After examining church history and the Reformed Confessions, the next logical place to turn is the Scriptures. Cornelius Venema does just that in Children at the Lord’s Table?. He starts with the Old Testament. Well, after briefly summing up the arguments from the previous two chapters.
Here is his summation of the argument made by proponents of infant communion:
“Advocates of paedocommunion often appeal to the inclusion of children within the covenant in its Old Testament administration as a point of departure for interpreting the teaching and practice of the New Testament. Paedocommunionists argue that since children in the old covenant received the sign and seal of covenant membership in the rite of circumcision, and since they were granted the privilege of participation in many of the covenant observances, including the important rite of the Passover, believers should proceed from the conviction that a similar circumstance likely obtains in the new covenant.”
That’s is a mouthful! Just like the argument for infant baptism starts in the Old Testament, they say, the argument for infant communion does too. But is the matter as clear as it is for circumcision? In Genesis 17, Abraham is commanded to place the sign and seal of the covenant on his children. Does such a command exist in the matter of Passover or other covenant meals?
He notes that all of Israel partook of the manna, with the exception of children who were not yet weaned (those typically under 3). They did not understand the manna to be a sign and seal of the covenant. It was God’s provision. Paul, following Jesus’ lead in John 6, uses this as a type to point to Christ. Christ was meeting their needs, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 10. But Paul uses this in an unexpected way- their participation in that baptism in Moses and that spiritual food and drink did not save them. Many perished in the wilderness due to their idolatry. Paul is not developing a sacramental theology so much as warning the Corinthians against presumption. As I noted in the post on church history, John 6 uses the eating and drinking as a metaphor for faith. The issue is faith. [One review of this book on Amazon claims he doesn’t address the topic of the manna. Oops!]
This participation is a key element for advocates of infant communion as a precedent for the Lord’s Supper. But it is not the only one. There are the annual feasts that Israel observed. But was the participation of children permitted or required? Remember, male children had to be circumcised or they were cut off from Israel. Did the children have participate or experience similar sanction?
16 “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed. 17Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. Deuteronomy 16 (ESV)
The adult men of Israel were required to keep the feasts annually. The rest of the family was permitted to come, but only the men were required to come. It would seem most likely that children who were not yet weaned would be present but not eat what the rest of the family ate. Advocates of infant communion use this as a thread of evidence to admit children to the Lord’s Table. But I remind you that these 2 of these feasts (Booths and Weeks) were not the signs and seals of the covenant. That was Passover.
Two arguments are made. First, the requirements for participation did not exclude children. Second, there is evidence to believe children were able to fully participate in the Passover celebration.
In Exodus 12 we discover some practices that became part of the annual Feasts in Jerusalem. They include the eating of the lamb, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs as well as a catechetical exercise. Each, Venema argues, requires some maturity and spiritual discernment. This would seem to exclude infants and younger children from participating in the meal. Advocates of infant communion argue that the exercise was not necessary for participation in the meal. They see this as evidence that children participated in the Passover meal. By extension, they say, children should participate in Lord’s Table.
Venema’s Critical Examination
“The first principle is that the ultimate norm for the practice of the church must be the New Testament description of the administration of the new covenant. The second principle is that participation in the observances of the covenant… must be governed by the Lord’s insistence that His people worship Him ‘in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:24)”
I’m not sure I fully embrace his first principle- okay I don’t since this is what credo baptists argue. We certainly cannot deny what the New Testament teaches us, but we recognize that the Old Testament is authoritative too. We balance this against the progressive nature of revelation (which he admits). If his first point was true, our presuppositions regarding the subjects for baptism change dramatically.
Regarding the manna, there were no restrictions placed on eating it (gathering it is another story). Not all of the people who were with Israel were Israelites. Exodus 12:38 says that a mixed multitude went left Egypt with them. We have no recognition that they were circumcised. So this allows too much, if we view this as sacramental. People could argue, on this basis, that you don’t have to be baptized to be part of the visible church and celebrate the Supper. While it serves a typological function, we must recognize significant differences between this and the Lord’s Supper.
Venema argues that while there is continuity with the Old Testament regarding circumcision and baptism (applied to children of believers) there is discontinuity- women and girls receive the sign too. The same would be true regarding the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. The frequency is one aspect of discontinuity- we should celebrate it more than once a year (I think weekly). We also don’t celebrate it in Jerusalem. Unlike the issue of circumcision, there is no clear command for children to participate (or women for that matter). They were permitted, but the issues of eating meat and asking questions would eliminate the younger members of the covenant community.
In the Old Covenant administration, we discover that not all members had the same privileges. There were covenant meals that only priests on duty could enjoy (Lev. 2:3, 10; 5:13; 6:16-18). And sometimes their families could participate (Lev. 10:14ff). Why is this significant according to Venema? These meals were connected to the atoning of sins, the very thing the Supper pictures for us. They are more closely tied to the Supper than the feasts of booths & weeks. So, Venema argues, advocates of infant communion are selective in their use of texts to make their point. The texts they ignore significantly undermine their position.
One of the most important covenant meals connected to the Lord’s Supper is the covenant ratification in Exodus 24. Here the blood of the covenant is shed. Jesus quotes this at the institution of the Lord’s Supper in saying “this is the blood of the new covenant”. Hebrews 8-10 also makes this connection. The blood is sprinkled over a representative portion of the people in Exodus 24 (remember we are talking 1.5 million people at the base of the mountain). After shedding and sprinkling the blood, Moses and the elders of Israel enjoy a fellowship meal in God’s presence farther up the mountain. There were no children at this meal, just the elders of Israel.
“It is impossible to argue from the meal that was celebrated on Mount Sinai that all believers and their children should participate in the Lord’s Supper.”
If we return to Passover, we discover that the annual celebration- pilgrim Passovers since the people traveled to Jerusalem- only required the presence of adult men. This argues strongly against the notion that non-participation in a covenant meal is the same as exclusion from full covenant membership or even excommunication. The logic just won’t work in light of Old Covenant practice.
He continues his argument into the intertestamental period. The prevailing view was that the commandment requiring men to attend the 3 feasts was binding on men 20 and older. This was the age of maturity for particular covenant obligations (Lev. 27:1-7; Num. 1:3, 20). In the 2nd century BC, the Pharisees emerged. The age to keep the commandments was changed to 13. This was considered the age of discretion. Jesus presumably went to Jerusalem with his parents at 12 to begin the fast for celebrating Passover at 13.
We see that the characteristic pattern under the Old Covenant was not for women and children to participate even though they were members of the covenant community. This is why Venema says that the “Old Testament simply does not teach what some paedocommunionists allege.” Their high view of the Sacrament is commendable, but some of their conclusions are not supported by the texts. The final question to be answered is if the New Testament supports their advocacy of infant communion.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply