Дорогие друзья!
Предлагаем Вашему вниманию 2-ю статью из серии статей, рассматривающих аргументы сторонников допущения детей к Святому Причастию.
Позже компиляция этих статей будет доступна и на русском языке.
Евгений Каширский, руководитель ЦИК
ANTI-PAEDOCOMMUNION-2
----------------------------------------
PAEDOCOMMUNION: A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION
By Rev. Brian M. Schwertley
Introduction
Any study of the Lord's supper would not be complete without considering the
question: Who are the proper recipients of communion? As one aspect of this
question, we will consider the issue of paedocommunion. The term
paedocommunion refers to the teaching that infants and toddlers of believing
parents who are members of the church are entitled to receive the elements
of the Lord's supper. A consideration of this doctrine is important for a
number of reasons:
(a) Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant
Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper
recipients of communion. As Reformed Presbyterians we adhere wholeheartedly
to the Westminster Standards, which are explicitly anti-paedocommunion. (see
Confession of Faith, 29:1, 3, 7, 8; Shorter Catechism, Q 91, 96, 97; Larger
Catechism Q 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177). The standard Reformed position
(briefly stated) is that the elements of the Lord Supper are only to be
received by church members who are old enough to examine themselves and
receive the elements by faith.
(b) The teaching of paedocommunion has spread rapidly throughout both
Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles in the last thirty years. If
paedocommunion is contrary to Scripture and the Reformed Standards (which it
clearly is), then Reformed believers need to understand the arguments for
paedocommunion and refute them effectively based on the biblical
interpretation of Scripture (i.e., the historical-grammatical-theological
method).
(c) The arguments for paedocommunion are often attractive to people who hold
to covenant theology yet are untrained in biblical hermeneutics (i.e., the
science of interpretation), theology and church history.
(d) The doctrine of paedocommunion often leads to or is connected with other
false and dangerous teachings (e.g., sacramentalism [i.e., the sacraments
operate automatically or magically, ex opere operato], mysticism [e.g., the
"creative" hermeneutics of James Jordan and the rejection of Reformed
worship in favor of Eastern Orthodox concepts of worship] and the rejection
of the biblical distinction between the invisible and visible church, etc.)
THE PAEDOCOMMUNIONIST ARGUMENT
In order to refute the paedocommunionist teaching one must first set forth
the basic arguments for admitting infants and toddlers to the Lord's supper.
(The presentation of their basic arguments must be fair and given without
unnecessary ad hominem attacks or without setting up straw men that are
easily destroyed.) Then, once the paedocommunionist position is articulated
and understood, it will be systematically refuted while setting forth the
biblical position.
The basic arguments in favor of paedocommunion are simple, straitforward and
(if one accepts the paedocommunist's fallacious presuppositions) logical. It
is the simplicity of the paedocommunionist argument coupled with a woeful
lack of theological knowledge in most Reformed churches today which I
believe accounts for the popularity of this doctrine.
The paedocommunionist argument is rooted in their application of covenant
theology to the Lord's supper. Regarding infant baptism, all Reformed
believers are in agreement that baptism corresponds to and replaces
circumcision. That is why the infants of believers are obligated to receive
the sign and seal of baptism. The paedocommunists apply similar reasoning to
the Lord's supper. They point out that the Lord's supper corresponds to and
replaces the old covenant Passover. Since (we are told) whole covenant
families including infants and toddlers participated in the Passover meal,
should not also infants and toddlers be permitted to partake of the
communion meal? The connection between Passover and the Lord's supper is the
heart of the paedocommunist doctrine. Their major argument is supported by
other assertions. They argue that 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, which discusses
the need for participants to discern the Lord's body (which is a common
proof text against infants and toddlers participating in communion), is
directed to adults not children. While adults need to examine themselves in
order to avoid the gross abuses of the Lord's table that were occurring at
Corinth, infants are incapable of examining themselves and thus the apostle'
s admonition does not apply to them. Similarly, while a credible profession
of faith is required of adults before baptism, it obviously is not required
of covenant children. Further, an appeal is often made to church history. It
is asserted (erroneously)[1] that for at least the first thousand years of
its existence the new covenant church practiced paedocommunion.[2]
REFUTATION
While the central arguments in favor of paedocommunion appeal to many
people, a careful examination of these arguments reveals a number of serious
problems that disprove the overall theory.
The main argument in favor of paedocommunion is founded upon the connection
of the Lord's supper to the original Egyptian Passover. The original
Egyptian Passover spoke of "a lamb for a household" (Ex. 12:3), or two
households if more people are needed to consume the whole lamb (Ex. 12:3).
The account says, "Then they shall eat the flesh on that night" (Ex. 12:8).
The "they" probably refers back to "the whole assembly of the congregation
of Israel" in verse 6. That children were present is obvious from the term
"household" and verse 26 where the children (literally "sons") are to ask
the heads of the household, "What do you mean by this service?" (Ex. 12:26).
Is this not conclusive proof that infants and toddlers should partake of
the Lord's supper since they were present at the Passover? No. We will see
that it proves nothing of the sort. There are a number of reasons why we
must reject paedocommunionist assertions regarding the Passover.
An examination of the Bible shows that any attempt to form a one-to-one
correspondence between the original Egyptian Passover and the Lord's supper
is over-simplistic and simply wrong. The Lord's supper does not merely
replace the original Exodus Passover but also all the Old Testament
sacrificial meals. The original Passover was a continuation of a larger
sacramental system that predated it. It also went through clarifications and
additions as revelation progressed. In order to prove infant and toddler
communion, one must examine the Exodus Passover out of its overall biblical
context. Consideration must also be given to the Levitical Passover (i.e.,
the permanent Passover) which was in effect for centuries and was the
Passover practiced during the life of Jesus. Consider the following germane
sections of Scripture.
(1) In Exodus 12:43-49 those who can and cannot participate in the Passover
meal are identified. The passage says that no uncircumcised person, no
foreigners, servants or sojourners are to participate. However, circumcised
servants and strangers who dwell with the covenant people that want to keep
the Passover and who submit to circumcision are permitted.
(2) In Exodus 23:14-19; 34:18-25 as well as Deuteronomy 16:1-8 we learn that
a number of the elements of the original Passover were unique and applied
only to the original Egyptian Passover. First of all, the Egyptian Passover
was an event that took place in the home (i.e. locally). God changed the
location of this feast in subsequent passages to the future temple complex
(i.e. "the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide").
Craigie writes: "The original Passover in Egypt had been performed by
families in their homes; the blood sprinkled on the lintel and door posts
had provided protection from the destructive wrath of the Lord (see Exod.
12:21-27). The continuing celebration and commemoration of the Passover,
however, was to be enacted in one place, where the sanctuary of the Lord was
located; the change from the original event to the commemoration of that
event may be significant. In Egypt, the Israelite had been a number of
families under the suzerainty of a worldly power. After the Exodus and
forming the covenant at Sinai, Israel became a single nation, the family of
God; thus the Passover became the act, symbolically speaking, of the one
large family of God, celebrated in one place where the sanctuary or house of
God was located."[3] Indeed, as redemptive history progressed, a number of
things that fathers formerly did as part of family worship (such as offering
sacrifice) were later restricted to a specialized priesthood. Therefore,
those who argue that fathers should celebrate the Lord's supper in their own
families or that fathers should distribute the elements to their infants and
toddlers are being unscriptural.
Next, the command to appear before the Lord (i.e., make a pilgrimage to the
central sanctuary) applied only to male members of the nation. This command
likely applied to all those 20 years of age who had been included in the
census (cf. Num. 1:3) as well as boys who had been successfully catechized
(Prov. 22:6) and were at least 12 to 13 years of age (Lk. 2:41). What this
requirement teaches us is that either (a) The circumstances of the original
Egyptian Passover were extraordinary and did not continue in the permanent
Passover or (b) perhaps women, girls and uncatechized boys did not
participate in the original Passover meal. The original Passover narrative
does not explicitly specify that women, girls and young boys participated in
the meal. Such a view has always been inferred from the term "household" or
simply assumed. Interpreters who believe that females and young boys did not
eat the bitter herbs and roasted lamb often appeal to the question, "What do
you mean by this service?" (Ex.12:26) as evidence that small children were
observers rather than direct recipients of the roasted lamb. "Exodus 12:26
does not give evidence that the child himself partook...The question, 'What
mean ye by this service?' would seem to indicate that the child [asking this
question of the manducators] was not one of the partakers....The absence of
explicit command in connection with the Passover, is more likely to support
the fact that the [children] were not included...."[4] This interpretation
has support from Joshua 4:6 where almost identical language is used to
describe children inquiring about an act in which they did not participate.
"That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their
fathers in time to come, saying, 'What mean ye by these stones?'" The act is
the carrying of stones out of the river Jordan to set up a memorial in the
promised land. The stones were carried by a man from each tribe (Josh.
4:4-5; cf. Isa. 3:15; Ezek. 18:2; Ac. 21:13).
(3) In Numbers 9:6-12 we read how God made special provisions for men who
were defiled (e.g., by touching a corpse) or away on a long journey (v. 10)
during the time of Passover to keep the Passover at a separate time. Instead
of celebrating the Passover at its regular time in the first month (Abib),
these men could celebrate it in the second month (Ziv). What is interesting
regarding this divinely inspired change is that is would have had little or
no effect upon women who were ritually unclean because of menstruation. Not
only does the account only mention men who were unclean, it completely
ignores the fact that at any given time roughly 25% of women were unclean
because of their menstrual period. "Additionally, because Israel observed a
lunar month, the solution that God gave to Moses would have been absolutely
no relief for menstruating women. They would have been unclean on the
fourteenth of the following month as well."[5] Further, it is extremely
unlikely that ritually defiled women would even be allowed to prepare and
serve the Passover meal to their families.
(4) Additional information is given regarding the Passover in 1 Chronicles
30. In this chapter, which describes a continuing reformation that is taking
place under Hezekiah, we learn that (a) God's provision for delaying the
Passover for a month because of special circumstances is used in this case
to delay the Passover for the whole nation. (b) The Passover is not a
mindless ritual but is to be practiced with repentant hearts. The people are
not to be like their fathers and brethren who sinned against God (v. 7), nor
are they to be stiff-necked (v. 8, i.e. unrepentant), but are to yield
themselves to Jehovah (v. 8, i.e., they are to submit themselves to God's
authority). Faith in God and his word, which leads to repentance, is a
prerequisite for participation in the Passover.
(5) Another passage that sheds light on the Passover is found in Luke 2:
"And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the
grace of God was upon Him. His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the
Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to
Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast" (vv. 40-43). Here we learn
that although women were not required to attend the feast they often
accompanied their husbands on the journey. Gill writes: "Joseph was obliged
to go three times a year, as were all males in Israel, at the Passover,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles, Deut. XVI.16. The first of these is expressed
here, at the feast of the Passover; but the women were not obliged to go up:
for so it is said by the Jews [T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 61.3.]...the
Passover of women is voluntary."[6]
We also learn from this chapter of Scripture that Jesus attended the Feast.
"And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to
the custom of the feast" (v. 42). The context indicated that our Lord had
reached an age when his parents understood that he had the wisdom, grace and
ability to partake of the Passover (see vs. 40, 46-47). "At the age of
twelve a young Jew became 'a son of the Law,' and began to keep its
enactments respecting feasts, fasts, and the like. The mention of the age
implies that since the Presentation Jesus had not been up to Jerusalem"[7]
David A. Bass writes:
That this was Jesus first trip to Passover is manifest from the context, and
in this most commentators agree. J. Jeremias, in his landmark Jerusalem in
the Time of Jesus, throws some valuable light on this custom. He says,
"...we may conclude (from Luke 2:41) that it was custom among people from a
distance to bring their children when they reached twelve years of age" (p.
76). Before twelve years of age, they remained at home. The Talmud records a
priest named Joseph (not the NT Joseph of the Holy Family) as full of
excessive zeal for bringing his entire oikos (household), children and all,
to the second Passover, held on e month later in provision for those who
were unclean at the first or otherwise unable to attend it (he would not
have dared to have brought them to the Passover in the month of Abib). The
Pesshita records that he was turned back (M.Pes.IX) that he might not set a
precedent for such behavior! If, indeed, the Passover was instituted for the
whole family-- women and children, as the paedocommunionist maintain--how
Joseph and Mary and the pious Jews were misguided! But, it seems, the
paedocommunionists are now here to set the test and tradition straight.[8]
Hendriksen writes: "Jewish sources reveal no unanimity with respect to the
exact age when a boy became a 'bar mitzvah' (son of the law), that is, when
he attained the age of maturity and responsibility with respect to the
keeping of God's commandments. The prevailing opinion may have been that at
the age of 13 a boy should fully shoulder that responsibility but that in
order to become prepared to do this it would be wise for the parents to take
him along to the temple even earlier. We know at least that when Jesus
became 12 years of age Joseph and Mary took him along to Jerusalem in order
to attend the Passover festival. Though it is not stated in so many words
that this was the first time he went along, is not this a reasonable
inference?"[9]
Interestingly, the Hebrew Talmud (an ancient [c. 400 B.C. to A.D. 200]
collection of rabbinical comments upon the old Testament) says that males
had their most intensive catechization at age 12 because they were soon to
be regarded as men and admitted to the Passover table at thirteen years of
age. "States the Talmud: 'One trains the children a year or two before [age
thirteen], in order that they may become used to religious observances' [M.
Yom 8:4]....the Talmud describes the first manducations at the annual
Passover Feast--by the grown-up boys of pious Israelites. These manducations
occurred soon after those grown-up boys had become 'Sons of the Law' when
turning thirteen. This was after they at that time made their solemn vows,
and were then admitted and conferred as Communicants. According to the
Talmud after being catechized, and on the attainment of their manhood at
puberty--'one says to his sons: "I am ready to slaughter the Passover for
you who shall [now] first go up to Jerusalem"' [Pes. 7:6 & 8:1-7].[10]
Although the Jewish Talmud is uninspired and often unreliable, with regard
to the Passover its comments do in general reflect the scriptural data we
have already considered (i.e., the Passover was restricted to men and mature
boys).
(6) The institution of the Lord's supper, which took place at a paschal
meal, is also informative. The disciples went into Jerusalem in the evening
to eat the Passover (Mk. 14:17). The meal had to be eaten in Jerusalem where
God's house resided. The accounts of the supper tell us that the disciples
reclined at the table. This position reflected the Jewish custom at that
time (M. Pesachim X.I). Lane notes some similarities and differences between
a typical first century Passover meal and the Lord's supper. He writes:
"While a normal meal began with the breaking of bread, on this occasion
Jesus broke the bread during the meal and following the serving of a dish
(Ch. 14:18-20, 22). The Passover meal was the one occasion when the serving
of a dish preceded the breaking of bread. The use of wine was generally
reserved for festive occasions and was characteristic of the Passover (M.
Pesachim X.1). Finally, the interpretation of the elements of the meal
conforms to Passover custom where the haggadah (or interpretation) is an
integral part of the meal. The cumulative evidence supports the claim made
in verses 12, 14, 16 that the disciples prepared a Passover meal and that
the external forms of the Passover meal were observed at the meal itself."
[11]
What is particularly important for this study is the fact that at this
Passover only adult men were present. Although one could argue that this
Passover meal was extraordinary (for in it our Lord instituted the first
Communion), there is nothing in any of the accounts to indicate that the
disciples thought there was anything unusual about celebrating the Pascal
meal apart from their families. (Remember, the disciples did not have prior
knowledge that Jesus was going to institute a new sacrament. They prepared
for the regular Passover meal.) The reason the disciples regarded everything
as normal is simple. As we have seen from an examination of relevant Old
Testament texts only fathers and catechized sons who had reached puberty
were required to attend (Ex. 23: 14-19; 34:18-25; Deut. 16:1-8; Prov. 22:6).
Although wives sometimes did accompany their husbands to the three major
centralized feasts (Lk. 2:41), there is no evidence that they ate the Pascal
meal with their husbands..[12] "At this meal we see precisely what our Old
Testament model led us to expect. Although Christ had shown supreme love to
His female disciples and for children during His earthly ministry, at this
Passover meal only adult males were invited. The meal did not take place in
His hometown of Nazareth nor in His adopted hometown of Capernaum, nor even
in His birthplace of Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem within sight of the
temple."[13]
Before considering the Lord's supper itself as a new covenant ordinance, a
review of the Old Testament teaching on the Passover is in order. (1) The
original Egyptian Passover took place in the homes of the Hebrews. The
localized nature of the original Passover, however, was temporary and
extraordinary. The permanent requirements for the Passover are found in God'
s law and are revealed in subsequent old covenant historical examples. (2)
While the original participants of the first Passover within the home are
not specified, the immediate context restricts the meal to circumcised Jews,
their circumcised servants and strangers (i.e., foreigners) who submit to
circumcision (i.e., they have converted to the true religion) and want to
keep the Passover (Ex. 12:42-49). Even the original Passover (which was
unique in a number of ways) does not offer support to infant and toddler
communion because infants would not be able to consume roasted lamb,
unleavened bread and bitter herbs. (3) God's law teaches that the permanent
Passover was not to be celebrated locally in the home but in Jerusalem near
God's house (Deut. 16:2, 5-7). (4) The command to keep the Passover in
Jerusalem applied only to male members of the nation (i.e., males who were
successfully catechized and had reached puberty [Ex. 23:14-19; 34:18-25;
Num. 1:3; 22:6; Prov. 22:6; Lk. 2:41]). (5) God made special provisions in
the law for keeping the Passover at a different time (a month after the
regular Passover) for men who were ritually unclean or away on a long
journey (Num. 9:6-12). These provisions would be of no use to the majority
of women who were unclean as a result of their menstrual cycle. (6) Faith
and repentance toward God are prerequisites for participating in the
Passover (2 Chron. 30:7-8). The Passover (like the Lord's supper) is an
ordinance connected with progressive sanctification and thus requires faith
and understanding. The paedocommunionist understanding of the Passover
presupposes a Romanist (ex opere operato) magical understanding of the
feast. (7) Jesus likely attended his first Passover at the age of twelve
(Lk. 2:41). (8) Our Lord and His apostles participated in the last Passover
without their families in Jerusalem in accordance with God's law (Mt.
26:26-29; Lk. 22:17-20; Mk. 14:22-25).[14]
Another reason why paedocommunion is unscriptural is that the Lord's supper
does not replace only the original Exodus Passover but also replaces all the
Old Testament sacrificial meals. In the old covenant there were different
sacrifices, sacrificial meals, with different recipients. For example, the
Levitical Passover included circumcised Jewish men, circumcised slaves,
converted circumcised foreigners and successfully-catechized, circumcised
boys or young men (Ex. 12:43-48; 23:14-19; 34:18-25; Num. 1:2, 22:6; Prov.
22:6; 2Chron. 30:7-8; Lk. 2:411). The covenant meal on Mount Sinai admitted
only the male leaders of Israel (Moses, Aaron, Nadub and Abihu and the
seventy elders of Israel, see Exodus 24:9-11). What is particularly
interesting regarding this covenant meal is its parallels with the Lord's
supper. In the covenant meal of Exodus 24, the heads of the nation (the old
covenant church) eat in the presence of Jehovah. This occurs at the
beginning of the establishment of what, for them, was a new covenant.
Likewise, God in the flesh (Christ)] eats a covenant meal with the heads of
the new nation--the New Covenant church. This occurs only hours before the
sacrificial death of Jesus. The guilt offering meal was only to be eaten by
the male offspring of Aaron, the priests (Lev. 6:17-18). This restriction
was also true of the sin offering (see Lev. 6:25-30; 7:10), the grain
offering (see Lev. 6:16-17) and the trespass offering (see Lev. 7:6-7). All
of the sacrifices point to Christ himself who is our Passover (cf. Jn. 1:29;
1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 10:19-22). Since the Lord's supper shows forth the death of
Christ and thus replaces all bloody sacrifices and their sacrificial meals,
it is exegetically illegitimate to arbitrarily select the biblical account
of the Egyptian Passover meal as the only or primary text that sets forth
the terms of communion for the Lord's supper. Simply put, the fact that
there were different terms of admission to the different covenant meals,
most or perhaps even all of which excluded infants and toddlers, the
original Passover account does not justify overthrowing the teaching and
practice of the whole Protestant Reformation. Further (as already noted),
why should believers look to the Egyptian Passover yet ignore the
requirements of the permanent. Levitical Passover which was repeatedly set
forth in the law of Moses and practiced for several centuries? The
paedocommunionist argument from the Egyptian Passover is arbitrary,
inconsistent and ignores progressive revelation.
The strongest argument against infant and toddler communion comes from the
theological meaning of the Lord's supper itself. The power or efficacy of
communion does not reside within the bread and wine themselves but rather is
dependent upon the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit who opens our minds
and hearts causing us to feed upon the whole person and work of Christ by
faith. As mere bread and wine, the divinely appointed symbols produce no
spiritual effect upon the believer. But when the Holy Spirit enlightens the
mind of the participant to perceive the gospel truth that the appointed
emblems "exhibit, signify, and seal," then and only then do they become
means of sanctification. If progressive sanctification from the ordinance is
dependent upon understanding and faith, then infant and toddler communion
are useless. Those who receive the elements, who do not understand what is
going on, who do not have faith, do not receive any benefit from them
whatsoever.
The doctrine of paedocommunion logically rests upon a materialistic,
magical, mystical, irrational, superstitious understanding of the Lord's
supper. All the Reformed symbols reject the idea that the bread and wine
have intrinsic power to change the soul, that people who consume the
eucharist are automatically transformed (ex opere operato). Such a view is
usually based on the Romanist doctrine of the real presence or
transubstantiation of the elements (i.e., the bread literally becomes Jesus
body, the wine literally becomes Christ's blood.) Sadly, the doctrine of
paedocommunion has led many professing Christians to the apostate and
heretical Eastern Orthodox Church.[15]
There are a few paedocommunist arguments that relate to the meaning of the
Lord's supper that need to be considered. A very common argument is that the
children of believers who are members of the covenant and the visible church
are denied an important benefit of the covenant if they are not allowed to
participate in communion. Paedocommunionist writers will often refer to the
confessional understanding of communion as baptistic or individualistic,
treating covenant children as if they were excommunicated. Such an argument
must be rejected for a number of reasons.
First, the paedocommunionist argument could be applied to God himself, who
did not command the participation of infants and toddlers in the permanent
Levitical Passover. Children in the old covenant were members of the
covenant and the visible church. Yet, Jehovah himself did not see any
inconsistency in restricting the Passover to adult males and their
successfully catechized sons. Is God "rationalistic, inconsistent, gnostic,
individualistic or baptistic" in his treatment of infants and small children
under the old covenant order? No, of course not. Such thinking is
blasphemous.
Second, the paedocommunionist argument does not take into account the
differences between baptism and the Lord's supper. Baptism is a sign and
seal of regeneration. Regeneration is an act of God upon the heart in which
the individual is passive. All that is required for a baby to be baptized is
that at least one parent be a professing Christian and a member in good
standing of a lawfully constituted church. The baby does not need to
understand what is going on to receive the sign and seal of baptism (many
babies even sleep through the ritual). Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign
and seal of what can take place in the past (e.g., John the Baptist, adult
converts), the present (e.g., most elect infants) or even the future (e.g.,
the children of believers whom God sovereignly chooses to regenerate at a
later time).
The Lord's supper, however, is different in a number of ways. (1) The Lord's
supper is not a one- time initiatory rite like baptism, but is a repeated
ordinance that, along with the Word, is used for spiritual nourishment or
progressive sanctification. Unlike regeneration or initial sanctification,
progressive sanctification requires knowledge, understanding and faith.
"Although Baptism and the Holy Supper have the same covenant of grace as
their context, and although both give assurance of the benefit of the
forgiveness of sins, the Holy Supper differs from Baptism in this regard,
that it is a sign and seal not of incorporation into but of the maturation
and strengthening in the fellowship of Christ and all His members."[16]
Calvin's comments on this matter are excellent. He writes:
Furthermore, they object that there is no more reason to administer baptism
to infants than the Lord's supper, which is not permitted to them. As if
Scripture did not mark a wide difference in every respect! This permission
was indeed commonly given in the ancient church, as is clear from Cyprian
and Augustine, but the custom has deservedly fallen into disuse. For if we
consider the peculiar character of baptism, surely it is an entrance and a
sort of initiation into the church, through which we are numbered among God'
s people: a sign of our spiritual regeneration, through which we are reborn
as children of God. On the other hand, the Supper is given to older persons
who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.
This distinction is very clearly shown in Scripture. For with respect to
baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold
forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only for those who are capable
of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own
conscience, of proclaiming the Lord's death, and of considering its power.
Do we wish anything plainer than the apostle's teaching when he exhorts each
man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this
cup [1Cor. 11:28]? Self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it
is vain to expect this of infants. Again: "He who eats unworthily eats and
drinks condemnation for himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" [1
Cor. 11:29]. If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness
of Christ's body are able to participate worthily, why should we offer
poison instead of life-giving food to our tender children? What is that
command of the Lord: "Do this in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.
11:25]? What is that other command which the apostle derives from it: "As
often as you eat this bread, you will proclaim the Lord's death until he
comes" [1 Cor. 11:26]? What remembrance of this thing, I ask, shall we
require of infants when they have never grasped it? What preaching of the
cross of Christ, the force and benefit of which their minds have not yet
comprehended? None of these things is prescribed in baptism. Accordingly,
there is a very great difference between these two signs, as we have noted
in like sign also under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to
correspond to our baptism, had been appointed for infants [Gen. 17:12]. But
the Passover, the place of which has been taken by the Supper, did not admit
all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by those who were old
enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Ex. 12:26]. If these men had
a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and
obvious?[17]
Understanding the differences between regeneration and sanctification is
important for understanding why there are different qualifications for
baptism and the Lord's supper. Sanctification begins in regeneration when
God implants a new spiritual nature in the subject of his grace. (Early
Reformed theologians often refer to this starting point as initial
sanctification.) Sanctification is definitive in the sense that it was
secured by our union with Christ. It is progressive in the sense that it is
a lifelong process whereby the Holy Spirit subdues sin and increases a
believer's personal righteousness over time. Sanctification is a work of God
in the believer. In sanctification the Holy Spirit works upon man in both a
mediate and immediate way. For example, in regeneration (i.e., initial
sanctification) the Spirit of God works immediately; that is, he works
directly upon man's soul in planting a new spiritual nature. Regeneration is
not dependent on any external means. The workings of the Holy Spirit
directly upon the elect person's heart are beyond human comprehension and
encompassed with mystery. In progressive sanctification, the Holy Spirit
work medially or through means. He works upon the conscious life of man
through the means of grace such as the Word of God, the preached Word (Jn.
17:17, 19; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2; Rom. 10:17; etc.), the sacrament of the Lord's
supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26), the communion with God in prayer (Jn. 14:13-14)
and the practicing of good works (Jn. 15:2; Rom. 5:3-4; Heb. 12:5-11). The
Word of God is foundational to every means of grace in progressive
sanctification (Jn. 17:17,19; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2; Ps. 119:9, 11, 15, 16, 33,
34; etc.). Once one understands that the Holy Spirit uses external means in
the process of progressive sanctification then one cannot accept the notion
that babies and toddlers are progressively sanctified during communion
unless one adopts the view that the bread and wine operate automatically (ex
opere operato); that Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine, one
with the elements. Francis Nigel Lee writes: "The Paedo position would force
us to embrace a Roman Catholic or Lutheran understanding of how the
sacrament conveys grace.:For anyone coming from the Reformed perspective,
this ought to be a paramount concern. After all, people were burned at the
stake during the English Reformation for the Reformed view of the Sacrament.
The proponents of Paedocommunion simply must answer the question of how
grace is conferred in their new system....At best they are left with the
Lutheran view; at worst, the Roman....[18]
When the differences between baptism and the Lord's supper are understood we
see that a Christian father who does not give bread and wine to a two month
old baby is no more neglectful than a covenant head who starts verbally
catechizing his children only when they are able to understand the meaning
of words. The only manner in which a paedocommunionist can argue against
this objection to his position is to either equivocate on the meaning of the
word sanctification (e.g., ignoring the distinction between initial
sanctification [i.e., being regenerated and set apart by God] and
progressive sanctification[19] or by resorting to a unscriptural definition
of communion (i.e., an ex opere operato or magical formulation). It is not
an accident that some of the champions of paedocommunion want people to
reject the attainments of the Reformation with regard to worship and
justification in favor of a more Romish medieval conception of these
doctrines.
The Lord's supper is different from baptism in that it requires active
participation. Believers are commanded to "take and eat" (Mt. 26:26; 1 Cor.
11:24, Majority Text). The church is to "do this act" (Touto poiete). This
ordinance involves observing, touching, breaking, eating, tasting, drinking
and so on. Dipping one's finger in the wine and placing it in a baby's mouth
is not active participation on the part of a suckling. Further, even the
term "remembrance" (Lk. 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25) refers to more than a mental
activity on the part of the participants. To the Hebrew mind it involved
both thinking and acting, or thinking that leads directly to appropriate
actions. In the Old Testament "often 'memory' and 'activity' go together.
God 'remembers' and 'visits' or 'forgives' or blots out'. So also Israel is
to 'remember' by erecting a 'memorial' or by reenacting a rite (cf. Exod.
13:9)."[20] Like the Passover which was a "remembrance" to be kept by
Israel, the Lord's supper is to be remembered and celebrated by the new
covenant church. The church remembers by her living faith that faithfully
participates in the ordinance of communion. Babies and sucklings, while in
the covenant, are incapable of the appropriate mental activity and the
corresponding active participation! This point does not mean that they are
unholy or under discipline any more than were the old covenant children who
did not accompany their fathers and older brothers to the Passover at
Jerusalem. Although babies and toddlers are not mature enough to partake of
the Lord's supper, they still are permitted to sit with their families at
the table. At the original Passover meal babies and sucklings could not eat
roasted lamb, bitter herbs and unyeasted bread. However, they were not
regarded as excommunicated. They were part of the household. They sat around
the table, protected from the angel of death by the blood on the doorposts
and lintel. The repeated accusation that nonpaedocommunionists are treating
their children as if they are excommunicated is ad hominem rhetoric.
The teachings of the New Testament regarding the Lord's supper presuppose a
level of mental maturity on the part of the participants that excludes
infants and toddlers from active participation in the ordinance. The
communion table involves commemoration, which involves the ability to
meditate and reflect upon who Jesus is and what he has done on our behalf.
"The believing and grateful remembrance of Jesus is most certainly the part
of main in this feast."[21] Remembrance obviously involves faith in the
person and work of Christ. Hodge writes: " In remembrance of me, i.e. that I
may be remembered as he who died for your sins. This is the specific,
definite object of the Lord's supper, to which all other ends must be
subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words of institution. It is
of course involved in this, that we profess faith in him as the sacrifice
for our sins; that we receive him as such; that we acknowledge the
obligations which rest upon us as those who have been redeemed by his blood;
and that we recognize ourselves as constituent members of his church and all
believers as our brethren, We are thus, as taught in the preceding chapter,
brought into a real communion with Christ and with all his people by the
believing participation of this ordinance."[22] Calvin concurs: "If,
therefore, you would celebrate the Supper aright, you must bear in mind,
that a profession of your faith is required from you."[23]
The Lord's supper involves proclamation. "For as often as you eat this bread
and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (1 Cor.
11:26). 'It is a commemoration of his death, for it is in very nature a
proclamation of that fact."[24] The apostle "understands by Kataggellein,
announce, the individual and collective proclamation of Christ's love in His
sacrifice, and of the glorious efficacy of this act. Each one confesses that
he owes his salvation to this bloody death."[25]
The fact that Lord's supper is a proclamation of Jesus' sacrificial death
leads Paul to warn the Corinthians of the necessity of self-examination (see
1 Corinthians 11:26-29). "Let a man examine himself" (1 Cor. 11:28). The
term "examination" denotes a moral exercise that presupposes a certain level
of mental maturity that excludes babies and toddlers. There is to be due
preparation before partaking of the elements. In the immediate context, this
examination requires discernment or taking proper cognizance of the Lord's
body (1 Cor. 11:29). The narrow and broad contexts of this passage indicate
that this self-examination extends to three different interrelated areas.
First, the examination extends to our treatment of Christ's body, the
church. This point is plain from the immediate context, which precipitated
Paul's digression upon the holy supper. Some Corinthians had been guilty of
treating poor believers as second-class citizens at the agape feasts that at
the time were still held in conjunction with communion. (The Corinthians
were probably guilty of following the ancient Greek custom of having
different places to sit in the house, along with different quantities and
qualities of food as a result of one's social and economic status. In other
words, the rich were eating like gluttons while the poor were going hungry.)
Scripture indicates that this ethical examination extends to other areas
such as reconciliation with a brother (Mt. 5:23-24) and a refusal to repent
of immorality (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13). Self-examination requires
knowledge of God's ethical requirements as well as faith in God's word,
otherwise this examination would be subjective and legalistic. This
examination, however, is not to be a morbid introspectionism or an
expectation of sinless perfection, for every Christian knows that it is
Christ alone and his merits that render him worthy to come to communion.
Second, this examination involves "discerning the Lord's body" (1 Cor.
11:29) which in context refers to a proper consideration of the meaning and
implication of the salvation purchased by Christ. This point is obvious from
Paul's quotation of the original words of institution from Luke 22:19 where
the Lord's broken body is set before our eyes as the atonement for our sins.
Remembering Christ's passion and meditating on how Jesus delivered us from
the guilt, penalty and power of sin are connected not only to the
sanctifying nature of the ordinance but also to the dire warnings connected
to the abuse of the sacrament. Mistreating Christ's body, the church, by
unloving behavior toward the brethren, is an implicit denial of what the
supper points to. A proper discernment of Christ's body (that is, his person
and work) leads to a proper discernment of his body, the church. The two are
intimately connected.
Third, the context of 1 Corinthians 11:29 indicates that communion also
involves a proper recognition of the elements set apart for holy use. The
elements are set apart from a common to a sacred use. Therefore, it is
wicked and dangerous to use them in a profane manner (e.g., getting drunk).
For this reason many commentators view the conclusion of this chapter as an
admonition to separate communion from the love-feast or fellowship meal.
Once again note that the admonitions associated with communion presuppose
faith, understanding and recognition of biblical ethics. It is totally
inappropriate to dismiss the implications of these admonitions by arguing
that they only apply to adults because (as noted) the holy supper, unlike
baptism, requires faith, knowledge and understanding for progressive
sanctification. The attempt to parallel these ordinances doesn't work
without a complete redefinition of communion (i.e., a redefinition in an ex
opere operato direction).
The Lord's supper also involves communion, which involves the ability to
look to the resurrected Savior as spiritually present with his people,
actively strengthening their faith and encouraging their hearts. Christ
communes with and sanctifies the souls of believers by faith. All the
important mental functions and activities associated with communion such as
self-examination, remembrance, communion and discerning the Lord's body are
of such a nature that they require faith, mature thought and understanding.
James S. Candish's comments on this topic are very helpful, especially his
emphasis on the necessity of faith. He writes:
Before coming to the Lord's table, there is needed, besides that
self-examination by which we judge if we can rightly partake of it, also a
stirring up of those dispositions and desires that are required for doing
so, especially faith, repentance, and love. For we need to have these not
merely as habits, which may go dormant in the soul for a season, but as acts
of the soul in lively exercise. It is by faith that we are not only prepared
to feed upon Christ, but actually do feed upon Him (John vi. 35,47). Coming
to Christ, believing on Him, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, are
spoken of by our Lord as one and the same thing; and all alike are connected
with having eternal life, living by Him, dwelling in Him and he in us. If
then we would enjoy this blessing at the Lord's supper, we must not only
have had faith at some former time, or have the habitual disposition to
trust in Him, but be actually trusting to Him at the time we observe it. We
must draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, i.e., with
undoubting reliance on Christ as our High Priest. So, too, our love must be
in actual exercise. "This do in remembrance of me," are Christ's words,
making the Supper the pledge of love between Himself and His disciples. But
the very purpose of a pledge or token of love is to call forth into lively
exercise the love that exists as a habitual principle in the soul. There is
always filial affection in the heart of a right minded son towards his
parents, though at times his thoughts and feelings may be necessarily
engaged with other duties. But when he looks on a keepsake that he has
received from them, the actual feelings of filial love wake up in his breast
and fill him with emotion. So, while engaged in the ordinary duties of life,
the child of God may not actually have present feelings of love to God and
Christ, though that dwells in his heart, but when called to the Lord's table
he should have these feelings in fresh and lively exercise.[26]
Given the biblical understanding of the holy supper it should not be a
surprise to discover that the Reformed churches have always insisted that
the partaking of communion never be separated from the preached Word.
Feeding on the Word of God is a necessary prerequisite for eating the body
of Christ. Thus our Lord proclaimed: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the
flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they
are life" (Jn. 6:63). Not only does the preached Word define the sacraments,
giving them meaning, it also strengthens our faith. "Faith comes by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). Interestingly, the symbolism
of the supper itself points to the importance of faith for nourishment or
progressive sanctification. The figures of eating and drinking picture a
Christian receiving Christ by faith. We are not talking about a mere
intellectual assent to certain propositions (thus, the frequent charge of
paedocommunionist that the confessional understanding of the holy supper is
gnostic is totally untrue) but a trusting in Jesus alone for salvation and
spiritual nourishment. Communion vividly sets forth the vital union effected
by faith between Christ and the believer. Further, self-examination in all
its aspects is founded upon one's faith, knowledge and understanding of God'
s holy Word.
Once one eliminates the need for faith, he also eliminates the need for the
accompaniment of the preached Word. Thus, the paodocommunionist
understanding of the Lords' supper logically should lead to the partaking of
communion apart from the Word. In other words, there would be no reason to
abandon the Romanist practice of dispensing the elements to sick individuals
apart from public worship. If the elements work ex opere operato apart from
faith and understanding then, why not dispense the elements to individuals
like magic pills? The paodocommunionist will simply ignore the abundant
biblical evidence regarding the differences between baptism and the Lord's
supper by arguing that: (a) all the admonitions relating to the Lord's
supper are directed only to adults; and (b) the overall teaching of covenant
theology proves that infants and small children should be included in the
Lord's supper.
We have proved that these arguments are fallacious by noting the following:
(1) Infants and toddlers did not participate in the permanent Passover
feast. Thus the change that paodocommuninists level against Christians who
are faithful to the Reformed symbols could be leveled against God himself.
If God did not command that infants and toddlers who were circumcised should
partake of the Levitical Passover, then God would be just as guilty of
violating the paodocommunionist's interpretation of covenant theology than
confessional Reformed believers. (2) Baptism and the Lord's supper are
different sacraments with different requirements. The Lord's supper is not
an initiatory sacrament in which a person is passive but an ordinance of
progressive sanctification. Paodocommunionists need to explain how babies
and sucklings are progressively sanctified apart from knowledge,
understanding and faith. Paodocommunionists must either redefine the
biblical doctrine of sanctification or they must pervert the meaning of
communion by adopting an ex opere operato formulation.
One paodocommunionist author attempts to circumvent the progressive
sanctification argument by arguing that the Lord's supper does work ex opere
operato (i.e., automatically) in the sense that the recipients do invariably
receive blessings or cursing during the communion meal. Paul says that
judgment comes upon those recipients who receive the body and blood of our
Lord in an unworthy manner. This argument raises the question: How could
infants and toddlers receive communion in an unworthy manner if they do not
know their right hand from their left, if they have no ability to
communicate, mistreat people or discern the body? A study of Paul's warning
in context makes it abundantly clear that this warning applies to professing
Christians who are capable of acting in an unloving manner toward the
brethren. The modified ex opere operato argument still presupposes a
magical, mechanical understanding of the supper.
Another common argument of paodocommunionists is based on the fact that the
Lord's supper is a covenant renewal meal. The argument is as follows: If
baptized children are included in the covenant and are members of the
visible church, then obviously they have a right and obligation to
participate in the covenant renewal meal that Jesus has instituted. Is it
not sinful and wrong to keep the eucharist from Christ's little lambs?
Although this argument is common and has sentimental appeal, it is easily
refuted by Scripture. Were the children of believers part of the covenant
and numbers of the visible church in the Old Testament economy? Yes, they
certainly were. Did they then have the right to participate in every
covenant meal that Jehovah had instituted? No. They did not participate in
the covenant meal on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24:9-11), nor did they participate in
the permanent Levitical Passover (Ex. 23:14-19, 34:18-25; Num. 1:3; 22:6;
Prov. 22:6; 2 Chron. 30:7-8; Lk. 2:41). Does this exclusion mean that they
were excommunicated or regarded as outside the covenant by God? No,
absolutely not. It was God himself who instituted the various covenant meals
and determined the appropriate recipients. If, under the old economy, God
can say that infants and children are in the covenant yet cannot participate
in certain sacred activities until they are able to understand what is going
on, then he obviously can do the same in the New Testament. We may not like
it. It may not seem logical to us. However, we must submit to God's
teaching, which is reflected in our Reformed symbols.
Another very common argument used by paodocommunionists against the historic
Reformed position is that the restriction of communion to adult church
numbers and successfully catechized children who have made a credible
profession of faith is that the confessional understanding came about
because of the influence of Greek philosophy and rationalism on Calvin and
the early Reformers.[27] This argument is refuted in two ways. First, it
needs to be pointed out that this accusation is never supported by any
actual evidence. If the Calvinistic Reformers and Reformed theologians were
influenced by Aristotilianism, neo-Platonism or Thomism (regarding
communion), then one should easily be able to demonstrate that fact by
showing quotations, similarities of thought and philosophical connections.
Until this work is done the idea that the Westminster divines were
influenced by Greek thought in their understanding of the Lord's supper
needs to be regarded for what it is: intellectual sounding but empty
accusations. Second, anyone that is familiar with the Reformed confessions
and theologians of the past knows that their arguments were based on the
exegesis of Scripture and not on esoteric philosophical considerations. Even
this brief study has shown that the new covenant Lord's supper as understood
by the Reformed symbols is thoroughly rooted in Scripture, not heathen
philosophy. Perhaps the reason this accusation (that the historic Reformed
view is Greek or rationalistic) is so frequently made by paedocommunionists
is that their position is inherently irrational. The Bible teaches that
progressive sanctification comes by God's truth (Jn. 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:22;
2:2; Ps. 19:9 ff., etc.). To argue that infants and sucklings are
progressively sanctified by crumbs of bread apart from any understanding is
irrational. Although God is almighty and can do whatsoever he desires, he
cannot contradict his own nature and work.
Conclusion
Our study of paedocommunion has revealed that the doctrine of infant
communion is faced with a number of insurmountable exegetical and
theological difficulties. An examination of the Old Testament shows that
"the strong support for paedocommunion" that allegedly is to be found there
is lacking. Not only is there nothing tangible in the Old Testament to cling
to for divine warrant, the relevant material contradicts paedocommunion.
Sacramental ordinances designed for progressive sanctification required
faith, knowledge and understanding in the Old Covenant just as the Lord's
supper does in the New Covenant.
A brief examination of passages dealing with the Lord's supper in the New
Testament demonstrates that the holy supper is a sacrament for progressive
sanctification (i.e., spiritual nourishment and growth) and thus requires
discerning the Lord's body, self-examination, faith, repentance and active
participation. There is simply no way a Reformed Protestant can adopt
paedocommunion without redefining the doctrine of sanctification. (Many of
course adopt infant communion out of an ignorance of both doctrines. If a
popular theonomist or conference speaker promotes it, then it must be
right.)
While the issue of paedocommunion may serve to be a minor doctrinal matter
that is not worth arguing over, the adoption of infant communion by Reformed
churches has great potential for leading people to superstitious,
sacramentalist views of communion. It can be and, sadly, already has been a
conduit to mysticism, Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy for a number of poor
deluded souls. Thus, let us hold fast to the doctrinal attainments of our
covenanted reformation not because we have a love of tradition, but because
they (the Reformed Symbols) are excellent expressions of scriptural
teaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Paedocommunion was practiced from the third to the eighth centuries.
There is no evidence that it was practiced before that time. The Eastern
Orthodox churches still practice paedocommunion. Given the fact that by the
third century sacramentalism was already deeply entrenched in many churches
and the fact that all Reformed theologians teach that the means of grace
require faith and a knowledgeable response to the signs to be efficacious,
the paodocommunist's appeal to church history is rather puzzling.
[2] Peter J. Leithart, Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated? (Niceville, Fla.:
Transfiguration Press, 1992). See also Rousas J. Rushdoony, Institutes of
Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1973), 44f, 752f, 794.
[3] P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976),
242.
[4] Morton Smith, Systematic Theology (Greenville, S.C.: Greenville Seminary
Press, 1994), p. 686-691, as quoted in Frances Nigel Lee, Paedocommunionism
Verses Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the
Reformation (unpublished paper).
[5] Richard Bacon, "What Mean Ye?" in The Blue Banner (Rowlett, TX: First
Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, 1996),
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm, sec. 4, 3.
[6] John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (London, 1809), 532.
[7] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1898]) 75.
[8] David A. Bass, Paedocommunion: A Return to or Departure from Biblical
Practice (Internet article: http://www.newgenecaopc.org/pb.asp), 10.
[9] William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 183.
[10] Francis Nigel Lee, Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism: How Trendy
Theologisers Have Retreated from the Reformation), pp. 8, 9.
[11]William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
497-498.
[12]Although virtually every person this author has discussed paedocommunion
with immediately goes to the comparison of the Lord's supper with the first
Passover as the main line of argumentation, some paedocommunionists are more
sophisticated in their argumentation. For example, Peter Leithart argues
from more general considerations such as the meaning of the covenant,
baptism, and his assertion that Israelite children were invited to eat
various sacrificial/sacramental meals. Interestingly, the passages that
Leithart cites as proof that all covenant children should partake of the
Lord's supper actually prove nothing of the sort. He appeals to the original
Passover (Ex. 12:3-4) which is ambiguous regarding the issue and which both
sides of the debate use as a proof text for their position. Scholars and
commentators are not in agreement as to the original recipients of the
Egyptian Passover. Then Leithart appeals to the peace offering in Leviticus
7:15-21. Leviticus 7 discusses the priest's portion of the sacrifice, but
mentions nothing about infants eating the sacrificial meat. If portions of
the sacrifice were taken home for the family to eat, one still needs to
determine whether (a) infants partook of the meat, and (b) was the meal
sacramental? The appeal to Leviticus 7 is full of unprovable assumptions.
Next, he cites Deuteronomy 14:22-29 which is simply a fellowship meal and
thus proves nothing. Leithart also points to the Feast of Tabernacles in
Deuteronomy 16:9-14 which is a time to rejoice and thank God for the
harvest. This feast points to the coming of the Holy Spirit, not the Lord's
supper. Finally, Leithart cites 1 Corinthians 10:1-14 which refers to the
eating of manna in the wilderness by the Israelite nation. Since such eating
was not sacramental and since the purpose of the passage is to teach the
need for persevering in faith and obedience toward Christ, we reject this as
well as Leithart's other proof texts.
[13] Richard Bacon, sec. 5, p. 4.
[14]The fact that only men and older catechized sons participated in the
permanent Levitical Passover, and that only men participated in the first
Lord's supper naturally raises a question regarding the participation of
women in communion. If women were excluded from the Passover and the
original institution of the Holy Supper should they not also be excluded
from the ordinance of communion in the new covenant era as well? The answer
to this question is that a study of the New Testament indicates that both
men and women are obligated to attend the Lord's supper. One must keep in
mind that the Lord's supper is a new ordinance. While it has a number of
things in common with the Passover, there are also important differences.
Also when discerning the participants of the Holy Supper one must not merely
examine the original institution of the Supper but also how the supper was
conducted by the local new covenant churches.
There are a number of reasons why women have always participated in
communion. (a) New Testament historical examples indicate that everyone
present at church meetings who could examine themselves was permitted to
partake. For example we read in Acts 20:7, "Now on the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart
the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." On
Sunday Christians came together to hear the word preached and to celebrate
the Lord's supper. Virtually all commentators take the phrase "the breaking
of bread" to refer to the Lord's supper or the Lord's supper coupled with
the agape fellowship meal. The reason the expression "to break bread" is
connected to communion is: First, it is always mentioned in connection with
public worship. It would be rather odd for Luke to make sure that his
readers knew that the Christians had lunch after the service. Second, in
Acts 2:42 the expression appears in a list that relates to public worship:
teaching-preaching, Christian fellowship, celebration of communion, and the
prayers of the saints. "In the Greek, the definite article precedes the noun
bread and thus specifies that the Christians partook of the bread set aside
for the sacrament of communion (compare 20:11; 1 Cor. 10:16). Also, the act
of breaking bread has its sequel in the act of offering prayers (personably
in the setting of public worship). The words breaking of the bread appear
within the sequence of teaching, fellowship, and prayers in worship
services" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 111).
(b) The context of Paul's instruction to the Corinthians regarding the Lord'
s supper indicates that his instructions apply to men as well as women. In
chapter 11 the apostles deals with proper behavior during public worship.
First, he deals with the issue of head coverings for women. Women are
required to cover their heads in the worship service because of the creation
ordinance of the covenant headship of the man, the observance of angels and
the shamefulness of uncovered heads. Immediately after dealing with head
c |