Green Baggins

Several issues need to be addressed before moving on. Doug’s post is here.

First up is whether my position is paedo-communion, of the so-called “soft” variety. Ultimately, I would have to say yes, but that would need some qualification. I do not think that most 6-year-olds would be able to understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Maybe I have seen too many modern-day public school educated 6-year-olds. My daughter is 5 and nowhere near ready, in my opinion, and she will not be publicly educated, at least for the first grades. In fact, to my knowledge, she hasn’t even asked about what the bread and the wine mean yet. We’re still working on what Jesus Christ means, and His sacrifice. After that, we’ll move on to the physical sign He has given us of His Person and work.

The second issue is the comma in the text of 1 Corinthians 10:17. Of course the comma was not original to the Greek text. I was not seeking to make a theological point about it, but rather seeking to explain why modern translations read differently than the KJV and NKJV. The exegetical question is whether the phrase “for/because/that (there is) one bread/loaf” is a subordinate clause to the rest of the sentence, as the more modern translations interpret it, or whether it is actually part of the predicate, as the KJV/NKJV translates it. In other words, should the translation be “because there is one loaf, we (though many) are one body,” thus making the loaf a point of analogy with the church? Or should it be translated as the KJV has it “For we being many are one bread and one body,” thus making the bread a description of the people themselves? Several points need to be made. First of all, as Fee notes (p. 469 of his commentary), there is a chiasm with the mention of bread, many, all, bread. On the KJV reading, this chiasm would not exist, since the A and B would be reversed in word order for good English translation. Second point: the preposition “out of” (Greek “ek”) should not be read as saying that we are out of one bread, but rather that we share out of one loaf. Fee notes that it is a Hebraism, and should be translated “all eat from the one loaf” (p. 470, n. 35). Fitzmyer disputes the KJV translation as well (via rejecting Conzelmann’s interpretation), arguing that “that is not what Paul has written, because we are not ‘one bread.’ The ‘one bread,’ of which we partake makes us ‘one’; it unifies us” (p. 391). Thiselton has reminded us of Meyer’s caution that “the unity of the bread [is understood] not numerically…but qualitatively,” and that “The meaning is more likely to spring from the generic oneness of bread as “one kind of thing” (p. 770). Thiselton acknowledges the other translation immediately after, but seems to dismiss it. The ESV and NIV seem, on the whole, better translations, as they show the chiasm clearly.

Thirdly, I note that Doug has not engaged whatsoever Venema’s argument that 11:27 involves a broadening of perspective to include not just the particular abuse that some of the Corinthians had, but rather to delineate how anyone ought to observe the Lord’s Supper. Even if Doug’s reading of 10:17 is correct, then, it falls to the ground when one realizes that it comes before 11:27.

Doug has responded to my response in this post. A couple of thoughts are in order.

Firstly, I would like to ask what Doug means when he says that all those who are bread should get bread? I thought Jesus was the bread of life. I don’t ever remember seeing a passage where we are described as bread. There are lots of passages that describe how we should eat. Some clarification here would be helpful.

My guess is that the debate will have to keep circling around 1 Corinthians 11 in spite of the fact that it is Venema’s last chapter in the book. The argument concerning the nature of the examination is a very important point. Doug asks the question this way: “what are they to be looking for as they conduct the examination? The entire context of this passage has to do with the quarrelsome factiousness of the Corinthian church, and nothing directly to do with their cognitive understanding of the Gospel.'” In Venema’s book, he deals with this interpretation on pp. 104-107 in terms of description, and pp. 117-122 by way of critique and positive exegesis of the passage. The short answer is that there is a shift in verse 27 from a focus on particular abuses (such as the divisions in the body) to a focus on a more general application of how the Supper is to be taken. Grammatical indicators are the shift from second person plural (“You all”) in vv. 17-20,22 to a third person perspective (“whoever” (v. 27), “a man” (v. 28), and “he” (v. 29)). As Venema puts it, “Thought the apostle began his treatment of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 with a description of the inappropriate behavior of some members of the Corinthian church, he now moves to a series of general instructions that apply to all members of the covenant community” (p. 117, emphasis original; also ibid. for the above grammatical argumentation). This is certainly Calvin’s interpretation as well (see commentary on 1 Cor, p. 385, modern translation, p. 251).

Doug has posted his first response to Venema here. What follows will involve a certain amount of guesswork. I am going to venture to speak for Dr. Venema a bit.

Doug asks whether his practice would fall under Venema’s soft or strict definition of paedo-communion. Doug says that his church would admit a 1-year old that has noticed that he is being passed by. I am fairly certain that Venema would call this a “strict” view for the following reasons. Venema defines the “soft” view as the “admission of children to the Lord’s Supper only at an earlier age than is customary among many Reformed churches (middle to late adolescence)” (pp. 2-3). I am quite certain that a 1-year old does not qualify as an adolescent in any sense of the term. I acknowledge that Doug has an emphasis on teaching the children what the Supper means. In another post of Doug’s on the subject, he says the following:

Young children should have the Supper explained to them by their parents in each observance of the Supper, and they should be able to attend to what is said. Please note that we are not requiring that little children be able to explain the Supper before they may partake. They are recipients; they have the Supper explained to them. We feed them the bread and wine in much the same way we begin speaking English to our children when they first arrive in our homes — not because they understand it, but rather so that they might come to understand it. It is similar here. We are not asking for anything to arise in the child or manifest itself before he is qualified to receive. He is receiving and learning, not giving and teaching.

The difference between Doug’s view and what Venema calls the “soft” view comes down to this: A credible profession of faith is not required in Doug’s view or is considerably modified in such a way that the child need not be able to articulate a clear understanding of what the Gospel is. Indeed, a child need not be able to talk at all (most 1-year olds cannot). What Venema calls the soft view clearly requires “a simple but credible profession of the Christian faith” (p. 3). I should lay my cards on the table, by the way. I would say that a child ought to be taught the catechism and therefore have a clear grasp of what the Gospel is, and he has been saved. That can happen at age 6 for some really bright kids, age 9 for normal kids, and age 12 for somewhat slow kids. It depends on the kid. When they can articulate a clear understanding of the Gospel, and can therefore grasp (and is taught!) what the Supper means, that child may be received into communicant membership.

I agree with Doug, then, that there is a very problematic practice of holding children back unnecessarily because there is some idea that they cannot articulate the Gospel until age 16, or whenever it is. We need (in my opinion) to avoid two extremes. One is in looking for any indication whatsoever and reading into it that the child is saved and should therefore participate; and, on the other hand, doubting a clear articulation of the Gospel simply because of the child’s age.

One should note, here, that Venema’s goal is not to address the problem of keeping legitimate children from the Table. It is rather to guard the Table from those who are not ready yet. One could argue, I suppose, that dealing with that issue in greater depth would give Venema greater credibility. However, it is still not the question that Venema has set out to address. Therefore, I do not believe that it should be an obstacle in being convinced by Venema’s arguments elsewhere.

Doug Wilson and I have agreed on a formula for our debate on paedo-communion, which will be starting soon. We will both comment on a chapter of Venema’s new book on the subject, and then we will respond to each other. Look for it to start next week, most likely. Note that the book is scheduled for arrival at RHB on March 16. There is some confusion on the website, which also seems to say that the book is available today. Doug and I will delay starting the debate until people can have some time at least to have the book in their hands.