# Argument for Paedocommunion from typology



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

I have noticed many espousing an argument in favor of paedocommunion based on typological connections found in Scripture. For example, typical arguments I have heard are:



> [In] John 6:14... "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, *I am the bread which came down from heaven*." (emphasis mine) Manna was the body of Christ. All ate of it. (see 1 Cor. 10) But nowadays children can't eat Christ. Jewish kids could be one with Christ, but not us... A _better_ covenant you say? _More_ grace? What verse in scripture tells us explicitly to keep young children (those rotten little pagans!) away from the table? There are none. The only reason to not allow children to the table that some say is that "they do not understand it". Does Christ say "as often as you _understand_ this, _understand_ it in rememberance of me"? He says do it. Also, if the requirement is to understand the table, then why is manna (which is Christ just like the bread) called "manna" which means "what is this?" They did not know what it was, yet all ate of it.



and



> 1 Corinthians 10...
> 
> "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." (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...



Thoughts?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

The LORDS supper has different requirements. The supper IS NOT the passover meal.


----------

