Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 3

In traditional Reformed churches, the Lord’s Supper is withheld from a covenant child until he can "sustain a satisfactory examination by the elders" regarding the genuineness of his faith.

In some churches, even before that child has access to such an exam, he's required to fulfill a prerequisite condition: he must memorize and recite the 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism. Of course, that usually means that the child is no longer a child by the time he makes it to the Lord’s Table. 

Now to be clear, I'm not arguing against the practice of catechetical training. In fact, I believe that one of the great tragedies of our day is that the regular, didactic use of the Reformed confessions and catechisms has been neglected by churches and families alike, and the results have been devastating to say the least. 

So the question here is not about using catechisms, the question is about exactly how a catechism should (and should not) be used. To state it clearly: Do we have the authority to exclude a covenant child from the covenant meal until he's completed the catechetical program of our church? 

Reasoning from Calvin

As far as I can tell, the origin of this practice can be traced, at least indirectly, back to John Calvin. It seems that when Calvin used Exodus 12:26 to support the claim that the Passover was eaten "only by those who were of a sufficient age to inquire into its meaning” (Institutes, 4.16.30), a certain application of this text was bound to emerge. 

And so it did. In fact, anyone familiar with the recent anti-paedocommunion literature can see that Calvin’s interpretation of this text provided just enough of the necessary basis upon which the imposition of a catechetical requirement could be justified. And here's how that works: 

First, the dialog mentioned in Exodus 12:26-27 is presented in Q&A format and that’s important because everyone knows that answering questions is a form of catechetical instruction. From there, it only needs to be emphasized that the dialog itself was commanded by the LORD. That too is important because if it was one of the prescribed features of the Passover, we're looking at a pretty strong case against the notion that young children were full participants in the feast. 

Why is that? Because this kind of exercise requires a certain level of maturity and spiritual discernment. And generally speaking, young children don't have the intellectual capacity to perform such a task. 

Thus, if we begin with a desire to align ourselves with Calvin’s interpretation, it puts us on a clear and definite trajectory. Not only can we deny that children partook of the Passover, we can also justify the imposition of a new catechetical requirement to regulate the Lord's Supper. And never mind that we’ve taken it from a one-question exercise to 129 questions and answers because that’s not the point. The point is that, in Calvin, we have a solid, historical, and theological argument for our practice. 

This brings us to the second (and third) argument(s) on my list of five common objections to child participation in the Passover (found here). 

Objections & Answers

2. Admission to the Passover Required Catechesis

Now as you’ll see, answering this objection is a lot easier than it appears. However, before we dive right into it, I should probably demonstrate that what I’ve presented here is not a strawman argument. To do this, I’ve chosen to interact with Dr. Cornelis P. Venema, author of the book, entitled, Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. 

Throughout his book, Dr. Venema speaks to the question of child participation at the Passover meal, and when we put a few of his statements together, we can identify the basic structure of his argument. 

On page 70 he writes:

// The Passover Feast included, as one of its prescribed features, a kind of “catechetical” exercise. At a certain point in the Passover rite, the children of the household were to ask, “What mean ye by this service?” (Ex. 12:26). In reply to this question, the head of the household was to declare, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (v. 27a) //

To his credit, Dr. Venema acknowledges that the presence of this exercise does not argue “conclusively” against the participation of young children. And yet, in another place, he argues that it does “suggest” that they were excluded.

On page 57 he writes:

// Each of these elements seems to have required a measure of maturity and spiritual discernment that would have excluded full participation in the Passover meal by infants and younger children // 

From these two comments, it should be clear that the position I’ve outlined above is an accurate representation of what Reformed theologians argue on this point. As I see it, however, there are at least two interpretive errors in this argument, and though they're relatively easy to make, they completely change the meaning of the text and, therefore, cannot go unchallenged.  

Error # 1, The Question Was Prescribed by the LORD

First of all, it is an error to use imperative language when describing the question in Exodus 12:26. For some reason, Dr. Venema calls it a prescribed feature, saying that it was something the children of the household were to ask. But that's simply not true. All the text says is, when your children ask you about the meaning of the Passover, here is what you should say. In other words, the answer is prescribed but the question is simply anticipated.

// And it shall come to pass, when your children say to you, What do you mean by this service? that you shall say, It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD //

Error # 2, The Question Was Tied to the Passover Rite

Second, it is also an error to present the question in Exodus 12:26 as a ritual feature, tied to the time of the celebration itself. Interestingly, Dr. Venema claims that this was a feature of the celebration that was to take place, specifically, at a certain point in the Passover rite. But this is misleading because there's nothing in the text that necessitates such a formal restriction. The wording in this passage is flexible and open-ended, showing that the child might ask this question any time.

In his essay, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, James B. Jordan writes:

// Exactly the same kind of question and prescribed answer is found in Deuteronomy 6:20-21 with reference to the law, and in Joshua 4:6-7 about the memorial stones at the Jordan River. These are not ritual events, but examples of a child's curiosity being satisfied in a perfectly normal manner // [1]

With all due respect to Dr. Venema, it seems that his treatment of this text reveals an inner bias. Of course, it’s also possible that he made an honest mistake in his wording on this point. In either case, the evidence is plain enough: the question of Exodus 12:26 was neither a prescribed question nor was it a ritual feature tied to the Passover rite.

Objections Continued  

3. The Language of the Text Disproves Child Participation

When I began this series, I originally planned to address this third objection in a separate post. But seeing that it’s so closely related to the second—being grounded in the very same verse—I decided to deal with it here. And though Dr. Venema makes no mention of this argument in his book, plenty of other theologians have.

For example, Brian Schwertley, in an online article entitled, Paedocommunion, A Biblical Examination (found here), writes:

// 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 //

One of the interpreters Schwertley has in mind here is Morton Smith, who, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:

// The question would seem to indicate that the child was not one of the partakers // [2]

Here, we begin to see the crux of the argument, and though it’s subtle and might be difficult to discern, we need to recognize what’s really being said. The claim is that, if a child were doing something together with his father, he could not ask about the meaning it had for his dad. If he did, it would somehow prove that he himself was not involved.

In other words, the child would have said, what does this meal mean “for us” rather than what does this meal meal “to you.” But already, the argument is seen to be faulty, just by a simple application of logic. More problematic, however, are the theological implications of this reasoning, when applied to other passages of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 6:20-21

// When your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord our God has commanded you? then you shall say to your son: We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand //

In this passage, we have a situation very similar to the one in Exodus 12. The son is asking his father about the meaning of God's commandments, and the language of the text is: which the Lord our God has commanded you.

Does this mean that God’s commands applied only to the father and not also to the child? Obviously not. That’s a bad inference and such an individualistic paradigm contradicts the very nature of the Covenant of Grace.

When Moses spoke to “all Israel” in Deuteronomy 5:1, he told them that they were to observe the commandments because “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb” (v. 2).

** The important thing to note here is that the making of this covenant (i.e. the giving of the law) had taken place a full forty years earlier, so that no one who was now under thirty-nine years old was even there. But just in case any of them were tempted to excuse themselves from the obligations of the covenant, Moses reminded them that they were bound to those obligations, even by virtue of their birth.

// The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers [only], but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive // (v. 3)

Now, what Moses says in this text is directly related to the issue at hand. A child who was born in Israel was never born into an abstraction. Rather, he was always grafted into a set of concrete circumstances which the Bible describes as being “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). This means that covenant-law-keeping was the duty of every covenant child from the moment he was born into this world. It was not an additional responsibility to be acquired at a later time (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:1-3). 

From this, we can easily see that, when a young child asked about the laws that God gave to his father, he was asking about the laws that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about them says nothing against his participation in them. 

I think if we’re honest, and we desire to be consistent, we’ll acknowledge that this applies equally to the question of Exodus 12:26. When a young child asked about the feast that God gave to his father, he was asking about the feast that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about it says nothing against his participation in it. 

---

NOTES:

[1] James B. Jordan, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, ed. Greg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenant Communion (2006), p 57.

[2] Morton Smith, Systematic Theology (1994), p. 686-691, as quoted in Frances Nigel Lee, Paedocommunionism Verses Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (unpublished paper)

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 2

One of the best ways to overturn an undesirable conclusion is to deny one or more of the premises on which it depends. In my experience, this is what the bulk of the paedocommunion debate has been reduced to. Some deny the primacy of the sacramental connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, while others deny that children partook of the Passover in the first place.

In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it's just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.

A Definitional Argument

A few months ago, I taught a four-week crash course on the doctrine of Infant Baptism, from a distinctly Reformed perspective. When it came time to make a positive case for the practice, I used what I called at the time, a definitional argument. 

This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible? 

Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said: Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children, if and when they are present.

Now, to show that this definition is correct, consider just two passages from the word of God. In Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh commanded Joseph and his brothers to bring their “households'' back to Egypt. Then, when he repeats that command in verse 19, he defines their households as their “little ones and wives.”  Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul requires an Elder to rule his own “household” well. Then, when he explains what that means, he says that he must have his “children” in submission with all reverence. 

From these two passages (and there are more) it is abundantly clear that children are members of the biblical household—by definition. 

In terms of baptism, this means that, even if our Baptist friends could prove (which they cannot) that every member of the baptized households in the Book of Acts was a believing adult, those particular situations could never become the standard for households with covenant children. 

In other words, one household may have no children and another may have five. When the first household is baptized, children would not be included, but when the second household is baptized, the children would be included, and that by necessity. This is because, even though the situation may vary, the definition never changes: children are always included in the biblical household—if and when they are present.

Definitions at the Passover

As we move the discussion, now, from New Testament Baptism to the Old Testament Passover, we need to keep in mind that the same line of argumentation applies. Thus, it is nothing more than an act of unjustified presumption to think that we can rightly understand the import of the Passover instructions without first defining the terms that are being used.

For example, in Exodus 12:3, the LORD tells Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then, He specifies even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”

Now, unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.

When Joshua read the Book of the Law to the people on Mt. Ebal, the Bible says he read it before “all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones” (Jos. 8:35). Again, when Joel called for a national day of fasting, his command was to “gather the people and sanctify the congregation.” When he specified who was included, he said, “Assemble the elders, gather the children, and the nursing babes” (Joel 2:15-16).

So then, am I right, or am I right? If the definitional argument is good, then it's good, and we need to think more carefully before we say that children did not partake of the Passover meal.

A Road Map for What's Ahead

At this point, my primary task is to respond to the various questions and objections that arise, and as of right now, I have five of them in view:

1. The Passover diet was unsuitable for small children

2. Admission to the Passover required catechesis 

3. The language of the text disproves child-participation

4. Later attendance to Passover was restricted to adult males

5. Jesus attended Passover at the age of twelve

From what I've seen, these are some of the most common arguments employed against child participation in the Passover meal. There may be others, but these will be my focus in this particular series especially because, again, each of these has been used by those whom I personally know.

In this post, however, I can only start the process, so I'll use this opportunity to address just the first objection. The rest will have to wait for a later time.

Objections & Answers

1. The Passover Diet Was Unsuitable for Small Children 

Normally, those who raise this objection have two of the dietary items in mind; the roasted lamb and the (alcoholic) wine. The argument is that these items are, by the very nature of the case, unsuitable (if not impossible) for children to consume. Therefore small children did not partake of the Passover meal.

Roasted Lamb

In answering this objection, I want to begin with the obvious admission that small children are incapable of eating roasted lamb, depending, of course, on what we mean by small. There is little question that the Bible makes a distinction between those who can eat meat and those who are still in need of milk, with the latter consistently referred to as “babes” (1 Cor. 3:1-2 cf. Heb. 5:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:2). 

But—and here's my answer: this fact was not overlooked in the Passover meal, and you can see that by the specificity of the instructions found in Exodus 12. 

When the LORD told Moses that there was to be a lamb for a household, which, again, includes the children (v 3), He also specified that the size of the lamb should be chosen “according to the number of the persons” in each home (v 4). That all the children who were physically capable of eating that meal were included, is made clear because the instructions become even more precise: “each man, according to the mouth of his eating, shall make the count for the lamb” (v 4b). [1]  

Obviously, we always need to take into consideration, what this objection calls, “the nature of the case.” But this only means that an exception to the rule is based upon the natural limitations of God’s creation design. And really, that’s just common sense. If eating meat requires teeth, and by nature children are not born with teeth, then who can deny that they're entitled to a temporary exemption from eating the covenant meal?

Alcoholic Wine 

The second aspect of the Passover meal that causes some concern is the drinking of the wine. This objection says that, since wine is an intoxicant, it is inconceivable that this was ever intended for a child. My answer is at least twofold.

First, I agree that the intoxicating factor of wine should be taken into account. And yet, I would hasten to add that this presents a caution no less to the worshipping adult than it does to the little child. After all, there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes an appropriate, or even acceptable, state of mind. When Paul says, “Do not be drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18), he’s speaking to the entire church, not just the kids. Therefore, I would argue that, in the end, this objection proves too much.  

My second answer is that, even though the Bible prohibits drunkenness, it nevertheless commands the drinking of wine. What’s more, is that there are at least two clear sets of instructions that required children to partake of wine as members of the worshipping community.

To be specific, not only did they partake of the sacrificial meals of the peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 7, 11), but they were also to partake of the tithe offerings, which often included wine. 

Deuteronomy 12:17, 18

// You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine… but you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses: you, and your son, and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 14:23, 26

// And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine... You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice: you and your household //

Without stretching these passages to say more than they do, we can at least see that the intoxicating factor of wine was not a sufficient reason to bar children from any of these sacrificial meals. This being the case, the point should be clear: Why would it, then, have barred them from the meal of the Passover? Moreover: Why should it bar them now from the meal of the Lord’s Supper? 

Now, certainly, common sense has a definite role to play. There’s no question that, even in the various sacrificial meals, only small portions of wine would have been given to a little child. Likewise, today, only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. And so, while it’s a good thing to be concerned for the little ones God has entrusted to our care, we need to remember that ultimately, they belong to Him. And, as we see from the pages of His word, He invites them—and even commands them—to partake of His covenant meal. [2]

---

NOTES:

[1] A second objection here is that the term “man” in the phrase “every man according to the mouth of his eating” refers to adult males only. However, one does not have to be a Hebrew scholar to know that such a grammatical appeal is a stretch at best. In fact, this same phrase is found in only one other context (Exod. 16) where it’s used to describe the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv 16, 18, 21). Without a doubt, the phrase in that context shows that the distribution included the children, that is, all who were physically capable of eating the manna. How do we know that? Because there was nothing else for them to eat (!) 

[2] Another significant passage is found in Lamentations 2, where Jeremiah describes his sorrow for the suffering of God’s people. In verse 11, he says, “My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled. . . . because of the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city.” The mention of their “fainting” here is probably a reference to their hunger in a time of famine. Interestingly, as he articulates the cry of these little ones, he says in verse 12: “They say to their mothers, Where is grain, and where is wine?” Thus, this passage not only demonstrates that children can and do eat solids well before they’re weaned, but it also shows that wine itself was something they were known to consume.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 1

In this series, I want to respond to the many questions and objections that were (and still are) being raised against me for my transition to the practice of Covenant Communion.[1]

For the record, my hope is that the material I publish here will be received in the spirit in which I write it. It is not my purpose to hurt, harm, belittle, or insult the people who disagree. Rather, my only desire is to gain a fair and charitable hearing, first, among those who know and love me, and second, among those who happen to stumble across my blog. 

My purpose is to use this series as a way to explain my reasons for adopting a practice that, in my opinion, has been superficially dismissed on the basis of Reformed tradition, i.e. for falling outside of what we might call “confessional orthodoxy.” 

An Institutional Conundrum

As many of you know, I spent seven years in a traditional Reformed church and, therefore, one that practices the Rite of Confirmation to mark the change of status that covenant children undergo when they confess their faith publicly, before the entire congregation. 

Ironically, though, long before this “confirmation” these covenant children were baptized into the body of Christ as a sign and seal (i.e. confirmation) of their inclusion in the covenant of grace. Thus, in the directory of worship we used, the theological basis for their baptism is spelled out in clear, covenantal language:

// In the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of the faithful, born within the church, have interest in the covenant by virtue of their birth, and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. This is because the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both Testaments, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the New Testament //

At the time of their baptism, it is declared that the Triune God claims these covenant children “as His very own.” The congregation is reminded that our Savior “admitted little children into his presence, embraced and blessed them, saying, Of such is the kingdom of God.” It is also said that their baptism is the means by which they are “distinguished from the children of unbelievers and solemnly received into the visible church.”

All in all, this institution of infant baptism is beautiful and biblical at every point, and it’s not my purpose to detract from it in any way. Rather, my purpose is to show that when we take the wording of the institution seriously, it raises a number of questions that call for a more careful consideration.

For example, what does it mean that our children are included in the covenant of grace? If it simply means they have a right to the outward privileges of the church, then the question becomes: Where do the sacraments fit into that? Are we saying that Baptism is an outward privilege of the church while the Lord’s Supper is an inward privilege (whatever that means)? 

To say it differently: If the “covenant of grace” is a reference to the administration of the covenant rather than its substance, does that imply Baptism is for the visible church while the Lord’s Supper is for the invisible church? I doubt that anyone would affirm that but it’s certainly a valid question, given that we administer baptism to and withhold communion from the very same people.

So then, here’s the deal. I believe if a person is willing to wrestle with this discrepancy from a true and sincere heart, he will be forced into the following conclusion:

// If I want to take the wording of this institution seriously, I must affirm that my children were (by baptism) received into the visible church. Therefore, the only way the elders can now exclude them from the Lord’s Table, is if they either (1) Divide the Sacraments—by saying that Baptism is, but the Lord’s Supper is not, for the visible church, or (2) Divide the Visible Church—by saying that there are two levels of membership within it, and baptism only gets you to level one //

Apparently, most Reformed churches have chosen option number two (as strange as it all may sound). But this explains why the Rite of Confirmation has become a necessary tradition. It serves as the instrument by which our baptized children make it to level two. This is seen by the fact that, in the very last words of the rite itself, the minister declares to the one being confirmed: “Beloved, I now welcome you to full communion with the people of God.”

A Confessional Conundrum

I’m known as the guy who likes to repeat himself. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but I often feel like any point worth making is worth making again, in a slightly different way.

As a follow-up to the Institutional Conundrum we create when we bar covenant children from the covenant meal, there’s a Confessional Conundrum as well. And let me just be upfront with it: I would contend that in the interest of protecting a traditional practice, the Westminster Confession ends up creating an unnecessary tension between the principles of its sacramental theology and the application of those principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as "those that profess the true religion, together with their children" (25:2). It defines the sacraments as "signs and seals of the covenant of grace” and says that they’re designed to “put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world" (27:1). It also maintains that the sacraments of the Old Testament “with regard to the spiritual things signified, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" (27:5).

Now, if you’re Reformed, then you know as well as I do that it’s upon these principles that we base the practice of paedobaptism. But the question is: On what application of these same principles can paedocommunion be invalidated?[2]

It seems clear that to avoid the undesirable conclusion that children have a right to Communion as members of the covenant community, the meaning and purpose of this sacrament has to be changed.

• Rather than the Lord’s Supper being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (which includes our children), it must be changed into a sign and seal of the benefits that come with being “confirmed.”

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being used to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church (which includes our children) and the rest of the world, it must be used to mark the difference between the church and the true church in her midst.

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being the same in substance with regard to the spiritual things signified in the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (which always included children), it has somehow become a sacrament of such a different spiritual nature that the children must now be excluded. 

The fundamental question here is, How did this happen, and what is the biblical basis for such major theological discrepancies? In the end, it seems that we are driven to a similar conclusion as before, and again we must decide between two options, not unlike the options I mentioned above:

// If we accept the general sacramental theology of the Westminster Confession as biblical, we must either apply these principles consistently to both of the church's sacraments or provide a sound, biblical basis for suspending these principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper //

Obviously, Christians in traditional Reformed churches will opt for number two. Therefore, in the next post on this particular topic, we'll begin looking at the scriptural arguments they use in trying to prove their position and disprove mine.

---

NOTES:

[1] I like the term Covenant Communion because it distinguishes the Reformed practice from other traditions that serve children at the Lord’s Table. However, I am also perfectly okay with the term Paedocommunion as well, and often use them interchangeably with no intended difference in mind.

[2] For the record, I took this line of reasoning, and much of the wording, from Robert Rayburn’s, A Presbyterian Defense of Paedocommunion. That article was published in, The Case for Covenant Communion, edited by Greg Strawbridge.