Green Baggins

In this post I am going to argue that the meaning of the word ἀνάμνησιν in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 does not provide evidence one way or the other as to whether children may participate in the Supper, since the whole question depends on a prior question of whether infants participated in the Passover. 

First of all, I reject the interpretation of the word that makes it into something that God remembers.
The reason for that is very simple. The folks who have argued for this position have been using the wrong Old Testament precedents for arguing as its meaning. John Barach, for instance (and I think Leithart also goes this direction), looks to the Noahic covenant and the rainbow as a precedent for understanding the term in this way. The problem here is that there is a much more direct precedent for understanding the term, and that is in the institution and instructions for Passover itself. Even Leonard Coppes agrees that the Passover is part of the background for the Lord’s Supper (Coppes would argue that most of the other Old Testament feasts participate in the type as well). Deuteronomy 16:3 says this:

לֹא־תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל־עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי

בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת־יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ

מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃  

In Greek: οὐ φαγῇ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ζύμην· ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας φαγῇ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄζυμα, ἄρτον κακώσεως, ὅτι ἐν σπουδῇ ἐξήλθετε ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· ἵνα μνησθῆτε τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐξοδίας ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν.

In English: You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste—that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.

The point here is that “remembering” is clearly second person in both Greek and Hebrew: “You will remember.” The verse has a summarizing feel to it such that this is the purpose for the Passover, so that the people will remember.

Exodus 12 does nothing to shake this conclusion, since the whole emphasis is on the people remembering. They do all the necessary preparations so that they will remember everything the Lord wants them to remember. There is no indication in Exodus 12 that the Lord is doing the remembering. Of course, Tim Gallant argues (pg. 86 of Feed My Lambs) that it is both God remembering and the people remembering. He argues that ἀνάμνησιν means both, and that it is the purpose of the Sacrament, not a prerequisite (pg. 85). I am personally leaning towards the people being the ones who remember on this one, as I see no indication of Passover meaning anything else. There is no proof that the word means anything other than the people’s remembrance. Even if there were, it would not prove that the word meant that in 1 Corinthians 11. If the Passover is the main antecedent in the Old Testament (which I agree that it is), then the Passover’s theology of remembrance should carry over into the Lord’s Supper. The reason why this argument cannot be used in favor of credo-communion is that it is debated as to whether children partook of the Passover. If they partook of the Passover, and yet they can still be said to be doing the remembering by their very partaking, then the argument is not proved one way or the other. The whole question will then turn on whether children partook of Passover or not.

Someone suggested that I write out what my presuppositions are in discussing paedo-communion. I thought this was an excellent idea. This way, people just might not misread my arguments, and call me a Baptist, which is absurd, since if my WCF position is Baptist, then so is the entire history of the PCA, OPC, old Presbyterians, and almost all of the Reformers. What use is the label, then? But the issue here is not about baptism, but about the Lord’s Supper. Of course, the Lord’s Supper is tied to the covenant of grace, just as baptism is, and there is a relationship between the two sacraments that must be upheld.

My starting point is as an old-school old-side Presbyterian of the northern variety. That is, I do not think that a violent conversion experience is always needed in the case of covenant children (though I acknowledge that it will be necessary in some). Furthermore, I do believe that children belong to the covenant. To qualify that, they belong to the outward administration of the covenant, and possibly to the inward substance of the covenant (in the case of those regenerate from the womb). What this means is that there are privileges of the covenant to which they are to be admitted right away, but there are other privileges into which they must grow. In this manner, it is similar to citizenship in the US. One is born a citizen, but one is not born able to drive, vote, or drink. These privileges come at a certain age. Of course, the age at which children may come to the table will vary, at the discretion of the session. And, as a matter of fact, I believe that children may come to the table earlier than many others would have it. I think it is quite possible for a 6-8 year old not only to give a credible profession of faith, but also to demonstrate that he knows what the sacrament means.

I do not take the burden of proof to lie on either side of this debate. Both sides must prove their case. The non-paedo side must prove that there is an element of discontinuity with regard to age between the Passover and the Lord’ Supper (or else it must prove that infants did not partake of Passover; or, as Coppes argues, there is much more than Passover in the background of the Lord’s Supper). The paedo side must prove that 1 Corinthians 11 has been misinterpreted by the Presbyterians. If there is any burden of proof, it must be to prove that the WCF is wrong on this point. But being on the side of the Confession does not relieve the non-paedo side of the burden of proof. Neither side should feel that the burden of proof lies entirely on their own side.

Now, in this series of posts, I intend to deal fairly comprehensively with the biblical witness and the historical witness. This means that it is not necessary to flood the combox with “what about this issue, what about that issue?” If it is in the relevant literature, I will get to it. Please be patient. If, at the very end of the entire discussion, I still have not dealt with the issue that you want addressed, then please tell me. But not every post can deal with every issue. Therefore, I will ruthlessly prune and moderate the comments. STAY ON TOPIC! “Topic” is defined as anything addressed in the post, not anything you think should have been addressed in the post, but wasn’t. I am also going to ask the other moderators to pay as close attention as they can to these threads. I want the discussion to be valuable and save-worthy, such that this discussion could be considered a valuable part of the literature on paedo-communion. Personal attacks from any side will not be tolerated.

I am currently doing some serious research on paedo-communion. I have read Strawbridge, am reading Gallant, have purchased Coppes, and will procure Leithart, as well as Venema’s upcoming book whenever it comes out, as well as the usual journal articles from WTJ, BSac, etc. So, look for some fairly detailed, exegetical posts on the subject in the not-too-distant future.

This post will finish the review of chapter 22 of RINE. The issues before us are these: is a two-tiered church membership the result of the Half-Way Covenant? Is a two-tiered church membership biblical? Are we placing our faith in something we can see if we require a profession of faith in order to have access to the table?

Wilson would answer yes to the first question, no to the second question and yes to the third question. That is a fair summary, I believe, of Wilson’s argumentation in the rest of chapter 22.

Historically speaking, a two-tiered membership of the church is attested. One can see this in Ursinus’s commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (on question 81), pg. 425, when he says this: “Infants are not capable of coming to the Lord’s supper, because they do not possess faith actually, but only potentially and by inclination.” Olevianus also says that there are two outer bonds of the covenant, and two inner bonds of the covenant. The former are the outward call and our profession of faith. The inner bonds are election and the Holy Spirit. The former can be broken, but not the latter. The former correspond with the outward administration of the covenant. The latter correspond with the substance of the covenant (See Bierma, pg. 103). The whole discussion is valuable (pp. 96-105). Vanderkemp says the same about infants on pg. 122 of his commentary on the Heidelberg. In other words, the question of paedo-communion is very much wrapped up in this discussion. If one believes that there is only one kind of membership in the covenant, then paedo-communion is the logical outcome. However, it is easily demonstrated that the Reformed authors of the 15th and 16th centuries did not view church membership this way. There was a two-tiered membership. This can hardly be the fault of the Half-Way Covenant, of course. Nor does such an arrangement prevent the little children from coming to Jesus, as Ray Sutton supposes. Union with Christ in faith is possible from the womb. However, what is the church supposed to do about whom to invite to the table? Ursinus is clear: “The questions who ought to come, and who ought to be admitted to the Supper, are distinct and different. The former speaks of the duty of communicants; the latter of the duty of the church and ministers” (pg. 424). It is plain from the quote on page 425 that Ursinus does not speak of infants as communicants, even though they are members of the church outwardly speaking.

A two-tiered membership of the church corresponds to the visible/invisible church distinction in ideals. As such its biblical basis rests on that distinction. Of course, it cannot correspond in reality, since many make profession of faith who are hypocrites. But the church must fence the table somehow. The distinction that Ursinus makes helps us here. The church can only do so much in fencing the table. The rest is up to the people’s consciences.

With regard to the third question, Wilson makes a mistake. Requiring a profession of faith does not mean that the church trusts the word of man rather than the word of God (contra Wilson, pg. 185). The Bible speaks about professing with one’s mouth (Romans 10:9, and the content of that profession follows, which rules out an overly wide definition of professing so as to include a baby’s nursing, etc.). A verbal profession of faith is commanded by the Scriptures. If that is commanded, and the church is supposed to do something about that, then does the church stop believing God’s Word in order to listen to a man to see if it is credible? The church must judge so as to exercise church discipline properly. Of course, Wilson will disagree with me here. But I did want to demonstrate not only that the critics’ position on this is Reformed, and not dependent on the Half-Way Covenant, but also, and more importantly, that it is biblical.

To my mind, almost the entirety of the issue hinges on the meaning of the word “dokimazo” in 1 Corinthians 11:28. This article (ht David McCrory) argues for paedo-communion on the basis of its understanding of the context and historical situation of the Corinthians when Paul wrote the letter. The specific section is about two-thirds of the way down the article under the title “Some specific objections; a. children cannot prove themselves.” I would suggest that the article does not do the word “dokmazo” justice at all. BDAG has this definition for the word, “to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine,” listing this passage under that definition. What is one to make a critical examination of? The answer is “heauton” (oneself). Quite simply, it is eisegesis to claim that zero subjective aspects are attached to this examination.

BOQ 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. EOQ But even this would require that the child no longer be an infant. Don’t get my position wrong. I think that children of age 6 are capable in some instances of such examination. I think other children of age 15 are incapable of it. This is where the session of the church is so important. But the article does not do justice to the definition of “dokimazo” in BDAG. The best article I have ever read on the passage dealing with paedo-communion is by George Knight. It is available in the Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons volume, available here.

Sacraments are signs and seals. As signs, they function like road markers that point to a city. “Minneapolis this way,” a sign might say. The sign is connected to the city, assuming that no one has tampered with the sign. It points in the right direction. Baptism says “salvation is in Christ; go this way, and repent and believe.” That function is slightly different, depending on whether the sign is administered before faith (in the case of infants) or after faith (presumed faith, in the case of adults).

As seals, they function as God’s statement “This person is engaged to me” (in the case of baptism), or “This person is in fellowship with me” (in the case of communion). With regard to baptism, we can give a further analogy: baptism functions like an engagement ring. The person is spoken for. But engagements can be broken. Baptism is not the wedding ring: that is faith. But it is like an engagement ring.

27.2 of the WCF is absolutely essential to understand, when surrounded by the debates in the PCA and elsewhere: “there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” This means that sometimes the Bible uses the term “baptism” when it means to talk about the thing that baptism signifies. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are good examples of this, as has been argued in a previous post and comments. The WCF is just as careful to avoid the “empty sign” theology of Zwingli, as it is to avoid baptismal regeneration. Since no one really disputes the former, I will focus on the latter. Indications that baptism does not automatically confer union with Christ: 27:3 “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them…the word of instituation, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” Emphasis mine. More on this in the next WCF post on baptism. Someone will probably immediately quote 28.6 to me, which says this (usually truncated by FV advocates): “Yet notwithstanding, by the right use of the ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost.” What is missing, of course, is the very next essential qualifying statement: “to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.” I have highlighted the importance of these two phrases: this grace does not belong unto those of the non-elect. And, the grace of baptism is conferred in God’s own time (it is not limited to the time when baptism is administered).

In chapter 29, we find laid out for us the WCF’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper. Most of this in not controversial in Reformed circles, except for paedo-communion, which we will discuss briefly.

There are four general views of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. There is the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. In this view, though the outward elements remain the same, when the priest blesses the bread and wine, they become inwardly (according to essence) the actual physical body and blood of Jesus. This view is based on a misapprehension of Aristotle. Aristotle did distinguish between the accidents (outward elements) and the essence of something. However, he also said that they always correspond to each other. It would certainly have been foreign to Aristotle’s mind to have the outward elements of one thing, and the inward essence of something entirely different.

The second major view is the Lutheran view. This view is in many ways similar to the Roman Catholic view. They both believe in a physical presence at the time-point of blessing. But the Lutherans say that instead of the essence/element distinction, Christ’s body is in, around, and through the elements of the bread and wine. The distinction is parallel to the distinction between pantheism (wherein God equals the world) and panentheism (wherein God is in the world). I am not saying that Lutheranism or Catholicism equates to either of these pagan thought-patterns. It is merely an illustration.

The third major view of the presence of the Lord in the Lord’s Supper is the complete absence of the Lord from the table. This is the Zwinglian view. That view is that the table is a mere remembrance of what Jesus did, but nothing more than that.

The Reformed position is that Christ is present spiritually at the table. That is, the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is present. Just as the bread and wine nourish our physical bodies, so also does the Holy Spirit nourish our souls. Ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements, but not the thing signified. One could draw parallels between this aspect of the Lord’s Supper and the misapprehension of baptism in the Federal Vision. Wicked men and apostates do not receive the thing signified by baptism at any time.

Paedo-communion is rejected in the Westminster Standards clearly in LC 171, wherein the duties listed for preparation cannot possibly be engaged in by infants, and in LC 177, which is about as clear as it gets, and in 29.8, where ignorant persons are not to come to the table. The exclusion of infants from the table is based on a differentiation in the body of Christ between those who are baptized, and those who have professed their faith to the congregation. To this differentiation is applied the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, which requires a “man to examine himself,” and then to “discern the body.” Since these are the key phrases, we will examine them in some depth. The first phrase is found in verse 28. The verb is “dokimazo,” which, according to BDAG lexicon, means “to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine,” and lists 1 Cor 11:28 as one of the examples of this usage. I take the verb to be expounded by the phrase “discern the body.” Namely, the one taking the Lord’s Supper should examine himself to see if he is discerning the body of Christ. Thiselton, in his commentary (page 894) argues that the phrase “discern the body” means “know what characterizes the body as different (from the world).” The verb in the second phrase is “diakrino,” which BDAG lists as meaning here “judge.” The point is that the examination of oneself and discerning or judging the body is not an ability which infants possess.