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.