Considering Paedocommunion and 1 Corinthians 11

In Children at the Lord’s Table? everything has pretty much been building up to this moment. 1 Corinthians 11 is the key text to the question of whether or not baptized children should partake of the Lord’s Supper prior to a profession of faith. Here is also where the publisher’s commitment to the KJV is the most annoying. Venema does address one of key textual issues, preferring the non-Textus receptus manuscripts.

The Historic Reformed Interpretation

Venema starts with how this text has been interpreted in the Reformed community. The instruction regarding what it means to participate in the sacrament “unworthily” is seen as normative. It was not limited to the situation in Corinth, but is for all churches and Christians, not just those that struggle with the same sins.

In Corinth, there were additional divisions in the church (beyond those in the first chapters) along class lines. These divisions were most clearly expressed during what they thought was the Lord’s Supper. There was little love expressed, but lots of selfishness and pride. In this section Paul uses lots of 2nd person pronouns. It is about their actions.

But then Paul shifts to the 3rd person for his positive instruction. This change to more universal or general language indicates the normative nature of his instruction. Additionally, participation in the sacrament is predicated upon having faith which is able to remember and proclaim the Savior’s death. The people who partake receive and rest upon gospel promises, there is a subjective element to the sign.

Those who participate are also supposed to examine themselves. Some in the Reformed community have neglected the “themselves” part and require examination by the elders before each celebration of the Supper (yes, our Scottish brothers). This text does not require a “complete spiritual physical” either. The idea is whether you genuinely believe in Christ as He is presented in the gospel. The idea that this is a Puritan-like examination of every nook and cranny of your life is not substantiated by the text (I like the Puritans, but they were not perfect either). Venema calls this a strawman argument used by advocates of infant communion. And rightly so.

The New Perspective

Yes, my playful banter there is not to indicate that their view is necessarily part of the New Perspectives on Paul. It does indicate that their interpretation is new (though it gets more traction in communities attracted to the Federal Vision Theology). They believe that the traditional practice “wrongly divides segments of the covenant community in a manner that is reminiscent of the unwarranted divisions in the Corinthian church.” They are making a different  application of the text, one this is based on some particular interpretations.

They say the problem Paul addresses is one of orthopraxy, right practice, as opposed to orthodoxy. Their sin was divisiveness within the body of Christ at a sacrament that celebrates our unity. There is no disagreement here. But the question is, does Paul keep his instruction strictly about this or move to more general matters.

The “remembrance”, in their view, is more objective. Or totally objective. The sacrament is the remembrance. This is not a requirement for participation (a subjective element). Therefore, this does not prohibit participation by non-profession children.

The body which must be discerned, in their view, is not Jesus’ physical body offered on the cross for our sins but His mystical body- the church- of which the children are a part. The shift is important. The concern Paul raises in seen as ecclesiological instead of soteriological. It moves from discerning the means of our salvation to discerning the group that is saved. This certainly lowers the bar for understanding for children.

Sorting it Out

We are left with two very different interpretations of the text which flop-flop the objective-subjective elements of the sacrament. Regarding “remembrance” the new view is completely objective, but regarding “the body” it is more subjective. The traditional view is subjective regarding “remembrance” and objective regarding “the body.” That’s the basic difference. Which is right?

Venema backtracks a little, moving to 1 Corinthians 10. In verses 2-4 Paul uses sacramental language to show their similarity with the Exodus generation. They are used to show OT precedent for all the members of the covenant community’s participation in Christ.  This is used by advocates of infant communion to strengthen their view that the traditional view wrongly divides the community. But is this why Paul said this? What does Paul do with this?

⁵Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ⁶Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. ⁷ Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” ⁸ We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. ⁹We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did…

Paul uses this as a warning not to rely on participation in the sacraments themselves. Those people all died in the wilderness due to their idolatry which resulted in sexual immorality and drunkenness.  These were some of the sins of the Corinthians- they turned the sacrament into a party with their drunkenness. They make a holy thing less than ordinary, and some of them were being chastened for it. So part of Paul’s argument is to reckon with the nature of the sacraments so you don’t lapse into an overly objective view where mere participation in them saves you without any expression of faith. [Okay, this is me, not Venema.]

“But I object to the use of the context to override the clear particulars of the passage.”

Venema argues that 1 Corinthians 10 cannot be used to skirt 1 Corinthians 11.  Chapter 10 is the immediate context of chapter 11, but we can’t pit one Scripture against another such that they normative aspects of one are eliminated. He adds that participation in Christ by the Exodus generation included Gentiles who accompanied the Israelites, and lots of livestock. So we can’t push the analogy too far or we have baptized cattle united with Christ. This is NOT what advocates of infant communion are saying, but this is something the historical context would lead us to.

Back to chapter 11. One of the key issues is whether “of me” in “remembrance” is an objective or subjective genitive. Sorry for the grammar stuff. Most English translations take it as objective. The words of institution call us to remember Him.  They do not point to the sacrament itself which is a sign of His work. This supports the traditional view.

It is difficult to base a whole theology on a word, or the grammar of a word. Grammar matters! But when the grammar is unclear, as it is here, it must be interpreted in light of the more clear passages (this is a principle of the Reformed hermeneutic). So, if you want to change the whole faith and practice of the community, you need more than an unclear point of grammar. Right?

While the advocates of infant communion make some good points, it would appear to me that they overstate their case at times. At others, they stand on thin ice. I am not yet persuaded as to the orthodoxy of paedocommunion. I find more weight in Venema’s counterpoints. But we are not finished yet. Perhaps there is something else that will be compelling.