What Mean Ye by this Service?
By Dr. Richard Bacon
1. Preface
In early 1985 an article titled "Children at the Lord's
Supper?" appeared in the magazine New Horizons in the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church. It related some of the problems in ministering to Ethiopian exiles
who had been accustomed to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper being administered
to newly-baptized infants. Partially as a result of these "problems" an OPC
presbytery overtured the OPC's General Assembly "to study the issue of
paedocommunion and provide voluntary guidelines [sic] for determining the age
children might be allowed to come to the Lord's Supper."
That same year a majority report and a minority report were presented to the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America by a committee appointed
for the purpose of studying paedocommunion. The majority report concluded, "The
PCA is well advised to continue the classic reformed practice of delaying the
admission of children to the Lord's Table — until they reach a level of maturity
at which they can profess their faith and partake of the elements with
discernment . . . ."
What the report did not say is that not only is anti-paedocommunion "the classic
reformed practice;" it has been the orthodox view of the entire western church,
including Roman, Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist; it is the view of the Old
Testament, of inter-testamental Judaism, of Christ and His apostles, of the
patristic church until after 250 AD, and continues to be the view even of
Karaite Jews, who broke away from Rabbinic tradition to follow a Jewish version
of Sola Scriptura.
If the practice has been so widely spurned, then how has it earned itself such a
following now? In a 1975 issue of the Westminster Theological Seminary
Journal, Chris Keidel wrote an important article on the subject titled, "Is
the Lord's Supper for Children?" In that article, Mr. Keidel made some very
attractive arguments in favor of paedocommunion. The arguments were refuted by
Roger Beckwith in a subsequent article in the same journal, but the opening
salvo in the debate was fired.
However, it should be noted that in that very article Keidel himself admitted,
"at a certain age the Jewish male became responsible to God for observing this
ordinance of the covenant . . . . Aboth 5:21 makes thirteen the age at
which children become subject to commandments of this kind. Thirteen was
probably the age at the time of Christ. But if thirteen was the age of
accountability, why is Christ mentioned as having gone up at the age of twelve?
It may be because Luke wanted to show that Christ's parents were training their
Son in observing the fast connected with the Passover (Pesachim 99b) —
a kind of training Yoma 82a says should be done a year or two
beforehand . . . . The phrase: `according to the custom of the Feast' (Luke
2:42), therefore, could refer . . . to the requirement of going at the age when
one becomes an adult . . . . Deuteronomy 16:16." This is quite an admission from
one who advocates child communion. Keidel allows that child communion prior to
catechizing was unknown in the Passover of Christ's day.
It is a well established belief among Reformed Christians that New Testament
baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision. It is also well established
that Old Testament Passover prefigured (and was replaced by) New Testament
Communion. Passover was an Old Testament covenantal and sacramental meal. There
are both similarities and differences between the former sacrament and the
current sacrament.
The supposed point of similarity between the Passover and the Lord's Supper that
is disputed in this paper is whether infants or young children should be
admitted to either or both. As Keidel himself has admitted, "thirteen was
probably the age at the time of Christ." It will therefore be profitable to look
at the practice of paedocommunion in light of the Passover.
There are a few technical or specialized terms used throughout this paper. Some
definitions may be in order for those not previously familiar with this
particular controversy. Paedobaptism is the view that the infant children of
Church members are entitled to baptism. The opposite view is commonly called
anti-paedobaptism. By the same token, paedocommunion is the view that the
infants and young children of Church members are entitled to the elements of the
Lord's Supper. Anti-paedocommunion teaches that the Lord's Supper is to be eaten
only by those who are "of years and ability to examine themselves."
It is common in controversies of this nature for the language to become heated
and even immoderate. I have made a number of re-writes of this booklet for the
purpose of removing any such language. It is not my intention to "paint with too
wide a brush." I realize that there are a number of men who regard themselves as
paedocommunionists solely because they think that this is what the Bible
teaches. Many of them are committed to the Reformed principle of Sola
Scriptura or what is often called the regulative principle. It is
to these men that the following pages are addressed. I, too, believe that
Scripture alone should regulate all that we do, particularly in the areas of
faith and worship. I have attempted throughout this paper to remain true to the
teaching of the various passages involved and to interpret all of them in a
proper historical-grammatical-theological manner.