The Holy Eucharist

Rev. Blake Purcell

Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
St. Petersburg, Russia
Rector of the Biblical Theological Seminary of
St. Petersburg, Russia
2006

SPIRITUAL SUICIDE:
The Battle of the Word of God With Pietism
Introduction
From early in church history confusion has surrounded the Eucharist in one aspect. Can
the believer suspend himself on a given Sunday? The proof that this has been a longterm problem is found in the Church Canons. (Oleg, quote from my book, year place and
words of canon that outlawed the non-participation.)
In this tract I would like to explain why this practice arose, the basic Bible teaching as to
the meaning and power of the Eucharist, how we should rightly interpret the problem
texts, the confusion of confession and absolution with the eucharist, and how we should
practice suspension. The aim of this tract is in love to correct wrong ideas and practices.
Most of those who suspend themselves from the Lord's Supper do so thinking they are
doing something good, so as Paul says in II Tim.4:1, 2, we must "be untiring in patience
and in teaching" with them.

I. The General Problem: From Whence Such Practice of Self-Suspension?

A. Probable Primary Cause for self-suspension: Fear of abusing the Eucharist.
The practice of self suspension, and confusion surrounding it obviously arose for various, and unverifiable reasons, but most likely it arose, as it does today, our of confusion
in the meaning of I Cor. 11:25-35.
25, "This do, as often as you drink of it, in remembrance of me."
26

"You proclaim his death until he comes."

27 "Therefore, who ever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
28 "But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread and drink of
the cup.
29 "Whoever drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
30 "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep"
B. Probable Secondary reason for self-suspension: Not being right with God or your
neighbor.
1. Verses that imply the need to sometimes delay offerings:
Mat. 5 read, "Therefore, when you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift their before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
2. Verses that imply the need to cease to offer:
Is.1:13-14 "Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to be. The New
Moons, the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies- I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred
meeting. Your ...appointed feasts my soul hates."
Amos adds, 5:22-24 "I will not accept your ...peace offerings, (the Lord's Supper is
one, Ex.12:27, the Passover zebach, that is, Passover Peace Offering) But let justice roll
down like water..." Hosea 6:6 "I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' See also Micah 6:6-8.
2

3. Verses that imply offering sometimes only after true cleansing and repentance:
Mal.3:3,4 "And He will purify the sons of Levi, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness. then the offering of Judah...will be pleasing to the Lord. Joel
2:14-19 "Rend your hearts and not your garments; Return to the Lord your God, for He
is gracious and merciful....Who know if He will turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind Him, A grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God."
C. Overall, the language in I Cor. 11, and elsewhere seems to imply that all the offerings where dependent on individual preparedness to sacrifice to the Lord properly, and if
it could not be done properly, in the right spirit, it should not be done at all. An individual offended God less if he did not sacrifice at all than if he did it wrongly.

II. The Problem of Definition: What is the Eucharist, and what does it do?
While all the above verses do in fact imply that God is very much concerned about how
we partake of the Lord's Supper, we shall see that they do not in fact imply that one can
suspend himself from the Lord's supper. This will be evident when we investigate what
the Eucharist is and does, what the above texts do not teach, the authority of church officers, the value and power of proper liturgy, and what the above texts actually do teach,
and we will close with an analogy with the family.
A. The Eucharist is a Regular ordinance of the Lord:
The Church has always acknowledged that the Lord's Supper, as the Passover and other
feasts was a regular ordinance of the Lord. Here we already have a contradiction in
terms, for if this is in fact what the Eucharist is, and then self-suspension is de facto forbidden, because there is no such thing as a "optional" regular ordinance. If it is optional it
is either not an ordinance, or not regular. An irregular ordinance, such as ordination is
irregular because it is not for everyone. A non-ordinance is an event or rule that is not
always binding, or not established to be binding, such as the Apostolic church "having all
things in common." But the Bible teaches that the Passover is regular (to be celebrated at
a certain time by everyone) ordinance (binding) as we see from the following:
1. Ex. 12:24-27, "And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your
sons forever. It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passover the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households. The
Children of Israel, went away and did so; just as the Lord had commanded..."
Numbers 9 clears up all doubt as to how seriously God took the sacrifice, in vs.13,
"but the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the
Lord at its appointed time. That man shall bear his sin." This is confirmed by Ps.49:5,
the church makes covenant with God by sacrifice. Vs. 10 includes children in this. This is
emphasized too in "thou shalt not delay to offer me the first of your ...produce...the first
born...on the eight day, you shall give it to me " (Ex.22:29,30)
The following are implied in the above:
a) as soon as Israel was "saved" she had covenant obligations, one of which was
the Passover.
b) God established how Israel, be requiring unblemished offerings, Dt.17:1
c) God established when He was to be sacrificed to. (Ex.23, Lev.23) This made
God the God of time.
d)God established with what attitude the people were to worship, and that was
joyfully, Dt.12, 14, 16 and Neh.8:10-12.
e) God required instantaneous obedience to his ordinances: Neh.5:11-12.
3

f) denial of the particular requirements above was seen as a breach of the whole
covenant, just as breaking one commandment is seen by God as breaking them all,
James 2:10. This is why offering blemished sheep was abominable to God (Dt.17:1)
and not offering at the proper time, Numbers 9:13, was punishable by being cut off
from Israel. All these things were rejection of the covenant. To reject the covenant
in detail was to reject the covenant as a whole.
This becomes obvious if we remember the first Passover event, and imagine what a
Jew would have experienced if when God said "tonight eat the Passover and leave Egypt,"
and the Jew said, "I am afraid of abusing the Passover and have unconfessed sins, so I will
not eat the Passover," and will have my Passover in a week." This house would have
someone dead in it, more than likely, and they would have been killed by the Egyptians,
or still enslaved. To not partake in the first Passover was to reject salvation. To reject
the salvation of Christ in His meal is to reject it in general, unless there is a latter ordinance that allows such a rejection. Nehemiah 8:10-12 guide us to the light, in that they
show that God expects our feeling to be under the control of the objective realities portrayed in worship, and not our feelings. Feelings are to be under the control of the Liturgy.
The Passover was established as a mandatory Annual ordinance for all of Israel.
2. The Lord's Supper is a continuation and transfiguration of the Passover,
I Cor.
5:6-8, (Oleg Quote these verses) and I Cor.11:24 "Take, eat...do this in remembrance of
me...He also took the cup...Do this...in remembrance of me." Mt.27:28, "Drink from it all
of you...".
The Lord's Supper was instituted with five commands: take, eat, do this in remembrance, drink from it all of you, do this in remembrance.' Mark adds, "and they all drank
from it." I Cor. 11:24-27 are all in the plural: take, labate, eat, fagate, do, poieite. This
means that when Paul was quoting Christ for the Corinthians, he understood Christ as
speaking to His whole church, not just to the apostles. Therefore, when a preacher reads
the words of institution out loud to the congregation, Christ Himself is speaking to the
gathered church and commanding the church as a whole to take, eat, do, drink! There is
not escaping the grammar and context of these verses.
The Lord's Supper was established as a mandatory ordinance for the whole church.
3. The mandatory aspect of the Church ordinance is repeated explicitly and implicitily elsewhere:
I Cor.5: "Let us keep the feast...for Christ our passover lamb has been slain." Let us
is the whole church, and too is a command.
I Cor.11:17, 20, and Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7 support the regularization of the ordinance, by "when you come together it is not for the better..." implying the purpose of the
churches meeting was to eat the Lord's supper. "And they gave themselves to the apostles teaching, and fellowship, and the breaking of bread and of prayers." "And on the
first day of the week, when they had gathered together to break bread."
The whole
church is involved then in these four verses in the Lord's supper as a central aspect of the
churches worship.
4. As a regular ordinance, as attendance at worship, Heb.10:24,25, and observance
of the Sabbath, Ex.20, the giving of tithes and offerings, I Cor.16:1,2, the Lord's Supper
cannot be optional unless some scripture clearly explains exceptional circumstances,
Which we shall see does not exist. No one would say that because we have sinned this
week, or don't feel forgiven, we should not give our tithe or go to worship, yet many
would say the Lord's Supper ordinance is optional, strangely dividing it from other Christian obligations.
B. The Meaning and Power of the Eucharist
4

God's word describes the Lord's Supper in terms that make it absurd if it is optional for
a church member.
1. The Eucharist is real communion with Christ: I Cor. 10:16 "the Cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is
it not communion of the body of Christ?"
Here we meet with a conundrum. There are usually two reasons why worshippers
want to suspend themselves, as we said above. They are not prepared, or they have unconfessed sin. But if communion with Christ is in fact offered in the Lord's supper, and
the supper is one of the essential purposes of the Church's gathering, then God is saying
every week I am willing to commune with the worshipper. To say I am suspending myself
is to deny God his offer of communion, and is a second sin, by the definition of the Lord's
supper it self. This is an issue of submission and obedience and faith. Will be believe the
God wants to commune with us, and will we "allow" Him to, or will we resist Him? Will we
submit to his timetable, or make up our own? Will we believe he wants to receive us and
commune with us or not?
If by a believers presence in church he is seeking fellowship with God, and that the
believer has the right to pass by the Eucharist, then we are saying that God has a "rejecting posture" and has turned his back on those that sincerely desire communion with Him.
But Rom.10:21 says, as does the whole Bible, that God never rejects a sincere seeker. "All
day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people," reveals that
God is always seeking us. "Come to me all who are burdened and heavy laden and I will
give you rest." (Mat.11) Self-suspension is a denial of God's gracious nature and attitude
toward those in covenant with Him, because it communicates a God who does not want to
commune with His people.
2. The Eucharist Identifies the Church: I Cor.10:1-6, "all our fathers were under the
cloud, all passed through the sea...all were baptized...all at the same spiritual food...and
all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the same spiritual rock that followed
them, and that rock was Christ...Now these things happened as a type for us." I
Cor.10:17, "Now we though many, are one body in Christ, for we all partake of the one
bread."
The church was previewed in the wilderness. Acts 7:38 calls Israel the church in the
wilderness. The church is not a model of the prototype of Israel in the wilderness if she
is not eating and drinking of Christ! (and baptized) Israel is a type of the church only if
the church is taking the Lord's Supper. Therefore, when a person says I am a church
member but does not commune, he is, by his actions, denying that he is a church member. Likewise, we are one body, because we partake. If we do not partake, we are saying
we are one body though we do not partake. Like wise, I Cor.11, says that we all "proclaim
the Lord's death until he come." When one does not partake one is saying, I am not proclaiming his death. All of these actions are forms of a denial of the reality of the church
and are forms of denials of the gospel, or anti-gospels.
If the scriptures teach that any church member at anytime can suspend themselves,
then both Israel and the church could have a formal worship service, theoretically, when
no one actually communed because they had not prepared well or did not deem themselves worthy. If the scripture taught that at any time anyone could not commune based
on their own decision then the feasts of the Bible do not actually define and are not the
essential action of the Church.
3. The Eucharist and Unites the church: I Cor.10:17," we are one body...because we
partake" also implies that when someone does not partake, he is not and does not want
to be, at least on that occasion, united with the body of Christ. Paul commands that we
are to be "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit," Eph.4. The whole problem in I Cor.
was divisiveness, I Cor.11:18, which certainly one who acts like he does not want unity

with body of Christ is. Not partaking is a continuation of the problem in I Cor. 11, from
this aspect, not a solution for it.
4. The Eucharist is participation in the New Covenant: Mt. 26:27,28 "Drink from it, all
of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Again, if we look only at the Scriptures description of what the Eucharist is,
then suspending ones self seems absurd. When a worshiper comes and does not partake
he is literally saying, I do not want to be a part of the new covenant for the remission of
sins.
5. The Eucharist purifies the Church: "Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with the
old leaven....but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." I Cor.5:8. This is a call
for the participation in the mystery. The Eucharist here is intentionally called the "bread
of sincerity and truth," confusing the bread with Christ, (Jn. 14:6 The Truth), the word of
God, (Jn.17:17 Thy Word is truth), the Holy Spirit, (Jn.16:13 the Spirit of Truth). Therefore, it is also a testimony that the Eucharist, in the context of the whole liturgy, (Word of
God read, and expounded, and sins confessed and believed that they are forgiven by faith
in the sufficiency of the blood of Christ,) is a source of purifying us, just as the Word of
God purifies us, (Eph. 5:26, washing of water with the word). This is a mystery of the
faith, beyond explanation, but must be accepted joyfully. When we eat the Eucharist, we
are to eat truth and sincerity, like vitamins. The more truth and sincerity we eat, the
purer we will be. This is how the early church ate in Acts 2:46,47, in simplicity of heart.
Self-suspension becomes more improper in our eyes when we understand that the
Eucharist, in the context of a biblical liturgy, cleanses. How can we say, "I am so sinful I
must avoid the Eucharist," when the Bible says, "You are so sinful you must eat the
Eucharist?" Or, "I am so weak, I must not eat the Eucharist," when God say, "you are so
weak you must eat my Son's flesh if you want to be strong."
6. The Eucharist humbles and teaches the Church: Dt. 8:2, 3 "And you shall remember that the Lord your God, led you all the way... in the wilderness, to humble you and
test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or
not. So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did
not know, that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone; but man
lives by every word that flows from the mouth of the Lord." Dt. 14:23 adds that Israel ate
the tithe, "that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always." All of these meals were
catechisms, and in both of them their is the element of force-feeding. God feeds the
children in His house when, and where, and with what He wants to. This force-feeding is
His discipline, Dt.8:5.
This, again sheds light on how silly it is to say, "I am so humble, I will not eat my Fathers food." Refusing to eat the Master of the house's food by self-suspension is not a
sign of humility but pride. I am so arrogant, I will not eat my father's food, is unconsciously, what those that suspend themselves are saying.
Also," I am so sinful, I need to humble myself by not eating the Eucharist," seems to
be logical. But this verse teaches the opposite. The Eucharist is not the food or the
proud, the Eucharist humbles us, so it is the food of the submissive and humbled. If you
are so humble you will not submit to God's house rules, you are not humble but a rebel.
Scripture is full of examples of His wrath when His people reject his food, which
events are to be examples for us. Numbers 11:1-23, 31-35.
7. The Eucharist is the unveiling of Christ: Lk.24:30-35, Christ was" made known"
after His resurrection in the breaking of the bread. The words of institution are from the
last supper, but the body with which we are lifted up to heaven to and commune with is
not the pre-suffering, or suffering body, but the resurrected, ascended and glorified body
of Christ.
If we avoid communion with this Christ we are saying we are so sinful that I do not
deserve communion with the supernatural Christ. But this is what faith is. How else do
6

we expect to be saved but by a miracle? Mt.19:23-26, in response to Christ announcing

that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be
saved, the disciples ask, "Who then can be saved?" Christ tells us we need a miracle,
"with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Faith that is acceptable to God believes that God does a miracle and accepts real sinners and believers that
sin, not based on their own merit, but the advocacy of Jesus Christ (I Jn.1:8-2:2).
Self-suspension finds its root in unbelief.
8. The Eucharist professes the faith: I Cor.11:26, "as often as you eat this bread and
drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes." If we have particularly
sinned during the weak, or do not feel forgiven for something we have done, does that
mean that we still do not have the responsibility of proclaiming His death? Perhaps there
is a brother we must get right with, nevertheless, by proclaiming his death we are confessing our ultimate unworthiness of salvation, and His ultimate worthiness and faithfulness in redeeming us in spite of our sins and weaknesses. Self suspension would appear
to be a type of adding sin to sin, in not professing when we should and in the original
sin.
C. Because the Eucharist is a mandatory ordinance for the whole church, is an essential
aspect of the churches existence, unites the church and is a renewal of the New Covenant, the Eucharist is a mandatory action of worship unless some scripture clearly allows
us to suspend ourselves. In and of it self, suspending oneself unintentionally communicates a rejection of a worshippers membership in the church, a denial of faith, divisiveness and rejects the need for the New Covenant and cleansing, submission and humility.
God expects a church member to submit to His schedule, and choose Sunday communion
as our day of repentance, confession, renewal and joy. "For He says; In an acceptable
time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, now is the
accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation."

III. The Liturgical Problem: Why and how worshippers confuse confession of
sin and absolution with the Eucharist.
A. There are four Liturgical Factors, which make it inappropriate to think of the Eucharist primarily as a time to confess past sins.
1.. The first factor: The model of temple worship
Worship in the temple required all priests to wash before they approached, or as they
were approaching the tabernacle and temple. Ex.30:17-21, II Chron.4:6. This need continues in the New Testament, Jn.13:6-10. Confession of sins, according to I Jn.1:9 by
believers calls God to be faithful and just, and He promises to forgive our sins. Why
faithful? Because he has promised in Christ to save us, Jn.3:16. Why just? Because He has
already punished Christ for all sin, including past, present and future ones, II Cor.5:21,
and to punish us who are in Christ, when Christ has been punished for our sins, would be
unjust. Confession therefore, should include the confession of Christs redeeming work
on our behalf, and an absolution by an offircer of the church in Christ stead.(Mt.16:19,
Jn.20:23)
2. The second factor: The Order of Worship in Lev.9
a. The Order of worship in the temple implies that confession, cleansing and absolution should take place at the beginning, not the end of the order of worship.
Lev.9:1-4 implies here the guilt offering would correspond to the washing of the
priests, and the acknowledgment of real guilt on our part, and the atonement of
Christ, the burnt or ascension offering, emphasized consecration to God, and the
peace offering, fellowship or union with God. Though all three aspects are in the
7

Lord's Supper to some degree, it appears that the third sacrifice is the most correspondent to the Lord's supper. It is the "shalem" offering, or fellowship offering and
emphasized relaxed union as seen in the Apostles "lieing at table" with Christ, and
the union of I Cor.10:16. We know too that the general order of worship was a
shadow of New Testament worship according to Heb.10:1-2.
b.. At the same time, the Eucharist is a memorial offering, Ex.12:14 which is a
type of burnt offering which asks God to draw near, or in which we are drawing near,
Numbers 5:16, to God for judgment. But since confession and absolution should
have taken place already, in a sense, this drawing near for judgment is to reveal new
sin or better, a better understanding of the Holiness and will of God for us that cuts
us up as a sacrifice, and sends us up to Him, surrendered to his will. With this understanding, the Lord's supper too is not a time of us looking for sin, but God piercing our hearts, and taking us to Himself.
3. The Third Factor: The Eucharist is a Time of Joy
Only the above Liturgical Order of worship allows for the whole counsel of God to be
included in our understanding of the Eucharist, because, it is to be a time of joy for families and the whole church. How can we be introspective and rejoice at the same time?
We are to eat with sincerity and simplicity of heart according to I Cor.5:8 and Acts
2:47,48. How can this be if we are doubting whether or not God forgave us when we
confessed out sins at the beginning of the worship service. Suspending one's self is the
opposite of humility, because it is saying God is not faith to his promise to for give us. It
is saying, my sin is so great, God cannot forgive me.
But the Eucharist is a continuation of all the following feasts: Dt.12:7, you and your
household shall eat and rejoice, vs.12, and you and your sons and your daughters shall
rejoice, Dt.14:26, you shall spend it for what your heart desires...wine or strong drink.
Your shall eat before the Lord your God..and rejoice, you and your household.
Dt.16:10,11 You shall keep the feast of weeks ...you shall rejoice before the Lord your
God. Acts 2:47, 48, "So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
praising God and having favor with all the people." Feasting with God in the Bible is always a wonderfully glad time. To turn it into a somber affair is against the reality of how
the Eucharist was celebrated in the Bible, The Lord's Supper in the upper room was apparently not joyful. It does make sense then, once a year, to have a focus on the Death of
Christ, as in the only somber Holy Day in Israel, the Day of Atonement, of Numbers 16. I
would suggest, however, that the Lord's supper not be celebrated on a Good Friday, because our Eucharist is not with the suffering Christ, but with the Ressurected Christ, who
is made known to us in the breaking of the Bread, Lk.24:30, 35. Therefore, it is appropriate the the Eucharist be celebrated on Sunday and joyfully.
4. The Fourth Factor: The Eucharist is a time for singing. I Chronicles 29:27-30.
The Burnt offering was accompanied by song. This shows us that the memorial offering
of the Passover was not done meditating on oneself, but praising God. There was a outward, not an inward, focus.
B. When the Liturgy is rightly understood, and God's promises believed, the Eucharist
becomes a time of joy.
1. Whenever we over emphasize one aspect of the Liturgy, we will always underemphasize another. This holds true with the pietistic understanding of the Lord's supper. If
the Eucharist is a time to confess sins, then a real sense of sin and unworthiness must
remain, though the sinner has just confessed his sin and his forgiveness in Christ at the
beginning of the worship service. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins!" I Jn.1:9. To continue to focus on our unworthiness before God is to
make little of God's forgiveness, which He just granted!
8

2. It is important to realize that there are two senses of worthiness, or cleaness in

the Bible.
a. A believer is positionally clean, by baptism, and the word of God, Jn.15:3. This
declared position of objective cleaness is implied in 13:10, you are clean, but not all
of you (referring to Judas Ischarit). Then subjective uncleaness is implied as well,
13:10, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet."
b. This clears up the question from Numbers 9. If we are unclean, are we to
commune? The answer is, if we are baptized, non-excommunicated believers we are
objectively clean by our faith in Christ, as a gift from God. (Titus 3:5,6). Remember
that the Passover was primarily an ordinance from God to man, so that it is an objective privilege and obligation to be celebrated "at the appointed time" Numbers 9:13
by all that are clean, that is all believers. This objective, permanent state of cleanness is what makes us not have to be rebaptized, as the Old Testament priests had
to be, and anyone who was unclean had to be every time they drew near.(Numbers
19, etc).
c. I Cor.5:7 reads "Therefore purge our the old leaven, that you may be the new
lump, since you truly are unleavened. For, indeed, Christ our passover has be sacrificed." This is a beautiful description of both our permanent identity as the new
leaven, and state of cleanness, which is ours by faith at baptism, (see I Cor.6:9-11),
and our need to become experientially the new leaven by purging ourselves. The
subjective, experiential and progressive is based on and empowered by the objective
and permanent. We are to become more like Christ because we are already in Him,
and before God, like Him.
d. Feelings, as we have noted above, are to be under the control of the Liturgy,
not visa versa. Neh.8; 10-12. Though we feel like mourning, at a given time God
expects instant obedience and joy, and that is that.

C. When and how are we worthy to receive the supper?

The word "unworthy", of I cor.11:27, also creative spiritual discomfiture because it appears as though Paul is saying, if you have been a good boy, or faithful, you deserve to
eat the Lord's supper. But the word unworthy is rightly translated, in an unworthy manner, in the NASB, and irreverently in the RSV. The Russian emphasizes this in vs.28, "and
in this manner" drink and eat. In the absolute sense, no one can or has ever "earned" the
right to communion, (Eph.2:8,9, Titus 3:5,6 and Romans 6:23). What we deserve is
death, and only the death of Christ releases us from this, Col.2;13-15.

IV. Problem of Authority:

Eucharist?

Who is to excommunicate or suspend from the

A. Old Testament priests were to determine who was clean and unclean, and therefore
elgible to eat the sacrifices, Lv.14, etc. and to teach Isreal how to stay and become clean,
Lv.10:10,11.
B. The New Testament Places Preachers of the Gospel in a simular role, I Cor.9:13,14,
and Rom.15:16.
C. Therefore excommunication is given specifically to elders as their responsibility to
decide. II Tim.3:1-5, I Cor.5:1- 13, Titus 3:9-11. In these passages we see the elders
being given authority to act executively without permission or authroity from the local
body.
D. Elders exercise their authority by suspension from the sacraments which is therefore a punishment excercised by Christ over those who have either recanted the faith,
9

(Heb.6, 10, Gal.1) or whose actions prove them to be unbellievers, or worthy of death.
Other than for unrepented uncleaness, such as listed in II Cor.6:14-7:1, and Col.3:5-11
and other such places, should someone be considered objectively "unclean" and rejected
by God, or under the death sentence of I Cor.5.

V. The Language Problem: What the Problem texts actually say and do not
say.
The texts do not say what we might think they say at first reading, and do say things
that might surprise us.
A. I Cor.11
1. Since we have established the fact that the Eucharist is a regular ordinance of worship, then all we need to ascertain now is if any Scripture grant an exception to this rule,
and here we must remember not to follow what the rules of logic or grammar seem to
imply, but what the Bible actually says. Paul warned the Corinthians in I Cor.4:6, not to
think beyond what is written, and Dt. 4:2, "you shall not add to the word which I command you, nor shall you take from it." God is very concerned that we not imagine things
in texts that do not exist, and visa versa, that we do not neglect those things, which do
exist.
2. What is "discerning the Lord's body?" What is the ?body of ?not discerning the
Lord-s body. The Greek word is soma, and it is used in vs.27, ?will be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord. It is used also in vs.24, ?This is my body. It would seem that
because it is used in vs.24 as representing his physical body offered for us, that ?discerning the body, is referring to his physical body. But if this is the case then why does it not
read ?not discerning the body and blood? The Protestant, and even Roman Catholic understanding of this passage since Thomas Aquinas has been that we must meditate on
both the elements to ?discern them. But we are clearly not told to discern them both,
only the body.
The only textual and contextual evidence available is that the term body refers not to
the physical body of the Lord, in vs. 29, but the mystical body of Christ congregated for
the meal. Contextually, this is totally viable, as the whole occasion of Paul-s writing was
a failure to function as the body of Christ should. They were involved in liturgical disgrace, if not sin. In verses 17 through 22 Paul accuses the Corinthians of ?despising the
church, by drunkenness, not waiting for each other, not providing the elements for the
poor, and divisiveness. These are all church or ?body sins. Although the word soma is
not used, it is implied in these verses. In 12:27 we come to the climax of Paul-s argumentation in the preceding chapters: ?Now you are the body, soma, of Christ, and
members individually. Both the contextual, of 17-22, and textual, of 29, imply that the
better interpretation is that Paul intends to say that we must discern "the mystical body of
Christ in the gathering of the Church. If this is true, than the discernment is an action of
the whole church, and an emphasis on outward, physical attentiveness of the whole
church to soberly commune together, provide for the poor, and to strive for spiritual
unity. Paul is not saying that a moment of inattentiveness will bring judgment, but outward, major unrulyness brings judgment as we see in the last few verses of the chapter.
Paul's view of discerning the body yields one major application: "wait for one another."
3. I Cor.11:28 "But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread and
drink of the cup." Here we have the two activities that are suppossed to happen together,
or at least are connected with one another. Examining and eating. But what is most revealing here, is what the verse does not say. It does not say, "But let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat, and if he does not examine himself, let him not eat." But, as
it is translated in Russian, "outos, in this manner let him eat." The consequences of not
eating properperly were sickness and death, yet, if Paul were saying suspend yourself,
certainly in mercy, he would have been very clear, "stay away from the Lord's supper un10

less you are very sure you are doing it right!" Instead, we have a only a warning that participating improperly, or in the wrong attitude, will lead to judgment.
This is his climatic thought in verses 31,32. "For if we would judge ourselves, we
would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we
may not be condemned with the world." This is a very exciting, assuring, and interesting
climax. It does not say, "play it safe, and stay away from the Eucharist," He writes, "You
have one option with two variables. Your one option is to be judged. Every believer is
judged in the Lord's supper, because you are asking the Lord to draw near and remember
his promises to you. "Do this as my anamnesis, memorial," is literally what the Greek
says in I Cor.11:24,25. This is as a memorial offering of Lev.2:2 and Acts10:4, which
calls God to remember his promises to us, and a reenactment of the offering of jealousy
of Numbers 5:15,16, another anamnesis, memorial offering, that brings the offererer
near God to be judged. Vs 19, and 28 promises immunity and blessing if there is no uncleanness, and horrible judgment, vs.21,27 if she is unclean.
But you have two variables of judgment in the Eucharist. Either you judge yourself,
with the Holy Spirit and scriptures before you celebrate it, vs.31, "for if we would judge
ourselves, we would not be judged" or God will judge you by causing you to be sick and
sometimes even to die. The former is the fulfillment of I Cor.5:6-8, "Clean out the old
leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened, for Christ our
Passover has been sacrificed. Let us therefore, keep the feast, not with theold leaven, nor
with the leaven of malice, and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth."
Ex.12:15 seems to imply that the leaven is taken from the house before the
Passover is sacrificed, therefore, the cleaning of the soul is to take place before the
Eucharist. The Eucharist is the memorial of Ex.12:14. The cleansing of the house is
symbolic of us cleansing our souls. So we can discipline ourselves voluntarily, or God will
discipline us, but the good news is that even this punishment is "to keep us from being
condemned along with the rest of the world."
4. Right where we would expect Paul to say, avoid the Lord's supper. Instead he
says, judge yourselves, and then,vss.33,34, "So, (his conclusion) when you come together, 1)wait for one another, 2)if you are hungry eat at home, so that you can avoid
God's punishing judgment." Clearly, Paul gives no hint that there is an exception clause,
"or just don't eat." We must not read into the passage what obviously is not there. I Cor.
11 cannot be used as a pretext for self-suspension.
B. What about The Old Testament Verses That emphasize getting right with God before
or instead of making offerings to God?
1. The following conditions existed and exist for the cessation of offering up the
Lord's offerings:
#1 There are no qualified priests or preachers to offer up offering. (II Chron.30:4-5,
I Cor.9:13,14)
#2 The local church or the temple is in such sin that it is wiped out and does not
meet because it is not able to, (II Chron.26:21-23)
#3 The Church does not offer sacrifices because it is too lazy and unfaithful to.
(Haggai 1, which brings wrath, II Chron.29:1-8)
#3 Duly Appointed leaders of the church call for a temporary cessation of the regular worship to fast, pray and repent and quickly reestablish regular worship.
Joel 2:14-19 is an example. Vs.14 says perhaps God might allow us to make offerings, showing that the intent is to regularize the offerings, not to permanently disband
them. Ps.49:5 says, as we have said before, that the church makes "Covenant with God
by sacrifices." So a permanent cessation of the Lord's supper is an impossibility in this
age. Is.59:21 confirms this.
11

John 2, Christ clears temple, calling a temporary cessation to offerings, until they offered rightly, as in Mt.21.
Ezra confesses, in Ezra 9, but the intent is to bring the people to repentance and
keep sacrificing.
This is the clear intent of Mal.3:1-3, purify the church to offer up pure sacrifices.
2. One thing is in common with all these events. They are all inaugurated by officers
of the church, priests, and prophets for the whole church. Not one example in the New
Testament or Old is there of a person on a feast day being allowed by himself to declare
himself unclean, and miss the Passover all together. Numbers 9, and the church canon
made the intentional avoidance of the Passover an excommunicatable offence.
C. The only verse, which seems to give genuine permission to excuse one's self from
the Lord's Supper is Mt. 5:23, 24. "If you are presenting your gift at the altar, and there
remember that your brother has something against you, first go and be reconciled to
your brother, and then offer your gift." In light of the strong evidence in favor of a mandatory communion, the best way to interpret this verse is to notice where you are to leave
your gift. The gift is left before the altar, implying that the man is shortly to return. It
does not say, go home with your gift and try another day, but in one action, worship and
get right with your brother. II Chron.30:16-20 implies that God allows some unavoidable
uncleanness for the sake of the unity of the body of Christ and the greater priority of
performing the Passover. It is proper then, if we remember we have offended a brother,
and we cannot get right with him before the Eucharist due to some physical limitation, we
in can pray for God to accept our sacrifice now, and promise to make it right with our
brother as soon as possible.

VI. Pastoral Advise:

If a church member has sins, which they do not feel free from, then the Bible says:
A. Realize that in Christ our sinful nature cannot control us and present ourselves to
God as slaves to God (Rom.6)
B. Confess specific sins to God I Jn.1:9
C. Confess sins to one another, especially stubborn sins, pray, sing psalms, receive the
anointing oil, and believe, James 4:13-18.
D. Confess stubborn sins to elders as a part recognizing their authority over you and
easing their jobs, Heb.13:17.
E.
Do all this before a root of bitterness spring up and many be destroyed
Heb.12:15-17.
F. Understand that there are three levels of sin in regards the Lord's supper:
1) self suspension is do to a lack of faith, or a lack of repentance, which leads to
judgment as a breaker of the wholecovenant made with God at our baptism. Nub.9:10
You are falling out of the hands of God. I Sam.24:10-14, Numbers 11:34, God killed
those who demanded "better" food.
2) Eating the Lord's Supper with secret sins, or improperly result's in incremental
judgment. I Cor.11:30. God is committed to the believer's ultimate salvation in these
judgments, I Cor.11:32, but you are falling into the hands of God, I Sam.24:10-14.
Num.11:34, "God spared those who only ate his food.
3) Eating the Lord's supper with the bread of sincerity and truth, and under the constant voluntary self judgment of the Holy Spirit allows us to avoid God's sever punishments, I Cor.11:31. This yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness, Heb. 12:10, 11.
12

G. Since all believers sin, I Jn.1:8-10, and a man cannot know his own heart completely,
all believers are potentially moving back and forth from #2 to #3, sever and non-sever
judgment, but elders and older women should be rarely in a state of #2 and never in #1.
(I Tim.3, Titus 1, 2)
H. If a person will not repent from self suspension after instruction and admonition, he
should be excommunicated according to Numbers 9 and the church cannon for unbelief
and breaking his membership vows.

Conclusion:
1) The Lord's supper is a right and obligation of all baptized believers because it:
a) is commanded by Christ and Paul as a regular ordinance of the Church as a continuation and transformation of the Passover.
b) is an essential activity and definition of the church
c) is an essential aspect of the New Covenant
d) humble, teaches and purifies us
e) confesses the faith
2) Proper communion consists essentially in:
a) being baptized and believing in Christ alone for salvation and forgiveness
Jn.13:10, Titus 3:5,6
b) soberly waiting for the body of Christ to commune I Cor.11:33,34.
c) preparation for communion is in constantly leaving the leaven of sin and malice
and putting to death the dead of the flesh, Col.3, II Cor.7:1, Rom.6.
d) examining oneself for sin, is chiefly to be done at the beginning of worship in the
confession of sin, and of examining to discern the Lord's body in acknowledging Christ's
mystical presence with the congregated church.
e)surrendering oneself to God and praising God for the miracle of salvation wrought
in Christ, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that "He who glories let him glory in the Lord." (I Cor.1:30,31)
3) Suspension is not the right of a church member any more than suicide: if unconfessed sin continues, or divisive and unruly behavior continues in the church, God will
judge the offender, but the Eucharist is still mandatory until the officers of the church
suspend the offender. (Mt.16:18,19; Jn.21:21-23)
4) Faithful communion, as a Catechism, will humble us, and teach us the fear of the
Lord, and that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that flows from the
mouth of God. (Dt. 8, 14)

13

14

Papa, why do I take communion?

Chapter 1

Is Paedocommunion an Important Question?

As instructors of the church, we the presbyters of the Presbyterian church of Russia,
(mostly located near St. Petersburg), feel few Protestants know church history regarding
the issue of the sacraments and small children. For instance, few realize that the Russian
Orthodox Church, as well as the Armenian, Greek, Coptic and all ancient churches practiced not only infant baptism, but infant communion as well.
More importantly, we present the following biblical evidence for the practice of infant
communion, after infant baptism, for the children of believers. As the old Scottish Confession of 1560 confirmed, if any of the following teaching is in error, we will gladly retract any and all of it if the scriptures can be used to show us a different way, but for
now, the following evidence seems to be convincing.
For edifying Biblical evidence for infant baptism see our published book, To a Thousand Generation by Douglas Wilson..

The Church Has Threatened the Crowns of King's Over Paedocommunion

Since the 1200s Western Christendom has been debating the question of how and why
children should be allowed to the Lords Table. In 1418-1419 King Wenceslas faced
50,000 Hussite men in Bohemia who were willing to fight before they would see their infant children suspended from Holy Communion. The Hussites by tract, sermon and petition denounced those who have allowed their own will to triumph, rather than the
authority of Scripture, in the matter of infant communion. King Wenceslas was so
alarmed by the massive uprising against his ruling with the Catholic Church that he made
major concessions to the Hussites. Martin Luther, starting in 1532 began to consistently
call for the need to commune infants. He declared:
Paul in Corinthians - a person should examine himself (I Cor. 11:28) speaks only about adults, because he speaks about those who were quarreling
among themselves. But he does not set an obstacle in the way to why it would
not be possible to give the Sacrament of the Altar even to children. (Table Talk
#365)
Wolfgang Musculus was a fellow reformer with John Calvin. He argued for paedocommunion as a professor of theology at Berns University. Thomas Cartwright, the father of
English Presbyterianism, Jeremy Taylor and to some degree, Richard Baxter, imminent
theologians of the Puritan era, promoted the same doctrine in the 17th Century in England. Our denomination in America, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America have written reports for and against covenantal
communion.1
We believe this is because Is. 59: 21,22 is true: "As for Me, says the Lord, this is My
covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words with I have put in our
mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...
says the Lord, from this time and forevermore. The reality is that ever since the Catholic church began to suspend small children from the Lord's table the Western church has
1

For a full history of child communion in Church history, see We All Partake, by the Rev. Blake Purcell.
15

been debating the right, or lack thereof, of its baptized infants. This book is a continuation of that seven hundred year debate. Is.59 promises that all churches that have the
Spirit and Word of God will always be brought back to the Word. God, it seems, is dealing
with His people, and the Spirit is moving on the face of the waters on the issue of paedocommunion.

John 7:24
Do not judge according to appearances, but judge with righteous judgment.

Chapter 2

The Exegesis of I Corinthians 10:1-22

Part 1: Israel In the Wilderness
The premise of this work is not that the Bible teaches paedocommunion through
propositional statements, though there are many propositional truths in the Bible hard to
explain unless we admit to covenant communion. The Bible's metaphors, non-literary
arrangements, poetry, historical events, symbols, types, signs, visual imagery, all encoded in the letters of our vulgar languages greet us with a rich universe of Trinitarian
communication. God does not simply encode mono-fingered. Christ accused his generation of not knowing the "signs" of the times. My premise is that paedocommunion is
signed in through the warp and woof of the Scripture.
The bottom line we conclude is that if we allow I Cor.11, to suspend children, then we
must disallow any appropriate meaning to I Cor.7:14, and I Cor. 10:17, but if we understand I Cor. 11, to not be addressing children, then all the passages have meaning in
their biblical context and none of them end up completely contradicting one another.
We exhort you not to allow preconceptions to interpret the scripture, but allow the
scripture to form your preconceptions.
The Text
A word for word translation of the Nestle Greek text reads:
1 For I wish not you to be ignorant, brothers, that the fathers of us all under the
cloud were and all through the sea passed, 2 and all to Moses were baptized in the
cloud in the sea, 3 and all the same spiritual food ate, 4 and all the same spiritual
drank drink; for they drank of a spiritual following rock, the rock was the Christ. 5
But not with the majority of them was well pleased God; for they were scattered in
the desert. 6 Now these things types of us were, for the not to be us longers after
evil things9 Neither let us overtempt the Lord, as some of them tempted and by
the serpents were destroyed. 11 Now these things typically happened to those
16

men, and was written for admonition of us, to whom the ends of the ages has arrived12 So as the thinking to stand let him look lest he falls. 13 but faithful is
God, who not will allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will make
with the temptation also the way out14 Wherefore, beloved of me, flee ye from
idolatry. .. 15 judge what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, not a communion is it of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, not a communion of
the body of Christ is it? 17 Because one bread, one body the many we are; for all of
the one bread we partakenot I wish and you sharers of the demons to become.

Detailed Study of the Text

Chapter 10 Verses 1-5
At the end of chapter 9, Paul does not want to be disqualified for not running the race
of his life properly before the Lord. Though he went through the motions of a spiritual
race, especially as an Apostle, he was aware that religious fronts and experiences can deceive (9:24-28). In this spirit, he turns their attention to their spiritual forefathers, in an
attempt to see that Biblical history has exemplars of those who ran the race, but did not
win the prize.
Verses 1-5 display a startling contrast; though all of Israel was baptized and even given
communion, both in OT types, most of them did not win the prize of pleasing God. The
word all, !!!!!!!(pantes), in this passage used five times, is a critical word.
One student in seminary quickly reminded me that this word is also in Mark 1:5; all
(pasa) of Judea and all (pantes) Jerusalem went out to John the Baptist, and were baptized. In this context, it means alot, and is Biblical hyperbole. Sometimes pantes has
emphatic, sometimes looser, symbolic connotations.
What do the five pantes mean in I Corinthians 10:1-5, one hundred percent of the
people, or, just a lot of the people?
We can deduce which pantes is intended by the Apostle from Exodus 13:17, and Corinthians: Pharaoh let the people go. 13:18 God led the people, 21, The Lord went before them, 14:19,20 And the angel of God who went before the host of Israel removed
and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind
them, coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. It was a cloud of darkness to the Egyptians but it gave light by night to the Israelites. 22 the Israelites went
into the midst of the sea, 28 The waters returned and covered the chariots...and all the
host of Pharaoh...not one of them remained, 29 But the Israelites walked on dry
ground, 30 thus the Lord saved Israel that day.
It is a grammatical impossibility to conclude from the above that most of our forefathers were baptized in the sea and in the cloud. The references above are clearly referring to all the Egyptians and/or all the Israelites.
Vs. 3 and 4 And all the same spiritual food ate, and all the same spiritual drank drink;
for they drank of a spiritual following rock, the rock was the Christ. These are pantes,
numbers four and five in the passage. Is the passage referring to most of the Israelites in
the Wilderness eating manna and drinking from the rock, or just some of them?
Exodus 16:3-4,6-7,16-17 provides a definite answer. For you have brought us into
this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.
17

Numbers 20: 2,11 Now there was no water for the congregation...11 Then Moses lifted
his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod: and water came out abundantly, and the
congregation and their animals drank.
Here again, exegetical conclusions are not difficult. These passages lose all import if
we do not admit that the children of Israel all ate manna and drank from the rock in the
Wilderness. It is logical that nursing babes would not have partaken of either until they
were old enough; and apparently there was water at certain places, and quail was available some of the time. Nevertheless, there is no room to assume that the Holy Spirit in
the Pentateuch, nor subsequently in I Corinthians 10, was trying to say Israel, except the
children, ate of the bread from heaven, and drank of the rock that was Christ.
Exegetical Conclusion: All (not most, or some) of Israel, including young children, ate
the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink in the Wilderness. Therefore, typologically, Israel practiced paedobaptism and paedoocommunion in the Wilderness.

Chapter 3

Exegesis of I Corinthians 10: 1-22

Part 2: The Use of Types
Vs. 5-10
But, !!!!!of verse five, denotes the tremendous contrast between the faithful
mercy and sacramental generosity of God and the behavior of the Israelites. With the
majority of them, God was not pleased. Symbolically, only those under twenty years old
when Israel refused to go up to the promised land (Numbers 14) were visibly given the
sign of complete salvation, that of making it into the promised land.
Vs. 6 reads, Now these things types (!!!!! ) for us were. The Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words (Kittel) describes its use in the following excerpt:
As a Hermeneutical Term.
In two passages Paul describes OT events as in order to show hermeneutic that
they point to the present eschatological salvation event.
a. The events which are said to have happened as in 1Corinthians 10: 6 or in
10:11 are the things, which befell Israel in the wilderness. Here manifestations of
grace and judgments on sin form an indivisible material nexus. It is not the OT
texts that are called, but the historical events, which are depicted in loose dependence on the OT. The section 1CORINTHIANS10 did not arise out of scriptural
exegesis. Rather the apostles gaze moved from the situation of the community to
the prior work of God in history, where he found light for the present. In this way
he highlighted a series of events which God had recorded in Scripture, as for the
end-time community, 1 Corinthians 10:11. Both aspects are essential for both
correspond to their content. A rule is not deduced from OT events for all Gods
further acts. These events are understood as an indication of His corresponding
dealings with the end-time community, the Church. The correspondence does not
lie merely in external similarities between the events. It is to be seen primarily in
the essential similarity in Gods acts
Analysis of the context raises the question how far the term tupos expresses
this significance of OT events. Exegetical discussion centers on whether tupos
here means example, model, which expresses a rule, or technically advance
18

presentation intimating eschatological events. Our own analysis rules out the
former and suggest that the word takes on here for the first time the technical
sense in which it is often used in Christian literature subsequent to PaulHence
the best translations are type in I Corinthians 10:6 and typical in 10:11, the
words have been used as hermeneutic terms and not in the usual sense.2
Kittel, the most thorough and authoritative of the Greek dictionaries, stipulates that
God gave a preview, and prediction, of the birth of the church and individual believers, in
these historical events of the OT, which are in essence and in detail repeated in the NT,
and to be normative in the church age as Dispensationalists say, or eschatologically as
the Reformed say.3
Exegetical Conclusion #3: Type and typically, are very specific terms that reveal
that the events in Exodus were previews of the birth of the Church, and individual believers, and binding today upon the Church.4
Now these things were types for us. Vs.6 Now these things happened typically to
those men, and were written for admonition of us...Vs.11. Grammatically there is one
more observation worth making, and that is, what Paul is saying is Corinthians you all
have church order that already exists, and that church order is previewed in Israel coming
out of Egypt and in the desert.
Exegetical Conclusion #4: Paul teaches that the Corinthians were already typified by
Israel in the desert. In other words the sacraments were already being done structurally
in Corinth, the way the God did them in the desert.

Chapter 4

The Exegesis of I Corinthians 10:1-22

Part 3: For We Are One...Body, For We All Partake of One Bread
Vs. 16-17

2 Type in Kittle footnote here

3
4 The Law and the Temples Are Types For Our Instruction
If this hermeneutic and theological underpinning is missing in our understanding of the NT, then we will always be wondering who we are, and how
to use the OT. The Westminster confession in VII.5 concisely communicates this truth with:
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophesies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ
to come
The Belgic Confession XXV adds our current obligation to be faithful to the ceremonial laws:
We still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in
all honesty, to the glory of God
Art. XXIV stipulates that as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christs suffering and death,
shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ.
All people that on earth do dwell sing to the Lord

19

Vs.16 and 17 are the most incontrovertible in support of covenant-communion.5 The

verses read literally in Greek: The cup of blessing which we bless, not a communion is it
of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, not a communion of the body of
Christ is it? Because one bread, one body the many we are; for all of the one bread we
partake.
First of all, all the wes are conjugated verbs present tense, first person, plural.
Therefore, in Greek they all end in en. Eulagomen, we bless; klomen, we break; esmen,
we are; metexomen, we partake!!!!n context, there are four grammatical reasons
why these wes include the covenant children.
The children were clearly included in the wilderness communion mentioned in verses
1-5, and these verses are the reciprocating New Covenant side of the Old Covenant type,
described in those first verses. Verses 6, and 11 give us no option but to understand that
these desert types were for Corinthians, he explains the connection between the type in
the dessert and the fulfillment of the type amongst the Corinthians. All of the previous
exegetical evidence points to this interpretation.
Exegetical conclusion: In context the word we used in verse 16 can only mean the
whole congregation.
What about the word all, in verse 17? All (pantes) of the one bread we partake. I
observe three grammatical reasons why it means effectively the whole congregation.
1) The above mentioned allusions to the Israelites refers to all the Israelites, and
verse 17, its typological counter part, because of the general image of the first type, we
naturally conclude that this fulfillment has the similar connotation in its all.
2) Since the five alls in verses 1-4 we proved meant essentially 100% of the people,
traditional hermeneutics require that further uses of the same word in the same passage
more and more likely will carry the same meaning.
3) Since a similar passage, Rom.5: 12-14, has a pantas-tupos combination, in
which pantas only means one hundred percent, (and in this way death came to all men,
because all men sinned.) there is hermenuetical precedence in Paul to combine this
meaning of all with his allusions to types. By precedent, too, all in all we partake of
one bread, means literally what it says.
Exegetical Conclusion: The all, pantes, in vs. 17 for we all partake of one bread in
context is intended to included the children and the mentally handicapped that are covered by a believing covenant head (a believing parent.)
Finally, Because one bread, one body the many we are (literally translated) How must
a suspensionist (one who believes in the suspending anyone from the Lord supper
based on their reasoning capacities) view this verse? He must translate it either Because
5 Vss. 14-22. The Children of Levitical Priests Ate of all the OT Sacrifices.
Vs. 18 is the second allusion to a secondary type (tupos) of covenantal communion. In Leviticus 10:12-15, 22:1-16 and Numbers 18:8-19 we are
told that the offerings of the altar, were all for the households of the priests, daughters, sons, slaves. In Lev.24:9 we are told that the showbread is for
Aaron and his sons, which mirrors the language of the other passages, specifically Lev.22:1-3, and Numbers 18. We can safely assume that this
showbread too, was for all the children of the priests if they were ceremonially clean.
Leviticus 22:11 likewise upholds the principle of covenantal rights with But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it and he that
is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Is not part of the Good News of the New Covenant is that the offerings which all typified Christ of the OT, are now ministered to us in the bread
and wine of the Lords Supper. And just as the manna was for believers children, and the holy offerings in four places are shown to be for the
households of priests, now, the holy Lords Supper is for the households of NT priests, and too, must be eaten in the holy place, the NT congregation, duly assembled. The point here is to see that in I Corinthians Paul make three allusions to OT practices which were to teach NT believers, and
all three of these allusions imply NT covenant communion

20

we almost one bread, sort of one body the many we are, or Because we are one bread,
but some of the bread is not communing with the body, for we all of the one bread we
partake.
The second word in vs. 17 is !!!! meaning for or because, or therefore. It is
a particle properly assigning a reason, says Strongs. In our verse, then, we are one
body because we partake of one bread!
It can be argued that either we are or we are not one body. If we are, then those that
have suspended covenant children are living in disobedience to this verse. Our baptist
brethren are more consistent as they openly proclaim, that their children are not apart of
the one bread until they are baptized by a confession of faith! Verse 17 teaches that
children of believers either are or are not apart of the congregation and the visible body
of Christ based on their participation in the Lords Supper. Having them be in the visible
body, but not communing is not an option, exegetically, according to verse 17.
Exegetical conclusion: Suspending children because they are children from the Lords
Table forces us to redefine the word one in I Corinthians 10:17 Due to the reality that
one is used in Scripture to denote perfect unity (Deuteronomy 6, Eph.4) the definition
of one of the suspensionist foists an arbitrary hermeneutic onto I Corinthians 10:17.

Chapter 5

Interpreting I Corinthians 11 in the Light of the Type

of the Paschal Lamb in I Corinthians 5:6-8
I Corinthians 5:6-8 reads:
6.Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump?
7.Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
8.Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of
malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
As Colossians 2:11 and 12 connect our baptism to circumcision, so I Corinthians 5:7
corresponds the Lords Supper to the Passover feast.
What is important to notice here, and what clearly is a part of over-all misconstruction
of our understanding of the Eucharist, is the word feast. Although Vines asserts that
this reference to the feast is not the Passover, the language and allusions drip with paschality. The verb, heortazomen, is from the noun feast, heorte, in John 6:4. The reference to the paschal lamb, and leaven, make this a likely reference to the Lords Supper.
Our interests, of course, are narrower in this work, so we are looking specifically for
whether or not the children in Israel partook of the Passover Lamb, and were an integral
part of the Passover feast
I have often labeled the Passovers in reference to renewal of the covenant, both because there was often a Passover after a confession of faith in Israel, and always in the NT
it is a confession of faith, and because all the festivals in Israel seems to be centered
around Passover. Likewise, in Numbers 23 we are given another glimpse at the centrality
21

of the Passover to all the other festivals, in that they all are determined by their relationship to the Passover date.
Passover # 1
The Ordinance Established
A literal translation of Exodus 12:3,4
3. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth of month this, they
will take for themselves each one a flock animal |1004| for a household father's
|7716| a flock animal |1004| for a household.
4. And if is small {too} |1004| the household is |7716| for a flock animal will take
he and his neighbor next to |1004| his house, according to the number of persons, |0376| each one |6310| by the mouth of (0408) his eating, you will count
as[0736] to the flock animal.
The following definitions from Strongs Exhaustive Concordance will be helpful to note:
Strong's Ref. # 1004 Romanized bayith, a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, winter household, etc.)
Strong's Ref. # 6310, Romanized peh, the mouth
Strongs Ref. #0376, properly, a breathing creature.
Strong's Ref. #0408 is a particle completing the idiomatic phrase
First of all, we observe here that ordinance was given to all Israel, not just the adults.
Secondly, we also see that each head of a home was to take a lamb per household. The
phrase, according to the mouth of his eating, in the literal translation, is according to
each mans need, and is repeated three times in Exodus 16:16, 18 and 21. This is important, because some who espouse the suspensionist theory of communion say here that
this language implies that only the adult males, etc. partook of the Passover lamb.
A literal translation of Exodus 16:16 is as follows:
This {is} the thing which has commanded |Yahweh. Gather from it |0376| each
one |6310| according to the mouth of |0408| his eating. An omer for a head, {by}
the number of your persons, each man who {is} in his tent you may take.
Another observation from Exodus 12, first of all, the Passover lambs blood was to be
smeared upon the doorposts of the house. Sacramentally then all those inside the house
were covered by the blood of the Lamb.
And finally, vs. 27 of Exodus 12 explains the thrust of the Passover as a sacrifice commemorating when the Lord delivered our households. There were household blessings,
and notice in verses 15 and 19, that leaven was not to be found in any of their houses.
The whole family was to be cut off from Israel if leaven was found on the premises.
(Achan in Joshua 7) The children were certainly part of the preparation of the Passover
responsibilities and privileges.
Next, we must note that the Passover was an obligatory and permanent ordinance of
the Lord. Vs. 14 reads: So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as
a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. However some have redefined the Biblical stipulations making its reception depend on the confession of the child, rather than the confession of the spiritual
head of the family, which now can be a believing mother or father (I Corinthians 7:14).
From Exodus 12 then we make the following conclusions:
22

1) The Scripture clearly teaches that all in the home were to eat the lamb.
2) All in the home were to prepare for eating the lamb.
3) There was no sense of division of the children from the adults.
4) Rather than the sacrament being a privilege for a certain kind of catechized Hebrew,
it was an absolutely obligatory memorial, and an permanent ordinance.
5) The sacrament was the blessing of salvation and deliverance of the whole household,
federally bestowed on the house through the faith of the head of the home, and the obligation of the federal head of the household.
6) To neglect to commune all the children under our roof, scripturally, is punishable, by
excommunication. If we believe that this is a "shadow" for us, then churches that suspend
those who God has commanded to partake of the feast are breaching Gods ordinance.
Passover # 2
Numbers 9: The Ordinance Clarified
Chronologically, the second recorded Passover took place in Numbers 9. This Passover
was mentioned above, but here it is in a fuller version.
And the Lord space unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,
"If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body,
or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the Passover unto the Lord. The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey,
and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from
among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
Let's draw our attention to the following:
1) Again, the Lord spoke through Moses to all Israel, including the children.
2) Vs.10 categorically includes the children in the whole ordinance when the posterity
too must not keep the feast unclean, but can keep it a month later.
3) The feast must be kept only by the clean, which is a direct reference to I Corinthians
7:14, otherwise they would be unclean, (the children) but as it is they are holy.
4) The neglect of the feast by anyone, not the inclusion of covenant children, was a
breaking of the covenant, and punishable by being cut off.6
Passover # 6
Covenant Renewal in the Divided Kingdom: Hezekiah

6 Passover # 3. The Manna Interlude. In order not to lose the flow of these events, we need to remember that I Corinthians 10 clearly equates the
desert experience with the Lords Supper. And Joshua 5 implies that manna water from the rock substituted for the Passover, and then the Passover
took over when the Lord lead Israel into the promise land. For continuitys sake, it is important to remember that here more clearly than ever, the
children ate and drank of Christ.
Passover # 4. Joshua 5:8-10: The Renewal of the Covenant in the Promised Land. Regarding the above, if the children were suddenly suspended
from the Lords Table after enjoying it for 40 years in the desert, would there not have been a complaint, at least on the part of some parents?
Passover # 5. I Chronicles: The Continual Renewal of Covenant in the United Kingdom. I Chronicles 9, 16 and 23 in general, demonstrate what
16:37 and 16:40 specifically relate that the Levites were appointed to regularly...offer burnt offerings...to do according to all that is written in the
Law of the Lord. II Chronicles 2:4, 8:13, reveal that Solomon kept this up. The Passover was not neglected until the shattering of the kingdom.
Eschatologically, this is important because the reign of David is especially a preview of the reign of Christ, according to the II Samuel 7 covenant the
Lord made with David. It is an inconsistent picture to have David continually feasting with all the covenant children, year after year, but when Christ
comes to reign through His church, the Son of David is not banqueting with his covenant children. Acts 15:16 calls the Church the restored tabernacle of David.

23

I Chronicles 30: 13-23

Now many people, a very great assembly, gathered at Jerusalem to keep the Feast
of Unleavened Bread in the second month...Then they slaughtered the Passover
lambs... So the children of Israel who were present at Jerusalem kept the Feast...
Then the whole assembly agreed to keep the feast another seven days...
As before, the language indicates that all that could kept the Passover. There is no
mention of catechizing children. There is no record of children complaining about being
excluded or being allowed to the Lords Table. 7
Passover #8
Ezra 6:19-22: Covenant Renewal in the Restored Kingdom
And the descendants of the captivity kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of
the first month. 20 And they slaughtered the Passover lambs for all the descendants of the captivity. 21 Then the children of Israel who had returned from the
captivity ate together with all who had separated themselves from the filth of the
nations...
What is most significant here is not just the clarity of the proclamation that all the returnees partook of the sacrament, but that it was in a new dispensation, if you will. The
Passover was the central event that established the new epochs in Israels history: the
exodus, the desert, the promise land, and the kingdom periods. Therefore this was the
fifth time that God had placed the Passover as the crucial event in renewing the covenant
and marking the beginning of a new era. And here we see that children seem to be unambiguously included in the Passover.
Passover # 9
Ezekiel 45:21-23: The Covenant Renewal in the Spiritual Kingdom of Ezekiel
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the Passover,
a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall
the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin
offering. And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the Lord,
seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of
the goats daily for a sin offering.
The Genevan Bible describes the vision of Ezekiel here as a point in the future when
the presence of God among His people would transcend anything Israel had experienced
in history. If so, then in a consummation of Christ with His bride, again we see Him
supping with all the people of the land, not just the confessing adults. Certainly, if this
is in heaven, then, even elect infants that died in their infancy, will be there to confess
and praise their Savior. The motif still continues that God tabernacles equally with all His
people in all ages.
Finally, we need to notice that these recorded Passovers are not random selections, but
representations of the centrality of the Passover to the life of Israel in each epoch of His
covenant history.

7 Passover # 7 Covenant Renewal during the Divided Kingdom: Josiah. II Kings 23:21-22, II Chronicles 35: 1-19. This is the only Passover event,
besides the Lords Supper, which is recorded in more than one place. This II Chronicles passage agrees with I Samuel 1, of the practices of Israel at
the time. Alluding to Josiah doing for all Israel what Elkanah did for his own family, and that is provide them all with sacrifices. It is more probable
that he provided every family, of course, with a lamb. Thirty thousand lambs is a large number at any rate. Unless we imagine that no children lived
in Jerusalem, we have to admit that not a man, women or child of the covenant was excluded from the feast.

24

Chapter 6

Catechism Before Communion or

Communion as a Catechism?
I Corinthians 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for
your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above the which is written, than
no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Not To Think Beyond What Is Written
Calvin wrote that children in Israel were not allowed to partake of the paschal Lamb
unless they had been catechized by their father. He based this on Exodus 12:26, 27
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, who passed over the houses of the children of
Israel...and delivered our households. Calvin goes on anyone with a brain left could
clearly see the truth of his statements. He apparently knew that he needed to be adamant about the issue, because of the close connection between the Passover typology
and the Lords Supper.
To modern man, Calvins idea here is plausible, but the Scripture does not actually say
what Calvin says it does. The Scripture says, when your children ask, say... Whether or
not they should and did eat the lamb is answered in other portions of Exodus 12. Here I
would like to only focus on this one simple question: does the Bible give any indication
of a mandatory catechism before the covenant children were allowed to partake of the
Passover lamb? I would like to offer the following ten reasons why the answer to that
question is, No. The existence of broad and obvious evidence against such a catechism
makes us think that many, such as John Calvin, looked at the Scripture on this issue with
bias.
Observations That Refute a Mandatory Catechism:
1)
No Such Words As we have already mentioned, not only does Exodus 12
not imply a screening catechism but nowhere in Scripture does. What this does imply is
that a real sacrament is always in the context of the words of institution.
Perhaps the most obvious Passover, where we would expect to hear of such a catechism, would be Joshua 5:2-10, when Israel fresh out of the desert is celebrating its first
Passover. Initiatory rites are very obviously the focus of the passage, in that Israel was
not practicing circumcision in the desert. Instead of a focus on baptism and confirmation, as Catholics, Episcopalians, Reformed and Lutherans should find, we find is baptism under the knife, that is, circumcision, as the initiatory rite.
An example from the earliest extant church document, The Didache, chapter 9:
..But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist) but they who have
been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath
said, give not that which is holy to the dogs.

25

2) No Traffic Jams At Passovers If Israel was cutting some children out of the
Passover, we would certainly think that there would not only be evidence of it in the eight
Passovers recorded in Scripture, but some evidence of the hold up that such a practice
would cause.
3) The Inclusive Language of All the Passovers If some were not allowed to partake, would not the Scripture say, those that were of age ate? But instead every Passover implies, all Israel."
4) All of Israel ate other types of sacramental meals All males were to appear before the Lord three times a year, it appears, and to bring their own sacrifices (Exodus 23:
15). This is why II Chronicles 35 teaches that Josiah provided 30,000 lambs for those at
the Passover, and I Samuel 1 Elkanah provides a sacrifice even for his daughters. The
overall evidence of Scripture is even children were to offer various sacrifices, and then eat
them, the Passover being one of them. Deuteronomy 12:5-7 But you shall seek the
place where the Lord your God chooses6 There you shall take your burnt offerings 7
And there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you
have put your hand, you and all your household. The Passover was just one household,
sacrament.
5) The Testimony of Exodus 13 Calvins assumption is at least partially predicated
upon the idea that Scripture has no examples of a similar question being asked that deals
directly with a sacramental act that had been done with or for a child during his infancy,
or toddlerhood. However, Exodus 13, the next chapter after which Calvin makes his conclusions that all weaned children were not admitted to the Passover lamb, includes such a
catechism question:
Exodus 13:13-14
And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not
redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy
children shalt thou redeem.
And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this?
That thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from
Egypt, from the house of bondage.
If a firstborn son asked about the ceremony he was witnessing, then he would be asking about a sacramental event which had already taken place with him, but which he
would not be able to comprehend at all at the time, his own redemption by a lamb at the
temple. Chapter 13 obviously includes a question concerning a sacramental ceremony,
very similar to the Passover, which often could be posed by children who had already
been blessed by the sacrament before they could understand it. It is possible, then, that
children in Exodus 12 would have eaten the Passover Lamb before they could ask a question, or before they took the initiative to ask a question. Children were to be taught
about some sacraments after they had received them. It is not possible to say with any
assurance that the catechism question of Exodus 12 proves the need to ask the question
before a child could enjoy the sacrament.
6) The Testimony of Deuteronomy 6 Steve Wilkins, in his tape series on paedocommunion, observes concerning Deuteronomy 6: 20, And when thy son asketh thee in
time to come, saying what mean the testimonies, and the statutes....which the Lord our
God hath commanded you? Then thou shalt say unto thy son....the Lord brought us out
of Egypt with a mighty hand. Wilkins notices that if we can say that Exodus 12 necessitates a child taking the initiative before he is allowed to receive the blessing of eating the
Passover, then we can likewise infer from Deuteronomy 6, that a parent should not teach
his child the Scripture, until he asks, What mean the testimonies...of the Lord. This of
course direct disobedience to Deuteronomy 6: 6,7, And these words...shall be upon your
heart, and you shall teach them diligently to your children.
26

Both Exodus 13, and Deuteronomy 6, clearly reveal that the whole when thy son asks
motif of the Pentateuch does not in any case imply the exclusion of the children before
they are initiated. Instead, the Pentateuch teaches just the opposite, that the children
were to be initiated, in some instances, at the earliest possible moment, and in some instances, the firstborn, on the eighth day, and then, in time, or with other children present, the parents were to not forget the words of institution. Contextually then, it is
more likely that the Passover was celebrated in the same way, with children being asked,
and initiating the words of institution, when they could.
7) The Inclusion of Ignorant Slaves An almost comical result of Calvins teaching on
the Passover would be that if a slave was bought by an Israelite on Monday, and circumcised on Tuesday, he could Eat the Passover on Wednesday. Exodus 12 only requires circumcision, and Genesis 17 requires that family slaves be circumcise, therefore, if a son
had to recite something to be admitted to the Passover, but a newly circumcised sojourner, or slave, did not have to be catechized, you could have slaves eating the Lamb,
but sacramentally holy (I Corinthians 7:14) being excluded.
8) The Absence of Catechumenal Questions For Slaves And Sojourners There is
no such command or reference in the Bible. They are only to be circumcised, but if circumcised then they must appear three times a year before the Lord. They would be exposed to the Word, but they were not, required to be catechized before they were admitted to the Paschal feast.
9) Absence of NT Proof of A Mandatory Catechism We have noted in the chapter
Seeing I Corinthians 11 in The Light of The Seamlessness of the NT Church that while
leadership was only entrusted to the mature, the church was clearly and irrefutably the
adults and the children, with not one example of children being sacramentally treated as
inferior.
I Cor. 10, is the most clarion pronouncement of this fact. All Israel ate, and drank of
Christ in the desert, Israel was a type of the church, the church communes in the Lords
Supper in the same way, the church is one bread, one body, because it all partakes of one
bread. This is I Corinthians 10 in a nutshell, on child-communion, and it coincides perfectly with the first nine proofs listed above. The NT, in fact, more emphatically includes
the children in the Covenant when Christ himself says in Luke 18: 16, Suffer the little
children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
What Were the OT Requirements for Admission to the Passover?
The OT, as we have seen, has two rites that permitted one to eat holy food. One was
circumcision (Exodus 12:48), and the other was cleansing with holy water. The cleansing
with water will be discussed in the next chapter. In fact, the requirement that women and
children also be cleansed with water is albeit indirect, testimony to the fact that no cognitive, but only sacramental requirements were made of OT children to be admitted to the
Passover. It can further be argued accordingly that baptism is now the only discernable
requirement for admittance to the Lords Supper.
Ezra 6:19-21 also sheds light here. And the descendants of the captivity kept the
Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. And they slaughtered the Passover
lambs for all the descendants of the captivity. Then the children of Israel who had returned from the captivity ate together with all who had separated themselves from the
filth of the nations and they worshipped the Lord their God. To not allow a child to
commune is to equate him with the filth of the nations, because, in so doing he is declared unclean. True, Romans 10 tells us that with confession, one is saved, but children are simply an exception to this, otherwise their status as clean and holy or (saints) in
I Cor. 7:14 is meaningless. Certain people would like to say that I Cor.7:14 is only referring to children being in a sort of middle state, belonging to God, but not outwardly
communing with Him, but such a middle state is nowhere proposed or implied in the Bi27

ble. To declare them unclean until they confess their faith is to oppose the ordinance of
God. To our knowledge, a mandatory catechism before communion is nowhere taught or
implied in the Scripture.
Communion Was and Is A Catechism
Dt. 8:1-5, as we mention in chapter on the language of the New Testament, portrays
the manna in the Wilderness as a catechism. The Lord feed Israel manna to dicipline
them, vs.5, and to teach them, vs.3. Vs. 2 identifies the manna eating as a testing, as
well. This is very natural, as human parents do the same with their own children. They
make them eat their household food, and no spitting it out and no complaining. God
takes our covenant children on His knee, as Christ took the infants, and feeds them and
allows no grumbling. By eating our children learn that just as the bread nourishes their
bodies, so the Word of God nourishes their bodies and souls, vs.3. To keep children
away from the Eucharist is to deprive them of a constant lesson, and test. We remember
too, that Gods tests are to make us stronger, James 1:2-4, so untested children are
weaker children.

Chapter 7

Interpreting I Corinthians 11 in The Light of I Corinthians 7:14

Taken in context, does I Corinthians 7:14 focus on the requirements of participation in
the Lords Supper, or on the right of the offspring of believers to baptism? I Corinthians
7:14 has historically been used to argue the right of infant baptism, but in reality, the
following observations will give evidence that is not the primary, intended application.
The verse 14 reads:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they
holy.
A literal translation with the Strongs words attached is:
has been sanctified For the husband unbelieving by the wife. And has been
sanctified the wife unbelieving by the husband. Else then the children of you
unclean is. Now but holy they are.
Lets define three of these words. First, has been sanctified, (Strong's Ref. # 37), hagiazomto, make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate.
Next, unclean is Strong's Ref. # 169, akathartos, (meaning cleansed); impure (ceremonially, morally [lewd] or specially, [demonic]): KJV--foul, unclean.
Finally, holy Strong's Ref. # 40 Romanized hagios; sacred (physically, pure, morally
blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated): KJV (most) holy (one, thing), saint.
A child is sanctified by their believing parent. This word sanctified is simply the verb
form of the word holy, used at the end of the verse. I Peter 2:5,9 lets us know how seri28

ous this rank in Gods eyes is when calls the church a holy, hagious, priesthood and nation.
The word for holy in both these sentences is from the same root as the "holy" in I Corinthians 7:14. Both the verb form and the adjective denote a standing in Gods sight that
cannot be improved. Before Him, our children are not just acceptable, but part of a holy
nation of priests, because God says so. This is imputed holiness.
What is important to see here is that their holiness is predicated on the faith of their
parents. So, if we ask the question, How can children, discern the body, proclaim Christs
death, examine themselves, and eat worthily then the Biblical answer is, just as
Augustine confirms, they can do it because God imputes to the child, His complete acceptance, in Christ, based on the faith of the parent. This should satisfy us, as to how
God accepts infants in communion, and why the whole Christian church for over one
thousand years gave communion to babes. This is imputed holiness and its God's sovereign act (grammatically it is stated fact).
All Holiness Imputed
Here, we must remember, that all holiness, except Gods, is ultimately imputed. For
our sake He made him to be sin.... so that in him we might become the righteousness of
God, (I Corinthians 5) and God reckoned it to him as righteousness, (Romans 4) testify
that God decides to reckon righteousness to us based on His mere good pleasure. To call
the reckoned holiness of I Corinthians 7:14 not real is to make a distinction that God
does not make, and makes much of fickle mans confessions of faith, and little of Gods
authority.
But how long should such a status of holiness last, in the eyes of the church. It would
seem that in the case of infants dying in infancy, we should think in terms of Ezekiel
16:8, that they were born Gods child, and died Gods child (Ezekiel 9:6).
In the case of handicapped children who are incapable of confirming and showing their
faith later in life, this status too, should be permanent. (Luke 12:48, of him to whom
much is given of him will much be required, certainly implies that God requires nothing
more from such people.)
In the case of senility and comatose, we return to this state of imputed cleanliness, if
our life before hand did not deny the faith. Ezekiel 3 implies that the lastest moral state a
man, while is in health, is in is the binding moral state before God.
If God graciously allows communion of infants based on their parents faith, then certainly, he communes the senile, based on their earlier rational faith. Luke 12:45 is again
applicable. I Corinthians 8:12 declares that God does not judge us based on what we do
not have. Infants, the retarded, and the senile, that are born into or have confessed the
covenant all fall under this gracious provision. God is not severe with his covenant people
that have little, but with any people that take away the rights of the weak in the covenant,
and with those that teach that the rights of the weak do not even exist. (Matthew 23:14,
Ezra 18:1-13, Matthew 18:1-10)
What is New Testament Ceremonial Cleanliness?
The third word above guides us to our primary application of the verse. Reformers
have traditionally focused on this verse as one that leads us to the baptism of our children, and this is proper. But this is not the primary application of this verse. The primary
application of the verse can only be seen when we understand the word unclean. The
three main Greek dictionaries, Vines, Strongs and Kittle, all three indicate that this word
has to do with cultic or ceremonial cleanliness. What in the world does this refer to?
29

Leviticus 7:19, is our basic text for understanding the application of cleanliness and
the sacraments in the whole of Scripture. ...all who are clean may eat of it. The it is
the peace offering, (zebach). The passover is a type of zebach, according to Exodus
12:27.
Observe that children in the OT were held to the same standards of cleansing as the
adults. In verse 20, the purpose of cleanliness was to be admitted to the house of the
Lord, and as Deuteronomy 12:6,7 tells us, eat holy sacrifices.8
Please notice here that in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, it is the exact
same word that children of believers are declared not to be. They are not akathartoi, but
clean, and not just clean but holy. Ezra 6 includes a similar passage, in which the unclean
of the world are clearly not allowed to eat of the sacrifices.
Exegetical Conclusion: Therefore, to view I Corinthians 7:14, as mainly a verse dealing
with a covenant childs right to baptism, when it is sandwiched in-between I Corinthian
5, the Paschal lamb and feast teachings, and I Corinthians 10 and 11, on the Lords Supper, is simply not in agreement with the flow of the book, nor the lexical denotations of
the word "unclean." Suspensionists must reject the dictionary definition of the word, and
contextual connotations of "unclean. Their view I Corinthians 11 contradicts I Corinthians 7:14.
But, is a child clean without being baptized? I Corinthians does not answer this question directly, but just one chapter earlier (I Corinthians 6: 11) the answer is implied in
but you were washed and as often in I Corinthians you is ye, plural. The whole church
has been washed, and the churches children are clean. Certainly infant baptism is here
implied, as it is typified in I Corinthians 10.
Conclusion: If the above is true, then Acts 10 in the warning, "And the voice spoke
unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common,
every time a covenant child is suspended from the Lords Table just because he is a child,
we are declaring unclean what God has already declared clean.

Chapter 8

Interpreting I Corinthians 11 In Light of

The Language of the New Testament
This chapter will focus upon the evidence in the New Testament that children of believers, as so taught in I Corinthians 10, are full members of the body of Christ, and always
have been. For we are one bread, one body, of I Corinthians 17 is portrayed in varied
and beautiful ways in the NT, all of which point to the seamlessness of the body of Christ.
God Directly Addresses Covenant Children In Both Testaments
What is the significance when God speaks directly to children in passages of Scripture
that are dealing with full members of His covenant people and church? He does this most
preeminently in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments teach us what God
8

Numbers 19:13-20 :More directly, we see in Numbers 9:6-10 that being clean and unclean was particularly relevant to the Passover: And there were
certain men, who were defiled (unclean,LXX: akathartoi), by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passover on that day: and they
came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: And those men said unto him, We are defiled (unclean,LXX: akathartoi) by the dead body of a
man: wherefore are we kept back, that we might not offer an offering of the Lord in his appointed season among the children of Israel?

30

covenantally expects of children, obedience to parents. Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3 essentially portray the same thing, children, obey your parents. These passages are in the
middle of teaching for and to adults. No hint of them being non-communing members if
found in these passages, nor anywhere in all scripture. This doctrine and phrase noncommuning member is not only an oxymoron, but foreign to the Bible.
Does God demands outward evidence of obedience to Him, without granting an outward sign, of an inward grace, that would reveal that God Himself, is the source of their
obedience? Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3 irrefutably place children as full members of
the covenant community. If suspension was a NT reality, why do the passages not say,
children obey your parents, and strive to be admitted to the Lords Table? Or why
doesnt the Scripture say, Fathers, do this ... Slaves do this ...Non-communing members
do this .... Corinthians 7:14, has already admitted them to the highest rank, holy. and
born into a holy nation. (I Peter 2: 5,9) A non-communing member contradicts what is
clearly implied in the way children are addressed in these NT passages.
II Timothy 3: 1-5:But understand this, that in the last days there will be times of
stress, for men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without selfcontrol, brutalheadstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having
a form of godliness, but denying its power; from such turn away. We now begin to see
the other side of the paedocommunion issue, and the two-edged grace of God. Luke
12:48 teaches to whom much is given, of him will much be demanded. When we see
that a child being raised in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, and is publicly
shown by his communion, that he has been given complete access to the kingdom of
God, and the Holy of Holies, he is being publicly accepted and empowered by Christ to be
His disciple.
With the constant testimony, which paedocommunion gives, it strangely, allows the
church to be harder on covenant children than suspension does. To be selected from the
whole congregation for suspension from the Lords Table certainly has more of a bite
than does simply not being allowed to the table. Also, such a disciplinary suspension
must be preceded by admonition, according to Titus 3:10. Therefore, paedocommunion
empowers the church to admonish and publicly discipline all covenant children.
See how strict the Apostle Paul is with children. Disobedient to parents, is particularly the sin of believers children before the years of discretion. The scriptures require
honor, but not obedience to parents our whole lives. Luke 14 and Matthew 10 warn
disciples of Christ not to obey their parents blindly their whole lives. Only children before
the years of discretion completely fit in this category, though teenagers, in some measure, do too.
Is Paul teaching that small children without self-control, and that are regularly disobedient to their parents are to be turned away from by the church? To put it plainly, yes.
The main observation is that small children in this passage are treated with the dignity of
older church members when they are put under the threat of complete church discipline.
This is highlighted by two additional considerations. The first is that a number of the
sins, which relate particularly to children, that is haughtiness, lack of self-control, headstrongness, unthankfulness, and of course, disobedience to parents. Secondly, we notice
that these sins are mixed in with the sins that most likely only older members can commit, such as the love of money, unforgiveness , brutality, and unlovingness.
The NT, and the Lord are at once more gracious than suspensionists understand, in its
mandate of paedocommunion, and more severe, perhaps than many are willing to admit
to, in its mandate to suspend habitually unruly children. In other words, the NT teaches
that God is the God of Esaus and Jacobs, but he first gives His Esaus their birthright,
communion, and gives him the opportunity to misuse, or sell it, though it grieves Him.
Our God permits Esaus in His visible people, at least temporarily.
31

I will deal with practical considerations of this practice in the chapter, Preparing To
Practice Paedocommunion.
The Greek Testifies To Children Being Addressed As Full Members of the Church
Robert Dabney explains how children in general are addressed in the NT:
An argument of equal, or perhaps greater importance, (concerning the Apostles
treating children as baptized) is to be derived from the addressing of the titles of
Church members to little children in the NT. ..The address of epistles to these
titles is equivalent to their address to professed Church members. Now in
these cases we find children addressed in the epistles. Ephesians vi:1-4; Colossians iii:20; I John 2:12,13, First, these were not adult children. Further, in Titus
1:5, they are expressly called ...(faithful children, a title given elsewhere to mature believers) 9
He argues from Titus 1:5 that all the children of a candidate for presbyter must be
called faithful, or in the faith. He adds that it would be absurd to make all candidates
wait until their children were grown enough to prove their faithfulness beyond shadow of
a doubt. Since many godly men basically fathered children all their lives, we must assume that the youngest of children or the godly are considered by God faithful, if such
fruitful men were to ever hold church office. This term is applied to potential leaders in
the church in II Timothy 2:2, and similar passages, and expresses the veritable seamlessness between position of covenant children of the NT, and adult believers of the NT. For
we are one bread, (I Corinthians 10:17) is seen in this kind of language through out the
NT.
Further, I John 2:12,13, referred to by Dabney, reads, I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His names sakeI write to you little children because you know the Father. Little children, here is , 5040 in Strongs, diminutive
of child, infant, little children. Not only do the apostles speak to infants in the church,
but they say that their sins are forgiven, and they know the Father.
This parallels Christs own evaluation of the little children that were around him, literally microns, in Matthew 18:6. He had taken a little one and put him in their midst, and
then said who ever causes one of the little ones who believe in Me to sin. He called the
little child a believer, or at least a representative of a class of believers.
Ephesians 6:4 Implies Paedocommunion in
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the nurture,
, and admonition, , of the Lord, , Paul instructs in Ephesians 6.
Now on the surface, if one were to give a laymans common-sense interpretation of this
passage, and had not heard about the evils of letting infants and small children commune, one would say that nurture, and admonition, are clearly part of communion. In
English nurture and nutriment have common roots, English-speakers would naturally
assume an organic connection between the nurture of the Lord, and the Lords Supper. If
a godly father is supposed to feed his child with the Lord, or of the Lord, then the Lords
Supper would be naturally given to his children as soon as possible. And this natural interpretation would be right. This is the historical position of the Christian church, first
articulated in the Didache, in the thanksgiving after the Lords Supper, which simply refers to the Lord supper as spiritual meat and drink, using the language of I Corinthians
10.

insert Dabney here.

32

The word nurture, paideia, above is only used in this form, as a noun, here and in
Hebrews 12:5,8 and in II Timothy 3:16. The first reads: And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons, My son, do not despise the chastening ()
of the Lordfor whom He loves He rebukes, and chastens () every son whom He
receives.
II Timothy 3:16 is also a family-oriented verse, as it follows vs.15, and how from (infancy) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to make you
wise unto salvation. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for (paideia), training
in righteousness.
Lets make the following observations concerning the word nurture.
1) Paideia is solely used in the NT in reference to a father-son, relationship.

children.

2) It is explicitly used of the relationship the heavenly Father has with his

3) Therefore, , of the Lord, in Ephesians 6:4 is genitive, meaning human fathers are to nurture their children in the Lord, but this type of nurture, being
only used of father son relationships, only then denotes bring up your children in the
Fatherhood of the Lord. There is no other possible connotation of this word in this context.

4) So then we ask, is the Lords Supper part of the fatherhood of the Lord?
The passages of I Corinthians 10, and Deuteronomy 8:5 make it an open and shut case.
He did not lead them into the desert to starve them, but God led you all the these forty
yearsand fed you with manna, (analogous to the Lords Supper in I Corinthians 10) that
He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone; but man live by every
word that flows from the mouth of God.. You should now in your heart that as a man
chastens () his son, so the Lord your God chastens () you.
It is as if our heavenly Father knew in the year 1700 BC that in the year 1215AD
the Western Church would err on this issue, and he put Deuteronomy 8:5 there to rebuke
them, and us. The Lords Supper is part of the nurture of the Lord by implication alone,
but by explicit instruction.
The Lords Supper is to teach our children that they do not live by bread alone, but
by every word that flows from the mouth of God. A child is to imagine and understand
that he is in a spiritual wilderness, and that only God is the source of real food. And being
fed on manna is to train us, to test us, to humble us, to cause us to hunger, and to be
beyond our comprehension, according to verse 3. This testing is in direct line with that of
I Corinthians 11, and Ephesians1-2: 3, the Lords Day being a day of testing. Yet, all
children are to be brought up in this testing, according to Ephesians 6:4, whether they
can confess or not. The eating of the supper is a catechism for all, and a training session
for all that partake.
Ephesians 1:7 reads for the Day of the Lord is at hand, for the Lord has prepared
a sacrifice; He has invited His guests. Here we see that Sunday, the Lords Day, or Day of
the Lord (the same in Greek) is to be a day of a testing sacrifice, very similar to I Corinthians 11 and Deuteronomy 8. And all a mans children are to be in on this testing, according to Ephesians 6:4 and Deuteronomy 8:5.
5) Finally we must notice that Ephesians 6:4 leaves no doubt about the status of
the children of believers by saying that they are to be brought up in, not near or around,
the nurture of the Lord. Therefore, not communing our covenant children is deliberately
not raising them in one aspect of the nurture of the Lord, according to Deuteronomy
8:1-5, and Ephesians 6.
Secondly, we must realize that the command to raise them in the Lord, completely contradicts baptistic and suspensionist teaching about the status of children of
33

believers in the NT. They are to be baptized, communed, taught and disciplined, all of
which are implied in the paidei. Again, referring to Deuteronomy 8, and making it an
analogy of the desert experience, it all started with baptism in the Red Sea, and had as its
destination that they would learn to live by every word that flows from the mouth of
God. Covenant children must be subjected to all the nurture of the Lord, beginning
with baptism, particularly training in the Word of God
Ephesians 6:4 Suggests Covenant Communion in
The word admonition likewise reveals that covenant children were complete members
of the NT church, and the absurdity of the idea of the existence of a non-communing
member. This word is also only used in the context of the church. In I Corinthians
10:11, we read, Now all these things happened to them as examples (types), and they
were written for our admonition Paul is referring only here to the church. Titus 3:10
we read, Reject an divisive man after the first and second admonition. Of course, once
such a man is outside the church, then he must be preached to as an unbeliever.
Here we must ask the question, is the Lords Supper a form of admonition or instruction, as this word is sometimes translated? To put it simply, if the Eucharist is
the NT equivalent in a transformed way of the Passover Lamb, as I Corinthians 5, and the
positioning of it on the night of the Passover teach, and if in the Passover there is obligatory instruction to eat the meal, per Exodus 12, and I Corinthians 11, then yes, the Lords
Supper is part of the admonition, or instruction, of the Lord. Each time a child eats the
Lords Supper he is to be instructed.
Again, I remind us of our little word in, of Ephesians 6:4 in the Lord. Children are to
be brought up in the instruction of the Lord. Some, technically, might argue that just
hearing the words of institution is instruction, but we dont necessarily call eating the
supper instruction. But I would suggest that the eating of the supper itself is implied as
instruction in that eating the supper is communion, in the body and blood of the Lord,
and certainly we are always instructed when we commune with Christ. But more clearly,
we turn to Deuteronomy 8:4, and feed you with mannathat He might make you know
that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that flows from the mouth of
God. Eating is learning, in this passage.
God is warning them that they are in rebellion against numerous teachings and clear
ordinances of the Lord, namely here, that of bringing children up in the instruction of
the Lord, part of which God clearly reveals is eating His manna, the Eucharist. He
teaches children to live by the Word of God in the Lords Supper.
The Gospels and Acts
The Lord Jesus in Matthew 18, added later, vs.10, see that you do not despise,
, (look down on, think lowly of) one of these little ones. Can we look down
on them of whom Christ says they believe in Him, of whom the Apostle John says, their
sins are forgiven and they know the Father, by denying them the sign of communion?
Acts 10 says, what God has declared holy, let no man call common, or unclean, yet, we
have declared our own children unclean, in Gods sight.
Paul might have said, Children, I have some hard things to say. From now on you
need to be able to discern the Lords body, and if your parents let you partake of the one
bread, it could cause you to be sick or even die. It was certainly his practice in other letters. Instead, not only Paul, but the whole NT is full of testimonies which hold small children in the ranks of believers, and warn us against doing anything to the contrary.
One of the reasons that many suspend is because they really dont accept the reality of
the testimony of the NT concerning the inclusion of children in the church. This inclusion
34

is vibrantly illustrated in Acts 2:39 which inaugurates the NT flow of household grace.
These promises are for you and your children. Acts 11:14 and 16:31 both promise salvation to households if the parent believes. Acts teaches very clearly covenantal salvation,
or familial means of grace, not presumptive, but assumptive. The Passover, as we see in
Exodus 12, is specifically a celebration of the salvation of households. Theologically, to
make the Passover only an individual devotional exercise is to rob these promises in Acts
of their power.
Further, the testimony in Acts in their celebration of the Lords Supper is of a joyous
and inclusive affair, just as Deuteronomy 12, 14 and 16 require. Acts 2:41-47 follows
the ancient churches practice of infant baptism and immediate communion. Five times in
the NT households were baptized. It is probable that there were at least some toddlers
and infants in these groups. Therefore, when the massive baptism occurred in Acts 2:41
and 4:4, in light of the promise of Acts 2:39, and children were often in the temple, Luke
2, for festivals and to be presented, and to worship, Matthew 21:15, we can assume that
many children were baptized at Pentecost. They then, by households, it appears practiced
the Lords Supper, 2:46, or at least as a group celebrated the Lords Supper in the temple.
Again, it would be unnatural to exclude children from these events.
What is more surprising is to believe that they required a catechism of the children before partaking of the Lords Supper rather than using the supper as a catechism. Why is
there no mention that the Apostles carefully screened all the small children away from
the breaking of the bread, and carefully distinguished between non-communing members and communing members? Rather the mass of people was baptized and continued
in the Apostles teaching and breaking bread from house to house with gladness and
simplicity of heart. Every single place on the face of the earth that has born witness to
their practice of the Lords Supper and children during the first centuries after Christ testified that children were communed, as we will see.
Acts corroborates the practice of paedocommunion, though it does not explicitly teach
it.
The Crowning Words of I Peter 2:4,5,9
I Peter 2:4,5,9 read:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen
of God, and precious,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light
This is who we are. But are believers children included? First Cor 7:14 loudly proclaims that they are not just baptizable but sacramentally clean, holy. In another chapter
I draw the connection of this cleanliness with the sacraments, but here we need to associate it with their being part of the people of God. I Corinthians 7:14 declares that they
are considered members of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Leviticus
24:7 refers to a bread memorial sacrifice, that the Levites were to constantly lay out in
the holy place, called the showbread. In the LXX (Greek OT) the word for memorial is
here . In I Corinthians 11:24, we find the exact same word, .
(Remember that many things are sacrifices that are not expiatory or propitiatory according to Hebrews13.)

35

This leads us to two insights. First of all, the Lords Supper is a sacrifice, and oblation,
of praise, according to WCF 29:2, and, more vital for our discussion, our priest children
are to offer it, for they are born into the holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, according to I Peter 2.

Chapter 9

Interpreting I Corinthians 11 In Light of the

New Covenant Transformations

Vern Poythress suggests that complete exegesis involves a study of the transmission of
a passage and its place in the flow of history.10 As with other aspects of our question,
the location of the announcing of the excommunication of covenant infants in Corinth, by
Paul, in the 50s and in the book of I Corinthian appears to be a historical misadventure
at best.
There are three aspects to all the NT transformations from the Old Covenant, hermeneutical, geographical, and literary. The hermeneutical argument against I Corinthians as
a whole being the place for announcing the inauguration of the transformation from the
worship of the Old Covenant to the New is simply this: All the transformations that took
place between the Covenants had these characteristics: 1) prophesied in the OT, at least
by implication. 2) announced and explicitly described in the Book of Acts 3) expounded
in the Epistles (and often surrounded by some controversy and confusion.)
Malachi 1:11, for example, announces that temple type worship will take place all over
the world, and it will be a pure offering, implying a time of cleansing of the Gentiles,
which took place when their foods were declared clean in Acts 10. These changes are
explicitly recorded in the book of Acts, and expounded in Ephesians, Galatians, etc. and
controversy surrounded the Gentile question.
Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:27, prophesies the sufferings of Christ, and implies the cessation of
animal sacrifices, as perhaps does Isaiah 65: 17-66:3, which doctrine is explicitly taught
in the Book of Hebrews. Church history also records that this transformation was surrounded with controversy until the destruction of the temple.
Tongues, a wonderful type of prophesying, also meets all three criteria. Prophesied in
Joel 2:28-32, fulfilled in Acts 2 and later expounded in I Corinthians 12-14 due to controversy and ancient church history records further controversy surrounding this practice.
Two practices which some hold to be Apostolic, do not meet this criteria. The first is
baptizing only confessing believers, and the second is suspending small children from
the paschal meal.
The OT gives no indication that Gods attitude, nor His ceremonies, exclude small children. Acts 16 implies their full inclusion when it declares that you shall be saved, and
your household.
In this book, elsewhere I give evidence the Passover was eaten by all in every house
that could physically handle the meal. Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy 12 demand such a
practice by faithful Jews. Essentially God would be changing the requirements which
marked children in the OT and the change would have been explicitly recorded in Acts,
and epistles. Instead, the letters of the Apostles uphold infant baptism and communion,
by straightforward teaching and by implication.
The final observation concerning the location of proof text for the theory of suspension, is that this announcement which was supposed to affect all of Christendom hap10

God Centered Biblical Interpretation, p.121

36

pened approximately fifteen years

nounced, debated, and were in the
probably wrote I Corinthians in AD
years after the Jerusalem Council,
cumcision were laid to rest.

after all the other NT transformations had been anmiddle of being expounded, certainly late-born. Paul
59, after his third missionary journey, possibly fifteen
where the changes in dietary requirements, and cir-

Here are some useful questions:

1) If small children were communing before this, and this announcement was new for
the whole church, why is there no record of controversy over this, either in church
history or the NT, as there was over most of the other transformations to the New
Covenant.
2) If small children were communing before this, why is there no record of this new
revelation being spread abroad to correct the abuse? Calvin claims we poison our
children when we give them the Lords Supper, as the text verifies, if children are
meant to be included. If the Lords Supper was a poison for children, why is there
no record of this late breaking news being sounded abroad to warn the churches?
3) If the Lords Supper was harmful to children, or disrespectful to the Lord, why was
not this same warning sounded abroad in Acts and the other epistles?
4) If children were never communing, then why does the NT teach that they must (I
Corinthians 10), and why does church history record no instance in the early
church history of churches practicing the suspension of children?
5) If Acts is actually the place of their suspension, then why is there not at least some
mention of mandatory catechumenal going on, so that the kids could be admitted
to the Lords Table?
The simpler answer to all these questions would seem to be that Israel gave the Passover to all Jews and their children in good standing. Too, the Church gave the Lords Supper to all confessing believers in good standing, and their children. Further, the NT and
church history are mute on the practice of the suspension of small children because apparently, there was never a controversy. The idea of this and the non-baptism of covenant infants, being an apostolic doctrine is a simply unsupported by the record of history.
The second phase of Poythress process of exegesis gently nudges us, to practice understatement, to rule in favor of covenant communion.

Chapter 10

Interpreting I Corinthians 11 In the Light of the Old Testament

My last observation is that the OT, as well, as the New, made serious demands on those
in the covenant, the ceremonies of which, the children were to keep, but the moral and
spiritual obligations of which they had to grow into, just as in the New Covenant.
The Ceremonial Obligations of Old Covenant Children
1) Be circumcised (males) Exodus 12.
37

2) Sacrifice, Deuteronomy 12 (Mandatory for adult males, implied that families should
participate if they could I Samuel 1, Deuteronomy 12, 14, 16)
And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your
tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:
And there ye shall eat before the Lord your God and ye shall rejoice in all that
ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy God hath
blessed thee.
But thou must eat them before the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord
thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates.
All children eventually were to offer sacrifices and eat them. Vs. 17 includes virtually all the sacrifices, including the Passover, but specifically, the Passover is for the children as we discuss in its chapter. An example of this is I Samuel 1.
3) Sacrifice in a ceremonially clean state. (Numbers 9 and 19)
4) Be sprinkled with the water of purification if they, even an infant, became unclean
(Numbers 19)
Because Romans 15:4, and II Timothy 3:16 teach us to look to the OT for our doctrine,
we must assume that these essential responsibilities, are still the responsibilities of covenant children, unless they are abrogated or modified in the NT.
5) Attend worship, and the renewal of covenants (All the Passovers probably had words
of institution, and as you see in the Chapter on I Corinthians 5, all Israel attended all of
these events)
Moral And Spiritual Obligations of Old And New Testaments Must Be Grown Into
The simple and wonderful truth of the whole of Scriptures concerning the Lords Supper is that God gives the sign of grace and acceptance through communion even unto
babes. No one in the OT or NT would ever believe he earned his communion with God.
The sacrament of constant and abiding grace is given, and then, planted in this soil of
sovereign grace, a child in both Covenants was to grow in his moral and spiritual responsibilities.
II Peter 2:10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and
election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall, summarizes Gods economy
for covenant children. We are to consider them in the Lord, raise them in the Lord, but
insure that they are constantly making sure, or confirming, their call and election.
The Westminster 29.1,The Larger Catechism #168 and Shorter Catechism #96 support
the idea the communion confirms, us in our faith. Ephesians6: 4, and I Corinthians 7:
14, the Lords Supper is an indispensable part of a childs continuing confirmation and
growth in grace.
The Bible teaches that during the first years of a childs life, many things that He requires of adults are done for children by their parents, such as feeding them, II Thessalonians 3. For instance, in Deuteronomy 10:16, all were to circumcise their hearts, but
Proverbs 20:30 teaches that a parent circumcises a childs heart when he disciplines him.
In the same way, Isaiah 1: 11-18 requires adult behavior of adults.
13. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity,
even the solemn meeting.
38

15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea,
when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before
mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17.Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless,
and plead for the widow.
18. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as
scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they
shall be as wool.
God, we can safely say requires all adults in the Old Covenant:
1) not to bring vain offerings
2) not to be hypocritical
3) to give up murder
4) to wash yourselves
5) to cease to do evil
6) to learn to do good
7) to seek justice
8) to correct oppression
9) to defend the fatherless
10) to plead for the widow
11) to reason with God
Now this list seems every bit as demanding for a child, even an older child, as the one
in I Corinthians 11, and yet, children are to eat the sacrifices, be as per above. How can
this be? Matthew 12:48, tell us how, to whom much has been given, to him will much
be required, and II Corinthians 8:12, "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted
according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. The beautiful truth
of the Gospel is that God gives to His covenant people constant invisible grace, which is
always symbolized by the visible sacraments, and that He requires of them visible moral
and spiritual evidences of His grace according to their ability; the children in the Wilderness were not held accountable for the sins of their parents.
Further, the following passages sign, or denote and connote the same thing, that is,
that God had great spiritual demands implied in His OT sacrifices: Psalm 51: 16, Isaiah
66: 2-4, Amos 5: 21-24, Jeremiah 14: 12, Malachi 1: 7-14.
Does God required children to fast with pure hearts, and to let righteousness, and a
broken spirit, be visible before they could eat the Passover Lamb? Does God in Exodus
12 gave sacramental food to toddlers, then in Malachi 1 upbraids them because they
were offering up defiled sacrifices? Throughout history the problem has not been the
simple sacrifices of babes, but the intentional defiled sacrifices of adults. In fact, in
the desert and in the temple with Christ (Matthew 21), God shows that He accepts the
pure sacrifices of babes and rejects the sacrifices of self-righteous adults. It is evident
that those who were versed in the Scriptures would certainly have read I Corinthians 11
this way, and understood that covenant children are born priests to God, but need to
grow in their understanding of their obligations.
Perhaps, too, when Paul wrote in Rom.15: 4 that the things written beforehand were for
our instruction, he meant that we are to understand this teaching and apply it to I Corinthians 11. II Corinthians 8:12 instructs that our sacrifices are acceptable according to
what we have, therefore God never expected an OT or NT infant to plead for the widow,
or to examine themselves; He has committed Himself to be satisfied with their offerings.
The Lords Supper is a Memorial Offering
39

One final comment, that helps us to understand how infants commune, is remember
that the better translation of I Cor.11:25 is, Do this as a memorial offering to me. (Look
at the verse in the Greek.) Church universally understood this until the Reformation. The
Greek anamnesin, is in the Septuigent in Lev.2:2 as the exact same word, a memorial offering. Gen.9:15-16 and Acts 10:4 remind us that a memorial offering causes or asks
God to remember us, not us to remember God. We remember from Numbers 9, that the
Passover was not just a right but a responsibility. Therefore, we are not to merely allow
our children to bring a memorial offering to God, but teach them that it is their covenant
responsibility to appear before not empty handed, Exodus 23:15.

Chapter 11

The Veracity of Infant Baptism

The Reformed Standards Teach the Veracity of Infant BaptismThe Westminster Standards are pretty thorough on the significance of the sacrament of Baptism. WCF
with historical scripture references: Baptism is a sacrament not only for the solemn
admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign
and seal of the covenant of grace, (Col.2: 11,12) of his engrafting into Christ (Gal.3:27,
Rom.6:5) of his regeneration, (Titus 3:5) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus
Christ, to walk in the newness of life (Rom.6:3-5)
Question # 165 of the Larger Cat. reads, What is Baptism? The answer is similar in
the WCF but adds and regeneration by His Spirit (Tit.3:5, Eph. 5:26), of adoption
(Gal.3:26-27) and enter into a open and professed engagement to be wholly the
Lords. (Rom.6:4)
The Heidelburg Catechism in Questions # 69-74 goes on, calling baptism an admonition and assurance that the baptized are washed by the blood of Christ and Spirit, that
they are renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, so that
we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. (Jn.1:33,
Rom.6:4, and Col.2:11) Titus 3:5 is sited as where the waters of baptism are promise
of the washing of regeneration.
The Belgian Confession is equally clear in article XL: so doth the blood of Christ, by
the power of the Holy Ghostregenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of
God (Christ) is our Red Sea, through which we must passto enter the spiritual
land of Cannonrenewing our hearts, and filling them with comfortputting on us
the new manthat they (newborns) should be made partakers of the sacrament of
Christs suffering and death
Calvin On Infant Baptism
Calvin taught, essentially what most of the Reformed Standards teach as well, when he
wrote:
For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as
it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of
God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be
children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of

40

riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid
food.
It appears however that the Book of Church Order of the PCA, casts serious doubt
upon the veracity of infant baptism, when it says in 57-1:
Believers children within the visible Church, and especially those dedicated to
God in baptism, are non-communing members under care of the church...When
they are able to understand the Gospel, they should be earnestly reminded
that...it is their duty and privilege to personally accept Christ, to confess Him
before men, and to seek admission to the Lords supper.
The Scriptures Teach Only One Type of Baptism: Into the Death and Life of Christ
Here we run into another V in the road. Will we assign to the scripture, and to the
words therein concrete, objective determinable meanings which God gave them, or will
we see the scriptures on baptism through the biases of Reformed tradition, that spring
directly out of Roman catholic heretical rationalism in the XIII Century? I pray the former
is true.
We say, because of Gal.3:9, and Col.2:11-12, that true believers receive the blessing of
Abraham, that is the covenant with God, and consequently, of God with our children.
And if baptism is a spiritual circumcision, which dictates that our children thereby, are to
be baptized, as were Abrahams to be circumcised, then we are saying the word circumcision has a clear meaning, as does baptism. Because baptism definitely, objectively is a
type of circumcision, we baptize our children. The covenant with Abraham of Gen.17 objectively, really, actually, is for those who believe, we spiritually circumcise our children
with baptism. Further, because Gen.17 commands that the uncircumcised one is cut off
from Israel, we understand that baptizing our children is a mandatory ordinance of the
Lord, not to be neglected.
Baptism Signifies Actual Regeneration
What does the scripture say concerning baptism? Those who have been baptized into
Christ Jesus have put on Christ. For by one Spirit you are baptized into one body... I
Cor. 12:13 How should be speak then of the baptism of our infants? Eph. 4:5 appears
not to give us an option, for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Are there two
kinds of baptisms? Many moderns like to say that infants are baptized into future repentance, as did Calvin. However, if their is only one baptism, and if infants are clean after
their baptism, then certainly in the economy of God, the baptism of an infant has already
merited what the baptism adult has, and that is access to the means of grace, based on
His mere pleasure and sovereignty.
We have no option but to say, they are putting on Christ, and they are being baptized
into one body, the spiritual temple in the Lord, the Bride of Christ the Church. We must
speak of the sacraments, as the last sentence of Belgian confession on the Lord s Supper
says (Chap.35), as the Scripture speaks of them. The Bible calls us to weep with joy at the
baptism of an infant of godly parents. Instead, the BOC leaves us in puzzlement. But God
wants to turn our weeping into joy.
Further, the Scripture does not speak of circumcision as the promise of Gods covenant, but This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you, and your descendants after you; every male child among you shall be circumcised. (Gen.17:10) Circumcision was the covenant, or at least the sign of the covenant, but it was not the sign
of a covenant promised in the future. Likewise, baptism, our spiritual circumcision, according to Col. 2:11,12, is not a sign of a future grace, but of present grace. In Him you
Pt. 30 in Infant Baptism.
41

were also circumcised...buried with Him in baptism. Not you were baptized in the hope
of sometime being buried with Him, when you are confirmed, and thus circumcised, but
when you were baptized, you were circumcised, you were raised with Him, through
faith.
How can an infant believe? This is not for us to define, but to submit to, since Christ
said, of such is the kingdom, and I Jn. 2 says that little children know the Father.
God, simply and clearly says that baptism is union with Christs death and resurrection.
It would seem more faithful to the scriptures, if you are going to reject the significance of
infant baptism, to then quit doing it. Biblical infant baptism requires submission to the
whole counsel of God, and faith.
I John 2:12, 13 says that our infants know the Father. How should we then speak of
what our infants know? In the same manner. We should say that they simply do because
the Bible says they do.
Matthew 18 says that these little ones believe in Him. How should we then speak about
their faith? With respect, certainly.
The Bible teaches that small children believe in Christ, have put on Christ, and know
the Father, and of covenant children is the kingdom of heaven. It also teaching I Cor.10
and Numbers 14 that God is not pleased with all those that receive the sacraments, which
show forth these truths. Therefore, we must speak in these terms concerning little ones;
everyone must be all the more zealous to confirm his call and election. (II Peter 1:10) A
child is covenantally declared all the above things until, II Tim.3:1-5 teaches, he proves
himself to be a covenant breaker. Have nothing to do with such as these, the scripture
commands. The BOC should read ...it is the duty of every covenant child to confirm his
call and election in the Lord Jesus Christ, as he communes with him throughout the Word
and the Sacraments, and in the church.
NT Language Confirms that Infant Baptism Is To Be Viewed Just
the Same As the Baptism of Confessing Believers
II Timothy 3:15
This idea is confirmed in two other passages in the NT. Eph.6, Fathers do not provoke
your children to anger, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The word nurture is !!!!!!!!, and is used primarily in Heb 12 and II Tim.3:16.
In Hebrews it can be denotes only the actions of a father to a son, an action that takes
place within a family. Likewise, its use in II Tim.3:16 is that instruction which plays a
key role in equipping a man of God completely.
There is not the slightest hint in this language of a division between one kind of a child
and another. In fact, II Tim.3:15, argues just the opposite, in that Paul notes that Timothy was acquainted from infancy, () with the sacred writings, which are able to
make you wise unto salvation. In other words, Paul viewed the beginning of spiritual
wisdom was literally from infancy. When we remember that we are communicants with
Christ through his word, (II Pet.1:2-4 ) then we see that the scripture teaches that infants
are communicants with Christ, whether or not we allow them to the Lords table, if they
are being faithfully taught his word. Wolgang Musculus asked the question during the
Reformation and I ask it now, how can we deny to infants what the Scripture literally says
is theirs anyway?
But If Baptism Only Signifies and Seals Real Regeneration, Why Are So Many Baptized People Unfaithful to God?
This is a very good question, and many Calvinists do not like the Biblical answer, because it points us to one of the mysteries of the faith that is an anti-thesis to the five
42

points of Calvinism. First of all, I Corinthians, and the whole of the Bible, associates the
sacrament of baptism with the Spirit,(I Cor.2:13), yet warns the Corinthians, I
Cor.10:1-22 not to fall away into judgment! So I Cor. itself does not teach a simple once
baptized in the Spirit, always saved! This is confirmed by the orgainic metaphors used by
Christ to describe covenant membership, such as a vine, in John 15 and a field that is
sown in Mat.13. Yet, Jn.15:6 and Mat.13:20-22 both describe believers who had life for a
while, were part of the vine, sustained by Christ and the Holy Spirit, yet fell away into
judgment. Hebrews 6:1-8, 10:26-31 are a picture of the fate of those unfaithful to the
covenant, who had tasted of the Word of God, and were partakers of the Holy Spirit.
Their end is to be burned. So believing that baptism signs and seals real regeneration
does not mean that the Bible teaches that all those baptized will be saved, but assures
and comforts all in the death of young children, and in the terrible responsibility of all the
baptized to live in obedience to God. We must all still rejoice in Phil.1:6, that He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion in the Day of Christ Jesus!
Conclusion
The clear scriptural teaching requires that we have the spiritual dexterity to embrace
these two truths simultaneously: A covenant child scripturally is counted as a full member
of the covenant until such a time, God forbid, that he outwardly and habitually proves
himself a covenant breaker. No one ever catechized his way into the Covenant. God
chooses us, not we, Him. A baptized covenant child is referred to in scripture as a
small spiritual plant endowed with great privileges and obligations, not a seedling
under suspicion. In the Scripture God speaks of them as saved, and therefore, so must
we, until they prove themselves unquestionably to be out of the covenant. Any other
practice is sub-Biblical, that is anti-biblical.
The analogical associations are association between various elements in the truths of
God. Many of these truths are taught somewhere in the Bible. Other truths we infer from
a large number of passages, taken together, postulates Poythress.11 So far I have tried to
be faithful to show that covenant communion yields a more unified view of the Scripture
than the suspensionist theory. It is exegetically required in many passages, and outlawed
in none. From the character of God, it flows that truth is analogical. We never completely
dispense with analogy and metaphor. Whether a particular piece of our language is
mostly literal or mostly metaphorical, it images the divine language of God and the truth
of God.12 The large number of preceding passages, by implication and analogy, gives
us warrant to accept covenant communion as biblical.

Chapter 12

Looking at I Corinthians 11: 17-34 in the Light of the Biblical Hermeneutic

and Its Own Language
We are now prepared to look at I Corinthians 11. Does I Corinthians 11 teach the exclusion of covenant children, the children of professing believers in good standing with
their local church, from the Lords Table? The positive answer from I Corinthians 10 and
its extrapolations is clearly no.

11

God Centered Biblical Interpretaion, p.85

12

Ibid p.67

43

Let me suggest the following order of considerations that I believe will give us the best
insight and interpretation of I Corinthians 11 in regard to paedocommunion. First, I
want to remind us of the Biblical hermeneutic and then to analyze the language I Corinthians 11:17-34.
The Biblical Hermeneutic
The fundamental principle of Biblical interpretation is, Scripture interprets Scripture,
and the clear portions of Scripture interpret the unclear portions. These are the points of
WCF 1:9:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the ruse and full sense of any Scriptureit
must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
I call the above the biblical hermeneutic because in Acts 15:15 the one view of the
question at hand, they decided, agreed with the words of the prophets. Vern S.
Poythress writing about another passage makes a universal. Yet do we really know what
we mean when we talk about John 2:16 in and of itself? At a fundamental level, there is
no such thing as a passage in and of itself. John 2:16 is part of the Bible, and God intends that we read it and understand it in relation to all the other parts of the Bible.13 So
too, I Cor. 11 can only be rightly understood in the context of the whole of scripture,
which we have attempted to do up to now. We would expect therefore for the language
here not to contradict the other portions of scripture already examined, and, as you will
see, it doesnt.
The Analysis of I Corinthians 11:17-34
The Passage
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death till he come.
27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthy, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of
that cup.
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not
be condemned with the world.
33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto
condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Keys to Understanding the Text
The Seemingly Restrictive Words
Christian Keidel, in his article in the Westminster Theological Journal observes that the
words in vs. 26-34, which appear to rule out children from the Lords Supper are not in

13

Vern Poythress, GCBI p.44,45

44

themselves as definitive as they appear.14 He observes whoever, of vs.27, let a man,

of vs. 28, and he who, of vs.29 as well as anyone, of vs. 34 are used on some occasions when they do not imply literally everyone. He cites Romans 10:13 as an example of
when clearly the same phrase, whoever () calls on the name of the Lord, will be
saved. All the paedobaptists agree that such phrase does not include infants. Elect infants are saved who never physically call on the name of the Lord in this life. This is
clearly taught in Luke 18:16, in which the Kingdom of God belongs that, is to
infants.
I Corinthians 11:28 employs the word man, , which is also in Romans 3:28,
a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the law." Here too, paedobaptists believe
that this is does not require visible faith on the part of covenant infants in order to be
justified. So far two phrases that would seem to be universal in their application, by all
paedobaptists are understood, and have been understood throughout church history, as
not applying to covenant infants.
Next, Keidel observes that the participle construction in John 3:36, , He who
believes, and he who does not obey, is used in I Corinthians 11:29, ,
whoever" eats and drinks. If this construction in John 3:36 requires that infants must actively, visibly, believe, and obey," then all infants are lost who die in infancy. Almost all
of Christendom testifies to the fact that these constructions do not always apply to everybody. The Bibles prescient testimony against this incorrect application is in passages
such as Luke 18:16 and Ezekiel 16: 21, "of such (infants) is the kingdom of heaven," and
"you have slain My children,"but do not come near anyone, on whom is the mark (on
forehead, vs.4,that is, among other things, baptism by pouring or sprinkling)." If the participle O does not require covenant children to confess before baptism, why does it here
require that they must visibly fulfill all the requirements before they can worthily partake?
Finally, , anyone, in I Corinthians 11:34, is the same of II Thes.3: 10, if anyone
will not work, let him not eat. But does anyone believe that this passage refers to infants? Therefore, when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see that these same
words are automatically understood not to apply to small children in other contexts, and
therefore, they do not, in and of themselves, require infants to be included here.
The Inclusive Language
What is pertinent is the inclusive, lucid language of this passage, which parallels the
language in the rest of I Corinthians, and the Scripture.
Vs.25, reads, this do ye (poieite), as often as ye drink (pinete), all plurals. Vs. 26,
For as often as ye eat, (esthiete), and drink this cup, (pinete) ye declare his death,
(kataggellete). Vs. 33, await ye one another, (ekdechesthe) when ye meet, (sunerchesthe).
Now, remember the words just spoken, one chapter before, (10:17) for we are one
bread, one body, for we all eat of the same spiritual bread. Again, not only do we have a
plural here, but also the plural indicates that if someone is not partaking of the Eucharist,
he is not a part of the body. Exegetically, these plurals, throughout the book, are referring to the whole body. Chapter 10, Vs. 6, Now these things were types for us. What
were the type, that they all were baptized, and all ate the same spiritual food and drank
the same spiritual drink.. The focus is on everyone partaking, and the focus is on everyone in the Corinthian church.
I Corinthians 11 is a continuation of the language of I Corinthians 5 and 10. Everyone
in the Corinthian church was the object of these plural commands and declarations.
Vs.25, this do ye (poieite), everyone in Corinthian Church is implied, as often as ye
14

Natasha, Keidel footnote here

45

drink (pinete), again, everyone is drinking. Vs. 26, For as often as ye eat, (esthiete),
and drink this cup, (pinete) ye declare his death, (kataggellete), again, a consistent
hermeneutic dictates that we understand here that all that could drink and eat in the
church in Corinth, were drinking and eating and proclaiming. Vs. 33, await ye one another, (ekdechesthe) when ye meet, (sunerchesthe). This last verse is a bold declaration, not only of the possibility of infant communion, but of its necessity, for when you
all meet vs. 17 when ye meet(KJV) proves that the very purpose of the church coming
together was to celebrate the Lords Supper as a congregation.
Secondly, we need to ask why the Apostle did not specify the group he was referring to
in I Corinthians 11 when he was teaching specific behavioral expectations for specific
groups? In Titus 2, as well as in Ephesians 5 and 6, Paul gives explicit expectations for
the behavior of older men, younger men, older women and younger women. The other
Apostles follow the same pattern. I Corinthians 11, however, singles out the object of his
admonition, those that ate without waiting, and those that were drunk.
The Difficult Portions
Now, certain circles would belittle such discernment of the body, but Matthew 18:10,
says not to kataphreneo one of these little ones, that is not to look down on them, or
belittle them. Certainly, the practice in some circles of not allowing a child to commune
before he is sixteen to twenty-one, is an example of belittling a little ones confession
and discernment of the body. Children, discern the body in a childlike way. I Corinthians
7:14, and I Corinthians 10, clear them of any requirements be discerning, but nonetheless, it is good to remember that this spiritual growth, and confirmation of their faith
starts in infancy. A baptized, obedient child, partaking the Lords Supper, is discerning
the body if he, under his parents tutelage, waits for the whole church to eat, and is not
drunk.
Next, can a child examine himself? Probably not, but he can be examined. Proverbs
20:30, Blows that wound cleanse away evil, stokes make clean the inner most parts.
Just as a childs access to the Holy of Holies is by the temporary imputed righteousness
of God through his parents, so his examination can be through the parents. If he is not
examined, then the fault lies with his parents. Gods requirement is that children obey
their parents, in the Lord. So, if a child is disciplined and in a right relationship with his
parents, before communion, than he has been examined and is fulfilling everything that
Gods covenant requires of him.
I deal with the idea proclaiming the Lords death in the chapter on the theological significance of paedocommunion. But here, let us remember Matthew 21:12-17. In this
passage Christ rebukes the Pharisees with the Septuagint variation, apparently, of Psalm
8:2. The Pharisees heard the children in the temple proclaiming Hosanna to the Son of
David, and they were enraged. Christ rebukes them with Yea, have ye never read, 'out
of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.' If God loved the praise
of infants in the temple then, the Lords Supper of infants is a sweet incense to Him.
Proposed Exegetical process and conclusions:
1. Two main considerations (there are more) force us to honestly question whether Paul
intended to suspend little children from the Eucharist in I Cor.11.
A. Word usage such as if anyone, as in II Thes.3:10 give us examples of categorical
language being used obviously not referring to children. If anyone will not work, let
him not eat, does not imply that infants should work. As cited above, then, the Bible gives precedence for this kind of language not being used to refer to children.

46

B. Because the Apostles in such places as Eph. 6:4, and I Cor. 7:14 do address children, sometimes even directly, it would have been very possible that Paul would have
addressed them in I Cor.11 if he had them particularly in mind.
C. The inclusive language of I Cor.11 also emphasizes the unity and seamlessness of
the body of Christ, making it more doubtful that Paul intended to exclude children
from the meal.
D. The situation in Corinth, of selfish eating and drunkenness, in and of itself has
nothing to do with the infants of the Church, and therefore, one would expect an explanation from Paul as to why infants should be punished for the drunkenness of
adults. I Cor. 10 reminds us that God is was displeased not with infants in the wilderness, but with adults. Only the infants and young children who communed in the
Wilderness, saw the Promise Land.
2. Because this is the case, we must investigate the Biblical context to see the authors
intent in I Cor.11. Was Paul abrogating the Old Testament practice established in Exodus
12, and 16, and Dt.12 of the children, when they were physically able, of eating the sacrifices?
3. The broad New Testemant evidence would indicate that no, Paul was not abrogating
the Old Testament practice because:
A. New Testament Language everywhere includes covenant children as full members
of the Church, and as believers.
B. Baptism only signifies and seals the same realities. There is no baptism into a
covenant that is not Baptism into Christ. Christ is the covenant. (Mat. 19:26-29,
Gal.3:27)
C. All NT abrogations have three marks, which the suspension of small children does
not. They were all prophesied in the OT, exhibited and controversial in the book of
Acts, and explained in the Epistles. The suspension of small children is not prophesied, not exhibited, not controversial, and not explained in the epistles. This implies
that they all were established in and around Jerusalem in the earliest years of the
church, and the Corinthian church is not apart of the earliest years of the church.
4. If one accepts the above a priori, (incontrovertible presuppositions) then one is
forced to be biased in his reading of I Cor. 11 toward the inclusion of infants in the Lords
Supper. In other words, if no other near context confirms the the inclusion of infants in
the Lords supper, they would still be included because nothing in Scripture, II Tim.3:16,
is abrogated until it is clearly shown to be abrogated.. Since this would sacramentally divide the body of Christ for the first time in history, certainly a major explanation, such as
the book of Galations on circumcision, and Hebrews on the sacrifices.
5. Finally, not only do we not have such an explanation on the suspension of small
children, but we find abundant near context evidence that implies the inclusion of children in I Cor.5:6-8, I Cor.7:14, and I Cor.10:1-22. According to the normal rules of interpretation then, it cannot be said that the Bible teaches their exclusion from the Lords
supper in I Cor.11, rather, that the Bible as a whole teachers their inclusion.
6. If the above were true one would expect to hear that all or most of the early church
documents and practices included children in the Eucharist.
Hipotylis, Cyprian,
Augustine, Early church Councils, Charlemagne, and the Bohemians under John Hus provide, as well as all the ancient churches of Greece, Armenia, Egypt, and in turn Russia,
provide ample example of this. (You may read about this in the Rev. Blake Purcells book,
We All Partake.) If the Apostles actually taught the suspension of small children, all the
records of it have been lost in every city and country they preached in. According to
church documents, until the 1200s AD every known church on the face of the earth baptized and communed infants.

47

Chapter 13

Preparing for the Practice of Covenant Communion

Now that we have looked at the evidence for covenantal communion, I want to deal
quickly with the practical considerations that many have to overcome in wrestling with
this issue. God wants to hear the perfect praise of our babes and sucklings, and here are
some ways that the Scripture tells us we can keep their praise perfect before Him.
Paedocommunion Must be Practiced in the Presence with:
1) Church discipline. The first emotionally barrier to objectively dealing with this issue
is that the term, infant-communion, conjures up visions of babies crawling around the
sanctuary, as we try to get the sacred bread and wine into their uncooperative little
mouths. Worse yet, that if a baby can commune, anyone can. As I mentioned above, as we
look more intently into this issue, we must with equal intensity look into the issue of
church discipline. The writers of the NT were faithful in communicating that those that
that are disobedient to parents, II Tim.3:2, the church must turn away from. (II Tim.3:5)
Child communion is not a license to anyone to allow their children or themselves to become lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, II Tim.3:4.
2) Real Covenant Connectedness. Along with this necessity of stressing church discipline as we stress and teach paedo-communion is the requirement that we understand
Gen. 17, I Corinthians 7:14, and Ezekiel 16:20,21. That is that the unbelieving husband
is sanctified by the wifeotherwise the children would be unclean, but as it is, they are
holy. In short, a child only has the right and obligation to covenantal communion when
he has a believing parent or guardian.
3) The nurture and discipline of faithful parents. Further, the Scripture also teaches
that covenantal communion is a sacrament of blessing only when the parents are raising
the child in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, as Gen. 18, Dt. 6, 11 and Ephesians
6 obligate believing parents to do. II Peter 1:10,11 clearly calls parents and the church to
be helping children to more and more be zealous to confirm their call and election.
As the Scripture clearly teaches covenantal communion rights and obligation of covenant children, it teaches just as forthrightly the covenantal obligations of parents and
churches to nurture covenant children in the own growing relationship with Jesus Christ.
Paedocommunion is not an invitation to anarchy, or laxity in raising the children God has
given us.
4) An expectation of a growing confession of faith from the communing child. We
have mentioned that covenant breakers should not be communed, but we must also remember, that a child can be a covenant breaker if he will not confess his faith when he
can, or if he confesses to major disbelief or erroneous beliefs. As a child grows, Titus 3
instructs us to have nothing to do with the contentious. Also, if a child can confess, but
simply wont then he is disobedient to parents.
Our church requires all the members and children to be memorizing Scripture and confessing in our catechism classes. If a child is obviously not involved in such catechisms
then we suggest that the elders meet with the parents and find out why. If it is out of
their own unfaithfulness, then the child and the parents, after an opportunity to amend
their ways, or if they have no valid reason for their childs lack of participation in the
churches catechism, such as a learning disability, I would suggest that the elders need to
consider suspending the child, and perhaps the parents, for failure to raise the child in
48

the discipline and instruction of the Lord. The covenant blessings are only for the faithful,
according to Gen.18:19.
5) Shepherding from the elders of the church. Finally, many situations in which suspension of a child becomes necessary, I have experienced, can be avoided if we as church
leaders will meet with the parents of the church regularly to give proactive advice and encouragement on their child raising philosophy and practice. If you preach openness from
the pulpit, and readily admit to your own past failures, and your family is a model of the
fear of the Lord, then I have found that parents are open to being helped.
6) Wise timing. I have said that one pattern for judging the age for reception and connection between the sacraments is in Exodus 29:21,21,32, and Lv.8:6,31 which was followed in the ancient church. Infants were symbolically fed immediately after baptism
Jim Jordan, however, in Rite Reasons # 78 brings out a pattern followed generally in
every new era in the Scriptures. He suggests there is a time of "swaddling" by God, when
he allows us to adjust to the new "new creation." In this after-birth honeymoon, so to
speak, we are allowed to eat the milk of our mother of the previous epoch. Most pointly
this is imaged in Josh.5:12, when Israel for one day gets to eat the manna of the Wilderness, and collect the fruit of the promised land. It goes without saying that newborns can
only handle symbolic amounts of bread and wine, but many Reformed churches eat so
little in the Eucharist, that would require little adjustment. For those churches that eat
robustly in the Lords presence (Exodus 12) more care will be needed to never feed a
newborn in an unseemly or dangerous way.
Infants covenantally and biologically commune through their mothers when they nurse,
and using Joshua 5:12 as a pattern, can be given communion when they are physically
capable of eating, though they my still be nursing. This is also tacitly portrayed in the interim ministries of Samuel with David, Paul writing his senior pastor Timothy the Pastoral
letters, etc. The Temple sacrifices lasting until AD 70, and as a "macro" example, the
whole wilderness experience was in effect God nursing Israel until they could live and
fight on their own. They were nursed, that is, without circumcision and the Passover for
quite awhile, though still under the sacraments as observed else where. An infants baptism, and then communion through nursing, and then nursing and eating, is God's wonderful "half way house," for those newly freed from the womb.
Epilogue and Food for Further Thought: (moved from first chapter)
We would suggest that this issue is worth looking into, primarily because so much substantial Scriptural evidence argues against the Western (Catholic and Protestant) practice
of baptizing and not communing small children. We have given evidence that to not believe in the full status, right, and obligation of covenant children, we have to do violence
to Scripture. We have to wrest unnaturally passages like Ex 12, I Cor.5:6-8, 7:14,
10:1-17. Suspending covenant children from the Lords table seems to require a liberal
dose of iesogesis (reading into Scripture) rather than exegesis, (unfolding, and exposing
the truth of Scripture). II Pet 3:16 condemns such abuse of Scripture.
Further, child communion appears to be the only practice that fulfills certain typologies of the Scripture. To reject it means that we must consign many portions of Scripture
to oblivion, which God still regards as binding on the church. At least four places in
Scripture teach that to annul portions of Scripture which God has not annulled is highly
inadvisable. (Prov 30:6, Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Rev. 22:18.)
Secondly, we have layed before you, kind reader, that this is a vital issue because of
the theological ramifications that the habit of suspending small children thrusts upon the
whole of our view of God, His grace, and His means of grace. Only paedocommunion
shows forth the brilliant scriptural truth and age-old orthodox axiom that there is one
Lord, one faith, and one baptism. This truth is beautifully expressed in many Reformed
confessions of faith. Suspending small children from the Lords table certainly seems to
49

argue for two types of baptism, that which earns admittance to the Lord's table, and that
which does not.
Thirdly, only small child communion expresses consistently the continuity of the Scripture and the covenants, and reveals Gods sovereign, prevenient grace and faithfulness to
his people as individuals. Covenantal communion alone affirms that God sovereignly
births and feeds His infant chosen people, as a merciful expression of His covenant
promises to confessing parents.
Next, only paedocommunion clearly shows that Christ came not just to redeem individuals, but the warp and woof of society, the family. It is a clear reminder that God
deals with us as individuals but the family and church are His primary means of and instruments of His grace. In covenant communion we see the God who claims, renews, redeems and sustains households. God covenanted with Abraham, and with his seed, but
we are faithful in that covenant only if we believe that God does not change, and therefore God still has a covenant with all the children of true believers. Only paedocommunion boldly proclaims the reality of Gods adoption and acceptance of His covenant children.
Also, only child communion shuts the door on the necessity of contriving standards not
expressed in Scripture, for admission to the Lords table, and on the tendency that these
contrived standards have in promoting a spirit of pride and sectarianism, if not legalism
in local bodies. This is a particularly urgent need at the present time in Russia, where
there is a practice in some Reformed churches not to admit children to the Lords table
until they are eighteen years old. And in the Netherlands, where twenty-one is the age in
which some Reformed groups allow children to the Lords table. Where this kind of
thinking has become nominative, there has been a greater and greater tendency not to
honor the communion status of believers from other Reformed or evangelical churches
with different standards. Legalism divides believers and warps our view of the grace of
God.
Most profoundly, perhaps, only covenant communion shows the unchangeableness,
and faithfulness of the Lord, and the unity of the Trinity through the unity of the body of
Christ.
Finally, and most practically, only paedocommunion insures that covenant children are
clearly viewed as church members and subject to church discipline (suspension from the
Lord s Table) such as II Tim.3:1-3 requires that they be. Paedocommunion shows forth in
undimmed glory Gods covenant blessing to parents, children and church, and therefore,
only it brings with it potentially the healthy fear of the Lord, that to whom much is given,
of him will much be expected. (Lk.12:45)
Surprisingly then, this seemingly minor issue has broad and ranging ramifications into
our hermeneutic, ecclesiology, and theology. Hopefully, these considerations have provoked your interest or tweaked you conscience enough to really investigate the issue.

50

51