Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 6
/It’s been a while since I’ve been able to sit down and work on this series, but that’s because I had been preparing for my ordination exam since (at least) the beginning of June 2021. Now that I’ve taken (and passed!) that exam, and received the blessing of my presbytery, I can pick up and continue with this project from exactly where I left off. Well, not exactly. When I published the previous installment (found here), I thought that I should write one last post on the connection between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. However, as I come back I realize that I’ve already produced more than enough material on the Passover, so I should probably just move on from here. In this post, then, I want to present a quick and concise case for Covenant Communion using Paul’s interpretation of the Exodus in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. It is my contention that on the principle of covenant continuity the plain reading of this passage provides us with a strong biblical basis for bringing our little ones to the Lord’s Table.
// Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ //
All Were Baptized
It's no surprise that many Reformed theologians appeal to this passage in response to the Baptist claim that “there is no example of infant baptism anywhere in the Bible.”[1] Normally, to demonstrate that such a claim is false, we utilize a simple three-step process of reasoning. First, we note that Paul says, Our fathers were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea. Second, we ask the question, Which of our fathers actually crossed the sea? Third, we show that Paul says, All our fathers passed through the sea and were baptized. Obviously, this line of reasoning is extremely effective because once our Baptist friends acknowledge that the entire nation of Israel was baptized in the Red Sea, every pretense for claiming that the Bible contains no example of infant baptism is removed. After all, this one passage provides us with thousands of infant baptisms.
All Ate and Drank
At this point, it’s easy to see how one might proceed to demonstrate how Paul's argument works not only for paedobaptism but also for paedocommunion. Just as infants were included in the nation's baptism, so they were included in the nation's eating and drinking as well. And note here that Paul describes the nature of their eating in sacramental terms, referring to the elements as “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink.” Paul even tells us that the source and object of their partaking was Jesus Christ himself. “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” But there's more. For those who might be struggling with the implications of Paul's typological interpretation, it should be pointed out that there's nothing here that cannot be derived from the Old Testament narrative itself. What do I mean?
Well, first of all, we have the strongest indication that the crossing of the Red Sea was, in fact, a water baptism for the people. For though it's almost customary to describe that event as a “dry” event, Psalm 77:17 says it was no such thing. On the contrary, the text says that during their crossing of the sea, “the clouds poured out water.” But secondly, and more to the point, we have an even stronger indication that the eating of the manna in the wilderness was, in fact, a sacramental feast unto the LORD. How so? Consider the following three observations from the historical context.
First, when the LORD commanded Pharoah, “Let my people go” (Ex. 5:1a), He provided a very specific reason. He said, “that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness” (Ex. 5:1b). Here we can see that one of the stated purposes for delivering Israel was to bring them to a feast. Second, when Pharaoh asked, “Who are the ones that are going” (Ex. 10:8), Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds, for we must hold a feast to the LORD” (Exod. 10:9). Here we see that while the animals were needed for sacrifice, the children would be included in the feast. Third, after delivering His people from Egypt, the LORD finally accomplished His purpose. They asked, “Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?” (Ps. 78:19), and in answering this question, the psalmist writes, “He rained down manna on them to eat, and gave them of the bread of heaven” (Ps. 78:24).
If there's anything clear from this series of observations, it’s the fact that the wilderness eating was sacramental eating. The drinking was sacramental drinking. God set the table in the wilderness, it included bread from heaven and water from the Rock, and He did that to fulfill His purpose of bringing His people to a feast in the wilderness. But again, the main thing is that all the children were included in that feast.
But They Died in the Wilderness
At this point, the case for covenant communion has been made, but the problem is that even in the face of the exegetical data many of our Reformed theologians stumble at the conclusion. For some reason, they refuse to follow Paul’s argument through to the end. But what is their main objection?
In the Second Minority Report of the O.P.C. Committee on Paedocommunion, the authors provide us with a reason for their reluctance. They write, “The answer to this is found in a careful comparison of Jesus' teaching upon the manna in John 6 and Paul's discussion of it in 1 Corinthians 10. Paul elevates the experience, while Christ diminishes it.”[3] In other words, it may be true that when considered alone, Paul’s argument would lead us to the practice of paedocommunion, but when we consider what Jesus says, we see that bringing our children to the Lord’s Table is a bad, and even dangerous, idea. Why so? According to the Report, it’s because Jesus says that the bare, external eating of the manna did not produce life in the people of that generation. Instead, eating and drinking without faith and reverence toward God only led them to their destruction. As he said, “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead” (Jn. 6:49).
On the surface of it, this argument looks like it's off to a good start. Unfortunately, once we start to dig a little deeper, we find that it cannot sustain the burden that the Reformed theologian puts on it. Thus, it is anticlimactic. Here are three reasons why the argument doesn’t work. First, and perhaps most obvious, a consistent application of this reasoning would refute the practice of paedobaptism as well. In Mark 16:16, Jesus teaches that receiving the sacrament of baptism without faith only leads to condemnation. He says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Second, though very much related, this argument confuses two distinct categories of sacramental participation, valid and effectual. Jesus certainly taught that for many the eating of the manna was ineffectual. But nowhere does he argue that it was therefore invalid. In fact, if a sacrament is only validly received when it is also effectually received, then the baptism of any covenant child who fails to confess faith in Jesus Christ is an invalid baptism. (And all the Baptists said, Amen!) And notice that such a conclusion is truly inescapable since the Westminster Shorter Catechism says both sacraments are effectual only for those who receive them by faith.[4] Thus, for the Reformed, valid participation in the sacraments must be based on something more objective than the possession of saving faith. Selah.
But the third and most important reason why this argument fails is that the Bible tells us exactly who died in the wilderness and who did not. In Numbers 32, the Bible says that the LORD grew angry at the unbelief of the people and swore that they would not enter the land. And yet, when we look at what He actually said, we learn that not a single covenant child was included in that punishment. He said, “Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (v. 11). In other words, even though many of the people received the sacrament apart from saving faith, the only ones who fell in the wilderness were those that we would call “mature.” This means that the conclusion the anti-paedocommunionist wants to draw from the words of Jesus and Paul is the very opposite of what it should be. When Jesus said, “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead” (Jn. 6:49), the warning was not for children but only for adults. And when Paul said, “With most of them God was not well pleased for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (1 Cor. 10:5), the warning was not for children but only for adults.
In light of these observations, it’s no wonder that both Paul and Jesus used children as the spiritual model for adults to follow rather than the other way around. When it comes to the question of purity, Paul says “In malice be babes” (1 Cor. 14:20). And when it comes to the nature of saving faith, Jesus says, “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it” (Lk. 18:17).
Endnotes:
[1] In his 1680 revision to the Heidelberg Catechism, Baptist minister Hercules Collins makes this very argument. In Question 71 (which corresponds to the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74), he asked: Are infants to be baptized? His answer was: None by no means; for we have neither precept nor example for that practice in all of the book of God.
[2] One example of this argument can be found in this 2006 article written by Reverend Lane Keister: 1 Corinthians 10 and Paedobaptism, though admittedly, the form of his argument is not identical to mine.
[3] See here: https://www.opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#report
[4] Q. 91. How do the Sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A. The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that does administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit, in them that by faith receive them.