Biblical Arguments For/Against Paedo-communion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Interesting that the parallel is "crystal clear" since the Church has rejected this parallel for millennia.
Click to expand...

The entire church has not rejected PC for millenia. It was legal in the RC church up until 1215, and was still sporadically practiced in the RC church up until the 16th century. The EO church has always practiced it. And the Anglican church widely practices it even today. Or is the Anglican church not part of "the church"? --- But even if PC had been ignored for millenia, it is interesting that the RC church used the same type of argument to try to bolster many of their claims against the reformation protestants.

Years of error is just years of error. It doesn't become truth if it's practiced long enough.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Interesting also in light of the fact that as soon as a pagan traveling with the Israelites was weaned, he partook of the manna.

So I gather then you advocate giving the Lord's Supper to anyone, Christian or not, because of the parallel to the manna. If not, then that should be the end of the manna pro-paedocommunion argument.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is new to me. What pagans travelled with the Israelites across the Red Sea and then ate manna? I'm not aware of these people.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by fredtgreco

Interesting also in light of the fact that as soon as a pagan traveling with the Israelites was weaned, he partook of the manna.

So I gather then you advocate giving the Lord's Supper to anyone, Christian or not, because of the parallel to the manna. If not, then that should be the end of the manna pro-paedocommunion argument.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is new to me. What pagans travelled with the Israelites across the Red Sea and then ate manna? I'm not aware of these people.
Click to expand...

AND

Originally posted by Saiph
Almost the end of the argument. Were there pagans in the corporate body of those reeemed from Egypt ? Or was it specifically an illustration of covenant protection ? God was feeding them. (regardless of the internal/external or elect/reprobate arguments)
Click to expand...

There was indeed a "mixed multitude" of pagans that traveled out of Egypt with Israel:

Exodus 12:37-38 Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. 38 A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds -- a great deal of livestock.

Numbers 11:1-9 Now when the people complained, it displeased the LORD; for the LORD heard it, and His anger was aroused. So the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some in the outskirts of the camp. 2 Then the people cried out to Moses, and when Moses prayed to the LORD, the fire was quenched. 3 So he called the name of the place Taberah, because the fire of the LORD had burned among them. 4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: "Who will give us meat to eat? 5 "We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 "but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!" 7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its color like the color of bdellium. 8 The people went about and gathered it, ground it on millstones or beat it in the mortar, cooked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and its taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil. 9 And when the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna fell on it.

This "mixed multitude" ( עֵרֶב ) was clearly composed of those who were not in the covenant people of God:

Nehemiah 13:1-3 On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God, 2 because they had not met the children of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 So it was, when they had heard the Law, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel.

Further, the term is used as the specific way to refer to foreigners:

Jeremiah 25:19-24 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his princes, and all his people; 20 all the mixed multitude, all the kings of the land of Uz, all the kings of the land of the Philistines (namely, Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); 21 Edom, Moab, and the people of Ammon; 22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastlands which are across the sea; 23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who are in the farthest corners; 24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed multitude who dwell in the desert

So we see that there was no other food for them to eat, and in fact from Numbers 11, that the pagans were among the instigators seeking food.

So again I say, unless you are willing to give the Supper to outright pagans, the parallel from manna for paedocommunion falls flat on its face. I am not surprised by this, because as I have said before, if you permit paedocommunion, you have eviscerated church discipline.
 
Fred, great argument for common grace. But the manna was spoken by Paul to be spiritual food for the faithful.

And:

Exo 16:32 Moses said, "This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, so that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.'"

It was in the ark of the covenant, under the atonement lid.

Like I said, the typology is loose, as usual.

Now, I would not wilfully give the eucharist to a reprobate. The problem is, I can never know who the reprobate are. If by their profession they hate Christ, then of course they may not eat.

The manna argument is not very strong. But that is only if we focus on the manna, and not Christ the bread of heaven, which exceeds the manna in every way. Christ is the antitype to Passover and manna and water from the rock.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me", is still the clencher for me.
However, like I said, the article Wayne posted by George Knight II is seriously challenging and has me considering that keeping children from the table until they can articulate their faith, and confess their sins, is not really wrong-headed or some mark of unbelief.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]
 
Keep in mind also that the manna is a type of the Scriptures as well. God feeds us with His word and His Word. That is why the mixed multitude despised it so.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Fred, great argument for common grace. But the manna was spoken by Paul to be spiritual food for the faithful.

And:

Exo 16:32 Moses said, "This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, so that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.'"

It was in the ark of the covenant, under the atonement lid.

Like I said, the typology is loose, as usual.

Now, I would not wilfully give the eucharist to a reprobate. The problem is, I can never know who the reprobate are. If by their profession they hate Christ, then of course they may not eat.

The manna argument is not very strong. But that is only if we focus on the manna, and not Christ the bread of heaven, which exceeds the manna in every way. Christ is the antitype to Passover and manna and water from the rock.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me", is still the clencher for me.
However, like I said, the article Wayne posted by George Knight II is seriously challenging and has me considering that keeping children from the table until they can articulate their faith, and confess their sins, is not really wrong-headed or some mark of unbelief.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...

Mark,

"Come to me" and "commune with me" are two distinct concepts. Coming precedes communing.
 
True. There were yearly Passovers that Christ could have siezed as an opportunity to explain the new sacrament to His disciples. So, one could argue that He waited until they were mature enough to establish it.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Fred, where is Calvin's exegesis of John 6 found? In his commentaries? Can you quote that in this thread?
Click to expand...

Gabe,

It is in his commentaries. You can find all of them online at:
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_index.htm


Here is the text:


1. Afterwards, Jesus went. Although John was accustomed to collect those actions and sayings of Christ, which the other three Evangelists had omitted, yet in this passage, contrary to his custom, he repeats the history of a miracle which they had related. But he does so for the express purpose of passing from them to Christ's sermon, which was delivered next day at Capernaum, because the two things were connected; and therefore this narrative, though the other three Evangelists have it in common with him, has this peculiarity, that it is directed to another object, as we shall see. The other Evangelists (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32; Luke 9:10) state that this happened shortly after the death of John the Baptist, by which circumstance of time they point out the cause of Christ's departure; for when tyrants have once imbrued their hands in the blood of the godly, they kindle into greater cruelty, in the same manner as intemperate drinking aggravates the thirst of drunkards. Christ therefore intended to abate the rage of Herod by his absence. He uses the term, Sea of Galilee, as meaning the lake of Gennesareth. When he adds that it was called the Sea of Tiberias, he explains more fully the place to which Christ withdrew; for the whole lake did not bear that name, but only that part of it which lay contiguous to the bank on which Tiberias was situated.

2. And a great multitude followed him. So great ardor in following Christ arose from this, that, having beheld his power in miracles, they were convinced that he was some great prophet, and that he had been sent by God. But the Evangelist here omits what the other three relate, that Christ employed a part of the day in teaching and in healing the sick, and that, when the sun was setting, his disciples requested him to send away the multitudes, (Matthew 14:13, 14; Mark 6:34, 35; Luke 9:11, 12;) for he reckoned it enough to give the substance of it in a few words, that he might take this opportunity of leading us on to the remaining statements which immediately follow.

Here we see, in the first place, how eager was the desire of the people to hear Christ, since all of them, forgetting themselves, take no concern about spending the night in a desert place. So much the less excusable is our indifference, or rather our sloth, when we are so far from preferring the heavenly doctrine to the gnawings of hunger, that the slightest interruptions immediately lead us away from meditation on the heavenly life. Very rarely does it happen that Christ finds us free and disengaged from the entanglements of the world. So far is every one of us from being ready to follow him to a desert mountain, that scarcely one in ten can endure to receive him, when he presents himself at home in the midst of comforts. And though this disease prevails nearly throughout the whole world, yet it is certain that no man will be fit for the kingdom of God until, laying aside such delicacy, he learn to desire the food of the soul so earnestly that his belly shall not hinder him.

But as the flesh solicits us to attend to its conveniences, we ought likewise to observe that Christ, of his own accord, takes care of those who neglect themselves in order to follow him. 1 For he does not wait till they are famished, and cry out that they are perishing of hunger, and have nothing to eat, but he provides food for them before they have asked it. We shall perhaps be told that this does not always happen, for we often see that godly persons, though they have been entirely devoted to the kingdom of God, are exhausted and almost fainting with hunger. I reply, though Christ is pleased to try our faith and patience in this manner, yet from heaven he beholds our wants, and is careful to relieve them, as far as is necessary for our welfare; and when assistance is not immediately granted, it is done for the best reason, though that reason is concealed from us.

3. Jesus therefore went up into a mountain. Christ unquestionably sought a place of retirement till the feast of the Passover; and therefore it is said that he sat down on a mountain with his disciples. Such was undoubtedly the purpose which he formed as man; but the purpose of God was different, which he willingly obeyed. Although, therefore, he avoided the sight of men, yet he permits himself to be led by the hand of God as into a crowded theater; for there was a larger assembly of men in a desert mountain than in any populous city, and greater celebrity arose from the miracle than if it had happened in the open market-place of Tiberias. We are therefore taught by this example to form our plans in conformity to the course of events, but in such a manner that, if the result be different from what we expected, we may not be displeased that God is above us, and regulates everything according to his pleasure.

5. He saith to Philip. What we here read as having been said to Philip alone, the other Evangelists tell us, was said to all. But there is no inconsistency in this; for it is probable that Philip spoke according to the opinion entertained by all, and, therefore, Christ replies to him in particular; just as John, immediately afterwards, introduces Andrew as speaking, where the other Evangelists attribute the discourse to all alike. Perceiving that they have no conception of an extraordinary remedy, he then arouses their minds, which may be said to be asleep, so that they may, at least, have their eyes open to behold what shall be immediately exhibited to them. The design of all that is alleged by the disciples is, to persuade Christ not to detain the people; and, perhaps, in this respect they consult their private advantage, that a part of the inconvenience may not fall upon themselves. Accordingly, Christ disregards their objections, and proceeds in his design.

7. Two hundred denarii. As the denarius, according to the computation of Budaeus, is equal to four times the value of a carolus and two deniers of Tours, this sum amounts to thirty-five francs, or thereby. 2 If you divide this sum among five thousand men, each hundred of them will have less than seventeenpence sterling. 3 If we now add about a thousand of women and children, it will be found that Philip allots to each person about the sixth part of an English penny, 4 to buy a little bread. But, as usually happens in a great crowd, he probably thought that there was a greater number of people present; and as the disciples were poor and ill supplied with money, Andrew intended to alarm Christ by the greatness of the sum, meaning that they were not wealthy enough to entertain so many people.

10. Make the men sit down. That the disciples were not sooner prepared to cherish the hope which their Master held out, and did not remember to ascribe to his power all that was proper, was a degree of stupidity worthy of blame; but no small praise is due to their cheerful obedience in now complying with his injunction, though they know not what is his intention, or what advantage they will derive from what they are doing. The same readiness to obey is manifested by the people; for, while they are uncertain about the result, they all sit down as soon as a single word of command has been pronounced. And this is the trial of true faith, when God commands men to walk, as it were, in darkness. For this purpose let us learn not to be wise in ourselves, but, amidst great confusion, still to hope for a prosperous issue, when we follow the guidance of God, who never disappoints his own people.

11. After having given thanks. Christ has oftener than once instructed us by his example that, whenever we take food, we ought to begin with prayer. For those things which God has appointed for our use, being evidences of his infinite goodness and fatherly love towards us, call on us to offer praise to Him; and thanksgiving, as Paul informs us, is a kind of solemn sanctification, by means of which the use of them begins to be pure to us, (1 Timothy 4:4.) Hence it follows, that they who swallow them down without thinking of God, are guilty of sacrilege, and of profaning the gifts of God. And this instruction is the more worthy of attention, because we daily see a great part of the world feeding themselves like brute beasts. When Christ determined that the bread given to the disciples should grow among their hands, we are taught by it that God blesses our labor when we are serviceable to each other.

Let us now sum up the meaning of the whole miracle. It has this in common with the other miracles, that Christ displayed in it his Divine power in union with beneficence, It is also a confirmation to us of that statement by which he exhorts us to seek the kingdom of God, promising that all other things shall be added to us, (Matthew 6:33.) For if he took care of those who were led to him only by a sudden impulse, how would he desert us, if we seek him with a firm and steady purpose? True, indeed, he will sometimes allow his own people, as I have said, to suffer hunger; but he will never deprive them of his aid; and, in the meantime, he has very good reasons for not assisting us till matters come to an extremity.

Besides, Christ plainly showed that he not only bestows spiritual life on the world, but that his Father commanded him also to nourish the body. For abundance of all blessings is committed to his hand, that, as a channel, he may convey them to us; though I speak incorrectly by calling him a channel, for he is rather the living fountain flowing from the eternal Father. Accordingly, Paul prays that all blessings may come to us from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, in common, (1 Corinthians 1:3;) and, in another passage, he shows that

in all things we ought to give thanks to God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 5:20.)

And not only does this office belong to his eternal Divinity, but even in his human nature, and so far as he has taken upon him our flesh, 5 the Father has appointed him to be the dispenser, that by his hands he may feed us. Now, though we do not every day see miracles before our eyes, yet not less bountifully does God display his power in feeding us. And indeed we do not read that, when he wished to give a supper to his people, he used any new means; and, therefore, it would be an inconsiderate prayer, if any one were to ask that meat and drink might be given to him by some unusual method.

Again, Christ did not provide great delicacies for the people, but they who saw his amazing power displayed in that supper, were obliged to rest satisfied with barley-bread and fish without sauce. 6 And though he does not now satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, still he does not cease to feed the whole world in a wonderful manner. It sounds to us, no doubt, like a paradox, that

man liveth not by bread alone, but by the word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God, (Deuteronomy 8:3.)

For we are so strongly attached to outward means, that nothing is more difficult than to depend on the providence of God. Hence it arises that we tremble so much, as soon as we have not bread at hand. And if we consider every thing aright, we shall be compelled to discern the blessing of God in all the creatures which serve for our bodily support; 7 but use and frequency lead us to undervalue the miracles of nature. And yet, in this respect, it is not so much our stupidity as our malignity that hinders us; for where is the man to be found who does not choose to wander astray in his mind, and to encompass heaven and earth a hundred times, rather than look at God who presents himself to his view?

13. And filled twelve baskets. When four thousand men were fed by seven loaves, Matthew relates that the number of baskets filled with fragments was exactly the same with the number of the loaves, (Matthew 15:37.) Since, therefore, a smaller quantity is sufficient for a greater number of men, and since the quantity left is nearly double, hence we see more clearly of what value is that blessing of God, against the sight of which we deliberately shut our eyes. We ought also to observe, in passing, that though Christ commands them to fill the baskets for illustrating the miracle, yet he likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality, when he says, Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing may be lost; for the increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to luxury. Let those, therefore, who have abundance, remember that they will one day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not carefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are good, and of which God approves.
14. Those men, therefore. The miracle appears to have been attended by some advantage, that they acknowledge the author of it to be the Messiah; for Christ had no other object in view. But immediately they apply to a different and improper purpose the knowledge which they have obtained concerning Christ. And it is a fault extremely common among men, to corrupt and pervert his truth by their falsehoods, as soon as he has revealed himself to them; and even when they appear to have entered into the right path, they immediately fall away.

15. To make him a king. When those men intended to give to Christ the title and honor of king, there was some ground for what they did. But they erred egregiously in taking upon themselves the liberty of making a king; for Scripture ascribes this as peculiar to God alone, as it is said,

I have appointed my king on my holy hill of Zion,
(Psalm 2:6.)

Again, what sort of kingdom do they contrive for him? An earthly one, which is utterly inconsistent with his person. Hence let us learn how dangerous it is, in the things of God, to neglect His word, and to contrive anything of our own opinion; for there is nothing which the foolish subtlety of our understanding does not corrupt. And what avails the pretense of zeal, when by our disorderly worship we offer a greater insult to God than if a person were expressly and deliberately to make an attack on his glory?

We know how furious were the efforts of adversaries to extinguish the glory of Christ. That violence, indeed, reached its extreme point when he was crucified. But by means of his crucifixion salvation was obtained for the world, 2 and Christ himself obtained a splendid triumph over death and Satan. If he had permitted himself to be now made a king, his spiritual kingdom would have been ruined, the Gospel would have been stamped with everlasting infamy, and the hope of salvation would have been utterly destroyed. Modes of worship regulated according to our own fancy, and honors rashly contrived by men, have no other advantage than this, that they rob God of his true honor, and pour upon him nothing but reproach.

And take him by force. We must also observe the phrase, take by force. They wished to take Christ by force, the Evangelist says; that is, with impetuous violence they wished to make him a king, though against his will. If we desire, therefore, that he should approve of the honor which we confer upon him, we ought always to consider what he requires. And, indeed, they who venture to offer to God honors invented by themselves are chargeable with using some sort of force and violence towards him; for obedience is the foundation of true worship. Let us also learn from it with what reverence we ought to abide by the pure and simple word of God; for as soon as we turn aside in the smallest degree, the truth is poisoned by our leaven, so that it is no longer like itself. They learned from the word of God that he who was promised to be the Redeemer would be a king; but out of their own head they contrive an earthly kingdom, and they assign to him a kingdom contrary to the word of God. Thus, whenever we mix up our own opinions with the word of God, faith degenerates into frivolous conjectures. Let believers, therefore, cultivate habitual modesty, lest Satan hurry them into an ardor of inconsiderate and rash zeal, 3 so that, like the Giants, they shall rush violently against God, who is never worshipped aright but when we receive him as he presents himself to us.

It is astonishing that five thousand men should have been seized with such daring presumption, that they did not hesitate, by making a new king, to provoke against themselves Pilate's army and the vast power 4 of the Roman empire; and it is certain that they would never have gone so far, if they had not, relying on the predictions of the Prophets, hoped that God would be on their side, and, consequently, that they would overcome. But still they went wrong in contriving a kingdom of which the Prophets had never spoken. So far are they from having the hand of God favorable to aid their undertaking that, on the contrary, Christ withdraws. That was also the reason why wretched men under Popery wandered so long in gross darkness -- while God was, as it were, absent -- because they had dared to pollute the whole of his worship by their foolish inventions. 5

16. His disciples went down. Christ undoubtedly intended to conceal himself until the crowd should disperse. We know how difficult it is to allay a popular tumult. Now, if they had openly attempted to do what they had intended, it would have been no easy matter afterwards to wipe off the stain which had once been fixed upon him. Meanwhile, he spent all that time in prayer, as the other Evangelists (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46) relate; probably, that God the Father might repress that folly of the people. 6 As to his crossing the lake in a miraculous manner, it is intended to profit his disciples by again confirming their faith. The advantage extended still farther; for next day all the people would easily see that he had not been brought thither by a boat or ship, 7 but that he had come by his own power; for they blockaded the shore from which he had to set out, and would scarcely have been drawn away from it, if they had not seen the disciples cross to a different place.

17. It was now dark. John passes by many circumstances which the other Evangelists introduce; such as, that for several hours they struggled with a contrary wind; for it is probable that the storm arose immediately after the night began to come on; and they tell us that Christ did not appear to his disciples till about the fourth watch of the night, (Matthew 14:28; Mark 6:48.) Those who conjecture that they were still about the middle of the lake when Christ appeared to them, because John says that they had then advanced about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, are led into a mistake by supposing that they had sailed to the farther or opposite bank; for Bethsaida, near which town, Luke tells us, the miracle was performed, (Luke 9:10,) and Capernaum, which the ship reached, (John 6:16,) were situated on the same coast.

Pliny, in his fifth book, states that this lake was six miles in breadth, and sixteen in length. Josephus (in the third book of the Wars of the Jews) assigns to it one hundred furlongs in length, and forty in breadth; 8 and as eight furlongs make one mile, we may easily infer how little the one description differs from the other. So far as relates to the present sailing, my opinion is, that they did not go over so great a space by direct sailing, but through being driven about by the tempest. 9 However that may be, the Evangelist intended to show that, when Christ presented himself to them, they were in the utmost danger. It may be thought strange that the disciples should be tormented in this manner, while others had nothing to disturb them in sailing; but in this manner the Lord often makes his people fall into alarming dangers, that they may more plainly and familiarly recognize him in their deliverance.

19. They were terrified. The other Evangelists explain the cause of that fear to have been, that they thought that it was an apparition, (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49.) Now it is impossible not to be seized with consternation and dread, when an apparition is presented before our eyes; for we conclude that it is either some imposture of Satan, or some bad omen which God sends us. Besides, John here holds out to us, as in a mirror, what kind of knowledge of Christ we may obtain without the word, and what advantage may be reaped from that knowledge. For if he present a simple demonstration of his divinity, we immediately fall into our imaginations, and every person forms an idol for himself instead of Christ. After we have thus wandered in our understanding, this is immediately followed by trembling and a confused terror of heart. But when he begins to speak, we then obtain from his voice clear and solid knowledge, and then also joy and delightful peace dawn upon our minds. For there is great weight in these words:

20. It is I: be not terrified. We learn from them that it is in Christ's presence alone that we have abundant grounds of confidence, so as to be calm and at ease. But this belongs exclusively to the disciples of Christ; for we shall afterwards see that wicked men were struck down by the same words, It is I, (John 18:6.) The reason of the distinction is, that he is sent as a Judge to the reprobate and unbelievers for their destruction; and, therefore, they cannot bear his presence without being immediately overwhelmed. But believers, who know that he is given to them to make propitiation, as soon as they hear his name, which is a sure pledge to them both of the love of God and of their salvation, take courage as if they had been raised from death to life, calmly look at the clear sky, dwell quietly on earth, and, victorious over every calamity, take him for their shield against all dangers. Nor does he only comfort and encourage them by his word, but actually removes also the cause of the terror by allaying the tempest.

22. Next day. Here the Evangelist relates circumstances from which the multitude might conclude that Christ had gone across by divine power. There had been but one ship; they see it go away without Christ; next day, ships come from other places, by which they are conveyed to Capernaum; and there they find Christ. It follows that he must have been conveyed across in a miraculous manner. There is an intricacy and apparent confusion (ajnako>louqon) in the words, but still the meaning of them is plain enough; for, in the 22nd verse, John says that there had been but one ship, and that all saw it leave the shore and that place, and that it had not Christ as a passenger; and, in the 23rd verse, he adds that ships came from Tiberias, by which the multitude passed over, which had remained on the shore, blockading, as it were, every outlet, that Christ might not escape.

23. Near the place where they had eaten bread. The meaning of the words is doubtful; for they may be explained, either that Tiberias was near the place where Christ had fed them with five loaves, or that the ships reached the shore which was near and below that place. I approve more highly of the latter exposition; for Bethsaida, near which Luke states that the miracle was performed, is half-way between Tiberias and Capernaum. Accordingly, when ships came down from that place, which was farther up the lake, they sailed along that shore on which the multitude were standing; and there can be no doubt that they came to land for the purpose of taking in passengers.

After that the Lord had given thanks. When John again mentions that Christ gave thanks, it is not a superfluous repetition; for he means that Christ obtained by prayer that those few loaves were sufficient for feeding so many people; and as we are cold and indolent in prayer, he presses upon us the same thing a second time.

25. On the other side of the sea. We have already said that Capernaum was not situated on the opposite shore; for Tiberias is situated on that part of the lake where it is broadest, Bethsaida follows next, and Capernaum lies near the lowest part, not far from where the river Jordan issues from the lake. Now, when John places it on the other side of the lake itself, we must not understand him as if its position were directly across, but because, at the lower extremity, the lake made a large winding, and, on account of the bay that intervened, it was impossible to go by land without a very circuitous journey. The Evangelist therefore says, on the other side of the sea, adopting the mode of expression used by the common people, because the only direct and ordinary mode of conveyance was by a boat.

26. Jesus answered them. Christ does not reply to the question put to him, which would have been fitted to show to them his power in having come thither by a miracle. 1 But, on the contrary, he chides them for throwing themselves forward without consideration; for they were not acquainted with the true and proper reason of what he did, because they sought in Christ something else than Christ himself. The fault which he complains of in them is, that they seek Christ for the sake of the belly and not of the miracles. And yet it cannot be denied that they looked to the miracle; nay more, the Evangelist has already told us that they were excited by the miracles to follow Christ. But because they abused the miracles for an improper purpose, he justly reproaches them with having a greater regard to the belly than to miracles. His meaning was, that they did not profit by the works of God as they ought to have done; for the true way of profiting would have been to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah in such a manner as to surrender themselves to be taught and governed by him, and, under his guidance, to aspire to the heavenly kingdom of God. On the contrary, they expect nothing greater from him than to live happily and at ease in this world. This is to rob Christ of his chief power; for the reason why he was given by the Father and revealed himself to men is, that he may form them anew after the image of God by giving them his Holy Spirit, and that he may conduct them to eternal life by clothing them with his righteousness.

It is of great importance, therefore, what we keep in view in the miracles of Christ; for he who does not aspire to the kingdom of God, but rests satisfied with the conveniences of the present life, seeks nothing else than to fill his belly. In like manner, there are many persons in the present day who would gladly embrace the gospel, if it were free from the bitterness of the cross, and if it brought nothing but carnal pleasures. Nay, we see many who make a Christian profession, that they may live in greater gaiety and with less restraint. Some through the expectation of gain, others through fear, and others for the sake of those whom they wish to please, profess to be the disciples of Christ. In seeking Christ, therefore, the chief point is, to despise the world and

seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
(Matthew 6:33.)

Besides, as men very generally impose on themselves, and persuade themselves that they are seeking Christ in the best manner, while they debase the whole of his power, for this reason Christ, in his usual manner, doubles the word verily, as if by the oath he intended to bring to light the vice which lurks under our hypocrisy.

27. Labour for food, not that which perisheth. He shows to what object our desires ought to be directed, namely, to eternal life; but because, in proportion as our understandings are gross, we are always devoted to earthly things, for this reason he corrects that disease which is natural to us, before he points out what we ought to do. The simple doctrine would have been, "Labour to have the incorruptible food;" but, knowing that the senses of men are held bound by earthly cares, he first enjoins them to be loosed and freed from those cords, that they may rise to heaven. Not that he forbids his followers to labor that they may procure daily food; but he shows that the heavenly life ought to be preferred to this earthly life, because the godly have no other reason for living here than that, being sojourners in the world, they may travel rapidly towards their heavenly country.

Next, we ought to see what is the present question; for, since the power of Christ is debased by those who are devoted to the belly and to earthly things, he argues what we ought to seek in him, and why we ought to seek it. He employs metaphors adapted to the circumstances in which his sermon was delivered. If food had not been mentioned, he would have said, without a figure, "You ought to lay aside anxiety about the world, and strive to obtain the heavenly life." But as those men were running to their fodder like cattle, without looking to anything better, 2 Christ presents his sermon in a metaphorical dress, and gives the name of food to everything that belongs to newness of life. We know that our souls are fed by the doctrine of the gospel, when it is efficacious in us by the power of the Spirit; and, therefore, as faith is the life of the soul, all that nourishes and promotes faith is compared to food.

Which endureth to eternal life. This kind of food he calls incorruptible, and says that it endureth to eternal life, in order to inform us that our souls are not fed for a day, but are nourished in the expectation of a blessed immortality; because the Lord

commences the work of our salvation, that he may perform it till the day of Christ, (Philippians 1:6.)

For this reason we must receive the gifts of the Spirit, that they may be earnests and pledges of eternal life. For, though the reprobate, after having tasted this food, frequently reject it, so that it is not permanent in them, yet believing souls feel that enduring power, when they are made partakers of the power of the Holy Spirit in his gifts, which is not of short duration, but, on the contrary, never fails.

It is a frivolous exercise of ingenuity to infer, as some do, from the word labor or work, that we merit eternal life by our works; for Christ metaphorically exhorts men, as we have said, to apply their minds earnestly to meditation on the heavenly life, instead of cleaving to the world, as they are wont to do; and Christ himself removes every doubt, when he declares that it is he who giveth the food; for what we obtain by his gift no man procures by his own industry. There is undoubtedly some appearance of contradiction in these words; but we may easily reconcile these two statements, that the spiritual food of the soul is the free gift of Christ, and that we must strive with all the affections of our heart to become partakers of so great a blessing.

For him hath God the Father sealed. He confirms the preceding statement, by saying that he was appointed to us for that purpose by the Father. The ancient writers have misinterpreted and tortured this passage, by maintaining that Christ is said to be sealed, because he is the stamp and lively image of the Father. For he does not here enter into abstruse discussions about his eternal essence, but explains what he has been commissioned and enjoined to do, what is his office in relation to us, and what we ought to seek and expect from him. By an appropriate metaphor, he alludes to an ancient custom; for they sealed with signets what they intended to sanction by their authority. Thus Christ -- that it may not appear as if he claimed anything of himself, or by private authority 3 -- declares that this office was enjoined on him by the Father, and that this decree of the Father was manifested, as if a seal had been engraven on him. It may be summed up thus: As it is not every person who has the ability or the right 4 to feed souls with incorruptible food, Christ appears in public, and, while he promises that he will be the Author of so great a blessing, he likewise adds that he is approved by God, and that he has been sent to men with this mark, which is, as it were, God's seal or signet. 5

Hence it follows that the desire of those who shall present their souls to Christ, to be fed by him, will not be disappointed. Let us know, therefore, that life is exhibited to us in Christ, in order that each of us may aspire to it, not at random, but with certainty of success. We are, at the same time, taught that all who bestow this praise on any other than Christ are guilty of falsehood before God. Hence it is evident that the Papists, in every part of their doctrine, are altogether liars; for as often as they invent any means of salvation in the room of Christ, so often do they -- by erasing, as it were, the impression which has been made -- spoil and deface, with wicked presumption and base treachery, this seal of God, which alone is authentic. That we may not fall into so dreadful a condemnation, let us learn to keep pure and entire for Christ all that the Father has given to him.

28. What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? The multitude understood well enough that Christ had exhorted them to aim at something higher than the conveniences of the present life, and that they ought not to confine their attention to the earth, since God calls them to more valuable blessings. But, in putting this question, they are partly mistaken by not understanding the kind of labor; for they do not consider that God bestows upon us, by the hand of the Son, all that is necessary for spiritual life. First, they ask what they ought to do; and next, when they use the expression, the works of God, they do not understand what they say, and talk without any definite object. 6 In this manner they manifest their ignorance of the grace of God. And yet they appear here to murmur disdainfully against Christ, as if he were accusing them groundlessly. "Dost thou suppose," say they, "that we have no solicitude about eternal life? Why, then, dost thou enjoin us to do what is beyond our power?" By the works of God we must understand those which God demands, and of which he approves.

29. The work of God is this. They had spoken of works. Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe. For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us.

But we may think it strange that God approves of nothing but faith alone; for the love of our neighbor ought not to be despised, and the other exercises of religion do not lose their place and honor. So then, though faith may hold the highest rank, still other works are not superfluous. The reply is easy; for faith does not exclude either the love of our neighbor or any other good work, because it contains them all within itself. Faith is called the only work of God, because by means of it we possess Christ, and thus become the sons of God, so that he governs us by his Spirit. So then, because Christ does not separate faith from its fruits, we need not wonder if he make it to be the first and the last. 7

That you believe in him whom he hath sent. What is the import of the word believe, we have explained under the Third Chapter. It ought always to be remembered that, in order to have a full perception of the power of faith, we must understand what Christ is, in whom we believe, and why he was given to us by the Father. It is idle sophistry, under the pretext of this passage, to maintain that we are justified by works, if faith justifies, because it is likewise called a work. First, it is plain enough that Christ does not speak with strict accuracy, when he calls faith a work, just as Paul makes a comparison between the law of faith and the law of works, (Romans 3:27.) Secondly, when we affirm that men are not justified by works, we mean works by the merit of which men may obtain favor with God. Now faith brings nothing to God, but, on the contrary, places man before God as empty and poor, that he may be filled with Christ and with his grace. It is, therefore, if we may be allowed the expression, a passive work, to which no reward can be paid, and it bestows on man no other righteousness than that which he receives from Christ.

30. What sign doest thou? This wickedness abundantly proves how truly it is said elsewhere, This wicked generation seeketh a sign, (Matthew 12:39.) They had been at first drawn to Christ by the admiration of his miracles or signs, and afterwards, through amazement at a new sign, they acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah, and, with that conviction, wished to make him a king; but now they demand a sign from him, as if he were a man unknown to them. Whence came such sudden forgetfulness, but because they are ungrateful to God, and, through their own malice, are blind to his power, which is before their eyes? Nor can it be doubted that they treat disdainfully all the miracles which they had already beheld, because Christ does not comply with their wishes, and because they do not find him to be what they imagined him to be. If he had given them expectation of earthly happiness, he would have been highly applauded by them; they would undoubtedly have hailed him as a Prophet, and the Messiah, and the Son of God; but now, because he blames them for being too much addicted to the flesh, they think that they ought not to listen to him any more. And in the present day, how many are there who resemble them! At first, because they promise to themselves that Christ will flatter their vices, they eagerly embrace the gospel, and call for no proof of it; but when they are called to deny the flesh and to bear the cross, then do they begin to renounce Christ and ask whence the gospel came. In short, as soon as Christ does not grant their prayers, he is no longer their Master.

31. Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness. Thus we see that Christ put his finger on the sore, when he told them that they came like brute beasts to fill their belly; for they discover this gross disposition, when they demand a Messiah by whom they are to be fed. And as to the magnificent terms in which they extol the grace of God in the manna, they do this cunningly, in order to bury the doctrine of Christ, by which he condemned them for immoderate desire of corruptible food; for they contrast with it the magnificent title bestowed on the manna, when it is called heavenly bread. But when the Holy Spirit bestows on the manna the honorable appellation of the bread of heaven, (Psalm 78:24,) it is not with this intention, as if God fed his people, like a herd of swine, and gave them nothing more valuable; and, therefore, they are without excuse, when they wickedly reject the spiritual food of the soul, which God now offers to them.

32. Verily, verily, I say to you, Moses gave you not bread from heaven. Christ appears to contradict what was quoted from the psalm, but he speaks only by comparison. The manna Nm is called the bread of heaven, but it is for the nourishment of the body; but the bread which ought truly and properly to be reckoned heavenly, is that which gives spiritual nourishment to the soul. Christ therefore makes a contrast here between the world and heaven, because we ought not to seek the incorruptible life but in the kingdom of heaven. In this passage, truth is not contrasted with shadows, as is often done elsewhere; but Christ considers what is the true life of man, or, in other words, what it is that makes him different from brute beasts, and excellent among the creatures.

My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. When he adds these words, the meaning is," The manna which Moses gave to your fathers did not bring heavenly life, but now heavenly life is truly exhibited to you." True, it is the Father whom he calls the giver of this bread, but he means that it is given by his own hand. Thus the contrast relates, not to Moses and God, but to Moses and Christ. Now, Christ represents his Father rather than himself as the Author of this gift, in order to procure for himself deeper reverence; as if he had said, "Acknowledge me to be the minister of God, by whose hands he wishes to feed you to eternal life." But, again, this appears to be inconsistent with the doctrine of Paul, who calls the manna -- spiritual food, (1 Corinthians 10:3.) I reply, Christ speaks according to the capacity of those with whom he has to deal, and this is not uncommon in Scripture. We see how variously Paul speaks about circumcision. When he writes about the ordinance, he calls it the seal of faith, (Romans 4:11;) but when he has to contend with false apostles, he calls it rather a seal of cursing, and that by taking it with the qualities which they ascribed to it, and according to their opinion. 3 Let us consider what was the objection made against Christ, namely, that he did not prove himself to be the Messiah, if he did not supply his followers with bodily food. Accordingly, he does not inquire what it was that was prefigured by the manna, but maintains that the bread with which Moses fed their bellies was not true bread.

33. For the bread of God. Christ reasons negatively from the definition to the thing defined, in this manner: "The heavenly bread is that which hath come down from heaven to give life to the world. In the manna there was nothing of this sort; and, therefore, the manna was not the heavenly bread." But, at the same time, he confirms what he formerly said, namely, that he is sent by the Father, in order that he may feed men in a manner far more excellent than Moses. True, the manna came down from the visible heaven, that is, from the clouds; but not from the eternal kingdom of God, from which life flows to us. And the Jews, whom Christ addresses, looked no higher than that the bellies of their fathers were well stuffed and fattened in the wilderness.

What he formerly called the bread of heaven, he now calls the bread of God; not that the bread which supports us in the present life comes from any other than God, but because that alone can be reckoned the bread of God 4 which quickens souls to a blessed immortality. This passage teaches that the whole world is dead to God, except so far as Christ quickens it, because life will be found nowhere else than in him.

Which hath come down from heaven. In the coming down from heaven two things are worthy of observation; first, that we have a Divine life in Christ, because he has come from God to be the Author of life to us; secondly, that the heavenly life is near us,

so that we do not need to fly above the clouds or to cross the sea, (Deuteronomy 30:12, 13; Romans 10:6-8;)

for the reason why Christ descended to us was, that no man could ascend above.
34. Give us always this bread. There is no doubt that they speak ironically, to accuse Christ of vain boasting, when he said that he was able to give the bread of life. Thus wretched men, while they reject the promises of God, are not satisfied with this evil alone, but put Christ in their room, as if he were chargeable with their unbelief.

35. I am the bread of life. First, he shows that the bread, which they asked in mockery, is before their eyes; and, next, he reproves them. He begins with doctrine, to make it more evident that they were guilty of ingratitude. There are two parts of the doctrine; for he shows whence we ought to seek life, and how we may enjoy it. We know what gave occasion to Christ to use those metaphors; it was because manna and daily food had been mentioned. But still this figure is better adapted to teach ignorant persons than a simple style. When we eat bread for the nourishment of the body, we see more clearly not only our own weakness, but also the power of divine grace, than if, without, bread, God were to impart a secret power to nourish the body itself. Thus, the analogy which is traced between the body and the soul, enables us to perceive more clearly the grace of Christ. For when we learn that Christ is the bread by which our souls must be fed, this penetrates more deeply into our hearts than if Christ simply said that he is our life.

It ought to be observed, however, that the word bread does not express the quickening power of Christ so fully as we feel it; for bread does not commence life, but nourishes and upholds that life which we already possess. But, through the kindness of Christ, we not only continue to possess life, but have the beginning of life, and therefore the comparison is partly inappropriate; but there is no inconsistency in this, for Christ adapts his style to the circumstances of the discourse which he formerly delivered. Now the question had been raised, Which of the two was more eminent in feeding men, Moses or Christ himself? This is also the reason why he calls it bread only, for it was only the manna that they objected to him, and, therefore, he reckoned it enough to contrast with it a different kind of bread. The simple doctrine is, "Our souls do not live by an intrinsic power, so to speak, that is, by a power which they have naturally in themselves, 1 but borrow life from Christ."

He who cometh to me. He now defines the way of taking this food; it is when we receive Christ by faith. For it is of no avail to unbelievers that Christ is the bread of life, because they remain always empty; but then does Christ become our bread, when we come to him as hungry persons, that he may fill us. To come to Christ and to believe mean, in this passage, the same thing; but the former word is intended to express the effect of faith, namely, that it is in consequence of being driven by the feeling of our hunger that we fly to Christ to seek life.

Those who infer from this passage that to eat Christ is faith, and nothing else, reason inconclusively. I readily acknowledge that there is no other way in which we eat Christ than by believing; but the eating is the effect and fruit of faith rather than faith itself. For faith does not look at Christ only as at a distance, but embraces him, that he may become ours and may dwell in us. It causes us to be incorporated with him, to have life in common with him, and, in short, to become one with him, (John 17:21.) It is therefore true that by faith alone we eat Christ, provided we also understand in what manner faith unites us to him.

Shall never thirst. This appears to be added without any good reason; for the office of bread is not to quench thirst, but to allay hunger. Christ therefore attributes to bread more than its nature allows. I have already said, that he employs the word bread alone because it was required by the comparison between the manna and the heavenly power of Christ, by which our souls are sustained in life. At the same time, by the word bread, he means in general all that nourishes us, and that according to the ordinary custom of his nation. For the Hebrews, by the figure of speech called synecdoche, use the word bread for dinner or supper; and when we ask from God our daily bread, (Matthew 6:11,) we include drink and all the other parts of life. The meaning therefore is, "Whoever shall betake himself to Christ, to have life from him, will want nothing, but will have in abundance all that contributes to sustain life."

36. But I have told you. He now reproves them for wickedly rejecting the gift of God, which is offered to them. Now, that man is chargeable with wicked contempt of God, who rejects what he knows that God has given him. If Christ had not made known his power, and plainly showed that he came from God, the plea of ignorance might have alleviated their guilt; but when they reject the doctrine of him whom they formerly acknowledged to be the Lord's Messiah, it is extreme baseness. It is no doubt true, that men never resist God purposely, so as to reflect that they have to do with God; and to this applies the saying of Paul,

They would never have crucified the Lord of glory, if they had known him (1 Corinthians 2:8.)

But unbelievers, because they willingly shut their eyes against the light are justly said to see that which immediately vanishes from their sight, because Satan darkens their understandings. This, at least, is beyond all controversy, that when he said that they saw, we must not understand him to mean his bodily appearance, but rather that he describes their voluntary blindness, because they might have known what he was, if their malice had not prevented them.

37. All that the Father giveth me. That their unbelief may not detract anything from his doctrine, he says, that the cause of so great obstinacy is, that they are reprobate, and do not belong to the flock of God. His intention, therefore, in distinguishing here between the elect and the reprobate is, that the authority of his doctrine may remain unimpaired, though there are many who do not believe it. For, on the one hand, ungodly men calumniate and utterly despise the word of God, because they are not moved by reverence for it; and, on the other hand, many weak and ignorant persons entertain doubts whether that which is rejected by a great part of the world be actually the word of God. Christ meets this offense, when he affirms, that all those who do not believe are not his own, and that we need not wonder if such persons have no relish for the word of God, but that it is embraced by all the children of God. In the first place, he says, that all whom the Father giveth him come to him; by which words he means, that faith is not a thing which depends on the will of men, so that this man and that man indiscriminately and at random believe, but that God elects those whom he hands over, as it were, to his Son; for when he says, that whatever is given cometh, we infer from it, that all do not come. Again, we infer, that God works in his elect by such an efficacy of the Holy Spirit, that not one of them falls away; for the word give has the same meaning as if Christ had said, "Those whom the Father hath chosen he regenerates, and gives to me, that they may obey the Gospel."

And him that cometh to me I will not cast out. This is added for the consolation of the godly, that they may be fully persuaded that they have free access to Christ by faith, and that, as soon as they have placed themselves under his protection and safeguard, they will be graciously received by him. Hence it follows, that the doctrine of the Gospel will be salutary to all believers, because no man becomes a disciple of Christ who does not, on the other hand, feel and experience him to be a good and faithful teacher.

38. For I came down from heaven. This is a confirmation of the preceding statement, that we do not seek Christ in vain. For faith is a work of God, by which he shows that we are his people, and appoints his Son to be the protector of our salvation. Now the Son has no other design than to fulfill the commands of his Father. Consequently, he will never reject those whom his Father hath sent. Hence, finally, it follows, that faith will never be useless. As to the distinction which Christ makes between his own will and the will of the Father, in this respect, he accommodates himself to his hearers, because, as the mind of man is prone to distrust, we are wont to contrive some diversity which produces hesitation. To cut off every pretense for those wicked imaginations, Christ declares, that he has been manifested to the world, in order that he may actually ratify what the Father hath decreed concerning our salvation.

39. And this is the will of the Father. He now testifies, that this is the design of the Father, that believers may find salvation secured in Christ; from which again it follows, that all who do not profit by the doctrine of the Gospel are reprobate. Wherefore, if we see that it turns to the ruin of many, we have no reason to despond, because those men willingly draw down the evil on themselves. Let us rest satisfied with this, that the Gospel will always have power to gather the elect to salvation.

That I should lose none of it. That is, "That I should not suffer it to be taken from me or perish;" by which he means, that he is not the guardian of our salvation for a single day, or for a few days, but that he will take care of it to the end, so that he will conduct us, as it were, from the commencement to the termination of our course; and therefore he mentions the last resurrection. This promise is highly necessary for us, who miserably groan under so great weakness of the flesh, of which every one of us is sufficiently aware; and at every moment, indeed, the salvation of the whole world might be ruined, were it not that believers, supported by the hand of Christ, advance boldly to the day of resurrection. Let this, therefore, be fixed in our minds, that Christ has stretched out his hand to us, that he may not desert us in the midst of the course, but that, relying on his goodness, we may boldly raise our eyes to the last day.

There is also another reason why he mentions the resurrection. It is because, so long as our life is hidden, (Colossians 3:3,) we are like dead men. For in what respect do believers differ from wicked men, but that, overwhelmed with afflictions, and like sheep destined for the slaughter, (Romans 8:36,) they have always one foot in the grave, and, indeed, are not far from being continually swallowed up by death? Thus there remains no other support of our faith and patience but this, that we keep out of view the condition of the present life, and apply our minds and our senses to the last day, and pass through the obstructions of the world, until the fruit of our faith at length appear.

40. And this is the will of him who sent me. He had said that the Father had committed to him the protection of our salvation; and now he likewise describes the manner in which it is accomplished. The way to obtain salvation, therefore, is to obey the Gospel of Christ. This point he had, indeed, glanced at a little before but now he expresses more fully what he had spoken somewhat obscurely. And if it is the will of God that those whom he has elected shall be saved, and if in this manner he ratifies and executes his eternal decree, whoever he be that is not satisfied with Christ, but indulges in curious inquiries about eternal predestination, such a person, as far as lies in his power, desires to be saved contrary to the purpose of God. The election of God is in itself hidden and secret; the Lord manifests it by calling, that is, when he bestows on us this blessing of calling us. 2

They are madmen, therefore, who seek their own salvation or that of others in the whirlpool of predestination, not keeping the way of salvation which is exhibited to them. Nay more, by this foolish speculation, they endeavor to overturn the force and effect of predestination; for if God has elected us to this end, that we may believe, take away faith, and election will be imperfect. But we have no right to break through the order and succession of the beginning and the end, since God, by his purpose, hath decreed and determined that it shall proceed unbroken. 3 Besides, as the election of God, by an indissoluble bond, draws his calling along with it, so when God has effectually called us to faith in Christ, let this have as much weight with us as if he had engraven his seal to ratify his decree concerning our salvation. For the testimony of the Holy Spirit is nothing else than the sealing of our adoption, (Romans 8:15.) To every man, therefore, his faith is a sufficient attestation of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a shocking sacrilege 4 to carry the inquiry farther; for that man offers an aggravated insult to the Holy Spirit, who refuses to assent to his simple testimony.

Whosoever seeth the Son, and believeth in him. He uses the words, see and believe, in contrast with what he had formerly said; for he had reproached the Jews with not believing, even though they saw, (verse 36.) But now, speaking of the sons of God, with the feeling which they have of the power of God in Christ, he joins the obedience of faith. Moreover, these words show that faith proceeds from the knowledge of Christ; not that it desires anything beyond the simple word of God, but because, if we trust in Christ, we must perceive what he is, and what he brings to us.

41. The Jews therefore murmured concerning him. The Evangelist explains the cause of the murmuring to have been, that the Jews were offended at the mean condition of Christ's human nature, 2 and did not perceive in him any thing Divine or heavenly. Yet he shows that they had a twofold obstruction. One they had framed for themselves out of a false opinion, when they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we hnow? Another arose from a wicked sentiment, that they did not think that Christ was the Son of God, because he came down to men clothed with our flesh. 3 But we are guilty of excessive malignity, if we despise the Lord of glory because on our account

he emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, (Philippians 2:7;)

for this was rather an illustrious proof of his boundless love towards us, and of his wonderful grace. Besides, the Divine majesty of Christ was not so concealed under the mean and contemptible appearance of the flesh, as not to give out the rays of his brightness in a variety of ways; but those gross and stupid men wanted eyes to see his conspicuous glory.

We, too, sin daily in both of these ways. First, it is a great hinderance to us, that it is only with carnal eyes that we behold Christ; and this is the reason why we perceive in him nothing magnificent, for by our sinful views we pervert all that belongs to him and to his doctrine, so unskilful are we to profit by them, or to view them in the proper light. 4 Secondly, not satisfied with this, we adopt many false imaginations, which produce a contempt of the Gospel. Nay, there are even many who frame for themselves monsters, that they may make them a pretense for hating the Gospel. In this manner the world deliberately drives away the grace of God. Now the Evangelist expressly names the Jews, in order to inform us that the murmuring proceeded from those who gloried in the title of faith and of the Church, that we may all learn to receive Christ with reverence, when he comes down to us, and that, in proportion as he comes nearer to us, we may more cheerfully approach to him, that he may raise us to his heavenly glory.

43. Murmur not among yourselves. He throws back on them the blame of the murmuring, as if he had said, "My doctrine contains no ground of offense, but because you are reprobate, it irritates your envenomed breasts, and the reason why you do not relish it is, that you have a vitiated taste."

44. No man can come to me, unless the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. He does not merely accuse them of wickedness, but likewise reminds them, that it is a peculiar gift of God to embrace the doctrine which is exhibited by him; which he does, that their unbelief may not disturb weak minds. For many are so foolish that, in the things of God, they depend on the opinions of men; in consequence of which, they entertain suspicions about the Gospel, as soon as they see that it is not received by the world. Unbelievers, on the other hand, flattering themselves in their obstinacy, have the hardihood to condemn the Gospel because it does not please them. On the contrary, therefore, Christ declares that the doctrine of the Gospel, though it is preached to all without exception, cannot be embraced by all, but that a new understanding and a new perception are requisite; and, therefore, that faith does not depend on the will of men, but that it is God who gives it.

Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, 5 as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.

45. It is written in the Prophets. Christ confirms by the testimony of Isaiah what he said, that no man can come to him, unless he be drawn by the Father. He uses the word prophets in the plural number, because all their prophecies had been collected into one volume, so that all the prophets might justly be accounted one book. The passage which is here quoted is to be found in Isaiah 54:13, where, speaking of the restoration of the Church, he promises to her, sons taught by the instruction of God. Hence it may easily be inferred, that the Church cannot be restored in any other way than by God undertaking the office of a Teacher, and bringing believers to himself. The way of teaching, of which the prophet speaks, does not consist merely in the external voice, but likewise in the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. In short, this teaching of God is the inward illumination of the heart.

And they shall be all taught by God. As to the word all, it must be limited to the elect, who alone are the true children of the Church. Now it is not difficult to see in what manner Christ applies this prediction to the present subject. Isaiah shows that then only is the Church truly edified, when she has her children taught by God. Christ, therefore, justly concludes that men have not eyes to behold the light of life, until God has opened them. But at the same time, he fastens on the general phrase, all; because he argues from it, that all who are taught by God are effectually drawn, so as to come; and to this relates what he immediately adds,

Whosoever therefore hath heard my Father. The amount of what is said is, that all who do not believe are reprobate and doomed to destruction; because all the sons of the Church and heirs of life are made by God to be his obedient disciples. Hence it follows, that there is not one of all the elect of God who shall not be a partaker of faith in Christ. 6 Again, as Christ formerly affirmed that men are not fitted for believing, until they have been drawn, so he now declares that the grace of Christ, by which they are drawn, is efficacious, so that they necessarily believe.

These two clauses utterly overturn the whole power of free will, of which the Papists dream. For if it be only when the Father has drawn us that we begin to come to Christ, there is not in us any commencement of faith, or any preparation for it. On the other hand, if all come whom the Father hath taught, He gives to them not only the choice of believing, but faith itself. When, therefore, we willingly yield to the guidance of the Spirit, this is a part, and, as it were, a sealing of grace; because God would not draw us, if He were only to stretch out his hand, and leave our will in a state of suspense. But in strict propriety of language He is said to draw us, when He extends the power of his Spirit to the full effect of faith. They are said to hear God, who willingly assent to God speaking to them within, because the Holy Spirit reigns in their hearts.

Cometh to me. He shows the inseparable connection that exists between him and the Father. For the meaning is, that it is impossible that any who are God's disciples shall not obey Christ, and that they who reject Christ refuse to be taught by God; because the only wisdom that all the elect learn in the school of God is, to come to Christ; for the Father, who sent him, cannot deny himself.

46. Not that any man hath seen the Father. As he has hitherto magnified the grace of his Father, so now he earnestly directs believers to himself alone. For both must be joined together; that no knowledge of Christ can be obtained, until the Father enlighten by his Spirit those who are by nature
 
Just to be fair and balanced (GO FOX NEWS! GO FOX NEWS! :p ) and since I haven't seen anyone on the PC side deal with 1 Cor 11, attached is another argument about fencing the table from The Ordained Servant. Rev. Trice's argument is one that I have heard repeatedly from PC advocates, though I don't believe that he is actually advocating the PC position.

I think the George Knight's article was in response to this article. Personally I find the exegetical argument that he brings out is weak.

Fencing the Table

It starts on page 21 of the magazine (for Mark its page 21 of 28 ;) ).
 
The PC arguments tend to lean on Covenant Theology, with little scriptural reference. The non-pc arguments tend to rely on decent exegesis, that is hard to reconcile with Covenant Theology.

Now I am not so convinced that the PC argument is all that strong.

I agre with something Fred said in regards to the Word not deriving power from the sacrament, but rather the sacrament deriving its power from the Word. How did that go Fred ?

Point being, are we really sinning by keeping the children from partaking until they are mature ? I doubt it.

We are sinning if we keep then from the Word though.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
The PC arguments tend to lean on Covenant Theology, with little scriptural reference. The non-pc arguments tend to rely on decent exegesis, that is hard to reconcile with Covenant Theology.
Click to expand...

Mark,

I may be wrong but I think, based on your statement, that you may be looking at Covenant Theology more in the lines of Covenantalism. Covenant Theology must have a strong exegetical base or it falls apart as unbiblical. And what I mean regarding Covenantalism, I am referring to a view of Covenant that forces Scripture to meet certain pre defined expectations, which is where the FV guys have gone by defining covenant strictly in terms of "relationship".
 
Wayne,

What I meant was that paedobaptists use Covenant Theology and the continuity of God's treaty/agreement to assert circumcision is replaced by baptism. There is not explicit exegesis to deterimine that. So, PC advocates do the same thing, arguing from types and priciples instead of a direct exegesis of the text. The article by Knight is a very strong one exegetically, and the task now becomes for me understanding the continuity between the covenants regarding feasts and children.

I tend to interpret everything through a lens of covenantal continuity.
 
Here is something I said in a 'debate' with some people over Paedocommunion and John chapter 6:

To put it simply, the Lord's Supper has virtually nothing to do with the manna in the wilderness (as all Reformed commentators will agree), and vice versa. The manna came down from heaven in the wilderness to give the starving Israelites temporal life. Christ came down from heaven to apostate Israel to give them eternal life. Christ is the anti-type of the manna, not the Lord's Supper. In similar fashion, throughout John's gospel, Christ is the "Word of God", the "Temple" and the "spring of water welling up to eternal life."

None of these spiritually symbolic descriptions and types of Christ are meant to be taken literally, or to be applied outside of the context of "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). To impose a doctrinal definition of the Lord's Supper onto the context of John chapter 6 is exegetical malpractice. The only major camp that exegetes chapter 6 in this fashion is the Roman Catholic tradition, and that is for the sake of proving transsubstantiation from the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" references, which are actually, once again, spiritually symbolic for one believing that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" so that we can have "life in his name." On this particular phrase, consider Leviticus 17:11 which states: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." To "eat" the "flesh" and "drink" the "blood" of Christ is to lay hold of and receive by faith His atoning sacrifice and forgiveness of sins, through His death and resurrection. This is how John, by God's Spirit, chose to explain to us how to come to faith in Christ, and it is a beautiful way of doing so. It was a common form of Jewish teaching in Jesus' day, known as Mashal. A literal interpretation of a Mashal is ALWAYS wrong, by the way (again, see Hendriksen for more background information on this).

If one studies John chapter 6 closely, assuming that it is a reference to the Lord's Supper, there are, as I have attempted to roughly point out before, numerous exegetical, theological, and practical implications to be dealt with for it to hold up and "work." I do not believe this can happen.

For example, in John chapter 6, Jesus teaches (through Mashal) that "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." This is strikingly similar to Jesus' teaching methods in chapters 1, 2, and 4, because He is using the Mashal method in each chapter (again, something with a spiritual symbolism and not to be taken literally). If one were to take this as eating the Supper, then we have to deal with Jesus' next remarks, which are "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." Surely, and hopefully, none of us are willing to be dogmatic about the idea of EVERYONE who comes to the Lord's Supper is elect and given to Christ by the Father? We know, as Presbyterians (some of us) that this is not the case by virtue of Judas' example alone (not to mention practical experience).

Press it even further, and it deconstructs little by little. This is because it is a false typology. The true typology is that the bread from heaven in the wilderness was a type for Christ - the true bread - who came from heaven to the earth incarnate to give Israel eternal life. Jesus drives this entire point home (that is, that he is calling on all to believe in Him and come to Him alone for eternal life by faith) in verse 40, saying "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This is Jesus' definition of what it means to come to the true bread from heaven - to come to Christ by faith and receive eternal life. Finally, Jesus is even more clear, and states: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." (vss. 47-51) Whoever believes in Christ has eternal life, not whoever eats the Lord's Supper. Whoever believes in Christ - symbolically speaking, whoever eats the true bread from heaven - will "not die", but "live forever."

In an effort to avoid a Slippery Slope, I must say that, to be consistent in an exegesis that finds this a reference and doctrine in regards to the Lord's Supper, we must also assume that Christ intended us to institute and practice a sacrament of drinking water from a well (cf. John chapter 4, where the same Mashal method is used, almost word for word).
Click to expand...
 
No one else has anything to say? You'd think by all the blogs and internet theologians out there that this was a bigger problem than it seems to be in the 'real world', but I guess the internet can play tricks on you.
 
Gabriel, although I am now leaning heavily towards the traditional non-pc side, I must disagree with your post on John 6. I find the Mashal idea absolutely cheesy. The manna can be seen as Christ, and the scriptures.

John 4 is similar. Christ is the well.

Besides I now think the entire PC debate rests on I Cor. 10/11 alone.

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Gabriel, although I am now leaning heavily towards the traditional non-pc side, I must disagree with your post on John 6. I find the Mashal idea absolutely cheesy. The manna can be seen as Christ, and the scriptures.

John 4 is similar. Christ is the well.

Besides I now think the entire PC debate rests on I Cor. 10/11 alone.

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...

:up:

What did you think of Beckwith's article?
 
I just read Bacon's booklet on the issue. I find it well done (anti-PC).

The obvious, really it is too obvious, that the Passover is the Old Covenant parallel to the New Covenant meal. Any argument that bypasses Passover for an alternative has conceded the principal point. You can't get out of the Upper Room until you have dealt with the Passover. If you can't or won't make your point on Passover (Joseph, I respect you as a brother, but...), you are missing the boat.

Bacon makes it abundantly clear that examination has always been absolutely fundamental to participation in the Covenant meal. First you need the Covenant sign (circumcision/baptism), and then you must examine yourself. Until you can satisfy the competent authority that you have that ability, you are in grave danger of eating and drinking condemnation to yourself.

Numbers 9:1-14 is an important text. It is the 2nd memorial Passover. Verses 6-9:
And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: 7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel? 8 And Moses said to them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.
Click to expand...
The LORD gave a new dispensation for such persons, allowing them to partake in a substitute ceremony one month later.

The point is patently clear: "A man must examine himself," to see that he was ceremonial spotless in order to partake of the Passover. Tell me, friends, did God require parents to certify that their child was ceremonially clean, and thus able to eat the Passover? Suppose the child had become ceremonially unclean, and did not tell his parents. The kid is 5 years old. Maybe he touched a dead unclean animal--a lizard! (Lev. 11:23-24, 30).

"Touch not the unclean thing," why? because then you will be unclean. Children are careless and unlearned. This is their nature. They have to be taught! The 5 year old kid was not throughly schooled in the law. He should not be trusted nor expected to examine himself with the rigor that was expected of a partaker in the full covenant life of the nation. They had to be taught the ceremonies; they had to be taught the law. And what were the ceremonies, but signification of an internal examination, of being spiritually clean? It is patently obvious that children had to be kept from unworthy partaking of the Passover. Anything less would be a fundamental transgression of the 5th commandment.

Do you remember Chronicles 30? The great Passover that Hezekiah called, and kept even with those who would come from the North, if they were willing (verse 10-11)? Verse 17 tells us there were many present who were ashamed for their ceremonial uncleanness. Verse 18 records Hezekiah pleading with the LORD to pardon every one of the unfit who, verse 19 prepareth this heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purificatoin of the sanctuary. 20 And the LROD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.

Examination is nothing new. It is as old as the Passover.
 
After a brief perusal of the article...

Strawbridge says: the anti-PC position is "threadbare," just one strand, 1 Cor. 11:28.

Now, unless he successfully argues the text away, that pillar is sufficient (being patently clear) to establish the truth beyond dispute. Of course, that is also not the only text anti-PCers use, but you'd never know that from reading this paper.

So, does he succeed in casting doubt on the universal command? Certainly not. He simply avers that Paul is addressing troublemaking adults, therefore, his restriction only applies to adults. Which is nonsense, since that form of argument would prevent any sort or "broad principle" application of any text. Is there any indication in the text that the principle is a restrictive one? No. If it is a general rule, then it applies specifically in this case, as in every other. Paul is not obligated to specify every category to whom the general maxim applies. It is enough to remind the readers that to partake requires this ability, as well as its performance, for "worthy partaking." While both sides have some "burden-of-proof" obligation, it is certainly Strawbridge's to do a far better job of showing how Paul must be speaking narrowly, and not stating the general rule. This he does not do.

The bulk of the paper is taken up in justifying a parallel application of covenant baptism and the covenant meal. I found absolutely no interaction with opposing views. No dealing with alternate exegesis, not once presenting a strong counter-argument (for a position that has been held and defended by many of the ablest minds not only of this generation, but also for virutally the whole New Testament age) followed by a carefully reasoned rebuttal.

Apparently Dr. Strawbridge believes that the two cases stand or fall together. Odd, that not one giant of the Reformation or of subsequent generations bought that line of reasoning. Of course, not one of them is referenced (beside one sentence from Berkhof in the introduction--presumably to "summarize" the anti-PC position). Perhaps Dr. Strawbridge feels a tension there. Of course, for anyone who does not accept that the OT covenant meals were family affairs generally, and in particular that the Passover was a general meal, there is no tension to relieve.

Then there are the specious arguments from history. Supposedly infant/child communion was practiced at least by the days of Cyprian. The isolated texts cited certainly may be taken in a way that does not demand an "inclusive" reading. But that is not all. No texts are dealt with that would seem on the face to exclude such communion. Does he expect us to accept this "argument from history" on the "threadbare" offerings he presents? The best refutation of the historical argument I have ever read was "The True History of Paedo-Communion" by Matthew Winzer in one of the last few issues (perhaps the very last) of the defunct e-zine CredoQuarterly.

--aside--I'll say it again, someone put this article back on the web, please. Did anyone dowload the whole magazine PDF, before it lost web-host? Do you have the article in the bowels of your computer? Post it with full attribution, somebody, please. Or maybe DTK can do a re-write? :D --/aside--


Dr. Strawbridge, who (in his defense) I very much doubt desires his position-paper to be taken as a full-blown dissertation on the subject), has publicized himself in favor of PC. Others now may and do use it to defend the practice of PC. However, he is unpersuasive on his argument from covenant. He has practically no exegetical argument (a few undiscussed texts thrown out do not an argument make). And his argument from antiquity (to say nothing of his silence--a dismissal without argument--on the majority of church history and especially the Reformed tradition) is paltry.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Even as a paedoeucharist advocate I agree with Bruce's assessment of that article.
 
For those supporting the PC view, do you have any historic precedent in the church to back up your position? Just wondering if this has been considered at all . . . thanks. :D
 
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
For those supporting the PC view, do you have any historic precedent in the church to back up your position? Just wondering if this has been considered at all . . . thanks. :D
Click to expand...

Yes! Please take a look at these links, for instance:

A Catena of Quotations from the Church Fathers

THE HISTORY OF PAEDOCOMMUNION: FROM THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL 1500

Cyprian and Augustine are among some of the more famous names among those believing in paedocommunion in the early church.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

<snip>

Examination is nothing new. It is as old as the Passover.

Originally posted by Saiph

Bruce,

Very good points. And hard to get around.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


With respect, I disagree that Bruce's points are good.

Young children partook of the various feasts, and did NOT have to "examine themselves" like the adults did.

I don't have time to back this up at the moment, but as I find time, I plan to post some info here later this week.


I strongly recommend anybody truly researching the PC debate to read Tim Gallant's excellent book, "Feed My Lambs". He deals quite well with a number of the anti-PC arguments, including Bruce's argument above.






[Edited on 11-28-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Casey
  • Locked
Whence paedo-communion?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
Kevin
  • Locked
Arguments FOR using wine in the Lords Supper
2
Replies
35
Views
10K
fishingpipe
fishingpipe
T
  • Locked
Reasons for Historical Paedo/Credo Ecclesiology Differences
Replies
3
Views
2K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
TryingToLearn
Biblical basis for lesser excommunication?
Replies
8
Views
388
Charles Johnson
Charles Johnson
Bladestunner316
  • Locked
Infant Communion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Puritanhead
P
Back
Top