a.
The information given by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 11 regarding the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper must not be taken as an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Neither is it necessarily the most basic passage for our understanding of how one – especially a covenant child – ought to participate in the sacrament. Like all of Paul’s writings, the material in I Corinthians 11 is occasional, and his instructions are closely tied to the specifics of the historical and ecclesiastical situation originally addressed. This does not relativize the text in any way, but simply reminds us that it must be contextually interpreted and properly applied.
b.
The interpretation of I Corinthians 11:23-32 has suffered greatly as a result of a liturgical usage of these “words of institution” in the history of the Church. As a result, the warnings and instructions of the apostle have been abstracted from their context in the letter (i.e., vv. 17-34). With the passage of time, the interpretation of these words has developed in isolation from that broader context and the immediate historical setting. Consequently the understanding and application of this passage have become increasingly broad and absolute. A case in point, which is of central concern to this present study, is the way in which the warnings and instructions of this passage have been used as grounds for the exclusion of young covenant children from participation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
c.
The urgent necessity of an understanding and application of this passage controlled (and limited) by its literary context, and its historical and ecclesiastical setting, cannot be overestimated. This report will attempt to answer several objections to paedocommunion on the basis of such a contextual understanding in application of this passage. In so doing the committee has been helped by many fine studies, but is especially indebted to the recent commentary on the passage by Dr. Gordon D. Fee (New International Commentary on the New Testament: I Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 531-569). We will follow Dr. Fee’s exposition in great measure in what follows.
d.
Dr. Fee summarizes the situation in Corinth briefly as follows:
[The Corinthians] are meeting together to eat the Lord’s Supper but in so doing they are “devouring” their own private meals with their privileged portions and thereby humiliating those who have nothing. Because they have treated the Table of the Lord so badly, neither proclaiming the salvation for which this meal is intended nor “discerning the body of Christ, the church,” they are presently experiencing divine judgment. The remedy is simple: “In the gathered assembly, receive one another with full welcome at the Lord’s Table.” Moreover as Paul says in v. 22, “Since you have your own houses to eat and drink in, eat your ‘private’ meals at home.” And the reason is to keep from experiencing any further judgment (pp. 568, 569).
Our understanding of Paul’s use of the “words of institution” (which are, though important, introduced incidentally and supportively in his argument here, rather than for their own sake), and his discussion of the ideas of “unworthy participation,” “examining (or proving) oneself,” “discernment,” and “the body” must be determined by this contextual setting. Further, this setting must guide our determination regarding the relevance of Paul’s statements to the question of the propriety of young covenant children participating in the Lord’s Supper.
Paul says that before one participates in the Lord’s Supper (v. 27), he ought to “examine himself” (dokimazeto, v. 28). Many have taken this to refer to an introspective self-evaluation to determine several things about one’s subjective condition in coming to the Table. Paul’s term, however, refers to a very different kind of “examination.” It is a “demonstrative” examination whereby, in the face of testing circumstances, one demonstrates the nature of his godly character by words and deeds that bring approval from God. The cognate adjective is used in v. 19 to refer to those in the Corinthian church who will be “shown to have the divine approval.”
Fee points out that this self-examination “stands in contrast to the ‘divine examination’ to which unworthy participation will lead” (p. 561), and which is already circumstantially evident in the illness and deaths of some of the Corinthian members (v. 30). Paul is therefore calling the Corinthians to realize the immanent danger of divine “examination” and “discipline” (v. 32) that is coming upon them because of their abuse of the Supper.
Specifically, that abuse involved a lack of consideration by the wealthier Corinthian saints for those of poor and humble means. At their “gatherings” for the Lord’s Supper, some of the Corinthians were using the occasion to glut themselves on their own private provisions. In so doing they were “despising” (kataphroneite, a strong word for “showing contempt”) the church of God by “humiliating” (kataischunete, cf. 11:4, 5) those among the brothers who have nothing. This was the cause of the “divisions” among them which led Paul to address this problem in the first place (vv. 17f.).
When Paul calls the Corinthians (especially the well-to-do among them) to “examine themselves,” he is commanding them to cease from their contemptuous behavior of humiliating the poor among them. They are to demonstrate by their behavior – behavior that will follow the specific directives of the apostle outlined in vv. 33, 34 – that they have “passed the test,” and have the approval of God (cf. v. 19). If they do not, then, in their continued sin, they are liable to the providential “examination” of God, to which some have already fallen victim, which will demonstrate that they do not have His approval, but rather have been “disciplined so that they will not be condemned with the world” (v. 32).
Can a covenant child “examine himself” as commanded here in the sense in which Paul uses it? Leaving aside the question of the relevance of this command to the Corinthian children or to our contemporary covenant children (see below), we can answer the question with a qualified “Yes.” It is possible for a covenant child, when tested (cf. I Cor. 10:13), to demonstrate by his words and behavior that he is living a godly life which seeks the approval of God. Such faithfulness can be observed even in a young child by both parents, elders, and other members of the church.
While it is unlikely that a young child would be confronted with a situation precisely like that which Paul addresses in I Corinthians 11:17-34, he may well experience similar occasions where considerate behavior towards others is required, and may well “pass the examination.” Such demonstrable godliness should be part of his growing experience of living in covenant with God, and should receive the approval of God and His people. It is striking that it is just this sort of “examination” which Luke says the young Jesus “passed” over and over.
Casting the question and answer in this light clearly illustrates how inadequate the traditional view of “self-examination” is in light of Paul’s teaching in the context of I Corinthians 11. While the periods of pietistic introspection which have become a customary part of our celebrations of the Lord’s Supper may have value to some, they are certainly not what Paul is commanding in this passage. Therefore to keep young covenant children back from the Table because they cannot engage in such “soul-searching,” is simply unbiblical. They are not required by this Scripture to do so, nor is anyone else. What everyone is required to do – demonstrate by godly living that we have God’s approval – can be done by young children as well as adults, and is regularly done by many of our covenant children today.
The reference in Paul’s instructions to “discern the body” has most often been taken to mean that a communicant must recognize the Lord’s body, symbolized by the bread of the Supper, and, in eating, reflect upon Christ’s death and its significance for the communicant.
Without minimizing the importance of the symbolism of the bread and wine in the Supper, or the central importance of the death of Christ for God’s saving work on behalf of His sinful people, we are still forced to ask if that is indeed what Paul has in mind in this context. When Paul wants to refer to the communion elements, and that which they symbolize, in this passage, he always mentions them both together (cf. vv. 26, 27, 28). So we must look in another direction for the significance of the term “body” in verse 29.
Fee argues that, “the term ‘body,’ even though it comes by way of the words of institution in v. 24, deliberately recalls Paul’s interpretation of the bread in 10:17, thus indicating that the concern is with the problem in Corinth itself, of the rich abusing the poor” (p. 563). That is to say the term “body” here refers not to the symbolism of the bread taken in communion, but rather to the Church. It is the Church which is being affected by the abuse of some of the Corinthian members. It is the Church that is being “despised” by the calloused and humiliating treatment afforded the poorer brethren. And Paul is calling the saints to see and understand this.
Through the explanation of the Supper he has given, and his evaluation of the significance of their inappropriate actions when gathered to celebrate the Supper, he is calling them to “judge” their behavior in a different light, from a different point of view. If they see their situation through his eyes – or more specifically, the eyes of the Holy Spirit speaking through him – they will learn “discernment,” they will evaluate their behavior differently, and make the necessary changes called for by the apostle.
Paul is telling them (to use Fee’s summary, p. 564),
The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is the meal, in which at a common table with one loaf and a common cup they proclaimed that through the death of Christ they were one body the body of Christ; and therefore they are not just any group of sociologically diverse people who could keep those differences intact at this table. Here they must “discern/recognize as distinct” the body of Christ, of which they all are parts and in which they all are gifts to one another. To fail to discern the body this way, by abusing those of lesser sociological status, is to incur God’s judgment.
Can children “discern” (i.e., recognize) the uniqueness of life within the body of the church as over against life in the world? Of course they can, and they are trained to do so in covenant homes and by faithful churches. Covenant children are regularly taught that the distinctions that mean a great deal to the world – racial distinctions, social and economic status, etc. – are not important in the church. What is more, covenant children are often more amenable to such instruction than adult members!
If a situation arose in one of our churches similar to the Corinthian situation, could covenant children be trained to respond appropriately to racial, social, or economic distinctions within the body? They certainly could. We doubt that it was the children in the congregation at Corinth that were creating the problem Paul addresses in this passage, though some may have followed the poor example of their parents. As Paul’s instructions began to have their effect in the Corinthian congregation, and adults began to change their ways in light of their new “discretion,” it is hard to imagine that the children of the congregation would have held back, and stubbornly maintained class-conscious distinctions.
A young child may not be able to grasp all the nuances of sacramental theology with respect to the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper – though they often do better than they are given credit for (adult communicants do not set a very good standard to follow). But is that what Paul is calling them to in the passage? We think not. Further, the very common tendency in our churches to identify this “discernment” (and the “self-examination” that is seen to attend it) with the act of “making a credible (public) profession of faith” is even farther from the context. We have argued elsewhere that such a requirement has no grounds elsewhere in Scripture, and warrant certainly cannot be found here either (without considerable forcing of the passage to say what we want it to say).
This objection raises the basic question of the relevance of Paul’s instructions in this chapter to the issue before us. Can we derive from this passage a comprehensive directory for proper participation in the Lord’s Supper? It is very difficult to say we can when the passage is understood in its proper contextual setting. To be sure the “words of institution” mentioned here by Paul have far-ranging implications. If Paul had introduced them here as a subject of importance apart from any particular historical situation, it might be easier to justify the traditional broad interpretation and application of them, but he does not. They are introduced here precisely because of a particular historical situation and as a reminder that the Supper they gather to eat is the Lord’s. That fact has implications for his later instructions to them. But Paul’s purpose must be allowed to control our understanding and application of his words, and that purpose is very specific.
Taken in context we believe this passage is relevant to covenant children only in an indirect way, and we have also argued that covenant children can conform to the mandates of this passage if they are applied to them properly. More than that we cannot expect, much less require. To build the case against the participation of young covenant children in the Lord’s Supper on the basis of this passage is to force the apostolic instructions to do service for a purpose outside the sphere of Paul’s immediate concerns, and is therefore in error. Rather we should submit our practices of communion – for adults and children – to a proper application of these warnings and instructions for the edification of the whole body young and old alike. It would be ironic indeed, and sad, if we were to use a passage designed by the Holy Spirit to overcome erroneous “distinctions” between groups in the church to establish (or perpetuate) a practice that excludes a large “class” of church members – namely, our covenant children – from the Lord’s Supper.
[source]
~