# Women at the Lord's Table



## jasond49079

Can someone make an argument on why women should be allowed to the Lord's table?


----------



## lynnie

How about because they used to eat the passover meal (but so did kids, so if you are against children taking communion I guess that won't hold water for you).

Might I ask what prompted this question?


----------



## calgal

What reason do you see to not admit women to the table Jason?


----------



## Wayne

Acts 2:43-47 would by implication include both men and women at the table, no distinction being made in the use of "they" from vs. 44 through vs. 46.


----------



## jasond49079

calgal
Someone asked me the question and I could not defend it to my own satisfaction. I am wondering if my practice is correct and was seeking cordial explications. 
Wayne
Is this the only place in scripture I can reason this out? If I am to believe that women and children did not participate in the passover, but now women and men are allowed to the table and still not children I think I need a good answer as to why. At the moment I don't believe I can do this.


----------



## Prufrock

Jason, the Lord's Supper is not the Passover, nor was the Passover a type or shadow of the Supper: rather, both are/were sacraments of Christ. Therefore, to say that what applied to one applies to the other would require the burden of proof. The reason children which have not yet professed faith are not allowed at the table is *not* because they were not at the Passover; rather, it is because we see that the positive command of scripture requires that a person examine themselves before partaking: for even as milk is for babes, and meat for them that are full grown, so is the meat of the supper for those of understanding. When scripture establishes an ordinance for believers, and makes no restriction regarding who can partake of it (in this case, regarding gender), it would be a simple and straightforward adding to the Word to attach requirements which Christ has not set.


----------



## Philip

Since women are equal members of the covenant, they have all rights and privileges pertaining therunto, including the rights to be baptized and to have communion with God. Therefore, as the Lord's supper is (at the very least) the symbol of such communion, women are permitted at the table as well as men.


----------



## Jack K

1 Corinthians 11 makes it pretty clear that one of the key parts of the Lord's Supper is the oneness we share, in Christ, with people we ordinarily might not socialize with. Men and women together is a major part of that oneness: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). So it's very hard to imagine women being left out of the Lord's Supper, of all places.


----------



## TeachingTulip

P. F. Pugh said:


> Since women are equal members of the covenant, they have all rights and privileges pertaining therunto, including the rights to be baptized and to have communion with God. Therefore, as the Lord's supper is (at the very least) the symbol of such communion, women are permitted at the table as well as men.



Whew! . . .


----------



## Honor

I would have to ask... why not? why would women NOT be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper....


----------



## Wayne

Jason:

Did these posts help you in your understanding?


----------



## ubermadchen

TeachingTulip said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since women are equal members of the covenant, they have all rights and privileges pertaining therunto, including the rights to be baptized and to have communion with God. Therefore, as the Lord's supper is (at the very least) the symbol of such communion, women are permitted at the table as well as men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whew! . . .
Click to expand...

 
Seriously! But I noticed that this is in the FV/NPP thread; does that mean that FV/NPP believe women aren't welcome at the Lord's Table?


----------



## Wayne

I must confess I had not noticed that this was posted in that section. Jason would have to say whether that was on purpose or perhaps by mistake. If he posted it there on purpose, I'd appreciate hearing the context behind that selection.

I guess I owe Lynnie an apology, as well. I mistook something she said earlier in the thread.


----------



## jasond49079

Gentlemen,
Thank you for your answers but if I may press you a little so that I might be better equipped.
Paul,
Almost all of the arguments I have read on both sides of the paedocommunion argument have use a link between the passover and communion to prove their point. Here are 2 examples one from each side. This one off the front page of paedocommunion.com by Tim Gallant "Consequently, just as the children of the old covenant were admitted to the sacramental communal meals of the OT (such as Passover), so too the children of the new covenant belong at the table of the Lord. This is the position of a growing number of Presbyterian and Reformed scholars and pastors, who are recognizing the profound biblical foundation that underlay the historic practice of paedocommunion." This 2nd from Francis Nigel Lee, "Summary Against Paedocommunion" "4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.)"

So let's assume for sake of argument that there is a link. When I say to a peadocommunionist (if that's a word ) see catechized men where the only ones allowed to the passover in Exodus 12 but now catechized men and women are allowed how do i prove it?

P.F., 
Where does the N.T. say they are equal? Are you saying that women were not equal partners in the O.T.?


----------



## jasond49079

I must type slow there are a few new answers since I started formulating my statements. My question has been answered but it needs a little more meat on it's bones. It is hard to decide where to put posts sometimes but I do believe this is in the right place considering the relationship between paedocommunion and FV


----------



## Prufrock

jasond49079 said:


> So let's assume for sake of argument that there is a link. When I say to a peadocommunionist (if that's a word ) see catechized men where the only ones allowed to the passover in Exodus 12 but now catechized men and women are allowed how do i prove it?


 
Simply put, you don't play his game. If you yield to his presuppositions, you won't be able to do proper exegesis. Arguments that work negatively do not of necessity also work positively. Explanation: when I respond to the paedocommunion advocate that children did not partake of the regular, yearly passover feast, such does not serve as the proof or validation of my case: rather, it simply serves to cut off one of his objections (namely, that children partook of the Passover). It could not serve as a positive argument -- that is, if one granted his premise that children partook of the Passover, it would not positively demonstrate in anyway that children should partake of the Lord's Supper unless he first demonstrated that there was a certain and firm one-to-one correspondence between mode of dispensation of the two sacraments. So the fact that both sides refer to the Passover in the paedocommunion debate does not mean that they both refer to it after the same manner. The one side uses it simply to negatively cuts of the PC advocate's claim; the other side uses it positively in a fruitless effort of flawed logic.

So this leaves us back where we started: we simply don't play his game and assume the manner of correspondence which assumes between the two sacraments; otherwise, we will probably end up having to yield to his conclusions. There is, of course, a link between the two -- just not the same link this person is advocating who will exclude women from the supper.

*Edit*
On further reflection, I am assuming that this person with whom you are speaking is not really desiring to exclude women from the supper, but is actually advocating Paedocommunion and attempting to argue that your objection to PC would require that women cannot partake of the Lord's Supper. Is this accurate? If so, I would recommend sharing with him Venema's recent work on Paedocommunion.


----------



## Wayne

> I must type slow there are a few new answers since I started formulating my statements.



Happens to us all. Take your time. We've got nothing else to do.


----------



## Honor

I thought about this for a second and I think that a person (presumably a man) who would ask this question needs to examine his heart, because out of his heart comes his words right? and if that type of question is even asked where is his heart? is it a gracious, tenderhearted type of heart then why would he ask that question? I LOVE taking the Lord's Supper... it is a humbling, awe inspiring and much loved event. I would feel ripped apart if my other half my husband could not partake. so what is the motive and the reason to ask that question?


----------



## jasond49079

Thank you Paul you are correct and almost as sharp as Joshua. Who was really the only on to answer my question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.





> (Gen 5:2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.





> (Mat 19:4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
> (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.
> (Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



Okay, I knew this was coming by the beginning argument. Does this negate the fact that every human needs to have a distinction and specific sacrifice for sin? No, it doesn't. Does it regulate the offices and places in life we are placed? No, it doesn't. Should children be rendered mature when they are not? No it doesn't. Do I render that which is rendered unto Ceaser that which is rendered unto Christ? No, I do not. 


We all all have our places and stations in life. We are all called to glorify God in those stations whether we be flowers, pigs, or angels. So let it be.


----------



## jasond49079

As Paul said I was asked that question upon my objection to PC. I do believe that women should be allowed to the table under the same circumstances as a man and that children should make a credible profession of faith before being allowed to partake.


----------



## Wayne

Jason, if I may, and without asking you to speak out of turn:

Was this discussion with someone who is an advocate of FV? You placed this thread in the FV forum (and I missed that initially, which in turn caused me to make other mistakes).


----------



## jasond49079

There are 2 side in our church 1 FV and PC the other just PC. In this particular case it was just the PC side. I asked the question here because of the relationship pc has to fv.


----------



## Tim

Honor said:


> I thought about this for a second and I think that a person (presumably a man) who would ask this question needs to examine his heart, because out of his heart comes his words right? and if that type of question is even asked where is his heart? is it a gracious, tenderhearted type of heart then why would he ask that question? I LOVE taking the Lord's Supper... it is a humbling, awe inspiring and much loved event. I would feel ripped apart if my other half my husband could not partake. so what is the motive and the reason to ask that question?


 
Sister, I sense that you are either threatened or offended that people are even discussing this. Please don't be. Our brother Jason is trying to acquire sound arguments against those who might be led down this road. When challenged, he was not satisfied with his current ability to defend the practice of both men and women partaking. Let us help our brother to defend this practice against those who, although we might think their arguments to be ridiculous, are nevertheless interacting within the reformed theological world.


----------



## MrMerlin777

As an aside and to be fair I feel that it must be mentioned that just because someone is pro paedocommunion that does not mean that one is automatically pro FV. There are pro paedocommunionists that are not FV and there are those that hold to certain aspects of what has been called FV that are not pro paedocommunion.

As a matter of fact the Theonomists Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North (not FV) are notable in their pro paedocommunion possition.


----------



## calgal

Tim said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about this for a second and I think that a person (presumably a man) who would ask this question needs to examine his heart, because out of his heart comes his words right? and if that type of question is even asked where is his heart? is it a gracious, tenderhearted type of heart then why would he ask that question? I LOVE taking the Lord's Supper... it is a humbling, awe inspiring and much loved event. I would feel ripped apart if my other half my husband could not partake. so what is the motive and the reason to ask that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, I sense that you are either threatened or offended that people are even discussing this. Please don't be. Our brother Jason is trying to acquire sound arguments against those who might be led down this road. When challenged, he was not satisfied with his current ability to defend the practice of both men and women partaking. Let us help our brother to defend this practice against those who, although we might think their arguments to be ridiculous, are nevertheless interacting within the reformed theological world.
Click to expand...

 
Tim the guy who would ask the OP such a question is not asking to genuinely understand but to cause contention.


----------



## TimV

It's not going to be solved in one paragraph, that's for sure. So, to throw out another point of reasoning (perhaps not even a major point) baptism is clearly required for female believers, and just as the Lord's Supper was based (really! It fell on the day!) on Passover, baptism is based on circumcision, which was only for males.

So, as it is clear that baptism is now for both males and females, it is clear, and has been for 2000 year in all branches of the Church, that Communion is for both males and females.

After all, the 10,000 most brilliant minds the Church has produced saw it as obvious that males and females should partake in Communion. That doesn't mean that PROVES the case, but what it does mean is that the chance of some dude finding a fault in their argument is like the homeless guy down the road proving that energy doesn't mass times the speed of light squared.


----------



## SRoper

calgal said:


> Tim the guy who would ask the OP such a question is not asking to genuinely understand but to cause contention.


 
I think he was asking the question as a rhetorical device. Calvin does the same thing in the Institutes when he argues that the strict level of proof for infant baptism from Scripture that anabaptists require of paedobaptists would also rule out women participating in the Lord's Supper. In other words, if you dispute infant baptism because we don't see a direct command to baptise babies or a specific example of a baby being baptised, then you must reject women partaking of communion for the same reasons.


----------



## jasond49079

thank you tim and scott you have defended me well


----------



## lynnie

_nor was the Passover a type or shadow of the Supper_

Is this common thinking among the reformed? I assumed everybody regarded the passover as a type and shadow. 

If not, how do they understand Jesus saying "this is my body and this is my blood" as the disciples remembered the blood of the sacrificed lamb which kept away the angel of death from the first born? (we are now the church of the firstborn, set free from death). I see it all as type and shadow, don't the reformers? If this is thread drift never mind, just curious about historical thinking.


----------



## jwithnell

When Jesus instituted the Lord's supper, He said: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." From a logical standpoint, it would seem that His direction was given for either those present (which means the practice would have died off after the apostles died) or for all those for whom His body was given, which would be all believers. Certainly Acts and the corrections Paul sends to the churches shows the practice continued into the early church, and indeed, into the next 2000 years. (If I'm all off where the Greek is concerned, please let me know.)

BTW, I'm a lady and I have no problem examining what we do as a church and why we do it -- and being able to give a reasonable answer to those who might ask.


----------



## Prufrock

Lynnie, we of course regard the Passover as a shadow and type: but not a shadow and type of the Supper.


----------



## lynnie

Pru.....we?  you mean of the crucifixion but not communion? 

If the supper reminds us of the body and blood, and that body and blood reminded them of the passover lamb and deliverance from bondage back when Jesus said "this is my body and blood", isn't it a case of if a=b and b= c, then a=c? Not trying to argue but I never before heard anybody say the passover wasn't a type and shadow of "Christ our passover sacrificed for us" as applying to communion. Is this semantics or do we have different concept? Thanks.


----------



## Prufrock

Lynnie, in order to maintain their high view of the NT sacraments, the Papists held that the Old Testament sacraments simply adumbrated grace, or showed forth that which should be given by the New Testament Sacraments. To them, the OT sacraments conveyed grace "ex opere operantis" (by the faith of the recipient), whereas the NT sacraments gave this same grace "ex opere operato" (by virtue of the thing itself). Against them, the Reformed theologians maintained that both signified Christ and sealed his benefits to the recipient in the same manner (i.e., faith). So the catholics held that the Passover signified the grace to be given through the Supper; whereas the Reformed held that both sacraments signified and sealed Christ and his benefits to the recipients by faith. Does this make sense?


----------



## Honor

Tim said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about this for a second and I think that a person (presumably a man) who would ask this question needs to examine his heart, because out of his heart comes his words right? and if that type of question is even asked where is his heart? is it a gracious, tenderhearted type of heart then why would he ask that question? I LOVE taking the Lord's Supper... it is a humbling, awe inspiring and much loved event. I would feel ripped apart if my other half my husband could not partake. so what is the motive and the reason to ask that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, I sense that you are either threatened or offended that people are even discussing this. Please don't be. Our brother Jason is trying to acquire sound arguments against those who might be led down this road. When challenged, he was not satisfied with his current ability to defend the practice of both men and women partaking. Let us help our brother to defend this practice against those who, although we might think their arguments to be ridiculous, are nevertheless interacting within the reformed theological world.
Click to expand...

ok... I see what you are saying... i'm sorry I got all defensive. I did take it as he was being contentious and when you put it the way you did I can see why he would ask the question. I guess that's why Prov. 26:4 is one of my favorite verses.
so dude... please accept my apology for wanting to rip your head off.


----------



## lynnie

_So the catholics held that the Passover signified the grace to be given through the Supper; whereas the Reformed held that both sacraments signified and sealed Christ and his benefits to the recipients by faith. Does this make sense? _

sort of.....the catholics say the passover prefigured them eating actual body and real blood. But no, they both point to Christ, so you don't say passover pointed to communion. It points to the sacrificed lamb the way passover pointed to the lamb? They both point to the lamb but not one exactly to the other. And definitely not that wine and unleavened bread equaled the actual body in the mass. 

I get what you are driving at but I'd have to say in light of the doctrine of perspecuity, if somebody just picks up the bible and reads the applicable passages, it seems like the reasonable interpretation is that every time we take communion and remember his death, we do remember the passover lamb indirectly and that type and shadow does have very real meaning for us....we are taken out of death unto life. I'm not as theological as you and I can see the papal error you are tying to avoid, but I don't know that I'd exactly say the type and shadow no longer holds. I would say it does hold, but not in the catholic mass way. At least I thought that was a normal assumption in us not quite TRR PCAer types. Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach

This has sometimes been used as an argument against credobaptist insistence on a clear example of paedobaptism in the New Testament.

The rejoinder from the paedobaptist is that credobaptists don't insist upon a clear example of women partaking of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

Why are the credobaptist's so insistent on the one but not the other?

{I see now that Scott has made the same point above, which was originally made by Calvin, so it can't be too silly, as credos sometimes say}

Negatively speaking - as Paul says above - it was _only adult males who were required _to attend the Passover commemoration yearly in Jerusalem. Which is one reason why Jesus and His disciples didn't have their families with them in the Upper Room. 

_Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God . (Ex 23:17, ESV)_ 

Remember that the Feast of the Passover wasn't the Passover event itself, but it's commemoration, just as breaking the bread and pouring out the wine at the Lord's Supper isn't Calvary itself.

That might seem rather obvious but the differences between _the_ Passover, in Egypt, and the Passover, the feast commemorating said event in Egypt, are often overlooked.


----------



## Montanablue

Honor said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about this for a second and I think that a person (presumably a man) who would ask this question needs to examine his heart, because out of his heart comes his words right? and if that type of question is even asked where is his heart? is it a gracious, tenderhearted type of heart then why would he ask that question? I LOVE taking the Lord's Supper... it is a humbling, awe inspiring and much loved event. I would feel ripped apart if my other half my husband could not partake. so what is the motive and the reason to ask that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, I sense that you are either threatened or offended that people are even discussing this. Please don't be. Our brother Jason is trying to acquire sound arguments against those who might be led down this road. When challenged, he was not satisfied with his current ability to defend the practice of both men and women partaking. Let us help our brother to defend this practice against those who, although we might think their arguments to be ridiculous, are nevertheless interacting within the reformed theological world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok... I see what you are saying... i'm sorry I got all defensive. I did take it as he was being contentious and when you put it the way you did I can see why he would ask the question. I guess that's why Prov. 26:4 is one of my favorite verses.
> so dude... please accept my apology for wanting to rip your head off.
Click to expand...

 
To add to this - Jason, I did not think that you were being contentious, but that the person who asked you the original question was being contentious. If you don't understand something or can't properly defend a practice, of course you should ask for help.  

Although, my short (and admittedly snarky) response would have been, "Because they're a separate gender not a separate species."


----------



## MarieP

jasond49079 said:


> Can someone make an argument on why women should be allowed to the Lord's table?


 
My computer is messing up this thread, so I didn't mean to hit "Thanks" first of all...it's a bit of a weird question to add a thanks to 

My answer is "Because Jesus died for women too"

The prerequisite to coming to the Lord's Table is not that one be a man or woman. It's to be a new creature in Christ. (OK, only men and women partake, but hopefully you get what I mean, LOL!)


----------

