient practice was an error, and ought to be reversed in biblically reformed churches.²¹⁴

This is an exceedingly generous reading of the history of paedo-communion. (See the Introduction for a different reading of the church fathers.) It is more accurate to say that credo-communion precedes paedo-communion by at least a hundred years, and it may very well have been superstitious views of an ex opere operato nature that made people believe that infants could benefit from partaking.

Presuppositions of the Faith Formulation Committee of the CRC

The Faith Formulation Committee of the CRC has considered allowing both paedo-communion and credo-communion within the CRC. They formulated several presuppositions that they believe call for reevaluating the CRC’s stance and allowing paedo-communion.

FFC’s first presupposition

All baptized persons, regardless of age, are members of the church. Church membership comes not upon profession of faith but upon baptism.

I agree with this presupposition.

FFC’s second presupposition

We are invited to the table out of sheer grace as members of God’s covenant people and not because of our profession of faith or our level of comprehension.

Obviously the whole Christian life is of “sheer grace.” Even good works that a Christian performs are “sheer grace,” as Galatians 3 makes clear.²¹⁵ Since we have already seen in this chapter that there can be graceless people who have been circumcised/baptized (like Ishmael and Esau), it is no denial of grace to give tests of whether people possess “sheer grace.” Paul is not engaging in works righteousness when he commands,

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified. (2 Cor. 13:5)

Laying out conditions from 1 Corinthians 11 and other communion passages is in no way a denial of sheer grace. Those conditions give evidence of the presence of grace.

Second, we have clearly proved that grace is not required in the heart of a child before he was circumcised/baptized (see for example, Gen. 17:20-27 with Gal. 4:23,29-31). Without such explicit proof we would be required to practice credo-baptism. We have already demonstrated that there was clear proof for infants being circumcised and there is clear proof for infants being baptized. There is no such clear proof for infants partaking of communion. On the contrary, in chapters 2-3 we proved the opposite. The only “children” or “little ones” who partook of the Old Testament sacramental meals were children who also met the conditions laid out in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Likewise we gave exposition of Revelation’s discussion of the Lord’s Table and saw that only those that were known to be regenerate, possessed spiritual discernment, and who possessed an overcoming faith had the right to the sacramental meals. As Revelation 22:14 summarizes, “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life.” Not everyone in the churches addressed by John in Revelation had the right to eat.

Third, what needs to be proved is that there are no conditions for worthily coming to the Lord’s Table for certain segments of the body. Everyone admits that at least adults were required to have certain conditions before they partook. I dealt with this adequately in chapter 2. If they were required to have conditions, then this presupposition is automatically falsified: “We are invited to the table out of sheer grace as members of God’s covenant people and not because of our profession of faith or our level of comprehension.” If that statement is not true of adults (see the conditions in chapters 2-3), then what makes it a cogent argument for infants? If God adds conditions to give evidence of grace, then we should abide by those conditions. The whole of 1 Corinthians 11 proves that this presupposition is false. The only children who partook of the sacrament in Nehemiah 8 were children “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). The only “little ones” who partook in 2 Chronicles 31, are explicitly said to have been “little ones” who met six qualifications, including “for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). We young-credo-communionists admit all such “little ones.”

At a minimum, this presupposition assumes what needs to be proved rather than merely being asserted. Gallant at least tried to prove it. We have refuted his attempts above.

FFC’s third presupposition

When we are invited, each participant is called to age- and ability-appropriate obedience of biblical commands about participation at the Lord’s Supper.

The committee appears to be saying that Paul’s “commands about participation in the Lord’s Supper” are commands for those already partaking rather than being conditions for partaking. While technically true, it is missing the point that Paul makes worthy participation (v. 29) conditional upon testing of the genuineness²¹⁶ of their qualifications. Paul says, “let a man examine himself, and so (οὕτως) let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” The grammar indicates that examination must precede eating.²¹⁷ Granted, this preceding examination must be done every time a person partakes, but the point is that it is a condition that always must precede partaking. As Ellingworth points out, “the so is emphatic, implying ‘and only when he has examined himself.’”²¹⁸ Or as Winter words it, “All must test or examine themselves before they participate.”²¹⁹ The NIV renders it, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.” The Amplified Bible has, “Let a man [thoroughly] examine himself, and [only when he has done] so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

This also misses the point that both the Old and the New Testaments give the qualifications for worthy participation and apply it to every age group. This has been handled adequately in chapters 2-3.

FFC’s fourth presupposition

We must learn to see the commands about participation in the Lord’s Supper as life-giving gifts, not onerous burdens.

Agreed. This must be exegetically proved, not simply assumed. In chapters 2-3 I have sought to give proof that “little ones” and children as young as three years of age participated on occasion. We demonstrated that these children met the conditions for coming to the table. This would not be possible if the conditions were as onerous as some churches require: specifically, memorization of the entire catechism and the ability to sustain a difficult theological examination in front of an august assembly of elders without having an emotional meltdown. The feast days were calls to rejoice (Deut. 12:7,18; 14:26; 27:7) “before the LORD with great gladness” (1 Chron. 29:22; cf. Neh. 8:10,12). So I can appreciate the sentiment of not putting burdens upon our children that children were not designed to bear. I believe the Biblical conditions are conditions that little ones can indeed bear, if we handle those conditions responsibly.

FFC’s fifth presupposition

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is an especially significant text for understanding faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper, inhospitality, and calls for greater unity in the body of Christ. The text is not primarily concerned with children’s participation but rather focuses on unrepentant or inhospitable adults. At the same time, the text has implications for all participants at the table.

I agree with most of what is said here. However, I would dispute that there were participants that Paul did not have in mind. I have already given extensive evidence that Paul’s universal language means that every condition was expected to be applied to every participant without exception.

FFC’s sixth presupposition

The elders of a congregation have responsibility for cultivating both the gracious invitation to the table and obedient participation at the table.

Agreed.

FFC’s seventh presupposition

At times, discussions about the Lord’s Supper have slipped into one of two opposing errors: (a) focusing too much on achieving a level of cognitive understanding prior to participation, and (b) minimizing the importance of theological reflection and learning about deeper participation. Calling for “age- and ability-appropriate participation” addresses both problems at once, resisting the idea that children need to arrive at a certain level of comprehension before partaking and resisting the kind of unthinking participation that can set in over time for any worshiper.

My own approach resolves the tension by making clear that the conditions for partaking are not onerous for children (at least the specific ages of children that the Scripture admits). Consider the following conditions:

1. Faith/repentance

   We have already demonstrated that an active faith is required. Seed faith is not enough. For example, Jesus said, “If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” Opening the door requires an active faith.

   Does God require strong faith? No. Repeatedly he told the disciples that they had weak faith, yet he admitted them. Indeed, He tells us,

   Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.” (Matt. 18:3-5)

   These παιδίον children were obviously under the age of puberty but still old enough to be able to express faith.²²⁰ The disciples did not have a clear understanding of what Christ meant in John 6 when He told them they could have no life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood. He accepted them nonetheless because they confessed in that chapter a simple faith “we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

2. Understanding the basics of the Gospel and the meaning of the sacrament

   We have already seen that the Larger Catechism calls for understanding and bars the ignorant. This is not calling for a mature understanding of the faith since “one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation” and one who is “weak” may partake of the Lord’s Supper if there is a desire to cleave to Christ (LC 174). It is ignorance of the simplicity of the Gospel that bars from the Table. The little ones of Nehemiah 8 “could hear with understanding” (vv. 2,8).

   Does God require great knowledge? No. Repeatedly Christ called His disciples fools because they were slow to grasp doctrine. Yet He admitted them to the table because they were able to understand that He was the Christ, and they clung to Him in their weakness. They didn’t understand what He meant when He told them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but then most adult Christians today are confused on that subject too. Yet Christ accepted them to the Lord’s table because they had a basic understanding of their salvation. In the same chapter (John 6) they said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68-69).

3. Ongoing lifestyle of faith and repentance (self-examination)

   The third condition is an ongoing lifestyle of faith and repentance that is involved in self-examination. It is obvious from chapter 2 that some degree of obedience/sanctification was required as evidence of faith. To those who were not regenerate God said, “your appointed feasts My soul hates…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil” (Isa. 1:14,16-17 — see whole context).

   What kind of self-examination does God require? How holy does He expect us to become? He wants us to confess all known sin and to confess that we are weak on our own. As He told His disciples, “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Samuel obviously had a long ways to mature when he came to his first communion in 1 Samuel 1, but that very willingness to grow was a good qualification. As the text says, “Samuel grew in stature, and in favor both with the LORD and men” (1 Sam. 2:26). We may not favor everything the children do when they first partake, but we should ask, “Is there growth?” Without self-examination & repentance (all of which shows a desire to grow in holiness), there can be no growth in favor with God and man. This requirement is what the Old Testament repeatedly referred to when it called upon people to “sanctify themselves to the Lord in holiness.”

FFC’s eighth presupposition

Requiring a public profession of faith before participation in the Lord’s Supper is a wise pastoral practice in some circumstances, but it is not a biblically mandated or confessionally required practice. Each church council should promote age- and ability-appropriate obedience at the table, as described in the Bible and in the Reformed confessions, and may choose to require public profession of faith if appropriate.

Requiring that the profession of faith be made in a public way is not necessary, but requiring a formal profession of faith before participating has already been demonstrated to be necessary. There are many passages that we have already dealt with. Isaiah 44:1-5 clearly shows a very formal declaration of faith before others. Verse 1 says,

Yet hear me now, O Jacob My servant,
And Israel whom I have chosen.

There are three things that verse talks about. First, is covenant succession. Jacob was the third generation Christian. Before he was even conceived, God’s promises went to Jacob because of the faith of his parents. God’s choice preceded the parent’s choice. God initiates the covenant and we would be without hope apart from God’s choice. Verse 2 continues,

Thus says the LORD who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you:
“Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

This is a pro-life verse. This verse indicates that God forms us in the womb, that we are persons in the womb, that God values babies who are in the womb, and God claims us in the womb. God promises to help us from that time forward. The sign of these covenant promises is water baptism which points to Spirit baptism. Verse 3 deals with both. He says,

For I will pour water on him who is thirsty
And floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My Spirit on your descendants,
And My blessing on your offspring;

Pouring water and God later pouring out the Holy Spirit symbolizes the fact that it is all of grace and not of works. It’s not our movement into the water, but God’s movement upon us that changes us and changes our children. We are always dependent upon God. God continues to watch over our children as they grow up, which is what verse 4 talks about:

They will spring up among the grass
Like willows by the watercourses.”

After springing up like willows (a clause that indicates some growth or maturing), there is profession of faith in verse 5.

One will say, “I am the LORD’s”;
Another will call himself by the name of Jacob;
Another will write with his hand, “The LORD’s,”
And name himself by the name of Israel.

Those are descriptions of the various ways that people would make their covenant vows when they became older. On occasion these professions of faith were written and signed. So here is a passage of Scripture that shows profession of faith being an important part of our children’s covenant growth into maturity. It contradicts the FFC’s eighth presupposition. We have already demonstrated that there are many more such passages.

FFC’s ninth presupposition

This approach commends common criteria and a complementary set of practices for welcoming children to the table. The common principle and common criteria proposed in the following report promise to help us resist congregationalism, even though our practices may vary according to culture and ministry context.²²¹

It is my contention that if the moderating position of young-credo-communion is held to, there is no need for complementary sets of practices for communion. Both paedo-communion and adult-communion seem to give different criteria for adults and those who are younger. For example, most adult-communion advocates insist that children who have grown up in the covenant must memorize the catechism prior to partaking (at the age of 12, 13, 18, or 20). They do not apply the same standard for a forty year old pagan who gets converted. He is admitted to the Lord’s Table on profession of faith rather than on memorization of the catechism.

If the bar for admission is no higher or lower than the bar that Scripture gives, both adults and young children can joyfully be admitted to the table.

Presuppositions given by Ray Sutton

In his brief essay, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,”²²² Ray Sutton seeks to lay out where his presuppositions differ from those who hold to credo-communion.

Sutton’s first presupposition

The effect of nominalism on the church over the centuries has been to bifurcate the two sacraments. It has been customary in Reformed circles to speak of two sacraments, but there is really one sacrament with two aspects. The Church does not have two relationships with God, nor does it have two categories of relationship. If it is one with God, then union and communion are to be viewed as established simultaneously. To separate union from communion is to distort not only any relationship, but most certainly the relationship which the Church has with God. …cleansing and eating, in both Old and New Testaments…are coalesced to the point that one rarely takes place without the other.

In order to prove his presupposition, he first appeals to Exodus 24 where a baptism by blood of the Book of the Covenant occurred followed in verses 9-11 with Moses and the elders eating and drinking before God (v. 11). What is significant is that infants did not partake of that sacramental meal, as even he will admit. That meal was witnessed by the people, but not entered into by them. More importantly, what was baptized was a book, not a person. It was not what was baptized that was admitted to the feast. This exegesis is a stretch.

Second, Sutton points out that 1 Corinthians 10:1ff says that our fathers were baptized into Moses and then they partook of eating and drinking of Christ. What he fails to mention is that the Passover took place before they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. This completely nullifies his contention that this baptism preceded communion. Furthermore, this baptism was not followed by communion for another three days (a bifurcation — to use his words). So I fail to see how this passage proves his presupposition. See my extensive discussion of this passage in chapter 2 and in chapter 10.

His next proof text is Numbers 5, where the ordeal of jealousy takes place. He claims that “holy water” represents cleansing and the woman’s meal offering represents the Lord’s Table. If Numbers 5:17 and following is read, it is clear that there is no cleansing that takes place with the “holy water.” Instead, dust is mixed with it and the woman drinks it after a curse is pronounced upon her if she is lying. The ceremony has nothing to do with either cleansing or communion. This constitutes extremely poor exegesis.

Sutton also appeals to Mark 10:38-39 where Jesus speaks of his crucifixion as being both a baptism and a cup of suffering that He drinks. He concludes, “To think of separating the Lord’s baptism from his death would have been impossible and inconceivable.” While His water baptism did indeed point in some way to His death, it was separated in time by three and a half years. I fail to see the point. If anything it proves the opposite of what he intends it to prove. His circumcision pointed to the cross (his being “cut off”), and His water baptism pointed to the cross (God’s judgment being poured out upon Him), and his Last Supper pointed to the cross (drinking the cup in judgment in place of His people). Each one of the symbols that pointed to the cross was separated by many years.

Since his proofs are shaky, his conclusion is suspect. His conclusion is:

Therefore it would be better to refer to one sacrament with two aspects — inception and communion. This brings out the unity of the sacrament and emphasizes the unbiblical nature of dividing between the two. With reference to children, it is biblically inconsistent to give a child sacramental union with Jesus, while withdrawing the perpetuation of that union through eating Jesus’ meal…It becomes important for one who has been baptized to proceed to communion. If one does not, then he has effectively been excommunicated. Children must be included, therefore, who have been baptized.

Not only is the exegetical foundation for this presupposition lacking, it is contradicted by Scripture. Samuel would have been circumcised and cleansed on day eight after birth (an invariable rule that was mandated to take place on the eighth day or be cut off — Gen. 17:14), but Samuel did not partake of communion until he was weaned (1 Sam. 1:22-28). Was he excommunicated from the body? No. He was just not eligible for one of the body’s functions. Isaac was circumcised into the covenant on day eight (Gen. 21:4), but did not participate in any feast before the Lord until years later (Gen. 21:8ff — see exposition of this passage in chapter 3). The little ones of 2 Chronicles 31 would have been circumcised and cleansed on day eight (girls being cleansed on day sixteen), yet they did not partake until six conditions were met, three of which were that 1) they had to be at least three years old (v. 16), 2) they had to have “faithfulness” (v. 18), and (3) they had to have “sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). Clearly God bifurcates between the two sacraments and upholds the historic viewpoint that there are two sacraments, not one.

Sutton’s second presupposition

It is schizophrenic to approach one sacrament covenantally, and view the other in an individualistic way. The child is either in the covenant or not.

What this is failing to appreciate is that the covenant embraces the individual and the whole body, and to neglect either side gets us imbalanced. One should not pit the covenant against the individual. The individual was circumcised (Gen. 17), but he was circumcised into the visible church. The first Passover gave instructions for the body as a whole²²³ as well as the responsibilities of each individual.²²⁴ The same is true of the other sacramental meals scattered throughout the Old Testament. Certainly the New Testament uses intimate individualistic language with regards to the Lord’s Table (see exposition of the Revelation sacramental meals in chapter 2).

Sutton’s third presupposition

This schizophrenic approach to the sacraments has resulted from an unbiblical attempt to inject either rationalism or irrationalism into the covenant. If for example, the basis for admittance to the Table is mastery of a body of knowledge, the church is saying to its children that the essence of the covenant is knowledge. And if, on the other hand, the child must tell of a conversion experience, as is practiced by many Presbyterian churches today, the covenant is defined accordingly. There is obviously nothing wrong with knowledge or experience, but these are not the foundations of one’s relationship to God.

This is making the same error that Tim Gallant makes when Gallant insists that the covenant admits to all privileges and denial of any privilege is an attack on the covenant. See discussion under Gallant’s presuppositions.

As has already been demonstrated, there are stages of development of members within Christ’s body as they take on new responsibilities and privileges. Galatians 4:1 is quite clear that our baptized covenant children are heirs. It is just as clear that these heirs don’t have full covenantal privileges, for “an heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father” (vv. 1-2). Certainly the transition from “an heir” by right of birth and baptism (Gal. 4:1) to the privileges of sonship by faith (see the “all” in Gal. 3:26 and compare with 4:1-7) is the first of several entrances into various privileges.

Second, it makes no sense that God would not require women to partake of communion (Ex. 23:14-19; cf. 34:23) if partaking of communion was of the essence of what it means to be in covenant with God. Those women were still in covenant with God.

Third, is it rationalism for Nehemiah 8 to specify that the only children who were there at that feast were those “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). Is it rationalism for Paul to repeatedly insist that without the church having “understanding” there is no “edification” (1 Cor. 12-14)? Is it rationalism for Paul to insist that we must “judge (διεκρίνομεν) ourselves” or we will be chastened at the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:31-32)? Partaking of communion is frequently tied with understanding and knowledge, as was demonstrated in chapter 2. It’s easy to use pejorative terms, but harder to prove those terms are accurate.

Sutton’s fourth presupposition

Incipient Pelagianism: Pelagius maintained that responsibility is limited by ability. Traditionally, children have been kept from the table because they are not able to examine themselves. What is really being said in this argument? Is it not saying that children are not responsible because they are not able? This appears to argue against the mind of Scripture. First, God says that one is responsible whether able or not. So to abstain from participation in the sacrament is an unlawful observance of the Supper…

Second, any argument against paedo-communion because of inability on the part of the child can be turned against paedo-baptism. The Baptist will argue that the child (infant) cannot believe, and since faith is the prerequisite for baptism it is wrong to baptize them.

There are several faulty ideas in this accusation of incipient Pelagianism.

First, for this argument to work, communion must be considered to be a moral command versus a ceremonial/liturgical command. We know that it is not a moral command for infants because women and children were exempted from attending Passover (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16), though they were obviously allowed to come when able. We know that it is not a moral commandment since those perpetually unclean (like lepers, or the woman with a flow of blood for twelve years in Matthew 9:20) were not allowed to partake (Numb. 9:6; etc.). Obviously humans must obey God on even ceremonial/liturgical issues, but this book has been arguing that there is no clear (uncontested) command for infants to partake. If there were ceremonial qualifications for even the youngest children (eg., 2 Chron. 31:18), then why would other qualifications that are clearly grounded in Scripture suddenly make us incipient Pelagians?

Second, the accusation of incipient Pelagianism is completely unwarranted if there are Biblical qualifications for obeying the command. We have demonstrated in this book that there are indeed qualifications for partaking worthily of the meal.

Third, for the sake of argument, let me point out that even paedo-communionists admit that inability can be a legitimate excuse for absence from the meal. If even one of the following illustrations is true, then his statement that “one is responsible whether able or not” cannot be applied to communion:

1. Providential hindrances might made make some women and children unable to attend Passover (due to menses, recent childbirth, a sick child, etc.). Does such inability still constitute sin and failure? Does it never relieve them of their responsibility? Scripture would seem to contradict that conclusion (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). Based on those three Scriptures, Jewish Levites would have excused those women and children. Were they guilty of incipient Pelagianism for excusing responsibility because of inability? It appears that Sutton is overstating his thesis.
2. As documented in chapter 2, some paedo-communionists will admit that newborn infants would not have been expected to chew on lamb at the Passover, and would base their excuse on a Biblically stated inability — “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). In the opinion of these paedo-communionists, their inability to chew solid food excused them. Are they engaging in incipient Pelagianism? I would say not, unless one wants to accuse the Bible of Pelagianism.
3. As documented in chapter 2, some paedo-communionists argue from 1 Chronicles 31:16,18 that those under three years of age are excluded. In their churches, age constitutes an inability that is imposed by the session. Does such inability not relieve them of responsibility? If it does, are such paedo-communionists guilty by Sutton’s standards of incipient Pelagianism?
4. In the Old Testament, a leper was unable to meet the qualifications for partaking of communion. It was not his sin that kept him from eating; it was a ceremonial disqualification for the Old Covenant. Because it was a ceremonial inability, it places his non-participation completely outside the realm of the Pelagian controversy.
5. If the preceding inabilities (providence, ability to manducate, and age) do not involve one in incipient semi-Pelagianism, why would the other requirements given in the law? For example, the phrase applied to the little ones that partook in 1 Chronicles 31, “because in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18), adds qualifications that infants are not capable of. Are newborn infants capable of faithfulness, actively setting themselves apart, or holiness? It appears not. Likewise, it is no insult to infants when the only little ones partaking at the Festival of Tabernacles in Nehemiah 8 were “all who could hear with understanding” (v. 2) and “those who could understand” (v. 3). As mentioned earlier, certain covenant privileges (such as voting, marriage, teaching) only belong to certain members of the covenant. They are still covenant privileges intended only for covenant members, but not intended for all covenant members.

Fourth, Sutton is assuming what needs to be proved — that it is a responsibility for every member of the body to partake of communion even if they are unable. Responsibility requires a clear-cut command. I can find passages where young children are authorized to partake, but I have found no Scriptures where infants are authorized to partake, let alone commanded to partake. It is the law alone that can show our responsibilities and abilities/disqualifications. Scripture says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). We must be “convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9), and since all “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 2:4), and since the Biblical maxim is that “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15), that means that this whole debate of the imperative of infant communion must be settled from the law of God. Narrative passages may illustrate the law, but it is the law alone that can define any given thought, goal, motive, or action as sinful. I would urge the reader to reread the chapter on the Regulative Principle of Worship. Unless the law commands infants to partake, there is no sin in their not partaking. This book has sought to show that the law allows “children” to participate if and only if they can meet certain minimal conditions. Infants cannot meet those conditions.

Fifth, Sutton’s attempt to draw a parallel between the conditions for baptism and the conditions for the Lord’s Table is missing the point of what happened in the Old Testament. Sutton says, “The Baptist will argue that the child (infant) cannot believe, and since faith is the prerequisite for baptism it is wrong to baptize them.” While that is one of many arguments that a Baptist will use, it is hardly a Pelagian argument. So as not to delve too deeply into the baptism debate²²⁵ let’s take it back to the relationship between circumcision and communion. We have clear Biblical warrant for applying the sign of the covenant to the unregenerate since even the foundational passage does so (Gen. 17:23-27 with Gal. 4:23,25,29), but there is no such clear Biblical warrant for infants partaking of communion. Baptists and Presbyterians are both in agreement that normal Biblical exegesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that circumcision was applied to infants in the Old Testament. There is not the same clear (uncontested) exegetical evidence for whether infants partook of communion. Indeed, this book has sought to show a total absence of evidence that infants partook. Children yes, but it was always children who were old enough to meet the Biblical qualifications for worthy participation.

Sutton’s fifth presupposition

When the children of the covenant are not allowed to come to the table, they are being told that their relationship with God does not exist. Not that it might not exist, but that they really do not have one at all. The latter is the only way of viewing this prohibition. The irrational recommendation of a conversion experience is not the solution.

If any one of the following statements is true, then Sutton’s emotionally charged accusation falls to the ground:

1. God-fearers (uncircumcised believers) had a relationship to God even though they were outside of the covenant and unable to partake of the sacraments. Keep in mind that Sutton claims that there is no relationship with God at all if people are barred from the Table. Consider the evidence: Cornelius was a God-fearer who had a deep relationship with God since he was “a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among the nation of the Jews” (Acts 10:22) and since the angel told him, “Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God” (Acts 10:31), and since he worked righteousness (Acts 10:35) and was “accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35). The technical Greek phrase “God fearer” is used in Acts 10:2,22; 13:16,26, and defines a Gentile who was not a member of the synagogue, and yet was a believer who served God with all his heart. He could not partake of communion, but he was nevertheless treated much better than a rebel. The person “who feared God” was a synonym for a truly regenerate person (see Ex. 1:17,21; 18:21; etc.) and the term was used to describe believers outside the church in contrast to unbelievers who had no fear of God (Ps. 36:1; Rom. 3:18; etc.). It was God-fearers who were welcomed into the “court of the Gentiles” for prayer. Since the prayers and worship of the wicked are not accepted by God and indeed are treated as an abomination (2 Chron. 7:14; Prov. 15:8,29) it is clear that these God-fearers who were provided a place of worship in the temple were being treated differently by God than other non-Jews. Obviously those same God-fearers were not able to offer sacrifices or partake of communion until they were circumcised and went through the process required to “become Jews.” They were outside the visible church but not outside the circle of the elect. So while it is not good to be simply a God-fearer, and while all God-fearers should be admonished to join the church, the Bible consistently treated God-fearers as being much better in their relationship to God than most excommunicates. The centurion of Matthew 8:8-13 was not in the church, yet Jesus said that he had been exercising greater faith than anyone who was in the church. Obviously Jesus did not treat this man the same way he treated dangerous heretics like the Pharisees and the Herodians (whom he told his disciples to beware of). Every one of these God-fearers disproves Sutton’s thesis.
2. When God said, “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD” (Ex. 23:17; cf. Ex. 34:23; Deut. 16:16), was he claiming that these male adults who were mandated to attend were the only ones in real relationship with God? Obviously not.
3. God uses the analogy of a flock to describe the church in Isaiah 40:11, saying, “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young.” They belong to the Shepherd even before they are born, and once born and branded, continue to be protected and cared for by the Shepherd. Do they eat grass right away? No. They drink milk. Are they any less part of God’s flock when they aren’t eating grass? Obviously not. In the same way, Scripture distinguishes between those in the church who are able to only drink milk and those who are able to eat solid food. Both “milk” and “solid” food are obviously covenant privileges (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2). “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14) If there are two kinds of spiritual food, to give one without giving the other makes sense. Though some quote Clement to prove paedo-communion, I showed in the introduction how the section often quoted actually proves the opposite. Clement states that the milk of the word belongs to those just born while meat belongs to those who are older. He clearly likens the Lord’s Table to the meat and the Word preached to milk. Whether this is true or not, the Scripture clearly shows that lambs belong to God while in the mother’s womb, outside the womb while they are nursing, and later when they eat grass. My position is that we transition children into eating “grass” when they are capable of benefiting from it by meeting the Biblical qualifications. It is plainly wrong to say that our children have no relationship with God whatsoever.

Sutton’s sixth presupposition

Subjectivism: Rationalism and irrationalism are both subjective because one is always left asking the question “How much.”

I can appreciate this objection. Examinations of children can indeed be subject to error and can indeed be subjective. This is doubly so when children are intimidated by the elders. This is why we always try to interview children in informal settings (even over lunch) to help set the child’s mind at ease. This is also why we depend heavily upon the parents’ testimonies of what God is doing in their child’s life. Shepherds who are constantly around their sheep will see changes in the lambs. Various children come in at different ages in our church. The youngest that any have come is age three, but on occasion they are six or older. Has subjectivism kept them needlessly out? Possibly, and we seek to guard against that. The same can be said of adult professions of faith. Are people allowed in who are not regenerate? Yes. Are people kept out who have had a sincere faith in Christ? In our church that would be rare. This is definitely an area that we are seeking to grow in. I fail to see how a potential problem of subjectivism should keep us from obeying God’s clear commands.

Sutton’s seventh presupposition

Confirmationalism: Historically, many Reformed churches have taught that the faith of the child is to be confirmed during his teenage years…Actually, the child made a profession in baptism, and Biblical confirmation takes place when he obeys God’s Law. Any attempt to confirm faith by knowledge or experience must rely on an evaluation of something inside a person. Furthermore, confirmation as normally practiced, is asking God to do a second time what He has already done. So confirmation in this subjective way is not different than asking for a second blessing.

While there is usually no need for children to wait until their teen years to express a credible faith, the opposite extreme is to flatten out all development in a way that erases the Hebrew distinctions outlined in chapter 3. Consider the following examples of progression over a child’s life.

Isaiah 44:1-5 outlines God’s stages of work in our covenant children starting with election (v. 1), to His working on them in the womb (v. 2), to baptism (v. 3a), to the Spirit being poured out upon them (v. 3b), to growing up (v. 4), to making confession with the mouth in profession of faith (v. 5). We do not deny that God is at work in our children (vv. 1-4) long before they can profess faith (v. 5). Indeed, we believe the opposite — that God’s grace is always at work with the goal of moving them beyond milk/nursing to eating meat and beyond. See exposition under “FFC’s eighth presupposition” above.

Likewise Galatians 3:26-4:7 moves through entrance into the Abrahamic covenant by faith (3:26) and baptism (3:27) to the toddler children of those believers being treated as heirs (4:1) who are under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father (4:2-3), to restarting that cycle through the child’s own faith that ushers into sonship privileges (contrast v. 1 with vv. 4-7).

Contrary to Sutton who claims that “the child made a profession in baptism,” we claim that the parents made a profession in baptism. The profession is to raise this child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and as guardians and stewards (Gal. 4:2) to bring them to explicit faith in Christ (Gal. 4:1-7).

Sutton claims that “Biblical confirmation takes place when he obeys God’s Law.” It is true that obedience is the evidence of faith (James 2:18). It is an evidence that comes after justification by faith alone ushers a person into sonship privileges.²²⁶ Parents are not called to assume that justification by faith has already happened. The whole logic of Galatians 3:26-4:7 indicates that parents have a stewardship trust (Gal. 4:1-2) of leading their children to Christ in the same way that the law is a steward/tutor that leads people to Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law is not the goal of the stewardship, but the means to the goal — Christ.

When Sutton says, “confirmation as normally practiced, is asking God to do a second time what He has already done” and that it is “asking for a second blessing” seems to assume that the children are already believers or already regenerate. That may be true, but it cannot be assumed. He hastens to clarify later by saying,

Granted, it may be a false profession in the case of infants or adults; nevertheless, it is a profession of faith. Thus, a baptized infant should be treated as a believer…

The foundational passage of Genesis 17 explicitly denies that we should treat all infants as believers simply because they have received the sign of the covenant (see Ishmael) and it explicitly denies that belief is the condition for circumcision. Paul calls Ishmael unregenerate (Gal. 4:21-31), and once he reached adulthood he was cast out of the visible church (Gen. 21:10,12-21; Gal. 4:30). God still commanded him to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12, 23-27). Obviously God did not treat his circumcision as a profession of faith. Likewise, God hated Esau long before he was born (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). Yet God insisted that Esau wear the sign of the covenant. Obviously God did not treat Esau’s circumcision as a profession of faith. Sutton’s presupposition is obviously not biblical.

Sutton’s eighth presupposition

Privilege is given until irresponsibility becomes visible.

Galatians 4 denies that the baptized child²²⁷ can enter into all of his covenant privileges: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” We have already seen that being a child heir precedes entering the privileges of sonship.

Someone might respond that unbelieving slaves were admitted to the table (Ex. 12:44) and therefore children who have not yet professed faith should be admitted. However, Paul clarifies that it was only believing slaves who had sonship privileges (see logic of Galatians 3:26-29). There is no exception to Paul’s “all” — “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Faith is the only way of entering into full sonship privileges. Then Paul repeats every category that came into the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek [the majority of those circumcised were Gentiles in Genesis 17], there is neither slave nor free [the majority of those circumcised were slaves in Genesis 17, yet they were brought into the covenant], there is neither male nor female [females were admitted without circumcision in Genesis 17, but were required to receive baptism under Moses]; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” It was faith that ushered into sonship privileges. There is no evidence that unbelieving slaves partook of the communion meals of the Old Testament. Will such an objector claim that adult servants (who are quite capable of fulfilling the conditions set forth for worthy participation) are not required to believe before partaking? That would require an entirely different argument than any that paedo-communionists have so far offered. It would require infants to partake if they are not capable of fulfilling the conditions and slaves to partake even if they were capable of fulfilling the conditions but chose not to. No, my conclusion is a much more Biblical conclusion.

Sutton’s ninth presupposition

At baptism, one is judicially declared right with God. To deal either with the adult or infant as though he were still guilty and in need of being proven innocent, is to deny his baptism.

Paul absolutely denies this presupposition in Romans 3-4. The fact that circumcision was not an indication of justification did not make it a useless rite. It ushered the child into the preaching of the Word (Rom. 4:2) and “many” other benefits that fall short of faith that justifies:

Rom. 3:1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar…

Being under the weekly preaching of the law is an enormous benefit to the child. We have already documented many other benefits.

To say that barring infants from communion is to treat them as “still guilty” is a misrepresentation of our position. A few may be Ishmaels, but that is not the point. The point is that God requires growth and embracing the conditions for communion.

Sutton’s tenth presupposition

First, it must be mentioned that many of the better manuscripts leave out the reference to the Lord [in 1 Cor. 11:29]. Thus, the body referred to is the church.

The fuller context of this verse states,

1 Cor. 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

The question is, “Are we ‘not discerning’ the Lord’s physical body or are we ‘not discerning’ the Lord’s spiritual body (i.e., the church)?” In one sense, it does not affect my position at all either way. Since I am a Majority Text advocate, I believe that it says, “not discerning the Lord’s body,” rather than simply “not discerning the body.” The context seems to favor the bread as Christ’s body broken for us, but I am quite willing to concede this point for the sake of the argument. Is an infant able to discern the body of the church? No.

Other miscellaneous paedo-communion presuppositions

One presupposition that seems to have afflicted the consciences of at least some paedo-communionists is whether they would be in sin to attend a credo-communion church and not be able to commune their children (whether they were at that credo-communion church for one Sunday or several years). While I would appreciate the paedo-communion view of such a visitor or sojourner, I would try to alleviate their conscience issue on this by pointing out that there is no sin if a person is providentially hindered from communion. This was certainly the case for women and children who were explicitly excused (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). It also seems to be the case for those who have been providentially hindered by elders who hold a different view.

Gary North once asserted that the implication of our view is that “having a low IQ is worse than committing adultery, because repentance is possible for adulterers.”²²⁸ His contention was that we are treating infants and comatose adults far worse when we deny them the Lord’s Supper than we treat adulterers. This is simply not true. If it was true, then Ezekiel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, Abednego, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, and others should have escaped from captivity in order to partake of communion. God already made provision for being providentially hindered in His law.²²⁹ All the ancient authorities acknowledge that (though women and children were welcome), they were exempted because of the difficulties involved. Paedo-communionists who disagree with our session should at least find no sense of guilt in honoring our requirement that their non-professing children not partake with us at the table. Though they may still believe we are at fault in barring the children, at least the guilt will not be upon them for abiding by our rules.

6. Presuppositions of Various Mature-Communionists

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

Presuppositions of Leonard Coppes

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

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

Coppes’ first presupposition

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

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

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

Several other presuppositions given by Coppes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coppes on federal headship and communion

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

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

There are several problems with this.

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

Next presupposition: Luke 2 is Christ’s first Passover

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

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

There are several faulty presuppositions in this argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His next presupposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presuppositions of Francis Nigel Lee

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

Lee’s first relevant presupposition

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

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

Lee’s second presupposition

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

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

His catechism on communion states the same thing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More presuppositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Bacon

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

The process of time in Genesis 4:3

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

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

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

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

The Passover Meal in Exodus 12

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

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

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

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

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

7. Presuppositions of My Young Credo-communion View

Because I have clearly laid out my presuppositions in the first six chapters of this book, I will only repeat a few of the less obvious presuppositions that impact my exegesis. This is to give full disclosure to the reader of things that otherwise might be hidden. Thus, this chapter will not be a complete argument for credo-communion.

The Regulative Principle of Worship must be foundational.

My deeply settled conviction of the Regulative Principle of Worship²⁴⁶ forces me to find explicit permission for anything I do in church, including communion. Otherwise we end up “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). This admonition goes for all viewpoints on communion, and I have sought to heed its warning.

The Westminster Confession insists that logical implications are only warranted as having Biblical authority if they meet two conditions: 1) the implications must be “good” and 2) they must be “necessary.” For an argument to be “good,” both premises must be 1) solidly Biblical,²⁴⁷ 2) without ambiguity,²⁴⁸ 3) and logically related to each other. For an argument to have a “necessary” conclusion, 1) the conclusion must be the only conclusion that can be derived from the premises, 2) the terms must not change their definition in either premise or in the conclusion, 3) and the premises must be absent of any ambiguity. Too many “logical conclusions” in this debate do not actually follow the strict rules of logic. Every detail of communion must be explicitly warranted in the Scripture.

The Regulative Principle of Worship cuts two ways: We must not add to the law and we must not take away from the law (Deut. 12:31-32). In my chapter on the Regulative Principle of Worship I seek to show how both infant-communion and adult-communion engage in adding to and taking away from the law. Of the fourteen views I have found on communion, only two fail to do so pervasively, and only one does not do so at all.

Everyone has the burden of proof.

I believe that everyone has “the burden of proof” to convince others of the Scriptural warrant for every feature of communion. Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Historical Theology (my next presupposition) is not adequate since a clear understanding of Scripture can make us wiser than our teachers (Ps. 119:99). I do not put the burden of proof on paedo-communionists and I do not put the burden of proof upon others. This is a study that must be settled by the Bible. Even after we go to Historical Theology we must still be able to clearly see the conclusions in the Bible. The Bible is our only infallible standard.

Historical Theology assumes progress on doctrine.

What if people cannot come to unity when studying the Bible on their own? Another tool that can help us is to examine the evidence gathered by the body of “teachers” God has given over the centuries. When we run across difficult doctrines and “dark sayings of old” (Ps. 78:2), it is helpful to have a “multitude of counselors” (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 24:6) to help us sort through the confusion. The creeds of the past give us this multitude of counselors to help us double check our own conclusions. Many wise and godly people over the ages have wrestled with the same questions and can often help us as we wrestle with them. Sadly, the church of the past has been somewhat divided on the doctrine of the Lord’s Table. So how does historical theology influence my exegesis? In two ways:

First, my view of Historical Theology (God’s providential growth of the church’s understanding of doctrine over time — see Ephesians 4:12-16) makes me reluctant to have as much dogmatism on views that the church has been divided on during the first 1500 years. It also gives me more charity towards those who differ from me on this subject. This also gives me patience in realizing that the church is not yet “mature” — as defined by Ephesians 4:12-16 (“no longer be children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine”). If (as I suspect) the church is still in the infancy of its history, I should not be troubled that we have not yet “all come to the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13). I anticipate more unity in the future, but I am prepared to not be perfectionistic with the church in the meantime.

On the other hand, that same promise of growth in doctrine over time (“until we all come to the unity of the faith”) makes me convinced that the Reformed Church has made major progress in understanding what the Bible says about these and other subjects of controversy, and I should not downplay that progress. This is especially true when the unanimous stance of the more than fifty-one Reformed creeds and confessions since the Protestant Reformation has been in favor of credo-communion and against paedo-communion.²⁴⁹ It also makes me realize that much more discussion needs to take place.

Though the Regulative Principle of Worship (my first presupposition) puts the burden of proof upon all positions to prove their point, this presupposition at least slants me in favor of the Reformed consensus on areas of ambiguity and uncertainty. Obviously these hundreds of brilliant and godly creedalists were not infallible, and I do not treat them as infallible. Historical Theology is also intended to give the individual interpreter a sense of humility rather than feeling that he must reinvent the wheel all over again. When such an incredible body of scholars are unanimous in rejecting infant communion, it makes me reticent to ditch their testimony unless I can see crystal clear and unambiguous proof that infants were admitted. Hints and possible implications are not sufficient. I have seen plenty of evidence that older children were admitted (see chapter 2 for the granularity of the Hebrew terms on age), but even Calvin and other reformers added “children” to the table when they were able to meet the Biblical evidence. I have seen nothing to overthrow the Reformed consensus that rejects yeled newborns, yonek one-year-olds, or olel toddlers when there is zero evidence that those three stages of children were admitted in the Bible. All other ages of “children” who were admitted to the feasts of Israel were explicitly said by Scripture to have possessed the prerequisites that Isaiah 1, 1 Corinthians 10-11, and other passages speak about. Their admittance was not automatic. Many reformers admitted children much younger than 12.

All the Old Testament sacramental meals stand behind the Lord’s Table.

This third presupposition has an enormous impact upon my exegesis. Though I believe that Passover stands as one Old Testament counterpart to the Lord’s Table (Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11,15; 1 Cor. 5:7), it is not the only one.²⁵⁰ 1 Corinthians 10 makes it clear that every sacramental meal of the Old Testament continues to instruct us in how to have worthy participation in our sacrament — “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Likewise, the rest of the New Testament appeals to every sacramental meal of the Old Testament as a symbol of ours, from Adam’s tree of life,²⁵¹ to the hidden manna,²⁵² to the temple peace offerings (1 Cor. 10:18), to the sacramental meals in the Pentateuch (1 Cor. 10:1-13). Christ even hinted at this broader connection when He instituted a meatless Last Supper the day before the Biblically authorized date of the Passover,²⁵³ yet still called it a “Passover.” All sacramental meals (even ones that do not land on Nisan 14) have the character of Passover and flow from the Passover. All the sacramental meals are in some way united in meaning.

Other Passover passages should be allowed to interpret Exodus 12 — especially when godly scholars come to such varied conclusions on that chapter.

This fourth presupposition also impacts my exegesis enormously. When there are divergent interpretations of the Passover in Exodus 12, I believe those differences can be settled by examining every Passover celebration in the Bible. This is allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If an interpretation of Exodus 12 contradicts other God-authorized celebrations of Passover, then it should be obvious that this interpretation is fallacious. I have already demonstrated that the other Passover passages show that there were indeed conditions and restrictions placed upon participants (Ex. 34:18; Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 9:1-14, 28:16-25; Deut. 16:1-8; Josh. 5; 2 Kings 23; 2 Chron. 30:1-27, 35:1-19; Ezra 6:19-22; Ezek. 45:21-25).

We have already pointed out that Exodus 12:48-49 and Numbers 9:14 favor credo-communion, not paedo-communion. Likewise Joshua 5 reviews why the wilderness generation had been unable to partake of the sacrament and had been forbidden to circumcise their children — it was because of unbelief and disobedience (v. 6). Joshua 5 shows that even though the wilderness adults had been circumcised and were in the covenant (the two conditions that paedo-communionists appeal to), those two conditions were not enough to admit to the feast — faith and obedience were required.

These same conditions for worthy participation can be seen in 2 Kings 23 and in the later Passover under Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 30. Both passages strongly favor credo-communion. For example, Hezekiah’s invitation to partake of Passover was only given to those who had a heart willing to “return to the LORD God” (2 Chron. 30:6), who were “not stiff-necked, as your fathers were” (v. 8), but who were willing to “serve the LORD your God” (v. 8). The Passover was “for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God” (v. 19), and this was showcased by “making confession to the LORD God of their fathers” (v. 22) and being “sanctified” (vv. 15,17-20). Failure of some to meet the prerequisites resulted in sickness (v. 20) just as the Corinthians’ failure to meet the conditions resulted in their sickness (1 Cor. 11:30). 2 Chronicles 35 adds a note that only Levitical pastors were authorized to distribute the Passover (2 Chron. 35:10-13).

The point is that too much ink has been spilled on Exodus 12 without achieving any consensus. There are at least three contradictory interpretations of that chapter by godly men. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be correct. How do we determine which one is correct? By allowing other inspired Scriptures that deal with the Passover to instruct our interpretation of Exodus 12. This is the hermeneutical principle of the Analogy of Faith. I believe when this is done, it will vindicate the young-credo position.

The confessional distinction between the “invisible church” and the “visible church” is a critical distinction for properly understanding the doctrine of communion.

The Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 25 gives many Scriptures to prove the distinction between the visible and invisible church. It also insists that baptism gives “solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church” (WCF 28:1). As chapter 5 of this book documents, there is confusion on this point among many paedo-communionists. If one rejects the idea of a visible/invisible distinction in history and only accepts a distinction of historical church versus eschatological (last day) church, then there is the potential to end up coming to wrong conclusions on both baptism and the Lord’s Supper as well as doctrines of soteriology and ecclesiology.

The Bible is quite clear that the visible/invisible distinction is a critical one for history and not just for the last day of history. Jesus made the point that being baptized with water did not equate with being baptized with the Spirit, and therefore being outwardly in the kingdom did not equate with being truly in the kingdom.²⁵⁴ There are tares mixed in with the wheat in the same field (Matt. 13:24-25) and there is chaff mixed in with the wheat on the same threshing floor (Matt. 3:12). Judas was part of the visible church but not the invisible, and Jesus said that He knew that fact in history, not just at the end of history. Consider the following people who were thought by all to be in the church, but who were not:

Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Notice that Jesus will not say, “I knew you once, but now I no longer know you.” No. He traces this distinction back to history when He says, “I never knew you.” To say otherwise is to affirm that people can lose their salvation. Scripture repeatedly states that people can be visibly in the church without being in the kingdom truly.

Paul makes the point that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God” (Rom. 2:28-29) The sacrament of circumcision admitted people “outwardly” into the kingdom and had many benefits even without faith (Rom. 3:1-4), but it did not usher a person into a saving relationship with God “inwardly.” Paul says, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Both uses of that term “Israel” are legitimate usages. The first is equivalent to the invisible church and the second to the visible church. This is why Paul could go on to say in Romans 9 that Ishmael and Esau were in the church by circumcision but they were never part of God’s elect (the invisible church). Auburn Avenue theology muddies the clarity of Scripture on this.

John said of apostates, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us” (1 John 2:19). There are two senses of the word “us” being used in this text. They went out from “us” as a visible church. They were not of “us” as to the invisible church, for if they had been of us in that sense, they would not have gone out of “us” (the visible church).

The point is, that if this presupposition is true, then several of Gallant’s presuppositions are false. It means that entrance into the visible church by baptism does not guarantee entrance into the invisible church. It neither presupposes regeneration or election nor produces regeneration or election. This clearly impacts how we view the Lord’s Supper.

Children were not circumcised because they were spiritually in the covenant; they were circumcised because they were children of parents who professed faith.

This presupposition may not seem as if it relates to communion either, but an examination of chapter 5 will show that even paedo-communionists have agreed that how you fall out on this interpretation can indeed impact your exegesis. It is my contention that children did not receive the sign of entrance into the church (circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament) because they were already spiritually in the covenant. On the contrary, God made clear that he would not establish His Abrahamic covenant with Ishmael (Gen. 17:18-21), yet Ishmael was still commanded to receive the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (“every male child among you shall be circumcised” with Gen. 17:23-26). It is clear that Ishmael did not receive the sign of the covenant because he was in covenant with God. Instead, the children received circumcision/baptism because they were the children of parents who were within the covenant.

Why is this distinction important? Paedo-communion argues that it is membership in the covenant alone that gives the child the “privileges” of the covenant, and just as the covenant automatically authorized them to be circumcised, the same covenant automatically authorized them to any other blessing of the covenant, including Passover/Lord’s Supper. The case of Ishmael proves the exact opposite. While not denying that God’s covenant is generational, we will see in a later presupposition that election cuts down through the covenant in the generations.

Children were not circumcised in the Old Testament on the basis of presumed regeneration.

The next presupposition is that children were not circumcised in the Old Testament (nor baptized in the New Testament) on the basis of presumed regeneration. This was an error popularized by Abraham Kuyper. Galatians 4:21-31 gives an inspired exposition of the lives of Isaac and Ishmael and makes clear that Ishmael “was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23,29) and was at enmity with God (vv. 23,25,29-30) whereas Isaac was “born according to the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29).

Presumptive regenerationists will object that they do not deny that there are unregenerate in our offspring, but that we cannot know that fact until they grow up. They are missing the point that God had previously revealed the fleshy nature of Ishmael (Gen. 16:12). Yet Ishmael was bound by God’s law to wear the sign of the Abrahamic covenant in his flesh (Gen. 17:10). This proves that circumcision was applied to these babies for other reasons than presumed regeneration.

Indeed, Romans 9 concludes that the vast majority of those who had the sign of the covenant applied to them in Old Covenant times were unregenerate (Rom. 9:27). That hardly gives a basis for presuming anything. For example, Abraham was commanded to circumcise all 318²⁵⁵ slaves along with their male offspring (Gen. 17:23-27). Did he do it on the basis of their regeneration? We have no evidence that this was the case. Again, if Ishmael was not saved, Abraham did not need to presume his regeneration; he just needed to obey God’s command. John 1:12-13 posits a contrast between being born “of blood,” the “will of the flesh,” and the “will of man,” with being born “of God.” Likewise, if being “born of water” is language describing baptism, it is evident that being baptized and being “born of the Spirit” are two different things (John 3:5-7).

Over and over Christ assumes that not all in His churches were regenerate. He calls out, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22). The implication is that not every person in the church has an ear. Only Christ’s sheep have the capacity to hear Christ’s voice (John 10:16,27). This admonition also indicates that having an ear (being regenerate) does not mean that you will listen. Christians must pay attention to (or “hear”) what the Spirit is saying to the churches. Then (and only then) do those church members have a right to eat from the tree of life (Rev. 2:7; 22:14), to eat of the hidden manna (Rev. 2:17), and to dine with Jesus (Rev. 3:20). The book of Revelation does not presume a regenerate membership, and it certainly denies that all the members of those seven churches had a right to the Lord’s Table.

Children were not circumcised in the Old Testament on the basis of presumed election.

This reasoning for baptizing our children is destroyed by Herman Hoeksema in his book, Believers and Their Seed.²⁵⁶ Hoeksema shows how election has always cut down through the lines of covenant succession. Yes there was the faithful seed of the woman, but it ran side-by-side with the seed of Satan, which were the non-elect of Adam and Eve’s descendants (Gen. 3:15). Not all of Noah’s offspring were elect. Paedo-communionists will often say that the New Covenant postmillennial eschatology changes that, but they inconsistently apply the same presumed election to the Old Testament sacramental meals. They can’t have it both ways.

Though Romans 9 begins by discussing people being outwardly in covenant with God (vv. 1-5), it goes on to deny that this equates with election. On the contrary, Paul says in verses 6-16:

It is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Neither circumcision in the Old Testament nor baptism in the New Testament regenerated its recipients.

Many (though not all) paedo-communionists believe that we should treat our baptized children as regenerated, justified, and elect from the moment of baptism. Indeed, many explicitly say that baptism regenerates our children. The above examples of Ishmael and Esau ought to be sufficient to question this doctrine.

Paul is quite explicit in denying circumcisional regeneration in Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Just because regeneration does not happen in circumcision does not make it a worthless rite. Paul asks,

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” (Rom. 3:1)

Though he mentions much profit in every way, his main mention is that circumcision admitted to the church and to the preaching and discipleship of the Word. The baptism that saves us in 1 Peter 3:21 is explicitly said to not be water baptism (“not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”). Likewise, Jesus insisted that it is not enough to be born of water (Old Testament proselyte baptism) since one must also be born of the Spirit to be in the kingdom (John 3:6).

Non-communicants are hugely benefited by not being admitted to the Table.

This presupposition is the antithesis of that which Peter Leithart outlines in his book, Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated? Leithart’s view is that barring children from the table until they profess faith greatly harms our children by making them feel like they do not belong. It also harms them by robbing them of the grace offered in the meal. It also harms them by making them doubt their salvation. The assumption is that non-participation has no benefit, but provides much harm. Could not the reverse of each of these statements be true?

For example, rather than being harmful to an Ishmael or Esau to doubt their (non-existent) salvation, it would have been very helpful for them to recognize their true state. For such a child to witness the Gospel meal, but to not partake, might make him long for the Gospel. Such a child will recognize that he is an heir who is no different from a slave (Gal. 4:1). As he interacts with his stewards and guardian parents (Gal. 4:2) on how to enter into his inheritance, they will hopefully point the child to Christ (compare Gal. 3:24 with 4:2-7). Once that child is able to cry out by the Holy Spirit, “Abba, Father!” he is admitted to his sonship privileges (Gal. 4:2,5-7), which starts the cycle of covenant succession all over again at Galatians 3:26, where profession of faith ushers all believers fully into the covenant (Gal. 3:26-29), including allowing their second generation children to also be heirs (Gal. 4:1) who are under steward parents (Gal. 4:2) with a mandate to lead them to Christ and to lead them into their sonship privileges for the third generation (Gal. 4:2-7). Assuming a child’s salvation bypasses all of that and leaves an Ishmael and Esau content with their unregenerate state.

I believe barring toddlers from the table until they can profess what they already possess even benefits a toddler who was regenerate in the womb like John the Baptist. It trains him to understand and share the Gospel. It leads him to ask his parents “Why?” and “What?” questions like the non-communicant child²⁵⁷ of Exodus 12:26 did. His parents can of course tell him that he is a nursing lamb who is not yet ready to come, but that God loves him and carries him in His bosom (Isa. 40:11). His parents could give the child great anticipation of coming to the table and great longing for it by discussing the Gospel and what sonship privileges are all about. Even toddlers know that they can’t do everything their older siblings do at home. He won’t be surprised that the same is true at church. This teaches him that the sacrament is not the center of life; Christ is. Only as we embrace Christ do we get all the privileges of Christ’s covenant.

Another benefit of a child watching without participating is that the child gets the Gospel in very visible form. The nature of the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the gospel of our Lord’s death until He returns (1 Cor. 11:26). Non-participants benefit because they hear the Gospel proclaimed and it becomes clear that salvation is not automatic — one must embrace Christ by faith. It teaches him the five solas of the Reformation.

If we never challenge our children to make a profession of faith, we are actually harming our children by making them content with being born to Christian parents. When Sutton says that baptism is the “profession of faith” and that “a baptized infant should be treated as a believer,”²⁵⁸ he implies that there is no need to lead that child to sonship as Galatians 4:1-7 insists that stewards must do. Not participating teaches the child that God has children, not grandchildren. Each believer is an adopted child of the Father and cannot come into the heavenly family on his parent’s coattails. It should not be surprising that children sometimes come to conscious faith by seeing what they are missing.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 should not be interpreted in isolation from its context.

Many of the paedo-communion books that I have read have relied heavily on 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, which says,

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

By itself, this section could be interpreted in a paedo-communion, credo-communion, or adult-communion fashion. When the context is considered, the paedo-communion interpretation does not fare quite so well. Chapters 2 and 10 of this book go to great lengths to take the context into consideration. Here I will only give three hints:

First, Paedo-communionists emphasize the words “all…all…all…all…all” failing to realize that the “all” refers to the “fathers” (v. 1) who fell in the “wilderness” (v. 5), not to the children of those fathers who had faith and went on to take the conquest of Canaan by faith. The “all” is modified by the “them.” It simply does not fit the paedo-communion view to make the “them” of verse 5 include infants (which consistency demands) since most of the infants who crossed the Red Sea did not fall in unbelief in the wilderness. Did the “all” include the lepers? Clearly not. Did it include the menstruating women? The more you dig, the more you realize that the context limits the “all” to a certain class — the “fathers” (v. 1) of the older generation who were mostly rejected by God (v. 5). The immediate context makes a huge difference.

The broader context is also important. 1 Corinthians 10:2-3 needs to be interpreted in light of the whole passage which insists that anyone who eats the meal must “do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:24-25), must “proclaim the Lord’s death” (v. 26), must not eat in “an unworthy manner” (v. 27 – note the universal language here too – “whoever”), must first “examine himself and so let him eat” (v. 28), again must not eat “in an unworthy manner” (v. 29), must be able to discern the Lord’s body (v. 29), and must be able to “judge” himself (vv. 32-33). The fact of the matter is that most infants are not able to remember Christ’s death (vv. 24,25) because they didn’t know about His death in the first place. Infants are not able to proclaim the Lord’s death, examine themselves, judge themselves, or discern the body. Young children (“little ones”) can do all those things, but infants can’t. 1 Corinthians 10:5-21 gives one thing after another to explain why “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and” (see v. 21) do the things listed in that chapter. That God always expected self-examination for sacramental meals is clear in such passages as Isaiah 1:10-20; Amos 5:18-27; Jer. 7:1-29; Micah 6:6-8; Zech. 7:5-7; Mal. 1:6-14; 2:13-17. Without it there was judgment (2 Chron. 30:18-20).

Consistency within the context should also be considered. I believe paedo-communionists pick and choose which universal language they will push for. They insist that the “all…all…all… all…all” of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 must include infants (ignoring the modifying referent of “fathers” and the context of verse 5) but then they just as strongly insist that the mandates and conditions of 1 Corinthians 10-11 do not apply to young children (ignoring the universal language such as “no one,” “each one,” “whoever,” “he who,” “many,” “anyone,” etc.). Whatever interpretation one makes of the universal language, it must be consistent with the context. I would encourage the reader to compare my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10-11 in chapters 2 and 10 with the interpretations of paedo-communionists and see which interpretation is the most natural in its context.

If lack of faith and faithfulness at communion brings judgment (previous presupposition), then babies will not benefit from partaking.

It is often assumed that babies will benefit from communion even without faith or understanding. I believe the opposite. The whole thrust of Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 10-14 is that faith and understanding are needed to benefit. Paul applies this to spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:3-5,12,17), the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:23), and everything in the church — “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26). Certainly Christ’s exposition of the manna sacrament in John 6 shows that no one benefited from eating manna without faith (see for example John 6:29,37,40,44-45,47,53-54,63-65).

That doesn’t mean that infants without faith are not benefited from other things. They are the passive recipients of all kinds of things. Baptized children are benefited by having Christ receive them in His protective arms to bless them (Isa. 40:11; Mark 10:16), having angels assigned to them (Matt. 18:10), receiving the Aaronic blessing (Numb. 6:22-27), being an heir of the covenant promises (Gal. 4:1), and other things. Galatians 4:1-2 indicates that just because a toddler child is an “heir” does not mean he immediately enters into his whole inheritance, but is put under guardians (4:2) to help usher him into the faith of sonship that cries out, “Abba, Father.” This is the whole point of Galatians 3:19-4:7. It is using human guardians analogously to the law being a guardian to bring us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith (3:24). I get nervous when parents don’t take this function of guardians seriously — to lead their children to profess faith. As my former PCA Book of Church Order encouraged us: as soon as our children are able to understand the Gospel, we must urge them to embrace the Gospel in faith so that they can come to the meal.²⁵⁹

Almost all viewpoints on communion believe that what admits to the table is “the covenant” plus something else. It is the nature of that something else that must be exegetically determined.

While there are clearly many differences among people on the prerequisites to the Lord’s Table in the New Testament, it is my contention that almost all viewpoints will agree that in the Old-Covenant-Passover there were more prerequisites than simply being in the covenant by circumcision. Almost all hold that it was the covenant plus something else that admitted. It is the nature of that “plus” that must be exegetically determined if we are to keep the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Many paedo-communionists insist that it is the covenant alone that admits to the feast (and thus they like to use the term “covenant communion”). Those who have debated very long realize that this is simplistic. For example, in the Old Testament, being in the body of believers was not enough to come to the table. They also had to be clean: “those who are clean may eat of it” (Lev. 7:19); “everyone who is clean” (Numb. 18:11-13); “But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people. Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, that person shall be cut off from his people” (Lev. 7:20-21). There were many things that could make such a person unclean. That didn’t mean he was excommunicated. A discharge of semen could make him unclean until that evening. Menstruation, discharge of pus, and other issues kept people from the sacrament (Lev. 15:16-18,32; 22:4,6; etc.). This demonstrates that the covenant alone did not admit to the table. There is something in addition to being a member of the covenant that admitted people to the table. The moment you admit that there was something more than simply the covenant that admitted (cleanness) then you can’t write off the other Biblical requirements as somehow violating the covenant. Thus, this has forced many paedo-communionists to modify their statement.

So for paedo-communionists it tends to be the covenant plus ability to masticate the Lamb,²⁶⁰ plus ceremonial cleanness,²⁶¹ plus the ability of women and children to attend.²⁶²

For young credo-communionists, it is the covenant plus a minimum age of three,²⁶³ plus profession of saving faith,²⁶⁴ plus minimal knowledge or ability to discern the basics of the Gospel and the sacrament,²⁶⁵ plus some degree of repentance/obedience.²⁶⁶

For adult-communionists it is all the foregoing plus a specific age of adult-like qualification (12, 13, 18, or 20), (and for many) plus memorization of the catechism.

If the debate should be settled over the nature of the “plus,” it should be settled by clear exegetical warrant, not assumptions. The paedo-communion insistence that we are adding terms to the covenant is not exegetically supportable.

Separation of family, church, and state did not happen until the time of Moses.

While I do not have the time to prove this massive doctrine (which would almost require a book of its own), both a commitment to this doctrine and a view of when this separation into three governments happened does impact how I view various Scriptures related to communion. For example, this doctrine explains why the first Passover (Exodus 12) was quite different from all subsequent Passovers. Everyone admits that these changes occurred, but why? I believe the correct answer to be that the three mentioned governments were not separated out of the patriarchal family until after the Red Sea crossing. I will briefly document the history of this change below:

The patriarchal period

Prior to Moses, the pastoral office was ordinarily found in the firstborn son. The concept of the firstborn is the foundation of the pastoral office. It started in Genesis.²⁶⁷ Throughout the patriarchal period, the firstborn had to have the qualifications of a pastor. If the eldest son was not spiritually qualified to lead as priest, teacher, and shepherd, that responsibility was passed to someone else. Thus Esau was replaced by Jacob. Though Reuben was firstborn, he was bypassed because of his sins. When a younger son took over the spiritual oversight, he was given the label of firstborn even though he was born second, or third, or fourth (see 1 Chron. 26:10; Jer. 31:9). The firstborn was spiritually gifted to give prophetic blessing upon the families and servants who were under his oversight. He was also given the role of priest of the family (Gen. 20:7; 26:24; 27:1-40; 28:1-4; 33:11; 35:9; 46:1; 48:1-49:33; Ex. 3:1; 18:1,12; Job 1:5; Luke 13:28).

The firstborn was therefore consecrated to the Lord and had a spiritual responsibility to the Lord that others did not have. This underlines the concept of ordination. The words used of the firstborn son are “consecrate,” “dedicate,” “sanctified,” and God declares “they shall be Mine.” (Ex. 13:2,12-13; 22:29; 34:19-20; Lev. 27:26; Numb. 3:13; Deut. 15:19). The title “firstborn” therefore had religious significance and was applied to Israel as a priest to the nations, and was applied to Christ in His spiritual role (Heb. 12:23; Jer. 31:9; Ps. 89:27; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15,18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). Even the “pay” or “double honor” of the firstborn parallels that of teaching elders in the New Testament (Deut. 21:16; 21:17; Isa. 61:6-7; 1 Tim. 5:17; etc.).

The pastoral office of firstborn in no way replaced the office of elder. The two operated side by side both before there were Levites (Gen. 50:7; Ex. 3:16,18; 4:29; 12:21; 17:5,6; 18:1-27) as well as during the Mosaic economy when Levites took over the function of the firstborn (Deut. 31:9; Josh. 8:33; 2 Sam. 19:11; 2 Kings 8:3; 2 Chron. 5:4; Isa. 37:2; Lam. 1:19; 4:16; Luke 23:66; Acts 4:23; 23:14; 25:15; etc.). Levite and elder formed two separate orders. Thus, there was always a plurality of elders, with the firstborn simply being one of the elders, but with a preaching and prophetic capacity.

The Mosaic period after the Red Sea Crossing

This all changed in the time of Moses. Under Moses, God gave the pastoral office of the firstborn to the Levites. The Levites simply stood for the eldest in the family. Thus, the various responsibilities of service and offices of authority that the eldest would have were ordinarily carried out by the Levites. Consider the following points:

1. The Levites are explicitly said to have taken over the function of the firstborn (Numb. 3:12,41,45-46; 8:18).
2. Just like the firstborn, the Levites could be bypassed if they were not spiritually qualified (Ezek. 44:10-31; 48:11; 1 Chron. 15:12,14; 2 Chron. 29:5; Ezek. 48:11).
3. Just like with the firstborn, there was spiritual gifting to enable the qualified Levites to fill their offices (John 11:51; Hag. 1:1,14; 2 Chron. 20:14; 24:20).
4. Just like with the firstborn, the Levites had to be consecrated to the Lord by the laying on of hands (Judg. 17:12; Numb. 8:9-11; Lev. 4:3,5,16; 6:22; 16:32; Numb. 35:25; 8:14,21).
5. Just like the firstborn, the Levites were well paid for their ministry, with full time elders and deacons being paid less than priests (Judg. 17:10; Numb. 3:44-51; 2 Kings 12:16; 2 Chron. 31:4,19; Neh. 10:37; 12:44; Numb. 18:24,30; Deut. 12:12,18,19; 14:27,29; 16:11,14; 18:1; 26:11-12; 26:13).

Anticipating the New Covenant period

Finally, just as Levites (whether priestly, scribal or diaconal) were called “firstborn” because they took over the role of the firstborn, officers in the New Testament are called “Levites” because they take over the role of the Levites. The Old Testament prophecies anticipate a time when even Gentiles will be Levites (Isa. 66:21; Jer. 33:18,21-22; Ezek. 45:5; 48:11-13,22).

This perfectly explains the change from the Egyptian Passover being in the context of the patriarchal family and every subsequent Passover being at the temple.

Since the church government jurisdiction was permanently pulled away from the patriarchal family when the role of the patriarchal “firstborn” was given to the Levites in Numbers 2-3 (see above) and when the synagogue system of government was set up in Exodus 18²⁶⁸ and when the civil offices were established in other places in the Pentateuch,²⁶⁹ it makes perfect sense that the Egyptian Passover would take place within the church context of the Patriarchal family (Exodus 12) while 100% of all subsequent Passovers could only take place at the temple²⁷⁰ under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Levites.²⁷¹ From that time on, Passover was removed from the family jurisdiction and operated exclusively under the jurisdiction and authority of the church. Since New Testament church officers are called “Levites” in Scripture (Isa. 66:21; Jer. 33:18,21-22; Ezek. 45:5; 48:11-13,22), it is the Levitical Passovers that form the foundation of the New Testament Lord’s Supper. If you read the other chapters in this book related to Passover, you will see this presupposition influencing my exegesis.

While there are other presuppositions that I have talked about in chapters 1 and following, the ones given in this chapter are the key ones that most clearly distinguish my view from the views of paedo-communion and mature-credo-communion. I have laid them out so that they can easily be examined by others, and if found wanting, be exegetically disproved. All of this is done in the spirit of iron sharpening iron and trying to move the debate forward on constructive grounds. May God be honored and the church edified.

8. The Reformed Creeds are Unanimous on Communion

While this chapter will focus upon the Reformed Creeds, I find it significant that no creed in the history of the church has established paedo-communion. Even though paedo-communionists will appeal to some Bohemian brethren as being paedo-communion, all three Bohemian confessions (see below) are explicitly credo-communion. I know of no exception among the Reformed creeds, but welcome correction if readers are aware of any.

A listing of 51 Reformed Creeds that advocate credo-communion

While our own Westminster Confession of Faith admits that creeds can and do err, and while nothing but Scripture is inerrant, Historical Theology can help to give balance in our debates. As will be pointed out in the next chapter, my view of Historical Theology (God’s providential growth of the church’s understanding of doctrine over time — see Ephesians 4:12-16) makes me reluctant to have as much dogmatism on views that the church has been divided on during the first 1500 years. On the other hand, that same promise of growth in doctrine over time makes me even more reluctant to disagree with the unanimous stance of all Reformed Creeds since the Protestant Reformation. The very fact that so many godly Reformed men rejected paedo-communion ought to at least caution us about jettisoning such an interpretation without solid Scriptural warrant. Here are a few of the Reformed Creeds that I have discovered that hold to credo-communion:

1. The East Friesland Preacher’s Confession (1528), says, “he must be assured of faith before coming to the Lord’s Supper; otherwise he is an imposter or a scoffer…Whoever does not spiritually by faith eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, that is, whoever in Christ is not filled and satisfied for salvation, eats and drinks the bread and the cup of the Lord, the memorial of His flesh and blood, to His own damnation (1 Cor. 11:27,29)” (Article 30).²⁷²
2. William Farel’s Summary (1529) insists that it must be “understood by all” and “those who came to the table ought to be admonished to aid the poor” and “At the table of our Lord, believers give thanks to God for all the sacrifices that He had commanded…to possess holiness…in memory of our Lord” etc.²⁷³
3. The Bern Synod (1532) has a lengthy discussion of why this is a sacrament for “believers” and says, “The Lord’s Supper is comprehensive of everything that faith handles. The breaking of the bread is no bare ceremony, but a sacramental action in which there is presented to believers the body and blood of Christ Jesus, who died for us.”²⁷⁴
4. The First Confession of Basel (1534) says that “we confess that Christ is present in His holy Supper to all the truly faithful (truly sacramentally and by the remembrance of faith, which lifts up the mind of men to heaven)” (Article 6).²⁷⁵
5. The Bohemian Confession (1535) has extended treatment on why we must approach this sacrament with faith and must “Test yourselves, whether you are in the faith” and that “Those who have not gone deep into themselves and considered with what faith and spirit they are coming to this sacrament insult the sacrament and have contempt for this entire ordinance of Christ” (Article 13).²⁷⁶
6. The Geneva Confession (1536-37) states that “it ought to be distributed in the fellowship of believers, in order that all those who wish to have Jesus for their life may be partakers in it” (Article 16).²⁷⁷
7. Calvin’s Catechism (1538) states that “no distance can prevent his [Christ’s] power from feeding his believers on himself” and speaks of this meal being intended to bring “assurance of life to our minds” (Catechism 29).²⁷⁸ Of course, no one is surprised by this, since his Institutes oppose paedo-communion.
8. The Waldensian Confession of Merindol (1543) states, “We believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ finally ordained the sacrament of the Supper, which is a giving of thanks and a memorial of the death and passion of Jesus Christ…Whoever believes that Jesus Christ handed over His body and shed His blood for the remission of sins, eats the flesh and drinks the blood…Therefore, let a person examine himself, and with sincere faith and repentance, together with Christian charity, approach the holy table. For otherwise, he will be guilt of the body and blood of the Lord” etc. (“On the Holy Supper”).²⁷⁹
9. Calvin’s Catechism (1545) has several questions related to the Lord’s Supper. Questions 357-360 require faith, self-examination, and unfeigned love to come to the Table, but do not require perfection.
10. The Large Emden Catechism (1551) asks in Catechism 247, “Who has the right to receive the sacred Supper?” The answer is, “All faithful Christians, who are sorrowing because of their sin, who…live in true obedience and fear of God, and with true love for their neighbor. The right to receive the supper comes also to those who have been willing to preserve, confess, and defend the teaching of the holy Gospel, bearing the cross of affliction and death, in which it is shown that they are one with us.”²⁸⁰
11. The Vallerandus Poullain (1551) has an article showing that infants are to be baptized, but under the Lord’s Supper it requires “true faith,” saying, “by the distribution of the broken bread and of the cup of blessing there is a communicating and imparting of the body and blood of Christ to all that communicate with true faith.”²⁸¹
12. The Forty-Two Articles of the Church of England (1552-53) state that the Lord’s Supper can be administered “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same” (Article 29).²⁸²
13. The Anglican Catechism (1553) states that in the Lord’s Supper “the soul is fed through faith and quickened to the heavenly and godly life.” It goes on to state that “These things come to pass by a certain secret means and lively working of the Spirit, when we believe that Christ has, once for all, given up His body and blood for us to make a sacrifice and most pleasing offering to His heavenly Father. Also when we confess and acknowledge Him to be our only Savior, high bishop, Mediator, and Redeemer, to whom is due all honor and glory.”²⁸³
14. The Guanabara Confession (1558) calls the church to be “receiving the same by faith which is not carnal.”²⁸⁴
15. The Confession of Marosvásárhely/Vásárhelyi (1559) gives an extended treatment to credo-communion. In this discourse it states that “the benefactions [availed to] believers that Christ is present…since only faith can grasp and understand this…unbelievers do not receive the holy body and holy blood of Christ…Christ does not impart Himself to anyone beyond faith. Consequently, we deny that unbelievers receive the body of Christ Jesus. If someone lacks the spirit of Christ Jesus within himself, he cannot receive the body of Christ Jesus…unbelievers cannot receive His body…The reception of the body of Christ Jesus without faith is useless — so He does not order it. If He does not order it, then He does not want it either.”²⁸⁵
16. The French Confession (1559) states that the Lord’s Supper “cannot be apprehended but by faith” (Article 36). “Therefore we affirm, that those who bring pure faith, as a clean vessel unto the Holy Supper of the Lord, do indeed receive that which the signs witness there” (Article 37).²⁸⁶
17. The Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559) states, “therefore, all those who eat the bread and drink the wine in a worthy manner, embracing Jesus Christ with a living faith, partake of His body and of His blood (1 Cor. 11:24-25), truly uniting themselves to Him and being made partakers of all the benefits He bestows.”²⁸⁷
18. The Waldensian Confession (1560) states, “we affirm that all those who bring to the Holy Table of Jesus Christ a pure faith receive truly, as in a vessel, what the signs witness.”²⁸⁸
19. The Prussian-Vilnian Discussion (1560) states, “all the godly in the Lord’s Supper eat the true body of Christ and drink His true blood by faith, that likewise our souls eat and drink by faith” (“Concerning the First Article”).²⁸⁹
20. Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560) states, “But concerning the thing signified (which is Jesus Christ with all His benefits and goodness), we have already declared that the only means to communicate with Him is by true faith. And, therefore, he that does not bring true faith cannot receive Him.”²⁹⁰ “The Supper is the sacrament of the communion of believers with Jesus Christ as well as with one another (1 Cor. 11:20-34)… We ought to come to the Supper to receive in our own persons by faith, the body and blood of our only Savior” (“Of the Supper”).²⁹¹
21. The Confession of Spanish-Congregation (1560-61) states that the Lord’s Supper can only be “legitimately administered with true faith… through the bread believers receive the very and true body of the Lord…believers are given the very blood” (Chapter Thirteen, #1). “In the same sacrament we confess that believes receive a firm testimony from God” etc.²⁹²
22. The Belgic Confession (1561) states, “Therefore, no one ought to come to this table without having previously rightly examined himself, lest by eating of this bread and drinking of this cup he eat and drink judgment to himself” (Article 35).²⁹³
23. The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562) gives an extended treatment of the Lord’s Supper. It is clearly credo throughout. Here is one sample quote: “The believing elect receive in the promise by faith the sign together with the thing signified, for they possess both the hand and the mouth of body and soul, i.e., faith. Christ is present, the body and blood of Christ and the communion of the real body are present in person in the Supper, but spiritually in the promise and are present through faith to the regenerated soul. They are not present through the bread, in the bread, under the bread, but on account of the promise and in the promise. The flesh of Christ is not communicated bodily to the body, but to the soul spiritually.”²⁹⁴ “Even if we chew His body and blood carnally by our mouth, without the Spirit and faith, it is of no profit. Otherwise Judas, the Jews, and the servants of Pilate who kissed Jesus and touched Him, and were stained with His blood while scourging Him, would have been saved.”²⁹⁵
24. The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563) states, “And from that it follows that the Lord’s Supper is (1) not for those that cannot examine themselves, either because they have no use of reason, such as infants and the mindless; or because they have been insufficiently instructed in the mysteries of the faith; nor (2) those of whom it is not certain that they are sufficiently Christian, such as those who have not yet made public confession of their faith (Acts 8:37; 10:47). And finally it is not for those that, by judgment of the law of the church, have been sundered from the communion of the church, nor yet have made satisfaction to her (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:11).”²⁹⁶
25. The Thirty-Nine Articles (1562-63) state not only that the only way “whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith” (Article 28), but also affirm that, “The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing” (Article 29).²⁹⁷
26. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) asks in Question 81, “Who are to come to the table of the Lord?” The answer is, “Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. The impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 10:19–22; 11:28–29).”²⁹⁸
27. The Synod of Enyedi (1564) stated, “there is no reason to deny that we are nourished spiritually by the body of Christ, since we indeed get unified with Him in one body through faith, thus becoming one with Him.” They ask “what it means to consume the body of Christ by faith in the Lord’s Supper.” Their answer is that “Faith, therefore, is the rope connecting us to Jesus Christ, which raises us upwards, whose anchor lies in heaven, in order to search for Jesus Christ there in God’s glory.”²⁹⁹
28. The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) gives extended treatment of this subject. Just one sample will be quoted: “But as for him that without faith comes to this holy Table of the Lord, he is made partaker of the sacrament only; but the matter of the sacrament from whence comes life and salvation, he receives not at all and such men do unworthily eat of the Lord’s Table. ‘Now they which do unworthily eat of the Lord’s bread and drink of the Lord’s cup, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and they eat and drink it to their judgment’ (1 Cor. 11:26–29). For as they do not approach with true faith, they do despite unto the death of Christ, and, therefore, eat and drink condemnation to themselves” (Article 21). ³⁰⁰
29. The Netherlands Confession (1566) says, “Herein is signified communion in the true life and blood of Jesus Christ; which nourishes believers as a true food of the soul for eternal life; remembering and proclaiming through this the Lord’s death until He returns from heaven.”³⁰¹
30. The Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567) state, “He means that with our bodily mouth, we eat bread; with our spiritual mouth by faith, the body of Christ. St. Paul does not say “whoever eats the body sins against the body”; but he that eats the bread as did Judas, without faith and self-examination, contrary to the body of Christ, will be damned; he eats one thing because it is bread, and sins against another because it is the body of Christ.”³⁰²
31. The Sandomierz Consensus (1570) states, “However, one who comes to the Holy Supper without any repentance or faith surely cannot receive there the saving gifts of the Lord’s body and blood because of his unbelief, even though Christ truly and without deceit offers him His gifts; just as in the word, so also in the sacrament. There are also such regarding whom the apostle of God wrote that they unworthily eat of the bread of the Lord and unworthily drink from His cup. Therefore they become guilty of [sinning against] the Lord’s body and blood, and they eat and drink for judgment and condemnation because they do not recognize and do not notice in themselves the Lord’s body given over to death for the redemption and salvation of the whole world.”³⁰³
32. The Bohemian Confession (1573) states, “Thus therefore according to this commandment, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ must be distributed only and received jointly by faithful or believing Christians.”³⁰⁴
33. The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609) states, “For this reason, we receive the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ spiritually and substantially with faith and with the mouth.”³⁰⁵
34. The Confession of Frederick III (1577) states, “And finally, since that communion with Christ and all His benefits and blessings (that is righteousness and eternal life) could not have been merited in any other way than through the death of Christ on the cross, and cannot be experienced except by way of true faith, wrought by the Holy Ghost in our hearts, it is certain that neither the use of the sacrament nor any other internal or external activity can make us partakers of Christ Himself and His benefits ex opere operato (that is, by virtue of the working it is done); but rather, the holy sacraments are divine signs and seals and are thus external instruments of the Holy Ghost whereby He strengthens our faith, leading us and pointing us to the only sacrifice of Christ made on the cross for us. There can be no different communion with Christ when we believe the visible word, or the promise of the sacrament, as when we believe and experience the preached and audible word of the gospel. This means that even though the visible signs can be abused by the ungodly and unbelievers to their damnation, the invisible heavenly gifts and benefits, as they are presented to our faith, can only be and remain the portion of believers.”³⁰⁶
35. Craig’s Catechism (1581) has several credo-communion statements. One will suffice: “Q. How does He offer His body and blood? A. By our own lively faith alone.”³⁰⁷
36. The Bremen Consensus (1595) states, “But the invisible, heavenly gift (namely, the body and blood of Christ) is truly engaged as the meat and drink of the soul, is laid hold on by us through faith and received. It is only by faith that the merit and power of Christ are known and received.”³⁰⁸
37. The Second Confession of London-Amsterdam (1596) states, “And that all of the church that are of years (Matt. 26:26–27; 1 Cor. 11:28; 10:3–4, 16–17; Acts 2:42; 20:7–8) and able to examine themselves communicate also in the Lord’s Supper, both men and women (Gal. 3:28; Acts 2:42; 1:14; 1 Cor. 12:13), and in both kinds (Matt. 26:26–27; 1 Cor. 10:3–4, 16; 11:23–29), bread and wine.”³⁰⁹
38. The Staffort’s Book (1599) states, “For the mere, physical eating of the body of Christ which they assert, cannot save them, because, as they imagine, Judas had also received with his mouth the body and blood of Christ (which in our day all the godless and unbelieving also do), but he was not saved thereby. If one should now be saved and receive eternal life, he must with true faith eat Christ’s body and drink His blood.”³¹⁰
39. The Hessian Catechism (1607) states, “Who, then, receives such a sacrament worthily? Fasting and preparing oneself bodily is a fine outward discipline; however, he is rightly worthy and well prepared, who has faith on these words: “Given and poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.” However, whoever does not believe these words or doubts by it, he is unworthy and careless; then the words “for you” call for hearts that believe vainly.”³¹¹
40. The Confession of the Heidelberg Theologians (1607) says about the Lord’s Supper: “Therefore, take hold of this by a true faith. And when you place the holy tokens of my body and blood in your mouth, eating and drinking them, you should likewise embrace my crucified body and shed blood in your heart.”³¹²
41. The Confession of the Evangelical Church in Germany (1614) states that the Lord’s Supper is a “memorial” “for all believers.” “So we are assured and strengthened in our faith through the Lord’s Supper that truly the Son of God died for us and earned eternal life for us by His death. Which faith is the true eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ that work to our blessedness. For whoever eats and drinks Christ’s body and blood, that is, whoever locks this comfort firmly in his heart and refreshes and edifies himself in that Christ gave His body for him by His death, that man (one) will no longer hunger or thirst, but will enter eternal life after this life.”³¹³
42. The Confession of John Sigismund (1614) is thoroughly credo in its approach to communion, saying that “it must be by faith that His holy flesh and blood are savingly fed upon…because that word ‘for you’ requires only that we have believing hearts. Likewise, he elsewhere says that although the sacrament is an actual meal, yet he who does not in his heart receive it with faith obtains no benefit, because it constitutes no one a believer, but rather demands that he be already pious and believing.”³¹⁴
43. The Irish Articles (1615) state, “But in the inward and spiritual part, the same body and blood is really and substantially presented unto all those who have grace to receive the Son of God, even to all those that believe in His name. And unto such as in this manner do worthily and with faith repair unto the Lord’s Table, the body and blood of Christ is not only signified and offered, but also truly exhibited and communicated.”³¹⁵
44. The Scottish Confession (1616) distinguishes between “communicants” and those who are not, stating, “We believe that the Lord’s Supper is to be given to all communicants under the elements of bread and wine, according to Christ’s institution.”³¹⁶
45. The Colloquy of Thorn (1645) states, “For although we receive the earthly things with our bodily mouth, so in the faith of our hearts, we receive it as the actual instrument, the heavenly thing, according to that old verse: “That which the teeth chew is only enjoyed by the body; but the soul enjoys that which it apprehends in faith” (German: Was die Zähne zerkaun, nur das wird leiblich genossen; Aber die Seele geniesst, was sie im Glauben ergreift. Latin: Ventrem, quod terminus, mentem, quod credimus, intrat; lit., “We chew that which enters the stomach and believe that which enters the mind”). So by means of this faith, not only our spirits, but also our bodies themselves, are united and bound to the body of Christ through His Spirit in the hope of the resurrection and of eternal life.”³¹⁷
46. The Westminster Confession (1646) only serves communion to “communicants” (29:3) and states, “Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries (1 Cor. 11:27–29; 2 Cor. 6:14–16), or be admitted thereunto (1 Cor. 5:6–7,13; 2 Thes. 3:6,14–15; Matt. 7:6).” (29:8)³¹⁸
47. The Westminster Larger Catechism (1647) gives conditions for coming to the table (Question 171), with faith being one of those conditions. Question 173 asks, “May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?” and the answer is, “Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church (1 Cor. 11:27–34; Matt. 7:6; 1 Cor. 5; Jude 23; 1 Tim. 5:22), until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation (2 Cor. 2:7).”³¹⁹ Question 174 speaks of the means of worthy participation.
48. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) states, “It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord’s supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:28–29), of their faith to feed upon him (2 Cor. 13:5), of their repentance (1 Cor. 11:31), love (1 Cor. 10:16–17), and new obedience (1 Cor. 5:7–8); lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:28–29).”³²⁰
49. The Waldensian Confession (1655) states, “That He has instituted that of the Holy Supper or Eucharist for the nourishing of our soul, in order that by a true and living faith by the incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, eating effectively His flesh, and drinking His blood, and uniting us most intimately and inseparably to Christ, in whom and by whom we have spiritual and eternal life…that in certain faith we partake of His body and His blood.”³²¹
50. The Savoy Declaration (1558) is similar to the Westminster Confession. It states, “VII. Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread or wine; yet as really, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. VIII. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s Table, and cannot without great sin against Him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.”³²²
51. The Waldensian Confession (1662) states, “That He ordained the Holy Supper or Eucharist to nourish our souls in such a way that, through a true and living faith, by the incomprehensible work of the Holy Spirit, really eating His flesh and drinking His blood, in Christ we have spiritual and everlasting life, being tightly and inseparably united to Him.”³²³

Obviously the various Reformed Baptist confessions would require a profession of faith before partaking. The above shows that the universal position of the Reformed churches has been credo-communion, although scattered individuals may not have concurred.

Areas of the Westminster Standards that one should take exception to if he does not hold to credo-communion

WCF 27.3 says that grace is not conferred by any power in the sacrament itself (even when it is rightly used). Rather, it depends on the work of the Spirit to bring the benefits to worthy receivers. The definition of worthy receivers is plain elsewhere in the standards.

WCF 29.7 also says “worthy receivers.” Worthy receivers cannot be ignorant or in flagrant sin, according to other parts of the Westminster Standards. In the same section, it also says “[Christ is] really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance.” This implies that He is not present to those who have no faith.

WCF 29.8 says that ignorant and wicked men do not receive the thing signified. Paedo-communion must assume the opposite since infants are ignorant of what the Sacrament means.³²⁴ In the same section, it also says that all ignorant persons are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, and they are not to be admitted to the Table.

WLC 168: Every section of this answer argues against paedo-communion. 1. To “worthily communicate” rules out infants. 2. To “have their union and communion with him confirmed” means that their union and communion preceded participation. 3. To “testify and renew their thankfulness” implies an active thanksgiving, which is not possible for an infant. 4. “Mutual love and fellowship” is also active and requires some degree of knowledge.

WLC 169: This interprets 1 Corinthians 11:24 in an active remembering sense when it says “in thankful remembrance.” In contrast, paedo-communioninists frequently argue that the Supper stands as a memorial and does not require any active remembrance for infants.

WLC 170: This question states that the body and blood of Christ are “spiritually present to the faith of the receiver.” It also mentions “worthily participate” again, and says that the body and blood of Christ are not present to those with no faith. Can an infant perform this duty: “while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death”?

WLC 171: Every aspect of this catechism is applied to all who eat — to “they that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” It is not possible to fail to take an exception to this by saying that it is only intended for adult observers.

WLC 173: The ignorant are barred from the Table. It is important to note that ignorance is quite a separate category from “scandalous.” I have witnessed some paedo-communionists argue that this is a hendiadys: “ignorant scandalousness,” but a hendiadys should be connected with the word “and,” not the word “or.”

WLC 174: There are fifteen actions in this paragraph that are required of “them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.” In other words, all participants must be able to do these 15 things. Infants cannot.

WLC 175: There are twelve duties required after having taken the sacrament. These duties are required of all who partake. None of these can be performed by an infant.

WLC 177: The Lord’s Supper is to be served “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”

WSC 96-97: The “worthy partakers” are defined by a number of things that infants lack.

9. Intersection of Other Doctrines with Communion

The difficulty of convincing others of the significance of this subject — not all see the logical consequences of theological moves

The movie Searching for Bobby Fischer is a fascinating story about a prodigy chess player by the name of Josh Waitzkin. His instructor taught him two principles that I believe have a bearing on the subject of this chapter: 1) He taught Josh to begin with the end game rather than memorizing and improving the openings. 2) He taught Josh to think several moves ahead and to figure out the trajectory of a move before he played it. At one point in a championship game his opponent seemed confident that he was about to beat Josh. Josh studied the board for a long time, and when he finally saw the negative implications of his opponent’s last move, rather than playing, he put out his hand and generously offered his opponent a draw where they would both share the championship. The opponent thought he was crazy and refused. So they quickly played out their moves, and Josh won the game.

In theology it is important to 1) have a Biblical endgame in mind and 2) to see the logical and exegetical consequences of bad theological moves. Though there are far more serious implications that can arise from a doctrine like Full Preterism,³²⁵ even minor errors in theology can impact other doctrines. I see both paedo-communion and adult-communion as having negative implications longterm if (and only if) they follow the trajectory of these teachings in a rigorous and logical fashion. I praise God that many of us are blessedly inconsistent, but I believe consistency with at least the following views could lead to problems.

Potential implications of at least some paedo-communion statements

For each paedo-communion assertion that I list below, I will give what I consider to be the logically necessary impact upon other doctrines.³²⁶ Hear me clearly: not all paedo-communionists hold to the following statements. If this chapter does nothing more than to make paedo-communionists avoid the worst of their arguments, I will consider it worth writing.

1. Assuming that baptism ushers us into a “real relationship with Jesus Christ” that equals, produces, is treated as the guarantee of, profession of, or entrance into any of the following: election,³²⁷ regeneration, or justification,³²⁸ will necessitate an explanation of how such baptized children can later apostatize and become atheists. I have read many attempted explanations that have led away from the Reformed faith. Some have adopted a Lutheran-type explanation of falling away from regeneration, while I have heard others adopt full-on Federal Vision theology as a result of this conundrum. I have heard at least a couple of testimonies by converts to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that their journey started by affirming that baptism itself produced these graces in their children. However this conundrum is answered, it has huge implications for soteriology in general, the five points of Calvinism in particular (especially perseverance of the saints), ecclesiology, eschatology, and the covenant. The Practical Theology implications could (but don’t necessarily) lead to carelessness about drawing our children continually to Christ and the Gospel. Why lead the children to God’s grace if they “already have every grace imparted to them in Baptism” (as one friend worded it)? I have also seen subsequent generations of children who never profess faith lead their local churches to all the problems that happened in the Halfway Covenant controversy.
2. Since all paedo-communionists believe that there is absolutely no need for infants to fulfill the conditions for worthy participation that are laid out in Scripture, they are de facto making two quite different approaches to the table: An approach with no conditions for one group and an approach with several conditions for the mature audience. This produces the very bifurcation within the body that they accuse adult-communionists of. On the other hand, those who have avoided examining covenant children when they become adults (they are after all “in the covenant” and have not shown outward rebellion, even though there is no faith or signs of regeneration) see some adults with no spiritual life still partaking of communion. Again, the problems in the original Halfway Covenant controversy need to be addressed. Our denomination solved this by requiring covenant children to profess faith and take covenant vows by adulthood (age 20) or be cut off from the church. Not all communions have this provision.
3. The assertion that “There are to be no ‘spiritual’ or ‘social’ superiors/inferiors at the table” (see Gallant) could logically lead to egalitarianism (something I have also witnessed within at least some paedo-communion circles).
4. Downplaying the progress that has been made in Historical Theology (i.e., the undisputed unanimity of over 50 Reformed creeds and no paedo-communion views in previous creeds) could easily lead to downplaying respect for the creeds on other doctrines. While this is not a necessary trajectory, it is a natural one. If the creeds play zero role in determining our practice in the Lord’s Supper, why would they have a role in other doctrines?
5. If womb communion gives automatic grace or baptized-infant communion gives automatic grace apart from understanding, it is but a small step to the Roman Catholic ideas of ex opere operato views of the sacraments.³²⁹ While not a heresy, there is a trajectory to this that is dangerous.
6. If communion can edify without understanding (whether given to a comatose adult or to an infant) then it impacts our view not only of the sacraments but of all the means of grace. For the connection of understanding to edification see 1 Cor. 14:3-5,12,17,26.
7. Viewing the sacraments as being family-centric can (but does not necessarily) lead to wrong views of ecclesiology. Indeed, many paedo-communionists have followed this trajectory and deny the need for church officers or the institutional church to administer baptism or the Lord’s Supper. For hints of how this trajectory happens, see my last presupposition in chapter 7.
8. In their rigorous attempt to oppose what they consider to be “rationalism” I have seen at least some paedo-communionists confuse rationalism with rationality (logical consistency). This is clearly unconfessional (see the discussion of logic in the Westmisnter Confession in chapter 4), and has the danger of leading to irrationalism. Neither rationalism nor irrationalism are biblical.
9. Hyper-objectification of the covenant (in overreaction to hyper-revivalistic-subjectivism) can lead to problems in discipline, ecumenicism (treating Roman Catholics as “brothers”), faulty views of covenant theology, a denial of perseverance of the saints, and faulty views of election, justification, and regeneration. It has also caused at least some paedo-communionists to dismiss the clearly individualistic passages (see discussion of the sacramental passages of Revelation in chapter 2) in favor of the corporate. The individual is thus swallowed up in the corporate rather than seeing both as being addressed.
10. Seeing baptism as the only profession of faith that is needed (see Sutton and Jordan), can easily lead to the very nominalism they speak against.
11. Seeing law-keeping as the only confirmation of faith that is needed following baptism can also lead to the very nominalism they speak against.
12. Dividing between privilege and responsibility (see Sutton) can lead to the presumption that John the Baptist speaks against — “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’” (Luke 3:8).
13. Denying the confessional distinction between the visible and invisible church can lead to disastrous consequences. The logical trajectory could be Federal Vision over-objectification of the covenant, faulty views of ecclesiology, discipline, covenant, soteriology, etc.
14. We have already seen the impact that paedo-communion has had upon the Regulative Principle of worship in chapter 4.

Mild consequences of two errors held to by some in both camps

I will add two positions that are often held to by both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists. These do not have any necessary logical consequence that is negative. I list them because many who hold to these two beliefs have been lulled into complacency through them.

1. Presupposed regeneration. This common paedo-communion presupposition is perhaps the least problematic (and is actually shared by a lot of adult-communion adherents). I have occasionally witnessed people from both groups having a lackadaisical attitude toward their children’s need for the Holy Spirit’s supernatural power and a downplaying of the need to preach the Gospel to their children.
2. Presupposed faith. Though this is also a shared presupposition of many paedo-communionists and adult-communionists, it too has led some to fail to daily move their children to have an ongoing faith in Christ.

Potential implications of at least some adult-communion statements

If the following adult-communion assertions are held to (and hear me clearly — not all adult-communionists hold to them), here are some sample areas of theology that could conceivably be impacted:

1. Rejecting any authoritative relationship between the Old Testament sacramental meals and the Lord’s Supper means that we have deprived ourselves of an enormous body of helpful laws and promises. It can lead to a New-Testament-only type of Christianity. It can also negatively impact ecclesiology and the doctrine of the covenant.
2. Tying the Lord’s Supper to the Day of Atonement and to the sacrifices (as opposed to tying it to the peace meals that followed the sacrifices) can logically impact soteriology negatively (Roman Catholic view of sacrifices) and end up logically barring women from communion as well.
3. To hold that the Old Testament does not inform the qualifications for participants of the Lord’s Table leads logically to a denial of the sufficiency of the Old Testament in proving New Testament doctrine (contrary to Acts 26:22; 17:11; etc.).
4. If federal heads alone partook of the sacramental meals in Old Testament times (many adult-communionists say that the Old Testament prohibited women and children from coming to the meal), then logically women should be barred from communion today (especially since Galatians 3:28 has to do with baptism, not communion).
5. If the Talmud is used to promote a bar mitzvah age for coming to the Table (age 13), then there is both 1) an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture to define terms and 2) an opening of the door to legalism. This could negatively affect every doctrine.
6. If the bar mitzvah rules are used to exclude children from wine, then both the antinomianism and legalism of the Pharisees could logically be introduced in other doctrines.
7. We have already seen the impact that adult-communion has had upon the Regulative Principle of worship in chapter 4.

Thankfully, neither paedo-communionists nor adult-communionists are always perfectly consistent, and therefore many would deny the trajectory that I believe is present. I present these things as part of my presuppositional framework that affects my interpretation to some degree.

10. Verse-by-Verse Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10-11

Note: If the reader has skipped the earlier chapters in order to get my take on 1 Corinthians 10-11, I would urge him/her to work through the presuppositional arguments first. Everyone’s exegesis is influenced by his/her presuppositions, and it is essential that we determine whether those presuppositions are biblical or not. This chapter was added to show that the young credo-communion interpretation of these chapters is a very natural reading.

Another important point that I would make before diving into the text of 1 Corinthians 10-11 is that Paul did not intend these chapters to replace the much more comprehensive teaching that God has given from Genesis to Revelation on the sacraments. Indeed, he explicitly said, “And the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:34), implying that there was much more to say on this subject. In writing these chapters Paul had a narrow focus — to bring correction to the Corinthian church for partaking unworthily. Though there are brief mentions of the blessings that flow to worthy participants, Paul’s focus is not on 1) the worthy participants or 2) the blessings. His focus was to teach the Corinthians why they were receiving judgment rather than blessing when they partook of the Lord’s Supper. He begins by going to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Paul’s first example of unworthy participation (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26)

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.

This first example of unworthy participation took place early upon Israel’s entrance into the wilderness. There is debate on precisely which meal or meals Paul was referring to, but all commentators agree that this was not the Passover of Exodus 12 — a meal that happened before the Red Sea crossing. The reason this is so significant is that some paedo-communionists and some adult-communionists insist that the Lord’s Table replaces the Passover and the Passover alone. Here we see that whether this was the feast “three days” later (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26) as some affirm, or this is referring to the later ongoing weekly sacraments using the manna and the Rock (see Exodus 16 for start of manna and Exodus 17 for the start of water flowing from the Rock), these non-Passover meals are treated by Paul as being “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual drink” that we partake of in the Lord’s Table. Those two phrases are the first of several hints that there is an essential correspondence between all the sacramental meals of the Old Testament and the Lord’s Supper and not simply a correspondence between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. This means that unless we apply God’s instructions for all the Old Testament sacramental meals (as Paul is doing), we will have a very truncated view of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is basing his instruction upon the Old Testament (as he always did – see Acts 17:11; 26:22; 1 Cor. 4:6; etc.).

Because this is a passage that is heavily referenced by both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists, I will need to spend a bit more time dealing with their arguments. To save space, I will refer the reader to chapter 2 for more extensive argumentation of certain points where I can.

I demonstrated in chapter 2 that the adult-communion advocates ignore the fact that every sacramental feast that Paul references in this chapter had Old Testament examples of at least some ages of children partaking. Contrary to their rhetoric related to “our fathers,” the rest of 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 is not friendly to the adult-only-communion position. Nor is it convincing when adult-communionists sometimes relegate the first four verses to a non-sacramental status.³³⁰ How some people believe that common food could be said to be “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual drink” that we eat and drink is beyond me. Since they “drank of…Christ” when they partook, it is crystal clear that Paul is not referencing common food but he is indeed referencing sacramental meals.

Chapter 2 of this book has also demonstrated that paedo-communionists have misinterpreted the first five verses on several counts:

First, they ignore the fact that Paul had already shown the Corinthians that νηπίοις children (who can range in age from 1-4)³³¹ should not partake of βρῶμα food (1 Cor. 3:1-2). Since βρῶμα is the word used for “food” in the phrase, “the same spiritual food,” this shows that Paul did not intend us to read νηπίοις children into the phrase “all our fathers…all…all…all” in this passage. Paul would not contradict himself in the same book. βρῶμα food is clearly beyond the reach of νηπίοις children.

Second, in chapter 2 I demonstrated that Paul has already shown (1 Cor. 2:10-3:4) that God intended “spiritual” people to partake of “spiritual food,” and that children under the ages of three are by Paul’s own definition not considered to be “spiritual” (πνευματικός). Those children may be regenerate, but they are not spiritual people able to compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:10-3:4). Again, Paul’s earlier comments do not seem to mesh with the paedo-communionist argument at all.

Third, while paedo-communionists insist that being “baptized into Moses” was an initiatory precondition to partaking of the “same spiritual food” and the “same spiritual drink,”³³² I have shown in chapter 2 that their interpretation is not rooted in the sequence of events from circumcision in Egypt, to Passover in Egypt, to the Red Sea Crossing, to the sacramental meals in the wilderness mentioned in these verses. The Old Testament had numerous “baptisms,”³³³ and it is clear that this one did not initiate Israelites into the sacramental meals; a previous circumcision did. They had partaken of Passover before the meal referenced in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4. This undermines a major pillar in their argument.

Fourth, in chapter 2 I demonstrated that the paedo-communion position misses the whole flow of Paul’s arguments in chapters 10-11. I refer the reader to that chapter for some of the detailed arguments against both paedo-communion and adult-only-communion. In this section I will seek to clarify some things I did not deal with in that chapter.

By tying the Gentile “brethren” of the New Testament church of Corinth tightly to “our fathers” in the wilderness, Paul is showing a fundamental identity of the New Testament church with the Old Testament people of God. There are not two peoples of God (as Dispensationalists insist).³³⁴ Instead the Bible teaches us that there is one people, one bride, one body, one temple, one vineyard, one field, and one olive tree. Any interpretation of these chapters that presupposes that the New Testament church is utterly different from the Old Testament church is suspect.

Nor is Paul a “New-Testament-Only” Christian when it comes to divine revelation. Paul said, “I do not want you to be unaware,” and then repeatedly applies the Old Testament Scriptures related to Old Testament sacramental meals as if those Scriptures and meals were authoritative and applicable to instruct us on worthy participation in the New Testament sacramental meal (see especially verses 1-13). Paul had already informed the Corinthian church that he was not going to introduce anything new that was not already in the Old Testament. He had told them, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10-11 that is tighter or looser than the Old Testament conditions for worthy participation is suspect since it would not pass the Berean test.³³⁵

These two truths cut two ways. First, they undermine any theory of adult-only-communion that treats the Lord’s Table as a New-Covenant-Only-Meal that is unparalleled in the Old Testament and much stricter on conditions of admission than the Old Testament.³³⁶ In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul repeatedly used Old Testament sacramental meals as paradigms to teach the Corinthians about worthy participation in their own sacramental meals. This argues strongly that those who partook in the Old Testament should continue to partake today. If “children” of various ages can be shown to have partaken of every meal that Paul will reference in chapter 10, then the burden of proof is upon the adult-communionist to prove that children are now excluded. The Old Testament sacramental passages continue to be authoritative and continue to apply to worthy participation today.

This same truth also cuts against the paedo-communionists that interpret “children” to include infants, when there is no evidence of infants, or toddlers, or two year olds partaking of the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (see chapter 3). If their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 cannot be found in the Old Testament, it is suspect. Indeed, this is simply the first of several examples Paul will give to show that being in the church is not sufficient to make one worthy of the Lord’s Table. Throughout 1 Corinthians 10-11, Paul will hammer home this truth over and over again. He will repeatedly point out that anyone who approaches the sacramental meal without faith is automatically partaking in an unworthy manner. As we will see shortly, it is this lack of faith that made God displeased with most of them in verse 5 because “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb. 11:6). We already realize in verses 1-4 that being a branch in the Olive Tree does not automatically make you saved or worthy of the Lord’s Table.³³⁷

Of course, both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists will insist that the phrase “our fathers” disproves what we are saying here and proves their point. Paedo-communionists believe that everyone who crossed the Red Sea (including the children) was included in that expression, “our fathers.” They then conclude that the participants of the communion in verses 3-4 are co-extensive with the participants of the baptism in verses 1-2 — and thus infants can partake. Adult communionists define “fathers” as being male adults and claim that since most of the adults were judged (but none of the children), verse 5 defines the “fathers” and the “all…all…all…all” as only including the males twenty years old and above that never made it into Canaan. They then conclude that only male adults partook of the sacrament. But there is nothing in logic that dictates that if all the older generation partook we can deduce that none of the younger generation also partook.

In any case, both groups miss the flow of Paul’s argument in this chapter. In every example, Paul almost entirely ignores the worthy participants and focuses upon those who were judged in order to teach what makes for unworthy participation (the main subject of these two chapters). Paul will be using example after example in 1 Corinthians 10 to convince the Corinthians that when the Old Testament conditions for worthy participation are missing,³³⁸ you are not a worthy participant even if you: 1) have pedigree (“our fathers”), 2) can claim to have seen God’s presence (“under the cloud”), 3) have experienced astounding miracles (“passed through the sea”), 4) were in covenant (“baptized into Moses”), 5) or had previously partaken of the sacramental meals (“ate the same spiritual food… drank the same spiritual drink”). Paul’s focus was not to prove or disprove that mothers and children were worthy or unworthy participants or non-participants. (Any Jew who had read the Old Testament would have known that mothers and at least some of the children did participate in the sacramental meals — see the first half of chapter 2 and all of chapter 3 of my book). Rather, Paul’s focus was to prove that even the founding fathers of Israel eventually proved to be without faith, and thus were unworthy participants. If lack of faith made them unworthy, children who lack faith would also be unworthy.

Adult-communionists are at least correct on one point — the word “fathers” can only refer to the adult males who crossed the Red Sea. This definition of “fathers” can be ascertained by two lines of evidence. First, consider the following possible meanings of “our fathers.”

1. The immediate biological parents of those in Corinth. While there could theoretically be some sense in which immediate biological parents could be said to be metaphorically or spiritually identified with the wilderness generation, it makes no sense of verse 5, which says that “their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” It is obvious that since none of the Corinthian’s immediate parents had their bodies scattered in the wilderness at the time of Moses, that this definition of the Greek word for “fathers” does not fit.
2. All the biological ancestors of the previous thousands of years. Did all of the biological ancestors of the Corinthian church cross the Red Sea? Obviously not since they were dominantly a Gentile church.³³⁹ The same phrase, “their bodies were scattered in the wilderness,” rules out this definition as well.
3. Everyone who crossed the Red Sea and became the biological ancestors of the later Jews (whether male or female, young or old). There are three reasons that Paul could not have had this definition in mind. First, verse 5 says that God was displeased with “most of” the fathers. If those under twenty were included in Paul’s definition of “our fathers,” then this would not have been the case since they outnumbered the adults who died.³⁴⁰ While it is true that most (but not all) of those twenty and above were judged by God,³⁴¹ it is not true that most of those who lived during the forty years of wandering were judged. Second, the “fathers” whose bodies were scattered are characterized as lacking faith (Heb. 4:2-13), whereas the children who grew up and took the conquest proved to be the most faithful generation of Israelites in their entire history. They were definitely pleasing to God. Third, Psalm 78 clearly distinguishes between the children of faith in the wilderness and “their fathers a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart aright, and whose spirit was not faithful to God” (Ps. 78:8). Paul appears to be using the term “fathers” in exactly the same way that Psalm 78:8 does, not in the way of this point’s definition.
4. A title of respect for the older people of a generation (as in “fathers and brethren”). While this interpretation would also rule out the paedo-communion view, it does not seem to be in view since verse 5 shows no respect for them.
5. Founders of a nation or other institution. This seems to be the meaning Paul had in mind. Only males twenty and above were able to represent their families by voting,³⁴² and thus only the males twenty and above would have been counted as the covenantal founders (fathers) of Israel. So as mentioned already above, Paul’s point was that even these founding fathers were judged because they partook of communion without faith.

That the non-Passover sacramental meals in the wilderness were a true feeding upon Christ and thus a true sacrament of Christ can be seen from verses 3-4: “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” We have already commented on the fact that the “same” spiritual food shows an essential identity between those meals and our sacrament. There are other important truths that must not be neglected:

First, Paul says that they ate “spiritual food” (10:3) and “spiritual drink.” This clearly distinguishes the sacramental manna from the daily common food that was eaten. In contrast, paedo-communionists will often teach that every meal and snack in the wilderness was a sacramental meal. This would prove too much — it would admit lepers, the uncircumcised, the mixed multitude, and others since their only source of food was manna and their only source of drink was water. As many adult communionists point out, it would involve the animals in the sacrament since the same text that speaks of the “congregation” eating also speaks of the animals eating — “water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank” (Numb. 20:21). While most paedo-communionists would dismiss the idea that cattle partook³⁴³ they have so far not been clear on why all manna and water was not sacramental. On my theory the distinction between sacramental and common food in the wilderness is easy: There are two reasons we know that all manna meals were not sacramental meals and why every drink of water taken throughout the day was not a sacramental drink. First, the law of God specified that only Levites could distribute sacramental food³⁴⁴ in order to show that communion is by God’s initiation and could only be experienced under His authority. Second, the law of God specified that the sacramental meals could only be eaten after a blood sacrifice had been slain on behalf of the participants³⁴⁵ in order to show that apart from Christ’s atonement there could be no shalom. Thus, the manna was only sacramental manna when it was eaten in conjunction with the tabernacle sacrifices distributed by the Levites. The sacrament is not a “family meal” (as is often asserted by paedo-communionists). It is a covenantal pledge that can only be made by those who are capable of making such a pledge.

Second, it is often assumed in the sacramental debates that the Passover was the only public sacrament that Israel partook of in the wilderness. It is clear that there were many times when Israel had a “feast to the Lord.” Three days into the wilderness Israel had been commanded to have a sacramental meal to the Lord (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26). There were other times when they “ate and drank” before the Lord (cf. Ex. 20:24; 24:5,11; 32:5-6; etc.). The other examples of sacramental meals in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 make it clear that Passover is not the only antecedent to the Lord’s Table.

Third, let us never forget the fact that it is possible to eat Christ’s flesh and drink Christ’s blood in a non-literal “spiritual” sense (v. 4; see also John 6:61-63). No one would assert that Israelites literally drank Christ’s blood in the wilderness. That would be a denial of a historical incarnation of Christ — something not even Romanists have the temerity to assert! If we eat the “same” spiritual food and spiritual drink that they did, it is obvious that ours is not Christ’s literal flesh and blood either. It was by the mouth of faith that the Old Testament saints appropriated to themselves all that Christ’s future death meant to them, and they were strengthened by the sacrament when they approached it by faith because the pre-incarnate Son of God was present with them. In other words, they ate the Gospel (and the Gospel is His flesh & blood).

It may seem strange to speak of eating flesh and blood (the Gospel), but it is no more strange than eating the scroll of Scripture (Rev. 10:9,10; Ezek, 3:1-3). Those examples of eating were merely symbols of faith’s appropriation of Christ. As Calvin said, “Christ comes to us clothed in His Gospel.”³⁴⁶ This is precisely the message of Revelation 3:20: “If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” To deny the special presence of Christ in any sacrament (whether O.T. or N.T.) is to deny the sacrament. However, we reject the carnal notion that the bread and wine are transformed into real meat and blood, or even that they are accompanied by real meat and blood from Christ’s body. Christ is present with us in a “spiritual” rather than a carnal sense. Because of that spiritual presence we are able to benefit from His bodily sacrifice and appropriate it.

Fourth, we demonstrated in chapter 2 that Paul insists that no one benefits from the Table apart from faith. This is certainly consistent with Christ’s discussions of the sacramental manna in the wilderness (John 6:29,37,40,44-45,47,53-54,63-65). In John 6 Christ assumes that the Israelites should have known they had to eat His flesh (in the spiritual sense described above – see John 6:61-63). We should not read John 6 from a post-cross perspective. Even from a pre-cross perspective the Jews should have known and received by faith what was symbolized.

Because no wine was available while in the desert, the water that flowed from the rock was given by God as a legitimate substitute for wine. We will see under 11:20 that wine was God’s drink of choice at the meal, but there are third world countries where it would be absolutely impossible for the tribes to get wine. In such circumstances, an alternative like water is explicitly authorized by God. It may not be “regular” but it is still “valid.”

Verse 5 says, “But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” The word “most” implies that there were some of the adult males over the age of twenty (see Numb. 14:26-38) that God was pleased with. These would include at least Moses, Caleb (Numb. 14:38), Joshua (Numb. 14:38), Aaron (Numb. 16:48), Phinehas (Numb. 25:10-16), a large group of faithful Levites that sided with Moses (Ex. 32:26-35), and perhaps others. Though the children were not in view in Paul’s argument, Paul’s exclusion of them from his discussion is in line with the Pentateuch’s portrayal of the younger generation as being people of faith who pleased God and who would later take the land of Canaan under Joshua.

Verse 6 draws Paul’s first direct application: Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. Note again that the wilderness sacramental meals serve as our examples of what happens when we partake while lusting. There is definitely a connection with these Old Testament sacraments and the New Testament sacrament. The Lord’s Supper sums up and replaces all of the Old Testament fellowship meals. Thus 5:6-8 and 10:14-22 applies other Old Testament meals directly to the New Testament meal. All participants (and only those participants) who partook in the Old Testament should partake in the New Testament. All conditions (and only those conditions) required of participants in the Old Testament should be applied to participants in the New Testament.

Paul’s second example of unworthy participation from Exodus 32:1-35

1 Cor. 10:7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

Note that by picking situations where they ate and drank, Paul is being a careful exegete and only applying legitimate sacramental meals to the Lord’s Table. It is obvious that the idolaters of Exodus 32 have a clear correspondence to the idolaters in the Church of Corinth. In order for the sacramental portion of Paul’s quote from Exodus 32 (“The people sat down to eat and drink”) to have a one-to-one application to the Corinthians’ unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper, there must be some essential identity between what was happening in the meal of Exodus 32 and what was happening in Corinth. The essential identity is not with the sacrifices themselves (since Christ is the final sacrifice — see Heb 7:27; 9:26), but with the fellowship meal that followed all peace offerings. In the case of this peace offering and the sacramental meal that followed (Ex. 32:6), partaking while participating in idolatry violates the pledge of loyalty to Yehowah that is involved in every sacramental meal and thus results in judgment rather than blessing.

Exodus 32:35 says, “So the LORD plagued the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron made.” A plague is a serious sickness. Earlier in Exodus 32 God had also brought death. In the same way, Paul speaks of weakness, sickness, and death resulting from unworthy participation of the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:30). This was a common result of communion meals in the Old Testament (see as another example, 2 Chron. 30:18-20). Paul wants the Corinthians to eat “for the better” rather than “for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17). That is why he gives these repeated warnings. To deliberately include people in the Lord’s Supper who do not meet the conditions of worthy participation is to have their blood on our hands.

Paul’s third example of unworthy participation is from Numbers 25-26

1 Cor. 10:8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;

This verse warns the Corinthians about the sacramental judgment that killed 23,000 in Numbers 25-26. This time the sin was sexual immorality that happened after the sacramental meal. By partaking they were pledging covenant faithfulness, but they went out and immediately engaged in fornication. This made their sacramental participation a hypocritical lie. Again this shows that the sickness and death that the Corinthians were receiving from unworthy participation (1 Cor. 11:30-32) was nothing new. It was common in Old Testament times as well.

Paul’s fourth example of unworthy participation from Numbers 21:4-8

1 Cor. 10:9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;

How did they “tempt Christ” in the wilderness? In two ways: 1) by a lack of faith in God’s promises (Numb. 21:4-8) and 2) by a lack of appreciation for the manna (calling it “worthless bread” – Numb. 21:5). Paul implies that we will receive a similar judgment if we have a similar tempting of Christ while partaking of the Lord’s Table. This again shows that the Lord’s Table is not a family meal. It is a supernatural meal that guarantees blessings for those who meet the conditions and guarantees judgment on those who do not. On the other hand, we should not follow the lead of adult-communionists by allowing fear of judgment to make us exclude those whom the Old Testament clearly included. That too would be to violate the Regulative Principle of Worship. God has His reasons for admitting young ones to a sacrament of judgment, and one of those reasons is to instill in them fear and respect for God.

Paul’s fifth example of unworthy participation from Numbers 15-16

1 Cor. 10:10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

This fifth example comes from Numbers 15-16. To “complain” is to violate a condition of submission to Christ. Paul alludes to an example of complaining that happened in Numbers 16. Despite the gracious provision of sacramental meals in the previous chapter, and despite God making it clear that Levites alone could distribute the holy food, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, On, and others said, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (Numb. 16:3). The subsequent verses made it clear that they sought to make offerings and sacramental meals in violation of God’s ecclesiastical requirements. It resulted in a massive judgment. Paul again assumes that we can receive a parallel judgment at the Lord’s Table when we have parallel rebellion and complaining. Children who are in rebellion against authority and who engage in habits of complaining should not be admitted.

By using the word “destroyer,” “Paul links the angel who brought the plague of Nu 16:46-50…with the destroying angel of Exodus 12:23.”³⁴⁷ This means that the same judgments that came against Egypt can easily come against those inside the covenant if they act like the world. It also means that we should not treat the Passover as if it has less judgment than the other sacramental meals of the Old Testament. Paul indicates an essential character of judgment that the meal of Numbers 16 had with the Passover. This should instruct our view of the Passover. It is not a family meal. It is a supernatural meal that brings supernatural judgment upon those who falsely pledge allegiance and it is a supernatural meal of blessing to those who truly pledge allegiance. Again, Paul treats all those sacramental meals in a similar way and ties all the Old Testament sacramental meals into the Lord’s Table.

General applications from all Old Testament feasts

1 Cor. 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Paul is explicit that “all these things” apply to us in two ways: they serve as “examples” and they were written “for our admonition.” The “all” includes all Old Testament sacramental meals. This is why Zechariah 14:16-21 could prophesy that Gentiles in the New Covenant would celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. It is perfectly appropriate to speak of the Lord’s Table as a Firstfruits (1 Cor. 10:3-5), a Passover (see Mark 14:12,14,16; Luke 22:8,11,13,15; 1 Cor. 5:7-8), a Pentecost (Acts 2:1,42,46), a Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16-21; John 7:2,37), manna (John 7:27-71; 1 Cor. 10:3-4,9; Rev. 2:17), an Edenic Tree of Life (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), a peace offering meal (1 Cor. 10:7-8), or a meal that is equivalent to the general temple meals (1 Cor. 10:10,18; Rev. 3:12). The specific versions of paedo-communion and adult-only communion that teach that the Passover alone stands as the backdrop to the Lord’s Table are simply not true. This means that if there are at least some sacramental meals that admitted children (as all commentaries agree), then we too must admit children. If those sacramental meals imposed conditions for worthy participation upon children, then we should not admit children too young to keep those conditions.

Unless the New Testament explicitly changes something commanded under the law (such as ending sacrifices), we must imitate the good examples and eschew the bad examples. We should submit to God’s commands relative to those meals. All participants of Old Testament meals continue to be worthy participants today. All conditions connected to Old Testament meals continue to be conditions we must follow today. The Regulative Principle of Worship demands nothing less. The Old Testament blueprints for the sacramental meals “were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” A study of worthy participation must not restrict itself to Exodus 12 (as so many paedo and adult-communion studies have tended to do), but should submit to the complete revelation of God with respect to those meals. This book has sought to do exactly that.

When Paul says, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall,” he makes it clear that being in the covenant is not sufficient to make us worthy participants. God calls all participants to “take heed.”

Paul is also clear that the Old Testament standards for coming to communion were not unreasonably strict or impossible to keep. By God’s grace, we can keep those conditions because, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” If at least some 3-6 year old children were able to keep the six conditions laid out in 2 Chronicles 31 (see chapters 2-3), then it is imperative that we not put burdens upon children’s backs so onerous that it would be impossible for them to meet those conditions until nearing adulthood. God’s burden was light and His yoke was easy enough for even children to bear.

Admonitions and rules of conduct for the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:14-11:34)

In the remainder of Paul’s discussion he outlines some of the Old Testament rules of conduct that must be present when partaking of the Lord’s Table and gives some additional clarifying instructions.

Avoid any hints of idolatry (v. 14)

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Paul’s first rule of conduct is that we must avoid all compromise with idolatry when we come to the table or we will suffer discipline. By calling them “my beloved” he is showing great affection. But by calling them to “flee from idolatry” he is showing great concern. The call to “flee” shows how serious such compromise is.

Approach the table with discernment (v. 15)

I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.

Contrary to what adult-communion advocates say, the word “men” is not in the text. What the New King James renders as “wise men” is φρονίμοις, a word that refers to anyone (young or old) who has some understanding and discernment. We have already demonstrated in chapter 2 that at least some ages of children are able to show the kind of discernment and judgment that this text calls for.

Contrary to paedo-communion, Paul’s admonitions require that participants be able to approach the table with discernment. Christ defines a φρόνιμος as being “whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them” (Matt. 7:24). Paul here clarifies what he means by saying, “judge for yourselves what I say.” Those who lack discernment and who cannot judge what they are doing when they partake should not be administered the Lord’s Supper. This includes comatose adults as well as infants. Worthy participation involves some degree of overcoming temptation (10:13) and fleeing from idolatry (10:14).

Approach the table expecting to receive blessing (v. 16a)

The cup of blessing…

Though Paul’s focus will be on judgments in these chapters, he also indicates that we can experience “blessing” and we can eat “for the better” (1 Cor. 11:17). Scripture documents many blessings that flow from worthy participation in the meal (see comments on 11:17).

See the table as covenantal pledge of union and communion (v. 16)

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?

All sacramental meals implied a covenantal bond that was being pledged in a mutual blessing. First, there is the blessing of God that is found in the cup. Thiselton shows how the phrase, “The cup of blessing,” comes from the third cup in the Passover feast, and as such is a covenantal pledge that makes one a “stakeholder” or “shareholder…in Christ, in the cross and resurrection, and in the divine reality of the church as God’s people.”³⁴⁸ In his larger commentary he states,

The cup of blessing of covenant participation also finds a parallel with “the metaphor of the betrothal contract” in 2 Cor 11:1–2, both of which combine pledged loyalty with an exclusivist image of judgment.³⁴⁹

If the only pledge involved in this sacrament was the pledge of God to us or the pledge of parent to raise their children in the nurture of the Lord, then infants could conceivably have partaken, but there is a mutual pledge. This is “The cup of blessing which we bless.” To bless God even as He blesses us speaks of a conscious and verbal partaking of the sacrament — not something infants can do. The cup blesses us and we “bless” the cup, and the blessings flow to us only as we by faith bless the cup in our covenant renewal.

Notice that “bread” remains bread when it ushers us into communion with the body of Christ and the “cup” remains a cup when it ushers us into communion with the blood of Christ. Indeed, the very fact that Paul is quoting Christ’s words before Christ was crucified argues against any literal meat and blood being in the communion. No one asserts that the apostles partook of Christ’s body and blood before His body and blood were sacrificed on the cross. If our Lord’s Supper is identical to the apostles Last Supper, then we are back to the words of verses 3-4 where Paul insists that our food is “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” not literal meat and blood (which would otherwise involve us in the crime of cannibalism). Paul is simply using the language of Deuteronomy 32:14, which calls the sacramental drink “the blood of grapes.” Beale and Carson state the significance of these words:

Just as participation in the Passover celebration entailed participation in the benefits of the Passover sacrifice (cf. Ex. 12:27; 34:25; Deut. 16:2,5-6; 2 Chron. 35:1,6,11), participation in the Lord’s Supper entails participation in the benefits of his sacrifice for us.³⁵⁰

Sacramental union with Christ also makes us united with His body, the Church (v. 17)

For there is One Bread; we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that One Bread. (My translation, see also NASB, ESV, HCSBS, NET, CEB for a similar literal translation)

Almost every commentary struggles over the difficulty of translating this verse. To be fair to our paedo-communionist brethren, I will point out that this verse could be translated as the New King James does: “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” That translation makes the one bread symbolize the one body (i.e., the church). Though they have a difficulty doing so on a literal translation, Tim Gallant seeks to make the bread symbolize the church on even the literal translation. He claims that this verse is of “monumental significance” in favor of paedo-communion.³⁵¹ I would agree with him that this verse is probably their strongest argument from the entire Bible. Consider their logic in the form of two interlinking syllogisms:

Syllogism one Premise one: The one loaf of bread symbolizes the whole Church
Premise two: The whole church (“we all”) partakes of the sacramental bread
Conclusion: Therefore the whole church (the body of Christ) and the Lord’s Table are coextensive.

Syllogism two Premise one: The whole church (the body of Christ) and the Lord’s Table are coextensive (from syllogism one).
Premise two: Infants are in the church/body of Christ
Conclusion: Therefore infants should partake of the bread and exclusion of infants violates the symbolism of the sacrament — the unity of the church.

There are several reasons why this interpretation is unlikely. First, the literal translation of the Greek³⁵² given by most literal translations shows that Paul is not changing the subject by making the bread symbolize something new. He begins with a “For.” The previous verse (v. 16) had already identified the symbolism of the bread as pointing to Jesus. As Charles Hodge words it:

Literally rendered this verse reads: Since it is one bread, we the many are one body; for we are all partakers of one bread. We are not said to be one bread; but we are one body because we partake of one bread. The design of the apostle is to show that every one who comes to the Lord’s supper enters into communion with all other communicants. They form one body in virtue of their joint participation of Christ. This being the case, those who attend the sacrificial feasts of the heathen form one religious body. They are in religious communion with each other, because in communion with the demons on whom their worship terminates.³⁵³

Therefore the immediate context would seem to argue against premise one of syllogism one. If one premise is false, the whole argument from the two syllogisms falls to the ground.

Second, nowhere else in Scripture does the “bread” symbolize the church. In the Synoptic Gospels, the bread symbolized Jesus’ literal body — “Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ ‘” (Matt. 26:26; see also Mark 14:22; Luke 22:9). In John 6, the bread symbolized Christ’s flesh — “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” In 1 Corinthians 11:27, the elements symbolize the body and blood of the Lord — “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (Majority Text). The word “blood” in the phrase “body and blood” makes it impossible to take “body” there as referring to the church. Thus the broader context of the symbolism of bread makes premise one of syllogism one unlikely.

Having disproved their assumption that the sacramental bread must symbolize the church, the main paedo-communion argument is dismantled. They might respond that our alternative interpretation still does not adequately explain the “for” in the clause, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that one bread.” Some argue that without partaking of the bread and wine, we are not part of the body — that the two are still correlative even without bread symbolizing the church. This is the view I held when I was a paedo-communionist, but there were five things that made me begin to doubt this interpretation:

First, I couldn’t back it up from the Old Testament. Was it really fair to say that Samuel was not part of the body until three years after he was circumcised (1 Sam. 1:24-28)? Was it really fair to say that the yeled, yonek, and olel children that were deliberately excluded from the holy food in 2 Chronicles 31:15-18 were not part of the church? When Nehemiah 8:2-3 only admitted “all who could hear with understanding,” was he denying the reality that circumcision added children to the church? This interpretation was contradicted so many times in the Old Testament that it felt forced here and made Paul seem to be teaching something new.

Second, even the word “for” that they appeal to shows this. Notice that the word “for” goes before “we all partake of that One Bread.” The argument is not that we partake of that One Bread because we are in the body. The argument is that we are in one body because we partake of the One Bread. This seems to necessitate that Paul is talking about “the One Bread” (Christ) not “the one bread” (sacramental bread). If it was the sacramental bread that people were partaking of, we could ask, “Does the Lord’s Supper result in us being one body?” No. It might symbolize that, but it does not produce that. If this is “that One Bread” then it makes sense. Union with Christ automatically ushers us into the one body whether others acknowledge it or not or whether we come to the table or not. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Samuel was in the one body long before he partook of the sacramental meal. I believe that even paedo-communionists would be forced to admit that one must be in the body before he can partake of the Lord’s Table, but this verse is stating the opposite. It is stating that we are one body because we all partake of that One Bread. So this is yet another argument in favor of “that One Bread” being Jesus in this verse.

Third, this interpretation seems to not be sensitive to the visible/invisible distinction of both Israel and the church. All through 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul wants people to examine themselves to make sure they have a vital union with Christ. As he words it in 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.” Likewise in 1 Corinthians 11:28 each participant is supposed to “examine himself” before he eats.

Fourth, their interpretation assumes that Paul has switched back to the symbol (“the bread”) rather than what was symbolized (“the Bread”). While it is certainly possible, it seems more likely that Paul is doing the same thing here that he did in verses 3-4. There he switched from the symbol (vv. 3-4a) to the thing symbolized, Christ — “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (v. 4). Here he starts with the symbol — “the cup of blessing…the bread which we break” (v. 16) and moves to the thing symbolized, Christ — “is it not the communion of the blood of Christ… is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For there is One Bread; we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that One Bread” (vv. 16-17).

My final reason for beginning to think that I was reading more into the text than was there is that it is not absolutely necessary to include infants in the “we all.” For one thing, that would violate Paul’s rule of not going beyond what is written in the Old Testament (1 Cor. 4:6). Nowhere in the Old Testament is there mention of infants partaking. In any case, Paul had already given the antecedent to the “we all.” There is no indication of infants in the preceding context. The “we all” refers to all of the communicants being discussed earlier. These are described as “the many” earlier in the sentence (οἱ πολλοί — v. 17a) and a “we” that constituted very active participants in the previous verses — “we bless” (v. 16) “we break” (v. 16), a “we” who are people that are “wise” and who can “judge” (v. 15), and the “beloved” who were exhorted to “flee” from idolatry (v. 14). It is quite natural to take the “we all” as all of us who have been under discussion in the previous verses. Paul uses “all” in this restricted sense over and over in 1 and 2 Corinthians.³⁵⁴ Indeed, since the odd placement of the ἐκ in 1 Corinthians 10:17 makes it not able to modify the word “partake” (μετέχω) without violating the normal rules of grammar,³⁵⁵ it almost necessitates that the ἐκ modify something else in the verse — either “out of (ἐκ) the body” or “out of (ἐκ) the all.” Either way, he seems to be referring to “all out of some group.” So the last phrase could be rendered “For all out of [the body] who are partaking of the bread.” Almost nobody agrees on the meaning of that ἐκ, so I would definitely not want to press this point.

In conclusion, however you interpret “body” and “we all,” there are two additional thoughts that need to be considered. A fundamental rule of interpretation is that we ought not to use the unclear texts of Scripture to overturn the clear ones. Almost everyone agrees that this verse is difficult to translate. Morris says, “This is a difficult verse to interpret in detail.”³⁵⁶ Robertson and Plummer speak of “these ambiguous words” that are “not easy to decide how they should be translated.”³⁵⁷ Other commentaries have opted to not be dogmatic, and I certainly will not be dogmatic on this verse either, but I would urge my brothers on the other side of the fence to at least consider not making an unclear verse to be of “monumental significance” to their position as Gallant does.

Of course, all of this was designed to emphasize Paul’s point to “flee from idolatry” (v. 14) and to avoid compromise with idolatry (vv. 19-33). Fee states:

Their singular existence as the people of God, bound together to their Lord through the benefits of the cross and experienced regularly at his Table, makes all other such meals idolatry. Paul’s point, therefore, is not the unity of the body that this meal represents (although it probably anticipates that concern as well), but the solidarity of the redeemed community as one body in Christ that forbids all other such unions.³⁵⁸

Sacramental union with apostate Judaism involves us in a false koinonia with Judaism (v. 18)

Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

No sacramental meal could be participated in without identifying with the sacrifice that preceded it. Those Old Testament sacrifices were both a statement of faith and a covenantal commitment. They were intended to look forward to the coming Messiah and trust in Him alone for their salvation, and they were an unconditional surrender to God. Now that the Messiah anticipated by those sacrifices had come, to participate in the temple sacrifices in New Testament times would have been tantamount to denying that the Messiah had come, rejecting Christianity, and identifying with Judaism. This is a powerful argument against the Corinthian desires to eat meat offered to idols — just as eating in the temple would be to reject Christianity and to identify with Judaism, eating in a pagan temple would be to reject Christianity and identify with paganism.

Participation in pagan sacramental meals involves the Corinthians in communion with demons (10:19-22)

19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

The Greek word for “communion” (κοινωνία) implies sharing in something together and the word for “partake” (μετέχω) also points to a sharing in common with someone. Notice the things shared so far: 1) “communion (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ” (v. 16), 2) “communion (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ” (v. 17), 3) “we all partake (μετέχομεν) of that one bread” (v. 18), “partakers (κοινωνοὶ) of the altar”, “fellowship (κοινωνοὺς) with demons” (v. 20). This koinonia is more than a symbol. There is an active spiritual “happening” with either God or demons.

Hodge comments: “A man cannot eat of the table of demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can we eat of the table of the Lord, without being brought into contact with him, either to our salvation or condemnation.”³⁵⁹ Just as participating in a pagan sacramental meal actually brought a person into koinonia with demons, participating in the Lord’s Table actually brings us into koinonia with Christ’s sacrifice. We know how the koinonia with the pagan sacrament works — it works by the supernatural power of demons. But what about the Christian koinonia? It is the Holy Spirit who quickens the partaker of the Lord’s Supper with Christ and enables him or her to appropriate all that Christ’s sacrificed body and blood purchased.

This gives the Lord’s Table a purpose similar to the Old Testament fellowship meals. In both cases, the sacrifice had to be finished and atonement made before the fellowship meal could enable the partakers to receive by faith what the sacrifice foreshadowed. This means that the “cup” and “bread” remains cup and bread and does not become Christ’s sacrificial blood and body. It is still cup and bread when we commune by faith in Christ’s sacrifice and what it purchased.

To participate in this covenant pledge with demons is to deny our pledge to the true God. Such breaking of pledges is punished by a jealous God. “Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?” Obviously we are not stronger than God, and will not get away with this compromise.

A call to pursue what is helpful and edifies (v. 23)

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

This verses draws three distinctions to help guide our worship practices (the subject of chapters 10-14): 1) is it lawful, 2) is it helpful, 3) and does it edify? Paul was applying this principle to the meat that had previously been sacrificed to demons and had pagan sacramental powers connected to it. All things (not all actions, but all things) have a lawful use (including meat sold in a pagan market place), but 1) even if it was lawful to do something, we need to additionally ask 2) if it is helpful and 3) if it edifies or builds up.

This too can be applied to the debate on worthy participation in the the Lord’s Table. We must look to the law to determine if something is lawful. Next we must look to the law to see when, how, and by whom participation in the sacrament is helpful. And third, we must let the Scripture define what builds up.

Is it lawful for infants to participate in the Lord’s Table? No. We cannot assume their participation based on the words “household” or “children.” The view being argued in this book has households and children participate, but not infants or toddlers who fail to meet the law’s requirements. The Regulative Principle of Worship demands that the law explicitly authorize our participation.

Second, we must let the Bible determine what is helpful to our infants. It might be thought to be helpful to include them and we might feel bad when they cry about not being admitted. But if God is using the exclusion of children who do not meet His qualifications, we must say that it is helpful. And I believe Paul’s approach of demanding conditions is not only lawful but helpful in driving our children to the Gospel of Christ.

Third, we must let the Bible determine what edifies. The Lord’s Table is not simply a common meal. Paul will insist in this worship section (chapters 10-14) that there can be no profit or edification without understanding (1 Cor. 14:3-5,12,17). And when he insists “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26), the Lord’s Table is one of those “all things” in chapters 10-14. It might be objected that the same argument applies to infant baptism, and without the infant’s knowledge it does not edify him or her. But that baptism does indeed edify the parents. But more to the point, Christ’s exposition of the manna sacrament in John 6 shows that no one benefited from eating manna without faith (see for example John 6:29,37,40,44-45,47,53-54,63-65). Revelation 3:20 also calls for a knowledge that will edify when it says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” He requires an ability to hear His voice speaking in the Scriptures (“if anyone hears My voice”), and an active faith that reaches out “and opens the door.” Neither condition is possible for infants. Those two conditions speak of spiritual discernment (something infants lack — see Jonah 4:11; Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16) and an active faith (as opposed to seed faith).

The Lord’s Table calls us to lay down our rights and our self-seeking (v. 24)

24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

Notice that Paul said, “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (10:24). The “no one” and “each one” is as extensive as participation in the meal (the subject of chapters 10-11). To put off egocentrism and to be able to look from another person’s perspective and for another’s welfare requires some degree of maturity. It involves putting off self-centered “lust” (10:6), not simply eating because one is hungry or because one wants the food (11:21-22), and “not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many” (10:32-33). Though infants can have some degree of empathy, the level of looking to the interests of others described by Paul requires further development than an infant possesses.

Distinguishing between demonic food and common food in the market place (vv. 25-30)

1 Cor. 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

Paul’s argument seems to be that even demonic sacramental food loses its sacramental quality when it is eaten as common food. He will argue the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. What they were eating had become common food and had no sacramental benefit. Christ was not even present inside the church of Laodicea when they partook of the sacrament (Rev. 3:20). Without Christ’s presence such food was no different than common food. Well, the same is true of demonic food. If it is separated from the 1) context of the temple (“meat market”), 2) and if you do not know that it was sacrificed to demons (“asking no questions”), 3) and if there is no presence of the demonic by way of attachment (“to demons…fellowship with demons” v. 20), then it becomes common food with no sacramental implications. I won’t comment in depth on these verses, but there are some implications that can be drawn by logical inference:

First, if lack of knowledge excuses anyone who eats meat offered to idols from a demonic-sacramental dimension, then we can extrapolate that a similar lack of knowledge on the part of comatose adults or immature infants will also deprive the Lord’s Table of sacramental benefit to them.

Second, if the non-sacramental context (“any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner”) makes the food offered to idols non-sacramental in effect, the non-sacramental context of a family claiming to have the Lord’s Supper in their home also deprives such a meal of any sacramental effect (whether positive or negative). In 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 Paul clearly distinguishes common food from sacramental food, and makes context part of that equation — “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?”

The glory of God must be central (v. 31)

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

This is fairly self-explanatory. One of the central themes in the book of 1 Corinthians is the glory of God versus the glory of man, and why all glory must be hidden except for the glory of God in the worship service. Unless participants can consciously seek to glorify God, they should not “eat or drink” the sacrament.

Our testimony must be clean at the Lord’s Table (v. 32)

32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God…

A clean testimony is essential when coming to the Lord’s Table.

There must be no self-seeking at the Lord’s Table (v. 33)

33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

It takes time and grace to outgrow the self-focus that tends to be part of all immaturity (see comments on verse 24). Isaiah 40:11 distinguishes between levels of maturity: “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young.” This speaks of the mature in the first phrase, the new born lambs in the second phrase, and infants in the womb in the last phrase. All are part of God’s flock, but God does not force-feed grass to lambs. He nurtures them in other ways, as has already been discussed in earlier chapters.

We must dress and groom appropriately at the Lord’s Table (11:1-16)

1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Though some commentaries believe that 11:1-16 is out of place, the Scottish Reformers were absolutely correct in their belief that all of chapters 10-11 continue to be binding and all deal with conduct at the Lord’s Table. They applied these dress and grooming codes only to the times when they had the Lord’s Table. I comment on these verses extensively in a book elsewhere.³⁶⁰ Here I will only make a few comments related to the debate at hand.

While we have already commented on the fact that paedo-communionists are incorrect in seeing the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, this section shows that adult-communionists are also wrong in being so individualistic that they miss the fact that households continue to be households even when partaking of the Lord’s Table. Paul gives instruction on family “authority” (11:10) and headship (11:3) and wants to make sure that there is no rebellion to family authority when partaking of the Lord’s Table. Though elders alone admit to the table and bar from the table³⁶¹, and though these elders have the authority to admit certain members of a family and to bar other members,³⁶² it is still true that God’s normal pattern was to call whole households to himself and for most (if not all) in that household to eventually partake of communion by faith.³⁶³ Thus it is not at all surprising that Paul has an extended discussion of the family’s authority not being evaporated by the church. The church is a republic of families, not a democracy of individuals.³⁶⁴ Thus it is no surprise to find Levites giving the sacramental food to Elkanah and Elkanah distributing food (administratively) to his family (1 Sam. 1). Because it is an administrative distribution, Elkanah does not usurp the authority of the Levites over the sacrament. Because households partake, the Levites still recognized the integrity of Elkanah as the head of the home, and used him to distribute the elements (administratively). If Elkanah had not been present, one of the other family members could just as easily have distributed the elements (administratively), or the Levites could have distributed to each person.

The issue of “glory” and boasting unifies all the diverse strands in the book of 1 Corinthians. It is a book that contrasts the glory of man and the glory of God. In this passage, Paul applies the concept of glory to worship and specifically to what is appropriate in the Lord’s Supper (the unifying theme of chapters 10-11). Paul’s contention is that all glory must be “covered” over by some sort of “covering” at the covenant renewal ceremony of the Lord’s Table except for the glory of God. Since “the woman is the glory of man” (v. 7), the woman should be covered with long hair. Since the woman’s “long hair…is a glory to her” (v. 15), her hair should also be covered. Since “a man…is the image and glory of God” (v. 7), males should not be covered, which Paul defines as having either long hair or having a fabric covering.

Though all of this seems strange to modern Americans, Paul was not inventing something new when he gave this teaching. He was not violating his dictum “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). All of this teaching is deeply rooted in the Old Testament provisions related to the sacramental meals. Priests had special clothing (including head coverings) that were to be worn in the holy place (Ex. 28:40; 29:9; 39:28; Ezek. 44:18). However, the priest was not allowed to take his temple garments out of the holy place of the temple (Lev. 16:24 NIV). Any time he stood before the people he removed his head coverings.³⁶⁵

Why was this mandated? The answer ties in perfectly with Paul’s discussion of glory in 1 Corinthians 11. The Old Testament taught that when partaking of the sacramental meals only God’s glory should be visible. Within the Holy Place was God’s Shekinah glory and the symbol of that glory was called “the ark of the covenant,” “the glory of Israel,” and the throne of His glory.” Since the priest was representing Israel to God when he went into the Holy Place (even wearing the names of the tribes of Israel on his breastplate), he was considered to be the glory of Israel and had to have his head covered. All glory but the glory of God was to be covered when people were involved with either the sacrifices or the fellowship meals that came after the sacrifices. Thus, when the priest left the Holy of Holies and ministered the sacrament that came after the sacrificial ceremonies, he now represented God to the people and since he was functioning in that sacramental service as the glory of God he was required to take off his head covering. Why? Because God’s glory could not be covered. In the sacramental service, only the glory of God could be visible.

Thus in the Old Testament sacramental meals, the priest and the males worshiped and partook of the sacrament without headcoverings while the women wore headcoverings. The priest and the men were not allowed to wear long hair at those same events (see Ezek. 44:20), whereas the women did have long hair. The one exception was the Nazarite, but because of his special vows, he was not allowed to partake of the sacrament until his Nazarite vow was completed.³⁶⁶ So even the Nazarite fits the discussion of Paul perfectly. Thus Paul is not inventing a new concept when he mandates “proper” attire and certain length of hair when coming to the Lord’s Table. This was a formal covenant renewal ceremony of a very serious nature and required honoring God with our dress codes. There is no difference between the Old Testament sacramental provisions on this issue and the New Testament sacramental provisions.

The phrase, “because of the angels” (v. 10) is also directly related to the kinds of judgments and blessings that flow from the Lord’s Table. God used angels to inflict judgments on unworthy participants in many of the Old Testament sacramental meals. The “destroyer” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:10 was the angel sent from the Lord at the time of the first Passover (Ex. 12:23) and probably was involved in several of the sacramental judgments that Paul references in chapter 10. Angels are in our worship services and God can use an “angel” to “prosper your way” (Gen. 24:4; Cf. Gen. 28:12; 32:1; 48:16; Ex. 23:20,23; etc.) or to bring God’s “anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending angels of destruction” (Ps. 78:49; cf. 2 Sam. 24:16). The Lord’s Table is a supernatural meal that ushers us into the heavenlies and all of their realities, including tangible judgments and tangible blessings (for examples of these judgments and blessings, see my comments under the next verse).

The Lord’s Supper results in either blessing or judgment (v. 17)

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.

Note that communion can have two effects upon people: It can make them “better” or it can make them “worse.” Either blessing or judgment always result.

Note: just because Paul emphasized the judgments for Corinth in these chapters doesn’t mean that we should. As Calvin and many other writers have pointed out, the sacraments are primarily the Good News in visible form. Their primary intention is not judgment but blessing. They were intended “for the better.” Certainly the good news of the Gospel becomes bad news to those who reject it, but that should never make us stop calling it “Good News,” nor should that take away our joy. Let those under judgment mourn, but for our part let us rejoice every time we partake.³⁶⁷

Here are a sampling of the blessings that came upon people who ate “for the better”:

1. Divine protection (Ex. 34:22-26, esp. v. 24; Ps. 51:16-19, esp. v. 18).
2. Spiritual satisfaction (Ps. 22:26).
3. Dwelling in peace (Jer. 7:3-7 in context, esp. vs. 21-23 contrasted with vs. 18-20).
4. “That it may be well for you” (Jer. 7:23).
5. “That you may learn to fear the LORD” (Deut. 14:23).
6. “That the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand that you do” (Deut. 14:29).
7. God’s pleasure (Ps. 51:19).

Here are a sampling of the judgments that came when people ate “for the worse”:

1. The judgments Paul has already outlined (1 Cor. 10:1-10).
2. Sickness (2 Chron. 30:20; 1 Cor. 11:30).
3. Unanswered prayers (Isa. 1:15).
4. Death (Isa. 1:10-20; Lev. 10:1-3,19; 1 Kings 13:21-24).
5. Everything going wrong in life (Amos 5:18-27).
6. Punishment in general (Zeph. 1:7-9).
7. Many other judgments (Jer. 7:1-29; Zech. 7:5-7; Mal. 1:6-14; 2:13-14; etc.).

The Lord’s Table is incompatible with disunity in the body (11:18-19)

18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

To have “divisions” in the body is a serious thing because it contradicts what we are pledging to promote in the Lord’s Supper. In Corinth some were eating and others were not (cf. v. 21). When members of the church are demeaned, God is grieved. This is why no believer who is growing in holiness (whether young or old) should be excluded from the Lord’s Supper. It makes for factions in the body.

Of course, paedo-communionists will object that this is exactly what we are doing when we do not admit infants who are not yet able to meet the conditions of worthy participation, but there are two reasons why this is not so. First, when we come to the Lord’s Table, we are pledging to uphold the unity of the body, and that unity extends to many things beyond the Lord’s Table. Second, there is a difference between humans excluding persons and God excluding persons. The only authority elders have is the authority of the Bible. Elders must never bar from the table anyone whom God wants admitted, and they must never admit anyone to the table whom God has not authorized to come. In this book we have demonstrated that God Himself gave the conditions we have outlined in this book, and we have also demonstrated that God applied those conditions to all age groups of children who are said to have partaken — without exception. To use an analogy, at marriage we say, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Making up our own rules for divorce and remarriage would be a violation of this statement, but allowing a divorce that God Himself allows is not. God (by His Scriptures) has put asunder a situation like 1 Corinthians 7:15, not man. In the same way, God alone has excluded from the meal those who cannot meet certain conditions. We can minister to the unity of the whole body, and must so minister when we partake.

That divisions are unavoidable can be seen by the next verse: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” Paul is not saying the exact opposite here to what he said in verse 18. In what sense “must” these factions come? Charles Hodge compares this passage with Matthew 18:6-7 which also speaks of divisions and offenses which must come. There the division had to do with rejecting children as lesser in the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:1-5) and despising children so that they strayed from the fold (Matt. 18:10-14). In that context Christ said:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

Hodge comments:

Evil as well as good is included in the divine purpose. It is purposed not of evil, but for the sake of the good which infinite wisdom evolves from it.³⁶⁸

Calvin comments: “But observe what Paul says — there must be, for he intimates by this expression, that this state of matters does not happen by chance, but by the sure providence of God, because he has it in view to try his people, as gold in the furnace.”³⁶⁹

God allows divisions to occur in the church over history to bring to light doctrinal clarity, and promote moral purity and He achieves this by raising up men who will stand for the hour of the day. Examples of “approved” men are many: Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, and others could be given. We should not run from controversy but seek to deal with it head on. Teaching on such controversies is for the purpose of bringing about the eventual unity of the body.

Paul calls for weekly communion (11:17-18,20,33-34)

Throughout this chapter communion is connected with “when you come together in one place.” This is the implication that many have drawn from the book of Acts as well. This was in keeping with the weekly meals at the Old Testament Sabbath gatherings in the temple. This was certainly the practice of the early church, and this was the practice that Calvin wanted the church to return to. One of the chief advantages of weekly communion is that it keeps a church from becoming legalistic — the Gospel of Jesus Christ is kept before our eyes no matter what is preached on. The Gospel should be central.

Biblical sacraments normally had wine (11:20)

Paul said that “another is drunk” at the meal. It would be pretty difficult to get drunk on grape juice. Why would wine have been used at all when verses 3-4 explicitly authorized water in the wilderness? The answer is the distinction the church has historically made between “regular” and “irregular but valid.” Wine was called for in the law of God because it more accurately symbolized blood, but when wine (the regular) was not available, water (the irregular but valid) was allowed. This does not mean that the regular should be ignored. The pre-incarnate Son of God served “bread and wine” to Abraham (Gen 14:18; see Heb. 7), commanded its use in the Passover and other communion meals (Deut. 14:26; 12:17-18; etc.), and thus must have served it to His disciples in the Last Supper (Matt. 26:19). Though drunkenness was condemned at the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:21), the Holy Spirit calls us to “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed” (Prov. 9:5).

Of course, some have used this as an argument that children should not partake of the the Lord’s Table because they should not partake of wine. However, the law of God was quite explicit that children did indeed partake of the wine at these sacramental meals. Consider the following examples: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstlings of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the heave offering of your hand. But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses, you and your son and your daughter” (v. 17-18). The italicized phrases show that the sons and daughters were commanded to drink the wine. Deuteronomy 14:22-29 also speaks of “your new wine… wine or strong drink…and you shall rejoice, you and your household…and the fatherless…and widow.” Deuteronomy 16:13-17 says in part, “have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress: and you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter…fatherless.” (See also Deut. 18:1-8; 26:1-15; 1 Sam. 1; 2 Chron. 31; Neh. 8, each of which has “wine” being distributed to the children.)

Paul once again distinguishes between common food and sacramental food

20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? 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 do not praise you.

Notice that it is possible to outwardly partake of the Lord’s Table when in reality (if we come unworthily) “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Matthew Henry comments: “their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution…It was coming to the Lord’s table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away.”³⁷⁰ Again this shows the spiritual nature of this feast. It is not a mere memorial. You can memorialize with sin in your midst, but it is impossible to receive spiritual strength when you wrongly partake. There is no sacrament when there is sinful rebellion (cf. Rev. 3:20). Zechariah 7:5-7 details the problem in his day. God said, “do you not eat and drink for yourselves?” When God is not present they are eating and drinking for themselves alone. There was no spiritual relationship going on. This means that those children who merely view communion as a snack are not ready to partake.

In saying, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” Paul is making a distinction between sacramental food and common food once again. Apparently the church of Laodicea was receiving no more benefit from their sacrament than they would have if they ate the same food at home (Rev. 3:20).

The Lord’s Table is a sign and seal of Christ; but the sign should not be confused with what is symbolized (11:23-25)

1 Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Notice that the timing of these sacramental words was “on the same night in which He was betrayed.” This by itself shows that “this is My body” is not to be taken literally, or His body would have been sacrificed before it was sacrificed, an impossibility. The “bread” was still bread when He said “This is my body.” When I point to a picture of my wife and say “This is my wife,” all understand that the picture doesn’t turn into my wife. It is a representation. In much the same way Christ is the Passover. That was true both before and after the Incarnation. For Moses to say that the Passover meal of his day turned into the body and blood of Christ would be to deny the doctrine of a future incarnation. Yet the “is” language would still have been appropriate. This is very important when we deal with the question of “discernment of the body of Christ.” There needs to be an understanding of the fact that the elements represent the body and blood of Christ in both the Old and the New Testaments. The phrase, “the blood of the covenant” occurs in both the Old Testament (Ex. 24:8) as well as the New Testament (Heb. 10:29). In both testaments there are symbols or representations of Christ’s blood. Wine was used (because of its color) in both testaments for that purpose.

An essential aspect of the Lord’s Supper is an ability to remember what He has done (11:25)

…This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Notice that the Lord’s Supper includes the aspect of remembrance. There needs to be the ability to both discern the significance of the feast and to remember certain factual details about His death. This was no different than the requirement given of Passover to “remember” (Ex. 13:3; Deut. 16:3,12), and is one of many indicators that infants did not participate.

An essential aspect of the Lord’s Supper is the ability to proclaim the Lord’s death (11:26)

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

This verse speaks of another aspect of the Lord’s Supper: witness or proclamation. Hebrews makes clear that every Old Testament meal also proclaimed the Lord’s death. It was a visual representation of the Gospel. Whereas the Old Covenant “foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances [were] imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10, i.e. reforming of old covenant ceremonies in new covenant forms), the new covenant forms will continue until the Second Coming. God doesn’t want the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to ever stop until we get to eternity.

Unworthy participation makes a participant guilty of the body and blood of Christ (11:27)

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

This is a chilling warning of judgment to any and all who fail to honor the table of the Lord as He wants it honored. Paedo-communionists insist that this is only addressing older communicants who are able to to meet the conditions. But the English word, “whoever,” is made up of two Greek words, ὃς ἂν, which indicate each and every one who partakes. To arbitrarily exclude children from this warning is not warranted. The conditions apply to 100% of the participants in such a way that whoever “eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27).

This instruction of Paul is simply an application of Leviticus 10:3, which says, “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified.” This principle was given after Nadab and Abihu introduced fire from a different source than what God had said and God judged them with fire. Boice comments.

It is such a little thing, we think, and yet causes such a great punishment. But this reminds us that with God nothing is little. What seems to us like small acts of disobedience are not a light thing to our holy God.³⁷¹

We cannot add to worship what God has not commanded and we cannot take from worship what God has forbidden. To add infants to communion when God has not commanded it is to offer up strange fire and to take away conditions for partaking for that segment is to do the same. Indeed, Leviticus 10:1-3 has introduced a reverent fear into many authors who write on the Regulative Principle of Worship. Kellogg comments,

For the essence of their sin was this, that it was will-worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed will of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their own fancies and inclinations…

In all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as much as any… we are certainly all taught… that wherever we are not clear that we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we need to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest possibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering “strange fire,” which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes into many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable devices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a patient God, in the mystery of His long-suffering, flashes not instantly forth His vengeance.³⁷²

Worthy participation requires self-examination (11:28)

28 But let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Thiselton captures the meaning of this verse rather well. He says:

The adversative use of δέ introduces the theme of self-examination as a contrast (on the contrary) to the eating and drinking which is not fitting in the previous verse. Paul uses the verb δοκιμάζω to convey more than simple introspective examination alone. The cognate adjective δόκιμοι occurred in 11:19 to mean (in our translation of v. 19 above) those who are tried and true, i.e., those who have proved themselves to be genuine after examination. This entirely articulates the theme that links the negative of v. 27 with the positive of v. 28: a person (ἄνθρωπος) should examine his or her own genuineness, i.e., test how genuine their motives and understanding are.

Only in this way renders the simple οὕτως translated ambiguously as and so let a man … in AV/KJV, exchanged for the temporal construction before eating in REB (also before we eat in NIV) and a combination of temporal and perhaps also logical, and only then eat, in NJB and NRSV. Clearly the traditional so for οὕτως is acknowledged to be ambivalent. οὕτως as the adverbial form which corresponds to οὗτος, this, means “thusly” or in this way most characteristically with reference to what precedes it, often summarizing the thought just expressed (although it may also refer to what follows). Here Paul clearly means that participants are only to eat from the loaf (ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου) and drink from the cup (ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου) in the way indicated, i.e., by examining themselves to confirm that their understanding, attitude, and conduct are genuine in sharing (cf. ἐκ) in all that the body and blood of Christ proclaims, both in redemptive and in social terms.³⁷³

If his interpretation of “only in this way” is correct, then it clearly rules out infants. Nor is this a new command. As we have demonstrated over and over in this book, self-examination was always required in every sacramental meal in the Old Testament. 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 called for cleansing and preparing of the heart to seek the LORD. Psalm 22:26 says, “The poor shall eat and be satisfied.” One must be poor in heart. Psalm 26:2-7 is a prayer that God would examine his heart so that he could approach the altar cleansed. That God always expected self-examination for sacramental meals is clear in such passages as Isaiah 1:10-20, Amos 5:18-27, Jeremiah 7:1-29, Micah 6:6-8, Zechariah 7:5-7, Malachi 1:6-14, and Malachi 2:13-17. Without self-examination there was judgment, as can be seen by the diseases inflicted upon participants in 2 Chronicles 30:18-20. The “for” at the beginning of 1 Cor. 11:29 shows why we should be serious about self-examination.

Worthy participation requires rightly discerning the Lord’s body

29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Paedo-communionists will often emphasize a minority Greek reading (2% of manuscripts) of 1 Corinthians 11:29 that omits “Lord’s” from the phrase “not discerning the Lord’s body.” They state that it is the body (i.e., the church) that people were not discerning (by sinning against one another), not the Lord’s body. The immediate context of being “guilty of the body and the blood” of 11:27 argues that he really was thinking about how we treat Christ’s own body and blood.

Either way (whether this is lack of love towards fellow believers or lack of appreciation for what is sacramentally signed and sealed), such lack of discernment leads to judgment (a central theme of these chapters). Infants are not able to show either kind of discernment.

Self-judgment leads to blessing while lack of self-judgment leads to God’s chastening (1 Cor. 11:30-32)

30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Those who see the sacrament as a mere memorial of Christ’s death cannot make sense of this passage. There is a spiritual work of grace or judgment that always happens in the sacrament. Notice that Paul says “many” are weak and sick. We tend to ignore the spiritual causes of the illnesses and weaknesses that we have, chalking them up to natural causes, but if these continue in your lives you might want to call for the elders to anoint you with oil and pray for forgiveness and healing (James 5:14-16) much as Hezekiah did when people were sick through sinful partaking of the Passover (2 Chron. 30:18-20). See comments under 11:17 for detailing of some of the judgments in the Old Testament that are explicitly connected to the sacraments.

When Paul adds, “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged,” he shows that judgment is not inevitable. All of us are sinners, but we need to agree with God in judging our wrong ways as wrong and turning from them. Even the moment before you partake of the Lord’s Table, if you resolve in your heart to get right you will be accepted. Once judgment comes, it is possible that God only heals through the elders. Many passages that have already been cited could show this, but Psalm 32 and 51 are David’s experience of disease and problems after his sin with Bathsheba. His healing came after his session with Nathan. The healing of the people in 2 Chronicles 30 only happened after Hezekiah prayed for them (vv. 18-22).

The chastening of the Lord mentioned in verse 32 shows that this is not the judgment of a God who hates us, but the judgment of a God who loves us and wants our best. All of the Old Testament judgments manifested the rich, deep love of God to Israel (Deut. 8:5; Job. 5:17-18; 33:18-30; 34:31-32; Ps. 94:12-13; 118:18; Prov. 3:11-12). To avoid the Lord’s Supper for fear of judgment is to avoid God for fear of judgment. That is not a healthy view of God. When He commands all His people to partake of the sacramental meals, He does so because He loves them. When He disciplines those who wander while partaking, He does so because He loves them.

The Lord’s Supper calls us to consideration (v. 33)

33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

Waiting for one another is simply another conscious way of showing consideration for others in the church. When our relationships are good, our participation in the Lord’s Table will be better. All participants (young and old) should be capable of such consideration.

The Lord’s Supper should not be seen as a snack (v. 34a)

34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment…

Infants tend to view food stuffed into their mouth as a snack (and perhaps a horrible snack at that). It must be emphasized that this is not a family meal — it is a supernatural meal by which every participant actively pledges their allegiance to the Lord. Those who eat only with a consciousness that they don’t want to miss out on a snack are not eating worthily.

Paul’s exposition of the Lord’s Supper is not all that the Scripture says about the subject (v. 34b)

…And the rest I will set in order when I come.

Finally there is a reminder that 1 Corinthians 10-11 is not all that there is to say about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The “rest” of the theology on communion is found in Genesis to Revelation, not in one passage. My book does not claim to have exhausted this topic, but it certainly seeks to point us in the direction of a more full-orbed view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Addendum: 1 Corinthians 5:7-8

In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul says:

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

This little paragraph implies that participation in the Passover required the following four things:

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

I would urge the reader to study the earlier chapters to get a fuller picture of what the debate on the Lord’s Table is all about. In the meantime it is my hope that a study of the materials will have given you more of a sense of awe over this supernatural meal.

11. A Credo-Communion Commentary on Exodus 12

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

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

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

Douglas Stuart has pointed out that Exodus 12:

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

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

Verse 1

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

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

Verse 2

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

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

Verse 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 4

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

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

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

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

Verse 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 6

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

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

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

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

Verse 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 9

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

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

Verse 10

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

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

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

Verse 11

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

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

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

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

Verses 12-13

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

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

Verse 14

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

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

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

Verse 15

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

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

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

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

Verse 16

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

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

Verses 17-20

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 21

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

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

Verses 22-24

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

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

Verses 26-27

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

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

Verse 28

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

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

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

Verses 29-36

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

Observation 45. Passover promises both blessing and cursing.

Verses 37-42 — more historical narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 43

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

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

Verse 44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 45

A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.

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

Verse 46

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

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

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

Verse 47

All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.

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

Verse 48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 49

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

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

Verses 50-51

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

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

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

12. Appendix A: The Axioms of Logic in Scripture

Preface

Chapter 4 of this book affirmed that logic is embedded in the Scripture. Though the footnotes given in that chapter have adequately demonstrated that this is a Biblical doctrine, this appendix will show the exegetical basis for each axiom of logic. For the system known as Christianity there is technically only one necessary axiom: “God’s Word is Truth.” Everything else in our worldview can be logically deduced from this one axiom.³⁹⁴ This gives a unified system of thought that starts with God’s mind and covers all of life.

Each discipline (when considered by itself) also has several starting principles, or axioms (the Biblical word στοιχεια), from which all other truths within that system can be deduced. Since they come from the Bible, we could call these Biblical Axioms, Inspired Axioms, or Great Axioms.

For those who would argue that only the starting axiom should be called an axiom, I would reply that our starting axiom (“God’s Word is Truth”) is derived from the Bible just as surely (see Psalm 119:160; John 17:17) as the axioms of this chapter are. If the entire Bible is our axiomatic starting point, then all the starting points we derive from the Bible for each discipline are also axiomatic for that discipline. Since the term “axiom” is widely used for the starting principles of each discipline, it will communicate better to use the term “axiom” for both the major axiom of the entire system of Christianity (“God’s Word is Truth”) and for the minor axioms that form the foundation for each discipline.

Without the laws of logic it would be impossible to reason. This poses a conundrum for the atheist. The atheist knows that the laws of logic are:

1. Universal (i.e., they apply everywhere)
2. Abstract (i.e., they are immaterial and grasped by thought alone and thus cannot be reduced to his materialistic universe of atoms and genes)
3. Invariant (i.e., they are never changing)
4. Authoritative (i.e., they must be accepted)

Without God, how do you account for such laws of thought? The atheist can’t deny them with consistency since a denial of logic is a denial of truth and reason and he would have to give up the argument with the theist. In arguing against the Christian he must constantly resort to logic. If he affirms that logic is universal, abstract, invariant, and authoritative, he has a hard time justifying it. Where do such laws of logic come from? Who made them authoritative? Why do all civilizations seem to recognize logical arguments? If our genes arose from chance, how can chance account for such universal order in our thinking? You cannot say they are mere conventions of man since they are universally found in men and have not changed over history and are authoritative. They can’t be simply part of the material universe since they are abstract and not material.

The four characteristics of logic listed above are exactly what would be expected by the Christian since logic is in the very mind of God (see John 1:1 λόγος) and since God revealed His logical mind in the Scriptures of truth, and since He made man in His image. The image of God in man is composed of logic, language, ethics, dominion, etc., and therefore we cannot escape from logic, try as we might. God can command us, “Come, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18), and we can respond with reasoning. There is thus a triangular connection between God (the original in heaven), His revealed Word (objective truth), and His natural revelation within man (subjectively understood truth).

What this chapter is most concerned to demonstrate is that logic is embedded in the Scriptures. Logical principles are found on almost every page of Scripture. One example can be given in Matthew 12:24-30 where we see the following laws of logic at work:

1. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
2. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
3. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
4. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
5. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28-29)
6. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
7. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
8. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

If God uses these axioms of logic, then they are true.

Definitions of terms

In propositional logic we evaluate whether propositions are meaningless, true, or false. Propositions are often represented by the letters p,q,r,s. The logical connections are as follows:

And ˄ ∧ (or some logicians may use &, Kpq, or the middle dot, ⋅)

Or ˅ ∨ (or some logicians may use ||, or Apq )

Not ¬ (or some logicians may use ~, Np, or Fp)

Implies → (or some logicians use ⊃)

Biconditional ↔ (or some logicians use ≡)

Equals is represented by =

Truth is represented by T (or some logicians use Vpq, or ⊤)

False is represented by F (or some logicians use Opq, or ⊥)

All is represented by A

No is represented by E

Some is represented by I

“Some is not” is represented by O

Arguments have rules for logical manipulation. For example:

Given the set of sentences, S, it is valid to infer another sentence, p. This would be written as: 𝑆 ⊢ 𝑝

Modus ponens can be written as P⊃ O, P,∴ O

¬ is evaluated first ∧ and ∨ are evaluated next Quantifiers are evaluated next → is evaluated last.

A listing of the axioms of logic

The most basic laws

1. The law of identity — P is P (or A:A).
2. The law of (non-)contradiction — P is not non-P (or ~[A: ~A] or A : ~A).
3. The law of the excluded middle — Either P or non-P. Or since A:A & ~[A: ~A] then either A or ~A.
4. The law of rational inference — “if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.”
5. Modus ponens — If p then q; p; therefore q.
6. Modus tollens — If p then q; not q; therefore not p.

Further derived laws

1. Hypothetical syllogism — If p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r.
2. Disjunctive Syllogism (also known as the modus tollendo ponens or MTP) — If P is true or Q is true and P is false, then Q is true.
3. Immediate inferences for an obverse categorical statement.

For example, given “All S are P”, one can make the immediate inference that “No S are non-P” which is the obverse of the given statement.

Or, given “No S are P”, one can make the immediate inference that “All S are non-P” which is the obverse of the given statement.

Or, given “Some S are P”, one can make the immediate inference that “Some S are not non-P” which is the obverse of the given statement.

Or, given “Some S are not P”, one can make the immediate inference that “Some S are non-P” which is the obverse of the given statement.

1. Immediate inference for a contrapositive statement.
2. Constructive dilemma.
3. Destructive dilemma.

There are 256 possible ways to make categorical syllogisms using the A,E,I, and O statement forms (the square of opposition). Of the 256, only 24 are valid forms. Of the 24 valid forms, 15 are unconditionally valid, and 9 are conditionally valid. This introduction will only deal with the fact that the basic axioms from which logic is derived are found in the Scriptures. The online Great Axioms Project will develop this Biblical logic further.

Showing these axioms to be inspired axioms/Biblical axioms/great axioms

First axiom of logic: The Law of Identity

This law states that if a proposition is true, then it is true. Ways of stating this law are, P is P, or if p then p, or A:A or A = A.

1. Gen. 35:11. “And God said unto him, I am God Almighty.” From this we can see that God (A) said, I (A) am (=) God (A), or A = A.
2. Ex. 3:14. God said, I AM who I Am.
3. John 3:6. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” That is, flesh is not spirit and vice versa. If flesh = flesh and spirit = spirit then a = a and b = b.
4. 1 Cor. 15:39-41 states the same axiom repeatedly. Human flesh is human flesh, bird flesh is bird flesh, etc.

Second axiom of logic: The Law of (non-)Contradiction

This law states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. P is not non-P (or ~[A: ~A] or A: ~A)

1. Numb. 23:19. “God is not a man.” God is not something that He is not.
2. Heb. 6:10. “God is not unjust.” God is not something that He is not.
3. Jer. 13:23. An Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor a leopard his spots. This means that an Ethiopian is an Ethiopian; he is not a non-Ethiopian.
4. Since all truth is in God (Col. 2:3; John 14:6) and since God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), truth will never contradict truth.
5. 2 Cor. 1:18. “But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No.” The definition of God’s faithfulness is that His word is not both Yes and No at the same time and about the same thing.
6. Isaiah 5:20. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” This implies that A does not equal non-A (A ≠ -A), or as stated in logic, ~[A: ~A] or A: ~A.

Third axiom of logic: The Law of the Excluded Middle

This law states that either a proposition is true, or its negation is true. A cannot equal non-A (or P & non-P) at the same time and in the same sense. So, if we have a proposition P, and if that proposition is false, then the proposition not-P would have to be true. Conversely, if P is true, then not-P is false. Another way of saying it is that a proposition always has the opposite truth value of its negation. Since A:A & ~[A: ~A] then either A or ~A.
a. Matt. 6:24. “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
b. Matt. 7:15-20. All prophetic trees are either good trees or bad trees, and good prophetic trees produce good prophecies 100% of the time and bad prophetic trees produce non-prophecies 100% of the time. There is no in between.
c. 1 Kings 18:21. “How long will you limp between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; if Baal, then follow him.” Either (A) Yehowah is God or (~A) Yehowah is not God; likewise, either (A) Baal is God or (~A) Baal is not God.
d. John 14:6. God is truth, and that which is not of God is thus not truth. Any proposition will either be in line with God’s thinking and thus true, or not aligned with God’s thinking and therefore false.
e. Ex. 16:4. God’s test is whether Israel will walk in His law or not. There is no middle position. Either it is the case that they obey or it is the case that they will not obey.
f. Matt. 12:30. “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”

Fourth axiom of logic: The law of rational inference — “If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.”

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is proved using this law.
2. Luke 15:52. “For from now on five in one house will be divided; three against two, and two against three.” If 5 [A] = [3+2] [B] and if [3+2] [B] = [2 +3] [C] then 5 [A] = [2+3] [C].

Fifth axiom of logic: Modus ponens — If p then q; p; therefore q.³⁹⁵

1. Matt. 8:2-3. If Jesus is willing [p] then he can cleanse a man of leprosy [then q]. Jesus said that he was willing [p]; therefore he was healed [therefore q].
2. Prov. 23:13-14. If a person engages in biblical discipline [p] then the child will not die spiritually [q]. The imperative of biblical discipline when carried out [p] results in delivering from the second death or hell [therefore q].
3. If people clearly perceive God, then they are obligated to glorify Him as God and be thankful. People do clearly perceive God. Therefore, they are obligated to glorifying Him as God and be thankful. P⊃ O, P,∴ O (modus ponens)

Sixth axiom of logic: Modus tollens — If p then q; not q; therefore not p.³⁹⁶

1. James 2:17-18. If a person has living faith [p] then he will have works [q]. When there are no works [not q]; there is no living faith [not p].
2. 1 John 2:19. If these professing believers were truly of us [p] then they would have continued with us [then q]; they left us [not q], therefore they proved themselves to not be of us [therefore not p].
3. 1 Cor. 15:13,20. If there is no resurrection [p] then Christ is not risen [then q]; Christ is risen [not q]; therefore there is a resurrection [not p].

Almost all logical laws can be derived from the above most basic ones. Here is a sampling of other laws that are helpful to be spelled out:

Seventh axiom of logic: Hypothetical syllogism — If p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r.

There are many examples of hypothetical syllogisms in the Scripture. Here are two:

1. Rom. 4:1-3. If Abraham was justified by works then he had reason to boast. Abraham had no reason to boast. Therefore, Abraham was not justified by works.
2. Rom. 8:31 If God is for us, then none can be against us. God is for us. Therefore, none can be against us.

Eighth axiom of logic: Disjunctive Syllogism (also known as the modus tollendo ponens or MTP) — If P is true or Q is true and P is false, then Q is true.

When we are told that only one of two statements is true and then are told which one is not true then we can know for certain the remaining statement is true. This is called a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or B. Not A. Therefore B.

1. Rom. 3:27. With regard to righteousness before God either one works and boasts or they do not work and do not boast. People cannot work and boast. Therefore they do not work and do not boast.
2. Rom. 5:5-8. Dying for worthy people is a demonstration of love. Dying for unworthy people is an even greater demonstration of love. Christ died for unworthy people. Therefore His death was a greater demonstration of love.
3. Rom. 11:5-6. Either it is of works or it is of grace. It is not of works. Therefore it is of grace.

Ninth axiom of logic: Immediate inference

This is an inference that can be made from only one statement or proposition. If the statement, “All frogs are green” were true (forget that it is not), then we could logically make the immediate inference that no frogs are not green. There are three kinds of immediate inference:

Converse: If we say “No S are P” we can make the immediate inference that “No P are S,” which is the converse of the statement.

1. Prov. 14:4. “Where no oxen are, the trough is clean.” No oxen-occupied stalls are clean. We can infer that clean stalls are not oxen-occupied.

Obverse can take four forms:

1. All S is P ≡ No S is non-P
2. No S is P ≡ All S is non-P
3. Some S is P ≡ Some S is not non-P
4. Some S is not P ≡ Some S is non-P
5. Mark 2:22 is an example of obverse. “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins.” No new wine is old-skin-safe. All new wine is non-old-skin-safe.

Contrapositive has two forms:

1. “All S are P” means that we can make the immediate inference that “All non-P are non-S,” which is the contrapositive of the given statement.
2. “Some S are P” means that we can make the immediate inference that “Some non-P are not non-S,” which is the contrapositive of the statement.
3. James 2:17-18. This gives the truth of both an implication and its contrapositive — faith implies works, and no works implies no faith.

Tenth axiom of logic: Constructive Dilemma

The constructive dilemma is an argument that states that if P implies Q and R implies S and either P or R is true, then either Q or S has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at least one of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequents must be too.

1. Rom. 3:19-20. Our options for righteousness are (1) we do not keep the moral law and are guilty and (2) we keep the moral law and are just. Those who do not keep the moral law are obviously guilty. Those trying to keep the moral law are guilty too because they do not actually keep it. Therefore, with both options, we are guilty. The problem of this dilemma is that either way we are doomed. Starting in Romans 3:21 Paul will present a third option that solves the dilemma — Christ imputes His righteousness to us.

This chapter is a cursory introduction into the topic of logic in order to demonstrate that logic is imbedded into the Bible and the Bible cannot be understood apart from logic. Thus, any interpretations that violate the rules of logic should be rejected. The Biblical Blueprints website will (Lord willing) develop these and other axiomatic system in much more detail.

13. Appendix B: Changes in the Office that Administered the Sacrament

Though the church is composed of “families” (Acts 3:25; cf. Acts 10:47-48; 11:14; 16:32-33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16), admission of any member of a family to the Lord’s Table and barring such persons from the Lord’s Table is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the elders (Gen. 14:18; Numb 3:8-13; Deut. 12:18; 2 Chron. 30:21-22; 2 Chron. 31:14,15,16,19; 35:10-15; Neh. 13:13; Matt. 16:19; cf Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).³⁹⁷ Since even “little children” received the sacraments from their hands (Deut. 31:12; 2 Chron. 31:16,18; Neh. 8:2; etc), logic dictates the conclusion that such children are under the authority and discipline of the elders. They are certainly under the formative discipline of preaching: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin.” (1 John 2:1); “I write to you, little children…” (1 John 2:12,13); “My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:8; cf. 2:18,28; 3:7; 4:4; 5:21). But it is also clear that a young “child … shall be cut off [excommunicated] from his people” if “he has broken My covenant” (Gen. 17:14). This last text is a case of discipline without full process. Full process is not needed when the reason for being cut off is undisputed.

This appendix seeks to map out in cursory fashion the development related to the officers who had jurisdiction over the sacramental meal. While there is some continuity between the patriarchal “firstborn” to the Mosaic Levite to the New Testament elders, changes in redemptive history show a development as well. The following pages can be summarized in the following points:

1. There is a continuity of function between the a) patriarchal “firstborn,” b) the Levites scattered throughout Israel, and c) New Testament officers.
2. Patriarchal period: It is clear that when a firstborn was disqualified for office, the second or third born were given the office of “firstborn.” (See below for details.) At least in the patriarchal system, this qualification or disqualification from office happened at the local level. Abel replaced Cain; Isaac replaced Ishmael by God’s prophetic word; Jacob replaced Esau; Joseph replaced Reuben; Ephraim (who was born first, Gen. 38:14-20) replaced Manasseh by God’s authorization (Jer. 31:9).
3. Mosaic period: It is clear that the Levites took over the office of firstborn (Numb. 3:12,41,45,46; 8:18). Other than a tiny minority of Levites who worked at the central temple, the vast majority of Levites lived and ministered in the synagogues found in every town and hamlet of Israel (Deut. 12:12,18; 14:27,29; 16:11,14; 18:6; 26:12; etc). While the qualifications for this Levitical eldership were determined by the broader leadership of the church (see Ex. 18:20-21; Numb. 8), the local assemblies chose which Levites would be their elders (Deut. 1:13; Zech. 8:23), and their calling (Deut. 1:13), pay (Neh. 10:37), and work (Neh. 8:7,9) were largely dictated by the local assemblies. This explains why God’s prophets so frequently exhorted the local communities to not neglect their elders. The Septuagint translates the “rulers of the congregation” as “rulers of the synagogues” (Ex. 16:22; 34:31; Numb. 31:13; Josh. 9:15,18; 22:30). Those sessions were the locus of authority.
4. The Old Testament prophetically describes the New Testament church as having “priests and Levites” (Isa. 66:21; Jer. 33:18,21,22; Ezek. 45:5; 48:11,12,13,22), and Christ shows continuity into the New Testament by using the same Old Covenant terms that described the Levites in the Old Testament (scribe, shepherd, elder) to describe the officers He will send forth (Matt. 13:52; 23:34). Thus it is no surprise to find local authority over officers used well (1 Pet. 5:1-4) and misused (3 John 9-12).

To flatten out the Patriarchal data as proving a “household communion” is to miss the fact that the patriarchal household included far more than the nuclear family³⁹⁸ and that the Levites took over the function of the firstborn (Numb. 2:12,41,45,46; 8:18).

Principle #1 — We must see some continuity of office from Old Testament to New Testament

I believe it is impossible to resolve some of the debate if people insist on restricting the discussion to “the New Testament teaching of office.” If we Gentiles are simply engrafted into an already existing structure (Rom. 11:17-25; Eph. 2:12-13,19-22), then we ought to look to the Old Testament for further information. After all, Paul praised the Bereans for checking everything that he taught from the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:11), and Luke insisted that Paul taught “no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22). Indeed, the only Bible of the early church for decades was the Old Testament (Acts 8:32,35; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; Rom. 16:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Most other doctrines are incomplete without the Old Testament. Why would we expect the doctrine of church office to be any different? It is my contention that the New Testament doctrine of church office must be understood in light of Old Testament teaching. This is true for the following reasons:

1. The word “elder” is an Old Testament term that is introduced without comment in Acts 11:30, implying that there is a continuity with the synagogue elders. Indeed, Luke uses the term elder in exactly the same way to describe both synagogue officers (Luke 7:3; 9:22; 20:1; 22:52,66; Acts 4:5,8,23; 5:21; 6:12; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:15) and church officers (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2,4,22,23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18).
2. This point and other points in this introduction assume a continuity of the Old Testament synagogue with the New Testament church. That the synagogue was a Mosaic institution can be seen from the following facts: The ecumenical council of Acts 15 declares it to be a Mosaic institution when it says, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21) Psalm 74:8 calls the places where these assemblies met the “meeting places,” and Isaiah 4:5 calls them “her assemblies.” Moses commanded, “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation.” (Lev. 23:3) The Hebrew word for “convocation” (miqra), like the English, means “an ecclesiastical assembly that has been summoned to meet together; an assembling by summons.” It would have been physically impossible to travel to the temple once a week from many parts of Israel. This is why the Levites were scattered throughout the land in every community to teach (2 Chron. 17:9; Deut. 18:6-8; Neh. 10:37-39). Thus the “calling of assemblies” (Isa. 1:13) and the “sacred assemblies” (Amos 5:21) should not be assumed to be temple assemblies. There were numerous “meeting places of God in the land” (Ps. 74:8). And Israel was responsible to “keep all my appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths” (Ezek. 44:24). Thus we read of Jesus, that “as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day” (Luke 4:16). His practice of weekly public assembly was the practice commanded in the Bible. Thus the Septuagint translates the “rulers of the congregation” as “rulers of the synagogues” (Ex. 16:22; 34:31; Numb. 31:13; Josh. 9:15,18; 22:30).
3. Likewise, the word “scribe” is used for both the Old Testament teaching elder (Ezra 7:6,12,21; Neh. 8:1,9) as well as the New Testament teaching elder (Matt 13:52; 23:34).
4. Paul’s argues for paying teaching elders from the pay given to the Old Testament teaching office: “Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:13-14). This would not follow if there was not some essential parallel between the offices of the Old Testament and the offices of the New Testament.
5. Just as deacons were given to help the apostles (Acts 6), there were certain Levites given to the priests to serve in the tabernacle (Numb. 3:9; 8:19; 18:6; etc.). The idea of “ministers” (deacons) of the church is not a new idea.
6. The Old Testament prophetically describes the New Testament church as having “priests and Levites” (Isa. 66:21; Jer. 33:18,21,22; Ezek. 45:5; 48:11,12,13,22). It is clear that these priests and Levites are not literally from the tribe of Levi since it was prophesied that they would be priests and Levites taken from the Gentiles (Isa. 66:20-21). Isaiah 56:3-5 says that even eunuchs will be in the New Covenant temple. This unusual temple with its unusual prince and unusual priests and Levites is described in Ezekiel 40-48. These prophecies clearly show that though there is not a continuity of heredity, there is a continuity of the essential meaning of the office.
7. Jesus Himself uses Old Testament language to describe officers that He will send forth after His resurrection (Matt 23:34). He also uses the same terminology for teachers of the kingdom (Matt 13:52).
8. Christ established the church as the remnant of Israel (Luke 22:24-30) and the bride bears the names of the twelve sons of Israel (Rev. 21:9-12). The church is called “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16) and Gentiles are grafted into Israel when they are saved (Eph. 2:12-13,19-22; Rom. 11:17-24). We would expect that there would be some continuity between synagogue and church if this were true.
9. The Old Testament people of God are described as being part of the “church” (Heb 12:22-23; Acts 7:38 in KJV) and we are said to have joined that “church” (Heb. 12:22-23).
10. Unless the New Testament explicitly changes an Old Testament command or practice, it continues to apply (Matt 5:17-19; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 John 2:6-8) and such changes were already anticipated in the Old Testament (Acts 26:22; Heb. 3:5; Acts 17:11). Paul made clear that he had been “saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22). Thus, every New Testament doctrine was anticipated in the Old Testament so that “the new is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed.”
    This being the case, I think it is important to examine the Biblical history of all of the offices and their relationship to each other. The following principles and supporting arguments will help to give clarity to what the offices are.

Principle #2 — The New Testament church is identical to the synagogue system

There were four courts in both the Old Testament synagogue system and the New Testament church. These four courts are sometimes called 1) session, 2) presbytery, 3) general assembly (or sometimes this court is referred to as synod), and 4) ecumenical councils:

1. In the Old Testament synagogue system this local session was composed of “rulers of tens” (Ex. 18:25) who “judged the people” (v. 26) jointly (“they”). Each synagogue had “rulers” (plural) over “tens” (plural), thus representing the idea that each elder in a synagogue would be responsible for ten families. The plural “rulers” reflects the fact that every synagogue/church must have a minimum of two elders to be a particularized church (cf. Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; Phil. 1:1). In the New Testament the session was composed of a plurality of elders in the local church. “…ordained elders in every church…” (Acts 14:23); “…left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (Tit. 1:5); “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers…” (1 Pet. 5:2).
2. In the Old Testament synagogue system the presbytery was described as the “rulers of fifties” (Ex. 18:25), meaning that a presbytery is composed of a minimum of five local congregations, though the plural “fifties” implies an ideal of many more congregations than five. In the New Testament the presbytery was usually composed of the elders of several local churches from a city. In contrast to Synods/General Assemblies (which are usually spoken of as the churches [plural] in a region), the presbyteries are usually referred to in the singular, have a moderator, and are the locus of training elders, ordaining them, and sending out missionaries (Acts 13:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:14; etc.). Examples: a) The Church of Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6), which was composed of multiple congregations in the tens of thousands and had James as the moderator. b) The Church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) with its “messenger [i.e., moderator] of the church of Ephesus” (v. 1). c) The Church of Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-11) with its “messenger” (v. 8). d) The Church of Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17) with its messenger (v. 12). e) The Church of Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29) with its messenger (v. 18). f) The Church of Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6) with its messenger (v. 1). g) The Church of Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13) with its messenger (v. 7). h) The Church of Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) with its messenger (v. 14). i) The Presbytery of Antioch (Acts 13:1-3), though this eventually grows so large that Antioch is later listed with other General Assemblies (cf. Acts 15:23). “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. 4:14 KJV); “Then, [the leaders in Antioch] having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:3); “sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church…” (Acts 20:17).
3. In the Old Testament synagogue system this was the “rulers of hundreds” (Ex. 18:25), meaning that a Synod/General Assembly could not be formed without at least two presbyteries, though the plural “hundreds” shows that the ideal would be multiple presbyteries. This Synod/General Assembly is equivalent to most modern Presbyterian “General Assemblies,” which are ordinarily national in scope. There are many who believe that the numbers of this General Assembly were capped by being constituted as a delegated assembly of 70 elders (Ex. 24:1; Numb. 11:16,24,25; Ezek. 8:11; cf. Luke 10:1-20). In the New Testament the Synod/General Assembly consists of the city presbyteries in a region or country, such as Judea (Acts 11:29-30; Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14), Samaria (Acts 8; 9:31; 15:3), Cilicia (Acts 15:23,41), Syria (Acts 15:23,41), Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1), and Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1; Gal. 1:2). The seven churches of Revelation 2-3 are all the churches of the region of “Asia” (Rev. 1:4), and therefore those seven churches represent the General Assembly of Asia. Though each lampstand represents a different city-presbytery (Rev. 1:12,13,20; 2:1,5), they are a complete unit amongst whom Christ authoritatively walks (Rev. 1:11-20), and elsewhere they are an organizational unit that can send greetings: “The churches of Asia greet you…” (1 Cor. 16:19). This implies a distinct unit composed of many churches and bearing Christ’s authority. But it is significant that only once is a General Assembly spoken of in the singular as “church” (Acts 15:3), indicating that the most pronounced and ongoing activity of the church is not at the General Assembly level but at the local church and presbytery levels.
4. In the Old Testament synagogue system, the fourth court corresponded to the “rulers of thousands” (Ex. 18:25), implying the need for representatives from a minimum of ten General Assemblies. In the New Testament, the fourth court, though rarely convened, was composed of representatives from the whole church. It was “the whole church” (Acts 15:22) that decided the huge doctrinal question regarding ceremonial law (Acts 15) and since representatives from the whole church had deliberated, they had the authority to impose a doctrinal statement upon the whole church (Acts 15:22-31; 16:4-5) and to designate this doctrinal statement an authoritative dogma (δόγματα – Acts 16:4-5). This is the basis for the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), and Nicea II (787), all of which acted as courts to define doctrinal controversies.

Each of these courts can and has exercised church discipline.³⁹⁹ The New Testament reflects the same pattern as Exodus 18 in having original jurisdiction on most issues arising at the local session and only going to the broader courts of presbytery, General Assembly, and Ecumenical Councils when the lower sessions cannot handle them. Below is a visual outline of the four governments in Exodus 18:

Principle #3 — The Old Testament church was not the temple

1. If the Temple was the only place that people gathered to worship, then most people in Israel would only have been able to worship a few times a year since it took several days to travel to Jerusalem from some parts of the nation.
2. The Temple was Jehovah’s throne room (Isa. 6:1) corresponding to the heavenly throne (Ps. 11:4). Thus all of life including the king, the prophets and the synagogues were subject to the temple because they were subject to the King over all, Jehovah. As we will see shortly, there was a careful distinction maintained between the temple and the synagogue in the Old Testament even though the two were related. The temple was pointing to the Messianic work of Christ. We have no priests now because Christ is our only priest (Heb. 7:11-8:6). God’s people have “no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Rev. 21:22; cf. John 2:19-21). God’s people in both the Old Testament and the New can be called priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Ex. 19:6) and a temple (2 Cor. 6:16; Lev. 26:12) only by virtue of their union with Him (1 Cor. 6:17, 19). So though the church as a whole (קָהַל or ἐκκλησία) can be called a temple and all of its members are priests in the general sense of the word, there are no priestly offices in the church as local assembly (עֵדָה [from יָעַד] or מִקְרָא or συναγωγή) in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. See 4 f. below.
3. D. Douglas Bannerman writes:

It came to be to the synagogue and not to the temple that their minds naturally turned when they thought of worship of God. . . There was ordinarily no reading or exposition of Scripture in the temple until the synagogue and its teachers, as it were, took possession of its courts. There were no altars, no incense, no separate priesthood, no material sacrifices of any kind in the synagogue, and no place within its walls more holy than another through any visible symbol of the presence of God.

For those who dwelt far from Jerusalem, the temple with its stately services remained doubtless the mysterious place of the Divine Presence and of accepted sacrifice, the expression for all the great religious conceptions of forgiveness of sins, consecration to God, and communication from God to His people. But it became more of a symbol. On the other hand, there stood daily before their eyes a worship of God without Levitical priests, without sacrifices, without mystery or symbol, a worship the central point in which was the edification of the heart through the holy Scriptures and common prayer.⁴⁰⁰

D. Many people have tried to deny that God instituted the synagogue in the Old Testament, and they say that the synagogue arose out of the necessity for worship when the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The following Scriptures show that belief to be false:

1. Acts 15:21: “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” This verse establishes that synagogues are a Mosaic institution, and that synagogues were in every city.
2. Psalm 74:8: “They said in their hearts, ‘Let us destroy them altogether.’ They have burned up all the meeting places [Hebrew עֵדָה; Greek Septuagint συναγωγαῖς] of God in the land.” Already in Asaph’s day there were synagogues everywhere.
3. Lev. 23:3: “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation” [NIV translates it “sacred assembly”]. The Sabbath was to be a day of corporate worship in the land, and if the temple was the only place to do that, then most in Israel would have no place to worship since they could not travel to Jerusalem every week or they would spend all their time in travel. Compare 2 Kings 4:23.
4. The following passages show that the Levites were scattered in every hamlet and village of Israel in order to provide teaching and shepherding in the local synagogues: 2 Chronicles 17:9; Deuteronomy 18:6-8; Nehemiah 10:37-39. These Levites were known as scribes. They were distinguished from the other sons of Levi (the priests) who ministered in the temple. Interestingly, the tithe went to the synagogues (Neh. 10:37-39) and the Levites in the synagogues in turn tithed by giving 10% of that tithe to the temple (Numb. 18:21). So the synagogue was the basic institution of the church, though all of life including the church was in turn subject to the temple since the temple represented God’s throne room. When Israel was in exile, the synagogue was the only manifestation of the church on earth.
5. Examples of bad synagogues: Judges 17:7; 18:30; 19:1.
6. The Levites scattered as scribes/elders throughout Israel were not priests, and the priests had no role in the synagogues.
7. Priests exercised their priestly function only in the temple. However, priests also had a teaching function along with other qualified Levites and many of the scribes were from priestly families (Deut. 27:9; 31:9-13; 2 Kings 17:18; 2 Chron. 17:8-9; 2 Chron. 19:8; Mic. 3:11; Hag. 2:11). After the temple was destroyed, the only function priests had (if they were qualified) was as scribe. Two such priests are Ezekiel and Ezra (Ezek. 1:3; Ezra 7:11-12). Thus, many scholars from the early church to the present have equated the priestly office with teaching elder and have called pastors “priests.” Though there is some evidence for this, it should be pointed out that other Levites (and occasionally even non-Levites) have been scribes as well. It is better to say that when the temple was gone, priests (specialized sons of Levi) lost their priestly role but were able to take on any other office that was open to Levites in general. D. Douglas Bannerman points out that the only thing a priest was optionally allowed to do in a synagogue was to pronounce the Aaronic blessing.
8. Levites were scribes who had an oversight and judicial role in the synagogue (“overseers and judges” – 1 Chron. 23:3-4;). These Levites were equivalent to today’s elders and were further subdivided into 1) scribes (sometimes called “leader in the synagogue,” “wise man,” or “disciple of the wise,” and 2) elders (in the minor prophets called “shepherds”). This division of labor was largely based on gifting and training. The age at which these Levites took office was thirty (1 Chron. 23:3-4). Levites could be either from the sons of Aaron or from any other son of Levi. However, if (like Ezra) Aaronic sons served as scribes, there was no confusion between priesthood and eldership.

Principle #4 — Prior to Moses, the pastoral office was ordinarily found in the firstborn son. The concept of firstborn is the foundation for the pastoral office.

1. The firstborn had to be spiritually qualified. if the eldest son was not spiritually qualified to lead as priest, teacher and shepherd, that responsibility was passed to someone else. Jacob, not Esau was supposed to have this blessing. Though Reuben was firstborn, he was bypassed because of his sins. When a younger son took over the spiritual oversight, he was given the label of firstborn even though he was born second, or third or fourth (see 1 Chron. 26:10; Jer. 31:9).

1 Chronicles 5:1: “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel — he was indeed the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel, so that the genealogy is not listed according to the birthright;” 1 Chronicles 26:10: “Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons: Shimri the first (for though he was not the firstborn, his father made him the first).”

See the examples of Isaac replacing Ishmael, Jacob replacing Esau, Joseph replacing Reuben, Ephraim replacing Manasseh (Gen. 38:14-20), etc. And God honors this giving of the rights of firstborn to other sons if they are more qualified. For example, God says “Ephraim is my firstborn” (Jer. 31:9).

B. The firstborn was spiritually gifted to prophetically bless the families and servants who were under his oversight. He was also given the role of priest of the family.

Genesis 20:7: “Now therefore, restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”
Exodus 3:1: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.”
Exodus 18:1: “And Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people — that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt.”
Exodus 18:12: “Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and other sacrifices to offer to God. And Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God.”
Job 1:5: “So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’ Thus Job did regularly.”
Luke 13:28: “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.”
Genesis 46:1: “So Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac.”

See also the repeated prophetic revelations given to the firstborn and the prophetic blessings that they repeatedly gave. (See for example, Gen 26:24; 27:1-40; 28:1-4; 33:11; 35:9; 48:1-49:33; etc.)

C. The firstborn was therefore consecrated to the Lord and had a spiritual responsibility to the Lord that others did not have. This underlines the concept of ordination. The words used of the firstborn son are “consecrate,” “dedicate,” “sanctified,” and God declares “they shall be Mine.”

Exodus 13:2: “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”
Exodus 13:12: “that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD’s.”
Exodus 13:13: “… all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.”
Exodus 22:29: “You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.”
Exodus 34:19: “All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. Exodus 34:20: “But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.” Leviticus 27:26: “But the firstborn of the animals, which should be the LORD’s firstborn, no man shall dedicate; whether it is an ox or sheep, it is the LORD’s.”
Numbers 3:13: “because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the LORD.”
Deuteronomy 15:19: “All the firstborn males that come from your herd and your flock you shall sanctify to the LORD your God; you shall do no work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock.”

D. The title “firstborn” therefore had religious significance and was applied to Israel as a priest to the nations, and was applied to Christ in His spiritual role.

Hebrews 12:23: “to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect.”
Jeremiah 31:9: “They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.”
Psalm 89:27: “Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.”
Romans 8:29: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
Colossians 1:15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
Colossians 1:18: “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”
Hebrews 1:6: “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Revelation 1:5: “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood.”

E. Just as officers in later history were given “double honor” or extra income, the firstborn ordinarily had double honor (double the amount of money and inheritance given).

Deuteronomy 21:16: “then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn.”
Deuteronomy 21:17: “But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”
Isaiah 61:6-7: “But you shall be named the priests of the Lord, They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, And in their glory you shall boast. Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore in their land they shall possess double; Everlasting joy shall be theirs.”
1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”
“The oldest son’s share was twice as large as that of any other son. When Elisha prayed for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, he simply wished to be considered the first-born, i.e., the successor, of the dying prophet. [cf. 2 Kings 2:9]” (ISBE, 1982, “First-born”)

Principle #5 — Under Moses, God gave the pastoral office of the firstborn to the Levites. The Levites simply stood for the eldest in the family. Thus, the various responsibilities of service and offices of authority that the eldest would have were ordinarily carried out by the Levites.

1. The Levites took over the function of the firstborn

Numbers 3:12: “Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine.”
Numbers 3:41: “And you shall take the Levites for Me — I am the LORD — instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel.”
Numbers 3:45: “Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock. The Levites shall be Mine: I am the LORD.”
Numbers 3:46: “And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, who are more than the number of the Levites.”
Numbers 8:18: “I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn of the children of Israel.”

B. Just like with the firstborn, the Levites could be bypassed if they were not spiritually qualified

Ezekiel 44:10-31: “And the Levites who went far from Me… they shall not come near Me to minister to Me as priest, nor come near any of My holy things, nor into the Most Holy Place…”
Ezekiel 48:11: “It shall be for the priests of the sons of Zadok, who are sanctified, who have kept My charge, who did not go astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray.”
1Chronicles 15:12: “He said to them, ‘You are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites; sanctify yourselves, you and your brethren, that you may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel to the place I have prepared for it.’ ‘”
1 Chronicles 15:14: “So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.”
2 Chronicles 29:5: “Hear me, Levites! Now sanctify yourselves, sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry out the rubbish from the holy place.”
Ezekiel 48:11: “It shall be for the priests of the sons of Zadok, who are sanctified, who have kept My charge, who did not go astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray.”

C. Just like with the firstborn, there was spiritual gifting to enable them to fill their offices

John 11:51: “Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.”
Haggai 1:1: “In the second year of King Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying,” Haggai 1:14: “So the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God.”
2 Chronicles 20:14: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, in the midst of the assembly.”
2 Chronicles 24:20: “Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, ‘Thus says God: Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He also has forsaken you.’”

D. Just like with the firstborn, the Levites had to be consecrated to the Lord by the laying on of hands

Numbers 8:9-11: “And you shall bring the Levites before the tabernacle of meeting, and you shall gather together the whole congregation of the children of Israel. So you shall bring the Levites before the LORD, and the children of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites; and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD, like a wave offering from the children of Israel, that they may perform the work of the LORD.”
Leviticus 4:3: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering.”
Leviticus 4:5: “Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of meeting.”
Leviticus 4:16: “The anointed priest shall bring some of the bull’s blood to the tabernacle of meeting.”
Leviticus 6:22: “The priest from among his sons, who is anointed in his place, shall offer it. It is a statute forever to the LORD. It shall be wholly burned.”
Leviticus 16:32: “And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father’s place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments;”
Numbers 35:25: “So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.”
Numbers 8:14: “Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine.”
Numbers 8:21: “And the Levites purified themselves and washed their clothes; then Aaron presented them, like a wave offering before the LORD, and Aaron made atonement for them to cleanse them.”

E. Just like the firstborn, the Levites were well paid for their ministry, with other full time elders and deacons being paid less than those trained for teaching.

Judges 17:10: “Micah said to him, ‘Dwell with me, and be a father and a priest to me, and I will give you ten shekels of silver per year, a suit of clothes, and your sustenance.’ So the Levite went in.”
Numbers 3:44-51: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: ‘Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock. The Levites shall be Mine: I am the LORD. And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, who are more than the number of the Levites, you shall take five shekels for each one individually; you shall take them in the currency of the shekel of the sanctuary, the shekel of twenty gerahs. And you shall give the money, with which the excess number of them is redeemed, to Aaron and his sons.’ So Moses took the redemption money from those who were over and above those who were redeemed by the Levites. From the firstborn of the children of Israel he took the money, one thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. And Moses gave their redemption money to Aaron and his sons, according to the word of the LORD, as the LORD commanded Moses.”
2 Kings 12:16: “The money from the trespass offerings and the money from the sin offerings was not brought into the house of the LORD. It belonged to the priests.”
2 Chronicles 31:4: “Moreover he commanded the people who dwelt in Jerusalem to contribute support for the priests and the Levites, that they might devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.”
Nehemiah 10:37: “to bring the firstfruits of our dough, our offerings, the fruit from all kinds of trees, the new wine and oil, to the priests, to the storerooms of the house of our God; and to bring the tithes of our land to the Levites, for the Levites should receive the tithes in all our farming communities.”
Nehemiah 12:44: “And at the same time some were appointed over the rooms of the storehouse for the offerings, the firstfruits, and the tithes, to gather into them from the fields of the cities the portions specified by the Law for the priests and Levites; for Judah rejoiced over the priests and Levites who ministered.”
Numbers 18:24: “For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer up as a heave offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites as an inheritance; therefore I have said to them, ‘Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.’”
Numbers 18:26: “Speak thus to the Levites, and say to them: ‘When you take from the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them as your inheritance, then you shall offer up a heave offering of it to the LORD, a tenth of the tithe.’”
Numbers 18:30: “Therefore you shall say to them: ‘When you have lifted up the best of it, then the rest shall be accounted to the Levites as the produce of the threshing floor and as the produce of the winepress.’” Deuteronomy 12:12: “And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your sons and your daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levite who is within your gates, since he has no portion nor inheritance with you.”
Deuteronomy 12:18: “But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, and the Levite who is within your gates; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God in all to which you put your hands.”
Deuteronomy 12:19: “Take heed to yourself that you do not forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land.”
Deuteronomy 14:27: “You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you.”
Deuteronomy 14:29: “And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.”
Deuteronomy 16:11: “You shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide.
Deuteronomy 16:14 “And you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant and the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates.
Deuteronomy 18:1: “The priests, the Levites — all the tribe of Levi — shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His portion.”
Deuteronomy 26:11: “So you shall rejoice in every good thing which the LORD your God has given to you and your house, you and the Levite and the stranger who is among you.”
Deuteronomy 26:12: “When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the third year — the year of tithing — and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your gates and be filled,”
Deuteronomy 26:13: “then you shall say before the LORD your God: ‘I have removed the holy tithe from my house, and also have given them to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.’” 2 Chronicles 31:4: “Moreover he commanded the people who dwelt in Jerusalem to contribute support for the priests and the Levites, that they might devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.”
2 Chronicles 31:19: “Also for the sons of Aaron the priests, who were in the fields of the common-lands of their cities, in every single city, there were men who were designated by name to distribute portions to all the males among the priests and to all who were listed by genealogies among the Levites.”

Notes