1. 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.