According to Venema, the “most important and compelling piece of New Testament evidence that bears on the question of paedocommunion is undeniably 1 Corinthians 11:17–34” (101). This is because this passage is “the most extensive and comprehensive New Testament passage on the Lord’s Supper” (101). The Supper has no exact analogy in the old covenant. The “Scriptures of the new covenant must determine how it is administered and received” (101).

By the historic Reformed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, “Paul’s instructions regarding what it means to participate ‘unworthily’ in the sacrament are viewed as normative for all members of the new covenant community” (102) Paul used this particular instance to articulate not only specific guidance but general guidelines for the administration of the holy Supper.

The “most important features of the traditional interpretation” focus on verses 27–29 (103). Paul required self-examination before communing. The point of the self-examination was to “test” (Venema’s term) whether one’s faith and conduct are “in accord” with one’s profession (103). This requirement has been implemented variously in the Reformed tradition. Generally, it has been taken to mean that “believers must test themselves in terms of the normal requirements of a Christian profession” (103). Here he cites Heidelberg Catechism 81 in a footnote (103 n1). It is worth repeating here to set the context:

81. Who are to come to the table of the Lord?
Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the passion and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

After the requirement for self-examination, “Paul adds that all who partake of the sacrament must do so only as they properly ‘discern’ the body of Christ [1 Cor 11:29]. Such discernment includes an understanding of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and its implications for the conduct of believers in relation to Him and others” (103). Thus, as Venema notes, the Reformed churches have restricted the Supper to professing members in good standing. Paul’s teaching that some ate and drank judgment to themselves has weighed heavily on the Reformed as they have interpreted this passage, and that weight is reflected in the language of the Belgic Confession (BC) (1561) Article 25 when it makes self-examination a prerequisite for communion. The HC Lord’s Day 30 also appeals to this language (104).

Contemporary advocates for paedocommunion allege that the Reformed churches have misunderstood this passage. They argue that the passage “commends the admission of all members of the church, young and old alike” (105). The traditional view wrongly “divides segments of the covenant community (in this case, professing and non-professing members) in a manner that is reminiscent of the unwarranted divisions in the Corinthian church” (105). They argue that the historic Reformed view and practice actually comes under the apostle’s rebuke since it “excludes some members of the community from full participation in Christ” (105).

Their view depends considerably upon their reconstruction of the circumstances prompting Paul’s response. For the paedocommunionists, the problem was not “orthodoxy” but “orthopraxis” (right practice) (105). The problem was not “unworthy” participants but ungodly pride and factionalism. (Here one hears echoes of the New Perspective on Paul/Federal Vision reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism and of Paul’s response to it—namely, that justification is not about “acceptance with God” or “courtroom metaphors,” but about “boundary markers” and the like. It is not hard to see how the argument, “The Reformation misunderstood Paul on justification,” could easily become the argument, “The Reformation also misunderstood Paul on the Supper”) They argue that the language of “remembrance” and “showing” (1 Cor 11:24–26) does not necessarily exclude infants from communion (105–106). They argue that the Supper is itself an exhibiting of the body and a remembrance, not that anyone necessarily has to remember. Advocates of paedocommunion argue that what the Corinthians failed to discern was their membership in the body of Christ. I have previously responded to this claim.¹ Venema quite rightly concludes that the paedocommunionist interpretation of this passage has “clear and startling implications for the practice of paedocommunion” (107).

Essential to the paedocommunionist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 is their reconstruction of the original setting and problems that provoked Paul to write this section of the epistle. According to Venema, the most basic premise of the paedocommunionist argument is that “the Lord’s Supper represents, in a most powerful way, the unity and fellowship of the whole body of Christ” (108). He concedes that the theme of the unity of the body and the “full participation” of members in that body runs like a thread through 1 Corinthians. The Lord’s Supper is a “beautiful expression of the oneness of the body of Christ” (108). The theme of the Supper as an expression of the unity of the body is not isolated to 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. It is expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:14 and the early verses of 1 Corinthians 10. Does 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 support the case for paedocommunion?

Venema says no. The Supper is a powerful witness to the unity of the body but “it seems premature to argue from the theme enunciated in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 to the conclusion that all covenant children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table lest the oneness of the body of Christ be compromised” (109). If the historic Reformed view of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is correct, then the paedocommunionist reconstruction of the original situation and their reading of 1 Corinthians 10 fails. 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 “must retain its unique status as the single most decisive biblical teaching for determining whether such children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table” (110; emphasis original).

If infants are not allowed to commune, is their status as members of the covenant of grace jeopardized? Well, Venema notes that the “participation in Christ” described in 1 Corinthians 10 included uncircumcised males and even animals (110)! As previously noted, the paedocommunionist reading of 1 Corinthians 10 proves too much.

There are four sections in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. Verses 17–22 identifies the problem, verses 23–26 contains Paul’s summary of the institution of the Supper, verses 27–32 instructs us on how to receive the body and blood of Christ, and verses 33–34 return to the original problem (111).

The problem is not reconstructing the original context and problems (112–14). Venema argues, however, that the advocates of paedocommunion use their reconstruction of the original context to obviate Paul’s clear instructions in chapter 11. Because we do not have the same problems today (namely turning the Supper into factional meals) as described in 1 Corinthians 11, it does not really apply directly to us. In other words, in the historic Reformed reading of 1 Corinthians 11, it is normative for our understanding of the Supper even if our circumstances have changed, whereas for the paedocommunionist it is not so normative because of the change in circumstances. This move allows them to control the understanding of the supper via their reconstruction of the original situation and via their reading of 1 Corinthians 10.

Another question/problem raised by the paedocommunionist reading of 1 Corinthians 11 is their “handling of these words of institution” by which they argue that we should translate “this do in remembrance of me” as “do this unto my remembrance” (115). The force of the revision is to move the locus of the act from the person remembering (which requires a certain level of cognition) to a purely objective state of affairs; thus, whenever the Supper is administered (including to infants), it is done as an objective, corporate memorial along the lines of Leviticus 24:7 (115). From an historical-theological perspective, this is a sort of extreme anti-Zwinglianism. Is the “of me” in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 subjective or objective? Is it “remembrance of me” or “my remembrance”? Contra the paedocommunionist reading, most English translations take it as “remembrance of me” (115–16). Venema argues the “point of the Lord’s words of institution is that the participant in the sacrament is placed under the obligation to obey the Lord’s command, to act in such a way that expressed informed remembrance and believing proclamation of his death” (116).

The historic Reformed understanding of this passage recognized some distinction between the original context and our post-apostolic, post-canonical context. This difference, however, did not stop them from rightly finding general principles in 1 Corinthians 11 that preclude infant communion (117–18). Paul’s instructions are “applicable to any celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the part of any believer” (118; emphasis original). Even if one is not committing the very same sin committed by the Corinthians, it is nevertheless possible to eat and drink unworthily (note the adverb). “The closest parallel to this passage is 2 Corinthians 13:5, where the apostle summons all believers to ‘examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove [test] your own selves. Know ye not that your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?’” (119; Venema quotes the AV following RHB publication guidelines). The ESV reads:

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

Venema points to Galatians 6:4 as another parallel passage that has the same reflexive language. He also observes that “though the idea of self-examination in verse 28 [of 1 Cor 11] has often been freighted with the excess baggage of protracted, introspective process of spiritual inventory-taking, the term requires only a responsible testing on the part of the believer to see whether his faith is genuine” (119).

A second issue is the intent behind the language, “discern the [Lord’s] body.” There is a textual variant here. The older text omits the qualifier “Lord’s.” This has allowed paedocommunionists to argue that what should be discerned is the “church,” not the body of Christ in the Supper (120). I have already addressed this claim.² Venema concludes that the shorter reading is the best text but that the shorter reading does not support the paedocommunionist claim (121). The body to be discerned is not the congregation, but rather the body which “he gave as a sacrifice on behalf of his people” (121).

I hope that readers will see that the historic Reformed, confessional theology, piety, and practice of the Lord’s Supper is not and has not been mere conservatism. The Reformed churches have paid close attention to Scripture and from it have formed a covenant theology (i.e., a reading of redemptive history) and a view of the sacraments of the covenant of grace (baptism and the Supper). As Venema notes, the impetus for the modern revival of the error of paedocommunion in some Reformed denominations and federations is not a superior biblical exegesis or superior theology of the Supper, but rather a covenant theology that is not Reformed, which is alien to the Reformed reading of Scripture (127–28).

He says, “Some contemporary advocates of paedocommunion claim that all covenant members without exception—believers and their children who are recipients of the covenant promise and the accompanying sacrament of covenant incorporation, baptism—enjoy a full and saving union with Christ” (139).

He is correct to highlight the connection between the covenant nomism of the so-called and self-described “Federal Vision” movement (e.g., 139 n2; 145 n12).³ To add a layer of complication that Venema does not mention but which draws the Federal Vision covenant theology perilously close to that advocated by the Remonstrants and rejected soundly at Dort, is their doctrine that the benefits conferred in baptism must be retained by grace and cooperation with grace. This, in their view, is the second part of “the covenant.” God has done his part and now you must do yours.

Since, in the Federal Vision theology, “the baptism of the children of believers effectively unites them to Christ and grants them full participation in his saving work, baptism by itself provides a sufficient warrant for admitting such children to the Table of the Lord without requiring a preceding profession of faith” (141). Venema is exactly right about this. The argument over paedocommunion, at least in our circles, is really an argument about covenant theology. What is the covenant theology of the Reformed Churches? The answer, of course, is that it is that which has been taught and confessed since the early sixteenth century, and since that time we have consistently rejected paedocommunion because we reject the biblical exegesis of the paedocommunionist argument and because we have a different covenant theology. The Federal Vision view borders on (or crosses over into) “sacramentalism” (145). We understand, in the language of the Westminster Confession 27.2 that there is a “sacramental union” between the sign and the grace signified. The sign is not the grace signified.

Chapter seven is particularly useful for its brief survey of the historical, exegetical, and theological issues, and for its summary of the confessional Reformed response. One might do well to begin with reading this chapter to get an overview before going to chapter one. There is also an appendix to the work on covenant theology and baptism.

Venema has produced a truly helpful survey and analysis of the arguments being advanced by contemporary (Federal Visionist) proponents of paedocommunion. If you are tempted by the Federal Vision or its arguments for paedocommunion (and it is a temptation), you should read this book for yourself. All of us who value the historic, confessional Reformed reading of Scripture, the Reformed covenant theology, the Reformed Word and sacrament piety, and the Reformed practice of the Supper owe a debt of thanks to Venema for this fine work.

Notes

1. R. Scott Clark, “Fed By Christ or the Person Next to Me?”
2. R. Scott Clark, “Fed By Christ or the Person Next to Me?”
3. R. Scott Clark, “Resources On The Federal Vision Theology” You can read more about this erroneous covenant theology in R. Scott Clark, Baptism Election and the Covenant of Grace (Dorr, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2007); R. Scott Clark, “Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace,” in The Confessional Presbyterian 2 (2006): 3–14; R. Scott Clark ed., Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007).

Cornelis P. Venema, Children at the Lord’s Table?: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009).

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Editor’s Note: This review was published originally on the Heidelblog as a series in 2009 and appears here slightly revised.

You can find this whole series here. 

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Reviews and Notices
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• R. Scott Clark

  

  R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

  More by R. Scott Clark ›