Category: Bible

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.

Notes on Venema’s, “Children at the Lord’s Supper:” Part 2, Faith and the Church Fathers.

By James

On November 28, 2024

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

2. Venema fails to consider the various ways the church fathers may have conceived of faith.

In line with this, he fails to account for other contextual readings, prioritizing his own reading as obvious because he has already assumed his conclusion.
As a side note, reading this response alongside the book is beneficial as I do not fully reproduce what I am responding to.

The quotes from the church fathers that Venema provides can be made to align with a paedo-communion position just as easily as the credo-communion position. Venema assumes his conclusion. To be fair, I do the same. In my estimation, I’m more honest about it.

Venema’s failure to understand the role of faith at the supper continues as he turns to the church fathers. He assumes that the fathers have the same account of faith that he takes for granted. Venema also fails to understand how the context of these quotes does not necessarily support what he wants to make of them.

The comment on faith should be clarified. It is common among the reformed to make intellectual assent a part of faith, and it is assumed that babies do not have the rationality to express faith. That is why the reformed, when speaking of faith in infants, preferred to use phrases like “the principle of faith,” “the root of faith,” or “an inclination to faith.” They often forget that the fundamental meaning of the word faith is simply trust, which babies, as well as adults, can express. This faith expresses itself very differently in the infant, whose reason is not yet formed, than in the adult. We can even say that in the adult, this rational or intellectual element is necessary, for as the scriptures say: let each act according to the measure of grace that is in him.

The worst effect of this sort of reasoning is that faith becomes ideological. Faith in Christ becomes equated with any number of propositional truths or system one must hold before the come to the table of Christ. While this is undoubtedly part of faith, the danger of the practice of Profession of Faith is that this faith becomes boiled down to an ideology.

This reality causes me to wonder whether the current state of denominationalism is not in part due to a natural working out of the doctrine of Profession of Fatih. Each denomination finds a way to quantify the level of ideological purity they need at their table, making the table no longer Christ’s table but that denomination’s table, to the degree that some will recognize that there are many other Christians out there but because of they do not hold to that particular denomination’s or federation’s ideology they are refused the table of the Lord. This makes the table the table of a particular sect of the church rather than the Lord’s table.

I am not denying the importance of knowledge or propositional truth in the church’s public confession. I am merely making a note of how the practice of Profession of Faith might have worked out the relative importance of that aspect of the church’s life sociologically. Paedo-communion suggests a different sociology that might even take a form that is more similar (it will never be the same) to how the 3^rd and 4^th century church functioned. I merely suggest. It may take a form not seen yet, as well. The latter is the more likely outcome.

Neither do I argue these things because I am anti-intellectual or I don’t love reason. These are wonderful gifts of God to us. I merely state that the reformed overemphasized the role of reason in such a way so that they could not see that faith could be properly attributed to infants. Here they failed to deal with the biblical evidence already offered above.

I admit to reading through the lines, but Venema’s assumptions about the meanings behind the quotes from various fathers of the church fail to account for the different ways in which they used the term faith. Justin Martyr says only those may come to the table who are living as Christ has called them too. If Justin Martyr is working with the assumptions I have argued for, this has nothing to do with Venema’s argument. Similar arguments can be made about the other quotes. Venema seems to assume that a call to faith and a call to examine is the same as making those prerequisites to the table. Similar things can be said about the more stylized quotes that reflect on the journey of the Christian to the table.

A second thing that Venema does not allow for is that some of these quotes are given to the congregation as a whole and, as such, are given to the whole congregation and received according to age and capacity. I looked up the quote from Clement in the Stromata, for example, and that is the very thing Clement is doing, arguing that in the Christian life, a man ought to continue to examine himself as he walks on the path of righteousness, and he uses the call to examine one’s self from 1 Corinthians 11 as such an example. If Venema is right about 1 Corinthians 11, he may be right about Clement. If Venema is wrong about 1 Corinthians 11, he is likely wrong about Clement.

Another thing that Venema does not make us aware of is the new adult members that are likely coming into the church of Jesus Christ at the time and are also in the mind of the fathers. They certainly would have needed to express an age and capacity-appropriate faith before coming to the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, Venema fails to understand the strong role of typology among the fathers. For example, the quote from Origen that refers to the status of the children in the Old Testament as one of being under a tutor. Origen is tying us, the Christians, into that history. Historically, we were once children, and now, in Christ, we are adults. If we were to take this type of typology and woodenly apply it to the Christian journey in the New Covenant, would we say that small babies are under the law and then when they profess their faith, they are under grace?

Similar things can be said about the quote from the author of the Syrian Didascalia. Once again, we have a stylized quote that summarizes the journey of the Christian life. I imagine that the author is thinking of Hebrews 5 and 6 in the background and equates participation in the meal as eating solid food. If we actually look at Hebrews 5 and 6, the author of Hebrews is speaking to a group of adults, and these adults are given the milk of the word. That does not mean that they did not participate of the sacrament. The sacrament pointed them toward the more solid food of good works. In fact, the author of the Syrian Didascalia here is thinking in the following terms: You are brought into the New Creation through baptism, and in the New Creation, you are fed by word and sacrament. Word first, and then sacrament. Here, we have a logical order that does not need to reflect a temporal order.

If we take this seriously regarding temporal order, are we to prevent baptized adults from being at the table for a while?

A second way to look at this quote is even more straightforward. It is simply a description or list of all the things that are begun in you and continue to happen, whether it is the making new through water or the feeding with the spirit and the word, or admonitions, or the sacrament. Again, Venema assumes a lot when deriving a logical and temporal order from this quote.

Even in his mild conclusions (Venema will qualify with things like “probably”), Venema is not careful enough. He doesn’t allow for the idea that the church fathers may speak out of a very different worldview than his own. I don’t say this proves paedo-communion in the very early church. I only say that Venema is far more free with his explanations of these quotes than he ought to be. He has already assumed his conclusion while working through these quotes.

My conclusion is that Paedo communion was likely common in the early church, as much as from other emphases in the fathers about baptism and the body of Christ and the connection between baptism and full participation in Christ, but I recognize that I believe that, in part, because the teaching is so evident in scripture.

I am also not bothered if I am wrong about one or two of these quotes. Scholars today emphasize the diversity of liturgical practice across the Roman Empire. If some groups did not practice paedo-communion, that does not surprise me. Christ, after all, had to remind the Jews of the central importance of children to his kingdom, it is not a surprise that many Christians throughout history had to be reminded as well.

As for the rest of Venema’s historical reconstruction, he is right to say that the move to credo-communion cannot be reconstructed through the lens of one issue. There are further complications. It is actually his account of a move from credo communion in the first couple of centuries to widespread paedo communion in the fourth century that stretches credulity. I can find the evidences of the first, there is very little evidence for the second. The first happened over hundreds of years while the West was torn apart and had to be rebuilt. A lot was forgotten. The second happened over a hundred years and we have little evidence of a fight over this liturgical change in churches that took liturgical change very seriously.

An addendum:

I want to talk a little more about this argument that is derived from the Origen quote: that some will say that the immature state of Israel before Christ reflects the state of the child. They continue: yes, he feeds on Christ, but not in the fuller sense symbolized by the meal. It follows that entrance to the meal reflects the time of maturity in which Christ has come.

This argument, in particular, really bothers me, for it creates all sorts of problems with the status of Children. Are children under the law? If so, why are they baptized into Christ? Do they necessarily have a less meaningful relationship with Christ? Why? How so? How can Christ then say, “of such are the kingdom of God!” The whole community, the whole tree, is renewed in the New Creation of Christ! Are children somehow barred from the age of the Spirit who cries “Abba, Father!” I do wish that credo-communionists would not use this argument as much for their own sake as for mine.

That is not to say that there are not lessons for us in training up our children, but these have to do with practical child-rearing, not what era an individual belongs in.

person holding baked pastry covered with towel

The Broken Bread

By James

On November 2, 2024

In Bible, Covenant, Devotional

The bread that we break is a participation in the body of Christ.” The bread represents the one body, and in the ceremony of the supper, we break the bread. Christ is not broken. “Not a bone shall be broken,” says the Psalmist. What is the breaking of the bread then? It is the breaking of the Christ from the apostles, his body, and his people, the new Israel. It is division of Christ from the earth, his death on the cross. But it is a promise that he will be joined again to his body. Abram divided the animals in our passage today, in the hope that they would be joined together in new resurrection life. So, we break the bread, demonstrating how Christ our Lord died, and was separated from his body and yet the Lord raised him from the dead. So to, in Christ, you die to the old man, you are separated from the realities of this earth, so that you may be raised and exalted with Christ. Paul says that in the Spirit, we already are raised to the heavenly places with him. And so we are in the heavenly places, even while we are in this body of death on this earth. It is that reality that demonstrates what Paul means, when he speaks about how we show forth the death of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11.

The Vision of Ezekiel; a group of corpses and skeletons emerging out of tombs, above them five winged putti holding a banderole

Thoughts on Ezekiel 19-32

By James

On January 16, 2024

In Bible

A collection of Facebook posts:

Ezekiel 19. Ezekiel laments the princes of Israel. They are lion cubs taken to Egypt and Babylon. Their mother Israel is a lioness. But she has been destroyed like a vine that is plucked up and cast to the ground. Do we weep for a broken church? How the strength of our leadership has failed? Or do we find pride in our little conventicle of holiness and despise fallen Jerusalem? Let us hope for resurrection!

Ezekiel 20: 1-44: God gives the history of Israel, telling how he again and again took a disobedient Israel punished her, covenanted with her again and how she left him again and again. God will now bring her into a new wilderness, even as he did at Sinai and renew his covenant with her so that she shall know he is the Lord.

It is hard to imagine that the church is so different. As I study church history the church turns again and again from the Lord and goes after idols. And one of the greatest idols is that we can reform her and bring her back together by our wisdom. God is Sovereign. He destroyed Israel, he brought her to the wilderness cleansed her, and united her again into one people. We serve the same God today. So to quote verse 39 and 40: As for you, O house of Israel (as for you, oh you Pentecostals, Reformed, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox) thus says the Lord God: Go serve every one of you his idols, now and hereafter, if you will not listen to me: by my holy name you shall no longer profane with you gifts and your idols. For on my holy mountain, the mountain heights of Israel, declares the Lord God, there all the house of Israel (the church), all of them, shall serve me in the land (In Christ, the world). There I will accept them, and there I will require your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred offerings.

The just will live by faith!

Ezekiel 20: 45-49. Ezekiel prophecies toward the South. He is in exile, so South is Judah. God will start a fire that will devour every green tree and dry tree, (the people who inhabit Judah) and that will not be quenched, scorching those who look on from the north and the south. The land of Judah will fundamentally be turned into a hell.

The idea is quite clear. Yet Ezekiel complains that the people respond to this message, “He is a maker of parables.” He is a story-teller not a serious man. This is the response of the wicked to the warnings of the righteous. They claim that they do not understand and in a real sense they do not for they have shut off their eyes and their minds to the truth.

Ezekiel 21. God reveals a sword against the people of Judah. Both the rightoeus and the wicked will come under its slaughter. “A sword, a sword is sharpened and also polished, sharpened for slaughter, polished to flash like lightning!” For, explains God, “you have despised everything of wood.”

The passage goes on to explain that this sword is given to Nebuchadnezzar who will come against the land of Israel and through this king God says, “a ruin, ruin, ruin I will make it.”

He goes on to declare the judgment on Ammon a neighboring country as well. They will share in the judgement of Judah, but sadly they are misled by false prophecy.

God disciplines Canada through his rod of wood, today. Will we turn to the Lord before he comes against us with a sword? Or must we groan with breaking heart and bitter grief, as righteous and wicked are caught up in the judgment of God?

Ezekiel 22: 1-22 Ezekiel brings another indictment against Judah. He goes through a litany of her sins, especially her bloodshed, but also her sexual perversion and her perversion of justice. So the Lord will take her and melt her as silver in a furnace.

Interestingly, the furnace image is used. It is often used in the scriptures as a picture of refinement. Perhaps there is hope for these bloody, perverted people.

vs. 23-31. We are told that the prophets whitewash her sins. The men that are called to reveal the way of the Lord and call her back enable her in her sins.

Then God says something very interesting: “And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy them, but I found none.”

Yes, Canada is full of blood. Canada, too, deserves to melt in God’s furnace for her hands full of the blood of abortions, the sexual abuse of children through grooming, and the injustices that increase within our socialist system. Yes, the prophets of Canada seek to whitewash their sin, but perhaps there are some who will plead for Canada yet and stand in the breach before God.

For we do have more than Ezekiel had, we have the person of Christ, who stood in the breach before God, whose people were so thankful for his service that they killed him. And yet, through that death, he was all the more effective in standing in that breach. If we come before God in Christ, we can still have hope for the sake of our nation.

Ezekiel 23: God tells another story, this time of two whores, Oholah and Oholibah. Each sister, outdoes the other in her whoring. We are told that they are Jerusalem and Samaria. They are both turned on by their lover. Oholah by Assyria and Oholibah by the Chaldeans. When our loves are disordered, we are often destroyed by the object of our those disordered loves. Rightly ordered love. Love that puts God first does not destroy but glorifies.

I encourage you to read the chapter, it demonstrates the utter self-destruction that comes through sexual perversion.

Ezekiel 24: 1-14. God, through Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to a pot full of corrosion. Ezekiel is to boil a lamb in the pot, but the pot is Jerusalem. It is full of corrosion, full of the blood of evil deed. The pot will be set on the fire without anything in it and it will be burn and destroyed by the fire.

Jerusalem is a vessel of the Lord that is called to present good things, good sacrifices. But her evil deeds make all that she does like an unclean pot. She makes things that should come before God clean, unclean. She is useless to God.

2 Timothy picks up this kind of imagery. Calling upon the church as vessels of God to find cleanness through the blood of Christ, so that they being clean, may bring clean things before the Lord. So, let us too, taking warning from Ezekiel seek to come before God cleansed by the blood of Christ, carrying within us the sweet smelling sacrifice of Spirit-wrought good works before the Lord.

Sometimes the stubborn unbelief of the people of God silences the leaders of God. They cannot even weep for the sake of that stubborn unbelief. They can only watch in horror. God must act. He must punish. Only then can the prophet be heard again.

Ezekiel 24:15-27. Ezekiel is again to be an object lesson for the sake of Judah. His wife is about to die, and he is not to mourn for her, meaning that he will not put on the customary clothes that one might put on in order to mourn the passing of someone who is close to you. Neither is he to lift up his voice in audible groaning and weeping. This was done out of a demonstration of love and duty toward those who were taken away.

Ezekiel will be like the people. They will not have an opportunity to mourn for the temple that is to be destroyed. They will not have an opportunity to mourn for their children who will die by the sword. There sin has shut them off from the natural need to weep for what is lost.

Ezekiel is to refrain from mourning until a refugee comes and announces what has happened. Then he will be allowed to speak again and the people of God will know that the Lord is God.

Ezekiel 25: God is not merely a God of Israel, God is a God of the world. So Ezekiel brings the word of the Lord to the nations around Israel. God speaks against the nations in this passage because of what they have done in relation to his beloved Judah. Ammon exulted himself against God’s sanctuary. Moab and Seir said Judah is just like the other nations, Edom acted revengefully against the house of Judah, and so did the Philistines. Therefore, they participate in the judgement against Jerusalem.

God clearly still loves his people even as he judges them. That can only be for the sake of his promise. That is why he keeps for himself a remnant.

Therefore, though the church seems broken and full of sin, we can know that God still desires to keep the church for the sake of his son. And even as the enemies of God attack a sinful church so God will revenge himself upon the church’s enemies.

Ezekiel 26: In one of the more fascinating prophecies against the nations, Ezekiel turns to Tyre. Tyre has boasted: “Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me. I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste.” This suggests a rivalry between Tyre and Jerusalem. Hiram, king of Tyre was a sponsor of King David and King Solomon back in the day, even sponsoring the temple that was in Jerusalem. Some even suggest Hiram may have converted. Tyre was made great side by side with Jerusalem. Now Tyre celebrates Jerusalem’s downfall. God is full of wrath for her ingratitude toward him.

The close connections between Tyre and Jerusalem and between Tyre and the temple of God explain why God has so much to say about Tyre through Ezekiel. Tyre will be laid waste even as Jerusalem and God also laments over her as he laments over Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 27: God commands Ezekiel to raise a lament for Tyre. Again, the lament seems important because of the closeness between Tyre and Jerusalem. Tyre seems to be a type of what Jerusalem could be, a great merchant city. Or we could say, that Tyre traded in physical goods, while Jerusalem traded in spiritual goods. The Babylon of Revelation 17-19, for example, is also a great merchant, and the most likely reference to this Babylon is, in fact, Jerusalem. In that way, Tyre’s trade is an eschatological picture of Jerusalem. Therefore God weeps over the good that Tyre represented even though she had become evil by viewing Jerusalem as a competitor rather than a partner.

Ezekiel 28: 1-19. If Ezekiel 26 and 27 have had tantalizing connections to Israel, the condemnation of the Prince of Tyre and the lament over the king of Tyre have even more so. The description of the Prince of Tyre, “wiser than Daniel” and the words of lamentation over the King of Tyre “you were in the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering,” have caused many to speculate that God is not just talking about the king of Tyre. Some suggest that God is talking about Satan and that is a possibility with references to wisdom (the serpent was wiser than all the other creatures) and his call as a guardian cherub. It could be a reference to Adam. He too was in the garden and called to be a guardian. It could be a reference to the High Priest, especially the descriptions of the stones that are the King of Tyre’s coverings are the same that are on the High Priest’s Ephod.

I prefer the last. We’ve already mentioned the connection between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon of Jerusalem. Hiram is the sponsor of the temple. The cedar of the temple comes from Lebanon. The King of Tyre and the High Priest of Jerusalem are being conflated as one. God’s judgement on Tyre is like the judgement that will also be on Jerusalem. Tyre in a sense becomes Jerusalem so that the Jerusalem that is in Judea may be rebuilt.

I am guessing and like many others I find this a difficult passage. May God grant his church growth in knowledge so that she may dig into the ancient scriptures and pull out treasures old and new for the sake of his glory.

Ezekiel 25-28 presents fascinating potential typologies of Israel, that might help explain what is going on in Romans 11.

Ezekiel 28:20-26. Now God calls Ezekiel to set his face against Sidon. Sidon too will fall. This is the last of the nations around Israel that will be judged for their envy of Israel. God is not only remaking Israel through the judgment that is coming from Babylon, he is re-making the world.

This is shown in how the judgment against Sidon transitions into a promise for Israel. Through his judgments, God is freeing Israel from those who pricked her in the past.

God adds here that the same Israel he has scattered through the nations, he will gather again.

If I am correct that God is conflating Tyre with Israel and the king of Tyre with the High Priest in the temple earlier in chapters 26 and 27, then the false Israel, the whoring Israel, is now destroyed and completely flattened as Tyre is, while the remnant, the true Israel that is scattered through the nations by the judgment of God will be brought back to the land and restored.

The same happened through Christ. The Jerusalem below became Babylon and was destroyed by God. But all Israel was saved, the true Israel, Jewish, but now with Gentile believers grafted into the vine, became the true Israel.

Ezekiel 29. We turn from Israel to Egypt. Interestingly, the two long prophesies are against Tyre and Egypt. A very short promise to Israel stands inbetween. She is receiving a similar judgment to the nations, but she is the people of God. She is destroyed like Egypt and like Tyre, but she is the people of God.

Egypt is punished because of their false promises to Israel and their pride “Because you said ‘the Nile is mine, and I made it.” Egypt will be given to Nebedchudnezzar as a payment for his inability to take Tyre. Egypt will be saved, but Egypt will be very small. It will never again be able to be the reliance of the house of Israel. Israel will never again be able to go back to her former masters.

Egypt is contrasted with Israel at the end of the passage. Egypt will be small, but there is a horn (power and strength) for the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 30. The Ancient nations produced amazing things despite their all too common rejection of God and the people of Israel. For this reason God does not delight in their destruction. Rather, he commands laments over the nations; First a lament over Tyre and now a lament over Egypt. Her glory and wealth are given to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. The Egyptians, like the Israelites will be scattered throughout the nations.

Ezekiel 31: God compares Pharaoh and Egypt to Assyria. Assyria was a beautiful tree that rivaled the beauty of the trees of the garden of God, but God made it fall and the land mourned over it. The point is, God brought destruction on the great tree of Assyria, will Egypt avoid the coming judgment?

God is almighty and righteous, he raises the poor up and brings the proud down low? What makes you think that you will escape?

Yet, the just will live by faith.

Ezekiel 32: God commands a lament over Egypt. Pharaoh imagines that he is a lion of the land, but he is a serpent of the sea. This fits the imagery of scripture, the nations around Israel are the sea and their leaders are the great beasts of the sea. He will be dragged out of the sea and dealt with. Again, God repeats that Babylon will come against Egypt and destroy it. It is the second part here that is particularly fascinating starting in verse 17. Here Pharaoh is brought to the pit and there he is joined by the other uncircumcised nations. All the world is being brought to the tohu and wabohu that characterized the world at Creation. God is making a new world. And when Pharaoh sees this, he will be comforted.