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.