Category: sacraments Page 1 of 2

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.

Notes on Venema’s, “Children At the Lord’s Supper:” Part 1, Faith and Paedo-communion.

By James

On November 27, 2024

In Church, Covenant, Reformed Theology, sacraments

Notes on Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Table.”

I’ve received several recommendations to read Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Table.” I have read articles and summaries of Venema’s argument, but it is not until now that I have sat down and read the book in its entirety.

It is often counted as one of the best defenses of Profession of Faith, the practice of having a child give an account of his faith before coming to the Lord’s Table. Having read it, I tend to agree with that estimation, not so much because he makes a strong case, but because he is more intellectually honest than most critics of paedo communion.

With some qualifications, I respect his attempt to present the Paedo-communionist position with a desire for truth and fairness in his dealings. Overall, he is careful to avoid resting on obscure passages of scripture, such as the theoretical question of the child as he sees the Passover; “What do these things mean to you.” Instead, he builds a compelling case for the importance of faith for worthy participation in the supper. Upon that basis, together with a collection of evidence from Scripture, Church History, and the Confessions, he argues that “Because the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that nourishes faith, it requires a kind of faith that is able to remember, proclaim, and discern the body of Christ.”

However, the statement quoted above is not logically coherent on its own. It has an assumed premise that is missing. We can see this through simplifying the statement, “Because the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that nourishes faith, it requires a certain kind of faith. One must then find some scriptural teaching that the sacrament can only nourish a certain kind of faith.

He fundamentally fails to adequately provide a scriptural basis for a ritual in which the young confessor must express his faith before admittance to the table. And if he does so on that point, it fails to establish that this faith must be qualified by remembrance, proclamation, and discernment as a requirement for admittance to the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, every Christian is called to remembrance, proclamation, and discernment in his or her faith, but there is nowhere in scripture where we are given a measurement of such faith as a requirement for admittance to the supper. Therefore, it is better to understand this call as something that is applied according to age and capacity rather than a prerequisite.

I’ve divided my critique into four: (1) Venema fails to understand the role of faith in the paedo-comunionist mindset. (2) Venema has a similar failure of imagination in his reading of the church fathers. (3) Venema fails to understand the nature of the transition from Old to New Testament. (4) Venema’s entire case is built on the contested passage of 1 Corinthians 11. There are other disagreements, but these four points, particularly points one and four, reveal the flawed assumptions that underly the case for Profession of faith.

Venema fails to adequately understand the role of faith in the case for paedo-communion. He especially fails to understand how the reformed paedo-communionist conceives of faith.

Venema states that for the paedo-communionist, there is “only one basis for admission to the Table of the Lord, namely, membership in the covenant community.” What he fails to understand here, is that for the paedo-communionist, membership in the covenant community, means to be counted as one who has faith, a believer. For one cannot be saved apart from faith. And this is very much a part of the reformed tradition. Here is a link to an article summarizing the reformed tradition on how the root or principle of faith is found in all believers, and therefore, we can say that children are counted as believers.

In the “Synopsis of Purer Theology” (a gathering of the best Dutch Theologians after the Synod of Dordt, in Leiden, to go deeper into the theological questions that were discussed at the Synod), it was even said, that repentance and faith were necessary before baptism. So here infant baptists embraced a form of believers’ baptism. It followed that children were to be counted as having repentance and faith, even before they were baptized. Similarly, while the Divines who put together the Westminster Confession of Faith, would not have used the same language (they would not have seen repentance and faith as necessary before infant baptism), they still would have counted children as believers, using, again, the language of the root of faith or the principle of faith.

And this can only be confirmed by the scriptures. The Psalms, written not just to describe David’s experience, but the experience the covenant believer, speak of such an infant faith. David says in Psalm 22, “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.” While David is still nursing, God teaches him to trust in him. Even more dramatic are the words of Psalm 71, “For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust O Lord, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you.” Here, we have faith in the very womb of the Psalmist’s mother, as the Psalmist already leans upon God there.

As I’ve already stated, this is not merely put in the mouth of David. The Spirit puts these into David’s mouth so that they may be the confession of Israel. Israel is taught to consider themselves believers from birth. We, the people of God, throughout all the world’s history are taught to count ourselves as believers even before we receive the covenant sign, whether it is circumcision or baptism.

To be a covenant member is to be a believer. The question of faith as a pre-requisite to the table is moot. Faith, in turn, leads to faith. The call to faith comes out through the word of God every Sunday, both to children and adults.

Naturally, a common concern comes up: the question of presumption. The answer is simple. Presumption is always wrong. 1 Corinthians 10 marvels at how Israel received all the blessings of the covenant and yet they died in the wilderness. Hebrews 4 tells us how the people did not enter the rest of God, because they did not mix the promises with faith. Nobody in the church of Christ may presume on their faith.

God brings us into his kingdom and we are called to a continual response of faith. The Heidelberg Catechism says that we baptize infants because they no less than adults have the promises of the gospel. The same goes for communion; we feed the children from the table of the Lord because they, no less than adults, need the assurance of their faith. It is not as if you come to the table and suddenly you just get the promises, no longer the warnings of the covenant. You always need both.

Therefore, presumption is wrong for young children. They are to be taught to increasingly take ownership of their faith. Presumption is wrong for young fathers and mothers; they must be taught to continue to draw near to God. And presumption is wrong for old men. They are not to forget God as the sun begins to set on life.

Again, not all who are in the covenant are of the covenant. Some of those circumcised did not believe. Some of those baptized do not believe. When the call to faith is not heard and the heart of rebellion begins to act out, that is where church discipline comes in. And a lack of faith will eventually lead to rebellion. That is the warning of the scriptures.

The desire to guard against presumption, whether by creating the ritual of profession of faith in response to baptism or putting baptism at a later age, does not deal with presumption. Presumption just becomes a problem at different times of life, and unfortunately, there is often an encouragement to doubt the reality of one’s faith, for those who do not measure well according to whatever local standard is decided on.

An argument can also be made that the practice encourages presumption. You have arrived to real faith once you come to the table and once you have true faith you are saved. Faith becomes, not just the tool that God uses so that we may receive salvation, but it becomes, practically speaking, the ground of salvation. Once one has professed, one has reached a higher level of spirituality and is therefore safe. This of course, goes against the theology of the reformed church, and I have observed the leaders of the church seek to fight against this type of attitude. Rightly so! I wonder if the problem is in the practice itself.

Or, if one can come to the table early or tests better than his or her peers, spiritual pride becomes a reality. I can only speak anecdotally, but I have seen the table become something by which some measure themselves better than others, especially for those who, through natural intelligence and early maturity, are able to come to the table earlier than their peers. Men use this as an argument against paedo communion, but really it is an argument for it, because it is the practice of Profession of Faith, that creates the opportunity for such spiritual pride.

While Venema fails to account for these realities in his own tradition, neither does he adequately account for how a paedo-communionist might account for the importance of faith. Yet I do think there are extenuating circumstances as to why Venema misses this. Early advocates of Paedo-communion failed to adequately explain the role of faith in their understanding, preferring to rely on more objective arguments. I then, have some sympathy for his lack of understanding here, for the paedo-communionist argument has developed overtime.

I don’t know if Venema had access to Rich Lusk’s book “Paedo-faith.” That book accounts for a lot of the discrepancies of Venema’s account. It fills in the holes where Venema suggests that some advocates of Paedo-communion fail to account for faith.

Even at the end of the book, where Venema, suggests that Lusk attributes more to baptism that is proper to allow for paedo-communion, he misses these realities. He quotes some relatively strong statements about baptism (admittedly, I might not use the same language), which emphasize the objective realities of the covenant which we are a part of. In his book “Paedo-Faith,” Lusk clearly highlights the importance of mixing faith with the glories we receive in baptism.

I’ll end this section by noting that there is a statement on paedo-communion in the CREC (It is in its first reading in Knox Presbytery and not in its final form, but in general, describes the position of those who hold to paedo-communion in the CREC). I have reproduced it below.

“As elders who hold the keys, we do not exclude baptized children from the Lord’s Table because God has incorporated them into His covenant and congregation through baptism. The covenant promises are theirs in Christ. We believe that in the sacraments God calls us to respond by faith in Christ according to our age and capacity. We affirm that faith is a necessary condition for worthy participation at the Table and that God gives such faith even to small children. Jesus said: ‘Let the little children come to me.’”

At Least Weekly: Part 8 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7

The weight of Scripture is for a frequent communion. Yet, our hearts may still have some objections. I’d like to use this final article to address some of those objections and to give some recommendations on how to begin the path to greater obedience in our churches.

Counter-arguments

It is helpful, at least briefly, to deal with some counter-arguments here. There are at least two that are commonly given. The first argues that weekly communion will bring an improper focus on the sacrament so that we will slip into the error of the Roman Catholic Church. The second argues that if we use the sacrament too often, we will not value it.

We rightly see that the Roman Catholics give a false pre-eminence to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In the 16^th century, the result of this was not weekly communion for the average member of a Catholic church. Many laymen in the church at that time only had the sacrament once a year. The high view the Catholic Church had of the sacrament was cause of takingcommunion away from the average Christian. The reformation restored the Lord’s Supper to the average Christian, although not in every reformation church and only in part for some. The Roman Catholic fear of the holiness of the Supper (ultimately a failure to understand justification), continued to play a role in the understanding of many Reformed people. This fear, in part, might explain why we still do not practice weekly communion today.

Yet the worry remains. If we make the Lord’s Supper a more significant part of our church life, we will create a false reliance on the earthly elements of the Supper for salvation, rather than the God who gives the Supper. That is possible. That is possible when the Lord’s Supper is done weekly, or monthly, or quarterly, or yearly. History demonstrates that our current system will just as likely result in people having a Roman-like attitude toward the Supper, viewing it as a supper only for the extra holy. We merely need to think of the Netherlands Reformed Church and their attitude toward the table. You will often hear that one must have a mystical experience of the certainty of faith before we approach the table. This possibility should not undermine our obedience to the call of God to practice the Supper frequently.

We should also note that Baptists will argue in the same way about the practice of infant baptism. If you practice infant baptism, people will look to the baptism rather than to Christ. This error happens in churches that practice infant baptism, but that doesn’t make the argument true. The answer is to teach people that the proper purpose of the sacraments.

A proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper depends on preaching that takes time to teach people about what the Lord’s Supper means. This preaching will always point the eyes of the people to the Lord Jesus Christ who gives of himself in the Supper. As we’ve tried to emphasize throughout this whole series: word and sacrament must work together. Both must show the Lord Jesus otherwise both will be ineffectual.

Our answer to the second objection is very similar. Might a higher frequency of communion correlate with less respect for the Supper? Possibly. Again, what matters is the teaching. If we follow Christ in all things, the Supper will be a spiritual benefit for the people of God. In my experience, and I admit that it is merely anecdotal, our current system does not necessarily result in a deep desire for communion. We have both those who desire the Supper and those who don’t understand what the big deal is. The only way to counteract that is good teaching.

The crucial thing in combatting apathy toward the Supper is to emphasize that this is Christ’s self-gift to us. Weekly communion may be one of the best ways to combat this apathy. To value this truth we must continually be reminded of it. Through the Spirit, we eat of Christ, so that we are transformed into his image. That is amazing! That boggles the mind! That should create in us a desire for a closer, deeper, and more frequent union and communion with Christ.

Both of these arguments are based on conjectures of how we might experience weekly communion. We ultimately don’t know. What we do know is that if we obey Christ, he will bless us. That means we can’t base our decision on the possibility of spiritual problems. Besides, apathy and superstition are things the church will always have to fight. The question is how best to fight those problems. If we are willing to hear the Word of God on this point, one weapon in that fight is frequent communion. We go forward with confidence in Christ; not in ourselves.

If you have followed the argument so far, you will see that in the Supper, there is the offer of Christ himself; our Lord. The Lord’s Supper was created to give us the assurance that God loves me. The word without the Lord’s Supper is like a marriage with no physical contact. Again I ask, why would we refrain from using that good gift frequently? God is not a miserly God. Why do we keep this demonstration of his grace limited to a quarterly or a monthly practice?

What to do

As far as I can see, there is no principled stance against weekly communion. There is only a pragmatic one. That is not how reformed ministers are supposed to argue for or against a practice in worship. I believe the arguments laid before us demand a serious response. We ought to have weekly communion embedded in our church order. If we call our churches to preach at least twice a Sunday, we ought to have communion at least once a Sunday. In this way, we will follow the good pattern, the good tradition, which God has laid out for us in the scriptures. I give the caveat that we would have to give years, perhaps decades, to work through that transition. God is patient.

Of course, if implemented, we will have many practical problems. We have a system that is built around quarterly communion (even so many of our churches practice monthly or bi-monthly communion). We would need a form that assumes weekly communion. Due to logistical problems, many of our churches that practice communion at the table would likely have to move to the pew (If we think of the feeding of the five thousand as a sort of proto-Lord’s Supper, this is not entirely without precedent). We recognize that this is a functional thing, not necessarily an ideal thing.

Perhaps the architecture of our churches would have to change so that they look more like banquet halls rather than lecture halls. Remember, things like pulpits and pews are not necessarily that old. The church has had had different ways of using space for gathering together. Of course, that looks far into the future. What is important is that we do it. Naturally, this will take different forms in different places.

I do not believe that this is something worth dividing the church over. Although it is clearly a defect, analogous to belief in credo-baptism, it does not depart from true worship to the same degree as something like credo-baptism or other defective forms of worship in our day. I do not intend to break with my brothers over this even though their stubbornness saddens me.

Yet I do have hope. Recently, I came upon Nehemiah 8: 17, when reading Scripture, “And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in booths, for from the days of Jeshua, the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so. And there was very great rejoicing.” It seems that even though the feast of booths may have been celebrated, it was not done in the way God called Israel to practice that festival until the time of Nehemiah. One may wonder why David or Solomon or Hezekiah did not follow this institution of God, whether it was the stubbornness of the people or their lack in zealously following all the law of God.

But God was gracious. More than that; he went from grace to grace. In restoring his people after the exile, he also gave them a fuller experience of his blessings than they had enjoyed before.

At Least Weekly: Part 7 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

We have come to our penultimate installment on the frequency of communion. Here, I argue that communion is deeply embedded in the call of the gospel. This argument demonstrates how this argument is not just about growing in union with Christ and one another; this is about correctly presenting the gospel to those who are outside the church. Weekly communion is missional in the best sense of that word.

An argument from the call of the gospel

We have already alluded to this in our argument from the week. But the fact of the matter is that God’s invitation to the sinner is not only an invitation to receive forgiveness of sins, but it is an invitation to a feast. You can already see this in the Exodus where Moses’ original request to Pharaoh is that Israel goes into the desert for a feast unto God. Likewise, Scripture pictures the holy land as a place of food and feasting.

Look at Jesus’ invitation in John 6, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger; and whoever believes in me shall not thirst.” This episode is after he was miraculously provided food to the five thousand. Again in John 4, He offers the Samaritan woman living water. Now Jesus is speaking of spiritual food and drink. However, the physical food and drink of the Lord’s Supper are what he gave as a reminder that we need to find our spiritual food in Christ.

In Matthew, we see this again. We have the call in Matthew 11, “Come to me you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” In Isaiah, where that quote comes from, the rest comes via food and water. We can think of Matthew 22, where the kingdom of heaven is compared to a wedding feast. Of course, there are many other examples of this comparison. This also nicely ties in with Revelation 19, where we see the wedding feast of the lamb. The Lord’s Supper is that wedding and is a promise of that wedding.

Commentators comment on the book of Luke, noting that Jesus always seems to be having a meal in the book of Luke. This is the table of the kingdom of God. Jesus says so in Luke 14. He is encouraging his disciples to invite all to the banquet of God, the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. When one who is eating with Jesus hears this he says, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” Jesus goes on to emphasize the high importance of coming to that banquet. God is inviting Israel to a new banquet in Christ.

We tend to isolate the table from Jesus’ ministry. But Jesus gives us a table that is at the center of his ministry. The Lord’s Supper only continues the festal reality that our Lord is with us. Jesus has come to announce the kingdom of God; he has come to announce rest. He comes eating and drinking for the bridegroom is here. Jesus asks the disciples of John who ask about the disciples lack of fasting, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” When we worship God, we have a promise that the bridegroom is here with us too. Why don’t we eat with him now? At least when we gather to hear him every week?

The Lord’s Supper is a gospel event. We taste and see that the Lord is good. The Lord is so good that he has given us a new beginning in Jesus Christ. Every week he continues to give us that new beginning.

The penultimate words of Scripture are an invitation to a feast. Verse 14, “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life.” Verse 17, “Let the Spirit and the Bride say, “Come… let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” We say these words, but we do not show people these words through the sacrament God has ordained. The rest of the gospel is found in eating and drinking the spiritual food that Christ provides. As Christ says, “my food is to do the work of my Father.” God promises the word for that end, but particularly he has chosen the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to nourish us in our spiritual life. Why do we devalue the importance of that gift?

The way we focus on the Lord’s Supper in our churches suggests that it is meant to strengthen us in our bonds with each other internally. The Lord’s Supper is about our unity with one another. This is true. However, the way Christ and the New Testament give the call of the gospel should make us question the assumption that this is only about the internal life of the church.

The Lord’s Supper is an invitation for the nations to join in and receive healing from the Tree of Life. It is a reminder to the congregation that they have received the goodness of God. Further, in their transformation into the image of Christ, they also become rivers of living water. Our failure to regularly celebrate the Lord’s Supper undermines our message to the nations about the goodness of our God.

At Least Weekly: Part 6 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

We now add a sixth argument to our series. God has established enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We participate in a spiritual, holy war. God prepares us a table to strengthen us in waging that war.

An argument from holy war

David says, “you have prepared me a table before my enemies.” I have argued that in the Lord’s Supper, we experience the rest of the Lord Jesus. Yet, according to Hebrews 4, “a rest remains for the people of God. We are a people in the midst of a war for the universe. This war is a cosmic war between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

We need the spiritual sustenance our Lord Jesus gives because we are going out to war. We are fighting against our three enemies, sin, the world, and the Devil. As participants in the mission of God, we go out seeking to take every thought captive to Jesus Christ. We need the assurance of the holy armor of God as we go out to this war. In the Lord’s Table, the Lord promises his peace and his rest as we walk in the valley of the shadow of death.

When David wrote, “you have prepared for me a table before my enemies,” he may well have been thinking back to the beginnings of the conquest of Canaan. The people of God enter the land. They have not obeyed God’s command to circumcise themselves while in the desert and so they get to work circumcising the people so that they may roll away their reproach before God. This cleansing is followed by a celebration of the Passover. They ate this Passover not far from Jericho. God set them a table in front of their enemies.

Christ has conquered the Devil, the flesh, and the world on the cross. The people of God work out the salvation that Christ accomplished. The people of God are involved in the mopping-up operation. We eat of Christ himself because we have been brought into the rest of the New Creation. We also eat because we need strength as we continue to assault the gates of hell. In the Lord’s Supper, we see the promise that Christ has already won. We also find strength in continuing to apply that finished work to the mission of God

Maybe you think that faithful churches today are insular. I tend to think so. Why does cultural engagement so often lead to cultural appropriation of the wicked works of this world? Why is the church enervated by secularism? The lack of communion is not the only reason for this. But it certainly provides a part of the explanation. We can say that the Catholic Church has the same problems, but we should recognize that the Catholic Church has so twisted communion through their theology and only until recently, through their practice, that it is no longer recognizable as true communion. The church fails to use the tools God has given her for cultural engagement.

Let us take in Christ so that we may have the courage to take up his armor. The Lord promised a helper to us, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit promises to use communion to strengthen us for the war. We all have demons to fight, our sin, bad situations in our lives, the mockery of colleagues, and the temptations to compromise and join forces with the children of evil. Why do we fail to grasp for that inner strength the Lord promises as we go out to the valley of the shadow of death?

The reformers emphasized that this meal is for assurance. How can we prepare a people to wage war against the works of the Devil if we do not give them this assurance?

At Least Weekly: Part 5 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

We have now looked at how the Scripture provides a precedent for weekly communion, we have seen the way in which the theology that underlies the Supper supports a frequent use, we have seen how a theology of presence is foundational to frequent communion, and we have seen how the pattern of word and sign or word and sacrament, provides a model for our weekly worship as well. Now we turn to an argument from the week.

An argument from the week

On the 7^th day, God rested from the work he had done. God has day by day, taken delight in his work. “He saw what he had made, and he declared it good.” We can extrapolate from what has come before that God continues to delight in his work on the 7^th day. He is no longer evaluating his creation though. Rather, he is enjoying the work that he has done.

God’s pattern is our pattern. We work, and then we enjoy the fruit of our labours. As Christ says, God did not make man for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. On the Sabbath, Israel finished all her work and was able to enjoy the fruit of her labours with her Father and Creator. That rest was an opportunity for festival and communion with her Creator. And what is communion with our Creator other than the worship of God?

But now Christ has fulfilled the Sabbath and has been raised on the first day of the week. He does so as the New Creation, in whom we are also a New Creation. As a new creation, he is a source of sustenance to our spiritual bodies, just as the old creation is a source of sustenance to our physical bodies. Baptism marks our entrance into that rest of this New Creation. The Lord’s Supper confirms to our hearts our continual participation in that rest.

The Lord’s Supper allows us to eat of the fruit of Christ’s labors and so have the freedom to exercise our good works in the week ahead. Again that rest is found in communion with God. That communion is worship. That is why we worship on the day of rest. From the beginning, the church has joined together on the first day of the week to enjoy the fruit of Christ’s labors.

The week is re-worked through the cross of Christ. The cross of Christ is a dividing line of history. Christ accomplished what Adam could not. Adam sinned so that man is no longer able to produce truly good things. He could not produce the good fruit God called him to produce. Everything is affected by sin. Christ did the six days of work that Adam was unable to do and so brought about a new pattern.

We begin by enjoying the fruit of Christ’s labors, rather than end the week by taking delight in our labours. That doesn’t mean that the labours of Israel didn’t come from grace in the Old Testament. All our work is a gift from God. That labour, however, was never able to fulfill the law. Christ fulfilled the law and brought in a new era, which came with a new week. A week where we begin in the work of Christ.

We participate in Christ; we enjoy the fruit of Christ’s labors so that we begin the week in the rest of Christ. In this way, the Lord’s Supper is about the pattern of work and rest that God has worked into the world. In the new covenant, we begin the week with the knowledge that we have been given rest through Christ’s work, so that we, as the Heidelberg Catechism says in Lord’s Day 38, may rest from our evil works. When we celebrate infrequently, we lose something of that constant reminder.

The Lord’s Supper communicates the work of Christ to us. Christ is the seed that dies. We take in that seed. Through that participation, we produce good works. We can’t do good works apart from Christ. The law couldn’t save it could only condemn. But because we begin the week in Christ, we can do good works. Again, we see the importance of the Lord’s Supper in the process of sanctification.

Perhaps our modern world doesn’t understand rest, because the church has not adequately understood the rest that God gives in communion. Rest isn’t merely ceasing to work. Rest is the festival, as exemplified in the Lord’s Supper, it is coming together in communion with God. And on Sunday, we come together and enjoy the fruits of Christ’s labors. Ultimately that is the gospel. If we had weekly communion, we might appreciate the fullness of that gospel.

At Least Weekly: Part 4 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

We continue our series on the question of frequency of communion. We have seen how the New Testament laid down a pattern of weekly communion. In our last article, we saw how frequent communion fits with the theological meaning of communion. This week I lay out an argument from order. Basically, I desire to show how the Preaching of the Word and the Lord’s Supper work together as two means that God uses to regenerate his people. The basic structure of those two means is, first, preaching, and second, confirmation of God’s word in the Lord’s Supper.

An argument from order

We emphasize the importance of the word in our tradition. We are right to do so. The practice of the Lord’s Supper without the word is worse than useless. It is a horrible misuse of God’s gift. The Lord’s Supper is treated as a magical pill for spiritual life, rather than lifting the heart of the recipient beyond the symbols of bread and wine to the true source of sustenance at the right hand of God.

How do you get the word inside of you? Through taking in the bread and the wine. The word and sacrament belong together. Weekly preaching without the Supper should seem as inconceivable to us as a weekly celebration of the Supper with monthly preaching.

Although not as bad, the reverse is also deeply defective. Throughout the scriptures, the Lord often confirms his great works to his people with signs. God demonstrated his love for Noah with a rainbow. God established the Passover upon the exodus of Israel. Following his ten words on Mt. Sinai, God gave his people the entire temple system to train them in his word. Sacrifice too, was a type of sacrament a sacrament, which happened in the temple daily. Sacrifice was a sign to the people of God, of God’s favor. It is not surprising to find the same pattern of word and sign in the New Testament. The scriptural pattern is the declaration of God’s covenant, followed by confirmation with signs. God calls us to repentance. God teaches. And God confirms that teaching through a sign. There is a wholeness in confirming the word with the sign.

We are creatures with bodies. God speaks to us and assures us of the truth of his word to us through the rituals of baptism and communion. Baptism is once, just as Christ’s death covers sin once and for all. We only need one sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Communion is the continual feeding upon the spiritual sustenance of Christ. Just as we need daily bread to live, so we need spiritual food and drink for our spiritual life. Because our hearts so easily stray, we need the confirmation of that spiritual reality often.

The bread in the Lord’s Supper is significant. We are many grains crushed and beaten and then baked into the one loaf of Jesus Christ. We can gather this from a passage like 1 Corinthians 10:14-16. The sword of the word is the instrument God uses to make this harvest, and the Lord’s Supper confirms our unity with Christ and with one another.

The wine confirms that our sins are forgiven. This is the cup of the new covenant, wherein God declares his favor through Jesus Christ’s work. The cup connects to the cup of judgment. Since kings judge, it is a kingly cup. In the wine, God declares that we are righteous, and by letting us drink the wine, he declares that we participate in his rule. This is why Paul can say that “saints will judge angels.”

We can also think of the words from Revelation 20: 4; God gives his saints judgment. The word is purposefully ambiguous in the Greek, suggesting that in receiving the judgment of favor from God, they also receive the right to judge with Christ. Even if you disagree with the particular interpretation of that verse, we can see in Scripture that the saints are judged favorably and being judged favorably they will judge with Christ (2 Timothy 2: 11-13). The wine is a foretaste of that reality. It confirms the promise of forgiveness of sins that we have heard. Further, we may now use that word to call the world to hear Christ’s judgment.

Hebrews 4 provides another supporting image. The word pierces, and the word divides. We might think of the high priest killing and dividing the sacrificial animal. Here we are the sacrifice, the living sacrifice that is being offered through the word to God. This is followed by the feast in which we are restored to the communion Adam had with God. However, we do that today in a fuller sense: for the Spirit of God is transforming us into the image of new Adam. The Spirit is making us into emblems of Jesus Christ to the world around us. We see in these word pictures that Scripture declares a deep connection between the word and the Lord’s Supper.

They are separate means of grace. The western church has always had a liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the sacrament. The preaching does not do what communion does. Communion does not do what preaching does, even though their purposes overlap. They do not provide exactly the same thing; that is why we need both. God gives both to strengthen us in Christ. What the one declares, the other confirms.

We might make one more analogy; that of the head and the heart. The word speaks to the head, specifically to the ears. We are to hear the word and comprehend it through our minds. But it can’t just go in one ear and out the other. Through our minds, it reaches our hearts. The sacrament confirms the Holy Word to our hearts. The Lord’s Supper helps me to understand how the factual and historical death and resurrection of Christ are working themselves out in the spiritual death and resurrection, the regeneration that is going on in my heart right now.

Why does it work this way? It is because the sacrament works upon my body. God knows that I am a being with a body. That is why he gives sacraments and why the sacraments are so appropriate and so needed. We can think of Article 33 of the Belgic Confession: God gives sacrament for the sake of my insensitivity and weakness. I need the sacraments because I am a created being. So the center of my being, the heart, is strengthened in assurance toward God.

For some reason, in the west, we have a lot of talk about the head and the heart the pits the two against one another. But if we confirm the words directed to the head within the heart through the Lord’s Supper, we break through that false dichotomy.

Let us not separate what God has brought together.

At Least Weekly: Part 3 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1, Part 2

God has given us the essential elements of worship. God has demonstrated a pattern for our worship. Through the scriptures, he allows us to dig deep into the meaning of those elements. The goal of worship is to enjoy the presence of God. The presence of God also gives us a foundation for regularly celebrating the Supper of our Lord with him.

An argument from presence.

Who speaks in our worship? Ultimately it’s not the minister; ultimately, it’s not the congregation; it is our Lord Jesus who is speaking through his word. Here is one of the main differences between a historical and biblical understanding of worship and many modern understandings of worship. Worship is God coming to his people and speaking to them. It is a conversation between God, through the minister and the congregation.

When God is present among his people, he serves them a meal. We see this clearly in the Old Testament sacrificial system. God is present in a powerful way in the temple. The people of God bring many offerings to the Lord. For many of the offerings, the Lord gives a portion back to his people. We find another wonderful example of this in Exodus 24, where the seventy elders of Israel join Moses on the mountain to eat and drink with God.

God is Israel’s king, and kings give out good gifts to their subjects. We can think of Melchizedek bringing out bread and wine to serve to Abraham after Abraham has defeated Cherdolaomer of the Chaldeans. Melchizedek is greater than Abraham (demonstrated by the tithe Abraham gives to Melchizedek according to the book of Hebrews), so he is also the one who offers Abraham a feast in the book of Genesis (Genesis 14). Another example of this is the feasts that we find in the book of Esther. The great King Ahasuerus welcomes the peoples of the Empire of Persia to a banquet where there is plenty of meat, bread, and wine for all. He demonstrates the goodness of the peace that he brings in this way.

God, the great king of Israel, does the same for Israel. This truth comes out beautifully in the book of Deuteronomy, especially chapters 14 through 16. There the people of God are commanded to bring the tithe to God and are warned not to come before God empty-handed. What are they to do with those gifts? They are to feast before the Lord (Deuteronomy 14: 22-29). When they are in the presence of God, he hands out gifts.

Jesus ascends on high and is also a gift-giver. In Acts 2, we see the signs that the Spirit is with the church in a new way. God will no longer give his special presence to his people in the temple. Through Christ’s work and the Holy Spirit, He promises to be present in a unique way in and among the men and women of the congregation. Just as the Spirit dwelt in Christ so he lives in us. That means when the congregation gathers together, the Lord is there breaking the bread.

In his last days on earth, Jesus demonstrated this. Almost every time he meets with his disciples after his resurrection, it is connected with a meal. Literally speaking it is a supper served by our Lord, although I wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Even before his death and resurrection, we see a Lord who is always eating. The Evangelists tell us in the gospels that the Jews accused our Lord of gluttony and overindulging in wine. The number of meals found in the gospel bear witness to the fact that our Lord comes as a bridegroom offering a festival.

The point of the Lord’s Supper is spiritual nourishment. The Spirit uses bread and wine to lift our hearts to heaven. The Lord is there. The king, who has ascended, wants to pour out his gifts. Why are we so miserly in giving out those gifts?

Do we believe that the Lord is there leading us in worship? Then we will enjoy the Supper he offers us.