The Lord's Supper and Our Children (III)
Steve Wilkins

We are now ready to consider the last point in the argument, which is that the New Testament nowhere excludes covenant children from the sacramental meal. The rule we follow in seeking to determine whether an Old Covenant practice is carried over into the New Covenant is to see if that practice is changed in the New in one of three ways: 1) by explicit command of God, 2) by necessary inference from that which God has commanded, or 3) by apostolic example. Where there is no explicit exclusion of children from the covenant (and consequent covenant privileges) they should continue to enjoy the same privileges they enjoyed under the Old Covenant. This is what I would have us consider in this chapter.

The New Testament does not Forbid Children to Participate in the Lord's Supper.

Covenant children under the New Covenant are still viewed as members of the covenant community with all the privileges and responsibilities of that community. Paul addresses them as members of the church and includes them among the number of the "saints." He gives them covenant commands and sets before them covenant promises. There is no indication that their position and privileges under the New Covenant are any less that what they were under the Old. In fact, we find, as we would expect, that their covenant privileges are even greater (Thus, for example, it is now the case that both males and females are allowed to have the covenant sign of reconciliation [baptism], and now they may enjoy weekly covenant meals, unlike the Old Covenant). No where is there the slightest hint that covenant children lose the privilege of communing with the congregation that they enjoyed under the Old Covenant.

At this point many would say, "You're wrong! Paul's instructions in I Corinthians 11:28-29,34 clearly exclude children from the Lord's table. Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner are to be able to "examine themselves and discern the Lord's body." This requirement clearly excludes children. We must consider the passage carefully before jumping to this conclusion.

The Context:

Any passage or verse must be interpreted in the light of the context. What is the problem in Corinth to which Paul was addressing himself? There were of course many problems but one of the major ones was the divisions that existed among the people (Note: 1:10; 3:3; and here in chapter 11 the specific issue of the passage revolves around the divisions that exist -- 11:18).

This division was particularly manifested by their failure to observe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the manner in which it was ordained. They were, by their ignoring of the covenant significance of the sacrament, making no distinction between communion and regular meals (11:20-22). Note: This was so bad, Paul tells them that they are not observing the Lord's Supper (v. 20).

As a body, the church was denying the reality of their covenant union with Christ and with one another and thus, denying the true significance of the Lord's Supper altogether. They were denying the covenant reality that by virtue of Christ's work they had been united to Him and with one another .

Note well: The problem here is not that they didn't understand or were ignorant of the significance of the sacrament, the problem is that they were ignoring what they knew to be true! Paul had instructed them in the significance of the Lord's Supper (v. 23). The problem is not ignorance or a need to grow in maturity so that they can understand the significance of the Lord's Supper but sin and rebellion! They were rebelling against the truth and ignoring and trampling underfoot the glorious realities of the sacrament. It's not that they didn't have enough knowledge, they were sinning against knowledge!

The problem concerns the specific sin of failure to show forth the death of the Lord (i.e. the covenantal fruits of that death). The sin here was a corporate one -- one in which they all had a part. It affected the entire body. They were ignoring the special nature and true significance of the Lord's Supper as a covenant meal with Christ which signified their common interest in His salvation and in one another. As a result, they are despising the Church of God (v. 22). By their self-centeredness, they were denying the significance of the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is not a private ordinance. It is to show forth the union of the entire body, not merely your individual relationship with Christ. This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith prohibits the private administration of the sacrament. This is not a private ordinance but a corporate one. The congregation is to participate in this together because it is to reflect the unity of the body of Christ. In v. 26, the "you" is plural (thus properly translated "y'all"). Thus, when Paul says, "you do show forth the Lord's death," he is describing not an individual confession but a corporate proclamation.

Paul's concern is not to set forth the qualifications necessary for one to be admitted to the Lord's table but to bring these brethren to repentance and warn them of God's judgment if they didn't repent. So let it be noted that the context plainly shows that this passage is not concerned with excluding children but instructing and rebuking rebellious adults! It wasn't the children who were getting drunk! Just as it had been in the wilderness, so it would be now. It was not the children who were causing the problem in the wilderness but their parents.

The exhortations given:

1. To whom are these exhortations addressed? Was it every member of the congregation or merely the adult members who were capable of repentance and holy judgment? Commonly this passage is taken to refer to every member of the congregation. "After all" say the oponents of covenant communion, v. 27 says "whoever," v. 28 says "let a man," v. 29 says "he who," v. 34 says "anyone." These terms have unlimited application they are all-inclusive!

First , these terms do not always have unlimited application: "Whoever" (v. 27) is also used in Romans 10:13. Is Paul saying that no one will be saved who does not self-consciously "call" upon the name of the Lord? Is it not possible for one to be saved who cannot "call" on the Lord? What about infants who die in infancy or in their mother's wombs? If one says that "whoever" refers to everybody then you must deny the possibility of the salvation of those who are incapable of doing this and yet are capable of being saved (David's baby, John the Baptist). This we cannot do because Luke 18:15,16 ("Of such is the Kingdom of heaven") clearly implies that God has His elect among infants too.

Obviously, Paul's command is given to those who are capable of calling upon the Lord. The same is true of the other words:

-- "a man" is used in Romans 3:28 ("a man is justified by faith"). This is not unlimited; "He who" is used in John 3:36 ("He who believes in the Son has everlasting life").

-- "anyone" is used in II Thessalonians 3:10. Is this "anyone" unlimited? If so, infants should not be allowed to eat. Ditto for the infirm, the elderly, and the physically incapacitated. Everyone interprets this verse covenantally. No one seeks to apply it to those physically incapable of working. Physical incapacity is not a reason for discipline or punishment. This command and others like it, is given to those who are capable of such actions as are required.

If these terms are used in other passages with a limited reference, why can they not be used in the same way here? Paul is not setting forth requirements which children must meet for admission to the table, he is speaking to those who are capable of discernment and examination to exercise their abilities for the glory of Christ.

Secondly , Paul is not addressing children who had not come to "years of discretion" but wicked, rebellious adults. He is not saying, "You folks need to be instructed in the significance of the Lord's Supper before you can enjoy the blessings of it." Rather , he is calling upon them to repent so that they will no longer bring down God's wrath by their rebellion. His concern is not for the children but for those adults who by their conduct had brought their profession and covenant standing into doubt.

2. What is being said? Let's consider what Paul is saying:

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of {that} bread and drink of {that} cup." (v. 28). Here Paul is not saying that they should spend time contemplating whether they have sinned. Paul has already declared that to be the case. There is no need to consider whether or not they are in sin -- they are! In regard to what are the Corinthians to examine themselves? Obviously, this issue of the right participation and proper observance of the Lord's Supper. They are to realize how they have abused the sacrament.

"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (v. 29). What does it mean to "discern the Lord's body?" What is the Lord's body? The body of Christ is the Church. It seems from the context the meaning is that they were to realize afresh the covenantal significance of the Lord's Supper as it relates to the body of the Christ (the church). They were to discern the glorious reality that Christ, by His death, had purchased them to be joined in union with Himself and with one another. They were his body, his temple, they needed to understand the glorious significance of this!

"For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged." (v. 31). If they faithfully and soberly judged themselves (condemning themselves and repenting of their sins and purposing after new obedience) they would not be judged -- i.e., they would not feel the chastisements of Christ nor those of His church (v. 32).

Thus, note the conclusion: "Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." (v. 33). If the purpose of this passage was to set forth the qualifications necessary of admission to the sacrament, we would expect Paul to exhort them not to allow anyone who is unable to remember, discern, and examine themselves. But what is the exhortation? They must wait for one another.

Paul exhorts them to conduct themselves in such a way that their behavior reflects the covenantal reality signified by the sacrament. They must acknowledge by their conduct the reality of the covenantal union which exists among them. "Either observe the sacrament properly, or die as covenant breakers under God's judgment like Old Israel."

That Paul does not have the exclusion of children in mind here should be evident in light of what he has just said in the previous chapter (10:1-5). The entire congregation communed with Christ but not every one ate and drank in a worthy manner. The congregation of Old Israel was not faithful and therefore ate and drank judgment to themselves. The only ones who did not bring judgment upon themselves by communing with Christ were the children of that generation! The children did not eat and drink in an unworthy manner -- even though many were not of "years of discernment."

If the children of covenant-breaking Israel could commune with Christ without condemnation, how much more can the children of the faithful commune with Him now?

You see, Paul's requirement of repentance and faith was not a new thing. It does not indicate a "higher standard" for worship under the New Covenant. He was simply re-iterating God's requirements from old. Men have always been required to comply with the terms of the covenant. Right participation has always required repentance, faith, and obedience, yet this was not the basis of admission to the means of grace . It is rather the basis for continuing in communion with God's people.

That is, children are to be admitted upon their baptism, but if or when they demonstrate disdain for the covenant and God's people (the Lord's body), they are to be suspended from the table, and exhorted to repent. If they persist in their rebellion and refuse to live faithfully, they are to be excommunicated from the covenant congregation -- they have cut themselves off from the body of the Lord. Until that time comes, they are rightly viewed as members of the covenant congregation and should be given the signs and seals of that membership.

If this is the proper understanding of the passage, nothing here necessarily excludes children from the Lord's table because they are ignorant of the full significance of the Lord's Supper or cannot articulate their understanding. Children very often understand far more than they can express. They recognize you as their parents, long before they can tell other people who you are! It is many times no different in regard to their recognition of Christ. They very often understand that Jesus saves and keeps them and that when they eat at His table, He is expressing His love for them and they are expressing their love for Him -- long before they can explain this reality to others!

The issue here in I Corinthians 11, is not a lack of understanding, but sinful rebellion. The requirements here would apply to children only insofar as 1) they are old enough to be able to exercise holy judgment or 2) they express disdain for the covenant body of God's people. Until and unless wicked rebellion against God is manifest, they should continue to be allowed to participate in communion. Thus, apart from any other scripture which would clearly exclude covenant children from the sacramental meal, we must assume that they continue to have this privilege as they did under the Old Covenant.

If one insists on forcing Paul's exhortations in I Corinthians 11 to require faith and repentance before one is admitted to the table, the same logic could be (and it seems to me, ought to be) applied to Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38,41 as our Baptist brethren do. Since children cannot repent and believe, they ought not to be baptized.

But how do we (covenant theologians) answer this objection to paedo-baptism? By understanding these words to apply to unbelieving, covenant-breaking adults. Once they believe and repent, they receive the promise and the sign together with their children. It is the same in regard to the Lord's Supper. Think:

1. To exclude children from the Lord's Supper because of a lack of knowledge or discernment is to confuse physical immaturity or incapacity with sinful rebellion. Physical immaturity is not a ground for discipline. No one disciplines a baby because he or she can't quote the prologue to The Canterbury Tales or read War and Peace . If they throw a fit however, it is a different matter. There is a difference between inability which is the result of physical immaturity and an unworthiness which is the consequence of sinful rebellion.

2. If we require a full "understanding" of the sacrament before being admitted to it, who could be admitted? Does any one of us fully understand the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? The question of "How much understanding is necessary?" follows unavoidably.

3. To insist upon intelligent understanding and articulate expression of that understanding is to make admission to the Lord's table more difficult than entering heaven itself. Covenant children who die in infancy or before the normal age of responsibility are regenerated and saved as are mentally incapacitated covenant children. Should these who are admitted upon their deaths to the literal communion with the Lord in heaven be denied sacramental communion with the Lord here on earth?

4. It is not knowledge that makes us worthy receivers of the blessings of God, or of the signs and seals of those covenant blessings, it is the sovereign, gracious claim of God. In the same way, it is not knowledge which gains us admission to the means of grace, it is rather the means of grace that are used of God to grant us true wisdom and discernment.

To withhold the sacrament until there is discernment is like withholding food until there is strength and understanding. What would you think of the man who refused to feed his children until they proved they were growing up strong and healthy and understood who they were? We feed them so that they can grow in wisdom and stature! So it is here. The Lord's Supper is one of the means by which we are enabled to grow in knowledge. To withhold it until there is knowledge is covenantally absurd! And potentially deadly for our children. Would you keep a new convert from the table? If new converts need the nourishment and encouragement of the table, so do our little ones.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, the sacraments "put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world" (Chapter XXVII). Do we believe our children to be rightly members of God's church? If so, why banish them from the sacrament as if they are rebels and strangers? We dare not confuse intellectual immaturity with sinful rebellion and covenant breaking.

To exclude covenant children from the table, is, effectively, to nullify the covenant. This is why in most Presbyterian churches children are not viewed as members of the church until they make public profession of their faith and are admitted to the Lord's table. Everyone talks of them "joining the church" when the reality is that they were made members by their baptism!

But do you see, we realize the reality in spite of our practice, that if one doesn't commune with us, he is not one of us. Unless there is communion there is no union. Don't think that this is not communicated to our children as well. Every time they are forbidden to partake the family meal, they are told "You are not one of us."

Brethren, this is one of the chief reasons there is so little true understanding of the covenant in the Church. We gut the covenant of its substance and are left to wonder "What good is it anyway?" How much better and more glorifying to the Lord to be able to testify to our children, you were united to Christ in covenant long before you knew Him, now you must love Him with all you heart because He first loved you.

That is the true message of the Covenant. God didn't choose us because we were wise and great, strong and mighty. He didn't save us because we were the smartest people, but simply because He loved us (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). This is the message that we must give to our children so that they look away from themselves unto Him and be saved.

Part Four