# Children and communion



## timfost (Nov 12, 2015)

I've been having conversations with a friend about children taking communion. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of children taking communion in general, though I also cannot rule out the possibility of a child demonstrating maturity and discernment where communion may be appropriate. But I've not seen such maturity in children I know (six and seven-year-olds being the age group specifically under consideration).

1 Cor. 11 would be my primary consideration in discouraging children from communion, since generally there is a lack of knowledge and maturity in them. 

What considerations and verses might help our conversation?

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 12, 2015)

Ex.23:17 and elsewhere command, "Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord GOD." At some point, a young OT man passed from childhood (when he might remain home with mother); and afterward was expected to take up the duties of a covenant-man, including appearance at the appointed feasts. The vestiges of this rule are known today in the "bar mizvah," or "son of the commandment" ceremonies of Judaism. Those traditionally take place at 13yrs. Jesus was brought (Lk.12:42) to the Temple at 12yrs at the Passover time for some sort of examination by the elders (wherein he impressed them greatly). The reasonable conclusion is that he was there to be approved and acknowledged, and thereafter required, to be in attendance at the feasts.

I don't believe there's a biblical rule setting the appropriate age for one who will keep the NT feast. But the duty to examine and admit those who should participate is still the responsibility of the elders. Some age that fits culturally the measure of maturity seems right. Can this person "discern the Lord's body?" Not an "age-appropriate discernment," either, whatever that means. Can he or can't he? The doctrine is spelled out in our catechisms <hint>.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 13, 2015)

If the child is not demonstrating the maturity to pay attention to the sermon or the words at the administration of the Lord's supper, why would he be admitted to the table? Yet I know it is done.


----------



## timfost (Nov 13, 2015)

The question under consideration is not so much concerning discernment, but rather _how much_ discernment. However, the WLC is helpful in this regard.

Another aspect of the discussion is he is seeing some similarities between communion and Passover, since Passover world have included most of the family (correct?). Based on my studies, comparison to Passover does not help much since communion is distinguished from Passover in its very institution.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 13, 2015)

Calvin:


> XXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason why infants should be admitted to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, which however is not administered to them. As though the Scriptures did not make a considerable difference between the two cases in every respect. Infant communion was practised indeed in the ancient Church, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine: but the custom has very properly been discontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of baptism, we find it to be an entrance or initiation into the Church, by which we are enrolled among the people of God; a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are born again as the children of God; whereas on the contrary, the Supper is appointed for those of riper years, who having passed the tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat. This difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture; in which, as far as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of age: whereas he does not present the Supper to the participation of all alike, but only to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own consciences, of shewing forth the Lord’s death, and considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer than what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation? “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”(b) It must therefore be preceded by examination, which would in vain be expected from infants. Again: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”(c) If no persons can be worthy partakers of it, except those who can truly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ, why should we give to our tender infants poison instead of salutary food? What is that precept of the Lord; “This do in remembrance of me?”(d) What is the inference which the apostle deduces from it? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”(e) What remembrance, I ask, shall we require from infants of that event, of which they have never attained any knowledge? What preaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their minds are not yet capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is prescribed in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there is a considerable difference; such as we observe also between similar signs under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism, was destined for infants. The Passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred Supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification. If our opponents had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against a thing so clear and obvious?
> 
> Calvin, J., & Allen, J. (1816). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 3, pp. 377–378). New-Haven; Philadelphia: Hezekiah Howe; Philip H. Nicklin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 13, 2015)

timfost said:


> The question under consideration is not so much concerning discernment, but rather how much discernment. However, the WLC is helpful in this regard.


My point in mentioning "catechism" (WSC or HC) is that these formulae constitute our tradition's historic basis for minimal doctrinal knowledge as preparation--therefrom arising discernment.

Will getting a child to memorize his lessons translate perfectly into true discernment? No, not perfectly. However, no discernment is possible without knowledge; and how do we measure knowledge? Questions and Answers.

Does a child need to master the whole catechism at once? All 100+ questions? Perhaps not, but we teach the content of it to them; and thereby satisfy ourselves that there is some known foundation laid in them.



timfost said:


> Another aspect of the discussion is he is seeing some similarities between communion and Passover, since Passover world have included most of the family (correct?). Based on my studies, comparison to Passover does not help much since communion is distinguished from Passover in its very institution.



1) Was the memorial Passover a "family meal?" What is the specific evidence in favor of that notion? Was even the original Passover a "family meal?" A close reading of the text of Ex.12 raises legitimate questions against that supposition also. There are strong reasons, based in a full survey of the relevant biblical texts, that the Passover--both original and memorial--were "discernment rituals" appointed for designated celebrants.

2) To force a one-to-one "replacement" scenario between Passover and the Lord's Supper would be an error. But one should not ignore the useful parallels standing between the primary OT covenant-renewal meal, and its obvious NT ritual analog.

The NT Table is theologically "HUGE," not only because all around it sit invitees from every tongue, tribe, and nation; but also because it has replaced virtually the whole, elaborate OT ceremonial system. The Lord's Table doesn't _just_ replace Passover, but further the feast of firstfruits, of Trumpets, of Weeks; also replaces the whole sacrificial system, the temple, the priesthood--in short, everything of the old order; all which pointed to Christ. The Last Passover (ever), with Jesus and the Twelve together (any women present?), is the *occasion* for the First Communion, but not its unique replacement.

Nevertheless, there are numerous points of helpful comparison between the two meals. The one I pointed to has to do with "discernment," and the duty to obtain it, and the duty to judge who has it. Ex.12:26-27, in discussing the (future) memorial Passover includes a "discernment" question: "And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt,..." Notice, the question is not, "What do WE mean by this service?" but rather, "What are YOU doing?"


----------



## timfost (Nov 13, 2015)

Bruce and Rich,

Thank you both for your help. This adds another dimension that I had not considered.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 14, 2015)

I also think this has relevance to the Lord's Supper:

Exodus 24:1-12 (ESV)


24*Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2*Moses alone shall come near to the LORD, but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him.” 
3*Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” 4*And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5*And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. 6*And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7*Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8*And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” 
9*Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10**and they saw the God of Israel*. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11*And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; *they beheld God, and ate and drank*.

I think we need to remember that there were many Sacraments in the OT that found their fulfillment in Christ. While Passover is a type we do not necessarily collapse the Lord's Supper as a continuation of the Passover. As Bruce has already noted, men regularly err by assuming that the Passover was a "family meal" and, by definition, included young children (when the Scriptural command clearly notes it did not). Furthermore, when we see the above passage, we see an incredible type of the Covenant establishment. It's not so much about "Dad and his family" as it is "the Lord and His people". The Covenant is established and they ate at the Lord's feet and He did not lay his hand on them. Remarkable! The Lord's Supper is a New Covenant in Christ's blood and we miss some themes if we first of all limit it to Passover and, secondly, try to turn it into a family meal.

Let me addend one thought about the "family meal". While it would be true that "clans" might travel together to the feast (naturally for a village would contain many people who were extended family), this did not make it a family meal. The requirement of a Passover was that it would take place in a room and one of the things the residents of Jerusalem would need to do is to be hospitable to the hundreds of thousands of men who would need a room. Thus, even if an extended family was to observe the meal, at a minimum the family of the house in which they celebrated the Passover would be among the group. Edersheim also points out that it was the custom of the Jews for a young man to go to the Passover the year before his barmizvah - hence we see Christ going up with his family as a young lad and no other reports of his observance of the Passover at an earlier age.

Finally, nothing in the Institution of the Lord's Supper nor the Epistles make the Lord's Supper as "family affair". That is, unless one means by that the adopted children of God. Communion is not intended to highlight my relationship with my natural family but with those whom I am united in Christ. It is a fellowship in the body and blood of the Lord. It's not supposed to be about me and my family. Paedocommunion, in my estimation, is just another opportunity for the practice of some to focus on patriarchy as the pinnacle of theological focus.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 1) Was the memorial Passover a "family meal?" What is the specific evidence in favor of that notion? Was even the original Passover a "family meal?" A close reading of the text of Ex.12 raises legitimate questions against that supposition also. There are strong reasons, based in a full survey of the relevant biblical texts, that the Passover--both original and memorial--were "discernment rituals" appointed for designated celebrants.



This shows how our Pastors are far better teachers than Cecil B. DeMille.


----------



## timfost (Nov 14, 2015)

This is all really helpful. Like circumcision, were the feasts primarily for the "males" (Ex. 23:17) to celebrate or did all discerning individuals celebrate the feasts?

If only men, this yet again shows the superiority of NT sacraments as they were less burdensome and more comprehensive.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 14, 2015)

timfost said:


> Like circumcision, were the feasts primarily for the "males" (Ex. 23:17) to celebrate or did all discerning individuals celebrate the feasts?



It's not 100% determinable from the biblical evidence to what degree the female sex was incorporated into the formal religious life of the nation, or how they manifested their piety. We have certain facts at our disposal, and a handful of examples. But we can say for a certainty that it was severely restricted/limited.

Take one set of facts: participation in the formal religious cult of the nation was limited to CLEAN persons--no exceptions. According to Lev.15, a typical woman past puberty (and before menopause) was unclean a minimum of seven days every month of her life for forty or fifty years due to her period (on account of the blood); unless, of course, she was pregnant. Being pregnant puts all sorts of other health demands on a woman's body (regarding travel, especially).

The bottom line is: the law's demands for ceremonial cleanness gave women _as a class_ severe obstacles to regular participation, simply from nature's standpoint. This would reasonably lead, at the very least, to not putting the same formal cultic expectations on women as on men; and further, to positive exclusions for the class (rather than marking exceptions for roughly 1/4 of the female population at any given time). And when we look at the sketchy evidence, it supports this real-life view.

The feast of Tabernacles, explained in Lev.23, appears to be the most "inclusive" of the regular feasts of Israel. The command to appear 3X a year is only given to the males; however, this feast had some unique features. The day of Atonement (which came just before it) involved a sacrifice and presentation for the whole of society. The days of the feast were to be kept by dwelling in tent-like structures--a reminder of the nation's 40yrs in the desert. This habit would likely be more of a family affair; men in booths alone, or crammed in with other guys: neither seem suitable. And Lev.23:42 mentions "all born of Israel."

Tabernacles/Weeks, a harvest-time festival, seems to be the feast in view in Dt.14, mentioned as the time of tithing. One tithe was for the maintenance of the religion; the other was for personal celebration/consumption. Again, this most reasonably fits a family-friendly scenario, and is specifically stated as such, Dt.14:26


> And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, *thou, and thine household*.


While the dictate is obviously limited to whoever in a man's house accompanied him to the festival at the central shrine, it would not meaningfully exclude anyone who did come (and Hannah's example, or Mary's, show that wives did travel with their husbands at times; Hannah also proves they did not at other times). So, we might say that some aspects of this feast were as restricted to clean males as at other times; but in certain respects a man's house was counted clean with him in this feast (absent some particular disqualification).

Indeed, the New Covenant era shows its superiority in its more general inclusion of both sexes. Gal.3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, *there is neither male nor female*: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 15, 2015)

There's a very good book length treatment of the notion of paedocommunion by Dr Cornelis Venema somewhere online.

Baptism being a sign of regeneration is most suitable for infants, who can be regenerated in the womb.

The Lord's Supper speaks of a conscious feeding on Christ, and a degree - at least - of conscious and intelligent exercise of faith and is associated with self-examination, discerning the Lord's body, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------

