The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part One)⤒🔗

During the course of our examination of the Old Testament evidence for the practice of admitting children to the Lord’s Table, we had occasion to observe that the ultimate norm for the practice of the new covenant community of faith must be the teaching of the New Testament. Though it is common among advocates of paedocommunion to rest a large part of their case upon the analogy with the Old Testament Passover, this tends to create a presumption for paedocommunion that predetermines the way the testimony of the New Testament is interpreted.

As we take up the relevant evidence that can be derived from the New Testament, we do so from the conviction that the norm for the confession and practice of the church, particularly as it relates to the question of the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, must be based upon a careful study of the New Testament passages that address this sacrament. Since the Lord’s Supper is a new covenant ordinance, which Christ himself instituted for the purpose of commemorating and proclaiming His saving death upon the cross, our understanding of its spiritual meaning and proper recipients should be based primarily upon New Testament teaching. This is a rule of interpretation that needs to be honored in any evaluation of the arguments for or against the practice of admitting children to the Lord’s Table.    

Just as is the case with the Old Testament evidence, the New Testament does not speak as directly as we might prefer to the issue of the participation of children of believing parents in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, one of the remarkable features of the New Testament’s teaching is that it does not provide a great deal of information that is specifically addressed to who ought to partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Though the New Testament offers some important testimony regarding the institution and meaning of the sacrament, it does not expressly address the question of paedocommunion in the form in which it is often raised by its contemporary advocates. Our procedure in considering this evidence, therefore, will have to begin with an identification of some of the basic themes of New Testament teaching. Only after we identify these themes will we be in a position to ask about their implications for the particular question of the propriety of children being admitted to the Table of the Lord.

Our review of the New Testament evidence will begin with a short, introductory survey of the most important passages that address the subject of the Lord’s Supper. Among these passages, we will see that those passages that describe the institution of the sacrament are of particular importance. In our treatment of this evidence, we will also give special attention to the question whether the Lord’s Supper is primarily to be viewed as a new covenant fulfillment of the old covenant Passover, or whether it differs in important respects from this Old Testament observance. Since the argument from the alleged analogy between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is such a prominent feature of the paedocommunionist argument, any evidence of a significant difference between these two rites is relevant to evaluating this argument.

After considering these general features of the New Testament evidence that bears upon the question of paedocommunion, we will treat two passages that are of special importance to the question of the proper recipients of the sacrament. The first and less important of these passages, John 6, is often overlooked in discussions of the subject of paedocommunion. However, since this passage describes in some detail what it is to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, it has significant implications for the question of what it means to sacramentally receive and participate in the body and blood of Christ. The second of these passages, 1 Corinthians 11, is the most important and extensive New Testament passage that addresses the manner in which believers should partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Since this passage has often been a linchpin in the historic argument against the permissibility of admitting non-professing members of the new covenant community to the Table of the Lord, it will occupy an especially prominent part of our treatment of the New Testament evidence.

An Introductory Survey of the Types of New Testament Evidence←↰⤒🔗

In order to ensure that our consideration of the New Testament evidence is complete, it may be helpful to begin by identifying all of the passages that have a bearing upon a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper and its recipients. A survey of the New Testament passages that address the subject of the Lord’s Supper indicates that they are relatively easy to identify and place in distinct categories. For our purpose, we will treat these passages as belonging to four distinct kinds.

The first kind of passages includes the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Each of the Gospel writers records the event of the institution of the sacrament on the night in which Christ was betrayed, shortly before His crucifixion and death. These accounts are found in Matthew 26:20–30, Mark 14:17–26, and Luke 22:14–23. In addition to these passages in the Gospels, the apostle Paul provides an extensive statement of the institution of the Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23ff., a passage that deserves to be placed in a category by itself.

In addition to the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, there is a second kind of New Testament passage that refers or alludes generally to the new covenant community’s celebration of the Lord’ Supper. These passages do not tell us a great deal about the nature of the sacrament, but they do confirm its importance as a regular feature of the life and ministry of the church. In Luke – Acts, there are two passages that may describe examples of the new covenant community’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The first of these is the account in Luke 24:30, 31, which describes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to the two men on the road to Emmaus.

According to Luke, when he reached the home of these men, Jesus shared a meal with them, during which He “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them” (v. 30). Though this meal did not occur as part of an official, public church service, some commentators argue that Luke’s use of the same language for the institution of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Luke 22:19) suggests that this was a kind of celebration of the sacrament. Luke also notes that, after receiving the bread and sharing the meal, the two men “recognized” the risen Lord. Another of these passages may be the description of the early church in Jerusalem, which Luke provides in Acts 2:42 (cf. also Acts 20:7): “And they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The phrase in this description, “the breaking of bread,” may also be an allusion to the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the part of believers in Jerusalem. If this passage describes the celebration of this sacrament, it is noteworthy that those who participated are expressly described as those who “received” the Word preached by the apostle Peter and the other apostles. Participation in the sacramental meal is clearly placed in the context of an active reception of and continuance in the teaching of the apostles.

In addition to these possible allusions to the celebration of the sacrament, there are two passage in the book of Revelation that likely refer to the sharing of this meal (cf. Rev. 3:20; 19:1–8). In the first of these passages, Christ appears to allude to the Supper as a means of fellowship with Himself, when He warns the church in Laodicea that its lukewarmness and self-satisfaction may require the discipline of the withdrawal of table fellowship. The second passage speaks of “the marriage feast of the Lamb,” which will be the eschatological fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper as a meal of remembrance and hope for a future, more immediate fellowship with Christ at His return.

Though none of these first two kinds of passages addresses directly who may rightly receive the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament, there are two New Testament passages that do speak more directly to this question. For our purpose, these two passages constitute the third and fourth kinds of New Testament texts. The first of these passages is the extended discourse in John 6, which describes what it means to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Although this passage does not explicitly speak of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it is has traditionally been regarded as the passage in the Gospel of John that alludes to the sacrament and its spiritual significance. Because this passage provides a general account of what it means to participate by faith in Christ, it has implications for any sacramental participation in Christ and His saving work.

The second of these passages is 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 (in the context of 1 Cor. 10:14–22), which offers the most extended New Testament discussion of the meaning of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and what is required of those who participate in Christ by means of the sacramental bread and wine. Since this passage has always played a principal role in the biblical argument for only admitting professing believers to the Lord’s Supper, it constitutes the most important piece of New Testament evidence that is relevant to the debate regarding paedocommunion.

This brief survey of the New Testament passages that address the subject of the Lord’s Supper illustrates the relative paucity of evidence for determining who are properly to be admitted to the sacrament. Though we shall see that there are several implications in these passages for the issue of who should be received at the Table of the Lord, an answer to the specific question posed by advocates of paedocommunion is not explicitly provided in any of these passages. As we consider these passages and their implications for the question of paedocommunion, it will become evident that a final resolution of the debate can only be achieved upon the basis of an argument that considers general features of the New Testament doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and its relation to the Word of the gospel.

In next month’s article, we will begin our examination of the New Testament evidence by considering what we can learn about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and its proper reception from the Gospel accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In subsequent articles, we will take up the question of the Lord’s Supper and its relation to the Old Testament Passover, as well as the important testimony of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 regarding the manner in which believers should sacramentally participate in Christ’s body and blood.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 2)←⤒🔗

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper: Some Observations←↰⤒🔗

The accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels are of particular importance to our understanding of the sacrament. Though there are several slight differences in the respective Gospel accounts, these differences do not materially affect our understanding of the sacrament’ institution, constituent elements, or manner of administration. A brief examination of these passages in the Synoptic Gospels will allow us to form a general understanding of the nature and significance of the sacrament. Although they do not directly address the question whether children should participate, they do reflect an understanding of the sacrament that may be suggestive as to how this question should be answered. For our purpose, it will be sufficient to quote and take as a point of reference the account in Luke 22:14–22, which is perhaps the most complete of the Gospel accounts of the institution of the Supper:

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

There are several observations that may be made on the basis of this account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

First, the occasion for the institution of this sacrament was undoubtedly Christ’s meal with His disciples, which was part of their celebration of the first day of the Passover feast (cf. Matt. 26:17). We will evaluate the significance of this connection between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover below, but it cannot be denied that the historical setting for the initiation of this sacrament was the annual celebration of the Passover. Whether this occasion has the significance and implications for the subject of paedocommunion that is often alleged remains to be seen. However, there is an undeniable historical link between the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Lord’s Supper.

Second, the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper clearly shows that this sacrament enjoys the kind of divine authorization that is a necessary prerequisite for the existence of a sacrament. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers insisted that Christ only instituted two sacraments for the new covenant community, the church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The church does not have the power on its own to institute a sacrament. In the case of the Lord’s Supper, the biblical testimony to Christ’s appointment of the sacrament is incontestable. The Gospel accounts of this institution explicitly identify the historical occasion and setting for the appointment of this sacrament as an integral part of the life and ministry of the church of Jesus Christ.

Third, if a sacrament is a “visible sign of an invisible grace,” to use an ancient definition of the church that goes back at least to the time of Augustine, the Lord’s Supper clearly qualifies as a sacrament. In His words of institution, the Lord consecrates the bread and wine as visible signs or tokens of His body and blood. Without going into the intricacies of historic church debates about the relation between the sign and the thing signified, it is enough for our purpose to acknowledge the obvious fact that Christ appointed the bread and the sign to be representative of Himself, particularly of His body given and His blood shed for the sake of His people. Unlike many of the rites of the Roman Catholic Church that are regarded as sacraments but do not have clear Scriptural warrant to confirm that they are divinely authored, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was incontestably instituted by Christ Himself.

Fourth, the language Christ uses in the institution of the Lord’s Supper suggests that the sacrament is to be a regular part of the worship of the church and a means of communion with the crucified and risen Lord. Until Christ comes again and His disciples eat and drink with Him in the kingdom of God, the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated in remembrance of His atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. Even though the words of institution do not specify the precise frequency of the celebration of the sacrament, they unmistakably warrant the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper will differ from Christian baptism in this respect. Whereas baptism is, in the nature of the case, a sacrament of initiation or incorporation that is administered but once, the Lord’s Supper is to be regularly celebrated in the context of Christian worship and the ministry of the Word of God until Christ comes again. For this reason, when the apostle Paul quotes the Lord’s words of institution, he includes the language, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25; emphasis mine). The obvious implication of this language is that the Lord’s Supper is to be frequently celebrated by the church in remembrance of Christ’s death and in anticipation of His return.

And fifth, the words of institution place those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper under the obligation to take or receive the sacramental elements, and to do so “in remembrance” of Christ. Participation in the Lord’s Supper occurs in response to a command, “do this,” and calls accordingly for a responsible engagement on the part of those who take and eat the bread and drink the wine. The act of taking or receiving the sacramental signs and tokens of Christ’s body and blood is to be performed as a means of remembering and believing that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. In this respect, the communicant’s reception of Christ through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is different from the way the sacrament of baptism is received.

Though the language is not altogether satisfactory, the Lord’s Supper requires the active participation of its recipient in a way that is not required of the recipient of baptism, who in a manner of speaking is the passive recipient of the sacramental sign and seal of the gospel promise. The requirement of an active, believing reception of the sacrament is particularly significant for the question of whether children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. It would be premature and unwarranted to argue at this point that this feature of the sacrament’s institution forbids the practice of admitting children to the Lord’s Table. But it does indicate that the church’s practice should conform to the principle that those who participate in the sacrament are to do so in active and responsible obedience to the Lord’s command to “do this in remembrance of Him.”    

General Allusions to the Sacrament’s Importance←↰⤒🔗

As noted earlier, some passages allude generally to the importance of the Lord’s Supper and its regular celebration by the new covenant community. Two passages in Luke and Acts may describe such celebrations.

The first of these is the account in Luke 24:30–31, which describes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to two men on the road to Emmaus. According to Luke, when He reached the home of these men, Jesus shared a meal with them, during which He “took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them” (v. 30). Though this meal did not occur as part of an official, public church service, some commentators argue that Luke’s use of the same language for the institution of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Luke 22:19) suggests that this was a kind of celebration of the sacrament.[4] Luke also notes that, after receiving the bread and sharing the meal, the two men “knew” the risen Lord.[5] Another passage that may be an account of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is found in Acts: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42; cf. Acts 20:7). The reference to “breaking of bread” in this verse may be an allusion to the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the part of believers in Jerusalem. If this passage describes the celebration of this sacrament, it is noteworthy that those who participated are expressly described as receiving the Word preached by Peter and the other apostles.

Participation in the sacramental meal is clearly placed in the context of an active reception of and continuance in the teaching of the apostles.

In addition to these possible allusions to the celebration of the sacrament, two passages in the book of Revelation likely refer to the sharing of this meal: Revelation 3:20 and 19:1–9. In the first of these passages, Christ appears to refer to the Supper as a means of fellowship with Him as He warns the church in Laodicea that its lukewarmness and self-satisfaction may require the discipline of withdrawal of table fellowship. The second passage speaks of “the marriage supper of the Lamb,” which will be the eschatological fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper.

In our introduction to the New Testament evidence for or against the practice of paedocommunion, we have seen that there is little explicit evidence in any of the relevant passages that speaks to this precise question. Though there is ample evidence to support a number of general emphases regarding the nature and purpose of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the passages we have considered thus far do not elaborate upon who may participate. However, there are several aspects of the New Testament’s teaching that remain to be considered, and that do have implications for our understanding of the sacrament and its proper reception. These aspects of New Testament teaching, which we will treat in subsequent articles, include some indications of differences between the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Lord’s Supper, as well as key passages like John 6 and 1 Corinthians.

It would be improper, therefore, to conclude at this point that the practice of paedocommunion has to be determined by a broad appeal to Old Testament precedents or the simple fact that children of believing parents belong to the new covenant community, as they did formerly in the old covenant. We will see in our forthcoming articles that there are good biblical reasons to uphold the historic practice of the Reformed churches, which require that those admitted to the Table of the Lord profess their faith prior to doing so.

Despite the apparent absence of any explicit New Testament evidence that would clearly favor or oppose the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper, there are, even in the passages we have considered thus far, some hints that favor the historic view of the Reformed churches. In those passages that describe the early church’s celebration of the sacrament or make apparent allusions to its celebration, it seems that those who participated in the Lord’s Supper were believers who had responded or were responding properly to the gospel Word that had come to them (cf. Luke 24:30-31; Acts 2:42). Likewise, the privilege of enjoying a reception at the Lord’s Supper is granted only to those whose Christian profession and conduct meet with the Lord’s approval (cf. Rev. 3:20). In the most important evidence that we have considered thus far, the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, it seems evident that Christ commands those who receive the sacramental signs of His body and blood do so in active, believing appropriation of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins on the basis of His atoning sacrifice. Nothing in this evidence argues for the admission of non-professing children to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The only argument for such admission that presents itself would have to go to Old Testament precedents and the presumption of a continuation in its practice in the context of the new covenant. At the very least, the evidence we have considered coheres well with the practice of admitting to the Table of the Lord those who have publicly attested their believing response to the gospel of Christ and Him crucified.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 3)←⤒🔗

In our introduction to the New Testament evidence that might have a bearing upon the question whether children of believing parents should be admitted to the Lord’s Table, we observed that this question is not directly addressed in any passage. Whatever conclusions we draw from the New Testament regarding paedocommunion, they will have to be derived from general biblical themes that describe the nature of the sacrament and the manner in which it is to be received. Since 1 Corinthians 11 is the one passage that extensively deals with the proper reception of the sacrament, it is the most important piece of New Testament evidence that has implications for the practice of paedocommunion. Accordingly, we will have to give this passage special attention in a forthcoming article.

Before treating 1 Corinthians 11, however, there are two distinct pieces of New Testament evidence that will be the focus of this and a subsequent article. The first of these is the New Testament teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper in its similarity with as well as distinction from the Old Testament Passover. The subject of the relation between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is an especially important one, since the argument of paedocommunionists depends almost entirely upon the alleged Old Testament precedent of children participating in the Passover as a household rite in Israel. If there are significant dissimilarities between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, a principal leg under the paedocommunionist argument may prove to be too weak to support the weight placed upon it. The second of these pieces of evidence is the teaching of John 6. Since this passage speaks directly to what it means to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, it has implications for the question of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ that occurs by means of the Lord’s Supper. Though often overlooked in debates regarding the subject of paedocommunion, this passage is a significant piece of New Testament evidence for the manner in which Christ is to be received by His people.

The Passover and the Lord’s Supper: Similarities and Differences←↰⤒🔗

In its basic form, the argument of many paedocommunionists is easily stated. If all children (with the exception of unweaned infants) in the old covenant participated fully in the Passover meal, and if the Lord’s Supper is a new covenant form of the old covenant Passover, then it follows that children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Any refusal to admit children to the Lord’s Supper is tantamount to a denial of the continuity within the covenant of grace in its old and newer administrations. Such a refusal spiritually impoverishes the children of believing parents and is incompatible with the greater fullness of the new covenant administration. When children are not received at the Table of the Lord, their participation in Christ is compromised and their status as members of the covenant community through baptism is called into question. In order to assess the force of this argument, we need to consider whether its premise, that the Lord’s Supper is a kind of new covenant Passover, is valid.

The apparent plausibility of this premise stems from what we have already acknowledged regarding the occasion for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In the Gospel accounts of Christ’s institution of the Supper, we are told that it occurred “on the first day of Unleavened Bread” (Matt. 22:17; par. Mark 14:12). The meal Christ ate with His disciples on the night He was betrayed took place in the context of the annual celebration of the Passover feast. In the accounts of the institution in Mark and Luke, the Gospel writers note that this meal was eaten on the “first day” of the feast, “when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). On the basis of these Gospel accounts, it is traditionally believed that the elements that Christ consecrated as signs of His body and blood, the bread and the wine, were elements of the Passover meal. The Lord’s Supper, therefore, has clear connections with the Passover, not only in terms of the occasion for its institution but also in terms of the elements that are constitutive of its sacramental character.

I use the language “traditionally” at this point, because there are some interpreters of the New Testament accounts of the last supper who argue that it did not actually occur on the night the Passover was celebrated. For example, Paul Letham appeals to John 18:28 (cf. John 19:14,31), which suggests that the Passover was eaten on the day after Christ’s betrayal, to argue that the Lord’s Supper was not instituted on the day of the Passover meal. On this construction, the meal Christ shared with His disciples on the night of His betrayal was not the traditional Passover meal and, therefore, there is no direct historical link between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. In his comments on this apparent discrepancy, John Calvin suggests a different construction, namely, that the “day of preparation” was the traditional day in the Jewish calendar on which preparations were made for the celebration of Passover on the Sabbath day of the Passover week (cf. John 19:14). On Calvin’s view, the meal Christ celebrated with His disciples was the Passover meal, though it occurred on Thursday evening (14 Nisan in the Jewish calendar) before the official date of the Passover meal on the Sabbath in the traditional Jewish calendar. The problem with these constructions, however, is that the Gospel accounts clearly teach that Jesus’ meal with His disciples occurred on the day when the Passover lambs were traditionally slaughtered (Mark 14:12; Matt. 27:62).

A simpler and likelier explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptic accounts and the Gospel of John is represented in the New International Version’s translation of John 19:14: “It was the day of Preparation of Passover week, about the sixth hour.” This translation is based upon two instances of traditional language usage in this verse. First, the term used for “preparation” had a technical meaning in the first century A.D., and referred to Friday as the day of preparation for the Sabbath. And second, the term used for “of the Passover” also had come to refer to the entirety of the Passover week as the period during which the feast of Unleavened Bread was kept. The language of John 19:14, therefore, should probably be rendered as “Friday of Passover Week.” On this understanding, the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the occasion of the Passover meal, which was itself part of the celebration of the week of the Passover feast. Admittedly, there are some difficulties and differences of opinion regarding how John’s references to the time of Jesus’ betrayal and death prior to the Passover can be squared with the clear testimony of the Gospel accounts. Nevertheless, it seems undeniable that the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the setting of a celebration of the Passover meal.

Though it is clear that the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the context of the celebration of the Passover, the similarities between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover should not be overstated on this account. Though both rites involve fellowship meals that commemorate an important event in redemptive history, there are several important differences between them. When these differences are borne in mind, it is not correct to view the Lord’s Supper as a kind of new covenant Passover, as many paedocommunionists are inclined to do.

The first important dissimilarity between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is evident from Christ’s words of institution. When Christ consecrated the cup as a token of His blood shed upon the cross, He declared “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; par. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). This language is derived from Exodus 24:1–11, which provides an account of the covenant fellowship meal that was eaten by Moses, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel on the top of Mount Sinai. Rather than connecting the meaning of the elements of the Lord’s Supper with the celebration of the Passover meal, Christ connects it directly with the covenant renewal ceremony of Exodus 24, a ceremony that was itself reminiscent of the way the Lord had confirmed His covenant with Abraham (cf. Gen. 15:7ff.).

In each of these Old Testament antecedents of the Lord’s Supper, the covenant between the Lord and His people is confirmed by a ceremony of blood-letting that signifies the solemn bond between them. Not only does the Lord bind Himself to keep the covenant by means of a kind of “self-maledictory oath,” but He also reminds His people that covenant disobedience will require a blood atonement for the sins of the people. Though there is a great deal more that can be said about the meaning of these Old Testament antecedents for the Lord’s Supper, the point to notice is that Christ’s words of institution do not connect the Supper with the Passover, but with the covenant renewal meal that Moses and the elders of Israel celebrated on Mount Sinai. Unlike the Passover meal, which was originally a household observance in Israel, the meal that constitutes the most important Old Testament antecedent for the Lord’s Supper was shared only by Moses and the twenty-four elders of Israel.

The second important dissimilarity between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is already implied in the first. Whereas the Passover was an old covenant observance that commemorated the event of the Exodus from Egypt, the Lord’s Supper is a new covenant observance that commemorates Christ’s sacrificial death, which is the fulfillment of all the types and ceremonies of the law, especially the sin and guilt offerings of the old covenant. It is certainly true that the Lord’s Supper fulfills the Passover. Christ is, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “our Passover lamb.” This fulfillment of the Passover certainly belongs to the fullness of the meaning of the death of Christ, which is commemorated and proclaimed by means of the Lord’s Supper. However, consistent with Christ’s own appeal to the Old Testament precedent of Exodus 24, the sacrifice for sin that Christ’s death represents is linked up in the New Testament with all of its Old Testament antecedents. When Christ institutes the Lord’s Supper, He does so in order that it might be a means of remembering and proclaiming Him and His atoning death upon the cross. In the New Testament’s understanding of Christ’s sacrificial death, it is not the Passover but the sacrifices that typify atonement for the guilt of sin that are most pertinent. As we noted in our earlier consideration of the Old Testament evidence regarding the participation of children in various covenant observances, the meals associated with the sacrifices that most typify the atoning death of Christ were not shared by the entire old covenant community. Though we may not appeal directly to these Old Testament restrictions to determine whether children should participate in the Lord’s Supper, we may conclude that there are no Old Testament precedents that are sufficient to determine whether this sacrament ought to be received by all members of the new covenant community, including the children of believing parents.

In addition to these two important dissimilarities between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, there are several lesser differences between them in terms of the manner in which they are to be kept. As we have seen, the Old Testament Passover was an annual observance, which required the participation of the male members of the covenant community (and, in traditional practice, only those males who were “sons of the commandment”). Furthermore, the observance of the Passover was to take place in a particular place where the Lord had placed His name. The Lord’s Supper, however, was instituted by Christ to be celebrated wherever His people gather as a fulfillment of the old covenant temple. When the new covenant community gathers, they gather as a sanctuary of God by His indwelling Spirit (cf. Eph. 2:22). Consequently, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in the new covenant in a different location than the Passover, and as a regular feature of the worship and ministry of the church. Furthermore, though the New Testament does not explicitly command the women of the new covenant community to participate, their participation is an evident implication of the New Testament’s teaching of their participation in Christ through faith (cf. Acts 2:42; Gal. 3:28). There are, accordingly, a number of striking differences between the manner of the administration of the Passover and of the Lord’s Supper. It is instructive to note also that one of the elements that was consecrated as an integral feature of the Lord’s Supper, the “cup of blessing,” was not a stipulated feature of the Passover according to the Old Testament legislation. Thus, an element of the Passover meal that had no divinely authorized part in its Old Testament institution, has become an essential element of the Lord’s Supper as it was ordained by Christ.    

Any evaluation of the common paedocommunionist appeal to the Old Testament Passover to argue for the admission of children of the Lord’s Supper, may not overlook these significant differences between the two rites. Though the Passover celebration was undoubtedly the setting within which the Lord instituted the sacrament of communion, there are too many substantial differences between the old and new covenant rites to allow any easy inferences from the one to the other. This holds true in particular for the question with which we are concerned. Our consideration of the similarities and differences between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper indicates that we need to look especially at the New Testament evidence, when it comes to the determination of the proper recipients of the new covenant sacrament. As we have previously noted, that New Testament evidence is provided for us principally in two places, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. It is simply impossible to establish the practice of paedocommunion on the basis of the alleged similarities between the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Lord’s Supper.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 4)←⤒🔗

In the course of our consideration of the New Testament evidence regarding paedocommunion, we have noted on several occasions that there are no passages that directly address the issue. For this reason, advocates of paedocommunion commonly appeal to the covenant status of children of believing parents to argue for their admission to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament of the new covenant. The principal biblical argument of paedocommunionists is the alleged analogy between the Old Testament Passover, which was a meal that included the participation of the young children of the household, and the New Testament Lord’s Supper. In these respects, the paedocommunion argument bears a striking resemblance to the common argument Reformed theologians have advanced for the practice of paedobaptism.

However, there are two passages in the New Testament that do speak rather directly to the general question of who may be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. The first of these, John 6, which we will treat in this article, does not often play a prominent role in contemporary discussions of the topic of paedo-communion. Despite the relative neglect of this passage, it constitutes an important piece of New Testament evidence, since it specifically addresses how believers partake of Christ’s body and blood. The second passage, 1 Corinthians 11, has always been regarded to be of special importance in determining who may receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In this passage, which we will treat in subsequent articles, we have the most extensive New Testament description of the manner in which believers are to participate sacramentally in the body and blood of Christ. The historic insistence of the Reformed churches that only professing members of the church be admitted to the Table of the Lord is largely based upon a particular reading of this passage.

Though John 6 may not appear at first glance to be an important passage for determining who may partake of the Lord’s Supper, there is a long tradition in the Christian church of treating this passage as the apostle John’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The strong language that Jesus employs in this passage to describe what it is to eat His body and drink His blood, has often been appealed to by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches as evidence for their understanding of the “real presence” of Christ in the Supper. It has also buttressed a sacramentalism that views the sacrament as a necessary and indispensable means of participation in Christ. Because this passage has been appealed to in support of a certain unbiblical views of the Supper, interpreters in the Reformed tradition have often shied away from associating the language of this passage with the sacrament.

Whatever the connection may be between John 6 and the Lord’s Supper, this passage is not often cited or treated as especially important in contemporary debates on the subject of paedocommunion, Our interest in the relevance of this passage to the topic of paedocommunion stems from the way it describes the believer’s participation in Christ’s body and blood. Whether John is expressly alluding to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or not, his account of Jesus’ discourse has significant implications for the way the body and blood of Christ are to be received. We will argue that this passage has important, albeit indirect, implications for our question whether the children of believers should be admitted to the Table of the Lord, which the Lord appointed as a sacramental means of participation in His body and blood.

John 6 and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper←↰⤒🔗

Before looking more closely at what John 6, especially verses 47-58, say about the manner in which believers participate in Christ, we need to pause to address the question whether this passage is the Gospel of John’s account of the Lord’s Supper. The obvious problem with this claim is that John 6 nowhere expressly speaks of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.       

Despite the absence of any express reference to the sacrament, those who read this passage as John’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper appeal to several features of the passage that allegedly allude to the sacrament. First, though the discourse of John 6 occurs prior to the period of Christ’s betrayal and death, the description of what it is to eat and drink Christ’s body and blood is recalled by the apostle John from the perspective of Christ’s ministry, including His death and resurrection, in its entirety. The discourse makes sense only within this broader context, which includes the institution of the sacrament whereby Christ’s body is eaten and His blood is drunk.

Second, this passage, like many other passages in the Gospel of John, represents Jesus making reference to a future occurrence, namely, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, even though His disciples at the time might not have fully understood all of its implications. Throughout the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus refers to His impending death though His disciples had no real understanding of what He was telling them.

Third, Jesus’ words in John 6 occur within the context of John’s account of Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand. In the account of this miracle, John describes how Jesus “took the loaves, and when He had given thanks, He distributed them to those who were seated” (v. 11). This language is very similar to the language used in the Gospel accounts of the last Supper (cf. Luke 22:19; Matt. 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23), and suggests a possible allusion to that event.

Fourth, at the end of John 6 (vv. 60-71), we read that many were offended by Jesus’ words and that Jesus responded by referring to Judas as the disciple who would betray Him. This reference to Judas’ betrayal parallels the Gospel accounts of the last Supper, which include Jesus identification of Judas as His betrayer.

And fifth, the language that describes what it is to “eat” Christ’s body and “drink” His blood is so reminiscent of a sacramental eating and drinking of Christ that it is difficult to deny the connection. For this reason, already in the earliest history of the church, this passage was traditionally associated with what transpires in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, it was often appealed to by those who opposed the church and accused its members of engaging in a form of cannibalism in their celebration of the sacrament.

Though these considerations seem to support the view that Jesus in John 6 is speaking, albeit obliquely, about the Lord’s Supper, they prove no more than that this discourse may have implications for our understanding of what it is sacramentally to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. There are two significant obstacles to connecting directly the discourse of John 6 with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. On the one hand, the occasion for the discourse is the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, and not the last supper, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. The arguments for a sacramental reading of John 6 are finally unable to answer satisfactorily the question why the historical occasion for the discourse is entirely different than the one on which the Synoptic Gospels record the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

On the other hand, the strong language of the discourse suggests that the eating and drinking that Jesus describes is an indispensable means for saving participation in His Person and work. If Christ’s discourse in John 6 directly refers to the kind of eating and drinking that only takes place in the sacrament, then a strong sacramentalism seems to be the inescapable implication. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, for example, a sacramentalist reading of John 6 is the basis for a view of the Eucharist that requires participation by all members of the church, including infants, in order for them to have communion with Christ. And in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, a Eucharistic reading of this passage has encouraged a simple identification of the sacramental elements, bread and wine, with the body and blood of Christ, and to a quasi-magical view of the way the sacrament communicates Christ whenever it is received.

In my judgment, John Calvin’s comments on this passage strike a fine balance on the question whether it is a description of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Commenting on Jesus’ words in verse 56, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him,” Calvin argues that it is plain that it is wrong to expound this whole passage as applying to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who come to the Lord’s holy Table are made partakers of His flesh and blood, all alike will obtain life. But we know that many of them fall into perdition. And indeed, it would have been inept and unseasonable to preach about the Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it. So it is certain that He is now treating of the perpetual eating of faith. At the same time, I confess that there is nothing said here that is not figured and actually presented to believers in the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, we might say that Christ intended the holy Supper to be a seal of this discourse. This is also the reason why John makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper. And therefore Augustine follows the proper order when, in expounding this chapter, he does not touch on the Lord’s Supper until he comes to the end. And then he shows that this mystery is represented in a symbol whenever the Churches celebrate the sacred Supper, in some places daily, in others only on the Lord’s day. (emphasis mine)

According to Calvin’s interpretation of this passage, it is not first of all about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it is a general discourse that describes what it means to eat and drink of Christ in the way of faith. When believers receive Christ by faith, they share in Him and obtain life by eating and drinking His body and blood. Since the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ is a sign and seal of the believer’s participation in Christ, it is one mode of such spiritual or believing participation in Christ. However, John 6 is not speaking or alluding to the sacrament, though it may warrant certain inferences regarding the sacrament and its reception.

As we shall see in our discussion below regarding the teaching of this discourse, it speaks broadly (and not specifically sacramentally) of what it is to participate by faith in Christ and share in the life He communicates to His people. This participation and sharing in Christ takes place when God the Father draws the elect into life-giving communion with Christ. That this life-giving communion may be nourished and strengthened by the instrumentality and use of the sacrament is undoubtedly true.

However, Christ speaks much more comprehensively in this discourse than a direct sacramental application requires. If the discourse were specifically about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it would seem to follow that the only way in which someone could have life in communion with Christ would be by means of a participation in Christ through the sacrament. We prefer, therefore, to read John 6 as a general description of what it means for believers to enjoy communion with Christ. However, as a general description of such communion, the passage has significant implications for the sacramental form of such communion.

The Occasion and Teaching of the Discourse←↰⤒🔗

The occasion for Christ’s discourse in John 6 is the account of Christ’s miraculous “sign” of feeding the five thousand (vv. 1-15). When a large crowd followed him to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus multiplied the five barley loaves and two fish of a young boy and fed those who had gathered. At the close of the meal, John reports that there were twelve baskets of bread left over (v. 13). Upon witnessing this “sign,” the people declared, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (v. 14).

In this context, Jesus commences to discourse at length about Himself as the bread of life, whom the Father has given in order to nourish and sustain His people (vv. 25-40). Recalling the event of the Lord’s feeding manna to His people Israel in their wilderness wandering under Moses, Christ declares Himself to be the fulfillment of this event: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes from heaven and gives life to the world” (vv. 32-33). Whereas the manna of the old covenant nourished Israel in the wilderness, Christ is the true bread from heaven whom the Father has given to nourish His people unto life eternal. All who come to Christ in faith will no longer hunger or thirst, since He is the true heavenly food and drink who grants the fullness of life to all who partake of Him (vv. 35). No one who comes and eats and drinks of Christ will be “cast out,” but the Father will draw them by faith and preserve them forever.

Before we consider the most striking portion of the discourse in John 6, it is important to note that Christ emphasizes the necessity of faith to a participation in the life that He alone is able to give. Some come to Him and eat and drink, others do not. Those who do not believe in Him, even though they have seen Him, have no part in the saving benefits of His person and work. Those who come to and have a part in Him only do so because the Father draws them.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (Verses 3740, emphasis mine)

These words are especially important to a proper understanding of the strong language that Christ uses subsequently to describe what it is to eat His body and drink His blood. Though it may be an inadequate way of expressing it, the eating and drinking of which Christ is speaking is peculiar to those whose reception of and participation in Christ is by faith. The Father who sent Christ to be the life-giving nourishment of the world, is the One who draws believers to come to Christ and share fully in the life that He imparts. The communion with and participation in Christ that is described in the discourse of John 6 is a spiritual, believing communion and participation. Those whom the Father does not draw into communion with Christ by Christ, have no part in Christ or the life that He imparts.

The heart of Jesus’ discourse in John 6 is given in verses 47-58. In this section of the discourse, Christ speaks in bold and unqualified terms of what it means to eat His body and drink His blood. Since this portion of the discourse is usually viewed as the most obvious allusion to what occurs in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, we will quote it in full before making any further comments.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

The language of this portion of Jesus’ discourse is strikingly provocative. The term used for His body is “flesh,” the same term that we find in the prologue of John’s Gospel, when he speaks of the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14). The verbs used to describe the believer’s participation in Christ’s body and blood are ones that could be used for physical chewing and swallowing. At one point in this section of the discourse, Jesus switches to a term for eating that not only calls attention to the acts of chewing and swallowing, but also to the sounds that accompany these acts. Throughout the discourse, the emphasis falls upon a real participation in Christ who is the Word become flesh, and who grants true life to all believers who genuinely eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is not surprising, therefore, that these words provoked the response from the crowd, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 53). For a Jewish audience, these words must have appeared to contradict the Old Testament prohibitions against the drinking of blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:23). The language employed at this point to describe the believer’s participation in Christ was also the occasion in the early church for the charge of “cannibalism” to be brought repeatedly against the Christian community by its opponents. It is not difficult to understand why the language of these verses has been the occasion for the development of a “realistic” view of a literal eating of Christ’s body and drinking of His blood, as in the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic traditions. Nor is it difficult to see how the unqualified language of these verses has given rise to a kind of sacramentalism, which views the sacramental participation of believers in Christ as indispensable to their participation in Christ and enjoyment of fellowship with the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since we have already discussed whether the discourse of John 6 refers to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, we will not revisit that question here. What is important to our purpose is that Christ clearly teaches the necessity and indispensability of a true communion in His body and blood, which were given for the life and salvation of His people. Only those who enjoy a true communion with the body and blood of Christ can obtain eternal life, enjoy fellowship with the Father who sent the Son, and benefit from all that was accomplished by the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Rather than attempting to explain the manner in which believers enjoy this true participation in the body and blood of Christ, the discourse simply describes the mystery of this life-communion in the boldest possible language.

The Implication of John 6 for the Question of Paedocommunion←↰⤒🔗

It was not our purpose by means of these comments on the discourse of John 6 to sort out all of the questions that pertain to what it means to eat Christ’s body and to drink His blood. Our interest is principally focused upon the question of the implications of the teaching of this discourse for the subject of paedocommunion. Since this passage describes the manner in which believers partake of Christ’s body and blood, it has significant for the manner in which this participation takes place by means of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. If the sacrament is a divinely-appointed means whereby its recipients enjoy a true participation in Christ’s body and blood, the description of the nature of any such participation, which is given to us in this discourse, is of particular significance for the question who may receive Christ sacramentally at the Table of the Lord.

The implication of this passage is expressed well in the language of the Belgic Confession, which declares that “the manner of our partaking [of Christ by means of the Lord’s Supper] is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith” (Article 35). Without specifically citing John 6 as a proof text, the Belgic Confession echoes the teaching of Jesus’ discourse, when it insists that “we … receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.” The point of these affirmations in the Belgic Confession is to emphasize that those who commune with and partake of Christ by means of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper do so by the mouth of faith. There is no communion with Christ apart from a believing appropriation of the gospel Word that declares Him to be the Word become flesh for us and for our salvation. Unless the Father grant a believing response to the gospel in the hearts and minds of believers, they will not be able to come to Christ to eat His body and drink His blood. The necessary prerequisite to any participation in Christ is this divinely-worked response of faith. If this holds true for any participation in Christ, it holds true for any sacramental participation in Him and His saving work.

Admittedly, John 6 does not speak directly to the question of paedocommunion. In our reading of the passage, we are not even prepared to concede that it speaks directly of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. But the general teaching of John 6 regarding how believers participate in Christ’s body and blood has a clear and compelling implication for any mode of communion with Christ, whether by means of the gospel Word or the sacrament that accompanies the Word. The church’s requirement that those who are admitted to the Table of the Lord confirm in a public manner that they are genuine believers is a legitimate application of the teaching of this passage. Without becoming sidetracked with questions about the precise age at which such faith may best be publicly attested, we can conclude in a preliminary fashion that the teaching of John 6 lends important support to the historic insistence of the churches that communicants at the Lord’s Table first profess their faith before they be admitted.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 5)←⤒🔗

The most important piece of New Testament evidence that bears upon the question of paedocommunion is undeniably 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. In this passage, the apostle Paul speaks at length about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, its institution by Christ, and the manner in which those who sacramentally partake of Christ are to come to the Table of the Lord. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most extensive and comprehensive New Testament passage on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. It is also the most compelling piece of testimony that addresses the issue of the proper recipients of the sacrament. As we noted in our introduction to a survey of the New Testament evidence on the subject of the Lord’s Supper, most of the pertinent passages refer either to the institution of the Lord’s Supper or its practice in the new covenant community. None of them, with the possible exception of John 6, a passage we considered in a previous article, has clear implications for determining who may be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

In comparison to the other New Testament evidence, therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 belongs in a category of its own. We have previously noted that, since the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of the new covenant that has no exact analogy in the old covenant, the teaching of the Scriptures of the new covenant must determine how it is administered and received. Because the Scriptures of the new covenant in Christ have priority in our determination of the practice of the new covenant community, this passage is of unparalleled importance for answering the question regarding the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper.

Before we consider the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 in detail, it will be helpful to begin with a brief summary of the historic Reformed and more recent paedocommunionist interpretations of this passage. Though there is the danger that this will prejudice our treatment of the passage, acquaintance with these widely divergent interpretations of the passage will provide a context for and background to our exposition in a subsequent article. We will begin with a summary of the historic Reformed reading of the passage, and then offer a summary of a more recent paedocommunionist reading.

The Historic Reformed Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34←↰⤒🔗

In the traditional understanding of this passage in the Reformed churches, the apostle Paul’s instructions regarding what it means to participate in the sacrament in an “unworthy” manner are viewed as normative for all members of the new covenant community. Though the occasion for Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is specific, the apostle seizes upon this occasion to set forth general guidelines or principles for the way any member of the church should partake sacramentally of the body and blood of the Lord. In the Corinthian church, some of the wealthier members were enjoying a private meal in connection with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but they excluded others from this meal who remained hungry (v. 21). In response to this problem, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the institution of the Lord’s Supper and what it requires of all who would partake in a worthy manner of the Lord’s body and blood. In his positive instructions regarding the manner in which the sacrament is to be received, he uses language that is general or universal in its implications. For example, in verse 27 he speaks of “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup ….” In verse 28, he enjoins all believers with the language, “let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” And again in verse 29, he says, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” This language clearly shows that Paul’s instructions regarding participation in the sacrament are intended to apply in a general way to all believers whenever they commune with Christ and each other by means of the sacrament.

In his general description of the proper manner in which the Supper is to be celebrated, the apostle Paul begins with an appeal to the Lord’s instructions that were issued at the time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. All who partake of the elements of bread and wine must do so “in remembrance” of Christ (vv. 24–25). When the sacrament is received in remembrance of Christ, believers are said thereby “to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26). According to the historic interpretation of these instructions, participation in the sacrament requires the kind of faith that is capable of remembering and proclaiming Christ’s death. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may not be received in a “witless” or uninformed manner by its recipients. It obliges those who participate to do so in the way of a believing appropriation of the gospel promise and teaching regarding Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross for his people. The traditional practice of the Reformed churches, which insists that the recipients of the sacrament confirm publicly the presence of the kind of faith that can meaningfully remember and proclaim Christ’s death, is simply an application of what is required by these words of institution.

The most important features of the traditional interpretation of this passage, however, are based upon the instructions of verses 27–29. In these verses, the apostle Paul begins by insisting that whoever participates in the Lord’s Supper is obliged to do so only after having engaged in a form of “self-examination.” Before believers receive the sacrament, they should examine themselves in the sense of “testing” whether their faith and conduct is in accord with their profession (v. 26). Though this requirement of selfexamination has been implemented in various ways throughout the history of the Reformed churches, it is generally understood to require that believers test themselves in terms of the normal requirements of a Christian profession.

After this reminder of the need for self-examination, the apostle Paul adds that all who partake of the sacrament must do so only as they properly “discern” the body of Christ (v. 29). Such discernment of the body of Christ includes an understanding of His atoning sacrifice, and the implications of this sacrifice for the conduct of believers in relation to Christ and others. In the historic Reformed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, these requirements for a proper reception of the sacrament provide a sufficient warrant for the insistence that all who come to the Lord’s Supper do so as “professing members” of the church who are in good standing. The seriousness of these requirements is only further confirmed by Paul’s teaching that God’s judgment was resting upon many believers in Corinth who were guilty of ignoring them (vv. 29–32).

Accordingly, when the Reformed confessions address the subject of what is required to participate in the Lord’s Supper, they interpret Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians to mean that believers must come to the Table in the way of faith. For example, the Belgic Confession echoes the instructions of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 in Article 25, which treats the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ: “we receive this sacrament in the assembly of the people of God, with humility and reverence, keeping up among us a holy remembrance of the faith and of the Christian religion. Therefore no one ought to come to the table without having previously rightly examined himself, lest by eating of this bread and drinking of this cup he eat and drink judgment to himself.”

Similar appeals to 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 are found in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 30, and the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 177. This understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, which is expressed in the confessional symbols of the Reformed churches, underlies the practice of requiring a public confirmation of faith prior to the admission of children to the Table of the Lord.

A Recent “Paedocommunion” Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34←↰⤒🔗

In spite of the long-standing consensus of the Reformed churches regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, recent advocates of paedocommunion have vigorously challenged it. According to a recent paedocommunionist interpretation of this passage, the refusal to admit the children of the covenant to the Lord’s Table fails to appreciate the real burden of the apostle Paul’s argument in this passage. On a paedocommunionist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, there are several significant errors in the traditional reading. The cumulative effect of these errors actually turns the tables on the older view.

Whereas this passage has been read traditionally to exclude nonprofessing members of the covenant community from admission to the Table, a careful reading of the passage will show that it commends the admission of all the members of the church, young and old alike. Indeed, the traditional restriction upon the participation of young children in the sacrament wrongly divides different segments of the covenant community (in this case, professing and non-professing members) in a manner that is reminiscent of the unwarranted divisions in the Corinthian church.

Paul’s strong rebuke of the Corinthian practice, which profaned the Table of the Lord as an expression of the unity of the body of Christ, may apply accordingly to the traditional practice of the churches, which excludes some members of the community from full participation in Christ.

In the paedocommunionist reading of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the particular occasion that prompted Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s Supper in this passage. The problem Paul addresses in this passage is not one of “orthodoxy” or right doctrine but of “orthopraxis” or proper conduct. The apostle does not rebuke the Corinthians for admitting “unworthy” participants to the Table of the Lord. Rather, he rebukes them for a practice that represented an ungodly pride and factionalism among segments of the congregation in Corinth. Some members of the congregation were enjoying their own private meals in conjunction with the sacrament, and in so doing humiliated poorer members of the congregation who were excluded from participation with them.

The offense that was present in the Corinthian congregation was one of factionalism or divisiveness within the one body of Christ. In the context of their celebration of the sacrament of communion, which represents the participation of all believers in Christ and their spiritual unity with each other, the Corinthians had turned the sacrament into an occasion for ungodly divisions among segments of the congregation. The sinful practice of the Corinthian church was an affront to the gospel of the union and communion of the whole covenant community, with all of its members, in the one body of Christ, which the sacrament of communion so powerfully attests. If we keep this occasion in mind, it will have a significant impact upon our reading of the passage.

In addition to an emphasis upon the particular occasion for Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, a paedocommunionist reading of the passage also maintains that the language of “remembrance” and “proclamation” in verses 24–26 need not exclude younger children of the covenant community. These terms do not describe a participation in the sacrament that requires an intellectual or knowledgeable apprehension of the gospel of Christ’s sacrifice of atonement on behalf of His people, as advocates of the traditional view claim.

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is itself an “act of remembrance” and a “visible proclamation” of the gospel of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. Just as young children of believing parents participated in Old Testament rites of remembrance, though their understanding of the meaning of these rites was negligible or quite limited, so the young children of believing parents today may participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Table as a rite of remembrance. According to advocates of paedocommunion, therefore, this language does not prevent even the youngest members of the covenant communion from participation in the sacrament.

Perhaps the most important leg in this paedocommunionist reading of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34:17–34, however, is its interpretation of the language of verses 27–29. Though these verses have been interpreted historically to exclude young children from participation in the sacrament, their teaching actually opposes a practice that would exclude them (or any other segment) of the covenant community from reception at the Lord’s Table. The Corinthians were “improperly” eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, because they were guilty of a failure to “examine” themselves in terms of their membership in the body of Christ, the church. By their divisive practice, which excluded some from participating in their “private feasts,” they failed to identify correctly who belonged to the community of Christ’s people.

When Paul speaks of the need to “discern the body” in verse 29, he has in mind the obligation to discern or properly recognize all who are members of the community of the church. The “body” to which Paul refers is not the body of Christ that was offered in sacrifice for the sins of His people, but the one church to whom all believers and their children belong. Paul’s concern is ecclesiological rather than soteriological; he is interested in a proper identification of who belongs to the body of the church, not a kind of informed understanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice as the basis for the forgiveness of sins. Because the Corinthians’ practice sinfully fractured the unity of the church, it violated the body of Christ and exhibited a failure to eat and drink in a worthy manner.

On this paedocommunionist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, the implications for the practice of paedocommunion are clear and startling. Nothing in the passage prevents young children from being admitted to the Table. Simply by their participation in the sacrament, children are able to remember and proclaim the death of Christ. They are also capable of being admitted to the Table as those who have properly examined themselves and discerned the body of the church (in the sense of knowing that they belong to the household of faith)

As we consider 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 in a subsequent article or articles, we shall have to keep these two divergent interpretations before us. Does this passage provide compelling support for the traditional practice of the churches, which insists upon a public profession of faith prior to the admission of believers to the Table of the Lord? Or does the more recent paedocommunionist reading of this passage provide a more likely interpretation of it? The historic and more recent paedocommunionist interpretations of this passage cannot both be true. It is actually rather remarkable how opposed they are. The one appeals to this passage to oppose the idea that young children, who have not professed the Christian faith, should be admitted to the Table of the Lord. The other appeals to this passage in order to prove that young children must be admitted to the sacrament. The importance of this passage and the divergence of interpretation regarding it, demand that we give it our most careful attention.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 6)←⤒🔗

At several points throughout our treatment of the biblical evidence that is relevant to the question of paedocommunion, we have noted that 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is the most important passage to consider. In the historic confessions of the Reformed churches, this passage is often adduced to prove that participation in the Lord’s Supper requires the presence of faith on the part of its recipients. Since it is the only biblical passage that directly treats the issue of what is required for a proper or worthy reception of Christ by means of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it has obvious significance for the question of paedocommunion. The historic view and practice of the Reformed churches, which insists upon a public profession of faith on the part of children of believing parents before they are admitted to the Table of the Lord, represents an application of the themes of this passage. For advocates of paedocommunion, therefore, this passage requires special attention, as it presents an apparently insurmountable obstacle to their insistence that covenant children be admitted to the sacrament without a prior attestation of their faith.

1 Corinthians 10:16–17←↰⤒🔗

Before we proceed to an exposition of this passage, however, we need to return for a moment to a passage that was briefly discussed in an earlier article in this series. This passage is 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. We need to consider this passage, since it is cited by some advocates of paedocommunion in support of the practice of admitting covenant children to the Table of the Lord. It is also regarded as a passage that sets a context and framework for the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, which takes up again the subject of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

In the judgment of some advocates of paedocommunion, 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 is a passage of particular significance, since it establishes a basic premise that undergirds the argument from covenant membership on the part of children to their reception at the Lord’s Table. That premise is that the Lord’s Supper represents in a most powerful way the unity and fellowship of the whole body of Christ, including all of its members. Speaking of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul declares: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In this passage, Paul sets forth a theme that runs like a thread throughout 1 Corinthians, the theme of the unity of Christ’s body and the full participation in him of all members of the covenant community. The Lord’s Supper, as this passage clearly shows, is a beautiful expression of the oneness of the body of Christ and the fellowship that obtains between all members of the church. This theme constitutes the background to Paul’s sobering rebuke to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11, where the apostle points out how their divisiveness in the way they celebrated the Lord’s Supper was a sin against Christ’s body, the church. For this reason, the judgment of the Lord had fallen upon some of them, just as the Lord’s judgment fell upon the disobedient Israelites in the days of Moses (1 Cor. 10:6–10).

The principle that the Lord’s Supper belongs to and expresses the oneness of the body of Christ, which is summarized in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, is not an isolated theme in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Already in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul has noted that the children of believers are “holy.” Furthermore, at the outset of 1 Corinthians 10, Paul describes how believers of the old covenant were “all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” “ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink,” and “drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (vv. 2–4). This description not only provides an Old Testament precedent for all members of the covenant community, including the children, having a part in Christ, but it also constitutes the setting for Paul’s emphasis upon the “fellowship” or “koinonia” that all members of the church have in Christ. The implications of this for the question of paedocommunion is clear, according to some paedocommunionists. Any participation in Christ by means of the Lord’s Supper that inappropriately divides the congregation into segments (rich and poor, adults and children), and excludes some from full participation in the body of Christ, falls under the apostle’s admonition of the Corinthians. The practice of excluding covenant children from participation in the Lord’s Supper strikes at the heart of what the sacrament means for the unity of Christ’s body.  

Though this appeal to 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 appears to support the paedocommunion case, I am not convinced that it is sufficient by itself to establish the paedocommunion position. It is true that the Lord’s Supper is a powerful witness to the unity of the church. The participation of believers in Christ, which the sacrament represents, has inescapable implications for the unity between all who are members of the body of Christ, the church. However, it seems rather premature to argue from the theme enunciated in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 to the claim that all covenant children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table, lest the oneness of the body of the church be compromised. After all, the paedocommunionist appeal to this passage in support of the admission of such children can only be sustained, if the particular teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 does not stand in opposition to it. If 1 Corinthians 11 teaches what the Reformed churches historically have understood it to teach, then the paedocommunionist appeal to 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 will prove to be premature and unwarranted. No matter how strongly 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 associates the Lord’s Supper with the theme of the oneness of Christ’s body, it still remains to be seen whether this demands the admission of all covenant children to the Table. Since 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is a passage in which the apostle Paul expressly addresses what is required for participation in the sacrament, it must retain its unique status as the single most decisive passage for determining whether such children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

However, there are two additional considerations that should be borne in mind in response to a paedocommunionist argument from the principle set forth in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. First, this passage does not warrant the inference that the membership of children in the covenant community is jeopardized, should the privilege of being admitted to the Lord’s Table be withheld from them for a period of time. It is instructive that the participation in Christ of which the apostle Paul speaks at the outset of 1 Corinthians 10, was inclusive of non-circumcised persons (and even animals!) who accompanied the children of Israel during their wilderness wanderings. The meals that were eaten during this period of history did not require circumcision, and were not governed by the Deuteronomic stipulations that applied to the annual Passover meal. To appeal to these Old Testament observances, which the apostle Paul mentions at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 10, as precedents for who should share the new covenant meal, the Lord’s Supper, seems faulty for several reasons, not the least of which is that it proves too much. And second, the paedocommunionist representation of the historic Reformed position is needlessly prejudicial at this point. Representing the historic Reformed practice as though it “cut off” the children of believers from participation in Christ and the covenant community may seem to have merit, but it is a kind of “straw man” argument. Historic Reformed practice acknowledges that the children of believing parents are members of the covenant community and of Christ. This practice also acknowledges that such children should come to the Lord’s Supper in order to enjoy the nourishment in Christ that this sacramental feast provides. But it insists that the way believers come to the Table is stipulated in Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.

Whether 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 has the implications for the subject of paedocommunion that is sometimes alleged, therefore, depends finally upon how 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is interpreted. It is time, therefore, that we take up directly this passage and consider it in some detail.

1 Corinthians 11:17–34←↰⤒🔗

In our treatment of this passage, we will follow an outline that has often been recognized by previous interpreters. The passage nicely divides into four sections: verses 17–22, which identify the problem in Corinth that characterized the church’s celebrations of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; verses 23–26, which contain the apostle Paul’s summary of the Lord’s institution of the Lord’s Supper; verses 27–32, which provide instructions on the way recipients of the sacrament ought to receive the body and blood of the Lord, lest they participate in an “unworthy” manner; and verses 33–34, which return to the original problem that Paul is addressing in the Corinthian church and offer instruction on how the Corinthians should wait for each other when they come together to eat, lest they continue to experience the Lord’s judgment upon them. Since the third of these four sections contains instructions that are most relevant to the question of the proper recipients of the sacrament, we will give it more extensive treatment.

The Occasion for Paul’s Instructions (vv. 17–22)←↰⤒🔗

The particular occasion for Paul’s instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper in this passage is not difficult to identify. The apostle begins by noting that in the following instructions he does not intend to “commend” the Corinthians (v. 17). Rather, he intends to issue a strong rebuke to them because, in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, they were not following the tradition that they had been taught regarding the meaning of the sacrament. When the Corinthians came together in order to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, there were “divisions” and “factions” among them (vv. 18-19). Though Paul acknowledges that he knows this only upon the basis of oral reports, he regards these reports to be accurate and judges, accordingly, that their coming together was “not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). He also identifies the source of these divisions as “evil men,” and observes that God will use them nonetheless to achieve his good purpose. As he describes this purpose, “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (v. 19).

Before considering the apostle Paul’s description of the way this divisiveness in the Corinthian church was expressing itself, it is important to observe that the divisions that he identifies in this passage are different than the divisions that he mentioned earlier in his letter. Though the apostle uses the same word (“schism”) in this passage as he used earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:10, the earlier divisions that he identifies in the Corinthian church displayed several characteristics that are absent from his description in 1 Corinthians 11. In his previous description of divisions in the Corinthian church, the apostle spoke of a party spirit, which gave birth to “quarrelsomeness” and “jealousy” within the congregation (1:11; 3:3-4). Nothing is said about such quarrelsomeness and jealousy in 1 Corinthians 11.

Furthermore, the divisions noted earlier in his letter were between at least four parties, each of whom favored one apostle, or even Christ himself, over the others. The schism in the Corinthian church involved a spirit of opposition to the apostle Paul on the part of some members, and was rooted in the differing allegiances of the church’s members to their spiritual overseers. Unlike the divisions that Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians 11, the divisions that Paul characterizes in the earlier portion of his letter were not of a sociological nature (between rich and poor), and did not express themselves in the context of the gathering of the covenant community for the purpose of worship and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Though there may be a broad connection between these distinct forms of factionalism in the Corinthian church, the particular focus of the apostle’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11 is different than in the earlier portion of his letter.

In his explicit description of the divisions he has in mind in this passage, the apostle notes that they were exhibited in the context of the church’s “coming together” in order to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. (Vv. 20–22)

The language of the apostle in these verses is sharp and severe. When the Corinthians come together for the purpose, among other things, of participating in the Lord’s Supper, there are divisions among them. These divisions are evident in that some members proceeded to eat and enjoy “his own meal,” ignoring other members who were poor and remained hungry. The conduct of some of the Corinthians amounted to a reprehensible dividing of the one body of Christ, since some members enjoyed a personal feast in the presence of other members with whom they did not share their plenty. Since this divisive and unseemly conduct occurred within a setting that included the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle goes so far as to say to these members that their celebration of the sacrament was not an eating of Christ at all.

Because their divisiveness struck at the very heart of the communion or participation of all members of the body in Christ, which is represented so powerfully in the sharing of the sacramental meal, it falls under the strongest condemnation of the apostle. We should not conclude from this that the apostle is condemning all members of the Corinthian congregation, or suggesting that the Lord’s Supper was not being celebrated by any of the Corinthian believers. The language Paul uses makes clear that he is speaking directly to those in the Corinthian congregation who were guilty of the kind of behavior he describes. These members are clearly distinguished from others who are presumably not at fault for the divisions that obtained in the Corinthian church at its gatherings for the celebration of the sacrament.

The significance of this occasion for the apostle Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in this passage remains to be seen. Advocates of paedocommunion tend to argue that this occasion limits the application of what the apostle says subsequently about the Lord’s Supper to those who may be guilty of the same conduct as some in the Corinthian church. They also appeal to this occasion for a particular understanding of what Paul goes on to say about a proper “discernment” of the Lord’s body. Because Paul is admonishing the Corinthian believers for an abusive practice that wrongly divided between different segments of the Lord’s body, some proponents of paedocommunion argue that the one over-riding imperative of this passage, which must govern any celebration of the Lord’s Supper, is: make no distinctions between members of the covenant community (whether between rich and poor, or between adults and children), lest the meaning of the sacrament as a Table of unity be undermined.

I do not have any objection to an emphasis upon the context for Paul’s teaching in this passage. Context is always of special importance to the interpretation of any Scriptural passage. What I object to in this case is the use of context to override the clear particulars of a passage. In my judgment, it is a premature and unwarranted use of this context to conclude that any restrictions upon participation in the sacrament violate the principle of the unity of the body of Christ. We will have to determine, when we treat the more relevant sections of this passage, whether this is so or not.

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23–26)←↰⤒🔗

Immediately after the section that describes the abusive practice of some of the Corinthians in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul turns to the “tradition” regarding the sacrament that he received from the Lord himself. In this section, the apostle wants to remind the Corinthian church that the Lord’s Supper belongs to the Lord, and not the Corinthian believers. Their celebration of the Supper, accordingly, must be governed by the teaching of the Lord Himself and the terms set forth at the time of the sacrament’s institution.

In his summary of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle emphasizes especially the two purposes for which the sacrament was ordained: first, to “remember” Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross; and second, to “proclaim” His death until he comes again.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Whenever believers participate in the Lord’s Supper (“as often as you drink it”), they do so in obedience to the Lord’s command to remember Him and His sacrifice for His people. The bread that is eaten and the wine that is drunk signify the body and blood of Christ, and the new covenant that is based upon His sacrifice upon the cross. Furthermore, the act of partaking of the sacrament is a divinely appointed means of proclaiming the death of Christ. The sacrament is a public declaration of Christ’s work, and fosters in believers the expectation of Christ’s return, even as He promised.

The usual interpretation of these words of institution is that they require an active and responsible participation on the part of recipients of the sacrament. Those who eat the body and drink the blood of Christ must do so, not in a witless or uninformed manner, but as believers whose remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death requires the “mouth of faith.” However, in their handling of these words of institution, some paedocommunionists argue that we should translate the language, “do this in remembrance of me” (vv. 24–25) as “do this unto my remembrance.” In this view, the remembrance in question is not so much a subjective act on the part of the believer who receives the sacrament, but an objective act on the part of God (and the believing community) in which the sacrament’s observance is itself the memorial. In this connection, an appeal is made to the language of Leviticus 24:7 and the general Old Testament theme of “remembrance/memorial.” On analogy with the Old Testament usage of the language of “memorial” in connection with the appointed feasts (cf. Num. 10:10), the Lord’s Supper is itself an objective memorial/remembrance of Christ’s death.

When Christ commands those who partake of the Lord’s Supper to do so in remembrance of Him, therefore, he is not setting forth a requirement for participation in the sacrament but declaring its purpose. If this is the sense of the words of institution, then it is no longer permissible to appeal to the language of receiving the sacrament “in active remembrance” of Christ to exclude immature and nonprofessing members of the covenant community.

At the level of the grammar of the passage, the question this raises is whether “of me” in the original language of the text is an “objective” (“remembrance of me”) or “subjective” (“my remembrance”) genitive. Though it is possible to take it in the latter sense, as some paedocommunionists suggest, it is instructive that English translations of the text usually take it to be an “objective” genitive. Within the setting of Christ’s words of institution, and the imperative addressed to the recipient of the sacrament (“do this … ”), this seems to be the likeliest translation. To quote the common words employed in the administration of the sacrament, recipients of the sacrament are summoned to “take, eat/drink, remember and believe ….” The point of the Lord’s words of institution is that the participant in the sacrament is placed under the obligation to obey the Lord’s command, to act in a way that expresses an informed remembrance and believing proclamation of his death. In the historic understanding of the Reformed churches, a public profession of faith on the part of a covenant child is the ordinary means whereby the presence of that kind of faith is confirmed.

Since we have not yet treated the most important section of this passage (verses 27–29), we are not in a position to draw any firm conclusions regarding its implications for the subject of paedocommunion. All we may conclude at this point is that the apostle is addressing a particular problem in the Corinthian church’s celebration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The problem is that some members of the church were acting divisively in the context of their reception of the sacrament. Rather than sharing their food and drink with more needy members of the congregation, they were eating and drinking (to the point of drunkenness!) while others remained hungry and forgotten. In this context, the apostle chooses to address the subject of a proper reception of the sacrament. In order to provide a framework for his instruction, he begins by appealing to Christ’s words at the institution of the Supper. The Lord’s Supper is Christ’s, and it must be celebrated in accordance with Christ’s command.

So far as the question of paedocommunion is concerned, these words of institution seem to place the recipient of the sacrament under the obligation to partake in the way of an active faith, which is capable of remembering and proclaiming the sacrificial death of Christ. In the historic understanding of this language, it has typically been argued that this requires an attestation of faith on the part of those who are admitted to the Lord’s Table. Advocates of paedocommunion, however, argue that this is not a necessary inference that must be drawn from the language the apostle uses. Since the most decisive section of the passage remains to be considered, we will resist the temptation to draw any more definitive conclusions at this juncture.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 7)←⤒🔗

In a previous article, I began my treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, a passage that is undoubtedly the most important piece of biblical evidence that has implications for the question of paedocommunion. In that article, I observed that the passage consists of four distinguishable sections: verses 17–22, which identify the problem in Corinth that characterized the church’s celebrations of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; verses 23–26, which contain the apostle Paul’s summary of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; verses 27–32, which provide instructions on the way recipients of the sacrament ought to receive the body and blood of the Lord, lest they participate in an “unworthy” manner; and verses 33–34, which return to the original problem that Paul is addressing in the Corinthian church and offer instruction on how the Corinthians should wait for each other when they come together to eat, lest they continue to experience the Lord’s judgment upon them. We considered the first two of these sections in our previous article. We now turn our attention to the last two sections, the first of which is most directly pertinent to the question of a proper participation in Christ by means of the sacrament.

How Participants Should Receive the Lord’s Supper (vv. 27–32)←↰⤒🔗

In this section of Paul’s discourse on the Lord’s Supper, a noticeable shift takes place. No longer is the apostle simply focused upon the particular abuses that characterized the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by some members of the Corinthian church. Though these abuses remain the occasion for his treatment of a proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper, it is evident that the apostle now wishes to speak more generally of the manner in which all recipients of the sacrament are to receive the body and blood of Christ. Having recalled the words of institution for the sacrament, Paul sets forth some of the guidelines that must govern the believer’s reception of the sacrament. In this section of the passage, the apostle offers instructions regarding how the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated in a worthy manner. In the historic interpretation of the passage, these instructions have typically been taken to require the presence of an active faith-discernment on the part of those who come to the Table of the Lord. This section of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, accordingly, is of special importance to our evaluation of the paedocommunion position.

The shift that occurs in this section of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is evident from the change in language that Paul uses. Whereas the earlier section, which described the problem in the church in Corinth, uses primarily the second person plural “you” (vv. 17–20, 22), this section shifts to the third person singular. Rather than directly addressing the Corinthian believers who were abusing the Lord’s Supper, Paul now uses the language of “whoever” (v. 27), “a person” (v. 28), and “anyone” (v. 29, a third person participle). Consistent with this usage of the third person, the apostle also uses third person verb forms and the third person reflexive pronoun “himself” (v. 29). The change in this section to the use of such third person forms has a significant bearing upon how the instructions of this section are to be understood. Though the apostle began his treatment of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 with a description of the inappropriate behavior of some members of the Corinthian church, he now moves to a series of general instructions that apply to all members of the covenant community.

The significance of this change in language is aptly stated by John Calvin in his commentary on the passage. According to Calvin, these instructions, though written in the context of a particular problem in the Corinthian church, provide instruction for the reception of the Lord’s Supper on the part of anyone who receives the body and blood of Christ.

Some people make it apply [i.e. the passage] only to the Corinthians, and to the corruption which had got such a hold in their midst. But my own view is that Paul, as he usually does, moves from that particular suggestion to general teaching, or from one example to a whole class. The Corinthians had one particular fault. Paul takes advantage of this to speak of every kind of fault to be found in the administration or receiving of the Supper.

The point of Calvin’s comments is that the instructions of verses 27–29 are applicable, not only in the particular circumstance that occasioned his remarks on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but also to any celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the part of any believer. They are not restricted to those whose celebration of the Lord’s Supper may reflect the kind of abusive practice that was evident in the Corinthian church. Whenever the Lord’s Supper is administered, believers are warned against an “unworthy” reception of the elements.

The opening sentence of this section makes clear how important these instructions are for a proper reception of the sacrament: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” By using the connective, “therefore,” Paul emphasizes the close connection between his prior comments about the Lord’s Supper and the instructions that he is now going to offer. The language of this transitional verse underscores the seriousness of an unworthy reception of the body and blood of Christ. Such an unworthy reception is tantamount to a profaning, or treating as unholy, the holy sacrament that the Lord instituted for the benefit of his people. When Paul speaks of an “unworthy” eating of the bread or drinking of the cup, he means to refer to the manner in which the sacrament is received. He does not mean to refer to the “worthiness” of the recipient of the sacramental elements, but to the way in which believers partake of the sacrament.

After this introductory emphasis upon the seriousness of a proper participation in the sacrament, the apostle stipulates two distinct requirements for the reception of the sacrament: first, the participant must “examine himself” prior to eating the bread and drinking the cup (v. 28); and second, the participant must “discern the body” when he eats and drinks (v. 29).

The verb Paul uses to describe the first requirement for a proper reception of the sacrament has the general meaning of “to test something to determine its genuineness.” Each person who eats the bread and drinks the cup must do so only after he has “examined himself.” Though Paul gives no specific information regarding what such a testing or examining of oneself means, the verb he uses is found in a number of New Testament passages, including other Pauline epistles (see Rom. 1:28; 2:18; 12:2; 14:22; 1 Cor. 3:13; 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:8, 22; 13:5; Gal. 6:4; Eph. 5:10; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 3:10). The closest parallel to this passage is 2 Corinthians 13:5, where the apostle summons all believers to “examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Another parallel passage, which also uses this verb with a reflexive pronoun, Galatians 6:4, speaks of the need for each believer to “test his own work.” The common sense of these passages is that the believer is obligated to examine his faith and conduct to determine whether it corresponds to what is expected of a person who belongs to Christ.

Though the idea of “self-examination” in verse 28 has often been freighted with the excess baggage of an protracted, introspective process of spiritual inventory-taking, the term only requires a responsible testing on the part of the believer to see whether his faith is genuine. When the believer tests himself, he must simply determine whether his faith and practice correspond to his status and profession as a member of the church of Jesus Christ. In the historic understanding of the Reformed churches, such self-examination looks simply for the fruits that belong to a normal Christian profession. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism, which reflects the consensus view of the Reformed churches, insists that only those believers whose faith exhibits the three elements that belong to a Christian profession should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Genuine faith in Jesus Christ always entails a recognition of the believer’s sin and misery, a believing trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and a resolve to live in grateful obedience. This insistence seems to be a reasonable application of the principle that believers should examine or test the genuineness of their faith in Christ before coming to the Table of the Lord.

The second stipulation in these verses — that the recipient of the sacrament participate in a way that includes “discerning the body” — also requires explanation. What does the apostle means when he speaks of “discerning the body” in order not to partake of the Lord’s Supper in a way that would bring judgment upon the participant (verse 29)?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary at the outset to observe that there is a slight difference in the textual evidence for verse 29. Most modern translations, which are based upon older manuscript evidence, do not have the words “of the Lord” after “discerning the body.” Older translations, like the King James Version, which are based upon the Byzantine or Majority text, include these words. Though the difference between these two textual traditions is relatively minor, it is possible to argue that the shorter text lends support to a particular reading of the passage that is favored by some advocates of paedo-communion. For example, some advocates of paedocommunion conclude that the shorter reading supports the idea that Paul is emphasizing only a kind of ecclesiological discernment. Rather than referring to the believer’s recognition of the “body of the Lord,” which was given as a sacrifice for sin upon the cross, Paul is referring to a recognition of the identity of the church community. The discernment in question is not Christological but ecclesiological.

According to this paedocommunionist interpretation, a proper recognition of who belongs to the body of the church fits more appropriately with the context. Since Paul is responding to the failure on the part of the Corinthians to recognize how all members of the body (rich and poor alike) enjoy full communion with Christ, the shorter reading of the text is most appropriate. When Paul stresses the need to receive the sacrament after a proper discernment of the body of Christ, he is calling the Corinthians to repent from the sinful divisions that marked their celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In comparison to this reading, the longer reading of the text suggests that the “body” to be discerned is the actual body of Christ that was given as an atonement for sin and that is signified in the sacramental elements. 

In my judgment, it is likely that the shorter reading of the text of verse 29 is correct. However, I do not believe that the shorter reading supports the claim of some paedocommunionists that the discernment Paul has in mind is primarily ecclesiological. In the immediate context of verse 29, Paul refers on two occasions to the body of Christ, first in reference to the institution of the Lord’s Supper (v. 24), and then in reference to the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ (v. 27). Both of these references to the “body” are references to the body “of Christ,” which is signified and communicated by means of the sacramental elements of bread and wine.

Since the sacrament is a means of communion with Christ, it requires believing discernment of the body of Christ that was given as a sacrifice on behalf of his people. Because the sacrament is a means of remembering and proclaiming Christ’s sacrificial death until he comes, those who receive Christ in the sacrament must do so in the way of an active recognition of his body. Minimally, the recipient of the sacrament is obliged to “evaluate” or “recognize” that the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ that were given for the forgiveness of his people’s sins. The verb that the apostle uses has the simple meaning of engaging in an act of “discrimination” or “recognition” of Christ’s body that is so wondrously signified and communicated to believers as they receive the sacramental meal of the Lord’s Supper. The paedocommunionist argument that this discernment refers only to an ecclesiological identification of those who belong to the covenant community does not do justice to the immediate context of this verse.

After stipulating these requirements for participation in the sacrament, the remaining verses of this section of 1 Corinthians 11 (vv. 30-32) return to the particular circumstances of the Corinthian church. Once more the language is in the second person plural (“you”). Because of the sinful practice in the Corinthian church, Paul tells the Corinthians that they are suffering the judgment of God (“That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”). The failure on the part of some of the Corinthian believers to judge themselves correctly, has resulted in their being subjected to the Lord’s judgment. This judgment is not an irrevocable condemnation, but an instance of God’s severe mercy that they should heed in order not to fall under the condemnation of the world.

Exhortation for the Future (vv. 33–34)←↰⤒🔗

The concluding section of Paul’s discourse on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is directed especially to the Corinthian church. Just as in the preceding verses (3032), the apostle returns to the sinful practice of some of the Corinthian believers and offers a word of admonition to them. Since this section of the discourse is not as directly pertinent to our interest in the question of paedocommunion, we will only briefly comment on its teaching.

In these verses, the apostle Paul notes that the antidote for the sinful divisions of the Corinthian church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper requires two things: first, when the Corinthian believers come together to eat, they must “wait for one another”; and second, those who are hungry should “eat at home” rather than in the context of the church’s gathering for the celebration of the sacrament. Since the Table of the Lord represents the communion that believers together enjoy with Christ, the Corinthians should eat or drink together. The Corinthians must not eat and drink without first waiting for each other, lest the communion they enjoy with the Lord be violated by their divisive spirit. If the Corinthians persist in their divisive pattern of behavior, they will only continue to suffer the judgment of the Lord. In order to avoid the Lord’s judgment upon them for their sinful abuse of the Table of the Lord, the Corinthians are summoned to a pattern of conduct that does not belie the significance of the sacrament as a means of fellowship with Christ.

Though 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 does not stand alone within the context of the biblical evidence for the proper administration and reception of the Lord’s Supper, it is a passage that speaks to this subject more directly than any other. No other passage provides as direct a witness to the manner in which recipients of the body and blood of Christ are to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Even though this passage does not speak expressly to the question of the admission of children of believers to the Table of the Lord, its implications for this question are apparent. In order to clarify these implications, I will conclude my treatment of the passage with several observations.

First, it is clear that the apostle Paul’s consideration of the Lord’s Supper in this passage is prompted by a particular circumstance in the Corinthian church. The passage begins by identifying a divisive spirit that characterized the celebration of the sacrament among the Corinthian believers. The occasion for Paul’s appeal to the words of institution of the sacrament, and his instructions regarding a “worthy” reception of the sacramental elements, was the divisions that marked the behavior of some of the Corinthians when they celebrated the sacrament. These divisions belied the union and communion with Christ that is so wondrously symbolized in the Lord’s Supper. For this reason, the apostle soberly warns the Corinthian believers that such behavior has and will cause the Lord’s judgment to fall upon them.

Advocates of paedocommunion properly emphasize this occasion for Paul’s discourse on the Lord’s Supper. However, the argument of some paedocommunionists that this occasion limits the application of Paul’s instructions only to believers who are guilty of a like spirit of divisiveness is unduly restrictive. No competent interpreter of the passage denies the particular occasion that prompts Paul’s instructions. The question remains whether Paul takes this occasion to provide more general instructions regarding the celebration of the sacrament by all believers whenever the sacrament is administered.

Second, an important feature of this passage is the transition that Paul makes from a description of the particular problem in Corinth to general instructions regarding a proper reception of the sacrament. Though advocates of paedocommunion often insist that Paul’s appeal to the institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23–26) and his teaching regarding a worthy reception of the sacramental elements (vv. 27–29) only address the particular problem in Corinth, the language Paul uses suggests otherwise. It seems clear that Paul wants to use the occasion of the Corinthian abuse of the Lord’s Supper to stipulate general guidelines for the way any believer should receive the sacrament. This means that Paul is not simply calling some Corinthian believers to repent of their particular sin of divisiveness in celebrating the sacrament (and perhaps others today who are guilty of a similar offense). Paul is calling them to repent, to be sure. But he is also giving instructions that apply to any believer on the occasion of any administration of the Lord’s Supper. The instructions of this passage have, accordingly, general application to the church’s celebration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The passage provides a rich description of the manner in which the new covenant sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is to be administered.

Third, in the most important section of this passage, the apostle stipulates that anyone who receives the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament must do so after he has “examined himself” and only in the way of a proper “discerning” of the body of Christ. In our exposition of these stipulations, we noted that they place no extraordinary burden upon those who come to the Table of the Lord. They do not oblige recipients of the sacrament to engage in a protracted process of introspection to determine whether they are genuine believers. Some advocates of paedocommunion represent this kind of extraordinary, protracted process of self-examination as the historic view of the Reformed churches. Though this may seem to lend support to the paedocommunion case, it amounts to a kind of “straw man” argument. The normative understanding of these requirements in the Reformed churches is that the believer is expected to test the genuineness of his Christian profession before partaking of the sacrament. Such self-examination amounts to no more than a testing of his faith by the biblical standard of what belongs to a true Christian profession. Furthermore, the “discerning” of the body of Christ is not some kind of highly intellectualized exercise that exceeds the competence of many believers. It amounts to a simple recognition of the body of Christ that is signified in the sacramental elements of bread and wine.

Since true faith always entails a basic knowledge of what the Scriptures teach about Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross for the sins of his people, it is not surprising that those who remember and proclaim Christ’s death in the sacrament do so in the way of a faith-recognition of the body of Christ. These requirements for the reception of Christ in the sacrament are the basis for the historic insistence of the Reformed churches that those who are admitted to the Table of the Lord be professing believers. The children of believing parents are instructed in the Word of the gospel in order to prepare them to profess the kind of faith that is able to receive Christ sacramentally. The reception of Christ in the sacraments is not a witless, unintelligent act on the part of those who participate. Only those who have examined themselves in the faith, and who have rightly discerned the body of Christ (and the implications of the one body for the unity among believers), should come, remembering and believing Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. These requirements are precisely the ones that have led the Reformed churches to insist upon a profession of faith as the occasion for a covenant member’s reception at the Table of the Lord. Such a profession of faith principally confirms that the covenant member can eat and drink the body and blood of Christ with “the mouth of faith.”

For these reasons, I remain convinced that a proper reading of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 provides sufficient warrant for upholding the historic view and practice of the Reformed churches. This passage constitutes a clear and compelling constitutes a clear and compelling piece of evidence against the position of those who advocate the admission of all covenant children to the Table of the Lord, and who reject the need for a proper, public confirmation of their faith.

The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion (Part 8)←⤒🔗

Paedocommunion: Concluding Observations←↰⤒🔗

In the course of my treatment of the subject of paedocommunion, I have considered the principal arguments of advocates of paedocommunion and found them unpersuasive. Despite the insistence of paedocommunionists that the Reformed churches have failed to recognize the implications of the inclusion of the children of believing parents in the covenant, I have argued that the Reformed view represents a coherent and biblical understanding of the way the sacraments are to be administered. In our review of the biblical evidence regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and its proper administration, we have also seen that the traditional requirement of the church — that covenant children profess their faith before being admitted to the Lord’s Table — is a proper and necessary application of biblical principles.

On the basis of the findings of my previous articles on paedocommunion, I would like to conclude with a number of observations that summarize the argument in favor of the historic practice of the Reformed churches. The purpose of these observations is not to repeat all the particulars of the arguments of previous articles, but to offer a succinct summary of the case we have presented.

After summarizing the arguments that I have adduced in this series of articles, I will also offer in a subsequent article a few comments on the aberrant covenant theology that constitutes the principal occasion for the contemporary advocacy of paedocommunion.

The Relative Weight of Scripture, Confession and Historic Practice←↰⤒🔗

Throughout the course of my evaluation of the paedocommunion position, I have emphasized that one of the most important features of the contemporary debate regarding paedocommunion is the relative weight that is granted to Scripture, the church’s confessions, and the historic practice of the churches. If an answer to the question of paedocommunion is to be given, it must be based upon an evaluation of all the biblical, confessional, and historical evidence. Furthermore, these distinct kinds of evidence must be distinguished in terms of their relative importance and normativity.

For example, the answer to the question whether covenant children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table ultimately depends upon a careful reading of the Scriptures. Though the historical practice of the church, and in particular the summary of Scriptural teaching set forth in the confessional symbols of the Reformed churches, are important considerations in determining an answer to this question, these are not finally normative for the church’s faith and practice. The reformational principle of sola Scriptura requires that we be prepared to address this question in a fresh way, and upon the basis of a renewed study of the Scriptures. The ultimate resolution of the debate regarding who should be admitted to the Table of the Lord may not be determined solely by an appeal to history, or even the summary of Scriptural teaching that is provided in the church’s historic confessions. Consequently, a satisfactory evaluation of the argument for paedocommunion must carefully interact with the arguments from Scripture that paedocommunionists often adduce. It is not enough to answer the case for paedocommunion by appealing to the confessions of the church or historical practice.

Though the confessions of the Reformed churches are subordinate to Scripture, it should be noted that some contemporary advocates of paedocommunion underestimate the extent to which the confessions’ summary of Scriptural teaching militates against the paedocommunion position. In the historic confessions of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, a number of articles clearly suggest that admission to the Lord’s Table demands a prior profession of faith, which is necessary to attest the presence of the kind of faith that is able to remember, proclaim, and discern the body of Christ in the sacrament. These articles include: the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. & A.’s 171, 173, 174 & 177; the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29.7; the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 81; and the Belgic Confession, Article 35. Though some paedocommunists maintain that an advocate of paedocommunion could justifiably appeal to the confessions in support of his position, this claim does not comport with the language of the confessions or the historical practice of the Reformed churches, which represents an application of their teaching. The burden of proof that is required of advocates of paedocommunion, therefore, includes not only the need to provide a Scriptural case for the admission of covenant children to the Lord’s Table, but also to show how these confessional affirmations are not a faithful summary of Scriptural teaching.

The Historical Evidence←↰⤒🔗

Advocates of paedocommunion often confidently assert that this practice best conforms to the ancient practice of the church. Just as the biblical case for paedobaptism is bolstered by a consideration of the evidence available from church history, so the case for paedocommunion enjoys the sanction of history as well. However, a careful study of church history indicates that this confidence is unwarranted. The evidence from church history for paedocommunion is at best ambiguous. Furthermore, if the evidence from the confessions and history of the Reformed churches from the time of the sixteenth-century Reformation is included, the paedocommunion case from history becomes even more tenuous. Contrary to the claims of some paedocommunionists, the historical evidence that paedocommunion was the earliest, and universal, practice of the Christian church, is at best uncertain. In our study of the historical evidence, we reached the following conclusions. First, the testimony to the practice of paedocommunion in the antiquity of the church does not compare to that for the practice of paedobaptism. The evidence for paedocommunion warrants only the inference that it was a practice introduced into some sectors of the church by the middle of the third century. However, there is earlier third-century evidence that indicates that paedocommunion may have been an innovation when it was first introduced.

Second, by the time of Augustine and thereafter, the practice of paedocommunion became increasingly widespread in the Eastern and Western branches of the church. The practice of paedocommunion in the Eastern church, which continues to the present, was established during this period. The practice of paedocommunion in the Western church became the prevalent one until the twelfth century. However, even in this period the practice of paedocommunion was never as universal in the West as it was in the East.

Third, any evaluation of the widespread practice of paedocommunion in the church during the period prior to the high Middle Ages and the Reformation must take note of the diverse reasons offered to encourage or to discourage this practice. An assessment of the practice of paedocommunion may not ignore, for example, the close connection between a growing sacramentalism, which viewed baptism as a means of granting new birth to its recipients, and the admission of children to the Lord’s Table. Those who would appeal to the practice of paedocommunion in this period have to reckon with the dubious sacramental views that encouraged the admission of children to the Table.

And fourth, the reasons for the decline of the practice of paedocommunion in the Western church are complex. Advocates of paedocommunion often cite the emergence of the doctrine of transubstantiation and the growing fear of desecrating the consecrated elements if paedocommunion continued to be practiced. They also appeal to the practice of withholding the cup from the faithful, a practice that allegedly made the participation of infants in the sacrament by means of intinction difficult, if not impossible. Though these factors may have played a role in the decline of paedocommunion, there are other factors that tend to be overlooked, for example, the long-standing conviction of the church Fathers, Augustine included, that insisted upon a believing and informed reception of the sacrament of communion. The development of the sacrament of confirmation and its association with the admission of believers to the sacrament has its roots in the earliest teaching and practice of the church.

As these conclusions indicate, the evidence for the practice of paedocommunion in the early church is mixed and not nearly as strong as that for the practice of paedobaptism. It should also be noted that the theological arguments for the practice of paedocommunion in the third and subsequent centuries are directly relevant to any evaluation of the historical evidence. By the standard of biblical teaching and the Reformed view of the sacraments, these arguments are often unbiblical and rife with a kind of ex opere operato (“by the work performed”) conception of sacramental efficacy.

The Confessional Evidence←↰⤒🔗

In my survey of the classic confessions of the Reformed churches, I also argued that there is compelling evidence the Reformed churches believe that the Lord’s Supper ought to be administered only to professing believers. These confessions express a comprehensive understanding of the sacraments as a means whereby the grace of Christ is communicated to his people. They affirm that the children of believers, together with their parents, are recipients of the gospel promise and ought accordingly to receive the sacrament of baptism, which is a sign and seal of their incorporation into Christ and membership in the covenant community, the church. However, they also insist that such children, prior to their reception at the Table of the Lord, require instruction in the Christian faith in order that they might be prepared to receive properly the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

One of the basic features of the confessions’ view of the sacraments is that they are subordinate to and confirmatory of the gospel promise that is primarily communicated by means of preaching. The saving power of the gospel Word is only communicated to those in whom such faith is produced by the Holy Spirit. Because the sacraments are visible signs and seals of the gospel promise, their effectiveness, like that of the Word they visibly attest, also requires a believing reception on the part of their beneficiaries. Just as the gospel Word is received through faith, so the sacramental pledges and seals of the gospel require faith on the part of their recipients. Though the children of believers are to be baptized, since they together with their parents are included in the covenant community, their baptism summons them to the same believing response that the gospel Word demands. Baptism (no more than the Lord’s Supper) does not work by its mere administration. It only serves to confirm and bolster faith, which is principally worked by the Holy Spirit through the gospel.

In the Reformed confessions, a clear distinction is also drawn between the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Whereas baptism is a once-for-all sign and seal of incorporation into Christ and his church, the Lord’s Supper is a frequently-administered sign and seal of the gospel that nourishes faith. Because the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is designed to strengthen faith, it requires a prior attestation of the presence of such faith on the part of its recipients. Though the language may be a little misleading, the Lord’s Supper, unlike baptism, requires for its proper reception an active and believing participation in Christ. Believers are summoned at the Table of the Lord to “take, eat, remember and believe.” The purpose of the catechetical instruction of children of believing parents is to prepare them to make a credible confession of faith, which in the traditional practice of the Reformed churches is effected by means of a “public profession of faith.”

In the setting of their doctrine of the Word and sacraments, the Reformed confessions uniformly insist that only believers are to be admitted to the Table of the Lord. Participation in Christ through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper requires that believers eat and drink in the way of faith, “which is the hand and mouth of our soul” (Belgic Confession, Article 35. The most explicit statement of the confessions in respect to the question of paedocommunion, is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism. In answer to a question about the difference between the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the Larger Catechism states:

The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves. (Q. & A. 177)

Admittedly, the Reformed confessions do not stipulate a particular age at which such a profession should be made. Nor do they spell out in detail the kind of instruction in the faith that ought ordinarily to precede a mature profession of faith and admission to the Lord’s Table. However, they clearly insist, in keeping with the nature of the sacraments in general and of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in particular, that the pathway from the baptismal font to the Lord’s Table requires a confirmation of the baptized believer’s embrace of the promise of the gospel.

The Scriptural Evidence←↰⤒🔗

Since the heart of the debate regarding paedocommunion focuses upon exegetical considerations, my treatment of the biblical evidence constitutes the most important part of the case in favor of the historic position of the Reformed churches. The biblical evidence that we considered was primarily of two kinds. The first of these addresses the subject of the Old Testament precedents for the participation of children in various covenant meals, especially the Passover feast. The second of these addresses the subject of the New Testament’s teaching regarding participation in the Lord’s Supper, especially in a passage like 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

No Real Old Testament Precedents for Paedocommunion←↰⤒🔗

Proponents of paedocommunion often cite a number of Old Testament precedents for paedocommunion. The most important of these is the inclusion of children in the celebration of the Passover. Since the Lord’s Supper is closely linked with the Passover, the practice of including children in the Passover meal is of special significance to the paedocommunion case from the Old Testament. In evaluating the paedocommunionist appeal to the Old Testament Passover, I identified several problems with the claim that it represents a precedent for the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper.

In the first place, the appeal to the Passover as a precedent for admitting children to the Lord’s Supper tends to minimize the important differences between the administration of the old and new covenants. Though the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the occasion of a Passover celebration, there are a number of important differences between these two rites. Since the administration of the Lord’s Supper belongs to the new covenant economy, it must be governed primarily by the stipulations of the New Testament Scriptures. Advocates of paedocommunion often overstate the similarities between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, and fail to reckon with the implications of the New Testament’s teaching for determining who should be admitted to the Supper.   

Even were we to grant a significant degree of similarity between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, there are several features of the Old Testament practice regarding the Passover that do not support the claims of paedocommunists. In our study, we noted the following such features.

First, there is an important distinction between the first and subsequent celebrations of the Passover. Whereas the first Passover in Egypt was clearly a household celebration, the stipulations for later celebrations of the Passover require that it and the other two pilgrim feasts (Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of Weeks) be kept only by the male members of the covenant community (Deut. 16:16; Ex. 23:17; 34:23). Though the stipulation that only circumcised men of the covenant community keep the Passover at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem does not expressly exclude the participation of women and young children, it does represent a significant change in the way the Passover was to be celebrated. The Deuteronomic provisions for the annual celebration of the pilgrim Passover did not require the participation of the women and younger children of the covenant community.

Second, it is not clear that all the children of the Israelite households ate the Passover meal. This is a possible construction of the Old Testament evidence, but it is not as likely as paedocommunionists claim. Even advocates of paedocommunion are compelled to acknowledge that unweaned infants could not eat some of the elements of the Passover meal (for example, the meat). The elements of the Passover meal included roast lamb, unleavened bread (a kind of dry biscuit), and bitter herbs (Ex. 12:8ff.; Num. 9:11). While newly weaned infants and younger children might possibly be able to eat the unleavened bread, it is implausible that they could digest the roast lamb and particularly the bitter herbs.

Third, the Passover feast included, as one of its prescribed features, a kind of “catechetical” exercise. At a certain point in the Passover rite, the children of the household were to ask, “What do you mean by this service?” (Ex. 12:27). In reply to this question, the head of household was to declare, “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.” The presence of this catechetical exercise in the context of the Passover rite does not by itself argue conclusively for or against the participation of infants and younger children. It does suggest, however, that the participation of children in the meal required a measure of understanding and discernment on their part.

And fourth, the historic practice of Judaism does not support the paedocommunionist claim that all members of Israelite households ordinarily participated in the Passover Feast. The history of Jewish practice teaches us that the inclusion of women and younger children in the Passover feast was not the characteristic pattern in the Old Testament economy. The practice of Israel during the Old Testament era was largely shaped by the provisions in the law for keeping the pilgrim Passover annually in Jerusalem, not the household Passover in Egypt. Only circumcised males were required to keep the Passover Feast, and preparations for the Feast included fasting and the ceremonial cleansing (cf. Num. 9:6; John 18:28) of the pilgrim celebrants. In the traditions of Judaism, an “age of discretion” was stipulated for those who kept the Passover.

In my review of the paedocommunionist argument from the Old Testament, we maintained that these problems militate against the claim that the Passover provides a sufficient precedent for the admission of children to the Lord’s Table.

The New Testament’s Teaching←↰⤒🔗

The New Testament teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper can be summarized in terms of three lines of evidence: 1) the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; 2) the teaching of John 6, which illustrates that participation in Christ requires faith on the part of those who would be nourished by the body and blood of Christ; and 3) the important instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, which provides a clear description of the manner in which recipients are to partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Institution of the Lord’s Supper←↰⤒🔗

The first piece of evidence is the language used by our Lord in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In the Gospel accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the Lord instructs those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper to take or receive the sacramental elements, and to do so “in remembrance” of him (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). Participation in the Lord’s Supper occurs in response to a command, “do this,” and calls accordingly for a responsible engagement on the part of those who take and eat the bread, and take and drink the wine. The act of taking or receiving the sacramental signs and tokens of Christ’s body and blood is to be performed as a means of remembering and believing that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of his people. In this respect, the communicant’s reception of Christ through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is different from the way the sacrament of baptism is received. The Lord’s Supper requires the active participation of its recipient in a way that is not required of the recipient of baptism, who in a manner of speaking is the passive recipient of the sacramental sign and seal of the gospel promise. The language of the words of institution requires that the church’s practice conform to the principle that those who participate in the sacrament do so in responsible obedience to the Lord’s command to “do this in remembrance of him.”

John 6 and Participation in Christ←↰⤒🔗

An important piece of evidence in the New Testament for addressing the issue of paedocommunion is John 6. Since this passage contains a long discourse by Christ on the manner in which believers partake of his body and blood, it has significant implications for how this participation is effected sacramentally. This holds true whether or not the discourse refers to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as many in Christian tradition have maintained. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a divinely-appointed means whereby its recipients enjoy a true participation in Christ’s body and blood. The description of the nature of any such participation, which is given to us in this discourse, is, therefore, of particular significance for the question how Christ is received in the sacrament.

The implication of this passage (see esp. vv. 35, 40, 47-8, 50-51, 53-54) is expressed well in the language of the Belgic Confession, which declares that “the manner of our partaking [of Christ by means of the Lord’s Supper] is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith” (Article 35). Without specifically citing John 6 as a proof text, the Belgic Confession echoes the teaching of Jesus’ discourse, when it insists that “we … receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.” Ordinarily, there is no communion with Christ apart from a believing appropriation of the gospel Word that declares him to be the Word become flesh for us and for our salvation. Unless the Father grant a believing response to the gospel in the hearts and minds of believers, they will not be able to come to Christ to eat his body and drink his blood. The necessary prerequisite to a full participation in Christ is this divinely-worked response of faith. If this holds true for the believer’s general participation in Christ, it holds true for the believer’s particular, sacramental participation in him and his saving work.

1 Corinthians 11:17–34←↰⤒🔗

In my treatment of the New Testament evidence, I observed that 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is the most important and decisive passage in the Scriptures for answering the question of the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper. In this passage, we have the most extensive New Testament treatment of the sacrament, and one that spells out in precise language what is required of those who, as members of the body of Christ, eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. In this passage, the apostle Paul moves from a description of a particular problem in Corinth (vv. 17–22) to the institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23–26) and instruction regarding proper participation in the sacrament (vv. 27–32). In doing so, the apostle offers general instructions that apply to all members of the covenant community who come to the Lord’s Table. There are at least three obligations that participants of the Lord’s Supper must meet when they receive the sacrament.

First, those who are admitted to the Lord’s Table are enjoined to do so in the way of an active faith. Participants in the sacrament are expected to be believers whose faith is able to “remember” and “proclaim” Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross. This follows from the nature of Christ’s words of institution, which place recipients of the sacrament under the obligation to come in active remembrance of Christ.

Second, recipients of the sacrament are also obliged to come only after they have “examined” themselves to ascertain whether their faith is genuine, and exhibits the normal marks of a true Christian profession. The verb Paul uses in this passage for such self-examination has the general meaning of “to test something to determine its genuineness.” The closest possible parallel to what such self-examination requires is found in 2 Corinthians 13:5, where the apostle summons all believers to “examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith.” In the Reformed tradition, the selfexamination required of believers in this passage is a responsible testing to ascertain whether their faith is genuine. Believers are to come to the Table of the Lord after they have tested or examined their faith, looking for the ordinary marks that belong to a Christian profession. The marks of such faith are an acknowledgment of sin and its consequences, a heartfelt trust in Christ and his saving work, and a genuine desire to live gratefully in obedience to the Lord.

And third, in this passage recipients of the sacrament are also obliged to “discern” the body of Christ. Discerning the body of Christ involves a proper “recognition” or “understanding” of the body of Christ that was offered as a sacrifice for sin. Though this recognition or understanding has obvious ecclesiological implications, namely, that all who participate sacramentally in Christ are members of the one body, the church, it primarily focuses upon a right understanding of the body of the Lord represented in the sacramental elements of bread and wine. This discernment will be reflected in a pattern of conduct within the body of Christ that is consonant with the meaning of Christ’s body and blood that were given as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of his people. Such discernment does not require an extraordinary level of sanctification or intellectual apprehension of the meaning of Christ’s body. But it does require of every participant in the sacrament that he come to the Table and partake in the way of an active faith, which is capable of remembering, proclaiming, and discerning the body of Christ.

On the basis of my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, I concluded that it provides sufficient warrant for the historic view and practice of the Reformed churches. The children of believing parents must be instructed and nurtured in the Christian faith in order to prepare them to profess publicly the kind of faith that is required in order to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Such a public profession amounts to a confirmation that their participation in Christ by means of the sacrament will be an eating and drinking “with the mouth of faith.”

Conclusion←↰⤒🔗

This summary of the evidence in favor of the historic practice of the Reformed churches concludes my evaluation of the paedocommunion position. Despite the claims of proponents of paedocommunion, there is no compelling historical or biblical case for overturning the church’s practice of requiring a profession of faith before admitting children of believers to the Table of the Lord. On the basis of my review of the biblical evidence, I can only conclude that the practice of the churches faithfully reflects the teaching of the Scriptures regarding what is means to partake of Christ by means of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

However, this does raise a question that I would like to pose in a subsequent article: Why are contemporary advocates of paedocommunion so adamant and persistent in their claims that all children of believing parents be admitted to the Table of the Lord  without a prior profession of faith? In that article, I will propose that the principal argument for paedocommunion is not a biblical or exegetical, but a theological one. The real occasion for the contemporary push for paedocommunion in many Reformed and Presbyterian churches is a covenant theology that claims that all members of the covenant community, believers and their children, enjoy the fullness of salvation in union with Christ. This covenant theology is often connected with a doctrine of baptismal efficacy that has more in common with historic Roman Catholicism than the Reformed faith.