After examining church history, the Reformed Confessions and the Old Testament, Cornelius Venema turns his attention, and ours, to the New Testament in Children at the Lord’s Table?. He is looking to see if the claims for infant communion can be found in the New Testament. Well, most of the New Testament. He saves 1 Corinthians 11 for a chapter of its own since that passage is so important to the discussion. Venema plays his hand on the first page of the chapter by noting that like with the Old Testament, the New does not address the question as clearly as we might want.
He begins with a puzzling thought- “the alleged analogy between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper.” You have to be patient and not pull a knee jerk reaction to the statement. This is one of the most important aspects of the argument for infant communion. He does not deny a connection, but builds a case for it being connected to all the covenant meals. But before we get too far ahead, he surveys the types of NT evidence we encounter. The first are the account of the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic Gospels. Second, there are texts that allude generally to the celebration of the Supper by the new covenant community (descriptive). Third, there are texts that address how it should be observed (prescriptive). Fourth, there are passages describing who should observe it (1 Corinthians 10-11), which is also prescriptive in nature.
The institution of the Lord’s Supper, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels do not directly address the issue to whether children may participate. There is no mention of a household celebration here. He is reclining at the table with his 12 disciples- all adult males. They had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. But it also differs from the Passover in a few ways. While the Passover was seen as a sign of the covenant, it was not seen as conferring grace. It was a memorial of God’s redemption of Israel. It functioned as a reminder, and a call to trust in this same God. But there did not seem to be a “sacramental” function. Zwingli would be happy. But, as we will see in 1 Corinthians, there is blessing and cursing involved in the Supper. It is no mere memorial (sorry, Zwingli). We also see that Jesus expected them to celebrate it more frequently than once a year. It was to be a regular part of worship for the covenant community. But partaking in the Supper also seem to require “remembrance”. There is a remembering and doing involved here. It seems to require active participation in a way that baptism does not. The language of “blood of the new covenant”, as noted earlier, point us to the covenant ratification ceremony on Sinai (Exodus 24), not simply the Passover.
The second group point us descriptively to the importance of the Supper in the life of the church. Mainly this is Acts 2:42, indicated they were devoted to the breaking of bread in addition to the teaching of the Apostles and the fellowship (one another, in other words). This would appear to put the Table on par with activities that require faith and discernment.
“The Lord’s Supper, however, was instituted by Christ to be celebrated wherever His people gather as a fulfillment of the old covenant temple.”
He pauses to interact with the main argument of advocates of infant communion. If Passover was a household meal that included weaned children, and if the Supper is a form of the Passover, then baptized and weaned children should participate whether or not they have professed faith. Initially he attacks the premise that it is a form of the Passover meal by evaluating whether or not Jesus and disciples were celebrating Passover. While interesting, the evidence is not conclusive in either direction. But where he makes progress is Jesus’ use of language found in Exodus 24:1-11, which was not a Passover meal. Covenants were typically ratified by the shedding of sacrificial blood and the eating of a meal together. So, this is seen more clearly as a covenant renewal meal. This does not rule out the connection with Passover, but includes so much more than Passover. And the Exodus 24 meal was all adult men- the elders of Israel.
“There are too many substantial differences between the old and new covenant rites to allow any easy inferences from the one to the other. … It is simply impossible to establish the practice of paedocommunion on the basis of alleged similarities between the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament Lord’s Supper.”
Venema then addresses John 6. We mentioned this text earlier with reference to Augustine and sacerdotalism. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches both view this as a way in which salvation is communicated in the mere doing of the sacrament. They use this to support their views of the “real presence” of Jesus in the elements (and for Rome the transformation of the elements into the body and blood of Jesus). But is Jesus talking here about the Lord’s Supper?
“Whereas the manna of the old covenant nourished Israel in the wilderness, Christ said He was the true bread from heaven whom the Father had given to nourish His people unto eternal life.”
Since this occurs earlier in Jesus’ ministry, we should not see this as John’s institution of the Lord’s Supper. It may have implications, but we cannot just apply it as if it clearly does. He explains some connection points (talk of his blood and body, mention of Judas betraying him, etc.). But two important differences stand out. First, the occasion is the feeding of the 5,000. These people want more, and Jesus points to himself, not the food as what they really need. Which leads us to the 2nd- the saving participation in Christ is described by eating and drinking. But Jesus is using this as a metaphor for faith. We depend on Christ for spiritual life just was we depend on food and drink for physical life. Faith “feeds” on Christ. He notes that Calvin points us to how we are to partake of the Supper- we only feast on Christ by faith. But this, for Calvin, is a secondary application, not the original meaning of the text.
While children may have eaten of the manna (they did), we partake of Christ only by faith. We do not partake by mechanical participation in a sacrament. We see this more clearly as we read more of the text. The Father draws people so they believe on Christ to have everlasting life. Faith, not consuming a meal, is what unites us to Christ and therefore eternal life.
So Venema is able to make his bold claim. Thus far there is nothing in the New Testament that leads us to necessarily embrace infant communion. But there is still the material from 1 Corinthians to address.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply