EXCERPTS FROM THE STUDY COMMITTEE ON PAEDOCOMMUNION MAJORITY REPORT OF THE PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY (PCA)
Dated May, 1986
Written by Messrs. Christian L. Keidel, David J. Brewer, and Donald S. Stone
I THE OLD TESTAMENT DATA
THE BIBLICAL WARRANT FOR PAEDOCOMMUNION
The biblical case for paedocommunion is founded upon a belief in the essential spiritual unity of the old and new covenants. Thus we can argue by analogy with old covenant practice, just as we do in support of paedobaptism.
Since members of the Old Testament visible church were in later infancy and early childhood commanded by God to eat the Passover and other sacrificed meals of the old covenant, and since the Lord’s Supper has taken the place of these sacrificial meals, and is essentially the same in spiritual significance, infant and child members of the New Testament visible church are therefore commanded by God to eat at the Lord’s Supper, if physically capable, for we are not to add to or take away from God’s commandments concerning worship in his church (Deut. 12:32). Thus to exclude covenant children from the new covenant meal would be to deny them, without any biblical warrant, a privilege which they had enjoyed in the old covenant. We will look at the major parts of this biblical case and try to briefly answer some of the objections that have been raised against it.
Opinion among Reformed theologians has been divided over whether children in later infancy and early childhood partook of the Passover and other sacrificial meals: Berkhof – Yes, Murray – No, and Bird – Not clear. We believe there is the following conclusive evidence that they did so:
OBJECTIONS:
ANSWER: We do not argue those in early infancy partook, but only those able to eat and drink, “each man according to the mouth of his eating.” Also there is such a thing as a nursing baby on solids. It’s hard to imagine children had nothing to eat but milk their first three years of life before weaning. They could eat unleavened bread while teething and small pieces of meat and herbs when two years and older. The diet of the Lord’s Supper is even easier to consume because bread has replaced the harder-to-digest meat.
ANSWER: There are certainly many Scriptural warnings against the misuse of wine and drunkenness. But wine, properly used, is often extolled in Scripture as a gift of God which “gladdens the heart of man” (Ps. 104:15). Jesus performed his first miracle by turning water into wine at a wedding party in Canal Now there are two clear examples in Scripture of little children drinking wine. First, while they participated in the sacrificial meals of the various peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 11, 17, etc.), they at the same time ate tithe offerings, which included wine (Deut. 12:17, 18; 14:22-27): “You must not eat in your towns the tithe of grain and new wine …. Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose – you, your sons and daughters …” (12:17, 18). “Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice” (14:26). If the presence of wine did not bar children from participating in these meals, why should it exclude them from the Lord’s Supper? Obviously very small portions would have been given to children. Only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. Where is any danger of intoxication in that? A second illustration in Scripture of children drinking wine is found in Lamentations where we read of Jeremiah’s grief: “Because child and suckling faint in the city’s open places. To their mothers they say ‘Where is corn and wine’; as they faint like those wounded in the city’s open places, as their life is poured out of the bosom of their mothers” (2:11, 12). This passage answers the first objection about nursing infants being unable to eat solids. Here they eat corn, and in Lam. 4:4, they cry out for bread (it is possible for sucklings to call for these things, especially if we remember children were not generally weaned until the age of three). They also drink wine. Beckwith, in a rather arbitrary way, suggests the word translated here as “wine” refers in this context to “bunches of grapes” (p. 128). But the word appears 135 times in the Old Testament and in every context is translated as wine to be used for drinking.
ANSWER: First, it must be noted from the context of Deut. 16:16, that although male adults were commanded to attend annually the three festivals, women and little children were allowed, expected, if not required to attend as well, if physically capable: “Celebrate the Feast of weeks … you, your sons and daughters …” (Deut. 16:10, 11), and “Celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles … you, your sons and daughters” (Deut. 16:13, 14). The command, therefore, for male adults to attend would apply only to their unique role, as the federal heads of their families, of presenting the offerings to be sacrificed in the place of God’s choosing: “No man should appear before the Lord empty-handed …” (Deut. 16:6). Thus it does not refer at all to the requirement to eat the sacrificial meals, which would apply more broadly as something the whole family was expected to do. In addition, Deut. 12:6ff. makes clear that, since the peace meals were attended by whole families, it cannot be argued that worship at the central sanctuary was intended to make attendance by little children (or women) obsolete (e.g., see I Sam. 1:3ff.). Thus there is no reason to assume that little children would not go on eating the Passover meal, even at the central sanctuary, “each man according to the mouth of his eating”. Second, it is not accurate to say little children were not eating the Passover at the time of Christ. Beckwith admits that “very little children” (though not infants) were able to eat the Passover, if able to eat as much as an olive size of meat, according to Mishnah passages (p. 145). He explains, however, that this would have been later in the first century, not at the time of Christ (pp.149ff.). According to Yoma 82a, he goes on to say, thirteen was the age of accountability for male adults. This would explain why Jesus is recorded to have attended at the age of 12 in Luke 2:41-51, because “Jesus was taken up by Joseph a year in advance, in accordance with the practice of preparing children in that way for the duties which would become obligatory when they were thirteen.” Beckwith does not cite his source for this preparation a year in advance, but one may be found in Pesahim 99b. In this same Mishnah book, however, in Pesahim 88a, it is said: “Our Rabbis taught: ‘a lamb for a household’: this teaches that a man can bring (a lamb) and slaughter (it) on behalf of his sons and daughters, if minors … whether with their consent or without it.” Other passages in Pesahim speak of little children partaking (which are also cited by Beckwith, pp. 145ff.). Now if Beckwith applies Pesahim 99b to the time of Christ (to establish why Christ attended at the age of 12), he should also use the other passages from Pesahim. If this is done, we must conclude little children were eating the Passover at the time of Christ. Thus if Jesus patterned attendance at the Lord’s Supper after attendance at the Passover in his day, it would have included very little children. Third, Jesus’ attendance at the Passover with the twelve apostles was not so much a result of Deut. 16:16, but rather a fulfillment of what was foreshadowed in Exodus 24:9-11. The latter records the formal institution of the Mosaic covenant, which points forward to Christ’s institution of the new covenant with the apostles (more on this later).
ANSWER: One should not conclude from the ability to inquire by some the necessity to inquire by all. A child’s inquiry concerning the meaning of the Passover was never meant to be taken as a requirement for participation, but as an opportunity for instruction. As a child entered the age of discretion, he/she was to be instructed in the spiritual meaning of the Passover and peace meals. A similar situation is described in Deut. 6:6, 7, 20, 21, cf. vv. 22-25 in which parents trained their children to obey the law before they understood its spiritual significance. No one would argue they should have been kept from the law until they were old enough to comprehend its connection with redemption.
There are several reasons for believing that the Lord’s Supper has replaced the Passover meal. First, the Passover meal was directly transformed by Christ into a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The very elements of the Lord’s Supper were invested with new meaning by Christ’s words of institution: “Take eat; this is my body” (Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19), and “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:27, 28; Mk. 14:24).
Second, Jesus identifies (by fulfillment) both the Passover and the Lord’s Supper with the Messianic banquet. The Bible speaks of a Messianic banquet to be enjoyed by all God’s people when Jesus comes a second time to completely establish his kingdom: Isa. 26:6-8; Mt. 9:11; 22:1ff.; 25:1ff.; Lk. 13:28, and 22:30. Jesus identifies the Passover meal he is eating with his disciples and this messianic banquet in saying, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:15, 16), and “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes” (Lk. 22:18). But he also identifies the Lord’s Supper which he is instituting and the messianic banquet in saying: “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt. 26:29; cf. vv. 27, 28). If the messianic banquet fulfills both the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper, there must be a direct correspondence between the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper as well, and the Lord’s Supper may therefore be said to replace the Passover meal.
Third and finally, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross fulfilled the Passover sacrifices, for Paul says, “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (I Cor. 5:7). If the Lord’s Supper is a feeding upon that which signifies the sacrificed Christ, and if the sacrificed Christ is, among other things, a Passover sacrifice (according to Paul), then the Lord’s Supper is a feeding upon that which signifies a Passover sacrifice and should thus be considered a Passover meal. For these three reasons one must conclude that the Lord’s Supper is a Passover meal.
The Lord’s Supper also replaces peace meals because Hebrews 10:1ff. teaches that the sacrifices of the old covenant are a shadow of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Thus all the sacrificial meals of the old covenant (i.e. the peace meals as well as the Passover meal), which involved feeding upon some of these sacrifices fulfilled the Lord’s Supper, the new covenant sacrificial meal, which is a feeding upon that which signifies Christ’s sacrifice.
The propitiation for sins accomplished through a substitutionary sacrifice of atonement, and the resulting fellowship of peace with God, is the key to understanding the underlying unity of meaning between the Passover and peace meals and the Lord’s Supper. In the old covenant, the propitiation was always accomplished through the sacrifice of animals prior to the meal. They were sacrificial meals, therefore, because that which was eaten had been sacrificed.
Through the one sufficient death of Christ on the cross, propitiation for the sins of God’s people has been fully and truly accomplished. But in eating the bread and drinking the wine, the church does not feed upon the actually sacrificed body and blood of Christ; it feeds rather upon that which signifies Christ’s sacrificed body and blood. It may therefore be called a sacrificial meal, not because a sacrifice is made during the meal, nor because Christ’s sacrificed body is physically present in some sense, but because participants consume the bread and wine which signify Christ’s body and blood (see H. Ridderbos, “The Coming of the Kingdom,” [pp. 418-443] for further understanding of the Lord’s Supper as this kind of sacrificial meal). The Passover meal is especially close in meaning to the Lord’s Supper. Both are commemorative, perpetual and family-covenant oriented. The peace meals involved the intimate fellowship with God which is ours today in the Lord’s Supper, accomplished not through the blood of continually offered animal sacrifices, but through the once-for-all shed blood of Christ on the cross.
OBJECTIONS:
ANSWER: According to Vos, “It is a mistake to think that in the sin offerings only expiation was afforded. Wherever there is slaying and manipulation of blood there is expiation, and both of these were present in the original Passover” (“Biblical Theology,” p. 135). Hengstenberg says the Passover is “expressly termed ‘a sacrifice,’ [Ex. 12:27; 23:18; 34:25]. It was slaughtered in holy places [Deut.16:5], and after the sanctuary had been erected, its blood was sprinkled and its fat burnt on the altar [2 Chron. 30:16, 17; 35:11]” (“History of the Kingdom of God,” vol. 3, p. 278). It cannot be maintained either that the Passover was a sacrifice of propitiation but not expiation (O.P.C. Majority Report, pp. 7, 8). You cannot have the former without the latter. Again quoting from Vos: “The meal was an exponent of the state of peace and blessedness enjoyed. But precisely because this meal followed the sacrifice proper, there must be recognized in it a reminder of the necessary dependence of such a state of privilege on antecedent expiation” (p. 135). The peace meal, furthermore, was a feeding on a sacrifice of atonement, for in offering the sacrifice, “He is to lay his hand on the head of the offering,’ (Lev. 3:2). This symbolized the transfer of sin to the animal, who is then killed as a substitute and whose blood is sprinkled “against the altar” (vs. 2).
ANSWER: The problem with this line of reasoning is the mistaken comparison between approaching the altar and approaching the Lord’s Table. This is to misconstrue the analogy entirely. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrificial meal – a feeding upon that which symbolizes what has already been sacrificed. It is definitely not the offering of a sacrifice. We agree that only the male, as federal head, was supposed to have offered the sacrifice at the altar – and only in faith. But this says nothing about who could eat what had been offered by the male. As we have seen from Exodus 12:3ff. and Deut. 12:4ff., little children (as well as women) were able to do the latter, and as soon as they were physically capable – not just when they had come to an age of discretion. Hence one draws a confused and false analogy by comparing 1 Cor. 11:30 and Num. 17:12-18:7.
ANSWER: First, we agree that only adults with understanding were able to subjectively bind themselves in covenant renewal commitment. This does not mean, however, that little children were not present at these ceremonies. In other renewal ceremonies “all Israel” was to be present, including children (Deut. 31:11,12; Josh. 8:33, 35). Second, in Ex.24:8, Moses sprinkles the sacrificial blood of burnt and peace offerings on the people. Although little children were unaware of its significance, it still objectively represented their life and death bond with God, their covenant Lord. The little ones were still responsible for repentance and faith as they grew in understanding and discernment, just as Deut.10:16 and Jer. 4:4, 14 speak of all Israel’s responsibility to be what their circumcision signifies they are to be – holy, loving, pure in heart. If little children could eat the Passover and peace meals, with all their objective spiritual significance, while not having subjective understanding, they could be part of a covenant institution ceremony, without subjective understanding. Third, Heb. 9:19 tells us that the blood was sprinkled by Moses on the people with branches of hyssop, a reminder of the Passover sacrifice and how its blood was sprinkled on the doorways of Israelite homes with hyssop. Thus this ceremony in Ex. 24 was the formal ratifying of the covenant already begun by the Passover sacrifice and the blood applied there. Children, as we have seen, participated in this covenant meal, each man according to the mouth of his eating. Fourth, it is certainly true the Lord’s Supper fulfills the covenant renewal ceremonies of the old covenant – especially in Ex. 24. The meal eaten by the Israelite leaders was a peace (fellowship) meal (vv. 5, 11) and was eaten only by the leaders. In Deut. 27:6-8 and Joshua 8:1, at a similar covenant renewal ceremony, all Israel participated in peace meals and rejoiced before the Lord, including little children (as we have already observed). Thus in Ex. 24, the covenant was formally instituted and a covenant meal was eaten by the leaders of Israel. In Josh. 8, this same covenant is renewed by all Israel participating in a peace meal together. In an analogous way, Jesus formally instituted the new covenant by eating the Lord’s Supper (a sacrificial meal as previously defined) with the twelve apostles, the leaders of the new Israel. Subsequently, God’s people have renewed this covenant by the perpetual eating of the new covenant meal, the Lord’s Supper. If little children participated in the old covenant renewal meals, why not the new?
Paedobaptists will recognize the similarity between this argument and their own argument for infant baptism. They argue generally in this way: that since God commanded infant members of the old testament visible church to be circumcised, and since baptism has now taken the place of circumcision and is essentially the same in spiritual meaning as circumcision, infant members of the new testament visible church are commanded by God to be baptized, for we are not to take away from God’s commandments.
OBJECTIONS:
ANSWER: First, according to Rayburn: “As the context makes clear and as the commentators confirm, Paul’s remarks are specifically directed against an impious and irreverent participation (a true manductio indignorum). Much more would need to have been said before it could be concluded that Paul was speaking to the general question of who may come to the table, or to the question of children’s participation, or that he intended to exclude them from the supper. We do not understand Acts 2:38 to deny baptism to little children, Rom. 10:13,14 to deny them salvation, or 2 Thess. 3:10 to deny them food” (p. 1910; see also Keidel, pp. 323-325). Second, and again quoting Rayburn: “An appeal to I Cor. 11:28 is rendered all the more dubious an argument against paedocommunion by the incontestable fact the Old Testament contains similar warnings against faithless and hardhearted participation in the sacraments, similar calls to self-examination before participating, even (as in I Cor. 11:30) threats of death for such offenders (Isa. 1:10-20; Amos 5:18-27; Jer. 7:1-29). Yet these warnings can in no way be said to have invalidated the practice or the divine warrant for family participation in the sacral meals as prescribed in the law” (p. 1910; see also Keidel, pp. 325-327). Just as adults participating in the covenant renewal meals were to have repentance and faith, so were they to have the same when eating the other sacrificial meals. In each case, however, little children were allowed to participate. When they entered into an age of discretion, they were expected to eat with increasing understanding and commitment.
ANSWER: Children in later infancy and early childhood are able to physically ‘take and eat.’ From this stage on, infants and children should be allowed to eat at the Lord’s Table. It should not be given at baptism by intinction (as in the Eastern Orthodox Church). It should be every man according to the mouth of his eating, that is, as each is able to eat as much as a small portion.
ANSWER: To assume this contradicts the clear evidence that infants and small children actively took and ate the old covenant sacrificial meals without being required to exercise faith or repentance.
ANSWER: Children circumcised but once in the old covenant were expected to participate in the repeated annual sacrificial meals. By analogy, baptized children ought to participate regularly in the Lord’s Supper.
ANSWER: The Bible makes clear that all Israel was held accountable for the spiritual, as well as temporal aspect of the old covenant. Actually, possession and enjoyment of these temporal blessings depended upon the repentance and faith of the Israelite adults (e.g., Gen. 18:19; Deut. 6:16-19; 27:1; 32:52). It is also clear that repentance and faith was expected of all adults attending the Passover and peace meals: Lev. 28:27; Ps. 51:16,17,19; Isa. 1:10-20; 66:2-4; Amos 5:21-24; Jer. 7:1-29;14:12; Hos. 5:6; Mic. 6:6-8;1 Sam. 15:20-23. God’s righteous indignation and punishment of unbelieving Israelites who participated in these sacred meals proves they had objective spiritual meaning in spite of the lack of faith of those attending (as in the Lord’s Supper – 1 Cor. 10 and 11). And so it cannot be argued that only the members of the true Israel participated in the spiritual aspects of the old covenant sacrificial meals. Even so, little children (incapable of such faith) participated in them with impunity, as we have seen. As they reached the age of discretion, however, they were from then on, in keeping God’s ways, to understand, at their various age-level capacities, his graciousness in accepting a substitute. It is true that the Passover had a secondary reference to earthly deliverance from Egypt and that this meaning does not apply to the Lord’s Supper (except in type). But this does not take away the Passover’s objective, spiritual significance (as a sacrificial meal essentially the same in meaning as the Lord’s Supper) and little children’s objective participation in that aspect. We argue by analogy in the same way for paedobaptism. Circumcision was not only a national badge, but was also a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Infants, of course, did not grasp this objective spiritual meaning, but were to do so later. And so we argue for infant participation in baptism, which has essentially the same spiritual significance as circumcision. The peace meals, it should be added, had even less reference to earthly blessings which foreshadowed Christ. Their primary emphasis was peace or fellowship with God which came through the offering of a substitute. We enjoy essentially the same quality of peaceful fellowship with God today in Christ (this is exhibited in the psalms especially).
ANSWER: This argument appears similar to that of Jewett. Certainly there is a “heightening of fulfillment by which the new covenant is related to the old” in that Christ has replaced the Old Testament animal sacrifices by his once-for-all, perfect and sufficient sacrifice. But the sacrifices of the old covenant were essentially the same in spiritual significance, being substitutionary, expiatory, and propitiatory. It is true the efficacy of the animal sacrifices rested not in themselves, but in Christ’s sacrifice which they foreshadowed, but they were atoning as a result nonetheless. Thus according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “The sacraments of the old testament in regard to spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.” Thus in the old covenant, small children fed on sacrificial meals which had objective spiritual significance. On a subjective level, of course, they did not see the spiritual meaning. To them it was an ordinary meal. As they grew older, however, they were expected to eat the Lord’s Supper, which replaces these meals and has the same objective spiritual meaning. As they pass into an age of discretion, they will also be expected to eat with increasing discernment (I Cor. 11). Whether children should eat the Lord’s Supper because of their eating the manna is a more difficult issue. Many who support paedocommunion include this as part of their argument based on I Cor. 10:3, 4 and John 6. If this position is valid, it certainly strengthens the case for paedocommunion. We fully believe the manna and water from the rock were miraculously provided by Christ and thus had a spiritual source. We also believe the manna pictured and foreshadowed Christ. Just as manna was miraculously provided by God from heaven to give physical life, so Christ was miraculously sent by God from heaven to give spiritual life. As the true manna (Jn. 6:32, 35), Christ is indeed sacrificial food. In this sense we are to feed on the bread which signifies his sacrificed body (Jn. 6:48-50). And yet, this sacrificial meaning attaches to the manna only in its fulfilled, not original sense. Participation in eating the manna, therefore, has no bearing by analogy on who should be participants in eating the new covenant sacrificial meal, and should probably not, therefore, be appealed to in support of paedocommunion.
ANSWER: But in an analogy similar to baptism and circumcision infants and little children have a right to the Lord’s Supper based on their right to the old covenant sacrificial meals. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that circumcision had to be “completed” or that understanding of its spiritual meaning had to be “confirmed” by little children before they partook of the sacrificial meals. The only requirement was the physical capacity to “take” and “eat”. Thus the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper, as in baptism, is not tied to the moment of its administration. Nor should its subjective aspect take precedence over its objective spiritual significance.
THE EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF PAEDOCOMMUNION
We believe it is appropriate, therefore, to see the Lord’s Supper as a means by which all Christians confirm their faith on a regular basis – as the new covenant renewal ceremony. Rather than postponing confirmation and communion to early teens or later, parents and churches can have their children participate in communion at very early ages. They will gradually grow in understanding of that which is objectively signified and sealed in the Lord’s meal: “Covenant children should be treated as brothers and sisters in the Lord because they are covenant children, not because of what they say or do. Covenant children, as well as adults are to be nourished by the means of grace which the Lord has provided. Thus the Word nourishes them at their parents’ knee, in divine worship services, in Sunday school, and wherever else the Word is taught. In the same way, the Lord’s Supper, another means of grace, should nourish both children and adults. Very small children can begin to discern the body; the degree of discernment should increase as the years pass. If, however, a person who began to partake of the Lord’s Supper becomes a covenant-breaker, then the approach should be the same as it is now: those who break the covenant should not be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper any longer …. In deciding when children may partake of the Lord’s Supper, we should not watch them to see when the tiniest ability to discern appears. Rather, children should receive nourishment from the different means of grace, including the Lord’s Supper. Then the covenant community will rejoice as these means of grace help children to discern the body better as the years pass.” (R. Maatman, Minority Report to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church on “Children at the Lord’s Table; -1986, pp. 52, 56).
Similar remarks are made by Rayburn: “Christian parents begin to teach their little ones at a very early age, indeed at the dawn of consciousness, that the promises of God are theirs to hold and the law of God is theirs to keep. If the Word can be given to them at such a tender age, the sign and seal of it not less so. The nurture of covenant children is a continuum, having its beginning before a child is in full possession of reason why it too should not make its contribution over the whole course of the spiritual upbringing of a covenant child … the celebration of the supper with their children, as well as preparation for it, would provide parents with a regular and most important opportunity for instruction and examination, as the Passover provided in ancient times” (p. 1911).
~