1Under the allowable “Exceptions and Clarifications” in the Constitution it is noted under WCF 29:7, “We add that ‘worthy receivers’ may also include the baptized children of baptized parents who profess the true religion” (Constitution II.B.1.c See https://www.covenant-presbyterian.org/). ↩

2For example, Francis Nigel Lee engages in vitriolic name-calling against paedo-communionists. Vance Lemasters returns the favor, charging credo-communionists with spiritual murder. He says, it “is an issue that calls for repentance on the part of those who forbid covenant children to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The church has too long practiced spiritual infanticide on its own covenant children… The practice of covenant children appearing before session before being allowed communion smacks of incipient Arminianism.” As quoted by Richard Bacon, “What Mean Ye by this Service? Paedocommunion in Light of the Passover,” web paper published in 1996. As we will see, Ray Sutton makes similar inflammatory statements.↩

3I say that there was debate at the time of Augustine because Augustine was arguing against people who would not go so far as to admit infants to communion even though they admitted infants to baptism. This can be seen especially in the polemic he uses in chapters 27 and 39 of Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887). There are several points that make me believe there was not unity on this matter when Augustine wrote in the 5th century. First, though he states that his opponents all baptized their infants, he does not use the same polemic with regard to the Lord’s Table. On infant baptism he says that his opponents “admit the necessity of baptizing infants” (1.39). Why does he not argue in a similar vein with infants partaking of the Lord’s Supper? No doubt because he knew many did not (such as Justyn Martyr, Clement, and Tertullian — see later paragraphs in main text). Second, Augustine is absolutely dogmatic about the apostolic tradition of baptism, stating that even his opponents “admit the necessity of baptizing infants finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles…” (1.39). He is much more humble in stating that he supposes that he has apostolic authority in admitting infants to the Lord’s Table — “primitive I suppose, and apostolic” (1.34). Third, there are places where his opponents seem to withhold the Lord’s Table, and he believes they should not — “it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them,” which assumes that some were promising these blessings without applying the Lord’s Table to infants (1.34). He professes puzzlement at those who are “so bold as to say that this statement has no relation to infants, and that they can have life in them without partaking of His body and blood… as if He were addressing those who were able to hear and to understand, which of course infants cannot do? But he who says this is inattentive; because, unless all are embraced in the statement, that without the body and the blood of the Son of man men cannot have life, it is to no purpose that even the elder age is solicitous of it. For if you attend to the mere words, and not to the meaning, of the Lord as He speaks, this passage may very well seem to have been spoken merely to the people whom He happened at the moment to be addressing” (1.27). It is difficult to interpret this polemic in any other way than that Augustine was addressing real people who argued against infants being admitted to the Lord’s Supper. He then strangely insists that the word “world” has to include infants, therefore infants ate and drank — “Who indeed can doubt that in the term world all persons are indicated who enter the world by being born? For, as He says in another passage, ‘The children of this world beget and are begotten.’ From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man” (1.27). Augustine’s polemic is against credo-communion, which means credo-communion was being practiced in the church in his day.↩

4I say “possibly” because, while I do concede that Cyprian may have been a paedo-communionist, many writers vigorously contest this interpretation. In On the Lapsed, 25-26, Cyprian recounts a disturbing story of a child being force-fed the wine and then vomiting it up. It is in the context of discussing the Decian backsliding, so there has been debate on whether he approved of this or disapproved of it. Matthew Winzer gives rather persuasive arguments that Cyprian is citing this as an illustration of “his disgust at the relaxed standard of eucharistic discipline in his time” that violated Cyprian’s maxim “that the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honour” — especially since he goes on to speak of Paul’s warning against unworthy participation (Cyprian, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, 3.94). See Matthew Winzer, “The True History of Paedo-Communion” in The Confessional Presbyterian, 2007. The paedo-communionists are certainly correct that at least one deacon in at least one church gave the sacrament to a very young child in the era of Cyprian. This means that paedo-communion was being practiced at least by some. A second passage that paedo-communionists cite is “On the Lapsed” chapter 9, where Cyprian puts on the lips of infants in heaven, “We have done nothing; nor have we forsaken the Lord’s bread and cup to hasten freely to a profane contact; the faithlessness of others has ruined us. We have found our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a Mother; they have denied God as a Father: so that, while we were little, and unforeseeing, and unconscious of such a crime, we were associated by others to the partnership of wickedness, and we were snared by the deceit of others?” Again, there is debate on whether the children mean that they have not done the crimes that their parents did (such as doing ungodly things as soon as the parents have partaken of the sacrament), or whether the children themselves partook of the sacrament. I interpret Cyprian as likely being in favor of paedo-communion, but I am not dogmatic.↩

5St. Vincent of Lerins defined what constituted catholic doctrine as follows: “In the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly Catholic, as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike” (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 2).↩

6That even some of the early purported paedo-references can actually be interpted in a credo direction, see Matthew Winzer, “The True History of Paedo-Communion,” in The Confessional Presbyterian (Confessional Presbyterian Press, 2007), https://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Winzer-HistoryPaedocommunion.pdf.↩

7Justin Martyr, First Apology, 1.66, in Thomas B. Falls with Justin Martyr, The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, vol. 6, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 105. Emphasis mine.↩

8Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” 2.2, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 242.↩

9Though some quote this section of Clement to prove paedo-communion, it actually proves the opposite because 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. The whole context of the supposed paedo-communion quote is as follows: “With milk, then, the Lord’s nutriment, we are nursed directly we are born; and as soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest, even the Jerusalem above, in which it is written that milk and honey fall in showers, receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. ‘For meats are done away with,’’ as the apostle himself says; but this nourishment on milk leads to the heavens, rearing up citizens of heaven, and members of the angelic choirs… Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices… You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically ‘a cup,’’ when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food…” etc. (Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” 1.6, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 220–221).↩

10Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” 1.1, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 300.↩

11Cyprian of Carthage, “Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews,” 3.94, in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 554.↩

12James Peirce, An Essay in Favor of Paedocommunion, a reprint of a 1728 publication (N.p.: Present Reign Publications, 2016).↩

13In chapter 8 I will give extensive quotes from the 51 Reformed Creeds that unanimously rejected paedo-communion and adopted credo-communion. Historical Theology is not infallible; it simply examines the history of how other exegetes have wrestled with the text of Scripture. However, Historical Theology is useful in that it keeps us humble and shows a willingness to be Bereans who listen to the teachers whom God has given the Church and who then go back to the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). No teacher or creed is infallible, but then neither are we. Wrestling with Historical Theology helps us to sharpen our skills in wrestling with the text of Scripture ourselves.↩

14In a series of audio tapes, Ken Gentry says “Exodus 12:48 proves that only adults partook of Passover.” How does he come to that conclusion? Rather than seeing verse 48 as making circumcision of a stranger’s family the condition for each member of that family partaking, he makes it the condition of the adult stranger partaking — once all his males are circumcised, then he can “come near to celebrate it.” He pursues numerous lines of evidence to try to prove that only adults ate. For example, he claims that Ex. 12:4 implies that some did not eat when it speaks of counting lambs according to what “each mouth” would eat. Thus, when counted, Ex. 12:37 counted 600,000 “aside from children.” Why “aside from children”? He believes it is a hint that the children did not eat. He points to Ex. 12:6 as proof that children were observers, not participants since the text says, “What do you mean by this service” rather than “What do we mean”? etc. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, Dr. Joseph Morecraft, and others have come to the same conclusion.↩

15See for example, Tim Gallant, in Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should be Restored to Covenant Children (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002) comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Gentry from each of the same facts. James Jordan comes to the same conclusions as Gallant.↩

16Typically they will appeal to the following facts as strongly suggesting that all children partook: 1) “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (10:1-2), 2) “and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink” (10:4), 3) the Old Testament sacramental meals that were listed in chapter 10 are considered by Paul to be relevant by Paul to what constitutes worthy participation, yet children partook of those meals, and 4) they insist that babies should not be excluded from the statement, “we though many are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (10:17).↩

17While mature-communion advocates may overstate how many of these phrases are ignored by paedo-communionists, it is clear that most of these phrases would have to be interpreted by them as only applying to those who are of such maturity as to understand them: Statements in chapter 10 that Paul applies to worthy participation — “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 men,” “judge for yourselves what I say,” “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 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 man 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.”↩

18The following is a sampling of quite disparate presuppositions that I have seen in the debates: 1) Is the New Testament sacrament radically different from the Old Covenant sacrament or is there a large degree of continuity? 2) Is there only one Old Testament parallel to the Lord’s Supper (Passover), or are there many Old Testament sacraments that should inform our practice, or (as with Coppes) is a Fast Day (the Day of Atonement) the archetype for the Lord’s Table? 3) Are there only two options on worthy participation (see chapter on faulty dilemma) or are there as many as eight options? 4) Does the regulative principle of worship require an explicit authorization or can implications be warranted? 5) Are the conditions for partaking worthily of the sacrament the same in both Testaments or radically different in the Old Testament? Or are there even conditions of worthy partaking in the Old Testament? 6) (Since at least some authors have articulated their own presuppositions) are one or more of those presuppositions unbiblical, and if so, to what degree has that presupposition slanted the rest of the person’s exegesis? ↩

19Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 42-43.↩

20Graham Stanton,”Presuppositions and New Testament Criticism,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 69-70, emphasis mine.↩

21One of many examples that could be given from paedo-communion literature is James Jordan’s strange exegesis of Samson in his mother’s womb. After quoting God’s prohibition of grapes, wine, or unclean food for the mother since Samson was to be a Nazarite from the womb, Jordan comments: “Also, we may say on the basis of this passage that if the fetus is to avoid sacramentally unclean food in the womb, then the fetus also participates in the sacramental food of Holy Communion in the womb. When Samson’s mother ate grapes, they went to her baby as well as to her. When a Christian woman eats Christ’s flesh and drinks his blood, these go to her baby also.” This is a strange proof text for proving that babies do partake of communion in the womb since Judges 13 says nothing about sacramental food (whether clean or unclean). Indeed, the text gave a prohibition of partaking of any kind of wine (whether sacramental or not) during the pregnancy (“She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean” (Judges 13:14). Second, the “nor” (אַל) in “nor eat anything unclean,” indicates that uncleanness was not connected to the previous two clauses. So the baby was not avoiding sacramentally unclean wine either. Third, the whole argument is missing the point of why the mother was to not partake — Nazarites were prohibited from even getting “near” (Numb. 6:6) someone who was unclean. It is eisegesis to read that the baby partook. He just couldn’t be near (in the womb) his mother when she was unclean. Furthermore, affirming that babies in the womb partook of the sacrament explicitly contradicts Exodus 12:48, which says, “For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” Samson would have been uncircumcised in the womb, so Samson would not have been qualified to partake of the sacrament. Jordan must recognize this because he comes up with the strange idea that 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” (James Jordan, Judges (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1985), p. 232). This is eisegesis, not exegesis.↩

22One of many examples of this is the following statement from Leonard Coppes — “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 Great 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 Passover does not fully depict the Great Atonement,” etc. (Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonard Coppes, 1988), 15). There is not space to show all the ways that this small section violates hermeneutical principles, but a short scan of Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s book, How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, pp. 60ff would be a good start. It should seem strange to conclude that Old Testament feast days should not have relevance to worthy participation when Paul uses all of them to do exactly that in 1 Corinthians 10. It should seem strange that the only Old Testament event that captures the essence of the Communion meal and that should dictate its participants is a “fast day.” ↩

23“All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both” (WCF XXXI.iv).↩

24For example, Tim Gallant says: “Our present practice communicates to our children, ‘You are not one of us.’ We partake, as older church members, in front of our children, and they watch us from the outside. The fact that they watch us questioningly proves that they can receive benefit from the table — they already receive harm! They receive harm, because they are excluded, and know it. They receive harm, becuase we are implicitly teaching them to doubt their true position, to doubt their status before the Lord who has said He receives them as heirs of His kingdom” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 165-166).↩

25For example, Genesis 46:27 says, “All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy.” His house (בית) included several nuclear families. Though there was a “leader of the fathers’ house of the families of Merari,” the context indicates that it included nuclear families.↩

26See chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of the relevance of logic to this debate, but logic is imperative for all theology. As John Frame points out:

One may not, however, do theology or anything else in human life without taking account of those truths that form the basis of the science of logic. We cannot do theology if we are going to feel free to contradict ourselves or to reject the implications of what we say. Anything that we say must observe the law of noncontradiction in the sense that it must say what it says and not the opposite…

When we see what logic is, we can see that it is involved in many biblical teachings and injunctions. (i) It is involved in any communication of the Word of God. To communicate the Word is to communicate the Word as opposed to what contradicts it (1 Tim. 1:3ff; 2 Tim. 4:2f.). Thus the biblical concepts of wisdom, teaching, preaching, and discernment presuppose the law of non-contradiction.

(ii) It is involved in any proper response to the Word. To the extent that we don’t know the implications of Scripture, we do not understand the meaning of Scripture. To the extent that we disobey the applications of Scripture, we disobey Scripture itself. God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit. Imagine Adam replying, “Lord, you told me not to eat it, but you didn’t tell me not to chew and swallow!” God would certainly have replied that Adam had the logical skill to deduce “You shall not chew and swallow” from “You shall not eat.” In such a way, the biblical concepts of understanding, obeying, and loving presuppose the necessity of logic.

(iii) Logic is involved in the important matter of assurance of salvation. Scripture teaches that we may know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). The Spirit’s witness (Rom 8:16ff.) plays a major role in this assurance; but that witness does not come as a new revelation, supplementing the canon, as it were. So where does the information that I am a child of God come from — information to which the Spirit bears witness? It comes from the only possible authoritative source, the canonical Scriptures. But how can that be, since my name is not found in the biblical text? It comes by application of Scripture, a process that involves logic. God says that whosoever believes in Christ shall be saved (John 3:16). I believe in Christ. Therefore I am saved. Saved by a syllogism? Well, in a sense, yes. If that syllogism were not sound, we would be without hope. (Of course, the syllogism is only God’s means of telling us the good news!) Without logic, then, there is no assurance of salvation.

(iv) Scripture warrants many specific types of logical argument. The Pauline Epistles, for instance, are full of “therefores.” Therefore indicates a logical conclusion. In Romans 12:1 Paul beseeches us, “Therefore, by the mercies of God.” The mercies of God are the saving mercies that Paul has described in Romans 1-11. Those mercies furnish us with grounds, reasons, premises for the kind of behavior described in chapters 12-16. Notice that Paul is not merely telling us in Romans 12 to behave in a certain way. He is telling us to behave in that way for particular reasons. If we claim to obey but reject those particular reasons for obeying, we are to that extent being disobedient. Therefore Paul is requiring our acceptance not only of a pattern of behavior but also of a particular logical argument. The same thing happens whenever a biblical writer presents grounds for what he says. Not only his conclusion but also his logic is normative for us. If, then, we reject the use of logical reasoning in theology, we are disobeying Scripture itself….

(v) Scripture teaches that God himself is logical. In the first place, His Word is truth (John 17:17), and truth means nothing if it is not opposed to falsehood. Therefore His Word is noncontradictory. Furthermore, God does not break His promises (2 Cor. 1:20); He does not deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13); He does not lie (Heb. 6:18; Tit. 1:2). At the very least, those expressions mean that God does not do, say, or believe the contradictory of what He says to us. The same conclusion follows from the biblical teaching concerning the holiness of God. Holiness means that there is nothing in God that contradicts His perfection (including His truth). Does God, then, observe the law of noncontradiction? Not in the sense that this law is somehow higher than God himself. Rather, God is himself noncontradictory and is therefore himself the criterion of logical consistency and implication. Logic is an attribute of God, as are justice, mercy, wisdom, knowledge. As such, God is a model for us. We, as His image, are to imitate His truth, His promise keeping. Thus we too are to be noncontradictory.

Therefore the Westminster Confession of Faith is correct when it says (l, vi) that the whole counsel of God is found not only in what Scripture explicitly teaches but also among those things that “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This statement has been attacked even by professing disciples of Calvin, but it is quite unavoidable. If we deny the implications of Scripture, we are denying Scripture….

I would therefore recommend that theological students study logic, just as they study other tools of exegesis. There is great need of logical thinking among ministers and theologians today. Invalid and unsound arguments abound in sermons and theological literature. It often seems to me that standards of logical cogency are much lower today in theology than in any other discipline. And logic is not a difficult subject. Anyone with a high school diploma and some elementary knowledge of mathematics can buy or borrow a text like I.M. Copi, Introduction to Logic and go through it on his own… (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), 251-254).

↩

27Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible: The History of Interpretation in Light of Current Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), p. 21.↩

28A worldview has been variously defined as 1) “the pair of glasses through which you look at life” (John Fanning), 2) “a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world” (James Sire), 3) “a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality,” (Ronald Nash).↩

29For a secular analysis of this phenomenon, read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). For a fascinating Reformed analysis of this problem in the area of hermeneutics, see Vern Sheridan Poythress, Science and Hermeneutics (Chestnut Hill, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1988), https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/science-and-hermeneutics/. In chapter 4 of Poythress’ book, he applies these principles to the difficult hermeneutical impasse among believers on Romans 7. There are three mutually exclusive interpretations of that chapter that Poythress analyzes, showing where Kuhn’s insights apply and where they do not apply. Just as a point of interest, I don’t agree with any of those three approaches to Romans 7, and I believe that Jay Adams’ new paradigm answers every problem that scholars have thrown at each other. It is my hope that people will see a similar breakthrough on communion.↩

30James Jordan states (on the basis of Samson’s mother being prohibited grapes and wine), that “the fetus also participates in the sacramental food of Holy Communion in the womb” (James Jordan, Judges: God’s War Against Humanism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1985), 232). See also Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002).↩

31This is practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church. This often goes hand-in-hand with the unbiblical idea of baptismal regeneration. Since the child is regenerated and justified, it is believed that the child can eat the Lord’s Table.↩

32James Jordan, Judges: God’s War Against Humanism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1985), 232.↩

33I say this is inconsistent because most paedo-communionists would agree that only officers have the authority to distribute the elements. In the Old Testament 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). See footnote 34 for more detailed Biblical information on this.↩

34The official position of Community Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY in 2006 states, “I must take the time to define the term “child” because of some of the differences even among those who hold to paedo-communion. As was the case with the Old Covenant meals, the child participated whenever he was able to eat solid food (and this was before he was able to articulate his faith). There was no set age at which this occurred. The age of weaning during the time of the Old Covenant was approximately three years of age, but this did not mean that children nursed exclusively until the age of three. Children participated in the covenant meals even before they could talk, which a three-year-old is well able to do normally. (Having had several three-year-olds, many times they are speaking well before that age.) A child that is able to participate in the meal is one, who in the natural progression of life, begins to be able to handle solid food. This differs from “infant communion” in which infants are given wine or the bread dipped in wine (a practice called intinction). This is not what I am advocating.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52ed7849e4b00e157ba533f7/t/54241b34e4b0bfeb02063d0f/ 1411652404050/Covenant-Communion.pdf. Emphasis mine. ↩

35Robert Rayburn states, “Advocates of paedo-communion — by which is meant the participation in the Lord’s Supper by baptized, weaned covenant children” (“Historic Practice is Invisible in the Bible: The Paedocommunion Debate,” in By Faith: the Online Magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America (January 16, 2013)). See also the policy stated at their church website: https://www.faithtacoma.org/changedmind/paedocommunion.↩

36Luke Welch (on the basis of 2 Chronicles 31) states, “God expected Levites who worked in the house of the Lord do their work beginning right after they were weaned (age three)” (http://kuyperian.com/paedocommunion-three-year-old-levites/). See our exposition of that passage later in this book. This is also the position of a friend of mine.↩

37The position of the PCA states that the “age of discretion” (BCO 56-4-j) “cannot be precisely fixed” (57-2) but is defined as the time when children “become subject to the obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience” (BCO 56-4-j). See The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, (Lawrenceville, GA: Committee on Discipleship Ministries, 2019). This was the view of Greg Bahnsen.↩

38This is the position that I will be advocating in this book. It requires a person to be able to make a credible profession of faith and to continue to actively partake in faith (thus ruling out even an adult believer who later became comatose). Since the elders admit to communion (just as Levites did in the Old Testament), the elders must be able to see evidence of regeneration (Rev. 3:22; etc.), spiritual discernment (“hears My voice” — 3:20), and an active faith that “opens the door” to Christ (Rev. 3:20) and “overcomes” sin (Rev. 2:7,17; 22:14). This could happen at age 3, 10, or 18, though age three is an absolute minimum age for admission (2 Chron. 31:16 — “three years old and up”; Gen. 21:8; Neh. 8:2-3; etc.). It is similar to the PCA’s position, but with a stated minimum age.↩

39In 1910, Pope Pius X established in the decree “Quam Singulari” that children could make their first Communion at age 7. You see this in many Romanist parishes. Eg., “Children are eligible to receive First Penance and First Communion at age seven, which is usually the second grade or older” (http://www.blessed-sacrament.org/eucharist).↩

40This common tradition started with Calvin. Calvin expected children to learn a rather long catechism and to be ready to make profession of faith and come to the table by age 10. “A child of ten would present himself to the church to declare his confession of faith, would be examined in each article, and answer to each; if he were ignorant of anything or insufficiently understood it, he would be taught. Thus, while the church looks on as a witness, he would profess the one true and sincere faith, in which the believing folk with one mind worship the one God” (Institutes 4.19.13).↩

41Brian Schwertley states, “Jesus likely attended his first Passover at the age of twelve (Lk. 2:41)” (https://www.the-highway.com/paedocommunion_Schwertley.html). David A. Bass believes, “Before twelve years of age, they remained at home.” (http://newgenevaopc.org/?page_id=71).↩

42This is the view of Matthew Henry and Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. It is based on Jewish practice. “The 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6’s chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20)” (Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, “Summary Against Paedocommunion,” http://www.dr-fnlee.org/summary-against-paidocommunion/).↩

43Leonard Coppes says, “Until they are old enough to be their own federal heads and to assume the responsibilities of that federal headship they are to be barred from the privileges of that headship. To admit children too early is to impugn the principle of headship and to question or deny God’s order of things whereby one cannot be a federal head until puberty and after they responsibly commit themselves to the covenant” (Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonardy Coppes, 1988), 272-273).↩

44The definition of adulthood here is artificially defined by the state, not by Scripture. “Confessing members who have reached the age of eighteen and who have made a commitment to the creeds of the Christian Reformed Church and the responsibilities of adult membership in the church shall be accorded the full rights and privileges of such membership” (http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/2010_churchorder.pdf). A couple decades ago, this was the average age at which people came to communion in the CRC in the United States. In Canada it was higher.↩

45Based upon a verse in Jubilees that claims only adults partook of the Passover meal (“And every man who hath come upon its day shall eat it in the sanctuary of your God before the Lord from twenty years old and upwards” - Jub. 49: 17), many Reformed people have waited till twenty. The CRC in Canada has tended to do this. ↩

46Leonard Coppes, “OPC Minority Report (#1),” https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#minority1.↩

47“Paul links the angel who brought the plague of Numbers 16:46-50…with the destroying angel of Ex. 12:23.” (Robert G. Hoerber, Concordia Self-Study Bible (St. Louis: Concordia, 1985)). The “destroyer” had originally been commissioned to kill all the firstborn who did not have the blood of the Passover Lamb spread on the lintels. Here he kills all who do not repent and come under Aaron’s protection.↩

48See the mature-communion response below.↩

49See the mature-communion response below.↩

50Paedo-communionists go beyond the text when they say that the “every mouth” in verse 16 means that every mouth in the household partook of the lamb. See the mature-communion response below.↩

51The opinion of Lange and others: “The expression “from year to year” (מִיָּמִים י׳) is used in Ex. 13:10 of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and so elsewhere (Judg. 11:40; 21:19). On the traces of the Passover in the Period of the Judges see Hengstenberg Beitr. [Contrib.] 3. 79–85. It is this Feast that is meant here. For Elkanah is said in the text to have traveled regularly every year with his whole household. (ver. 21) to the Sanctuary. This journey was not taken at pleasure, but at an appointed time, and therefore at one of the festivals at which the people were required by the Law to appear before the Lord, Ex. 34:23; comp. Deut. 16:16. It was only at the Passover that the whole family were accustomed to go up to the Sanctuary, only then that every man without exception went. Elkanah attended the feast regularly only once a year. Nothing but the Passover, therefore, can be meant here” — John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 & 2 Samuel (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 47.↩

52For example, Nehemiah 8 specifies “all who could hear with understanding” (v. 2), “and those who could understand” (v. 3). Deuteronomy 16 specifically exempts women and children (v. 16) and mandates of each participant that “they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed” (v. 16). Deuteronomy 31 specifies that the ones who gathered to partake do so “that they may hear and they they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God…” (vv. 12-13). For more details see the later discussion.↩

53Later we will examine how paedo-communionists dismiss this body of “facts.” They do so by arguing that there are different requirements for adults and children with regard to baptism. I will show why this is not valid. For now, I will just present the evidence of the mature-communion position, including Scriptures which explicitly rule out children who have not yet professed faith.↩

54There are some mature-communionists who see very little, if any, connection of the Lord’s Table with the Old Testament Passover or Peace Offering fellowship meals. A notable example is Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonard Coppes, 1988), 272-273.↩

55As a particularly helpful example, see Richard Bacon, “Appendix C: Manna and Manducation” in What Mean Ye?, web paper published at https://s3.amazonaws.com/apmmedia/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/06135505/What_Mean_Ye.pdf.↩

56Louw and Nida define νήπιος as “a small child above the age of a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years of age” (Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 4.2. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. https://accordance.bible/link/read/Louw_&_Nida#1816).↩

57This verse appeals to Moses’ generation to warn the current generation not to act like them. Fausset comments, “And might not be as their fathers (of Moses’ days), a stubborn and rebellious generation. So Moses reproached his contemporaries (Deut. 9:6, 7; 31:27)” — A. R. Fausset, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Job–Isaiah, vol. III (London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d.), 266. Commenting on this verse, Tesh and Zorn say, “the record serves as a warning to contemporaries to avoid the sins of past generations so as not to come under the judgment that would certainly follow (v. 8). (See 1 Cor 10:1–13 for a New Testament application of the same Exodus account that Psalm 78 is using!)” — S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms: The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1999), 83.↩

58Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 4.2. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.↩

59See footnote 34.↩

60It might be thought that the Tree of Life is an exception, but it is only an exception before Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, and the reason is that no shedding of blood is needed where there is no sin. After the Fall, a sword kept Adam and Eve from it (Gen. 3:24), and every subsequent mention of the tree of life connects it in some way with the redemption of Christ.

1. Prov. 3:13-18 shows that the tree of life is experienced by believers only as they lay hold of Christ (vv. 13-18) and His שׁלם (v. 13). Note that שׁלם, is the same word as peace offering.
2. Prov. 11:30 shows that the “fruit” of the righteous is a tree of life. The parallel expression shows how that fruit is achieved: “And he who wins souls is wise.” Only those who are redeemed may experience the tree of life.
3. Prov. 13:12 — Note the connection of the fall (“sick”) and redemption (“hope” and “desire” = faith) before there is a tree of life experience.
4. Prov. 15:4 — In a sin-sick world (“perverse”) it is only tongues that have received the מַרְפֵּא of God’s grace that are trees of life.
5. Rev. 2:7 — The tree of life is transferred to paradise above and can only be experienced by the Spirit’s grace.
6. Rev. 22:2,14 — Only the redeemed have the right to the tree of life.

Others might think that Melchizedek was an exception to the need for a peace offering before a communion meal since he and Abraham only partook of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18). However, I believe that this too was a meal that followed sacrifice for several reasons. 1) Melchizedek was a priest and priesthood deals with reconciliation via sacrifice. 2) He was the King of Salem, or literally the King of Peace. The word peace or “Salem” is the same word used for peace offerings (שׁלם). 3) The fact that he “brought out” (יצא) the bread and wine show a prior preparation that would be consistent with Biblical peace offerings. Where was this food brought out from? 4) Commentators point out that the connection of priesthood, tithing, righteousness, peace, and city points prophetically to the temple and Jerusalem in the future. 5) Most importantly, every subsequent passage connects Melchizekek with Christ’s redemptive kingdom (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10-11,15,17,21). ↩

61Currid comments: “‘Mixture’ is a Hebrew word which is used of miscellaneous peoples who attach themselves to a group to which they do not naturally belong (see Jer. 25:20; 50:37; Neh. 13:3). Many English translations render the word as ‘foreigners’. The point is that various kinds of people who were not part of Israel joined themselves with the people of God” (John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus: Exodus 1–18, vol. 1, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England; Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press, 2000), 261).

Sample comments from other commentaries follow: “But it is most probable they were Proselytes of the Gate (as the Jews call them) who had renounced Idolatry, but were not entred into the Covenant, by being Circumcised. See Selden L. I. de Synedriis, c. 3” (Patrick Simon, A Commentary upon the Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus, Second Edition Corrected (London: Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown, 1704), 213).

“It is interesting to note that in Nehemiah’s day, “a mixed multitude” went to Jerusalem with the Jews (Neh. 13:3). These were separated from the Jews by Nehemiah in terms of the law of Deuteronomy 23:3–8. Such a separation had reference to membership in the covenant; no other discrimination was applied to them” (Rousas John Rushdoony, Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2004), 149).

“The mixed crowd may have included other laborers who saw an opportunity to escape from Egyptian servitude, but who had not necessarily come to faith in the Lord (Num. 11:4)” (Dorian G. Coover-Cox, “Exodus,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 108).↩

62In the Old Testament, it was the “elders” (Ex. 12:21) and Levites who “had charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs…” (2 Chron. 30:17) and who “roasted the Passover offering with fire according to the ordinance… and divided them [the sacramental elements] quickly among all the lay people” (2 Chron. 35:13; etc.). Likewise, at the Passover it was “the Levites [who] had charge… for everyone who was not clean, to sanctify them to the LORD” (2 Chron. 30:17). This speaks to fencing of the table and making sure that people approached it in a worthy fashion. Thus, the Levites only distributed the holy food to “little ones” who “in their faithfulness” had “sanctified themselves in holiness” (2 Chron. 31:18). The “because” indicates that the Levites had ascertained that these little ones were faithful and holy. Likewise, in the New Testament the “keys of the kingdom” (that open and close access to the church via baptism and communion) are given to church officers (Matt. 16:19; cf. Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26), and these church officers are said to rule at this table: “that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30).

Thus it is not surprising that the overwhelming evidence is that the distribution of the Lord’s Table was connected to church officers (Gen. 14:18; Ex. 12:21-24; Lev. 23:10-11,14,20; Numb. 3:8-13; 18:7-8; Deut. 12:18; 18:5-8; 2 Chron. 29:34; 30:15-17,21-22; 31:14-16,19; 35:10-15; Neh. 13:13; Matt. 16:19; cf. Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) and lay people were cut off from the congregation if they had the sacrament on their own (Deut. 12:14,17-19,26-28; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2,15-16) or if they ate unworthily (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20-21,25).

The following Scriptures show the authority that officers have over the Lord’s Table: “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 [etc.]… And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance” (Ex. 12:21-24 – note that the “you” throughout refers to the elders.); “So the service was prepared, and the priests stood in their places, and the Levites in their divisions… they slaughtered the Passover offerings… they roasted the Passover offerings with fire according to the ordinance; but the other holy offerings they boiled in pots, in caldrons, and in pans, and divided them quickly among all the lay people…” (2 Chron. 35:10-11,13); “Therefore you and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for everything at the altar…” (Num. 18:7); “…I Myself have also given you charge of My heave offerings, all the holy gifts of the children of Israel…” (Num. 18:8); “…therefore the Levites had the charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone …” (2 Chron. 30:17); “…Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD” (Num. 31:30); “…Levite…to distribute the offerings of the LORD and the most holy things” (2 Chron. 31:14); “…the priests, to distribute…” (2 Chron. 31:15; cf. 31:19); “…they were considered faithful, and their task was to distribute to their brethren” (Neh. 13:13); “I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:29-30); “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today – every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes – …you may not eat within your gates…But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses…Take heed to yourself that you do not forsake the Levite…” (Deut. 12:17-19); “Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name… You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you; but at the places where the LORD your God chooses to make His name…” (Deut. 16:2,5-6); “For the LORD your God has chosen him [the Levite] out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons forever.” (Deut. 18:5); “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom…” (Matt. 16:19); “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right [ἐξουσίαν, or authority] to eat” (Heb. 13:10).

Is it legitimate to connect Levitical jurisdiction over the Lord’s Table with elder jurisdiction over the Lord’s Table in the New Testament? Yes. 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; 48:11-13,22). 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). These prophecies clearly show that though there is not a continuity of heredity, there is a continuity of the essential meaning of the offices.

This makes sense since Christ established the church as the remnant of Israel (Luke 22:24-30), 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), the Gentiles are grafted into Israel when they are saved (Eph. 2:12-13,19-22; Rom. 11:17-24), 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). 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. 31:14-16,19; 35:10-15; Neh. 13:13; Matt. 16:19; cf. Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

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). 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. All of this shows that the sacraments were under the authority of church officers.↩

63Except for those, like Jordan and Gallant, who claim that the infants partook of the sacrament through their mothers’ placenta and through their mothers’ milk. See chapter 4 for a refutation of the womb participation viewpoint.↩

64See Acts 1:16,23; 14:23 [Gk], 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; and 1 Cor. 11:3-16 for the New Testament practice. See 2 Sam. 16:18; Deut. 1:13; 27:14; Josh 24:15; Judges 9:2,3,6; 1 Sam. 11:1; 2 Sam. 16:18; 17:14; 19:14,42-43; 1 Kings 1:9 for the Old Testament practice of male adults being the only ones to vote. For more detailed discussion of this practice, see Phillip G. Kayser, Universal Suffrage (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2009), https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md.↩

65On the requirement of faith see John 6:29-30,35-36,40,47,64,69. On partaking of Christ see 6:48-71.↩

66For example, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16); “preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3); “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized” (Acts 2:38); “when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12); “believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).↩

67For example, “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer” (Deut. 10:16; cf. Jer. 4:4); circumcision was a sign of justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12).↩

68The opposite of having an ear refers to the unregenerate (see Isa. 6:9-10; Matt. 13:9-17). Beale points out, “In its paradigmatic NT use (Matt. 13:9–17; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8) it has the dual function of signifying that symbolic revelation will be received by the elect but rejected by unbelievers. Therefore, the exhortation assumes a mixed audience, of which only a part will respond positively” (G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 234). Clement of Alexandria spoke of the regenerate man’s faith as being “the ear of the soul” (Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” 5.1, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 444).↩

69As Beale words it, “the “tree” refers to the redemptive effects of the cross, which bring about the restoration of God’s presence, and does not refer to the cross” (G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 235).↩

70The Glossa Ordinaria notes on Genesis 2:9 says that the tree of life is the wisdom of Christ found in the Proverbs, and by feeding on His Word we feed on Him. The Glossa Ordinaria of the Latin Vulgate Bible was the most popular study bible of the Western Church during the Middle Ages. The comments on the text of Scripture began with Jerome and were completed in the 15th century, but with references being inserted from earlier fathers like Origen. It represents the official teaching of the church from Jerome to the time of the Reformation. It can be read in both Latin and English. For the complete Latin, see http://lollardsociety.org/?page_id=409 and http://glossae.net/. For English translations of some portions, see https://sites.google.com/site/glossaordinariaproject/home. On the history of this fascinating document, see Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2009).↩

71For example, paedo-communionist, Ray Sutton states, “it is schizophrenic to approach one sacrament [Baptism] covenantally, and view the other [the Lord’s Table] in an individualistic way” (Ray R. Sutton, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers (1982 Special Edition; Geneva Divinity School)).↩

72John Calvin speaks of a seed of faith within infants: “Infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1343).↩

73See the next chapter which shows that the taph children mentioned here did indeed participate in the various sacramental meals. So “besides children” may be a better translation. It does not mean that the children were not counted.↩

74“Tape Set #1: The Passover Argument” in Ken Gentry’s series “Paedocommunion: Faith or Fad?” ↩

75See discussion of this term in the next chapter.↩

76See Müller, H.-P. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Accordance electronic ed., version 3.3 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997).↩

77See also the following passages that clearly exclude children from “all the congregation”: Num. 35:24; Josh. 22:12; Judges 21:12; Neh. 5:13.↩

78People might object, “Why could women participate?” The answer is that under Moses, women were “counted as if” they were circumcised when they received baptism. See Principle #5 in Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Principles That Call For Infant Baptism (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2011).↩

79See footnote 34 for a summary of the Levitical role in the sacramental meals.↩

80For example, could the Levite say, “I have…given them to the Levite” (v. 13)? Could the stranger say, “I have…given them to…the stranger” (v. 13)? Could one not argue that the bread-winner alone made the vow? Of course, there are rejoinders that the adult-communionist could also make, but I will not lean on this argument too much.↩

81Position #6 above sees no age requirements, but does look for all conditions of a credible profession of faith to be present.↩

82In later chapters I will deal with the question of why infants that do indeed know the Lord during this time of millennial glory will still not be able to come to the table until age three.↩

83T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 46.↩

84This section is not a break in Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Table. The whole of chapters 10-11 deal with the sacrament, and verses 1-16 deal with God’s dress code at that event for both men and women. It is one of the issues of propriety during worship that Paul is addressing. Some people apply the discussions of hair length and coverings to every day of the week, but 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 has no logical connection whatsoever to what Paul has been discussing or is about to discuss unless it relates to public worship (of which the Lord’s Table was a weekly part). Paul wanted all glory except for the glory of God covered in this covenant renewal ceremony. Since the woman is the glory of man, she must cover her head with long hair. Since the woman’s hair is her glory, she must cover her hair with a cloth covering. Since man is the glory of God, it would be inappropriate for him to cover himself. To see the logic of glory and its relationship to the Old Testament worship at the temple, see Phillip G. Kayser, Glory and Coverings: A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2019).↩

85The non-participation of the child is gathered by the fact that he is asking, “What do you mean by this service?” rather than “What do we mean?” This is confirmed by verses 48-49, which explicitly say that there is one law for stranger or for native, and yet the stranger’s children did not participate since only the adult’s faith is mentioned. “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.” The whole household is circumcised, but only the convert adult takes communion — “let him come near and keep it,” “not let his family come near and keep it.” If this is the case, why did he have to circumcise all the males in his household? Because evidence of faith is obedience to God’s command in Genesis 17. Until he was willing to circumcise all, he himself could not partake.↩

86T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 67.↩

87Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Communion and Covenant Children,” http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/ecclesiology/paedotheses.htm.↩

88The following are some examples that use this word in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a synonym for baptism. In John 3:25 (see context of verses 22-26), both John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism was spoken of as a “purification” (καθαρος n). In John 3:22-24 it is recorded that both John and Christ baptized and that a dispute arose about the other group’s baptisms. Verse 25 continues talking about these baptismal questions saying, “Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification [same word as “unclean” in 1 Cor. 7:14 but without the negative]. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified — behold He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him.”

Thus “unclean” is a synonym for “unbaptized,” and clean is a synonym for “baptized.” Christian baptism is spoken of as having “our bodies washed with pure (καθαρος a) water” (Heb. 10:22). (See Numbers 19:9,13,20-21; 31:23-24; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:13 for the usage of “pure water” or “water of purification” or “purifying water.”) Ephesians 5:26 says, “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify (ἁγιος v) and cleanse (καθαρος v) it with the washing of water by the word.”

This verse teaches clearly that being “sanctified” (set apart for the Holy Spirit’s special working) is not enough for membership in the church, and thus the unbelieving spouse could not be a member even though there is great hope of his/her being saved in the future. Nor is being “cleansed” with the washing of water sufficient, and thus infants of unbelievers have no right to church membership even if someone was foolish enough to baptize them. To be a member of the church one must be sanctified and cleansed (1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 5:26).

Christ is the one who both sets people apart, and who declares them cleansed by water. Example: The Gentiles of Acts 10:28 were called “unclean” (καθαρος neg. a) because they were outside the covenant. God showed Peter through the vision of the unclean animals, that God had extended the covenant to Gentiles. The Spirit set them apart to God when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in a very dramatic way (10:44; 11:16). Peter accordingly baptized them into the church with water upon their profession of faith (10:47-48).

When the apostles complained about Peter’s eating with these “unclean” Gentiles in Acts 11, Peter tells them the story, emphasizing God’s words: “What God has cleansed (καθαρος v) you must not call common” (11:9). Then Peter explained the incident at Cornelius’ house and ended by saying, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 11:15-16).

In this passage, Peter ties the concept of uncleanness to those outside the church, and cleansing is declared to be by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (internal cleansing) and the baptism of water (external cleansing).

For other examples where the word used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 refers to outward, ritual cleansing in the New Testament, see Matt. 8:2-3; 10:8; 11:5; 23:25-26; Mark 1:4-42,44; 7:19; Luke 2:22; 4:27; 5:12-14; 7:22; 11:39; 17:14,17; John 2:6; 13:10-11; Rom. 14:20; Tit. 1:15; Heb. 9:22-23.

In the New Testament context, 1 Corinthians 7:14 can mean nothing more nor less than, “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” In the Old Testament, the same language could have referred to either ritual baptisms or to circumcision. The word “unclean” is the word that is used to describe the uncircumcised Gentiles (Isa. 52:1; 35:8; Acts 10:28). It is most frequently used in connection with the Old Testament baptisms. Whereas there is only one cleansing rite in the New Testament, there were many baptisms in the Old Testament (Heb. 6:2). Hebrews 9 describes several of these sprinkling ceremonies and calls them “washings” (v. 10 — or literally “baptisms”), each of which “sanctifies [ἁγιος v] for the purifying [καθαρος n] of the flesh” (v. 13). Note the same usage of language as in 1 Corinthians 7:14. As one example of those Old Testament cleansing baptisms, Leviticus 13 uses the same word as 1 Corinthians 7:14 to describe the “unclean” (καθαρος neg. a) state of a man with “leprosy.” This ceremonial uncleanness makes it impossible for him to fellowship with God’s people in corporate worship. He is cast out (Lev. 13:46). If God heals him of his leprosy, he can be re-admitted. Since re-circumcision is impossible, baptism was used as a means of re-admitting him into the covenant community.

In Leviticus 14 he says that the sprinkling of the “waters of purification” or “pure water” or “purifying water” (καθαρος a) upon him makes him “clean” (καθαρος a), “. . . and he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed (καθαρος v) from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean (καθαρος a)” (Lev. 14:7).

Of course, proselyte baptism (of which John 3:22-24 is one example), falls into the category of water being used to declare “unclean” pagans to now be clean, Jews, and full members of the covenant. (See discussion of this under principle #5.) The examples from the Old Testament are too numerous to list. Being “unclean” in an outward, covenantal sense is well established.

Therefore, whether we are looking at 1 Corinthians 7:14 through the eyes of the Old Testament or through the eyes of the New Testament, the phrase, “otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy” means nothing more and nothing less than “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” Using the “proof-text” method, we have found at least one verse that clearly teaches infant baptism. (See Appendix B for the connection of this verse to the O.T. “baptism of nidah.” Paul was talking about something every Jew would have been familiar with.)↩

89Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Principles That Call For Infant Baptism (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2009).↩

90“From my mother’s womb You have been my God” (Ps. 22:10; cf. 71:6); “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15); “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).↩

91“five years old up to twenty years old…valuation” (Lev. 27:5);1 “servant “]רענ[ from childhood (Prov. 29:21); “his own son who serves him” (Mal. 3:17; cf. Gal. 4:1-2); “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two small fish” (John 6:9).↩

92See Acts 1:16,23; 14:23 [Gk], 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 11:3-16 for the New Testament practice. See 2 Sam. 16:18; Deut. 1:13; 27:14; Josh. 24:15; Judges 9:2-3,6; 1 Sam. 11:1; 2 Sam. 16:18; 17:14; 19:14,42-43; 1 Kings 1:9 for the Old Testament practice of male adults being the only ones to vote. For more detailed discussion of this practice, see Phillip G. Kayser, Universal Suffrage (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2009), https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md.↩

93Preparation for office of deacon — “who did the work for the service of the house of the LORD, from the age of twenty years and above” (1 Chron. 23:24; cf. 2 Chron. 31:17).↩

94“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:12-13); “From twenty-five years old and above one may enter to perform service in the work of the tabernacle of meeting” (Num. 8:24).↩

95“Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23); “the Levites were numbered from the age of thirty years and above” (1 Chron. 23:3; cf. Num. 4:3,23,30,39,43,47; etc.).↩

96“Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number” (1 Tim. 5:9); “and at the age of fifty years they must cease performing this work…they may minister with their brethren…to attend to needs, but…do no work” (Num. 8:23-26).↩

97“Zacharias, of the division of Abijah…[was] well advanced in years…[but was still] serving as priest before God…according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense” (Luke 1:5-11); “if from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels” (Lev. 27:7).↩

98Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 4.2. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.↩

99See chapter 3 for an exposition of the feast that Isaac partook of and that Ishmael was excluded from.↩

100Adulthood is treated as “twenty and above” in Scripture (Num. 1:3; see also Ex. 30:14; 38:26; 27:3,5; Num. 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 (Num. 1:3; see also Ex. 30:14; 38:26; 27:3,5; Num. 1:18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,38,40,42-43; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 32:11; etc.).↩

101Note that covenant commitments in Nehemiah 9-10 were made by “men” and “women,” but not by the children. See Numbers 30 for both the authority that women who are still living at home have to make vows independently as well as the limits of that authority. See also Acts 5:14; 6:1; 8:3; 17:4,34.↩

102Though writing a covenant is optional, Nehemiah 9:38 sets the pattern we are following when it says, “we make a sure covenant and write it.” Likewise Isaiah 44:5 prophesies of the covenant child who will “write with his hand” his covenant commitment. In Scripture, signatures put the provisions of a document into affect and were part of the sealing process (Jer. 32:10,12; Dan. 6:9,10,12-13). The same was true of covenants. Note the long list of names which were affixed by “those who placed their seal on the document” (Neh. 10:1-27). Then “the rest of the people…joined with their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s Law” (10:28-29). These verses should be used to interpret the verses in the next footnote.↩

103For the concept of new people “joining” God’s people by “covenant” see Isa. 56:3-8; Jer. 50:5; Acts 5:13; 9:26; 17:4,34. Also see the DCC membership covenant for additional Scripture. The reason only adults make these vows is because the membership covenant is more than an affirmation of faith. Notice the extensive lifestyle commitments being made when people join in Isaiah 56:3-8, Jeremiah 50:4-6, and Nehemiah 9-10. See also Deut. 6:13; 10:20; 29:12-14; Ps. 22:25 on covenant vows.↩

104Most of the covenant vows and oaths in the Pentateuch and history books were public – Deut. 12:26; etc. Isa. 56:6; Acts 5:13; On the importance of public confession of Christ see Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8. See also Ps. 22:25; 50:5; 116:14,18 for vows before the congregation.↩

105Notice the role that the leaders had in Neh. 9-10; Deut. 31:28,30; Acts 2:38,40-47; 5:12-16; 8:12; 10:47-48; 11:1-18; etc.↩

106It is assumed that parents have been training their children toward the maturity required in the adult covenant vows throughout the covenant child’s life (Gal. 4:1-7) and that there is no need for delay. Generally speaking, this transition into adulthood privileges and duties (voting, leading in prayer, etc.) will be quickly embraced with joy as soon after the 20th birthday as possible.↩

107Many Scriptures decry an unwillingness to affirm the covenant. Lev. 22:3; 23:29; Numb. 15:30; Ps. 78:10; Heb. 3:12-13; 4:1,14; 5:12-14; 6:1-6,9,12; 10:23-25,35-39; 12:1-2. Though children are in covenant based on their relationship with their “fathers” (Deut. 5:3; 8:18), God expects the children to lay hold of it for their own generation (Deut. 5:3; Ps. 48:13; 78:6) and to not “forget the covenant” (Deut. 4:23; 8:18; 2 Chron. 15:12; 34:32; Acts 3:25-26; Heb. 4:1,14). It is not just the “sons of the foreigner” and the “outcasts of Israel” who must reaffirm the covenant (Isa. 56:3-8), but all the “children of Israel…[and] Judah” must personally make “a perpetual covenant that will not be forgotten” (Jer. 50:5). As we have seen under paragraph 1, all adult males and females were responsible to “make a sure covenant and write it” (Neh. 9:38). Certainly it is appropriate for those who have grown up in the faith to “write with his hand” his covenant commitment (Isaiah 44:5 in context).↩

108See 1 Cor. 4:14; Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:12-13; 4:1,14; 5:12-14; 6:1-6,9,12; 10:23-25,35-39; 12:1-2.↩

109Since the Bible defines adulthood as 20 years old and above, the consistent position would say that no one can come to communion before the age of 20. Indeed, strict consistency would mean that they would not admit women to the Lord’s Table.↩

110See especially, Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), chapter 7.↩

111Edersheim, Sketches, 103.↩

112For example, NIDOTTE points out that “The nuances of the word יֶלֶד range from (i) newborns (Ex. 1:17, 18; 3:6-10; 2 Sam. 12:15), (ii) to children who have been weaned (Gen. 21:8), (iii) to teenagers (Gen. 21:14-16; 37:30; 42:22), (iv) to youths (2 Kgs. 2:24), (v) to young men (Dan. 1:4, 10, 15, 17) old enough to serve in foreign courts, (vi) to descendants (Isa. 29:23)” (Hamilton, Victor P. & VanGemeren, Willem A., eds. The New International Dictionary Of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Accordance electronic ed., version 2.5. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997)). ↩

113“To give birth to, have a child, become the father of; Qp, N, Pu, Ho to be born, be a descendant; P to assist in childbirth, be a midwife; H to become the father of, cause to come to birth” (Kohlenberger III, John R. and William D. Mounce. Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament).↩

114See the use of the term yeled in the following verses of the prominent chapters related to circumcision — Genesis 17:17,19,20-21; 21:2-3,5,7-8; Leviticus 12:2,5,7.↩

115The one verse that paedo-communionists might cite is Nehemiah 12:43 where sacrifices and worship are mentioned, and the children’s rejoicing is mentioned. It might be implied that since the children rejoiced, they were later involved in eating the sacrifices as well. My response is fivefold: 1) First, that is reading something into the text that is not there. The text does not talk about anyone (adult or child) eating the sacrifices. 2) Second, the Hebrew word for “sacrifice” is zebach (זֶבַח), the general term for sacrifices, not shelem (שֶׁלֶם), the kind of sacrifices eaten by the lay people as a sacramental meal. Indeed, “on occasion it [זֶבַח] is distinguished from peace offerings (Num. 15:8; Josh. 22:27)” (TWOT). So while these could have been peace offerings, to affirm so is reading into the text — especially when other offerings were offered at other dedications of buildings and events. For example, the dedication of the temple in Ezra 6:15-18 had “sin offering” sacrifices (v. 15) with the same mentioned joyous celebration. Those sin offering sacrifices could never be eaten by the common people. As Wenham points out, “the cereal offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering (Lev. 2; 4:1–6:7; 6:14–7:7)…were most holy…and could be eaten only by priests” (Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, vol. 4, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 160). 3) Third, the fact that there were multiple sacrifices does not mean that they were not all consumed on the altar (or alternatively, if sin offerings, all consumed by the priests). Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on the altar in 1 Kings 3:4, and distinguished those sacrifices from the “peace offerings” that were later made and eaten (v. 15). 4) Fourth, the terms for religious feast (חַג)or sacramental eating (חָגַג) are not used in this chapter as they are elsewhere in Nehemiah to specify a time of feasting. 5) Fifth, Nehemiah 13:1-2 points out that they discovered that what they were doing that day was not following the law since they had included the mixed multitude in the worship. “So it was, when they heard the Law, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel.” So even if it was concluded that everyone partook of peace offerings, the text explicitly says that they had not taken the precautions of the law. The point is, there is no mention of eating in the text, and to say they ate is eisegesis.↩

116My method of determining this has been two-fold. First, I have carefully read the context of every occurrence of these developmental terms to see if there is any hint of communion in the context. Second, I double-checked for possible omissions using Accordance (a powerful electronic Hebrew analysis program) by doing a Boolean search of each term to see if it occurs within 5000 words of terms related to communion, sacrifices, eating, food, feasts, celebration, offerings, etc. The words I checked were חָגַג, חַג, אָכַל, ֹאכֶל, אֲכִילָה, מַכֹּלֶת, זָבַח, מִזְבֵּחַ, חָזֶה, תּוֹדָה, מִנְחָה, תּוֹר, and שֶׁלֶם. ↩

117Edersheim, Sketches, 104.↩

118Edersheim, Sketches, 104.↩

119Keil and Delitzsch comment, “‘This mountain’ is Zion, the seat of God’s presence, and the place of His church’s worship. The feast is therefore a spiritual one. The figure is taken, as in Ps. 22:27ff., from the sacrificial meals connected with the shelâmim (the peace-offerings)” (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 286).↩

120John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis: Genesis 1:1–25:18, vol. 1, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, n.d.), 373.↩

121He may have already been regenerate from birth? — “born according to the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29 — though the word “born” is not in the original Greek). In any case, Paul will argue that regeneration is not enough. The expression of faith is being looked for.↩

122Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Gen. 21:5) while Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old (Gen. 16:16). 100-86=14, but depending upon what time of year each was born, Ishmael could have been 13-14 years old when Isaac was born. ↩

123Examples: Omanson and Ellington say, “the MT, followed by NIV, says ‘and he worshiped there before the LORD.’’ It is not clear whether the pronoun ‘he’ refers to Elkanah, to Samuel, or to Eli” (Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on the First Book of Samuel, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2001), 49). On the other hand, James Smith says: “Who is the subject in the sentence: And he worshiped the LORD there? Eli, Samuel and Elkanah have been nominated. Of these Eli is least likely, for he is not portrayed in a positive light in these chapters. Samuel is most likely, for he has been the subject of Hannah’s speech in the two preceding verses (Spence, Jamieson). The sentence would then demonstrate Samuel’s willingness to assume the role prescribed for him in the sanctuary. Nevertheless some argue that it was Elkanah who bowed in reverent worship in v. 28 while his wife poured out her heart in the hymn which immediately follows in the next chapter (Kirkpatrick, KD, R.P. Smith)” (James E. Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 2000), 50).↩

124For example, peace offerings were eaten sacramentally in Ex. 32:6; Lev. 7:15,18,20-21; Lev. 10:14; Deut. 27:7; 2 Chron. 30:22. The feast day drinks and foods were obviously eaten by the people and the Levites, and 1 Corinthians 10 treats them all as being just as sacramental as the Lord’s Supper is. Examples of burnt offerings and sacrifices being sacramental meals are Ex. 18:12; 32:6; Lev. 6:18,26,30; 7:16; 10:12,14,17,19; 22:10; etc. That the rejoicing tithe could not be eaten as common food, but could only be eaten at the temple and shared with the Levites and priests can be seen from Deut. 12:17; 14:23. The same was true of the grain offering, trespass offering, and every dedicated thing (Ezek. 44:29). See Deut. 12,14,16, and 18 for offerings, tithes, and dedicated things being sacramental. The point is, these things were exactly the same food that the lay people ate sacramentally. The extras were given to the Levites, but were still holy food to be eaten under the rules of sacramental food.

Some might object that Numbers 18:11 allowed the wave offerings to be eaten by “everyone who is clean in your house.” However, the context makes clear that these wave offerings were not sacramental since they were not eaten in the temple. There is a distinction between the “most holy things” (vv. 9-10) which had to be eaten in a holy place (v. 10) and other offerings that did not necessarily have that rule. For example, “the heave offering” which everyone who is clean in your house may eat, was eaten outside of the temple and thus was not a sacrament. Timothy Ashley writes, “These contributions may be eaten in the priest’s home rather than being limited to the sanctuary.” Verse 31 says of those heave offerings, “You shall eat it in any place, you and your households” (v. 31). Is it a peace offering? Commentators are divided. Ashley again: “This verse introduces the lesser holy contributions in vv. 12–18. ‘The contribution of their gift’ (terûmaṯ mattānâ) is an odd phrase; some scholars have taken it to refer to the right thigh and breast that come to the priest from the peace offerings (Exod. 29:28; Lev. 7:34; 10:14–15), although no one has been able to explain satisfactorily why the peace offerings should be designated as their gift here. The term may be a general term for contributions (terûmôṯ), given as gifts (mattenôṯ) to God, and designated by him (nāṯan) for the priest and his family” (Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers: New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 348). The fact of the matter is that verse 11 starts a new category of lesser holy things that could be eaten outside of the tabernacle, and thus were by definition not sacramental. This cannot be the same thing as Leviticus 7:34 since in that passage only the Aaronic priesthood could partake of it. ↩

125Virtually every commentary admits that this is a very difficult passage. I have consulted over 100 commentaries on Isaiah and there is no consensus on any point. Patricia Tull shows how there is not even consensus on who is speaking: “There is debate about the questions that follow in vv. 9–10: who is speaking, and about whom? A few have suggested that Isaiah continues, speaking of God’s teaching. Most translations and commentators understand these words as a retort from the priests and prophets, defying Isaiah for presuming to teach them” (Patricia K. Tull, “Isaiah 1–39,” ed. Samuel E. Balentine, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2010), 423).↩

126E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965–72), II:274, and R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 227–228, both believe that the false prophets are mocking Isaiah as if his teaching is infantile.↩

127For example, Marvin Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, vol. 16, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 363.↩

128For example, J. C. Exum, “‘Whom Will He Teach Knowledge?’: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 28,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (ed. D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. J. Hauser; JSOTSup 19; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982) 108–39; A. van Selms, “Isaiah 28,9–13: An Attempt to Give a New Interpretation,” ZAW 85 (1973) 332–39. ↩

129Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardson, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Accordance electronic ed., version 3.5. (Leiden: Brill, 2000).↩

130For example, Williamson defines טַף as “a toddler.” H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27: Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, ed. G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 289–290. Though Durham translates it as “toddlers,” he admits that it can refer to slightly older children. John I. Durham, Exodus, vol. 3, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 131.↩

131“There seems to be no case where a נַעַר was married. Thus, we may conclude that one meaning of נַעַר is that it refers to any young person from infancy to just before marriage” (Hamilton, Victor. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. The New International Dictionary Of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis).↩

132The Reformed churches include various Continental Reformed churches, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Reformed Baptists, and several other groups.↩

133Morton Smith summarizes this historic position well when he says, “With Christ as the only Lawgiver, we recognize that the Church is not a legislative body, but merely a declarative body. That is, Christ is the one who has given the laws by which the Church is to live. The Church’s task is to seek to understand and to set forth the meaning of these laws…He is the author of the system of doctrine for the Church, of her government, of her discipline, and of her worship. It is stated that all of this is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom. A result of this is that men are not to add or subtract from what HE has given. In this, the Presbyterian Church in America declares that she believes in what is sometimes called the jus divinum principle of church government. We believe that both the doctrines of faith, and also the basic principles of church government, discipline, and worship have been given to us in the Word. Other forms of church government may be able to say that they are not forbidden in so many words, but it is explicitly the Presbyterian form of government that claims to be jus divinum. As already noted the Book here affirms that the ‘regulative principle’ applies to doctrine, government, discipline and worship. Christ as King has given His Word concerning each of these areas to the Church, and nothing is to be added or taken from His Word. The Church should always be most careful as to how it frames its rules and guidelines for each of these areas, that they are in accord with the inspired Word of God at every point” (Morton Smith, Commentary on the PCA Book of Church Order).↩

134“He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15); “There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?” (James 4:12); “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5); “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matt. 4:10); “the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4); “the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever; you shall not fear other gods” (2 Kings 17:37); “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded…be careful to observe it…Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:1-9).↩

135“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17); “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); [In the context of the church discipline of verses 3-11, Paul says,] “For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things” (2 Cor. 2:9) “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6); “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3); 1 Cor. 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 3:18-23; “That you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” (Col. 4:12); “rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ…rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith… Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For…you are complete in Him” (Col. 2:5-10).↩

136Jus Divinum was the Latin expression for “divine law” used by the Scottish reformers and many Puritans to speak of Presbyterianism as being regulated in all it did by the Scripture alone. Christ received “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and a deposit (paradosis) of truth from the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 15:15), which He in turn gave to the apostles (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; 1 Cor. 11:23; John 14:26; 15:15; 16:12-13; 20:21), which they in turn gave to the church in the Scriptures and its doctrine (1 Cor. 11:2,23; 15:3; 2 Thes. 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:21; Jude 3). The church is built on this revelational foundation (Eph. 2:19-22). The Puritan theology can be summed up in the phrase that “The only voice that should be heard in the church is the voice of Jesus speaking through the Scriptures.” See quote by Morton Smith in footnote 2.↩

137In connection with judgments to settle conflicts, Moses was instructed, “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do… And let them judge the people at all times” (Ex. 18:16-22). “So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:12); “All Scripture…for reproof, for correction” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).↩

138“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5); “But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose” (2 Tim. 3:10); “we did not consult Him about the proper order” (1 Chron. 15:13); “For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you” (2 Cor. 1:12); “All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17); “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you” (Acts 20:18); “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1); “Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom” (James 3:13); “Do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise’” (Deut. 12:30); “to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us” (2 Thes. 3:9); “for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20); 2 Cor. 7:11; etc.↩

139“…for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17); “For Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4); “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5); “But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose” (2 Tim. 3:10); “you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7); “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing” (2 Cor. 7:9); “For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10); “For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11); “for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).↩

140Patterned after the Bible’s use of “it is written” or other direct quotations. Scripture is quite clear that, while individuals have liberty to do anything that is not forbidden in Scripture, the church is limited to what it is explicitly authorized to do. So Paul told the church, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Of course, these writings include the New Testament, so Paul said, “These things I write to you…so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God” (1 Tim. 3:4). ↩

141Patterned after the Bible’s use of deductive reasoning. On the use of deductive logic in the theology and practice of the church, see WCF 1:5; 1:6; 1:9; LC 4,105,113; WCF 1:6 says that such principles “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” WCF 1:5 and LC 4 both speak of the “consent of all the parts” of Scripture. All laws of logic are affirmed in Scripture, as for example, the Law of Identity (Ex. 3:14, John 6:35,41; 10:7, 11; 14:6; 15:1), the Law of Non-Contradiction (James 5:12, Matt. 12:33, 1 Cor. 14:33, Heb. 6:18), the Law of Excluded Middle (Matt. 12:30, Mark 9:40), etc. Romans is a masterpiece of logical reasoning, and the thousands of logical arguments (“if…then”; “therefore,” conflations of Scripture, etc.) that are found in Scripture clearly support the Confession’s stance on deductive reasoning in theology and polity. Indeed, the following statements are meaningless if logic is not valid: “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17); “For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:20); “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13); “God, who cannot lie, promised” (Tit. 1:2); etc.↩

142“that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3); “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6); “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness’” (1 Cor. 3:19); “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).↩

143“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4); “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2); “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).↩

144“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have courts concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!” (1 Cor. 6:1-6); 1 Cor. 3:18-23; “we conducted ourselves…in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom” (2 Cor. 1:12); “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” (Isa. 8:20); “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); “bound by the law…at liberty” (1 Cor. 7:39).↩

145The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), chapter 1, paragraph 6 (WCF 1.6).↩

146We have already proved that the Regulative Principle of Worship addresses both adding to or taking away from His regulations. “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” (Deut. 12:31-32).↩

147Two out of six orders that I have noticed are the following:

Order found in Nehemiah:
- Call to Worship (Neh. 7:73b-8:1; 9:1-2) - Reading & Preaching of the Word (Neh. 8:1-8; 9:3a) - Confession of Sins (Neh. 8:9; 9:3b) - Praise & Worship (Neh. 8:8-12; 9:3c) - Prayer (Neh. 9:4-37) - Covenanting (Lord’s Supper) (Neh. 8:10-12; 9:38-10:39)

Order found in 2 Chronicles 30 (compare Isa. 6):
- Call to Worship (2 Chron. 30:1-13; compare Isa. 6:1-4) - Call to Consecration & Confession of Sins (2 Chron. 30:14-20; Compare Isa. 6:4-7) - Cutting Covenant With God in the Lord’s Supper (2 Chron. 30:15-18) - Rejoicing in God’s Provision with Singing (2 Chron. 30:21) - Submitting Our Hearts To His Word (2 Chron. 30:22; Compare Isa. 6:8-13)↩

148Many Scriptures speak to this. For example, the acoustics of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal are so phenomenal that millions crowded into that natural amphitheater would have been able to hear. Other Scriptures on the importance of good acoustics include: “So they read distinctly from the book” (Neh. 8:8); “read this law before them in their hearing” (Deut. 31:11,28; 32:44; 2 Kgs 23:2; 2 Chron. 34:30; Jer. 26:15). “Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people” (Neh. 8:5).↩

149Some sample Scriptures include: “the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD” (2 Chron. 5:13); “whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air” (1 Cor. 14:7-9); “play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:3).↩

150See for example, Deut. 27:2-4, which allows for putting huge words on a huge white screen that everyone could read responsively.↩

151I believe “the light of nature and Christian prudence” can logically make such applications from general rules of Scripture such as: 1) the Bible authorizes us to protect members of the church from the elements and extreme temperatures during public meetings (Ezra 10:7-17; Isa. 4:6; see metaphorical application of this commonplace in Isa. 4:5-6; 25:4; Ps. 27:5; etc.), 2) the Bible authorizes artificial light during worship (Ex. 25:37; Acts 20:8; etc.), 3) The Bible authorizes tools to take care of things important to worship (Ex. 27:3; 38:3; Numb. 4:9); etc.↩

152“Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40); “rejoicing to see your good order” (Col. 2:5); “that you should set in order the things that are lacking” (Tit. 1:5); “our authority, which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction” (2 Cor. 10:8); “let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel” (1 Cor. 14:12); “we do all things, beloved, for your edification” (2 Cor. 12:19); “Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction” (2 Cor. 13:10); “For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified” (1 Cor. 14:17); “Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26); “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).↩

153Or as George Gillespie said, “Neither ought the voice of any to take place, or be rested upon in the Church, but the voice of Christ alone” (Quoted in William Cunningham, Discussion of Church Principles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 232, http://www.naphtali.com/articles/william-cunningham/the-westminster- confession-on-the-separation-of-church-and-state/).↩

154“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession, 1.6).↩

155“Misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it” (Westminster Larger Catechism 113).↩

156“Misapplying of God’s decrees and Providences” (Westminster Larger Catechism 113).↩

157Westminster Larger Catechism 105.↩

158Faith Formation Committee of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), “Children at the Table: Toward a Guiding Principle for Biblically Faithful Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper,” 592, https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2011agenda_appendixC.pdf. ↩

159Ibid.↩

160Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 23ff.↩

161“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.” The Hebrew indicates that this was a sacrament: Carpenter states, “To ‘share a sacred meal’ (לֶאֱכָל־לֶחֶם) ) was to engage in close, intimate fellowship while eating a communal meal. A ‘sacred meal’ is indicated by the context, for ‘before Yahweh’ describes the context of a holy religious celebration held in an area recognized to be a place where Yahweh would meet with them (cf. Ex. 24:9–11)” (Eugene Carpenter, Exodus, ed. H. Wayne House and William D. Barrick, vol. 1, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 614).↩

162“Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. On the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank” (Ex. 24:9-11).↩

163In Mark 14:14, Jesus only prepared for the twelve saying, “Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’” Matthew 26:26 says that He only gave bread to his twelve disciples: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’”↩

164Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 26.↩

165That this issue is serious can be seen by a perusal of any number of books on the Regulative Principle of Worship. Nadab and Abihu were struck dead by the Lord for a small deviation from God’s instructions for worship (Lev. 10:1ff.), and the reason given was because they “offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them” (v. 1). 2 Samuel 6 records God killing Uzzah for a sincere attempt to protect the ark from falling over. God had forbidden anyone from touching the ark. Sincere or not, it says, “Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God” (v. 7). ↩

166The dictionary defines νήπιος as “a small child above the age of a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years of age” (Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 4.2. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989)).↩

167אֱמוּנָה means “steadfastness…trustworthiness, faithfulness” (Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardson, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). ↩

168קָדַשׁ means “be hallowed, holy, sanctified; to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate” (McComiskey, Thomas E. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). ↩

169קֹדֶשׁ “apartness, holiness, sacredness” (McComiskey, Thomas E. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). ↩

170James B. Jordan, Tape 4 of Debate with Dr. Francis Nigel Lee.↩

171J. Wright, “Some Thoughts on Paedo-Communion,” https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/some-thoughts-on-paedocommunion.58166/.↩

172Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles That Call for Infant Baptism (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2009).↩

173Genesis 17:10 says, “Every male child among you shall be circumcised.” See whole chapter. Other Scriptures: “Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him” (Gen. 21:4); “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Ex. 4:25); “let all his males be circumcised” (Ex. 12:48); “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Lev. 12:3); “circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins…Then Joshua circumcised their sons whom He raised up in their place” (Josh. 5:3,7 — see whole chapter); “So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias” (Luke 1:59); “And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb” (Luke 2:21); “Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day” (Acts 7:8); “circumcised the eighth day” (Phil. 3:5).↩

174Note that with both circumcision and baptism, and with both infants and adults, the sacraments of admittance to the church is passively received. Others do the circumcising and others pour the water. The same is not true of the sacramental meals which are always portrayed as active — “Take, eat” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor. 11:24). Those who cannot obey that command ought not to participate.↩

175See all of the active verbs and commands that are listed above with regard to 1 Corinthians 10-11. ↩

176For example, after quoting God’s prohibition of grapes, wine, or unclean food for the mother of Samson since Samson was to be a Nazarite from the womb, James Jordan comments: “Also, we may say on the basis of this passage that if the fetus is to avoid sacramentally unclean food in the womb, then the fetus also participates in the sacramental food of Holy Communion in the womb. When Samson’s mother ate grapes, they went to her baby as well as to her. When a Christian woman eats Christ’s flesh and drinks his blood, these go to her baby also” (James Jordan, Judges: God’s War Against Humanism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1985), 232). See chapter 1, footnote 8 for the reasons why his exegesis of this passage is flawed.↩

177See the variety of paedo-communionists listed in chapter 2.↩

178He says, “7. 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). 8. These old covenant sacraments admitted children into participation (e.g. Dt. 16:11, 14). 9. 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” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 203-204).↩

179See Phillip G. Kayser, Glory and Coverings: A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2009) for all the reasons why 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is integral to the discussion of the Lord’s Table. This is based upon the law of the temple, where the only glory that could be uncovered was the glory of God. This is repeated in detail in Ezekiel.↩

180The word “approved” is δόκιμος, meaning to be approved for something by testing. Just as the Levites in the Old Testament examined members of their synagogues when they came to the temple to make sure they were ceremonially and morally fit to participate in the sacramental meals, Paul speaks of a testing and approval in this verse.↩

181The word for “recognized” is φανερός, and refers to a publically recognized or publically made known thing or person. This ties in with the approval of the previous word. There is an approval process that is then made public.↩

182The word for “discerning” is διακρίνω, and relates to the ability to differentiate or make distinctions, something that is impossible for an infant to do, no matter which view of the word “body” you opt for.↩

183In light of the clear parallel between “unworthy manner” and “the body and the blood” of verse 27, and “unworthy manner” and the “Lord’s body” (Majority Text) in verse 29, the typical paedo-communion interpretation that this “body” is the church members rather than the same body and blood mentioned in verse 27 is highly unlikely. For the sake of the argument, I will not contest their interpretation in this book. It makes little difference in the final outcome. I believe the young-credo-communion and the mature-communion viewpoints on this question are much stronger than the paedo-communion viewpoint.↩

184This appears to be saying that anyone who treats the Lord’s Table as a mere snack will be judged. It is a holy meal and must be reverenced. Do you know any infants that would see the crackers and wine as anything other than a snack?↩

185Peter adds a footnote: “Whereas someone taking communion knowing their brother has something against them sins in taking communion if they don’t first become reconciled.”↩

186Peter Allison, “Covenant Communion or Credo-Communion? A Question of Authority” (Crown & Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, July, 2014).↩

187Gallant says, “The following is a summary presentation of much of the material covered in this book. Perhaps readers will find it a helpful point of departure in further discussion concerning the Lord’s Supper and covenant children.” He then lists the 11 theses that form presuppositions for his system. (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 203-204).↩

188Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php↩

189The fuller quote comes from his concluding paragraph to his discussion of this verse on pages 34-35: “It is important to see how all of this comes together. If covenant children really are God’s ‘holy ones,’ His saints, then they have been called into the koinonia of Christ. That koinonia is established and expressed in the Lord’s table. Consequently, the Lord’s table belongs to covenant children. Their status as saints means that they must be regarded as fit participants in the sacrament” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 36).↩

190He says, “The children of believers are still set apart from the world as holy (1 Cor. 7:14). And if that is so, that must mean that they belong to the seed of the woman…Paul is placing them squarely within the chosen congregation, on equal footing with ‘professing adults’” (Ibid., p. 184). ↩

191Thus covenant children have “their angels” (Matt. 18:10). Peter has “his angel” (Acts 12:15). Psalm 91:11 says, “He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways.” Hebrews 1:14 says, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?”↩

192Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Children of Promise (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 8.↩

193Though he doesn’t prove it, there is abundant proof for this assumption. In John 3:25 (see context of verses 22-26), both John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism was spoken of as a “purification” (καθαρος n). Thus “unclean” is a synonym for “unbaptized,” and clean is a synonym for “baptized.” Christian baptism is spoken of as having “our bodies washed with pure (καθαρος a) water” (Heb. 10:22). (See Numb. 19:9,13,20-21; 31:23-24; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:13 for the usage of “pure water” or “water of purification” or “purifying water.”) Ephesians 5:26 says, “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify (ἁγιος v) and cleanse (καθαρος v) it with the washing of water by the word.” This verse teaches clearly that being “sanctified” (set apart for the Holy Spirit’s special working) is not enough for membership in the church, and thus the unbelieving spouse could not be a member even though there is great hope of his/her being saved in the future. Nor is being “cleansed” with the washing of water sufficient, and thus children of unbelievers have no right to church membership even if someone was foolish enough to baptize them. To be a member of the church one must be sanctified and cleansed (1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 5:26).

Christ is the one who both sets people apart, and who declares them cleansed by water. Example: The Gentiles of Acts 10:28 were called “unclean” (καθαρος neg. a) because they were outside the covenant. God showed Peter through the vision of the unclean animals, that God had extended the covenant to Gentiles. The Spirit set them apart to God when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in a very dramatic way (10:44; 11:16). Peter accordingly baptized them into the church with water upon their profession of faith (10:47-48).

When the apostles complained about Peter’s eating with these “unclean” Gentiles in Acts 11, Peter tells them the story, emphasizing God’s words, “What God has cleansed (καθαρος v) you must not call common” (11:9). Then Peter explained the incident at Cornelius’ house and ended by saying, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 11:15-16). In this passage, Peter ties the concept of uncleanness to those outside the church, and cleansing is declared to be by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (internal cleansing) and the baptism of water (external cleansing).

For other examples where the word used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 refers to outward, ritual cleansing in the New Testament, see Matt. 8:2-3; 10:8; 11:5; 23:25-26; Mark 1:40-42,44; 7:19; Luke 2:22; 4:27; 5:12-14; 7:22; 11:39; 17:14,17; John 2:6; 13:10-11; Rom. 14:20; Tit. 1:15; Heb. 9:22-23. In the New Testament context, 1 Corinthians 7:14 can mean nothing more nor less than, “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” See Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles That Call for Infant Baptism (Omaha, Biblical Blueprints, 2009), chapter 7. Available at https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md ↩

194He says that Paul’s denial that any child in Corinth was “unclean” means that “Their bodies have been washed with the pure water of baptism” (cf. Heb. 10:22). I disagree with his conclusion: “so that they may partake of the feast of the Lord” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 56).↩

195Verse 10 defines these sprinkling ceremonies as Old Testament “washings,” and the literal rendering of washings is “baptisms.”↩

196See Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles That Call For Infant Baptism (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2019) for detailed exegetical proof for infant baptism. This is available at https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md. ↩

197Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php.↩

198Ibid.↩

199The word νήπιος is defined as an infant or child who is not yet speaking, from νη (not) ἔπος (a word).↩

200See chapter 3 for an exposition of the feast that Isaac partook of and that Ishmael was excluded from↩

201See Phillip G. Kayser, Universal Suffrage (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2019), for a Biblical exposition of the right to vote. This is available at https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md. ↩

202Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php.↩

203Ibid.↩

204Westminster Larger Catechism 167 states, “The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; (Col. 2:11–12, Rom. 6:4,6,11) by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; (Rom. 6:3–5) by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; (1 Cor. 1:11–13, Rom. 6:2–3) by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; (Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Pet. 3:21) by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; (Rom. 6:3-5) and by endeavoring to live by faith, (Gal. 3:26–27) to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, (Rom. 6:22) as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; (Acts 2:38) and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body. (1 Cor. 12:13,25)” (The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996)).↩

205Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php.↩

206See Jay E. Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).↩

207Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php.↩

208Ibid.↩

209Ibid.↩

210Ibid.↩

211Tim Gallant, “Examination and Remembrance,” https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_examination_and_remembrance.php.↩

212That elders alone have authority to admit or to bar from the table refer to chapter 2, footnote 34.↩

213The word νήπιος refers to a very young child from an infant through to a toddler.↩

214Tim Gallant, “Brief Theses on Paedocommunion: A Succinct Introductory Defense” at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php.↩

215“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. 3:1-5).↩

216Thiselton translates, “A person should examine his or her own genuineness.”↩

217“καὶ οὕτως, that is, “when he has examined himself.” This use of οὕτως must be distinguished from its inferential meaning, “this being so,” “quæ cum ita sint.” It occurs frequently in class. Greek, especially after participles, and is often followed by δή, but not often, as here, preceded by καί” (Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Second Edition (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1886), 299).↩

218Paul Ellingworth, Howard Hatton, and Paul Ellingworth, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 266.↩

219Bruce Winter, “1 Corinthians,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1179. See also ‘after examination of himself’ (Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 574). “And as the result of such examination, or after such an examination; that is, let the act of eating that bread be always preceded by a solemn self-examination. Bloomfield renders it, “and then,” “then only.” The sense is plain, that the communion should always be preceded by an honest and prayerful self-examination” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: I Corinthians, ed. Robert Frew (London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 220).↩

220BDAG defines παιδίον as “a child, normally below the age of puberty, child” and “one who is open to instruction, child” (Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)). NIDNTT defines it as “In relation to age it denotes a child in years (Homer, Od. 4, 665), a boy between 7 and 14 years, as distinct from the little child or the youth” (Braumann, G. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Accordance electronic ed., version 3.5. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986)).↩

221CRC Faith Formation Committee, “Children at the Table: Toward a Guiding Principle for Biblically Faithful Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper,” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.562.2879&rep=rep1&type=pdf.↩

222Ray Sutton, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition. Available at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf.↩

223“the congregation of Israel” (v. 3); “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight” (v. 6); “cut off from the congregation” (v. 19); “all the congregation of Israel shall keep it” (v. 47).↩

224“every man shall take from himself a lamb” (v. 3); “each man’s need” (v. 4); “each mouth’s eating” (v. 16); “every man’s servant” (v. 44).↩

225Which I deal with in Phillip G. Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles that Call for Infant Baptism (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2009). This is available at https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md. ↩

226Abraham’s justification by works mentioned in James 2:21-22 took place 40 years after Abraham’s justification by faith mentioned in verse 23. The adverb μόνον in verse 24 (“only”) shows that there are two kinds of justification. Justification by faith (Abraham at age 85) is not the “only” justification Abraham had — he was also justified by works (Abraham at age 125). There are four aspects to justification in the Scripture as a whole: 1) We are justified judicially by God alone (Rom. 8:33). 2) We are justified meritoriously by Christ alone (Isa. 53:11). 3) We are justified mediately by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:1). 4) We are justified evidentially by works alone (James 2:24). Paul’s insistence that Abraham was not justified by circumcision (Rom. 4:10) even though that circumcision was a work that flowed from faith and grace and not a carnal deed of the flesh apart from the Spirit, shows that we must distinguish between mediate justification by faith and evidential justification by works.↩

227The context indicates that all heirs are baptized. Believing heirs are baptized as adults (Gal. 3:26-29), but since they are heirs of the Abrahamic promise (and every promise given to Abraham was to Abraham and his seed), the children of believers are heirs (4:1) placed under a stewardship trust (v. 2).↩

228He said, “You are saying a lot worse. You are saying that having a low IQ is worse than committing adultery, because repentance is possible for adulterers” (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/paedocommunion-excommunication-ronald-reagan.23350/). See the helpful dialogue that follows. North’s analogies are inaccurate.↩

229Keil and Delitzsch state, “Three times in the year” (i.e., according to v. 14 and Deut. 16:16, at the three feasts just mentioned) ‘all thy males shall appear before the face of the Lord Jehovah.’ The command to appear, i.e., to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary, was restricted to the male members of the nation, probably to those above 20 years of age, who had been included in the census (Num. 1:3). This did not prohibit the inclusion of women and boys (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3ff., and Luke 2:31ff.)” (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 418).↩

230Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonard Coppes, 1988)↩

231Ibid., 14.↩

232Wenham says, “The main differences between this law and those of Leviticus 4 may be ascribed to their different interests. The main concern of Leviticus 4 is the description of the sin-offering ritual. This section does not bother with the ritual, but concentrates on the sacrifices that ought to accompany the sin offering, the need for strangers (resident aliens) to sacrifice, and the impotence of sacrifice in cases of deliberate sin. Two cases of inadvertent sins which can be atoned for by sacrifice are cited first to emphasize that by contrast high-handed sins will not be forgiven but punished directly by God” (Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 146).↩

233Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion, 25-27. ↩

234Ibid., 28.↩

235Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonard Coppes, 1988), 26-27.↩

236Ibid., 22.↩

237Ibid., 241-242.↩

238This is documented in numerous books. See for example, Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 11. See also George Robinson, Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs, and Rituals, Updated Edition, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 149. See also Jacob Neusner’s numerous books.↩

239Burton Scott Easton, “Wine, Wine Press,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 3088. ↩

240See my discussion in chapter 10.↩

241Francis Nigel Lee, “Catechism for Converting Paedocommunionists,” http://www.dr-fnlee.org/catechism-for-converting-paedocommunionists/2/.↩

242From a Thursday, August 07, 2003 interchange on capo.org.↩

243Francis Nigel Lee, “Catechism for Converting Paedocommunionists,” http://www.dr-fnlee.org/catechism-for-converting-paedocommunionists/2/.↩

244In a private letter to me.↩

245Grover Gunn’s response to the above comment by FNL on capo.org on Thursday, August 07, 2003, at 18:43:44 CST.↩

246I define this principle, prove that it is Scriptural, and show how it impacts the doctrine of communion in chapter 4. The Westminster Confession states that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (WCF 1:6).↩

247If one of the premises includes an unproven implication of a previous premise, it is not good. Each premise must be shown to be rooted in Scripture.↩

248Many times people make a premise that has more than one statement embedded in it. Strict logic requires that these be divided into further arguments lest assumptions slip past the reader.↩

249See chapter 8 for a detailing of these Reformed confessions. ↩

250See my proof of this in my exposition of 1 Corinthians 10-11 under each section of chapter 2. Also see my exposition of 1 Corinthians 10-11 in chapter 10.↩

251“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7).↩

252“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rev. 2:17).↩

253See my detailed timeline of the Passion Week events at https://kaysercommentary.com/Resources/Crucifixion-Resurrection-Timeline.md.↩

254“Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:5-6).↩

255See Genesis 14:14.↩

256Herman Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed, translated by Homer C. Hoeksema (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1971). ↩

257See chapter 2 for proof that this was a non-communicant.↩

258Ray Sutton, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition. Available at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf.↩

259The exact wording is. “Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the Lord Jesus Christ.When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.” (PCA BCO 57-1)↩

260Example: Ex. 12:8↩

261Example: Numb. 9:1-14↩

262Examples: Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16; 1 Sam. 1:20-28↩

263Examples: Gen. 21:8; the טַף in Ex. 10:25 with vv. 10,24; 1 Sam. 1:20-28; Josh. 8:30-35; 2 Chron. 31:2-21; Isa. 28:9-10↩

264Examples: Deut. 29:10-13; 30:2; 2 Chron. 30:6,8,17-19,21,23,25-27; Rev. 2:7; 3:20.↩

265Examples: The covenant in Deut. 27-30 — note that “all the people” that partook of the “peace offerings” (27:6-7), that same “people” were able to understand the curses, receive the curses, and say “Amen!” (Deut. 27:11-26); the same “little ones” who partook in Deuteronomy 29ff were able to take an “oath” (29:12,14), and were able to hear, learn, observe the law, and fear God (29:12-13). 30:25-27 — they were all “taught” “the good knowledge of the LORD”; 1 Sam. 2:11; Neh. 8:2-3; Hos. 6:6 where God desires the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings; John 6:45; 1 Cor. 10:6,11-12,15,29,30-31; 11:24-25,28,31,20-22; Heb. 5:12-14; Rev. 2:7; 3:20.↩

266Examples: Deut. 12:28; 28:1,15; 30:2; John 13-17; Rev. 2:7; 22:14↩

267Cain was the firstborn son of Adam. When he was born, Eve said, “I have gotten a man — the LORD” (Gen. 4:1). Even the meaning of the name seems to speak of his position as lord over his brethren. The name Cain means “acquisition.” Her second son was called Abel, which means “transitoriness” or “ephemeral.” Cain appears to have been seen as the inheritor of office. When he abused it and murdered Abel, Cain was disqualified from being considered the firstborn. So the third son was called Seth, which means “substitute.”↩

268That 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). 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).↩

269For an introduction to this fascinating subject, see A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants by Junius Brutus and Aaron’s Rod Blossoming by George Gillespie.↩

270cf. Deut. 12:14,18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2,7,15; etc.↩

271In chapter 2 I presented overwhelming evidence of this fact. Here is a summary of church officers in every age distributing the sacrament: Gen. 14:18; Ex. 12:21-24; Lev. 23:10-11,14,20; Numb 3:8-13; 18:7-8; Deut. 12:18; 18:5-8; 2 Chron. 29:34; 30:15-17,21-22; 31:14-16,19; 35:10-15; Neh. 13:13; Matt. 16:19; cf Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Lay people were cut off from the congregation if they had the sacrament on their own (Deut. 12:14,17-19,26-28; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2,15-16) or if they ate unworthily (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20-21,25). See chapter 2, footnote 34 for more Scripture proof.↩

272James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 49.↩

273Ibid., 69.↩

274Ibid., 250↩

275Ibid., 291.↩

276Ibid., 324.↩

277Ibid., 399.↩

278Ibid., 438-439.↩

279Ibid., 457.↩

280Ibid., 641.↩

281Ibid., 660.↩

282James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 9.↩

283Ibid., 35.↩

284Ibid., 121.↩

285Ibid., 137-138.↩

286Ibid., 152-153.↩

287Ibid., 179.↩

288Ibid., 228.↩

289Ibid., 233.↩

290Ibid., 291.↩

291Ibid., 351.↩

292Ibid., 386-387.↩

293Ibid., 447.↩

294Ibid., 516-517.↩

295Ibid. 600.↩

296Ibid., 722.↩

297Ibid., 764.↩

298Ibid., 788.↩

299Ibid., 806, 808.↩

300Ibid., 868.↩

301Ibid., 891.↩

302James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 91–92.↩

303Ibid., 242.↩

304Ibid., 367.↩

305Ibid., 423.↩

306Ibid., 453.↩

307Ibid., 596.↩

308Ibid., 695. ↩

309Ibid., 760.↩

310Ibid., 785.↩

311James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 26.↩

312Ibid., 39.↩

313Ibid., 72.↩

314Ibid., 83.↩

315Ibid., 106.↩

316Ibid., 114.↩

317Ibid., 224.↩

318Ibid., 269.↩

319Ibid., 345.↩

320Ibid., 366.↩

321Ibid., 442.↩

322Ibid., 488.↩

323Ibid., 511.↩

324The 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). Any children who “have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut. 1:39; cf. Isa. 7:15-16) are missing this element of the sacrament.↩

325In the early 1980s a friend adopted the “full preterist” position on eschatology. He saw Full Preterism as an academic question related to only one doctrine. I saw (and predicted before it happened) that many other doctrines would by necessity fall if he was consistent. What he scoffed at back in the 1980s, he mostly embraces now. I had predicted that if he was consistent with his Full Preterism that eventually it would impact other doctrines like 1) Christology (nature of Christ’s body and of His Mediatorial reign), 2) Anthropology (low view of our bodies, defective view of Adam and Eve’s Prefall bodies, defective view of resurrection bodies), 3) Cosmology (death and decay would be seen as a result of creation rather than the fall, an eternity of this present evil world and death and suffering, and no redemptive purpose of the cosmos), 4) Pneumatology (nature of the seal of the Holy Spirit, duration of the seal, Spiritual gifts), 5) Soteriology (no redemption of our bodies or planet earth, no end to sin on planet earth, escape from earth to heaven), 6) Lord’s Supper (it is after all, till He comes), 7) Creation (they would be forced exegetically to eventually deny six day creationism — something that many have already done), etc. ↩

326I had originally planned to give detailed proof of why I see these as being logical outcomes, but after writing several pages decided that continuing this tedious task would detract from the book and make it way too long. So I will only 1) make a list of common assertions in the first part of each point and then list what I believe I can prove are potential implications. I’m sure there will be many paedo-communionists and adult-communionists who will disagree with my conclusions, but at least they know where I am coming from presuppositionally. I want my critics to know all my presuppositions so that when they critique my book, they can do so more easily. That way, when I am shown to be wrong, we can move this discussion forward productively.↩

327That even election is connected to baptism by some can be seen from the following quote: Barach states, “But how do you know that God chose you?…The answer is that you’ve had the special experience. You’ve been baptized….At baptism, God promises that you’re really one of His elect. …Doubting your election when God has promised it to you is sin” (John Barach, “Baptism and Election”, 2002, http://www.messiahnyc.org/article.php?sid=162 [20 November 2002]). Steven Wilkins says something similar in his lecture, “The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant”, delivered at the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference, Winter, 2002. He says, “Now, you see, given this perspective [of baptismal regeneration], there is no presumption necessary when it comes to baptized people. Traditionally, the Reformed have said, we have to view our children as presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate, and, therefore, Christian. If we are willing to take the Scriptures at face value there is no presumption necessary….And this is true, of course, because by baptism, by baptism, the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect.”↩

328See Steve Wilkins, “Covenant, Baptism and Salvation,” in The Federal Vision, 59-64. Also see Steve Wilkins, “Covenant, Baptism and Salvation,” in The Auburn Avenue Theology, 262-263.↩

329I find it hard to distinguish infant communion views of the transfer of grace from ex opere operato views. (Many paedo-communion advocates vigorously insist they do not hold to ex opere operato, but I have failed to see how.) In any case, at least some paedo-communionists see no reason to reject this doctrine.↩

330Bacon says, “There was nothing sacramental about drinking this water any more than eating the manna was sacramental. Just as the manna and quails were given to satisfy physical hunger, so the water was given to satisfy physical thirst. What Paul wanted to bring to our attention is that if they had hungered and thirsted after righteousness, they also would have been filled spiritually (cf. Matthew 5:6),” (Richard Bacon, “What Mean Ye?” Appendix C, at https://s3.amazonaws.com/apmmedia/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/06135505/What_Mean_Ye.pdf).↩

331Louw and Nida define νήπιος as “a small child above the age of a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years of age,” (Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 4.2. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. https://accordance.bible/link/read/Louw_&_Nida#1816).↩

332As an example, see Ray Sutton, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition. Available at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf.↩

333See the plural for the Old Testament “baptisms” mentioned in Hebrews 6:2 versus the singular for the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5.↩

334This distinction is absolutely essential to any definition of dispensationalism (whether first generation, second generation, or progressive dispensationalism). Charles Ryrie defines dispensationalism this way: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity,” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p. 45, citing Chafer). A little study shows that even progressive dispensationalism maintains this distinction. As Brian Collins words it, “In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, classical dispensationalists made a sharp division between Israel and the church. The former was seen as an earthly people with an earthly destiny. The latter was seen as a heavenly people with a heavenly destiny. In this view, distinct promises, which would be fulfilled distinctly, were made to each people. Later dispensationalists dropped the heavenly/earthly distinction while maintaining the distinction between two peoples of God. Progressive dispensationalists dropped the distinction between the two peoples, though maintaining that promises made to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled for saved ethnic Israelites. Such promises are not spiritualized or applied to the church,” (Brian Collins, “The Church and Israel,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018)).↩

335Luke praised the Bereans “in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). The only Scriptures they possessed to test all Pauline teaching were the Old Testament Scriptures. Of course, it was easy to test Paul’s teachings from the Old Testament since he was “saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22).↩

336For one of many examples of this, see Leonard Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonard Coppes, 1988).↩

337Paul’s image of the Olive Tree and unbelieving branches broken off and believing ones grafted in comes from Romans 11:19-24. “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?”↩

338See the conditions of worthy participation laid out in chapter 2. Also see exegesis below.↩

339There are many indicators of this. 1 Corinthians 12:2 says, “You know that you were Gentiles, carried away by these dumb idols, however you were led.”↩

340The adults over 20 who died numbered 603,550 (Numb. 1:1-3,46). The children that God was not displeased with included 601,730 over 20 (Numb. 26:51) plus another multitude under 20.↩

341See comments on verse 5 below.↩

342First, an examination of all the passages on voting (2 Sam. 16:18; 1 Sam. 8:4-5 with 19-22; Acts 1:16,23; etc.) shows that voting was viewed as a leadership role. Neither minors (Isa. 3:4-5,12) nor women (1 Tim. 2:12-15) were allowed to “exercise authority over a man.” When the “men of Israel” chose a leader, the “people” were said to have chosen that leader (2 Sam. 16:18). In other words, the men’s votes represented the needs of the people. In the New Testament, the voted decisions of the “whole church” (Acts 15:22) were not made by men, women, and children. They were made by “the apostles, the elders, and the brethren” (v. 23). In other words, these male heads of households represented their families with their votes. Their actions are treated as the actions of those whom they represented. Just as “representatives of the congregation” (Numb. 16:2) must represent the congregation when they vote, and just as “leaders of the tribes” (Numb. 7:2) must represent their tribe’s interests, so too the “heads of their father’s houses” (1 Chron. 7:2,7,9,11; etc.) must represent their families. Thus, the church counted membership by heads of households (Acts 4:4). This follows the covenant promise that God would bring salvation to families (Acts 3:25 – “And in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed”) and that they would worship by families (Ps. 22:27; 96:7; etc). and gather as families (Zech. 12:14). The Old Testament pattern was that “the men of Israel choose” their leaders (2 Sam. 16:18; see 1 Sam. 8; Judges 8:22; 9:1-21; Neh. 9:16-17; 2 Chron. 10:16; Numb. 1:2; etc.). The New Testament pattern is the same. The 120 who proposed Joseph and Matthias were “men and brethren” (Acts 1:15-16). The ones who voted for the deacons in Acts 6 were “brethren” (v. 3). A man is defined in Scripture as “every male individually from twenty years old and above, all who were able to go to war” (Numb. 1:20,22; etc.).↩

343Tim Gallant correctly disagrees with that conclusion, stating, “Those opposing paedo-communion often object to taking a sacramental view of this passage. They observe that even the animals ate the manna and drank the water which is mentioned here. That is obviously true. Clearly, it was not a sacrament for them. But when Paul speaks of our covenant ancestors partaking of Christ, he intends to show that for them these acts were sacramental. Hence his sacramental language here,” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, Alberta: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 164). He fails to show why their partaking was not sacramental, and yet the eating by the infants was. ↩

344In chapter 2 I have presented overwhelming evidence of this fact. Here I will summarize that the distribution of the Lord’s Table was connected to church officers (Gen. 14:18; Ex. 12:21-24; Lev. 23:10-11,14,20; Numb. 3:8-13; 18:7-8; Deut. 12:18; 18:5-8; 2 Chron. 29:34; 30:15-17,21-22; 31:14-16,19; 35:10-15; Neh. 13:13; Matt. 16:19; cf. Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) and lay people were cut off from the congregation if they had the sacrament on their own (Deut. 12:14,17-19,26-28; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2,15-16) or if they ate unworthily (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20-21,25). See chapter 2, footnote 34 for more Scripture proof.↩

345This can be seen in many passages like Lev. 7:11-21; 17:1-16; 19:5-8; etc.↩

346“This, then, is the true knowledge of Christ, if we receive him as he is offered by the Father: namely, clothed with his gospel” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.2.6, trans. F. L. Battles, LCC 20:548).↩

347Kenneth Barker (ed.), The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 1746.↩

348Anthony C. Thiselton, First Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006), 158.↩

349Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 759.↩

350G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.) Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 727.↩

351Tim Gallant says, “If readers are willing to grant what Reformed theology has always granted, and which surely is the implication of our study so far — namely, that the children are believers, are genuine members of Christ and His Church — then, this passage is of monumental significance. For Paul here makes the body of Christ and the table of the Lord coextensive. In other words, those who are members of Christ have access to the Lord’s Supper. Those who partake of Christ partake of the bread, and vice versa, for one is a sign of the other,” (Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002), 33).↩

352Ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα, οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν· οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.↩

353Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 190. The full quote is as follows:

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. Many distinguished commentators, however, prefer the following interpretation. “For we, though many, are one bread (and) one body.” The participation of the same loaf makes us one bread, and the joint participation of Christ’s body makes us one body. This is, to say the least, an unusual and harsh figure. Believers are never said to be one bread; and to make the ground of comparison the fact that the loaf is the joint product of many grains of wheat is very remote. And to say that we are literally one bread, because by assimilation the bread passes into the composition of the bodies of all the communicants, is to make the apostle teach modern physiology.

In the word κοινωνία, communion, as used in the preceding verse, lies the idea of joint participation. “The bread which we break is a joint participation of the body of Christ; because (ὅτι) it is one bread, so are we one body.” The thing to be proved is the union of all partakers of that one bread. Instead of connecting this verse with the 16th, as containing a confirmation of what is therein stated, many commentators take it as an independent sentence introducing a passing remark. “The Lord’s supper brings us into communion with Christ. Because this is the case, we are one body and should act accordingly.” But this not only breaks the connection, but introduces what is not in the text. The idea is, “Partaking of the sacrament is a communion, because we the many all partake of one bread.”

↩

354For example, “if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all” (1 Cor. 14:24). He had already made the case that not all prophecy, so the “all” refers to all the prophets who are so gifted, not to every man, woman, and baby — especially since some of them were commanded to keep silence in the church. Same with 14:31 — all may prophesy one by one. He had clarified that prophets would prophesy, and a maximum of three in a service. ↩

355Several dictionaries say that 1 Corinthians 10:17 may be the one exception to the rule, but I follow Gordon Clark, who says, “However, if this is the only instance in Greek of an object of metecho being governed by ek, it is desirable to maintain the usual rule of the genitive minus any preposition and to seek some other explanation for the ek here” (Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1975), 160). He sees it as emphasizing the partitive genitive. But it would be just as easy to see it as modifying “the all” and being equivalent to the “the many.”↩

356Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 144.↩

357Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 1911), 214.↩

358Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 469.↩

359Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 195.↩

360Phillip Kayser, Glory and Coverings (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2018). See https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md for various formats on this and other books.↩

361See chapter 2, footnote 34 for an extended proof of this.↩

362See discussion of excommunication in chapter 5.↩

363The first Passover had provisions for “a lamb for a household” (Ex. 12:3-4), and later sacramental meals were to be participated in by “your and your household” (Deut. 14:26; cf. 15:20; etc.).↩

364For more on this concept, see Phillip Kayser, Universal Suffrage: A History and Analysis of Voting in the Church and Society (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2018).↩

365For example, Ezekiel 44:19 says, “When they go out to the outer court, to the outer court of the people, they shall take off their garments in which they have ministered, leave them in the holy chambers, and put on other garments; and in their holy garments they shall not sanctify the people.” 42:14 says, “When the priests enter them [the holy chambers], they shall not go out of the holy chamber into the outer court; but there they shall leave their garments in which they minister, for they are holy. They shall put on other garments; then they may approach that which is for the people.”↩

366This was because the Nazarite was completely separated from the people (Numb. 6:2). He could not drink the sacramental wine (Numb. 6:3) or participate in the sacramental peace offering at the tabernacle until his Nazarite vow was finished and his hair was cut off (Numb. 6:9-21). For more details on these and other issues related to head coverings and hair, see my book referenced in footnote 31.↩

367God calls for rejoicing at this meal over and over again in the Old Testament (Deut. 12:7,18; 14:26; 27:7; etc.). Likewise Acts 2:46 speaks of breaking bread with gladness.↩

368Charles Hodge, 1 Corinthians, Crossway Classic Commentaries (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1995), 197.↩

369John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 367.↩

370Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 2264.↩

371James Montgomery Boice, The Life of Moses: God’s First Deliverer of Israel (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2018), 247.↩

372S. H. Kellogg, “The Book of Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible: Genesis to Ruth, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 1, Expositor’s Bible (Hartford, CT: S.S. Scranton Co., 1903), 297.↩

373Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 891.↩

374Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 308.↩

375Virtually everyone agrees that many occurrences of this phrase, “all the congregation,” must refer to the “representatives” of Israel. For example, when the Sabbath-breaker was brought “to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation” (Numb. 15:33) for judgment, he was not being brought before all 4 million people, but before the judges. Three verses later when “all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died,” did “all the congregation” mean each-and-every one of the 4 million (including infants)? Obviously not. Even the the command, “Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel” (Numb. 1:2) ends up being a census of 603,550 fighting men who were 20 years old and above (Ex. 38:26; Numb. 1:46; 2:32). If the very counting of “all the congregation of the children of Israel” excluded women and children, then it is at least possible to exclude women and children if the context calls for it. When God mandates that they “gather all the congregation together at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” (Lev. 8:3), there is no way conceivable that all 4 million people could even see the door of the tabernacle, let alone be at the door. Just for perspective, 23 US states have populations under 4 million. Nebraska has less than 2 million. The context of these and several other examples show that it is representatives of all the people that are in view, not each-and-every citizen. Indeed, the vast majority of the 45 occurrences of this phrase completely exclude the each-and-every-person (including infants) meaning. Does that mean infants were excluded from the congregation? No. Their representatives act on their behalf.↩

376Possible uses of the individualistic/comprehensive meaning of “all the congregation of Israel” might include Exodus 16:1; 17:1; Numbers 16:3,22; 27:20, though even those verses could easily be interpreted with the corporate/representational meaning.↩

377The numbers are so high that many commentators sadly question the accuracy of the Bible. With a census of 603,550 fighting men who were 20 years old and above (Ex. 38:26; Numb. 1:46; 2:32), you would have a population of just under 2 million people if there was only an average of one child per man — a possible, but very unrealistic assumption. So most commentators state figures ranging from 2-3 million citizens with others making estimates as high as 6 million. My estimates that compare the census before and the census after the 40 years indicate that somewhere between 3-4 million left Egypt.↩

378For a fuller discussion on the controversies over this verse, see chapter 2. ↩

379John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, and Charles M. Mead, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Exodus, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 35.↩

380See chapter 4 for a refutation of the idea that children could partake in the womb through the placenta and after birth through the milk.↩

381Hartley, John E. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Accordance electronic ed., version 2.4. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).↩

382Ray Sutton goes so far as to deny that there are two sacraments:

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,” (Ray Sutton, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition, available at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf).

↩

383McComiskey, Thomas E. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Accordance electronic ed., version 2.4. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).↩

384Francis Nigel Lee, “Catechism for Converting Paedocommunionists,” http://www.dr-fnlee.org/catechism-for-converting-paedocommunionists/4/.↩

385Clines defines it as “watching, watch, vigil, kept in connection with Passover,” (Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Accordance electronic ed., version 3.4. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 201)).↩

386It might be thought that the analogy of a child receiving inheritance is flawed since an unbelieving child could receive an inheritance. But since a parent is a steward of both his children and of all that he has (implied also in Galatians 4:1), he must make sure that his inheritance will be used properly as God’s property for God’s kingdom. Thus, parents should always disinherit unbelieving sons or daughters. Otherwise, God’s property is no longer being properly stewarded. So Paul’s analogy does indeed hold. Only with faith do literal children or church children inherit full privileges.↩

387Calvin says, “if, then, any should wish to celebrate the passover together with the elect people, it was necessary that he should be circumcised, so as to attach himself to the true God; though God did not merely refer to the outward sign, but to the object, viz., that all who were circumcised should promise to study sincere piety… From the analogy between the Holy Supper and the Passover, this law remains in force now, viz., that no polluted or impure person should intrude himself at the Lord’s table, but that only the faithful should be received, after they have professed themselves to be followers of Christ. And this is expressed also in the words, “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger,” &c., ver. 49…” (John Calvin and Charles William Bingham, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 466–467).↩

388For example, Fretheim says, “This is not a new level of exclusivism but a recognition that passover is a festival for persons who have faith in this God. These others are invited to join that community by being circumcised, a sign that they have made the confession of this ‘congregation’ their own. The experience of freedom is hereby integrated with the confession of faith in the God who liberates. Exodus and passover must be kept inextricably together if the reality of redemption is to be kept alive in the community” (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), 143).↩

389David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 66.↩

390Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 308. Likewise, Motyer says, “A non-Israelite had a personal decision to make, whether to remain as a ‘resident alien’ pure and simple or personally to embrace Yahweh and his promises.” Alec Motyer, The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage, ed. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), 148.↩

391Synecdoche is a literary device in which a part of something represents the whole. Thus, “all hands on deck,” uses “hands” as a synecdoche for workers. Scripture uses many synecdoches. A “gray beard” refers to an old man, as does a “hoary head.” “Give us this day our daily bread” refers to all provisions needed.↩

392Note that 318 slaves were born into Abraham’s house (Gen. 14:14).↩

393Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 112.↩

394In the future I will be demonstrating the axioms of every discipline on BiblicalBlueprints.com, and as funds are available, I hope to network with scholars around the world for developing an explicitly biblical curriculum for every discipline. Though it is currently not available to the public, this is the Great Axioms Project. ↩

395(A fallacy of affirming the consequent rewords this saying, If p, then q. q. Therefore p.)↩

396(A fallacy of denying the antecedent rewords this poorly saying, If p, then q. Not p. Therefore, not q.)↩

397This can also be seen from the following facts:

1. Not all who profess to be believers have the “right to eat” from the Lord’s Table (Heb. 13:10). Note that this “altar” (θυσιαστήριον) and the officers who serve at it are connected to church elders in 1 Cor. 9:13-14; 10:17-18; Rev. 6:9; 8:3-5; 9:13; 14:18. In chapter 2 we saw several examples in Revelation 2-3 of Christ denying certain members the right to the table. For example, in Revelation 2:7 Jesus says, “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.” Since the officers of the church are stars on Christ’s hand (Rev. 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.
2. The fact that in the Old Testament, it was the “elders” (Ex. 12:21) and Levites who “had charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs…” (2 Chron. 30:17) and who “roasted the Passover offering with fire according to the ordinance… and divided them [the sacramental elements] quickly among all the lay people” (2 Chron. 35:13; etc.). Likewise, in the New Testament the “keys of the kingdom” (that open and close access to the church via baptism and communion) were given to church officers (Matt. 16:19; cf Luke 22:15-30; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Thus it is not surprising that the overwhelming evidence is that the distribution of the Lord’s Table was connected to church officers (Gen. 14:18; Ex. 12:21-24; Lev. 23:10-11,14,20; Numb 3:8-13; 18:7,8; Deut. 12:18; 18:5-8; 2 Chron. 29:34; 30:15-17,21-22; 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) and lay people were cut off from the congregation if they had the sacrament on their own (Deut. 12:14,17-19,26-28; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2,15,16) or if they ate unworthily (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20,21,25). The following Scriptures show the authority that officers have over the Lord’s Table: “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… And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance.’” (Ex. 12:21-24 — note that the “you” throughout refers to the elders.); “So the service was prepared, and the priests stood in their places, and the Levites in their divisions… they slaughtered the Passover offerings… they roasted the Passover offerings with fire according to the ordinance; but the other holy offerings they boiled in pots, in caldrons, and in pans, and divided them quickly among all the lay people…” (2 Chron. 35:10,11,13); “Therefore you and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for everything at the altar…” (Numb. 18:7); “…I Myself have also given you charge of My heave offerings, all the holy gifts of the children of Israel…” (Numb. 18:8); “…therefore the Levites had the charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone …” (2 Chron. 30:17); “…Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.” (Numb. 31:30); “…Levite…to distribute the offerings of the LORD and the most holy things.” (2 Chron. 31:14); “…the priests, to distribute…” (2 Chron. 31:15; cf. 31:19); “…they were considered faithful, and their task was to distribute to their brethren.” (Neh. 13:13); “I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:29-30); “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today – every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes – …you may not eat within your gates…But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses…Take heed to yourself that you do not forsake the Levite…” (Deut. 12:17-19); “Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name… You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you; but at the places where the LORD your God chooses to make His name…” (Deut. 16:2,5-6); “For the LORD your God has chosen him [the Levite] out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons forever.” (Deut. 18:5); “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom…” (Matt 16:19); “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right [ἐξουσίαν, or authority] to eat.” (Heb. 13:10)
3. Is it legitimate to connect Levitical jurisdiction over the Lord’s Table with elder jurisdiction over the Lord’s Table in the New Testament? Yes. 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). 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 offices. This makes sense since Christ established the church as the remnant of Israel (Luke 22:24-30), 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), the Gentiles are grafted into Israel when they are saved (Eph. 2:12-13,19-22; Rom. 11:17-24), 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).
4. See chapter 2, footnote 34 which shows that even the admission of young children is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the elders.

↩

398For example, Genesis 46:27 says, “All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy.” His house (בית) included several nuclear families. Though there was a “leader of the fathers’ house of the families of Merari,” the context indicates that it included nuclear families.↩

399That discipline does indeed take place in all four of these courts can be seen by the following Scriptures:

1. Session — Adding and subtracting from the membership rolls (Matt 18:15-20; Rom. 14:1; 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:7,11; 2 Cor. 2:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; 3:6; Tit. 1:10-13; Tit. 2:15; 1 Thes. 5:12; Heb. 13:17; James 5:19-20; etc.) constitute the exercise of the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19 with Matt. 18:18). For misuse of this see 3 John 9-12; John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.
2. Presbytery — 1 Tim. 5:19-20; 2 Cor. 3:1; 12:11; 16:3; 1 John 2:18-19; Rev. 2:2; Speaking to the presbytery of Ephesus, John says, “…you have tried those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars…” (Rev. 2:2); Speaking of heretical ministers who were cast out of the church, John says, “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). It is presbyteries that have the jurisdiction to admit ministers (1 Tim. 4:14) and to depose ministers (3 John 10).
3. General Assembly (or Synod) in a nation — Galatians 2:11-21; cf the Synodical letter of Revelation demanding that discipline take place within the presbyteries (Rev. 2:5,14-16) or suffer Christ’s discipline against the entire presbytery: “Nevertheless I have this against you…” (2:4); “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place — unless you repent.” (2:5); “But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.” (Rev. 2:14-16); cf also 2:20-23, 25; 3:3,15-19. It is the General Assembly (sometimes called Synod) that has the authority to eject entire presbyteries in the name of Christ and by His authority.
4. Worldwide Ecumenical Councils — Acts 15:24-28; Gal. 2:1-10

↩

400D. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887), 155-156.↩