What Mean Ye?
8. Appendix C: Manna & Manducation
In the main body of this paper an allusion was made to the fact that
paedocommunionists such as Chris Keidel have adduced the fact that young children ate the
manna in the wilderness as an argument in support of their position. The initial gathering
of the manna is recorded in Exodus chapter sixteen. However, the event is of such a nature
in the history of redemption that it is recalled several times in Scripture and reference
is made to it as late as the book of Revelation.
There was no indication when the manna was given that it was in any way sacramental.
However, Christ in the Gospel of John and Paul in First Corinthians indicated that the
eating of manna was typical of spiritual truth. Furthermore, Paul mentioned the manna in a
context between a baptism and a subsequent consideration of the Lord's Supper. This has
apparently caused a certain amount of confusion on the part of some. The purpose of this
appendix is to clarify the relationship between manna and the Lord's Supper.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
The word translated "moreover" and appearing as the first word
in the AV is the Greek word gar. This word is a conjunction
which, according to the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon, is "used to express cause,
inference, continuation, or to explain." We can therefore expect in what follows it a
continuation or explanation of what has preceded it.
But what has preceded it? Paul's statement in First Corinthians 9:27, "I keep under
my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to
others, I myself should be a castaway." Paul was not running an uncertain race; he
was not merely "shadow-boxing." He knew that not everyone who begins a race
finishes it and that not every runner receives a prize. Paul intended to proceed in First
Corinthians 10:1-14 to explain by example what he meant by "castaway" (adokimos
— unable to stand the test, rejected, refuse, worthless, disqualified).
The tenth chapter of First Corinthians presents us with several illustrations or
"examples" for the church. The first is the one-time instance of Israel (qua
Israel and not qua individuals) being baptized unto Moses. This reference is not
to individual water baptisms, but to the day of Pentecost. Note the later reference in
First Corinthians 12:13 that all have been made to drink into one spirit (literally,
"have all been drenched in one spirit" on the day of Pentecost when the
Spirit was poured upon the church and drenched her).
The important thing to understand for the purpose of this study is that each event
occurred once in redemptive history. In the case of Old Testament Israel, the one-time
event was the crossing of the Red Sea from captivity to freedom as a nation. New Testament
Israel was likewise baptized on the day of Pentecost. Paul alluded not to individual water
baptism, but to the baptism of the church once for all on the day of Pentecost. If
individual water baptism were in view, then the analogy would not be fitting, for
individual Israelites did not "get themselves baptized" (middle voice) unto
Moses by crossing the Red Sea as individuals.
In First Corinthians 10:6 Paul claimed that Israel's experiences happened as our examples
(tupoi hęmôn). In English, the word "example" can
mean that which we are required to emulate. However, the Greek word tupos
can equally be translated as "type." In fact, that is precisely the translation
preferred in Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon. This further evidences the assertion that the
crossing of the Red Sea has a typological significance. If the proper significance of the
crossing of the Red Sea is typological, then we should look for an event in the New
Testament that corresponds to as many of the significant factors of the crossing of the
Red Sea as possible. Ideally, it would be an event that: 1) takes place only once in
history; 2) marks the beginning of the "exodus people"; and 3) is miraculous in
its nature (i.e., it is a supernatural occurrence setting God's people apart from His
enemies). The only event that fits all these criteria fully is the descent (baptism) of
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
What we have seen at this point requires us to expect that verses 3-4 would have a
significance for God's people as covenant people moreso than as individuals. Obviously we
have not ruled-out individualization, but we see it as an outgrowth of God's dealing with
his people covenantally.
Note that not only were infants carried through the Red Sea, but animals were led through
it as well. Had Paul intended to make reference to an initiatory sacrament which announced
inclusion in the covenant for a new-born infant, then the rite of circumcision would have
been the appropriate model. Further, circumcision of the entire nation did take place in
Joshua 5:2-9 when the entire nation was circumcised by the Old Testament "Jesus"
(cf. Hebrews 4:8). Both the model and the occasion existed for Paul to make reference to
individual water baptism if that had been his intent.
Therefore, due to the fact that a more appropriate anti-type (Pentecost) exists for Paul's
typical language and due to the fact that a more appropriate type exists for the would-be
anti-type of water baptism, we should conclude (by Occam's razor) that Paul's reference in
First Corinthians 10:1-2 finds its primary fulfillment in the out-pouring of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost.
These considerations "set the stage" for the actual verses in controversy, viz.
3-4 "and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual
drink." There is no question that the reference in verse 3 is to manna and the
reference in verse 4a is to water from a rock. The word translated "meat" in
verse 3 is brw'ma, which Paul earlier told the Corinthians they were unable to bear. The
reference in First Corinthians 3:2 is to solid food as opposed to milk. In other words,
the food referenced in First Corinthians 10:3 was food unfit for babes! This is
also the word translated "victuals" in Matthew 14:15 at which time only grown
men were present (see the discussion above in the body of the paper).
However, I mention the use of brôma (solid food) only to
indicate that there is nothing in the definition of the word that forces us to conclude
that children, much less infants, must have been partakers of the manna. While I
think that very small children were likely partakers of the manna, I would be unable to
prove that exegetically (the paedocommunionists are equally unable to prove it, but I am
willing to concede the point).
We have already demonstrated that there is no reason to think that crossing the Red Sea
was analogous to New Testament water baptism. At this point, the paedocommunionist has an
uphill battle to prove that eating manna and drinking water (not wine) points to the New
Testament sacrament of the Lord's Supper because the parallelism has been lost. Note that
not only did the Israelites drink water rather than wine, it was at a totally different
time than the giving of the manna in Exodus 16.
There is not even a similarity of purpose between the manna and the (bread of the) Lord's
Supper. The purpose of the manna was to satisfy physical hunger (it was an answer to the
murmuring of Exodus 16:3, "ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill
this whole assembly with hunger" [emphasis added]). This is also the inspired
interpretation of Nehemiah, who prayed "and gavest them bread from heaven for
their hunger" (Nehemiah 9:15, emphasis added).
A paedocommunionist might object at this point, "But Paul here claims that the bread
was spiritual bread. It certainly satisfied their hunger, but it fed them
spiritually as well. They fed spiritually on manna just as we feed spiritually on the
bread of the Lord's Supper." But that is not what Paul said in First Corinthians
10:3. He did not say that they ate spiritually (pneumatikôs),
but that they ate spiritual (pneumatikos) food. The things of
the Spirit must be discerned spiritually (pneumatikôs)
according to Paul in First Corinthians 2:14. But this is done by comparing spiritual
things with spiritual (pneumatikos). The latter word is the one
used in First Corinthians 10:3.
The word pneumatikos in First Corinthians 10:3 means
"superior in process to the natural course of things, miraculous, or having the Holy
Spirit as its source." The manna was certainly miraculous. If it was left overnight
it turned into worms . . . except on the day before the Sabbath. It fell every morning . .
. except on the morning of the Sabbath. Keil and Delitzsch spent several pages of their
Old Testament Commentary writing of a sort of manna that could still (mid nineteenth
century) be harvested in that area. But it did not fall on the Sabbath, nor did it fall in
double quantities on the previous day, nor did it turn into worms. No, the manna of Exodus
16 was miraculous (pneumatikos) manna! It was, in fact, the
"food of the angels" (Psalm 78:24-25).
The primary purpose of the manna for the people of God was to satisfy physical hunger.
Secondarily, due to the miraculous provision of both quail and manna, "ye shall know
that I the Lord am your God." But the Lord's Supper is for precisely the opposite
purpose, for Paul said to the Corinthians, "If any man hunger, let him eat
at home" (First Corinthians 11:34, emphasis added). The point here is that
there is no indication in either Exodus 16 or First Corinthians 10 that the manna had any
sacramental significance. God has done numerous "wonderful works" for his people
in redemptive history (Exodus 15:11) so that they will know that the Lord is God. But that
does not make them repeatable sacraments. There is actually more exegetical evidence for
foot-washing as a sacrament in John 13:14 than there is for paedocommunion in all of
Scripture.
John 6 has numerous parallels (including the manna/Jesus parallel) to the wilderness
wanderings of Old Testament Israel. In fact, the wilderness wanderings period is possibly
the best established "type" in the entire Old Testament (First Corinthians
10:1-14; Hebrews 3:15-4:12; etc.).
Note that John 6 begins with people following Christ into the wilderness. Christ then fed
them "miraculously" with fish and barley bread. Nevertheless, Christ perceived
that the people continued to follow Him, not due to their correct understanding of the
miracle (that ye may know that I the Lord am God), but because their hunger had been
satisfied (John 6:26). Just like the wilderness generation, the people who followed Christ
murmured (verses 30, 31, 34, 41, 52, 60-61, 66). But Christ warned them with the same
warning that Paul echoed in First Corinthians 10. "Your fathers did eat manna in the
wilderness and are dead" (verse 49). Christ was not so much comparing faith to eating
manna as He was contrasting it! For in verse 51 He went on to say, "if any
man eat of this bread, he shall live forever."
It is common for Roman Catholic commentators to use this passage to support their
sacramentalism, for Christ went on to say, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you" (verse 53). If the eating and
drinking spoken of in this passage does, in fact, refer to the Lord's Supper, then it is
obvious on the face of it that receiving the Lord's Supper is a necessary condition to
salvation.
A modus ponens can be formed thus:
Major: If you do not eat & drink the sacrament, then you have no life in you (p implies q)
Minor: But you do not eat & drink the sacrament (assert the antecedent p)
Conclusion: Therefore you have no life in you (therefore the consequent necessarily follows)
Valid as this argument is (and it is valid), it is unsound if the major
premise is false. The minor premise will be true for some but not for others. But the
Scriptures do not say in John 6:53 that if we do not partake of the sacraments, then we
have no life. Rather, the Bible claims that if we do not eat Christ's flesh and drink His
blood, then we have no life in us. The Lord's Supper was not yet instituted (it seems to
have been instituted between John 13:1 & John 13:2), so it requires a "reading
back" in order to come up with anything like sacramentalism.
But there is a positive refutation of sacramentalism (and a definition of what it is to
eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood) within the passage. Note that in verse 54, Christ
claimed "whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will
raise him up at the last day." In that verse, Christ indicated that the eating and
drinking was not only necessary (verse 53), but also sufficient for eternal life. Indeed,
if this speaks of the Lord's Supper, then sacramentalism is true. However, Christ went on
to refute sacramentalism.
In John 6:63, Christ said, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." Note
well - the flesh is not what is profitable; it is the words (propositional truth)
that are spirit and life. And, of course, Peter went on to confess in verse 68, "Thou
hast the words of eternal life."
So here are Christ's words: the manna did not profit (your fathers ate it and died). The
flesh does not profit (only propositional truth professed in words are spirit and life).
What then can this eating and drinking be?
Once again, the context supplies the answer. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that
believeth on me hath everlasting life" (verse 47). Christ committed Himself by an
oath (verily, verily) that anyone who believes on Him (i.e., "hungers and thirsts
after righteousness") has the everlasting life that eluded the manna-eating fathers
who entered not God's rest due to unbelief (Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:2; cf. Psalm
95:10-11).
Finally, in First Corinthians 10:4, Paul said that the people all drank the same spiritual
(pneumatikos) drink. This is apparently a conflation of two
incidents that took place during the wilderness wanderings. The first was in Exodus 17 and
the second was in Numbers 20. Paul said in verse 4 that the people all drank it once
(second aorist tense) when first provided and that they continued to drink it (imperfect
tense) because the rock followed them. There was nothing sacramental about drinking this
water any more than eating the manna was sacramental. Just as the manna and quails were
given to satisfy physical hunger, so the water was given to satisfy physical thirst. What
Paul wanted to bring to our attention is that if they had hungered and thirsted after
righteousness, they also would have been filled spiritually (cf. Matthew 5:6).
Psalm 106:32 clearly teaches that when the Israelites murmured for water at Kadesh, God
was angry with them. Yes, God supplied them with water, but overthrew them for their
unbelief. This is the same lesson Paul wanted the Corinthians to learn. The lesson of
First Corinthians 10 is the danger of unbelief. Any attempt to read paedocommunion into
the passage depends upon superficial similarities and not careful exegesis.
Paedocommunionists often accuse non-paedocommunionists of logical inconsistency. But the
view is not really inconsistent at all. Paedobaptism (and paedocircumcision before it) is
appropriate to an infant. In much the same way, our children bear our names as soon as
they are born. But they do not come into fullness of inheritance until much later. So, in
the same way, a covenant child bears the name of Christ as soon as he or she is baptized
(Revelation 14:1; 7:3; etc.). But they come into their full inheritance after training.
There are, for instance, among the male infants of the church, roughly one in ten who will
eventually become elders (Deuteronomy 1:15), but only after proving themselves faithful
and being properly trained (Second Timothy 2:2). This teaching establishes that at least some
of the fullness of church membership is reserved for mature members. The same thing could
be said of teachers. But there is no claim that we are denying anything to our infants if
we require that they wait until an appropriate time before considering them for elders. So
the charge of logical inconsistency would only be applicable if baptism and the Lord's
Supper were identical sacraments. But if they were identical, then one of them would be
unnecessary.
When paedocommunionists were claiming that infants partook of the Passover and are
therefore entitled to partake of the Lord's Supper, the controversy was on totally
different grounds. The Passover was obviously a sacramental meal and it was obviously
replaced by the Lord's Supper. But the manna has nothing to do with any sacrament of
either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Why then do paedocommunionists want to
bring it into the debate? Their best and only Scriptural argument rests on the Passover.
However, that argument has been refuted in the body of this paper.
Before introducing innovations into the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ we must be totally
certain that they meet the test of Sola Scriptura. The fact that the argument has
shifted from a sacramental meal to a nonsacramental meal gives the impression that it is
the practice of the paedocommunionist that is being defended rather than a covenantal
hermeneutic.
As I have admitted to paedocommunionists and non-paedocommunionists alike, I find the
doctrine very attractive. What I find unattractive is its lack of scriptural or historical
support. There is no evidence for the practice prior to 250 AD and none in the western
church until nearly 200 years after that. In fact, the rise of paedocommunion took place
at the same time as the rise of sacramentalism in the western church.
The infants at Kadesh may or may not have drunk of the miraculous water. We are not told.
But we are told that the animals drank of the water (Numbers 20:4, 8, 11). We
have water instead of wine and beasts instead of infants, but we are supposed to think
that the passage teaches paedocommunion?! In Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek, as priest of the
most high God, brought bread and wine to Abram and Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek. There
is an obvious foreshadowing of the Lord's Supper. It is served by a priest; it is a
sacramental meal; and it consists of bread and wine. Why should we expect a meal that took
place fully 430 years later that has none of these elements to be more typical or
informative? The doctrine of progressive revelation would insist that a sacramental meal
taking place 430 years later would be more informative of Christ, not less. Yet that is
the case if the manna and water are considered as sacraments.
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 02:18:01 PM