Month: December 2024

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

Notes on Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Supper,” Part 4, 1 Corinthians 11

On December 4, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, Reformed Theology, sacraments, The Basics

Venema builds his case for the ritual of Profession of Faith on one heavily contested passage.

As I walk through this discussion, I understand that many will not be convinced of my arguments and will still argue that some sort of profession of faith is helpful or necessary. My hope is that for these, despite my vigorous defense, they will respect my personal fidelity to scripture and be willing to receive paedo-communionists as brothers in the Lord, even as I do toward those who disagree with me on these matters.

The supposed division between communicant and non-communicant members is founded upon one passage in scripture. There are other passages marshalled up to confirm this division, but the interpretations of those passages depend on the interpretation of this passage.

Therefore, the ritual of Profession of Faith is built on one passage of Scripture, at least in Venema’s case. Venema is careful not to draw too much out of the other scripture passages. He understands that these do not work. They often assume a lot, such as the son who asks about the feasts, “What is the meaning of this?” in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Such a reading depends on a lot of assumptions brought into the text. Venema recognizes that.

But in turn, he needs to make a lot of 1 Corinthians 11, a contested passage if there ever was one, and turns that into a reason to keep children from the Lord’s Table. He admits repeatedly throughout the book that his observations do not prove credo-communion. They do so only in light of his understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

The reason Venema has been so cautious about affirming the greatness and breadth and width of the New Covenant is all based on 1 Corinthians 11. And it boils down to an argument that the passage has a more general application than the paedo-communionists want it to; something that paedo-communionists, need not even deny.

Venema has other things to say about the text that can be taken or left. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says about 1 Corinthians 11. For example, I think the word often translated as remembrance can be translated as memorial, the focus being, first of all, on God remembering us and, secondarily, on our remembrance of God, but that is not essential to my argument. It does, however, support the argument because the emphasis is less on each member remembering. But even if the general call to remembrance in the Lord’s Supper is more critical than I take it to be, this can be understood as I have already stated so often: according to the measure of grace given to each baptized member.

Venema’s key argument is that verses 27-32 have a broader and more general application than paedo-communionists allow for. Venema notes that Paul always follows instructions about particular controversies with more general observations that apply what is said to a broader and future audience. So Venema argues that the call in 1 Corinthians 11 to eat and drink in a worthy manner, examining oneself, and discerning the body are prerequisites to coming to the table. His implied conclusion is that the practice of Profession of Faith follows from that.

One thing I do appreciate in Venema’s approach is that he has a good view of what Paul means by examining yourself. He doesn’t fall into the neurotic approach that is all too common, especially in the Dutch Reformed tradition.

Yet, though he shows a better understanding than many of what these more general commands mean, he fails to understand the context of these commands and how they are generalized from the particular situation that Paul is speaking about. And the “how” is the key. Because I do not disagree with the general argument of his exegesis, it is that, in his general application, he has not only extended the application of the specific situation, he has completely untethered Paul’s exhortations from their original context.

Let me get into some of the details here; The common paedo-communion approach (and this is not merely a paedo-communion approach; many modern and ancient commentators recognize the point of this passage, though they do not adequately work it out in their practical sacramentology) to this passage emphasizes that the problem here is the divisions in the church. One can even bring in chapter 10, which compares the church’s shared participation in the body of Christ to Israel’s participation in manna and water in the wilderness or the participation of Israel in the altar that they eat. The force of the Lord’s Supper is that you are one body, and if you deny that by how you celebrate the supper, you cause division. This is not talking about the state of your heart, but the very physical way you celebrate the supper. Do you have proper table manners? Are you including all the Christians? Do you, as Paul concludes, wait for one another?

Of course, the heart matters; that can be gathered from other places in scripture. Particularly, if you deny the Lord by your actions or by promoting false doctrine, the church has a right to remove you from the table, so that you may not bring your evil leaven into the congregation. These things are not the first concern here in our passage, though they can be argued from the passage and even should be. If you deny the Lord in your life, you ought not be counted a body member.

The appeals to examining oneself, the worry over guilt over the body and blood of the Lord, and the question of discerning the body all have to do with recognizing the nature of God’s church, with counting all baptized believers as members of the body of Christ. The problem in the church is “that when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.” And the final word on this problem is, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another – if one is hungry, let him eat at home – so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment.” The problem is their exclusionary practices and the exalting of one person over another. The general principles of verses 27-32 must be understood in light of these realities.

At the risk of repeating myself that doesn’t mean that people are wrong to bring in the matter of the man who slept with his mother-in-law in 1 Corinthians 5. This certainly also brings an abomination into the body of Christ. But that is already dealt with. Paul has said that they are to purge such a one from their midst if they persist in their sin, that is, excommunication, removal from the table of God. Now, the faithful Corinthians must learn table manners, and they must not set tables in which one Christian is made out to be greater than another, for as Paul gets into in chapters 12-14, everyone is part of the body of Christ.

In this sense, drinking the cup in an unworthy manner is due to how the Corinthians act toward their brothers in Christ. This is also the theme of chapters 8-10 and 12-14. A person is to examine himself. He is to make sure he honors his “brother for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:11). In that, he is to discern the body. He, through the Spirit, understands who belongs to Christ.”

Of course, this has broader application to the knowledge of Christ in general and personal holiness. But as the Apostle John says, we can’t separate these. If you love God, you will love your brother.” A Pastor, Toby Sumpter, recently preached, if you want to grow closer to your brother and you don’t know how to start by growing closer to God. If we want to make the most of the Lord’s Supper, the whole church should be exhorting and encouraging one another to grow in holiness and in the knowledge of God.

Keeping in mind the context, that these words are given to the whole church of God, this instruction is given so that each one may fulfill it according to the measure of grace given to him or her. These are not prerequisites that we need to measure in one another in order to admit one another to the Lord’s Table. Rather, these are things each one of us are to grow in before, at, and after the Lord’s Table. The baby is to have faith according to the ability of a baby, the teenager, faith and discernment according to the ability of a teenager, the young man, faith, and discernment according to the ability of a young man, and the old man, faith and discernment according to the ability of an old man.

An example I have mentioned before is that Baptism binds us to righteousness (Romans 6); you are then bound to pray without ceasing. That is not something that comes naturally; rather, it is taught over time so that the baby fulfills the law to pray without ceasing, according to the measure of grace that is given him over time. You don’t force the baby to pray before he is able to speak, but you are excited to teach him to pray as soon as possible. You don’t force a baby to eat communion before he is ready, but you are excited to give communion to your baby as soon as possible, as soon as he is able.

Similarly, you are bound, “not to neglect meeting together.” Do we say a child doesn’t need to go to church, because he is not able to obey it? No, mothers and fathers bring their children to church and rightly so. Children are raised to follow the patterns of the Christian way as they are physically able to, and according to the measure of grace God has given to them, so that they may have every opportunity to grow in faith. Raise your children at the table not in order to receive the table.

In fact, their reception into the covenant of grace is important so that we do not think that somehow we are better or more favored by God than they are because of our accomplishments. In this way, paedo communion more properly reflects the biblical teaching on humility and against lording it over one another.

The thing is, even if I am wrong and the general application of Paul in 27-32 has more to do with discerning Christ’s work on the cross and some degree of mature examination such that a baby could not do it, I still would not follow Venema’s logic. Paul’s exhortations are given to the church as a whole, and still each one has to hear and follow according to his or her ability. These words are still given to a particular situation, one that still affects how these principles are to be applied.

He still has done nothing to prove that these are pre-requisites that must be measured in a youth before they come to the table. He cannot say how they are to be measured, he has no objective rule from scripture from which to determine a right of passage by which a member may move from a non-communicant status to a communicant status.

And yet, from this, Venema argues for the tradition of the Profession of Faith. And yet, even in this passage, which is the foundation for much of Reformed practice, there is not a whisper of a ritual by which children are added to those who commune at the table. Perhaps if the problem in Corinth was ignorance at the table, we might have a case, but the situation in Corinth is not mere ignorance. It is ignorance that results in infighting at the table of Christ. The onus is to recognize the body of Christ, to recognize those who belong to Christ and welcome them at the table, and then to teach each one as they are seated at the table of Christ to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Perhaps there is a prudential ground for the practice of Profession of Faith? Perhaps it is merely exemplary to encourage children to approach the table closely connected to faith? Perhaps as Luther or Ursinus might have said, small children don’t need communion, it is when they begin to have the inklings of faith they need communion. And in order to bear out that reality, they defended a more pragmatic or prudential Profession of Faith. I don’t think this bears out in practice. In my experience the strong connection between faith and the table is always found where that is taught in the churches. However, let’s grant that possibility. Then you still ought to fully embrace churches that practice paedo-communion because it is a difference according to prudence and not according to the clear word of God. And this is what Luther said about the Bohemians, holding nothing against their practice of infant communion other than questioning its helpfulness.

In conclusion, there is one thing that Venema has not found, and that is a pattern for Profession of Faith. It is an invisible institution in scripture and yet a highly important part of the life of most Reformed & Presbyterian Churches. It can’t even be reliably found in one of the most critical passages on the Supper, foundational to the very idea of Profession of Faith. Why the discrepancy?

Notes on Venema’s “Children and the Lord’s Supper,” Part 3, Children in the Old Testament.

By James

On December 1, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, Holiness, Reformed Theology, sacraments, Worship

Venema fails to account for the nature of the transition from the Old to the New Testament.

I pass over some of Venema’s other work as it stands or falls based on other assumptions. However, it is worth examining some of Venema’s assumptions as he walks through the Old Testament. He mentions a number of things concerning the Old Testament that he believes paedo-communionists have not adequately thought through in applying the Old Testament to the New. I found it helpful that he points these out, because in reflection on these, we have a better basis for paedo-communion and how it ought to be practiced than we would otherwise.

I find Venema’s discussion of the Old Testament quite interesting because he recognizes the weakness of a credo communionist argument from the Old Testament. He continually appeals to New Testament realities. Much of his time is spent seeking to undermine paedo-communionist appeals to the Old Testament, but he doesn’t build much of a case for his beliefs in his chapter on the Old Testament.

Venema seems to believe that a great deal of the paedo communion approach is based on an understanding of the Old Testament, mostly focussing on the Old Testament practice around Passover. Considering the time in which it was written; this is probably fair.

However, I am surprised that Venema does not acknowledge that a prominent paedo communionist like Tim Gallant makes his primary argument from the New Testament.

Yet even so, if the Old Testament is paedo communion and the New Testament is credo communion, there must be clear evidence that the New Testament is breaking from the Old Testament. Meanwhile, if the Old Testament is credo communion and the New Testament is paedo, there must also be some good evidence for the move in that direction as well.

However, Venema gives us some limited arguments for his position from the Old Testament. Venema’s arguments focus on the natural limitations and exceptions that were prevalent among Israel; he also argues from the hierarchies of holiness that existed among Israel, allowing only priests to participate in some meals, along with laws about cleanliness that would have only permitted some to participate in various feasts, and finally, Venema argues from historical records, that demonstrate it was not necessarily common among the Jews to have small children participating in many of their festivals.

Evidence for natural limitations that caused exclusion

Israel’s men are commanded to attend the three main festivals in Deuteronomy, while the women and children do not have to come. This is important to Venema because the children are not commanded to come.

Venema fails to understand how communities work.

Sometimes, natural limitations prevent the immediate obedience of a command. God does not ignore the ability of individuals when he calls them to obedience. He does not assume that we are superhuman. The law of God assumes ordinary ability, the measure of grace that is in you. When Israel is spread throughout all the land, even though all have the right, they do not all have the necessity of coming. It is those who have the most natural ability to come to the feasts who are commanded to come. Yet all Israel still has the right to those feasts even if it is the men who are commanded to come.

It’s similar to a tiny suckling baby. The baby does have the right to the table, but not the ability.

Let me give an analogy. When you are circumcised, we are told that you are bound to the whole law, everything in it, yet some of the laws do not make sense to even command a two-year-old. “You shall not commit adultery” means nothing at that time, and yet the two-year-old is bound to the whole law anyway. He cannot tithe, and he cannot observe the Sabbath, but he is taught to tithe and observe the Sabbath as soon as possible, when he is physically able to do those things because he is bound to the whole law. I could go on.

The point is that there is not some special ritual he has to go through to participate in these things, but he is taught all along according to his capacity to obey these things. He is not barred because he does not entirely understand their significance yet. He does not need training to practice these things; he is taught to practice these things as soon as he can. He is taught through practice and participation, not in order to participate.

It is the same with Baptism. Paul says in Romans 6 that in baptism, we are bound to Christ and his righteousness. Therefore, we are bound to believe and to act according to belief. Therefore, babies are bound to the call “to pray without ceasing. We don’t force babies to pray before they can speak. But as soon as they can speak, we teach them how to pray. And we consider their prayers real. They matter to God.

It’s similar to the table: we don’t force the baby to eat or drink before he can drink, but as soon as he can eat or drink, we encourage him to come to the table. And yet that means something different to a 2-year-old, a 10-year-old and a 25-year-old. The 60-year-old potentially understands the significance of this far more than the 30-year-old and yet ultimately, each one is a baby in obedience compared to the fullness of the righteousness in Christ.

The question follows: We bind our children to righteousness in baptism, but we dare not give them the spiritual food God has provided, to strengthen them in the faith that produces righteousness?

The point is, God knows our human limitations when he binds us to himself. His instruction takes into account those human limitations. That is the point in the exceptions that are given for the feast in the Old Testament. We don’t need to travel to Jerusalem anymore to participate in temple feasts. Jesus is in heaven and is available everywhere through his Spirit, the same limitations do not apply. Yet even then, he is patient and tells us to live in obedience according to the measure of grace given to each individual and to the physical abilities that through his grace he has given to each member of the church.

The problem with the Jews’ historical application

The fact that Jews used these limitations later to refuse the children participation in various feasts is no point in the favor of a Profession of Faith. Yet Venema uses the history we know of the intertestamental Jewish people to demonstrate a line by which he will prove the good of Profession of Faith.

Do you ever wonder why Jesus had to teach his disciples to receive children in Matthew 18 and 19? It wasn’t because the Jews had decided to stop circumcising children. They knew they were in the covenant just as the reformed do. And it’s possible that just like the reformed, they were not taking that seriously. The reformed saw the natural limitations of a child’s expression of faith and decided they could not be at the table. The Jews saw the exceptions for limitations in the Old Testament and turned that into a rule.

Divisions of Holiness and Baptism

That brings us to our final point here, the way Venema uses the lines of holiness within Judaism to demonstrate his point. Holiness was hierarchical in Judaism. The priests had to go through endless washing and sacrifices to remain pure before God so that they could represent the people. God spoke through persons because the work of the Spirit and holy spaces and holy persons were more limited.

The New Covenant brought an end to these distinctions between groups. The priests’ food is now available to all. In Hebrews, we are even told that we eat of a sacrifice they (old covenant believers) had no right to eat. The author is likely referring to the offering on the day of atonement, which was a sacrifice that was not eaten. Christians have a right to that offering. Christians have a right to everything in Christ. The distinctions that divided high priests from priests from Levites and Israelites are gone. The distinctions that divided men from women and Gentile believers from Israelites are gone. The Eunuch and the Gentile, through faith and baptism, may find flourishing in Christ.

One significant aspect that Venema misses is baptism itself. He makes the same mistake that some paedo communionists make in too strongly correlating the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, with the institutions of circumcision and baptism. Yes, baptism replaces circumcision, but baptism has its own story in the Old Testament. Baptism is going through the flood and through the Red Sea. Baptism includes all the washings of the Old Testament. Baptism incorporates all the various anointings and purifications.

Thus, baptism is an anointing, “You have been anointed by the Holy One, and therefore you know all things.” You are a holy priesthood. That means even more now, than in the Old Testament, because, we are all priests now. There is no division between one group of people that is ritually more holy and another group that is less holy. We all have the anointing of prophet, priest, and king, though babies do not yet exercise it in the same way adults do.

Baptism is a purification that does not need to be repeated. While Israel had to go through all types of washings to prepare herself for various festivals, we only need one washing. Yes, we must continue to live in repentance, but objectively speaking we have the one washing that proclaims forgiveness for all our sins, and declares that we are part of the New Creation. Yes, we must respond in faith. That is something we must continue to do all our lives.

In Old Testament Israel, the need for cleansing was a limiting factor in attending feasts. The Israelite had to go through various washings in order to attend the feast. When we say that washing happens once ad for all in, that means that the one who is baptized into Christ is always clean, always ready to participate in the feast. What are we doing when we deny the full reality of that baptism by refusing those who have not expressed their faith yet to join in the feast. They are washed! In Christ, all things and all persons are clean! “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ!”

Yet Venema is very cautious in affirming these aspects of the New Covenant. And that seems to have more to do with his desire to preserve the ritual of profession of faith, rather than a desire to deny these aspects. He wants to use these Old Testament divisions to bring in some formal divisions into the new covenant, divisions between two groups among the people of God, albeit in a much milder form. With him, we affirm that there remains a division between those who are people of God and those who are not people of God, and with him, we affirm that those who, by their belief and practice, deny God ought not be brought to the table. The church is to purge the evil one from their midst.

Why does he need to add another division? We will shortly discover why in our last point, but for now, the onus is on him to find this other division in the pages of the New Testament.

So we see that reflection on Venema’s questions about the exceptions made for festivals, the holiness divisions in the Old Testament, and the history of the application of the Old Testament in Jewish Communities, actually strengthens the case for a fuller welcome to all members to the meal of God, including small children.

Another side note

Venema suggests in certain places that the paedo-communionist approach will produce a laxity of discipline in the church. I would argue that discipline will be more effective. For here, the discipline of the church, especially in separating you from the table, is questioning your status in Christ; that is what removing you from the table is. Yet in a church that practices Profession of Faith, you always have a group within the church who do not have access to the table and yet are marked as Christians. This is strange.

The significance of communicant membership means that the leaders of the church have to take it seriously and use it well. That means the man or woman who receives discipline has to take it seriously.

Too often people are disciplined for not being reformed when they should be disciplined for not being Christian. Discipline is not about whether you have access to one sect of Christianity, it is about access to Christ. It is the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven.

From a paedo-communion perspective, removal from the table and ex-communication is far more significant than it is for many today. In a credo-communionist setting there is always a group who has some sort of halfway status, whether it is children and sometimes Christians from other traditions. The table is no longer Christ’s table but the table of some sect.