I have been considering the topic of covenant communion.  Covenant communion holds that communion is for the body of Christ.  It is a corporate meal and needs to be seen in that light.  Therefore, those who are in the “body” are included in the invitation to come to the Table.  This includes baptized children of believing parents who have not yet made an outward profession of faith.

Baptized children of believing parents are a part of the body (i.e. the Church).  Paul begins his address in the first letter to the church at Corinth with, “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints . . . (1 Corinthians 1:1-2).  He write to the church which he refers to as “sanctified in Christ Jesus” and “saints.”

The term sanctified is the same term he later uses of children of believing parents in 1 Corinthians 7:14, “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 [i.e. sancitified].” Paul calls children of at least one believing parent “holy” or a “saint.” It is not my intention to unpack the meaning of that verse here, but only to point out that Paul includes children of believing parents in the body of the church.  And if our children are a part of the covenant body, then they are included in the sacraments of the New Covenant, including the covenant meal of the body of Christ.

Paul appeals to the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians 10 (which, by the way, is the immediate context for chapter 11) that provides a framework for the NT sacraments.  He says “all were baptized unto Moses, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:2-4). Clearly the children in the covenant were included in the body as they partook of these sacramental foods.  Therefore, would not those who disallow our covenant children from the Table be included in those who do not rightly discern the body?

The main argument against covenant communion goes something like this – “if a child cannot yet examine himself or discern the Lord’s body – then he is eating in an unworthy manner and shouldn’t eat the Lord’s Supper until such a time that he can do so.” This, of course, is taken from the only passage opponents of covenant communion can cite for their position – 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

But this notion is not at all what Paul was intended his readers to understand here. This “warning passage” (v.27-34) is a safeguard for the Lord’s Supper.  The sin Paul was addressing was schism at the Table. 

It’s important to remember the context for the passage.  The book of Corinthians begins in chapter 1 addressing the sin of divisions in the body.  “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment . . . Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:10,13)

In Chapter 3, Paul addresses the carnality of the divisions and sectarianism that was rampant in the church.  The brethren were proud and acting in many unloving ways towards each other.  In chapter 6, he exhorts against the sin of lawsuits among the brethren – which of course was not keeping the spirit of unity in the body.  Chapters 12 and 14 are passages where Paul rebukes and corrects the Corinthians for their proud and divisive abuse of the spiritual gifts.  Chapter 13 is a needful excursus to reveal to the church the nature of God’s love in which they were so lacking.  In Chapter 15, Paul addresses a heresy in the church regarding the resurrection which was confusing and dividing the body.  And in chapter 11, the chapter for our interest, sandwiched between all the other exhortations to unify the body of Christ, Paul speaks against the schism in the body regarding the how people were taking the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians11:18-21).

Therefore, the purpose of Paul’s warning regarding the Lord’s Supper was not to set a prerequisite for an intelligent participation, but the self-examination was a preventative measure to come to the table in communion with one another, not disunity. That’s the main point of what Paul is saying here.  Discerning the Lord’s body is primarily speaking about the rightly discerning the body of Christ – i.e. the church.

Peer back at the passage through those spectacles, and you might see it open up for you.

There are two sacraments in the New Covenant, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  The major argument in the Church these days seem to be the question of who are the rightful recipients of these sacraments.  In the circles I traversed, the question really narrows down to a question about covenant children.  Are children of believers to be baptized even before they can articulate a verbal profession of faith?  Should baptized children partake of the Lord’s Supper before they can articulate a personal profession of faith? 

These are the questions with which evangelicals are struggling today.  It is about our children.  How do we view our children – are they in the covenant, out of the covenant, or somewhere in between?  How you answer that question should determine how you observe the sacraments.

The view of children seems to be an easy one to answer in the Old Covenant, and yet, somehow a lot harder in the New.  There was no question in the Old Covenant that Israelite children were set apart from other children.  They were circumcised which was a sign of the covenant (cf. Genesis 17:7-14).  They also ate the covenant meals their parents ate (cf. Deuteronomy 16:1-17).  But when we come to the New Covenant, we sometimes too easily set aside the Old Covenant context upon which the New is built. 

The Church today is called Israel (Galatians 6:16).  Often the New Testament uses Jewish language as it directly pertains to the church (cf. Galatians 4:26; Ephesians 2:11ff; Philippians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 10; et al.).  So why then do we treat our children as “Moabites,” “Hittites,” and “Amalekites,” when we should treat them as “Jews?” Or said another way – why do we treat our children as pagans, when we should treat them as Christians? 

Why is circumcision relevant for children of the Old Covenant and baptism not?  Why are the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles inclusive of the children in the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper not?

The majority of American Evangelicals make a major disconnect between the Old and New Covenants that the Bible does not make, and both their doctrine and practice becomes skewed.  Hebrews 8-10 reveals the distinction between the Old and New Covenants, and it’s not about the way we view our children in the Covenant.  The distinction is not a difference in the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. It’s not the means of salvation – for it has always been by faith in the Person and work of Christ.  The distinction is the Old Covenant held forth Christ through the ceremonial laws as types and shadows, and the New Covenant holds forth Christ as the fulfillment and the reality of that which was before promised.  Look it up and see for yourself.  Hebrews 8-10 specifically reveals the difference between the Old and New covenants as it pertains to ceremonial law – not moral law, and not even civil law, but ceremonial law.

If the gospel message to Abraham was that God would be His God and also the God of his children (Genesis 17:7), and the Bible reveals to us who believe that we are children of Abraham by faith (Galatians 3:7, 29), then doesn’t the same covenant message apply to us for our children?  In other words, part of the gospel promise and good news includes our children just as it did with Abraham (cf. Acts 2:39; 16:31).  Now this doesn’t mean that our children are saved by virtue of their genes.  However, the gospel promise does include our children.  For their salvation, they must believe the gospel as well, but are they not privy to all of the means of grace in the Covenant to that end – just like the children of the Old Covenant were?

We don’t baptize our children to ensure their salvation. We baptize our children because they are in the Covenant, set apart unto God and holy (1 Corinthians 7:14).  Therefore, we are instructed to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord trusting God’s promise for their salvation.  We are to view and treat our children differently than if they were the Moabite children from next door.  We teach them to worship Jehovah – even before they can speak.  We include them in worship – even before they can make a profession of faith.  We view them as children of the covenant privy to the benefits and privileges of covenant members – and if members of the covenant, then baptized, and if baptized, then partakers of the covenant meal.  God has not changed the organic familial structure through which the gospel propagates. 

So if you view your children as outside of the covenant until they make a profession of faith (like that fixes all the problems), then you will neither baptize them nor allow them to the Table.  If you view your children as somehow half-way in the covenant, then you may baptize them before their profession of faith, but will not allow them to the Table until they articulate an active faith in Christ.  But if you view your children as in the covenant of God and are “holy” (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14), then we will treat them as such with the means of grace God has provided, including baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

I thought I would once again take up my blog. The past year has been quite an experience for us, but more on that on a future post. Today I would like to interact a bit on other posts in cyber-world regarding our children and their worship of God. A much discussed and often debated topic today regarding this topic is baptized children’s participation in the Lord’s Table. Are baptized children allowed at the Lord’s Table, or should we fence the Table from the little children until such a time when they can make a credible profession of faith? This is the question.

Since Passover has such a strong connection with the Lord’s Supper, it is often used to understand more of the meaning and recipients of the New Covenant meal we enjoy today. So in addressing the question if baptized children should eat the Lord’s Supper, we might back up a bit and ask if the children of the Old Covenant ate the sacrificial and sacred meals of their time. After all, they all point to the same truths that the Lord’s Supper points to. Some would even say that the Lord’s Supper is the culmination of all the sacred meals and feasts of the Old Covenant, and a foretaste (or even a part of) the eschatological Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

With that said, I want to show that the children of the Old Covenant ate the Passover Meal along with their parents, and that baptized covenant children in the New Covenant ought to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Opponents of covenant communion (the term I am using to express that all who are in the covenant ought to eat the covenant meal, including baptized children) usually take one of two roads to “prove” their case (at least in its connection with Passover). The first road is, while admitting that children partook of the Passover meal, that there exist such a strong discontinuity between Passover and the Lord’s Supper that we can’t apply any of the principles of the Old Covenant meal to its New Covenant predecessor. According to this view, these two meals are completely different, isolated from one another, and therefore, nothing from one can carry over to the other. This is a hard road to travel when we see that the Lord instituted His New Covenant Meal in the process of observing Passover. Also other New Testament revelation would seem to relate the two very closely (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8,11).

While it is hard to escape the close tie between Passover and the Lord’s Supper, opponents to covenant communion try to take issue with children partaking of Passover. They can see the logic at this point – IF children partook of Passover, and IF the Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant meal that replaces Passover, then . . . well . . . you can see where reason takes us – children ought to come to the Table. Therefore, those who take this second road will do everything in their power (even to ridiculous lengths) to find that children in the Old Covenant did not eat of the Passover.

The notion that children were excluded from Passover is wholly without biblical support, and it is my intent to demonstrate such.

1. When God instituted the Passover, He gave instructions for each man to take a lamb for a household, according to how many were in the household.

Exodus 12:3-4 gives us the account,

3"Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. 4 ‘And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man’s need you shall make your count for the lamb. (Exodus 12:3-4)

The phrase, “according to the number of persons” in the Hebrew is literally, “a man according to his eating.” The word for man is ‘ish. Some have argued from this that only men were to eat the Passover. However, the term ‘ish is often used, very generally, to denote “person,” and our translation above indicates. I checked seven translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB), and all agree with each other that the word should be translated more generally to indicate persons (not men). In fact, I could not find any translation that translated the term or phrase narrowly to indicate that only “men” is indicated. The exact same phrase is also used in Exodus 16:16,18, and 21 in the gathering of manna. Clearly every human in Israel except newborn infants, ate the manna, since there was nothing else to eat. The term ‘ish is used in other texts such as Genesis 10:5, Exodus 19:13, and Leviticus 15:5 where it is obviously used in the more general way to denote persons and not merely grown males.

With that said, the Passover lamb was chosen according to the number of persons in the household, men, women, and children. The idea that children were served something else, while only the adults, or only men, partook of Passover is wholly without any foundation in the text.

2. It was customary in Israel to assume that the children, including the little ones, would eat sacrificial (i.e. sacred or worship) meals along with the whole body.

At this point, we should recall the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh that was leading up to the first Passover. Just prior to the eighth plague, Moses requested Pharaoh to let his people go into the wilderness to hold a feast to the Lord. This feast, which would ultimately be realized at Pentecost, was a sacrificial meal of God’s people. It was worship. This can be seen more clearly when Moses appealed to Pharaoh to allow their animals to go with them so they could offer up sacrifices at their feast (cf. Exodus 10:24-25). When Pharaoh finally consented to allow the only the men to go, Moses refused Pharaoh’s consent saying that their young and old, their sons and daughters must go with them as well. When Pharaoh allowed the men only to go, but excluded the women and children, God sent the eighth plague! It’s important to realize that the whole body of Israel was to go into the wilderness to participate in a sacrificial meal with their God, including their “little ones” (Exodus 10:24).

I highlight this point to illustrate the fact that Israel expected their children (including their little ones) to eat sacrificial meals in worship to God along with the whole body.

3. It should be remembered that the whole purpose of the original Passover event was to spare the firstborn sons of Israel.

When Moses later took a census of the firstborn sons of Israel, he included in his number firstborn males from one month old and older (Numbers 3:43). These sons who were spared during the Passover event were the most notable participants in the meal – and should we say they should be excluded? The notion that God was claiming these boys (as the census would indicate), but at the same time exclude them from His feast and worship is nonsensical.

4. God commanded the whole congregation of Israel to keep Passover (Exodus 12:47).

The whole congregation includes the women and children and is not merely the male population over the age of 20. In keeping Passover, the congregation had to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread which required all the congregation to abstain from leavened bread for the week. It was expected that all of the congregation of Israel would observe this (not merely the men). In fact, the command God gave was not to have any leaven in the house or dwelling which would of course keep anyone (including the children) from eating leavened bread. God would not require unleavened bread for the males while the women and children could eat leavened bread during that week (which is analogous to the males eating Passover while the children were excluded). No, the whole congregation was to eat the Passover and also eat unleavened bread for the week. These two go together. So strict was God’s requirement that any person failing to keep the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread would be cut off from Israel.

5. The only people excluded from Passover were the uncircumcised and the unclean, not the children. (cf. Exodus 12:43-44; Number 9:1-14)

God makes it clear to Israel (to whom the Passover was given) who was included and who was excluded. If children were to be barred from Passover, God would have included them in the instruction to exclude them. But He is very clear who is included and who is not, and children are not ones to be excluded from the Feast.

6. Children were explicitly included in other required Sabbath Feasts

God required Israel to keep three annual feasts: Passover; Pentecost; and Tabernacles. Now God did indeed command all the males to keep the feasts (Exodus 23:17). However, that was the minimum requirement and not the exclusive requirement. There would be times when the women and children would not be able to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the feast, but when they could they went and participated. The Scripture also states that Pentecost was a time of rejoicing before the Lord, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant . . .” (Deut 16:11). In addition, the Feast of Tabernacles includes the family members and members of the household (Deut 16:14). While the males were required to attend, the women and children were certainly welcome and encouraged to participate. God includes all the body in every sacred feast and Sabbath celebration. It can be argued that all the Sabbath Feasts of the Old Covenant culminate in the one covenant meal we observe in the New – the Lord’s Supper, and children ought to be included in the Feast.

Again, I reiterate, the notion that children were excluded from Passover does not have biblical support. Children, like their dads ate the Passover meal. And also, like their dads, they ate unleavened bread for the week following. In fact, they ate at all the Sabbath Feasts.

Likewise, children are included in the New Covenant meal, and we should be careful not to exclude them.

Rightly discerning the Lord’s body (1 Corinthians 11:29) includes discerning who is included in the body (i.e. congregation), and the Scriptures are clear throughout that covenant children (either circumcised males in the Old Covenant, or baptized ones in the New Covenant) are included in the “body” of the Church and should participate in the worship of God (including sacred meals).

Let the little children come unto me!

Wow! As I looked at the date of my last post, I can’t believe how much time has passed. About the time of my last post, I got a contract on my house which was on the market. While the contract was almost my full asking price, it had one stipulation, we had to be out in eleven days. Uhg!! Well, we agreed to the terms, and went to work. With the hard sacrificial work of our good friends at Heritage, we made our deadline.

We had previously made plans for a 2-week vacation, and left the day after closing for Lancaster, PA. Upon our return, I was faced with many boxes of unpacked “stuff” to find its place in our temporary dwelling. In addition, I had to prepare for our national presbytery meeting which was being hosted by our church. I also was the elected moderator, and served on the credentials committee which spend 24 hours over the course of two days examining eight elder candidates. Whew! While I enjoyed the time with the men, I’m glad that’s all over.

So maybe you can see a bit of my distraction away from my blog as of late. I am beginning to get settled, though still working out of cardboard boxes. Hopefully, I will return to blogging substantive articles on Christian Culture in the next day or two. For now, the ice of “writer’s block” is rebroken, and I am happily back online.

Thanks for staying in tune. In my next blog, I will share a little application of my blog with you in describing our move to Tennessee to begin a new church there.

If you have ever traveled to a foreign country whose culture is far different from our own, you may have thought that religion played a big part in the country’s culture. One spring my former church had a missionary emphasis week, and we housed one of the missionaries from Japan. This man loved the outdoors, but he refrained himself from venturing too far, and for too long in the beautiful outdoors in America while on furlough here. When I inquired into his reasoning, he informed me that in Japan, one cannot go into any part of the outdoors, on a hike, mountain climbing, etc. without running into pagan idolatry, i.e. some statue of Buddha. The idolatry is everywhere, and it stifles the pleasure from enjoying God’s pristine creation. So while in America, this man kept himself from enjoying too much the great outdoors of America, lest he be tempted not to go back to the field to which God had called him. The culture of Japan, which extended into every corridor of the outdoors, was discouraging to this man because of the perversion of their religion.

We often think that a people’s religion is a part of their culture, but that is wrong thinking. When we think like that, it makes religion a subset, or a particular part of the cultural whole. And while religion and culture are inseparable from each other, religion is not a part of culture, culture is the outward expression of one’s religion.

In fact, man’s service to God, which we call religion, finds expression in cultural activity, and this cultural activity expresses one’s religious faith. The idea that there exists a secular realm separate from the sacred is a false one. Secularism believes there are aspects of life that can be maintained apart from one’s religion, but this false dichotomy cannot be maintained. There is no such thing as neutrality. A man’s religion is the spring head from which all of life, thought, and activity flow.

As Henry VanTill said, “The total character of man’s religion, then determines his cultus [worship] and culture. Thus man’s morality and economics, his jurisprudence and his aesthetics, are all religiously oriented and determined. This is why apostasy produces, not only a false religion, but also a false culture, namely a culture that does not seek God and serve Him as the highest good.” Every culture is animated by religion.

T. S. Eliot once said, “However, bigoted the announcement may sound, the Christian cannot be satisfied with nothing less than a Christian organization of society . . . which is not the same thing as a society consisting exclusively of devout Christians.” This is very much the mind of the founding fathers of America. While they were not all Christians, they sought to establish a unified religious social code of behavior and education that was directed by a Christian worldview. In other words, they did not compel people to become Christian, for that work is the work of God, but they did seek to establish the culture of society that was governed by Christian ideals and principles.

Van Til provides an apt summary, “It is folly for God’s people to think that they can live in two separate worlds, one for their religious life and devotional exercises, and the other usurping all other time, energy, money – an area in which the priests of secularism are calling the numbers. One cannot keep on evangelizing the world without interfering with the world’s culture. It devolves upon God’s people, therefore, to contend for such a ‘condition of society which will give the maximum of opportunity for us to lead wholly Christian lives and the maximum of opportunity for others to become Christians.’ To divide life into areas of sacred and secular, letting our devotions take care of the former while becoming secular reformers during the week, is to fail to understand the true end of man.”