T HE C ASE FOR

C OVENANT C OMMUNION

GREGG STRAWBRIDGE, EDITOR

ATHANASIUS PRESS
MONROE, LOUISIANA
Gregg Strawbridge, Editor
The Case for Covenant Communion
© 2006

Published by Athanasius Press

http://www.athanasiuspress.org
205 Roselawn
Monroe, LA 71201
318-323-3061
© 2006 Athanasius Press
All rights reserved. Published 2006.

ISBN (soft cover): 0-9753914-3-7

 CONTENTS

FOREWORD v
DOUGLAS WILSON

INTRODUCTION 1
GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

1 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 3

ROBERT S. RAYBURN

2 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF: RESTORING CHILDREN TO THE TABLE 19

JEFFREY J. MEYERS

3 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN AT THE TABLE 35

TIM GALLANT

4 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS OF THE OLD CREATION 49

JAMES B. JORDAN

5 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 69

RAY R. SUTTON

6 GOD OF MY YOUTH: INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 89

RICH LUSK

7 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE CEREMONIES OF ISRAEL 111

PETER J. LEITHART

8 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 131

BLAKE PURCELL

9 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 147

GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

APPENDIX
THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT 167
NURTURE, AND COVENANT SUCCESSION
ROBERT S. RAYBURN

SCRIPTURE INDEX 203

 P UBLISHER ’ S NOTE

W HY ARE WE PUBLISHING THIS BOOK ?

GIVEN THE EVENTS OF RECENT YEARS, some will probably roll their eyes and
heave a great sigh when they see this book. “Honey! Look what Auburn
Avenue is up to now! Trying to start more trouble!” This reaction is
understandable, and for that reason we want to make a few things plain
before you begin to read.
This book presents arguments in favor of a practice which our de-
nomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) and other conservative
denominations (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example) do not
allow—paedocommunion (or more exactly, the practice of allowing
baptized children to participate in the Lord’s Supper without first
requiring a personal profession of faith). One might think that by publish-
ing a book like this we are seeking to encourage rebellion against our
particular branches of Christ’s church. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
All of the contributors to this book have been allowed to teach and
preach on this topic by their respective presbyteries. Those who are
members of denominations that disallow the practice of covenant com-
munion are living in submission to the judgment of their respective
denominations, and none is practicing convictions which are contrary to
the constitutions of the churches of which they are members (and that
includes all of us here at Auburn Avenue). There is not the least desire to
cause schism over this issue. Truth is, we all have dear friends who
disagree with us on this subject, and we are not even interested in fighting
over this—godly debate is all we can and will encourage.
None of the contributors is interested in overthrowing the theological
progress made during the Protestant Reformation and no one has any
desire to provoke sinful discontent among those who are members of
churches where covenant communion is not practiced. Indeed, numerous
times we have counseled members of churches which do not allow the
practice advocated here to be patient, gracious, and, above all, not to cause
division or unrighteous strife over this issue. We have no desire to give
more reasons for division, nor are we by this seeking to draw any lines in
the sand.
We are not advocating revolution but we do earnestly desire reformation.
One of the most attractive principles of the Reformed faith is that
which sets before the church the goal of continually being reformed
according to the Scriptures. The Reformed understand that the church is a
dynamic organism that grows throughout history into maturity and full
conformity to its Savior. This principle recognizes that there are depths to
the Word of God that neither we nor our fathers have yet fully plumbed.
We still have a long way to go in terms of grasping the truth that God has
revealed and understanding its implications for us individually and
corporately.
Far from despising the progress made in the past, we honor it and
rejoice in it. But the best way to honor theological progress is to use it as a
foundation for future growth, rather than making it into a shrine before
which we bow. The Holy Spirit leads the church into an understanding of
the truth little by little, step by step, gradually over time. The Reformed
have always recognized this and thus have been able to honor the tradition
of the church without falling into the error of viewing it either as infallible
or final and complete. Dr. John Murray reminds us of this truth:

There is the progressive understanding of the faith delivered to the

saints. There is in the church the ceaseless activity of the Holy Spirit
so that the church organically and corporately increases in knowl-
edge unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . the
Westminster Confession . . . is the epitome of the most mature thought
to which the church of Christ had been led up to the year 1646. But
are we to suppose that this progression ceased with that date? To ask
the question is to answer it. An affirmative is to impugn the contin-
ued grace of which the Westminster Confession is itself an example
at the time of its writing. There is more light to break forth from the
living and abiding Word of God. (“The Theology of the Westminster
Confession of Faith,” Collected Writings, 4:242)

As wonderful as our creeds and confessions of the past are (and we truly
believe they are), we believe there is still much room for growth in both
our understanding and practice. The topic discussed within these pages is
one of the areas that needs to be studied carefully.
Theology is not to be done apart from the church but in communion
with it. It is a public rather than a private project. The Spirit leads the church
into an understanding of the truth and not simply individual Christians
here and there. It is all too easy to be misled by our own pride and
confidence when it comes to interpreting God’s Word, and we want to use
every safeguard at our disposal in order to avoid this. This is the spirit in
which this project was undertaken.
It is our opinion that the Reformed church of our day is in error at this
point, but we are not so foolish as to believe this actually is the case just
because we think it is. Therefore, these essays are presented to the church
for its study, critique, and discussion. They are not the last word in any
sense. Indeed, far from that, we believe that the debate has barely begun.
Our prayer is that the articles contained in this book will provoke more
study of God’s Word and that we will all be led into a more clear under-
standing of the truth God has revealed. If so, whatever the outcome, that
will be reason enough to give earnest praise to God.

Steve Wilkins
Athanasius Press
Lent, 2006
 F OREWORD

THIS BOOK CONTAINS A NUMBER OF arguments in favor of paedocommunion,

and they are competently marshaled and ably argued by a number of
godly men. My purpose here is not to try to anticipate those arguments,
but rather to try to stir in you, the reader, a desire to hope that it might all
be true. The Bereans were more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica, as we
have all heard many times (Acts 17:11). But there are two reasons given for
that nobility. One, of course, was that they searched the Scriptures to see if
the word brought by the apostles was true. We are the heirs of the
magisterial Reformers, and so we want to ground everything we believe
and do in the absolutes of God’s Word. But the second reason given by
Luke for their nobility is that they received the Word with great eagerness.
This is a good model for us. We ought not to be gullible, believing
whatever happens to strike our fancy. But neither are we to be cranky,
refusing to receive any new blessing from the Scriptures.
We are to search the Scriptures to verify what we are being taught.
And if the teaching glorifies and exalts the kindness and greatness of God,
demonstrates the abundance of His grace, and in every other respect
appears too good to be true, we should receive it with shrewd eagerness.
This kind of eagerness is not blind—we are still to double-check it all
against the text. But we do so with a prayer: “Oh, dear Lord, how wonder-
ful this would be . . .”
And I want to mention one reason why these arguments, if scriptur-
ally persuasive, would be wonderful news indeed. I am a minister of a
church which practices weekly communion. We follow the covenant
renewal pattern in worship, which means (among other things) that the
service culminates each week in our observance of the Supper. In addition
to the sermon, I deliver a short homily and exhortation in the administra-
tion of the Supper. That exhortation is to the point and just takes a few
minutes. But the central theme I have sought to emphasize is that the Lord
is pleased with His people, delights over them with singing, rejoices to
commune with them in the Eucharistic celebration. I have found, as a
result of exhorting the saints this way, that many of them have had trouble
adjusting to it. They have been taught a completely different view of the
Supper.
They think of the Supper as a time of introspection and self-
examination. It is time to confess sins and to try to make things right. In
some cases, the Supper turns into a time of morbid or pathological
introspection, and it is easy for believers to think that they have the right

v
vi DOUGLAS WILSON

(or even obligation) to shrink back from the table if they had a week that
was spiritually sub-par. This kind of conviction is deeply ingrained in
devout Christians, and I have been struck at the kinds of comments I have
received about our “different” approach to the Supper.
Instead of curling up into an introspective cocoon, the saints should be
learning to discern that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate event, not an
individual event. Instead of dimming the lights and bowing their heads
and closing their eyes, the believers should be looking around the
sanctuary, loving and discerning the body. Instead of groveling in
confession, the body of Christ should be seated together with Christ in the
central meal of the kingdom. This is the place where the friends of God rule.
This is not to diminish the importance of confession of sin. It is an
important part of Christian worship. But you wipe your feet at the door
when you first come in. Confession of sin corresponds to the guilt offering
of the Old Testament. The center of the worship service corresponds to the
ascension offering, the offering of entire consecration. And the culmination
of the service lines up with the peace offering of the Old Testament, where
the worshipper sits down and shares a meal with his God. In the Old
Testament, this is the order the sacrifices come in—guilt offering, ascen-
sion offering, and peace offering. Those who want to pursue this further
should look to Jeff Meyers’ fine book on the subject, The Lord’s Service.
But why mention all this here? Too many Christians have the Lord’s
Supper in the right place in the worship service, but through introspection
they have drastically altered the nature of the Supper. If we are worship-
ping the triune God rightly, the culmination of worship is joy, and rule,
and strength, and joy. When we break bread together, we do so in gladness
and simplicity of heart. But let us repeat the question. Why mention all this
here in the foreword to a book on paedocommunion?
Most Christian adults learned about the Supper when they were chil-
dren, whether they were allowed to partake of it or not. And in the modern
Reformed tradition, many were simply observers of the Supper, not
partakers of the Supper. They were excluded from the koinōnia, and this
has affected their view of the Supper—and does so for many years after
they come to the table. If the Supper is my reward for achieving some-
thing—maturity, good catechism answers, a successful interview with the
session, or a certain height—then it is terribly easy to think of it in those
same terms ever after. Christians come to the table with the default
assumption that they are “not worthy.” Well, of course we are not
worthy—that is the whole point. But we should have dealt with all that at
the beginning of the service in the confession and first psalm. Here,
although we are not worthy of the honor, we have been promoted to rule
 FOREWORD vii

together with Christ. It is inadequate to say that we are not worthy of the
crumbs under the Lord’s table. This is quite true, but it is also not what
happened to us. The prodigal son was not worthy of the servants’ food
that he asked for when he returned to his father in repentance. He was not
worthy of that, had that been offered. But he was offered far more than
that. He wasn’t worthy of the robe, either, or the fatted calf, or the four-
piece jazz band his father hired. He wasn’t worthy of any of the honor he
received, which does not alter the fact that he was, in fact, receiving honor.
The same is true of us—we are receiving an unspeakable honor in the
Supper, which we should never take for granted. But when you are invited
to dine with royalty, it is not appropriate to crawl to your seat.
This is an easy pattern for us to slip into, and it is easy precisely be-
cause we learned it as children. What is being urged here is a fundamen-
tally different orientation toward the table. The arguments here ought not
to be taken as urging churches to start the process of morbid introspection
earlier. We are not arguing that eight-year-olds should be afflicting their
souls in the Supper instead of waiting until they are sixteen. Rather, we
want to teach our children to rejoice in the goodness and kindness and
grace of our God. We want them to experience it all as sheer, unmitigated
grace. This is a Eucharistic meal, a meal of thanksgiving. This cannot be
done by keeping the children back from it because they have not yet
“passed a test.” This does not teach the rudiments of grace, but rather, as I
can testify as a pastor, quite the opposite.
A few years ago, when one of my grandsons first came to the table (he
was one year old), he was beside himself. His parents had taught him a
basic catechism with signs because he could not really talk. He answered
the question “Are you baptized?” by patting his own head. I was adminis-
tering the Supper, and he was sitting in the front row with his parents and
grandmother. When he got his bread, he held it up to show me. Now all this
could be dismissed simply as a grandkid doing a cute thing, not really
understanding it. But he also turned and patted his mother’s head and his
grandmother’s head. We are all baptized. He was discerning the body. To the
extent he understood the Supper, he was discerning the body. To the extent
that he did not understand the Supper (as the rest of us do not either), he
was learning, just as we are. We speak English to our children before they
know English, and it is not a fruitless waste of time. That is how they
become native speakers. In the same way, we are “speaking grace” to our
children by including them in the Supper. And what impact does it have to
speak grace to children so early? We do it so they might become native
speakers of that same grace.
Another time a granddaughter (around two) saw the elders ap-
viii DOUGLAS WILSON

proaching and cried out, “Bread guys! Bread guys!” Now what would it be
like to grow up in this kind of exuberance? What would it be like to never
have to unlearn the long hard lessons of exclusion from the koinōnia for a
time? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it were true? God invites the psalmist,
“Open your mouth, and I will fill it.” May this one day be the prayer of all
God’s children. May all our little ones be given the privilege of looking
forward in gladness and simplicity to the bread guys.

Douglas Wilson
Christ Church
Moscow, Idaho
 A BOUT THE C ONTRIBUTORS

GREGG STRAWBRIDGE is the pastor of All Saints’ Presbyterian Church

(Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches [CREC]), in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and the director of WordMp3.com. Among other
publications, he is the editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism and
the author of Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It?

ROBERT S. RAYBURN is the Senior Minister of Faith Presbyterian Church

(PCA) in Tacoma, Washington. Among other publications, he is the author
of the commentary on Hebrews in the Evangelical Commentary of the Bible
and the influential article included as an appendix in this volume, “The
Presbyterian Doctrines of Covenant Children, Covenant Nurture, and
Covenant Succession.”

JEFFREY J. MEYERS is the senior pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church

(PCA). Among other publications, he is the author of The Lord’s Service: The
Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship.

TIM GALLANT has pastored in Conrad, Montana (CRC), and is currently

involved in a church plant in Grande Prairie, Alberta. Among other
publications, he is the author of Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s table Should
be Restored to Covenant Children.

JAMES B. JORDAN is the Director of Biblical Horizons ministries and a

professor of Biblical Theology at the Reformed Seminary of St. Petersburg,
Russia. Among other publications, he is the author of Through New Eyes
and Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis.

RAY R. SUTTON is the Suffragan Bishop, Diocese of Mid-America of the

Reformed Episcopal Church and the rector of the Church of Holy Com-
munion in Dallas, Texas. Among other publications, he is the author of
Signed, Sealed and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism and That You May
Prosper: Dominion By Covenant.

RICH LUSK is the pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham,

Alabama. Among other publications, he is the author of Paedofaith: A
Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents,
and has contributed chapters to The Federal Vision and The Auburn Avenue
Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision.
PETER J. LEITHART is a Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St.
Andrews College (Moscow, ID) and the organizing pastor of Trinity
Reformed Church (CREC). Among other publications, he is the author of
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord’s Supper and The Priesthood of
the Plebs: The Baptismal Transformation of Antique Order.

BLAKE PURCELL is pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of St.

Petersburg and the director of the Reformed Seminary of St. Petersburg,
Russia. The Purcells were among the first missionaries to move into the
former Soviet Union in 1990. He has organized the first presbytery of
Reformed churches (CREC) in Russia.
 I NTRODUCTION

THE BATTLE IS OVER, AND IN THE GREAT dining hall the feast is prepared. It is
grand. The linens adorn a table in settings of gold and silver. The wine is
the finest vintage. All of the king’s house is present. The nobility, the
generals, and the heirs await the toast. The king is seated at the head of the
table, but has a troubled look.

“Is there anyone left in the enemy’s house?” asks the king.
“No, my lord, the enemy has been vanquished,” answers a general.
“But wait, there is one man left,” he remembers, “but he is no threat
to you, my lord.”
“Where is he? What is his name?” insists the king.
“We will get him, sir. My men will . . .”
“No,” says the king. “I want him alive. What is his name?”
“His name is Mephibosheth.”

No doubt you know of the story of lame Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:1–13).

He was the son of Saul’s son, Jonathan. David’s question was, “Is there still
anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for
Jonathan’s sake?” (2 Sam. 9:1). The last verse of the story reminds us that
“Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem, for he ate continually at the king’s table.
And he was lame in both his feet” (2 Sam. 9:13).
All who find themselves at the table of the Lord are like Mephi-
bosheth. We are lame. Sometimes we pretend that we stand up on our own
two feet and make a place at the table for ourselves. But, in truth, we must
be carried there if we are to be seated. And Jesus does carry us. He lifts us
from our deformity and seats us with Him, though we are unworthy.
It is in light of this grace of our Lord Jesus that I invite you to see the
Lord’s table as communion with a King who seats us as a congregation of
lame Mephibosheths. I believe this leads us to permit all baptized children
as qualified for the table by covenant membership. This is what is called
paedocommunion.
Our Baptist brethren object to the whole package. Not only to children
at communion, but bringing children to the water of baptism. Growing up
as a Baptist, I was frequently reminded of the need for conversion
testimonies of salvation. I heard an ex-con drug addict standing in the
waters of baptism, explaining how she was saved. It is powerful to hear
and see dramatic changes in a person’s life. How could the baptism of a
little child compare to this?
The last baby that I baptized was little Addelynn. As an infant, she

1
2 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

had to be carried to the baptismal font by her father, Jonathan. After

covenant vows, I took her into my arms and baptized her in the Triune
name. All the while she was helpless to aid or resist. When she was
baptized she didn’t “decide to follow the Lord in believer’s baptism” and
stand in the water and tell those enthusiastically looking on that, “Well, I
used to be . . . but now I’m saved.” Of what does the baptism of this
helpless, unreasoning, decisionless, born-in-sin child testify?
I hope you can see that little Addelynn, though in full need of grace,
was utterly unable to even ask for it or make the smallest contribution to
get it. According to the Reformed faith, faith is a response to the prior
grace of God. Perhaps you can see that infant baptism paints a vivid and
accurate picture of a covenant salvation which is by grace alone. An infant
baptism shows that covenant children are lame and must be brought to the
font. The inability that children can only illustrate is what all adult
converts should confess.
This truth is no less marvelous with children at the table. God’s provi-
sion of nurture, sustenance, and life is not by our doing. We can’t earn it or
buy it. Our best response is an ever-deepening gratitude (“thanksgiving,”
or Eucharist). It is to be a thanksgiving that flows out into the rest of life, to
all the lesser tables of the great table.
When children partake, it is a fitting picture of the reality of salvation.
Certainly, it is more beautiful than when adults think they’ve got it all
figured out and demand a seat. Children at the table show a shade of the
color of grace which reminds us that we are like Mephibosheth. This
glimmer of grace is not visible and maybe not even there when we, as the
“wise,” think we have our systematic t’s crossed and i’s dotted; when we
come in a spirit of pride, quite confident of the proper mode of Christ’s
presence, dividing asunder joints and marrow of Zwingli, Luther, Calvin
and the Fourth Lateran Council—when the main point of the table is what
it is not! “I thank Thee, Lord, that I am not like the papists, nor the
Zwinglians, nor the Lutherans . . .”
Regardless of your view of the subject of this book, knowing that we
are undeserving of a seat at the table of the King, then I trust that you will
find each essay in this book useful, thoughtful, and—I hope—compelling.
The writers have provided articulate biblical, theological, historical, and
pastoral reasons for permitting children at the table.

Gregg Strawbridge
Epiphany 2006
 1

A P RESBYTERIAN D EFENSE
OF P AEDOCOMMUNION

R OBERT S. R AYBURN

I AM A SON OF THE COVENANT.1 I GREW UP the loyal son of a Reformed and

Presbyterian home. I was taught the catechism as a boy and I believed it.
As I came into young adulthood I had occasion to put some of that
teaching to the test. I satisfied my mind, for example, that the doctrine of
divine sovereignty, which I had been taught as a boy, was not only the
unequivocal teaching of Holy Scripture, but also the necessary implication
of the Bible’s theology, its doctrine of God. Through my college and
seminary years I examined for myself and settled my mind concerning
some other doctrines that lie near the heart of that theological system that
we have inherited from the magisterial reformers, the British and Dutch

1. Editor’s note: This chapter originally appeared as the text to a debate on

paedocommunion between Dr. Rayburn and Dr. Kenneth Gentry, as part of the
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s Spring Theology Conference in 2004
and was published in The Covenant: God’s Voluntary Condescension (Taylors, SC:
Presbyterian Press, 2005). Permission for use here was graciously granted by the
author and the seminary. The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Gentry’s presentation in
the above text, as well as listen to the recorded debate (available at WordMp3.com).

3
4 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

Puritans, and the American Presbyterians. I continue to believe that the

unassailable strength of that theology and the way of life derived from it is
its robust biblicism, its determination neither to fall short of nor go beyond
the plain-speaking of the Word of God.
When I was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry, I took no excep-
tions to the Westminster Standards. I was well into my ministry when, for
the first time, I was presented with an argument that seemed to me, on its
face, to cast doubt on the biblical foundation of a part of my faith and life
as a Reformed Christian. It was, to be sure, not a major part of the theo-
logical system I had been taught in home, in church, and in seminary.
Indeed, I have no recollection of the question ever coming up in a semi-
nary class, though it may have incidentally. No statement of this particular
doctrine or its related practice is found in any of the great Reformed
confessions, even in the most elaborate of them, and in the case of our
Presbyterian standards the assertion amounts to no more than fourteen
words at the tail end of a long answer to a question of the Larger Cate-
chism. It was, however, the well-nigh universal assumption of our church
and lay beneath a universal practice. It has to do with how the church
understands the nature of the church membership of covenant children.
This, in turn, has significant implications for our understanding of the way
God takes with the children of the covenant and so bears on the practice of
the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Reformed churches have, since the
Reformation, excluded baptized covenant children from participation in
the Lord’s Supper until they are of an age at which they are thought
capable of professing their own faith in Jesus Christ. But now that practice
and the understanding that lay beneath it was being called into question.
When I first began to doubt this practice, I turned to our Reformed
authorities on the assumption that I would find what I had always found
before: a careful and learned presentation of the biblical data and a
persuasive argument that the Bible teaches what we had always believed
and practiced. It is an understatement to say that I was disappointed by
what I found. In many works of Reformed systematic theology, even in
many works on the Lord’s Supper and its practice, there was no mention
of, much less any serious consideration of, the universal practice of
excluding covenant children from the covenant meal. In the rare instances
in which an argument was offered in support of our practice, it was
perfunctory and utterly incapable of resisting the attack that was now
being mounted against our theory and our practice. The new thinking, in
fact, had all the power and persuasiveness I had so long associated with
theological constructions of the Reformed type, namely, that it took
seriously the actual statements of the Bible and constructed from them a
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 5

consistent doctrine and practice. The new understanding of the Bible’s

teaching regarding the place of our children at the sacramental meal was
not only consistent with the biblical data themselves, but also was more
consistent with Reformed definitions of the sacrament than was the
traditional practice. I noticed for the first time that if one reads the chapters
“Of the Sacraments” and “Of the Lord’s Supper” in our Westminster
Confession of Faith, one finds not only that there is not the scintilla of an
idea that our covenant children would not be welcome at the Lord’s
Supper, but also any number of statements that seem to demand their
participation.
Our motto in the Reformed church has long been ecclesia reformata sed
semper reformanda [the church reformed but always being reformed]. Surely
we should be the last Christians to suppose that our spiritual ancestors got
everything right, that they, alone among all Christians in all ages, were not
distracted by the distempers of their times or did not, however uninten-
tionally, slip into or perpetuate mistakes of thought and practice simply
because, consumed by the great issues of their time, they had neither the
time nor the opportunity to thoroughly consider every possible issue.
Children had not participated in the Lord’s Supper for centuries by the
time of the Reformation. No one was clamoring for them to do so. Only a
few isolated voices were raised in support of such a practice. There were
many other battles to be fought. There is not, to my knowledge, a single
work devoted to the question pro or con from the era of the Reformation or
the generations immediately thereafter. The most one finds is a few pages
here and there.2 It is time to ask whether a mistake was inadvertently
made, and what better way to answer that question than to return to Holy
Scripture—not to defend an existing tradition, but to collect the data and
construct, from the ground up, the Bible’s own doctrine and practice.
And what do we find when we come to the Bible? First, so far as Holy
Scripture ever speaks to the question, it always includes covenant children
in the sacramental meals of the church. A family preparing the Passover
meal prepared as much food as it had mouths to feed (Ex. 12:4).3 Explicit

2. See the summary of Reformed reflection on the question from the time of the
Reformation through the scholastic period in Bernhardus DeMoor, Commentarius
Perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium, pars 5, caput 31, 12, (Leiden, 1768), 643–48.
That reflection amounts to a few pages here and there.
3. It was sometimes asserted that “the Passover, the place of which has been taken
by the Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by
those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning” (Ex. 12:26). John
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.30, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1965). So also, for example, Walaeus in DeMoor, Commen-
6 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

mention is made of the participation of covenant children in other

sacramental meals. The children of the priests, indeed everyone in their

tarius, pars 5, 645. This is an unnatural and tendentious reading of the text, however,
and, just as often, it is admitted by Reformed authorities that children did eat the
Passover meal. So, for example, Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between
God and Man, vol. 2, trans. W. Crookshank (London: T. Tegg and Son, 1837), 269, and
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 656. The lovely
rhetorical touch in 12:26—“And when your children ask you . . .”—manifestly does
not mean either that the children have been sitting at the table watching adults eat
food that is not permitted them or that some capacity for catechetical conversation is
a prerequisite of participation in the Passover meal. Exodus 12:4 assumes their
participation in the meal; 12:26, that the meal becomes an occasion for conversation
about the mighty acts of God. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus,
trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1967), 144. Regarding the
directions of 12:3–4, Brevard Childs comments, “The whole community of Israel is
involved (v. 3) and the concern to include all Israel continues throughout the chapter
as an essential feature. . . . The final phrase in verse 4b offers the normal eating
capacity as the criterion by which the computation of participants is made. The very
young and the very old would not count in the same way as the average adult.” The
Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 197–98. In regard to verse 26,
Childs writes, “Because this rite is to become a permanent institution within Israel,
later generations must need to know its significance. How does Israel transmit its
faith to the next generation? The writer poses the questions in terms of a child’s
query” (200). That as a matter of course little children partook of the Passover meal
may be said to be the consensus of the commentaries. “. . . More than two families
might unite for this purpose, when they consisted simply of the father and mother
and little children.” C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament,
vol. 2, trans. J. Martin (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 11. The phrase “the
whole community of Israel” in 12:3, 6, 19, and 47 is instructive. It is a way of
speaking that emphatically includes the entire population of Israel (16:1 passim)
while making provision for representative acts (12:6, 21); acts, that is, in which the
entire community may be said to be acting through its representatives. It is
manifestly not a way of speaking intended to carve up the population into
participating and non-participating elements. The eating of the Passover meal itself
is plainly not a representative act but the literal act of the entire community. When
in 12:47 we are told that the whole community is to celebrate the Passover, it would
be passing strange to suppose that the real intention of that direction was to include
some of the community while excluding a substantial segment of it. It is difficult to
resist the impression that the interpretation of Exodus 12:26 that takes it as a
demonstration of the non-participation of covenant children in the Passover meal
owes its existence to the assumption that children would not have and should not
have eaten the Passover, an assumption that, in turn, owes its existence to the
longstanding practice of Christian churches not to give covenant children the Lord’s
Supper.
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 7

households, shared in the sacrifices the priests offered (Lev. 10:14; 18:11)
and the children of Israelite worshippers were included as a matter of
course in the various sacramental meals of Israelite worship. I would
appeal to Moses when he says, “there bring your burnt offerings and
sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and
your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There,
in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and
shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the Lord
your God has blessed you” (Deut. 12:6–7).
Twice more in that section of general instruction for sacrificial worship,
a point is made of saying that the worshipper’s “sons and daughters” are to
participate with him in the eating of these sacrificial meals (Deut. 12:12, 18).
In a manner typical of the presentation of the liturgical regulations of the
Mosaic law, the profile of participants is not always described, but, when it
is, the children are included as a matter of course (Deut. 16:11, 14).
Second, statements such as these, artless as they are, are the more
weighty for the total absence of contrary testimony. At no point do we hear
that children per se are excluded from a certain sacrificial meal. At no point
are we taught that certain qualifications must be met for participation in the
sacramental meals of the covenant, qualifications that children could not
meet by reason of their age or immaturity. At no point do we encounter
what we surely might reasonably expect to encounter, namely, instruction
concerning, or the narrative of, a covenant child being prepared for or
granted entrance into this sacramental participation, having reached a
certain age or having crossed some spiritual boundary. It is a point to be
made repeatedly: the Scripture often says that covenant children participated
in the sacramental meals of Israelite worship; it never says that they did not
or were not to. Scripture knows how to say that certain privileges are
reserved for those who reach a certain age, as, for example, it does in the case
of the priesthood, but it never says anything like this regarding the participa-
tion of children in the sacramental meals of the covenant. Indeed, it says
nothing remotely like this.
Third, there is nothing surprising in any of this. It is altogether what we
would expect given the doctrine of covenant children in the ancient
Scriptures. The participation of children in the sacramental meals is entirely
consistent with the inclusion of those children in the membership of the
covenant community, in the Lord’s insistence upon their circumcision, in the
Scripture’s inclusion of them as participants in the life of the community in
ceremonies of covenant renewal (e.g., Deut. 29:11; Joel 2:16), in its artless
assumption of early, even infant, faith (Ps. 22:9–10; 71:5–6; 1 Kings 18:12), in
its everywhere treating them as spiritually susceptible to the nurture and
8 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

admonition of the Lord, and in its placing them on a continuum of develop-

ment in faith and devotion from infancy to adulthood. In short, there is
nothing in all this doctrine to suggest that some spiritual frontier had to be
crossed before the children of the covenant were allowed to participate in its
liturgical life; nothing to suggest that the sacramental meals, alone of all the
means of grace, were to be withheld from them; nothing to suggest by what
principle and for what reason they alone would be excluded from this part
of the life of that community to which they are everywhere said to belong.
On the contrary, all the teaching of these Scriptures consistently presents
covenant children as members of the covenant community and so partici-
pants in its life and liturgy as they were able.4
The data of the New Testament present a similar picture. Children are
included, as a matter of course, in the membership of the church
(Matt. 18:13–15; Eph. 1:1; 6:1–3; 1 Cor. 7:14), testimony is once again given to
early, even infant faith (2 Tim. 3:15; Luke 1:15),5 the sign of the covenant is
given to them (Acts 2:38–39; 16:15, 33), and, as before, there is not the
whisper of a suggestion that the apostolic church practiced some adolescent
rite of passage that was prerequisite to covenant children being permitted to
participate fully in the liturgical life of the church. There is no liturgical
regulation to this effect, there is no narrative of such a thing happening, there
is no teaching of such a principle as would render such a rite expedient or
necessary.6

4. It is true that children were not required to participate in the three pilgrim-
age feasts, but neither were the women of the community. In fact, it is striking to
note how often children and women are mentioned together in the liturgical
directions. Their participation clearly is based on the same principle of membership
in the covenant community.
5. Calvin’s brilliant exposition of the “seed” of faith and repentance in the in-
fants of the covenant, part of his argument for infant baptism, seems to me a
powerful justification of paedocommunion (Institutes, 4.16.16–20). His insistence that
covenant children are to grow into a fuller understanding of their baptism as they
get older is a perfect way of describing their developing relationship to the Lord’s
Supper (4.16.21). The primary ground of infant baptism in Reformed theology is that
the children of believers are subjects of the covenant of grace and members of the
covenant community. However, it is also widely asserted, following Calvin, that
covenant children are to be baptized as believers, if not in the same sense as an adult
may be a believer, but as possessing the seed of faith. Indeed, this may be said to be
the most common position of Reformed theology. Henricus Eskelhoff Gravemeijer,
Leesboek over de Gereformeerde Geloofsleer, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Utrecht: H. Ten Hoove,
1894), 428–33 and DeMoor, Commentarius, pars 4, 318–25.
6. These observations certainly rest the burden of proof on those who wish to
defend as biblical a two-tier membership in the church (communicant and non-
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 9

It is, of course, thought by many that just such a principle is provided

in the apostle Paul’s admonition against the unworthy eating of the Lord’s
Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and in his requirement that believers examine
themselves before coming to the table. It is a fact very easy to demonstrate
that this single remark is virtually the entire argument against paedocom-
munion in Reformed works that deal with the question. As I was growing
up, and for some time into my ministry, I also thought that the require-
ment of self-examination before participation in the Supper must exclude
little children in the nature of the case. It was the only rationale I had ever
heard and it satisfied a superficial consideration, which was the only sort
of consideration ever given to the question in those days. I began to doubt
its relevance the first time I actually thought about it! Quite apart from the
unassailable facts that Paul is neither discussing paedocommunion in
1 Corinthians 11 nor addressing himself to the subject of the general
qualifications for participation in the Supper, the apostle says nothing in
correcting the abuse of the sacrament in the Corinthian church that the
prophets did not say before him at a time when the participation of
children in sacramental meals was not only permitted but ordered by the
express statements of Holy Scripture.7 When Isaiah or Amos or Jeremiah

communicant) and the practice of requiring as a rite the profession of faith on the
part of covenant children as the prerequisite for entrance into the fullness of their
covenant privileges. Where does the Bible say this? This is a particularly pressing
question in light of the fact that the evidence suggests that in first-century Judaism
children regularly ate the Passover meal. This point is admitted, if reluctantly, even
by paedocommunion’s detractors. R. Beckwith, “The Age of Admission to the
Lord’s Supper,” Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 2 (1976): 144–48.
7. In other ways, the application of Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11 to the
question of paedocommunion is problematic. The assumption seems to be that little
children are incapable of spiritual acts and are therefore excluded, in the nature of
the case, by Paul’s requirement that there be active mental and spiritual engagement
with the meaning of the Supper on the part of those who participate. This point is
often made as an argument against paedocommunion by Reformed authorities. But
mental and spiritual life is a continuum and has very early beginnings, as the Bible
artlessly acknowledges when it speaks of a person “rejoicing” in his mother’s womb,
or trusting in the Lord at his mother’s breasts, or knowing the Scripture from his
infancy. A weaned covenant child should already be beginning to reckon with the
meaning of Christ and his salvation and the implications of faith. Both the under-
standing and the practice of faith are continual and their beginning is, we are
everywhere taught in Holy Scripture, ordinarily found very early in the life of
covenant children. As the Word is being given to a covenant child and its truth
established in his heart, the sacrament naturally comes alongside to contribute its
share to the establishment and maturing of faith. Given the long-standing emphasis
10 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

accuse their contemporaries of an unworthy participation in worship,

of the Reformed tradition on the interrelationship between Word and sacrament, an

emphasis that is fundamental to its understanding of the purpose of the sacrament,
the practice of teaching our littlest children to say “Our Father . . . ,” but requiring
them to wait years to eat the Savior’s body and blood, is a practice requiring an
explanation clearer and more directly related to the actual statements of the Bible
than has ever been provided. The fact is, as very little children can take and eat, so
very little children can believe and can begin to grow in the faith of Christ their
savior. Therefore, even if one were to accept that the text requires self-examination
by every participant, it would still not exclude weaned covenant children from the
Lord’s Supper. Quite the contrary. It would seem to require their faithful participa-
tion, suitable to their age and spiritual maturity, as it requires the faithful participation
of all members of the church. This is a point requiring some emphasis. The typical
statements in Reformed materials to the effect that the food of the Supper is not
suitable for very little children or that the ritual of the Supper is beyond the means
of infants often betray a failure to distinguish between a nursing infant and a
weaned child or between the beginnings of spiritual life and the maturity of adult
faith. It is an Achilles’ heel of Reformed polemics against paedocommunion that
Calvin (Institutes, 4.16.30) should argue that “. . . the Supper is given to older
persons who, having passed tender infancy [qui superata teneriore infantia] can now
take solid food”; that DeMoor should find it sufficient to exclude from the Supper
covenant children who have been recently baptized (Commentarius, pars 5, 643); that
John Murray should wish to say no more than “we can readily detect that there is in
the elements used and the actions involved something that is not congruous with
early infancy” (Christian Baptism [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972],
77–79); and that Witsius should maintain that “[i]nfants cannot examine themselves”
(Economy, 2:455). Such statements amount to admissions that very little children,
that weaned children indeed, can partake of the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, all
that is being argued for! These arguments may tell against the Orthodox practice of
intinction by which the bread soaked in wine is given to the newborn upon his
baptism, but they do not tell against the custom of children’s participating in the
sacramental meal as soon as they are able to eat, the pattern established in Holy
Scripture itself. However, it is very doubtful we should understand Paul in
1 Corinthians 11 as actually laying down some liturgical requirement of self-
examination as a prerequisite for participation in the Lord’s Supper. Paul is speaking
to adults about sins they were committing. He is relating the repentance he
demands to their practice of the Supper. He is not thinking about the participation
of children and is not addressing their case. We do not know what special directions
Paul might have given for the participation of children in the Supper, for he never
addressed the question; nor did any other biblical writer. More would have to be
said before we could fairly take him to mean that he understood his remarks to bear
directly on the participation of children. We do not draw such a conclusion when
Paul tells a congregation that those who do not work should not eat, or when Peter
tells his hearers that they must repent in order to be baptized.
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 11

including sacramental worship, and call them to self-examination and

repentance (e.g., Isa. 1:10–20; Amos 5:18–27; Jer. 7:1–29; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:8;
1 Sam. 15:22), they were certainly not setting aside the Law’s requirement
that God’s people eat the sacrifices with their sons and daughters. Nor
were they establishing a ritual requirement of self-examination, as if a
prerequisite of participation in a sacramental meal was some spiritual
exercise by which certain signs of sufficiently righteous living were to be
detected and assurance of salvation thereby once again confirmed. The
prophets were calling the people to repentance and reminding them that
not only could no one worship God aright who had no intention of serving
him, but that the hypocritical worship of rebels was deeply offensive to
God. They were not saying that one must have an adult-like faith in order to
participate properly in the worship of God, they were not saying that a
certain maturity of mental development was a prerequisite of right worship,
and they were not saying that warnings addressed to adult sinners in the
nature of the case excluded the little children of those who came to God in
faith. The application of Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11 to the general
question of the participation of children in the Lord’s Supper violates the
universe of discourse. Making this still more clear is Paul’s assertion, at the
beginning of his long discussion of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian
church, that the entire community of Israel ate “the same spiritual food” and
drank “the same spiritual drink” (1 Cor. 10:3). That children ate the food so
described is not in dispute. Nor can it be doubted that the children, as part of
the people of Israel, also ate the sacrifices of the altar, a point Paul makes
subsequently (1 Cor. 10:18). Why would we then suppose that Paul was
excluding children from the sacramental meal by his remarks in 1 Corin-
thians 11? The fact that some adults may sin against the sacrament was never
before a reason to exclude the children. This is a point all the more relevant
in that no one supposes that the children were excluded from participation
in the agape feast that apparently regularly preceded the Lord’s Supper in
the Corinthian church. Paul is entirely used to the idea of the entire spiritual
community participating in a meal together. His is a warning not to
participate unworthily.
The fact is, the argument that Baptists use against infant baptism has
precisely the same form as the argument the Reformed have long urged
against the participation of little children in the Lord’s Supper. If Peter
says, “Repent and be baptized,” and if meaningful repentance is beyond
the means of very little children, then, in the nature of the case, little
children are excluded from baptism. To which argument the Reformed
have long rightly replied that Peter is speaking to adults in that context
and, while his words certainly applied to the adults who were listening to
12 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

him, in the total context of biblical teaching they do not apply to covenant
children. There is another way to qualify for baptism than by an adult’s
repentance or an adult’s profession of faith. Well, in the same way, if Paul
says, “let a man examine himself and then let him eat,” and if very young
children cannot conduct such an examination, then we have argued that
little children cannot participate in the Lord’s Supper. To which argument
the Reformed should have boldly replied, with Bible in hand, there is
another way to qualify for a place at the table of the Lord than by an
adult’s profession of faith or an adult’s self-examination.
The similarity between the Baptist argument against paedobaptism
and the Reformed argument against paedocommunion being what it is, it
should surprise no one that the same reply the Reformed have long made
to the Baptists is now being made by many among the Reformed to the
argument of their own tradition that would exclude covenant children
from participation in the Lord’s Supper.
For better or worse, Reformed writers never pondered the possible
objections to the use of 1 Corinthians 11 as an argument against pae-
docommunion. Their appeal to it was perfunctory at best as the literature
amply demonstrates. Recent efforts to rehabilitate the argument against
paedocommunion from 1 Corinthians 11 are novel and go well beyond the
simple appeal to the necessity of self-examination one finds in the
literature. The Reformed tradition, therefore, obliges no one to face any
other objection to paedocommunion than that Paul requires that a man
examine himself before he eats or drinks. If it is once admitted that it is not
obvious that Paul’s demand in that context has any bearing on the
participation of children in the covenantal meal, there remains no serious
argument against paedocommunion in the Reformed tradition. The
exclusion of children from the Lord’s Supper is a practice suspended in
mid-air.
It is admitted by everyone that from the mid-third century onward the
practice of paedocommunion was commonplace in the church.8 Mention
is made of the practice in the obiter dicta [something said in passing] of
Cyprian and Augustine, among others. Some have attempted to argue that
the lack of evidence for the practice earlier than Cyprian is evidence that it
was an innovation in his time,9 but their arguments are special pleading.

8. The relevant testimonies are conveniently collected in Christian Keidel, “Is

the Lord’s Supper for Children?” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 301–
3 and Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs (Grande Prairie: Pactum Reformanda Publishing,
2002), 106–121.
9. Beckwith, “The Age of Admission,” 125–26 and Leonard J. Coppes, Daddy,
May I Take Communion? (Thornton, CO: Leonard J. Coppes, 1988), 41–42.
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 13

In fact, the case is precisely similar to that of the patristic evidence for
infant baptism: 1) it occurs quite early; 2) the practice is not mentioned in
still earlier materials, but neither is it spoken against;10 and 3) in the
references to it there is no sense of its being either an innovation or a
controversial practice; indeed, it is a practice so much taken for granted
that it may be appealed to in demonstration of other things. Reformed
polemicists for infant baptism have regularly used this kind of evidence to
demonstrate both that infant baptism was the common practice of the
primitive church and that the most natural explanation for this practice is
that it was the inheritance of apostolic Christianity.
The fact is that even later authorities who did not approve the practice
of paedocommunion, such as Calvin and, interestingly, the Council of
Trent,11 accepted that it was the common practice of the early church. To be
sure, a rationale is sometimes provided by the fathers with which we would
not entirely agree. We encounter the same disappointment in what the
fathers sometimes said in explaining the practice of infant baptism. Never-
theless these facts seem beyond dispute: 1) the early church widely and
regularly gave the Lord’s Supper to infants; 2) she assumed the practice to
conform to apostolic practice; 3) she did not regard 1 Corinthians 11 as
forbidding paedocommunion; and 4) she regarded her children as in need of
the Supper fully as much as her adult members.12
The practice of the Reformed church in withholding the Lord’s Supper
from her baptized covenant children until such time as they profess faith
has, as I have said, never furnished anything but a superficial justification.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as “all
those . . . that profess the true religion, together with their children” (25:2).
It defines the sacraments as “holy signs and seals of the covenant of
grace . . . to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest
in Him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto
the church and the rest of the world” (27:1). It maintains that “the sacra-
ments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby
signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the
New” (27:5). Upon those principles, manifestly biblical as they are, is based
the Reformed practice of paedobaptism. By no application of those same
principles can paedocommunion be invalidated. Quite the contrary.

10. The reference in Origen’s Homilies on Judges 6:2 appealed to by Beckwith

and Coppes is ambiguous and proves nothing.
11. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, twenty-first session, chap. 4.
12. The practice gradually disappeared in the medieval church, apparently as a
result of the rise of superstitious views of the sacramental elements. By the time of
the Reformation, paedocommunion had not been practiced for several centuries.
14 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

Paedocommunion is as much the necessary consequence of this ecclesiol-

ogy as is paedobaptism. Perhaps this explains why a practice, so visible
and consequential in its effect on the life of the church, is finally provided
justification not in the Confession of Faith but in a few words of the Larger
Catechism (LC 177).
We can, therefore, put the theological challenge of paedocommunion
in terms of this question: Where does Scripture ever suggest, and by what
principle does Reformed theology assert, that a participant in the benefits
of the covenant of grace is to be denied the sign and seal of those bene-
fits?13 It is not, after all, obvious why the Word and one sacrament should
be given to covenant children at the headwaters of their lives, but the
Lord’s Supper, the meal of the covenant, should await some unnamed
spiritual development characteristic of adolescence or young adulthood.
One thing newborns need above all is nourishment.14
That is the argument for paedocommunion. It can be elaborated in
greater detail, to be sure, but the argument is elegantly simple and
strikingly similar to the argument the Reformed are accustomed to offering
for the practice of paedobaptism: 1) the covenant meals were enjoyed by
covenant children in the ancient epoch; 2) the ancient Scriptures teach

13. “Withholding of the Supper from children deprives them of not one benefit
of the covenant of grace.” H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, (Kampen: J. H. Kok,
1918), 4:642. The great Bavinck is deserving of the highest respect, but that statement
is, on its face, preposterous. The means of grace are supreme benefits of the
covenant of grace!
14. While in this case John Murray is speaking of infant baptism, the following
words intriguingly seem still more appropriate in reference to paedocommunion. “It
is objected that infants cannot understand the meaning of that which is dispensed.
Of course they cannot. But that they derive no benefit from baptism or that it is not
the divine method of signifying and sealing blessings to them is by no means a
proper inference. The same objection would apply to circumcision and would
impinge upon the wisdom and grace of God who instituted it. The same objection, if
valid, would apply to Christ’s blessing of little infants. This objection, in fact, rests
upon the iniquitous assumption that all blessing is contingent upon conscious
understanding of its import on our part. Are we to say, for example, that it is of no
avail to an infant to be born and nurtured in a Christian family simply because the
infant has no conscious understanding of the great blessing that belongs to him in
the care, protection, devotion, and nurture of Christian parents? . . . The means of
grace are channels along which the saving and sanctifying grace of God flows. To be
in the channel of grace by God’s appointment is of deepest consequence. It is only
worldly-wise calculation and not reasoning inspired by the recognition of the
methods of divine grace that can find force in this type of objection” (Christian
Baptism, 74–75).
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 15

comprehensively and emphatically that the participation of children in the

sacramental meals was by virtue of their membership in the covenant
community and answered their need to participate in its life and ritual
from the very headwaters of their lives; 3) the theology of covenant
children and of God’s way of grace with them taught comprehensively in
the Old Testament is reiterated in the New Testament; there is no new
doctrine of the children of the covenant in the last twenty-seven books of
the Bible; 4) the argument against paedocommunion, typically drawn
from 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul’s demand for self-examination on the part
of those who had abused the Supper, is an instance of the failure to
interpret statements contextually; and 5) the evidence of patristic Christi-
anity lays the burden of proof squarely on those who would assert that the
practice of paedocommunion was not early Christianity’s inheritance from
apostolic Christianity.
Defenders of the tradition nowadays tend to argue for it primarily in
two ways. First and foremost they reassert the traditional argument drawn
from 1 Corinthians 11,15 often as if it remains self-evident. It is the power
and the danger of tradition that it can create a paradigm of understanding
and interpretation so compelling and satisfying that it renders many minds
oblivious to problems and incapable of imagining another viewpoint. We
have, not surprisingly, encountered this reality many times in the debate

15. The corollaries of that argument, really the same argument in other forms,
are, first, the distinction between baptism as the sacrament of initiation and the
Lord’s Supper as the sacrament of nutrition and, second, the supposed distinction
between the passive role of the individual in baptism and his active role in the
Lord’s Supper. Such distinctions, tendentious inferences at best, are plainly
instances of petitio principii [begging the question] and, as arguments against
paedocommunion, are worthless. Nevertheless, that the supposed distinction
between baptism as a sacrament of initiation and the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament
of nutrition, common in earlier Reformed materials, should be used as an argument
against paedocommunion, seems to me both passing strange and powerful evidence
of how uncritical the Reformed argument really was. Covenant children are to be
nourished with the Word from their earliest days. By what principle would they not
be given another means of their spiritual nourishment? This is a difficult question to
answer for the Reformed who make a great deal of the intimate relationship
between Word and sacrament and are often prepared to say that the sacrament is
the Word of God in another form. By what principle, then, are our children to be
given the sacrament that is the “seal of the righteousness that is by faith” and to be
given the Word of God (Gen. 18:19; Deut. 6:6–9; Ps. 78:1–8), but are not to be given
the visible word, the second sacrament, the sacrament that supposedly provides the
nourishment of faith, especially since the spiritual feeding of children is a major
theme in covenantal ethics?
16 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

about infant baptism. Second, the defenders of the Reformed tradition

attempt to weaken, if not break altogether, the historical/typological
connection between Passover and the Lord’s Supper. Some, to be sure,
attempt to demonstrate that covenant children did not eat the Passover
meal. The more sophisticated accept that if the case against paedocom-
munion is left to rest on that claim it is doomed.16 A better approach,
therefore, is to weaken the force of the connection between the Passover
and the Lord’s Supper and correspondingly weaken the implication for
paedocommunion of the participation of little children in the Passover
meal. The problem the defenders of the tradition face at this point is that
arguments to that end are not part of the Reformed polemic against
paedocommunion. These arguments in the new literature, these construc-
tions of the nature of Old Testament ritual, or of the relationship between
those rituals and the Lord’s Supper, are novelties.17 None belongs to the
tradition of Reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper and, in my opinion,
the fact is some evidences are too hurriedly and somewhat desperately
conceived, being run into the breach in hopes of stemming the full-scale
retreat now underway from the position established at the Reformation.
This new theology of Old Testament ritual has not been found persuasive
and, from the side of the opposition, none of this thinking so far broached
has come at all close to providing adequate justification for setting aside
the weighty arguments that have been advanced for paedocommunion
and against our longstanding practice of withholding from Christian
children the sacramental meal of the covenant.
There are some dangers in developing novel arguments to defend a
tradition under attack. The greatest of these is that the sturdiest form of the
tradition, the form most impervious to fatal injury from the assault being
made upon it, is that form furthest removed from the position being
advanced by the rebels. It would be a Pyrrhic victory if the Reformed
practice of withholding the Lord’s Supper from covenant children until their
profession of faith in adolescence or young adulthood should be maintained
at the price of the diminishment of that part of the tradition held in common

16. It is telling that in the recent deliverances of Reformed churches critical of

paedocommunion (the majority report of the Presbyterian Church in America and
the minority reports of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Christian
Reformed Church), it is admitted that covenant children ate the Passover meal. The
argument in these papers instead takes the form that there is some reason why,
though children could partake of the sacramental meals of the Mosaic ritual, they
cannot partake of the sacramental meal instituted by Christ.
17. Such is the nature of Coppes’ argument against paedocommunion in
Daddy, May I Take Communion?
 A PRESBYTERIAN DEFENSE OF PAEDOCOMMUNION 17

by detractors and defenders alike, namely, the matchless privilege and

solemn responsibility of bringing children into the world and raising them in
the confidence that the God of the covenant is their God and the faith of the
covenant is their inheritance (Gen. 17:7; Ps. 78:1–8; Ezek. 16:20). The debate
should remain what it has always been: an argument about the meaning of
the participation of children in the sacramental meals of the Old Testament,
and the bearing of 1 Corinthians 11 on present practice. The Reformed
tradition rests on very little. That little is either enough or it is not. Multiply-
ing arguments is sure to cause mischief, as it always has, when efforts are
made to buttress a position not made sufficiently strong by the plain
statements of the Bible.
Sniping attacks may comfort those unsettled by the suggestion that
our beloved Reformed theology may be in significant error at one point,
but they will do nothing to satisfy the growing number of ministers and
people who are now persuaded that a mistake was made and has been
perpetuated these five hundred years. What is needed is not some new
and arcane theory of the Mosaic ritual that has some presumed bearing on
the question of paedocommunion. What is needed is a persuasive
argument as to why 1) though children participated in the sacramental
meals of the church in the ancient epoch; 2) though there is no teaching
anywhere in the Bible to the effect that children are not to participate and
no rationale provided according to which they would be excluded from
the sacramental life of the community of which they are members—and
members who participate in all the other means of grace; 3) though in all
the pages of Holy Scripture there is no mention of covenant children
beginning to participate in the sacramental meal they had not shared
before nor instruction as to their preparation for taking such a step;
4) though there is no evidence in the Bible of our ritual of the profession of
faith by covenant children; 5) though the New Testament reiterates the
ancient theology of covenant children and introduces no new principle
that might be applied to the question of the participation of covenant
children in the Lord’s Supper; 6) though the early church practiced
paedocommunion so far as the evidence goes; and 7) though the Reformed
doctrines of church and sacrament furnish principles that would seem to
require paedocommunion, nevertheless our children, members of the
church and the objects of her nurture, should not be given this one means
of grace.
One can always defend a tradition. One can find a reason, if reasons are
needed, to continue to do what we have always done. The question is not
whether we can think of reasons for our traditional practice. The question is
whether anyone with our theology of covenanted grace and a mind
18 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

unprejudiced by the custom of centuries, would ever read the Bible and
conclude that covenant children were positively excluded from participation
in the sacramental meal. The Bible never says that they were excluded and it
often says that they did participate. I am a Reformed Christian. I want
biblical authority for what I believe and for what I practice. It is precisely
that desire that has made me an advocate of paedocommunion.
 2

P RESBYTERIAN , E XAMINE T HYSELF :

R ESTORING C HILDREN TO THE TABLE

J EFFREY J. M EYERS

The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we
all partake of one bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16b–17

CONFESSIONAL PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGIANS and pastors traditionally cite

1 Corinthians 11:28 as the argument against those who want to restore our
young covenant children to the Lord’s table: “A man ought to examine
himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” (NIV). They
suppose that this text demands a certain level of intellectual competence as
well as a capacity to engage in mature, self-conscious introspection, both of
which, we are told, small children, especially infants, do not possess.
Therefore, since children are not able to “examine themselves” before
partaking, they cannot be allowed access to the Lord’s table. If they are
permitted to commune too soon, and they don’t understand what is going on
in the sacrament, they will “eat and drink judgment upon them-
selves” (1 Cor. 11:29). Although this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:28
seems to have attained the status of infallible tradition in Protestantism, there
are good reasons to question this understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 and the
practice of excluding the weakest members of the body of Christ from

19
20 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

partaking of the Lord’s family Supper.

John Calvin’s argument against communing young children stands or
falls with this argument:

[The Lord] does not . . . hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but
only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the
Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lord’s
death, and of considering its power. Do we wish anything plainer than
the apostle’s teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search
himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup? A self-
examination, therefore ought to come first, and it is vain to expect this of
infants . . . Why should we offer poison instead of life-giving food to our
tender children? (Institutes, 4.16.30)

This line of reasoning has been repeated over and over again in churches
that are part of the Reformation tradition. Sometimes it appears to be taken
for granted as “common sense” in modern conservative Presbyterian circles.
But does 1 Corinthians 11:28 really require the kind of self-examination that
Calvin and Presbyterians have traditionally thought? To whom does Paul
address this admonition? What does the verb “examine” mean in the context
of 1 Corinthians 11? Does it actually require “mature faith” and an ability to
perform internal soul-searching and deep personal introspection before one
can be judged worthy of participation at the Lord’s table? I am convinced that
this text has been made to serve a function in traditional discussions about the
admission requirements for Holy Communion that goes well beyond Paul’s
solution for the problem in the Corinthian church’s practice of the Supper.
More ominously, I am convinced that this text, properly understood, actually
stands against the traditional Presbyterian practice of excluding young
children from the table. Those who fail to commune the youngest, weakest
members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:14–26) are themselves not “judging
the body” (that is, the church as the communal body of Christ) and are
therefore eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. If this is true, then
traditional Presbyterian theologians and pastors need to examine themselves
if they are going to avoid eating and drinking judgment on them-
selves (1 Cor. 11:29).

E ACH P ERSON M UST P ROVE H IMSELF

Let us begin with the command in 1 Corinthians 11:28. The Greek verb Paul
uses here is dokimazō, which means “to prove, approve, or test.” To bring out
the meaning of this word in context, it may be best to translate
1 Corinthians 11:28 as follows: “Let a man prove himself and so eat of the
bread and drink of the cup.” This is how dokimazō is normally used in Paul’s
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 21

writings (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 13:5). It does not
typically refer to a self-reflexive internal act of evaluation; rather, it has to do
with “proving” or “approving” something or someone, often publicly or at
least in relation to others. Consider, for example, Paul’s warning to ministers:
“. . . each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it,
because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will prove [dokimazō] what
sort of work each one has done” (1 Cor. 3:13; see also 1 Thess. 2:4; 1 Pet. 1:7).
And again, his instructions at the end of his epistle: “And when I arrive, I
will send those whom you accredit [dokimazō] by letter to carry your gift to
Jerusalem” (1 Cor. 16:3 [ESV]; see also 2 Cor. 8:8, 22).
How then does a man “prove” himself? In the immediate context of
1 Corinthians 10–12 the “proof” that a Christian must display is his or her
behavior at the table with respect to the unity of the body of Christ and not the
performance of introspective self-examination. A man “proves himself” by
how he eats, not how much he understands or how thoroughly he searches his
heart. Understanding and heart-searching may be involved, but the proof is
in the way one behaves toward others in the body of Christ.
There are those in the Corinthian church whose behavior in the church
and especially at the Lord’s table manifests selfish pride and therefore
divisiveness. They are living in relation to others in the body of Christ in a
manner that destroys the unity of the church; and they are doing the Lord’s
Supper in a way that visibly violates one of its defining purposes. The table
ought to symbolize and constitute the people of God as one. As Paul said
earlier, one loaf equals one body (1 Cor. 10:17). A Christian “proves himself”
when he behaves as a loving member of the body of Christ, avoiding divisive
and schismatic behavior, especially at the communion [koinōnia] table.
1 Corinthians 11:17–18, therefore, is a rebuke and warning to the Corin-
thian Christians for what they were not doing; they refused to wait for one
another at the Lord’s Supper, even going so far as to eat their own private
cliquish or family meals (1 Cor. 11:20–22, 33–34). This way of eating the Lord’s
Supper had the effect of dividing the body, and since the rich were using the
table as an occasion for a feast with their rich friends, the weaker, poorer
members of the body were being treated as second-class Christians. Paul’s
rebuke is pointed and has little, if anything, to do with their intellectual
capacity to understand some theory relating the presence of Christ in the
bread and wine: “Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who
have nothing?” (1 Cor. 11:22).

T HE I MMEDIATE C ONTEXT —T HEIR M ISBEHAVIOR AT THE TABLE

That Paul admonishes each of them to prove, by their behavior at the table, their
unity with Christ and with one another, fits perfectly with the thrust of his
22 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

entire letter, as we shall see. But it is particularly fitting in this smaller

section of 1 Corinthians 10–14. The overarching context of Paul’s admoni-
tion in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 has to do with the unity of the church, the
body of Christ. All Christians “participate in the body of Christ,” and
“because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all
partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:16b–17). That unity or participation,
even fellowship [koinōnia] in the body of Christ must be manifest at the
Lord’s table when the entire church eats together from the one loaf. The
problem in the Corinthian church was that people were misbehaving in the
church at large and especially at the Supper—they were both acting and
eating in a manner that contradicted the reality of their corporate (corpus is
Latin for “body”) unity in Christ. They were divided in their relations with
one another, and, not surprisingly, their divisive spirit manifested itself at
the table. Paul, therefore, begins and ends his admonition concerning the
Lord’s Supper with this problem:

In the following instructions I do not commend you, because when

you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the
first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are
divisions among you. And I believe it in part, since [as you think]
there must be divisions among you in order that the proven ones [hoi
dokimoi] might be manifest. When you come together it is not the
Lord’s Supper that you eat; for as you eat, each of you goes ahead
without waiting for anybody else—one goes hungry and another gets
drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you
despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
(1 Cor. 11:17–22)

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one
another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you
come together it will not be for judgment. (1 Cor. 11:33–34b)

Between these bookend references to their discordant behavior at the

table, we find Paul’s specific admonitions concerning how they ought to
act during communion—they need to “prove” themselves and “discern the
body” (1 Cor. 11:28–29). Reading these exhortations in context yields
something different than what is commonly thought. The idea is that the
delinquent Corinthian Christians need to “prove” their unity with one
another and thereby show that they truly “discern” or “judge” the unity of
the body of Christ. The proof that they discern or judge the body properly
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 23

will be their eating the Supper in a manner worthy of that meal’s meaning
and significance.
One ought not read the exhortations sandwiched between these two
references to behavior that befits our unity as a body as if they are some
sort of free-floating, context-less instructions about admission to the Lord’s
table. In other words, 1 Corinthians 11:23–32 must not be yanked out of the
context of the specific troubles in the Corinthian church. Unfortunately,
that is exactly how they have been read and used in our “church orders”
and even in the liturgical reading of these texts during the celebration of
the Lord’s Supper. If anything from 1 Corinthians 11 is read before the
administration of this sacrament, it is typically only verses 23–32.
Verses 17–22 and 33–34 are simply overlooked. By so doing, we have lost
the original context, and I will argue, therefore, the genuine significance of
the words “prove oneself” and “discern the body.” They have been used to
address foreign concerns. Christians who think that they are not “worthy”
to come to the table because they have not sufficiently plumbed the depths
of their soul, searching for sinful attitudes and thoughts, have misunder-
stood Paul’s call to “examine/prove oneself.” Elders and pastors who
refuse to admit children and adults to the table until they can understand
and articulate the Reformed understanding of the locus of the Lord’s
glorified human nature over against rival Baptist, Lutheran, and Roman
Catholic theories have missed Paul’s point entirely. This sort of theological
pin-the-tail-on-the-body-of-Christ contest has nothing to do with his
exhortation to “judge the body.”

T HE B IG P ROBLEM IN THE C HURCH AT C ORINTH

Throughout this letter to the Corinthian church, Paul is concerned with the
divisive self-centeredness for which so many in the congregation have
become so well known. His opening salvo in the previous chapter is aimed
at this very problem:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that
you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has
been reported to me by Cloe’s people that there is quarreling among
you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says “I follow
Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow
Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you
baptized into the name of Paul? . . . Let the one who boasts, boast in
the Lord. (1 Cor. 1:10–13, 31)

It appears that all of the problems in the church at Corinth, as numerous

24 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

and notorious as they were, can be traced back to the lack of love and self-
effacing service that are needed for the maintenance of genuine ecclesiastical
fellowship and unity. Paul returns to this problem over and over again
(1 Cor. 3:1, 3–4; 4:6–7; 6:1, 6–7; 8:1, 9–12; 9:19–22; 10:1–5, 14–18).
This list is only a sampling of the texts that deal with the problem of
pride and disunity in the Corinthian church. It brings us up to chapter 11
and Paul’s admonitions about the proper way to eat the Lord’s Supper. Of
course, we could go on with chapter 12 and following to show how the
whole “spiritual gifts” fiasco in the Corinthian church centered on their
prideful elevation of certain showy sign gifts. Not only does Paul explain
at great length the Spirit’s work in the whole body of Christ (12:1–31), but
he finally offers them a better way: love. It should be emphasized that Paul
is concerned, in these chapters that deal with “spiritual gifts,” with
elevating and honoring the members of the body that the Corinthians
think are weak and insignificant.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the mem-
bers of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For
by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks,
slaves or free—we were all drenched with one Spirit. For the body
does not consist of one member, but many. . . . Those parts of the
body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and
our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our
more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the
body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may
be no division in the body, but that the members have the same care
for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one
member is honored, all rejoice together. Now we are the body of
Christ and individually members of it. (1 Cor. 12:12–14, 21–27)

Once again, Paul says that there should be “no division in the
body” (12:25). When he insists that we are all “the body of Christ” because of
our common baptism (12:12) this is the same language used to describe what
is symbolized and enacted at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16–17). Surely it is
not too difficult to see how we traditional Presbyterians have excluded the
weakest baptized members of the body of Christ from the Lord’s table and
so violate Paul’s admonition here. Even though Paul says that our children
are “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14) and that they are baptized members of the body of
Christ (1 Cor. 12:12), yet in our tradition they are not allowed to fellowship
[koinōnia] with the rest of the body at the sacrament that is designed to
signify and seal the unity of the entire body of Christ over against the
world. The whole body of Christ is holy, that is, set apart from the world
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 25

as being united to and belonging to Him, not simply the mature and
intelligent. If the “one loaf” and partaking of the “one loaf” symbolizes
participation in the body of Christ, then surely our little ones, the weakest
members of the fellowship, should not be excluded from the communal
meal.
Paul’s concern for unity in the church at Corinth dominates the letter
as a whole. A great deal of this first epistle to the Corinthian church
attempts to deal with just this problem. Even his salutation and initial
prayer set the stage for the solution to the problem of their disunity:

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those made holy [or “sancti-
fied,” hagiazō] in Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones [or “saints,” hoi
hagioi] in union with all those who in every place call upon the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. (1 Cor. 1:2)
God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship
[koinōnia] of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor. 1:9)

Every baptized member of the church at Corinth is “holy” in Christ and

for that reason they all share a common fellowship as the body of Christ. It
should be noted here that Paul’s introductory salutation and prayer embrace
the children of believers since they are explicitly said to be “holy” in
1 Corinthians 7:14. Later in his epistle, Paul will argue that even though
they may be “weaker” members of the body, they are to be given more
honor by other “stronger” members of the body (1 Cor. 12:22–25). How,
then, can a church faithfully eat the sacrament that symbolizes and seals
the unity of the body of Christ while systematically excluding the weakest
members of the body? Is the table only for the strong and intelligent? Are
our children not “holy”? Are not all the baptized of the church “members
of the body”? (1 Cor. 12:12). If so, do we rightly “discern” or “judge” the
body of Christ when we exclude certain baptized members of His body
because they are smaller or weaker or less intelligent? If the meal is Holy
Communion, and eating at this table is one of the definitive ways in which
God’s holy people are set apart from the world, then all those that are holy
ought to be included in the meal—including our children, those who are so
precious to our Savior! (Mark 10:14).
Pastors in the post-apostolic church often called out “holy food for the
holy people of God” when they were distributing the bread and wine. The
holiness of the family of God is ritually constituted by baptism and main-
tained by participation in the holy meal. If our children are part of the holy
family by baptism, sanctified by the Spirit in Christ, then they ought to be at
the table. Unless, of course, we want to make the table more restrictive than
26 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

Paul, who insists that the oneness of the body of Christ is manifest by those
who eat of the one loaf! (1 Cor. 10:17). All those who eat of the one loaf are
part of the body of Christ; those who do not are outside of the covenant and
church. The early church understood this, as Augustine argued in one of his
sermons:

Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are
denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat,
who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying
nothing else than that for believing infants—infants, that is, who
have been baptized in Christ—Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all,
what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom
He doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well, for them, He
isn’t Jesus. Well, now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not
Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure
your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes,
they’re infants, but they are His members. They’re infants, but they
receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in
order to have life in themselves.1

Theologians and pastors in our churches that perpetuate traditions

that exclude weaker members of the body of Christ from the table ought to
be ashamed of their arrogance. Not only are our youngest children
excluded, but in my experience many Reformation churches also exclude
the mentally handicapped members of the covenant as well. Baptized
autistic children, for example, as well as others who are mentally incapaci-
tated are not permitted to come to the table because they cannot complete
the class work and/or successfully articulate their faith to a room full of
blue-suited elders. We may not say this out loud to them, but we have
ordered our communion meals such that they communicate to the weak
and handicapped: “You are not really a part of this body,” and even,
“We’re not sure that you can ever be.” For those younger and weaker
members of the body of Christ that cannot, and may never be able to
benefit from the highly intellectual and discursive forms of communication
in our churches, barring them from the table removes from them one of the
only means of communication they might “understand.” Truly the head
has said to the feet, “I have no need for you.”

1. Saint Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Ed-
mund Hill, 11 vols. Part 3—Sermons. (New Rochelle, New York: New City Press,
1992), 5:261.
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 27

The admonition “let a man prove himself” (1 Cor. 11:28) means: let a
man show that he rightly judges the unity of the body of Christ as he comes
to the table. Let his actions demonstrate to all that he is one who lives in a
manner that manifests his unity with the brethren. The evidence of this
“self-demonstration” would be the manner in which he treats his brothers
in Christ, especially when he partakes of the sacrament—eating in a
manner that exhibits his unity with the body of Christ in the local church.
The Corinthian Christians were not “coming together” as a unified
body of Christ when they “came together as the church” (1 Cor. 11:17–18).
Some were even glorying and boasting in their divisions. Paul says that
they should not call what they were doing at their separate tables the
Lord’s Supper because they were all eating as factions, not as the body of
Christ. Each group had their own meal. No one waited for anyone else. No
one served the others.
Of course, they were probably not so crass about it; but their actions
communicated just such an attitude. They were making a mockery of the
unity that ought to be manifest at the table of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:16–17).
When Paul sarcastically asks, “What? Do you not have houses to eat and
drink in?” he is reminding the church that the Lord’s Supper is a ritual
meal, not simply a common meal. In partaking of the Lord’s meal, the
church ought to be constituted as the body of Christ because they all eat
from a common loaf. By using the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity to have
their own private parties, the rich are “despising the church of God” and
“humiliating those who have nothing” (11:22). Once again, Paul defends
the cause of the poor and weaker members of the body of Christ. To divide
the body of Christ—the rich at one table with their own sumptuous food
and drink and the poor at another with little—if anything—is despicable.
Those who eat in such a way are not properly “discerning” or “judging the
body.” They are eating in an unworthy manner (11:27).
Thus Paul indicts the church for eating and drinking “unwor-
thily” (1 Cor. 11:27). “Unworthily” (anaxiōs) is an adverb that modifies the
verb “eat.” Paul is not talking about checking to see if you are a worthy
person before you come to the table. He is talking about how you partake of
the Supper. The ESV translates it like this: “Whoever, therefore, eats the
bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty
of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” Eating “in an unworthy
manner” refers to one’s behavior at the table. The Corinthian church’s
conduct at the table is in view here. They were conducting the meal in a
way that did not evidence the unity of the body of Christ. Therefore, “let a
man prove himself” refers to his manner of participation at the table, or
more broadly, to his relationship with the local body of Christ. There is
28 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

nothing here about individuals deciding for themselves if they are worthy
to come to the table based on the performance of some introspective self-
examination. This passage nowhere requires an inward act of contemplat-
ing and evaluating one’s sins as a prerequisite for admission to the table.
“Proving oneself” and “discerning the body” do not refer to internal,
subjective acts of self-examination or theological accuracy.2
Christ’s table should be approached with demonstration of faithful-
ness—ecclesiastical faithfulness. It is not so much that subjective contempla-
tion and self-examination are bad; rather, they are simply not in view in this
passage. Paul is not talking about how one gets invited to the table, but how
the members of the church ought to act at the table. Paul highlights the need
for an objective demonstration of one’s behavior with respect to the other
members of the body when one partakes of the sacrament of unity. These
commands ought not to be used to exclude our children, some of the
weakest members of the body of Christ, from the Holy Communion table.
As we shall see, they actually cut the other way. Those that refuse to
commune children are in danger of failing to judge the unity of the body of
Christ.

D ISCERNING THE B ODY

So what does Paul mean in 11:29 when he says “For anyone who eats and
drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”?
What does “discerning” or “judging (diakrinō) the body” mean?
This answers the question, how should one prove oneself? The correct
response is that one should “judge the body” rightly. Again, according to
the context, this exhortation most naturally means “to take cognizance of

2. Ken Gentry’s insertion of the supposed difference between baptism and the
Lord’s Supper here is a desperate effort to draw attention away from Paul’s precise
critique of the Corinthians’ behavior at the table (“Pauline Communion or
Paedocommunion,” in Joseph Pipa, Jr. and C. N. Willborn, The Covenant [Taylors,
SC: Presbyterian Press, 2005], 190). Traditional Presbyterians must import into this
passage the questionable notion that baptism differs from participation at the Lord’s
table in that eating the Supper requires “active participation” while in baptism one is
“altogether passive.” There is some truth in this distinction, but a moment’s
reflection will reveal that we allow our children to eat in our homes at the family
table even when they have not yet matured to “full knowledge of, attention to, and
interaction with” the meaning of the ritual at the family supper table. We expect
them to grow into a mature understanding and response to the grace and love they
experience around our tables. Just as a child-like response to baptism is possible,
even required of the smallest and weakest members of the body of Christ, so also
Jesus invites his baptized children to eat with Him regularly and thereby grow in
their knowledge, attention, and interaction with respect to this sacrament.
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 29

the whole church that is seated as one body at this meal” (Gordon Fee).
The point is that we dare not forget whose “body” the church is and who is
included in that body! We dare not stretch out our hand to receive the
sacramental body when we are the cause of schism and division in the
corporate body! Remember, the Corinthian church came to the “common”
table in groups or parties (1 Cor. 11:21–22). The rich were over here with
the best food and wine and the poor were over there with whatever they
happened to be able to bring. They were eating the Lord’s Supper as a
divided church! They failed to recognize the significance of the body of
Christ.
I don’t see how (in context) this command “to discern the body” can
possibly be understood as a either a failure to discern the location or mode
of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, or a failure to reflect adequately on his
death during the meal. “Judging the body” is parallel to “judging ourselves”
(1 Cor. 11:31). One fails to “judge the body” when one “despises the church
of God” (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul’s call to “discern the body” is not a call to
intellectually figure out how the Lord’s glorified flesh is somehow (if at all)
connected to the elements of the sacrament.
Whenever the elements of the sacrament are referred to in this passage,
Paul mentions both the body and blood, bread and cup. Verses 24 and 25 set
out both elements. Then verse 26 says, “as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup.” Verse 27 says, “whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner.” Verse 28 says, “he who eats and drinks,
eats and drinks judgment.” It is clear, then, that if Paul were referring to
discerning something about the sacrament, he would have written about
“discerning the body and blood rightly.” He did not say this. He warns against
not “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29). By referencing the “body” only, he
is signifying the body of Christ, that is, the church. Remember, too, that this
chapter is sandwiched between chapters 10 and 12, both of which are about
life in the ecclesiastical body of Christ.
Recall how Paul closes out the chapter with a summary exhortation:
“So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one an-
other . . . so that when you meet together it may not result in judg-
ment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34). Paul does not summarize his warnings by
reminding them to engage in rigorous, introspective self-examination
before coming to the table. He does not warn them against participating in
the Supper if they don’t understand the correct interpretation of the “real
presence” of the human body of Christ. Is it in heaven or in the bread and
wine? He does not warn them about eating and drinking without having
sufficient devotional preparation: “I see some of you looking around when
you ought to have your eyes closed and head bowed in meditation on the
30 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

death of Jesus!” What he does tell them is to “wait for each other”! Act like a
community. Once again, this entire passage is about the manner in which the
church at Corinth eats the Lord’s Supper—they partake as a divided church. It
is not about 1) children coming to the table, 2) intellectually challenged
people coming to the table, 3) people partaking who do not know the
difference between the Reformed, Catholic, and Baptist theories of the
presence of the humanity of Christ at (or in) the meal, or 4) people coming to
the table without adequately reflecting upon the death of Jesus. It is all about
manifesting the unity of the church at the Lord’s family table. We see this
theme in one of the earliest post-apostolic Christian documents we have.
Called the Didache or “The Teaching (Didache) of the Apostles,” what it says
about the Lord’s Supper is very brief, but the emphasis is on the oneness of
the community. “On every Lord’s Day—His special day—come together and
break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins that your sacrifice
may be pure. Anyone at variance with his bother must not join in, until they
be reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled” (Didache, 14).
Discerning or judging the body is best understood, therefore, as a ref-
erence to recognizing the church as Christ’s body and not as a reference to
discerning any physical presence (or absence) of Christ’s glorified human
nature in the bread or wine. A man “proves himself” when he shows that
he “discerns the body” rightly and accordingly participates in the sacra-
mental meal in a manner worthy of the significance of the Lord’s Supper.
What Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 12:12 must be made manifest at the
Lord’s table: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the
members of that one body, being many are one body, so also is Christ. For
by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Paul’s warning is not a
threat that if you don’t thoroughly dredge up and confess every little sin
before or during the communion service, you will be judged. This is not
meant to lay a heavy dose of self-introspection on every believer. The
question is something very objective and concrete: How do you treat
others in the church? Have you proven yourself to be one who promotes
the unity of the body of Christ? Do your words and behavior in relation to
others in the body of Christ show that you are one who judges the
importance of the oneness of the body? Are you reconciled with your
brothers and sisters in Christ when you come to the table? If not, you will
be judged (1 Cor. 11:29–32). Hadn’t Jesus said the very same thing? Paul’s
warnings simply unpack the significance of Jesus’ teaching for the church
and her new sacrament:

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be
liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 31

council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of
fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember
that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there
before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then
come and offer your gift. (Matt. 5:22–24)

Paul’s admonition includes the whole church. In principle, it applies

to children as well. They, too, as members of the holy community, must
learn to eat in a manner that is fitting. But the specific focus of Paul’s
exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11 is the adults, who should have known
better. They were flagrantly disrupting the unity of the church and
profaning the Lord’s sacrament by their behavior. If they did not “prove
themselves” through repentance and changed behavior, they were in
danger of eating and drinking judgment on themselves for “profaning the
body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27–28). Even Charles Hodge, the
great Princeton theologian of the last century, notes: “All that is necessary
to observe is that the warning is directly against the careless and profane,
and not against the timid and doubting.”3
But if children are not guilty of the kind of misconduct described by
Paul, then it follows that Paul’s warnings ought not to be taken to exclude
them from the table. Of course, young children are capable of disobedience
and even some form of the sin Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 11. If they
are found to be willfully divisive and unmindful of the unity of the body of
Christ, then they should be warned. Nevertheless, there is no reason to
think that Paul intended to bar covenant children from the table, unless
they too were manifesting a similar disrespect for the body of Christ.
Glenn Davies’ comments are to the point:

[I]f Paul had intended to prohibit children from the Lord’s table then it
would have contradicted his inclusion of children in the Old Testament
equivalent of communion with Christ (1 Cor. 10:1ff). Yet God’s judg-
ment upon Israel’s unfaithfulness was that the adults perished in the
wilderness; all those twenty years and upward (except Joshua and
Caleb) perished (Num. 14:29–30). The adults who murmured against
the Lord never saw the Promised Land. If then, the children of the old
covenant were able to eat the same spiritual food, and drink the same
spiritual drink without condemnation, how much more can the chil-

3. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1857; repr., Edinburgh:

Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 231.
32 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

dren of the new covenant eat and drink the body and blood of their
Lord without condemnation.4

This is an important point. It was not the immature with whom the Lord
was not pleased, but the disobedient. Yahweh’s judgment came upon the
disobedient adults, not the children.

C ONCLUSION
Let me close by trying to bring all this to bear upon the paedocommunion
question. Does this text give us any reason to forbid our youngest covenant
children from eating at the Lord’s table? Are our baptized children members
of the body of Christ, the church? Of course. Why, then, are they cut off from
communion with Jesus? Are they holy? According to the standard argu-
ments used by Reformed folk, they are (1 Cor. 7:14). If our children are holy,
why are they barred from Holy Communion? In other words, why do we eat
as a divided body? In truth, many churches don’t eat as one body at all;
rather, some eat and others watch! The older, more knowledgeable
Christians eat and drink while the weaker, intellectually poorer members
of the body are forced to fast.
Far from being a proof text against admitting young baptized children,
this passage judges traditional Presbyterianism churches for “not discerning
the body”! When we come together as a church, there is a division at the
table—a noticeable, ugly division between adults and children, members of
the church and halfway members of the church. We are divided between
those who are in the covenant (adults) and those who are halfway in the
covenant (baptized little children). When the family of God gathers around
the table to eat dinner with the Lord, why are the youngest children
excluded? Do they not belong to Him? Why must they be told and some-
times even forcibly hindered from eating and drinking with Jesus, the one
with whom they are covenantally united? If they are in union with Christ (by
baptism), why are they not allowed communion with Him at His table?
Have they proven themselves to be schismatic or divisive? Do they fail to
discern the unity of the body of Christ? If so, then by all means they should
be excluded. If not, why are they denied access to the family table? No, it is
not the children who fail to discern the unity of the body of Christ. On the
contrary, we, the adult leaders of the church, are those who fail to judge the
body rightly. We traditional Presbyterians have for too long “despised the
church of God and humiliated those who have nothing” (1 Cor. 11:22).

4. “The Lord’s Supper for the Lord’s Children,” The Reformed Theological
Review 50.1 (1991): 12–20.
 PRESBYTERIAN, EXAMINE THYSELF 33

The analogy with the family table is valid and powerful. All of my
children have always eaten dinner with the family, even when they were
one and two years old! They belong to our family. Therefore, I want them
to eat and learn their place at the family table. Furthermore, they are all
required to “prove themselves” before and at the family table. They are all
required to “judge the body” of the family, so to speak. In other words,
they are all required to respect the unity of the family. Even the babies and
toddlers in the family learn this responsibility at the table! So, for example,
if any member of the family fails to discern the unity of the family and
starts throwing food at a nearby sibling, then that member is disciplined.
He or she will learn what it means to have the privilege of eating at the
table. He must prove himself. He must “discern the body” before and at
every meal. If he refuses, he may need to be disciplined.
Now, I have heard a Presbyterian minister say that he has “never en-
countered a three-year-old who is able to examine himself.” I’m not sure
what he means by “examine,” but even if he means something other than
what we have argued dokimazō means (“prove oneself”), I say that one-,
two-, and three-year-olds evidence their ability to discern the importance
of the family meal in countless Christian homes every night. We begin
disciplining our children at very early ages because we believe that they
are capable of self-examination, according to their age capacity! Because
they are members of the family, they are graciously invited to our family
table to eat. In the context of this gracious setting, as they grow up, they
gradually and with increasing maturity learn what it means to behave in
accordance with the privilege of family table fellowship. They grow in
their ability to “prove themselves.” They begin to learn very early what is
the meaning and significance of the family meal, and they learn how to
behave in accordance with that significance. Surely, one can see the
application to the Lord’s table.
Now, who are those who are genuinely guilty of not “discerning the
Lord’s body”? Are they the little baptized children of the church who have
not yet attained intellectual maturity, or are they those who bar such
children from the table? Who really is guilty of sinning against the “body
of Christ”? Our covenant children or our theologians and pastors who
deny them a place at their Lord’s table? Who really ought to be fenced
from the table? Christ’s little ones or traditional Presbyterian theologians
who continue to oppose the unity of the entire body of Christ—adults and
children—around His table? I am, of course, overstating the case some-
what. But not much. If, while He was on earth, Jesus was “indignant” with
His disciples when they tried to hinder little covenant children from being
brought to Him (Mark 10:14), why should we think that His attitude has
34 JEFFREY J. MEYERS

changed toward the little ones that are members of His body today? If
Paul’s fundamental concern is the unity of the body of Christ around the
table, and if his admonition to “prove oneself” is directed at those who
divide the body at the table, then, in my humble opinion, traditional
Presbyterian theologians have some serious self-examination to perform
before they come to the Lord’s table.
 3

T HE K INGDOM OF G OD AND
C HILDREN AT THE TABLE

T IM G ALLANT

FOR GENERATIONS, THE REFORMED TRADITION has barred children from the
Lord’s table until such time as they can make a mature profession of faith.
While what precisely constitutes a “mature profession” has been variously
construed, the general agreement has been that the table is not offered on the
basis of baptism, and ought to follow a quite knowledgeable, clearly-
articulated affirmation of faith.
Given this history, those who advocate the communing of children from
very young ages face the burden of proof for setting forth an alternative.1
While bypassing many sound arguments for paedocommunion such as the
participation of children in the old covenant meals,2 I wish to focus upon the

1. This burden of proof, however, ought to be balanced by the fact that children
were communed for most of Church history. It will not do to suppose that only post-
Reformation history carries any authority in terms of precedent. The overwhelming
evidence for paedocommunion from approximately the third through twelfth
centuries is an imposing record that does not deserve to be dismissed lightly.
2. For some of this evidence, see Feed My Lambs. For another helpful angle, see
also C. John Collins, “The Eucharist As Christian Sacrifice: How Patristic Authors
Can Help Us Read the Bible,” Westminster Theological Journal 66, (2004): 1–23. Collins
argues that the early Church understood the Lord’s Supper as a peace offering,

35
36 TIM GALLANT

kingdom of God and how the communion table relates to it. From there we
will broach the question of children. How do they stand in relation to the
kingdom? Do they belong at the table?

T HE K INGDOM OF G OD
The terminology of “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven”
is frequently misunderstood. Often, it has come to function as another way
of speaking of “heaven.” “Entering the kingdom of heaven” is taken to mean
either “going to heaven, where God and the angels are,” or “getting saved.”
In the case of the latter, salvation is generally seen as something timeless:
just as Abraham or Moses or David got saved, so it is with us—each of us
“enters the kingdom of heaven.” This, however, is not in accordance with the
biblical usage of the term.

T HE N EWNESS OF THE K INGDOM

In terms of Scripture, the kingdom finds its advent with the ministry of
Jesus. The New Testament is the record of the coming of the kingdom of
God. John announced it as “at hand.” As His ministry advanced, Jesus
moved from echoing that same announcement of nearness among His
hearers, to stating that it had indeed become present.3 It had become
something available to enter into.4
But what is the kingdom? Kingdom implies rule; how can we speak of
the arrival of the rule of God, who reigns eternally? While Scripture fre-
quently speaks of God’s sovereign rule of all things—a comprehensive
ordering of every detail from the least to the greatest (“our God is in heaven;
whatever He pleases, He does,” Ps. 115:3)—yet the idea of the kingdom of
God is distinct from this general truth. It has to do with the rule of God
through His Messiah, a rule which would bring blessing to the people of
God and alter the order of things in the world. The eschatological cast of the
enthronement psalms, for example, anticipated a time when Yahweh would
come to judge the earth with righteousness and truth (see, e.g., Psalm 96:13
in context). The prophecies of Isaiah, in turn, suggest that such expectation is
tied to the time of the Servant, whose arrival will occasion the spreading of
good news by eager messengers declaring the triumph of God.5
At least in the Gospels, the term “kingdom of heaven,” then, refers nei-

noting that children participated in these during the old covenant period. (Note
also that the Passover was actually a specific instance of the peace offering.)
3. Compare Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 with Matthew 12:28 and Luke 17:21.
4. Matthew 23:13.
5. See, e.g., Isaiah 40:9.
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 37

ther to the realm of God’s dwelling with His angels (“heaven”), nor to His
perpetual control of the creation. It refers to His rule through His Servant,
His Messiah, which commences at a particular time in history.
This is why Jesus says of His predecessor, “Assuredly, I say to you,
among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the
Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”
(Matt. 11:11). In the context of that statement, He ties John to the era of “the
law and the prophets” (11:13). The implication is that the time of the law and
the prophets (of which John is the climactic representative) is now drawing
to a close, and the time of the kingdom of heaven has commenced. A new
order of things has dawned in Jesus the Messiah, the Servant through whom
the God of Israel now rules.

A K INGDOM OF F EASTING
We cannot here unpack all of the features of this kingdom. Suffice it to say
that one of the key components of the kingdom of God is its table. In one of
the foremost Old Testament prophecies of the coming kingdom, Isaiah
declares this: “And in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all
people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of
marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees” (Isa. 25:6). 6
Nor is this table imagery strictly symbolic in the sense that “feasting”
actually refers to something else altogether. As it turns out, a primary
earmark of Jesus’ ministry was His attention to the table. Two of His most
famous miracles involved the multiplication of food for the multitudes.7
Indeed, the Gospel of Luke may well be described as meal-focused. The
kingdom which the Jewish leaders are rejecting is portrayed as a great feast
for the Bridegroom (Luke 14:15–24). And the anticipation of the age to come
keys upon sitting down at a table which will be shared with Abraham and
the other patriarchs (Matt. 8:11).
It is no great wonder, then, that one of the climactic acts of Jesus’ minis-
try is the institution of the Lord’s Supper on the night of His final Passover.
The great sign of the kingdom is found here; God, through His Messiah,
communes with His people in a new covenant. The rich prophetic imagery
of the kingdom clusters together in this simple but profound meal, in which
Christ shares bread and wine with those who belong to Him.
This focus is not lost after Jesus’ ascension. When the multitudes turned
to the Lord on the day of Pentecost, the result is that “they continued

6. All biblical quotations in this chapter are drawn from the New King James
Version unless otherwise noted.
7. Matthew 14:13–21; 15:32–39 and parallels.
38 TIM GALLANT

steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread,

and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). This four-part harmony characterized the early
assemblies of the church: teaching, sharing of offerings, participation in the
Lord’s Supper, and engaging in prayer.8 In fact, Acts 20:7 describes the
worship assembly as coming together to break bread (something similar is
implied in 1 Corinthians 11:20). The Lord’s Supper could aptly be described
as the central liturgical act of the early church.

T HE T ABLE OF THE L ORD

In part, I have recounted the material above in order to stress that the Lord’s
Supper is not merely an exercise in private devotion, nor yet a symbol to
engage our intellects; it is a sign-act of the kingdom which has a central place
in that kingdom. Paul indicates as much for us when he says that God has
called His saints into “the koinōnia (usually translated “fellowship”) of His
Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9), and then goes on to describe the
Supper as the koinōnia of the blood and body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16).
It is unfortunate that a great deal of Protestant reflection upon the Sup-
per has found its point of reference in the metaphysical question of precisely
how Christ is present in the Supper. While transubstantiation was a serious
error which needed to be refuted, nonetheless we must ask whether it has
been altogether helpful to allow Rome’s error largely to set the terms for our
reflection upon the Supper. There is so much more involved in the Supper,
and in fact, the “nature of the presence” was never a matter of reflection or
dispute in the biblical record. Adjudicating the debate between transubstan-
tiation, consubstantiation, memorialism, and Calvin’s “spiritual presence”
(for lack of a better term) simply does not get us very far in understanding
(much less appropriating) the richness of the Lord’s table.9
Clearly, a short chapter on paedocommunion cannot accomplish the
task of expounding that richness. But it is important to come back to a few of
the biblical fundamentals.

A K INGDOM T ABLE
First, as described above, the Lord’s Supper is the table of the kingdom.
Jesus Himself makes this very clear at the Last Supper, when He says, “With

8. “Fellowship” [koinōnia] here likely refers to material sharing in offerings; the

same word is used in this sense in Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4, 9:13; and
Hebrews 13:16. “Prayer” would have included singing; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:15.
9. Thus Peter Leithart’s Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord’s Supper
(Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000) is a breath of fresh air in this regard. Leithart
focuses upon the rich biblical table imagery and helps us capture some of the
frequently-ignored or minimized significance of the sacrament.
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 39

fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for
I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of
God” (Luke 22:15–16). That last Passover of Jesus has become the foretaste of
the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
This fits well with the context of the original celebration. Just days be-
fore, Jesus had been hailed as the Son of David, welcomed into Jerusalem in
Messianic style (Matt. 21:1–11). At the Last Supper, Jesus surrounds Himself
with those who will sit on twelve thrones, governing the re-established
kingdom (Matt. 19:28); even as God communed with the elders of Israel in
the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 24:9–11), so Jesus does here.
This meal is kingly and covenantal, and formally inaugurates the kingdom
which supplants the old covenant era.
Since we have already discussed the kingdom at some length, I will
forgo further elaboration and move on to other features of the Lord’s Supper.

C HRIST ’ S T ABLE
The Lord’s Supper does not stand in isolation. It is integrally related to who
Christ is, and to the pattern He has established for Himself and for us.
There is nothing more characteristic of Christ’s pattern of life—and
death—than its self-giving nature. The Gospels portray Christ’s death as His
self-offering. Jesus identified His flesh as the gift which He would give for
the life of the world (John 6:51). Paul likewise places his faith in the fact that
the Son of God “loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Believers
are called to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for
us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5:2).
The above observations refer to the accomplishment of redemption, and
in particular, Christ’s self-giving in death. His life is given up to procure the
salvation of His people.
But Christ’s pattern of self-giving is not limited to redemption’s accom-
plishment; it is also the pattern of redemption’s application. The gift of life
which believers receive is the gift of Christ Himself. Through the Spirit, He
makes His home in His disciples, along with the Father (John 14:23). He not
only gives up His life for His people; He gives His life to His people.
These observations must be integrated into our understanding of the
Eucharist. The sacrament is identified by Paul as the Lord’s Sup-
per (1 Cor. 11:20). As such, it is an expression of Christ’s pattern of self-
giving.10 The term koinōnia itself points us in this direction. This word, often

10. This is particularly poignant in the passage where Paul uses the term
“Lord’s Supper,” since the Corinthians were being the very opposite of self-giving;
they were selfishly gorging themselves and shaming the poor.
40 TIM GALLANT

translated “communion” or “fellowship,” has a fundamental idea of

partnership or mutual participation. It is frequently used by the New
Testament writers to refer to sharing in material goods (see footnote eight).
Just as such material sharing indicates a partnership in the poverty of
another, or in the spread of the gospel, so too the Lord’s Supper is a
partnership: a partnership of believers with one another in the body and
blood of Christ. In the context of the Supper, Anthony Thiselton appropri-
ately translates koinōnia as “communal participation.”11 As the table of the
Lord, the Supper is the place of Christ’s sharing of Himself with His people.
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this
bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I
shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). In the Supper, Jesus gives us
Himself.

T HE C HURCH ’ S T ABLE
Third, the kingdom table is the church’s table. Again, nothing could be
clearer on this point than 1 Corinthians 10:16–17: “The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the koinōnia of the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not the koinōnia of the body of Christ? Because there is one bread,
we being many are one body, for we all from the one bread partake.”12
In this passage, Paul argues that the Lord’s Supper in some sense consti-
tutes of the church. The body and the table are bound up together; the table
re-constitutes the body. This is because the Supper is the koinōnia of the
body—in other words, the location of participation in Christ. Just as the
calling of the saints was into koinōnia at the outset (as noted above from
1 Corinthians 1:9), so it is in the Supper that koinōnia is expressed and
enjoyed. In that sense, the Supper is the telos (aim or goal) of the call of God.
This already suggests that the unity, or solidarity, of the table is no mere
accessory to the gospel. Rather, it is integral to it, and this is demonstrated
repeatedly by Paul in a way that is often overlooked: the unity of Jew and
Gentile in Christ. It must not be missed that this central theme in the
apostle’s letters revolves around the matter of table fellowship.13 The
stunning tirade against Peter in Galatians 2 arises out of the latter’s with-

11. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Greek Testament
Commentary; I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, eds.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), 761–64.
12. My translation.
13. The Jew-Gentile issue always was table-oriented. See, e.g., the powerful
clean-unclean paradigm employed in Acts 10, when God is calling Peter to speak to
Gentiles, and in particular the resulting charge in 11:3: “You went in to uncircum-
cised men and ate with them!”
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 41

drawal from the Gentile table (Gal. 2:12). That withdrawal implied a
cleavage between Jew and Gentile—that those who were not circumcised
were at best second-class believers. At the climax of his refutation of such a
notion, Paul appeals to baptism: those who have been baptized into Christ
have been clothed with Him (Gal. 3:27), and since He is the true heir, the true
Seed of Abraham (3:16), all the baptized are full members of the cove-
nant (3:29). All the natural distinctions are stripped away, for all collectively
are one (man) in Christ (3:28).
Nor is this simply a Jew-Gentile issue. It is precisely this same failure
to maintain table solidarity that so enrages Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. The
“haves” despise the “have-nots,” and those who are poor and without
social influence effectively become deprived of the table (1 Cor. 11:17–22).
In contrast, Paul will go on to say in the next chapter, those who are thought
of lightly, those who are weak and devoid of natural honor, are actually
those upon whom we should lavish greater care and honor (12:22–25). And
ultimately, although there is a wide diversity of gifts in the body, the laver
and the table are shared: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one
body, whether Jew or Greek, whether slave or free; and we were all made
to drink one Spirit” (12:13; translation mine).
It is evident, then, that even more basic in Paul’s thought than the Jew-
Gentile issue is the fundamental matter of the solidarity of the body of Christ at
the table. That table is the table of unity, which brings together Jew and
Gentile, man and woman, rich and poor, great and small. Just as there is one
baptism (Eph. 4:5), there is one table.

T HE C HILDREN OF THE N EW C OVENANT

We have spoken of the kingdom, and followed up by describing the table as
the table of the kingdom, the table of Christ’s self-giving, and the table of the
church. These characteristics of the Supper, it seems to me, are quite
indisputable. Given that, it is now time to inquire into the relationship of
covenant children to the kingdom, to the self-giving Christ, and to His
church.

C HILDREN OF THE K INGDOM

Thankfully, we need not speculate upon the relationship of covenant
children to the kingdom, since Jesus addressed this issue directly. When the
disciples sought to deter little children from coming to Him, Jesus repri-
manded them saying, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid
them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And with that, He placed His
hands upon them and blessed them (Matt. 19:13–14).
42 TIM GALLANT

I frequently meditate upon the stark power of that one statement: “of
such is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is not here merely speaking of how we
adults need to exercise childlike faith, although that is a proper application,
and, in fact, a point which Jesus makes elsewhere, but in this case, He is
referring to the real live children who have been brought to Him. The
kingdom belongs to such as these.
As I noted earlier, Jesus has already said that the least in the kingdom is
greater than John the Baptizer (Matt. 11:11)—the great John, who was filled
with the Spirit from the womb (Luke 1:15). The greatest of the saints of the
era of the law and the prophets are less in His view than the least in the
kingdom. And the kingdom belongs to little children such as these whom
the disciples have been rejecting. As Jesus puts it in Matthew 18:2–14, unless
the disciples too become as little children, they cannot enter the kingdom.
With a child in His arms, He says that receiving a child such as this little one
before them will, in fact, be receiving Christ; and conversely, causing such a
child to stumble provokes a curse like that of Judas: it would be better never
to have been born.
Clearly, in Matthew 18 Jesus broadens the application beyond small
children. But surely, it is just as clear that by doing so, He has no intention of
excluding them, particularly given what we have already noted from 19:14
(“of such is the kingdom of heaven”). Covenant children are not kingdom
citizens, second class—much less strangers. Covenant children are treated as
members—indeed, as the exemplary models—of the kingdom, and the
kingdom refers specifically to the new covenant. They are full participants in
the kingdom—and the kingdom, Paul tells us, is “righteousness, peace, and
joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). If Zacharias and Elizabeth were
promised that John would be granted the Spirit from the womb, much more
the children of new covenant believers are children of the Spirit, for they are
heirs of the kingdom. That is the astounding message of Jesus in Matthew’s
Gospel. The “least of these” are not to be despised.

C HILDREN OF C HRIST
It is perhaps artificial to speak of the kingdom separately from the self-
giving Christ who, after all, is Himself the presence of the kingdom. He is
the Servant who in His own person is “a covenant to the people,”14 and the
kingdom of God is essentially simply another way of speaking of the new
covenant. Consequently, one may simply say that if “of such is the
kingdom of heaven,” then these little ones are certainly members of Christ.
While we could do that, I do wish to push the point just a little bit further

14. E.g., Isaiah 42:6, 49:8.

 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 43

in the context of one particular passage which does not employ kingdom
terminology.
I believe that the children of believers are “in Christ.” Paul presupposes
such inclusion in Ephesians 6:1–4. This is reflected in several ways. First, he
tells children to “obey your parents in the Lord” (6:1). “In the Lord” clearly
does not modify “parents” (“spiritual parents”). It has to do with the children
themselves, or at least, the obedience which they are to render. Even if we
take the latter to be the case, it implies the former. The children’s obedience
can be “in the Lord” only upon the basis of the deeper reality that the
children themselves are “in Christ.”
Second, Paul instructs fathers to bring up their children “in the training
and admonition of the Lord.” Here again, the apostle’s wording is impor-
tant. He does not say that fathers are to attempt to get their children to make
a transition into the way of the Lord; rather, they are to raise their children in
that way. Further, and even more fundamentally, the instructions of this
passage stand within the larger context of the preceding. All the commands
which Paul gives to husbands, wives, children, fathers, masters, and slaves
(Eph. 5:22–6:9) arise out of the foundation articulated in 5:1–2: “Therefore be
imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved
us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-
smelling aroma.”
It must be understood that I am not making any attempt to make a play
on the phrase “dear children” in verse one, as convenient as that would be.
What I am focusing upon, however, is the foundation Paul provides for his
ethical instructions: “Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us.” The
children in 6:1–4 are as much the objects of that self-giving as are the adults
addressed in the surrounding context. Christ gave Himself for our children,
and He continues to give Himself to them.

C HILDREN OF THE C HURCH

If believers’ children are full members of the kingdom of heaven, and objects
of Christ’s self-giving love, who can deny that they are included in His body,
the church? Such a denial, surely, would be thoroughly implausible. If
nothing else, the heavily-ecclesiological focus of Ephesians, which includes
children in Christ, would seem to make such a denial downright incongru-
ous, at best. In a letter that is more explicitly about the church than any other
(Ephesians), Paul addresses children more directly than in any of his other
epistles.
On this point, the Reformed have traditionally appealed to 1 Corin-
thians 7:14, and, I believe, rightly so. In this passage, Paul is dealing with
the question of the viability of a believer remaining married to an unbe-
44 TIM GALLANT

liever. The underlying concern of this particular verse is whether such a

marriage will disqualify the children from sanctified status. “For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the brother; otherwise, your children are unclean, but now
they are holy [or saints].”15
While a frequent objection against appealing to this passage is raised
by connecting the spouse’s status (“the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband”) to that of
the children (“now they are holy”),16 this objection fails to take into account
the passage’s background. The concern here is raised in particular by the
account of intermarriage in Ezra 9. The “holy seed”17 had become “mixed
with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:2). Ezra treated this as a genuine
crisis, and ultimately compelled the children of Israel to put away their
pagan wives.18 The intermarriage in Ezra’s day was treated as an irretriev-
able pollution of the line of the covenant.
In this light, the situation in 1 Corinthians 7 becomes understandable,
as does Paul’s “now” (“now they are holy”). In line with Ezra and the rest of
the Old Testament, Paul presupposes inter-generational continuity in the line
of the covenant. But unlike Ezra, he has determined that under the new
covenant (“now”), maintenance of that covenantal line need not entail the
breakup of an existing marriage with an unbeliever. However Paul may have
understood the precise position of the unbeliever is not the point of the
verse. The unbeliever is “sanctified” (“set apart”) by the believer to this
degree: the children are “clean.” In the language of Ezra, they remain “holy
seed.” This usage of the term “holy” (or saints) with reference to the children
of even one believing parent is therefore equivalent to the Old Testament
language which referred to those who belonged to the people of God. To
speak anachronistically: the church of the Old Testament.
Thus 1 Corinthians 7:14 affirms that believers’ children belong to the
church, and in fact Paul employs the same terminology to refer to the church
earlier in this same epistle. He writes “to the church of God which is in
Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints” (1 Cor. 1:2). Here Paul freely
parallels church and holy ones, or saints. It is to this body that believers’
children belong.

15. My translation.
16. The word holy is hagia, an adjective related to the word for sanctified earlier
in the verse.
17. In the Septuagint (LXX): sperma to hagion—the singular form of the same
word used in 1 Corinthians 7:14, employed in a collective sense.
18. See the entirety of Ezra 10, particularly verse 11.
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 45

T HE C HILDREN AT THE TABLE

Given what we have observed above regarding both the sacrament of the
table and the kingdom status of the children of believers, it seems fair to me
to suggest that Augustine was correct in describing children as ideal
recipients of the sacraments. Not because they are “innocent” (Augustine
would be the last to claim that), but precisely because of the sovereign
freeness of God’s grace, which comes to us in advance of our willing and
running (much less our deserting). God delights in showing grace to “the
least of these”; it is His customary way of acting. In truth, baptism puts
adults on level ground with infants: “For you know that all who are
baptized, whether they are old or young, are called infants.”19
But the case for children being included at the Lord’s table is much
stronger than such general observations. For those willing to connect just a
few dots, the issue should actually be quite clear. The Lord’s Supper is the
table of the kingdom and the expression of the church’s koinōnia in Christ as
His body. The bread and the body are coextensive; those who belong to the
body partake of the bread, and those who partake of the bread are consti-
tuted as part of the body (1 Cor. 10:17). Correspondingly, the children of
believers are full members of that kingdom and body, and have been called
into that koinōnia equally with adult believers.
Similarly, as we noted earlier, Paul distinguishes between the various
gifts given to the different members of the body, and that which is common to
all: baptism and the Supper (1 Cor. 12:13); and this in a context which places
special stress upon giving honor and care to the weak (1 Cor. 12:22–25). We
can no more restrict the Supper to adults than we can baptism; if the one
baptism includes the children of believers, then the one table does likewise.
It is frequently objected that the Lord’s Supper is “dangerous” for chil-
dren because they cannot “examine themselves.” John Calvin, for example,
reasoned, “If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness of
Christ’s body are able to participate worthily, why should we offer poison
instead of life-giving food to our tender children?”20 I cannot here provide a
critique of Calvin’s understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:28 (the support for
his comment), which I regard as a fundamentally misguided reading of the
text. Of necessity, I have devoted this essay to establishing a positive case for
paedocommunion, rather than to refuting objections. I have, however, dealt

19. Tract. In Joh. 26, 1; cited in David Holeton, Infant Communion: Then and Now
(Cambridge: Grove, 1981), 6.
20. Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis
Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.16.30.
46 TIM GALLANT

extensively with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 elsewhere, to which I

refer the reader.21
I do wish, however, to call into question here the unstated assumption
regarding God that Calvin makes in this quotation. Jesus emphasized the
superiority of God’s Fatherhood to ours in Luke 11: “If a son asks for bread
from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish,
will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he
offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to those who ask Him!”
Calvin’s reasoning suggests to us that God will give a serpent to our
children, simply because they supposedly lack the cognitive capacity to
examine themselves. Frankly, that is not the kind of father Jesus describes for
us. It depicts God the Father as being a much sterner and more unkind father
than we ourselves are to our own children—and Jesus clearly says that the
opposite is the case. It was not the children who ate the manna and drank of
the Rock (which was Christ) in the wilderness who perished; it was their
parents.22 The children ultimately inherited the land while their fathers died
in the desert. If we really think that God turns the Supper into poison for our
children, much less ought we adults ever dare to come to the table.
There is no danger that God will give our children a serpent rather than
bread. If we, being evil, would not banish an infant for clumsiness at the
table, much less does God banish our little ones for their natural incapacities.
That is simply not the sort of father God is. We must practice paedocommun-
ion, because the alternative practice does not speak the truth about God the
Father, nor the gospel. This observation, then, leads me to my closing point.

P AEDOCOMMUNION IS THE G OSPEL

“Gospel” means good news. The Reformed accent upon the good news has
rightly placed emphasis upon the assurance that God’s act of grace precedes
our response. Election is not conditioned upon our good works, but in the
divine goodness and good pleasure. The gospel means that God rescues us

21. Feed My Lambs, 72–105. See also chapter two by Jeffrey Meyers in the pre-
sent volume.
22. Compare 1 Corinthians 10:1–11 with, especially, Numbers 14:30–31. God,
speaking to those who had refused to enter Canaan upon His command, says, “you
shall by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in. But
your little ones, whom you said would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall
know the land which you have despised.” God does not victimize the little ones, but
the high-handed sin of adults will assuredly bring judgment.
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHILDREN 47

when we cannot help ourselves; that it is Christ’s saving reign which is

determinative.
Paedocommunion is God’s declaration that He provides koinōnia with
Himself to the youngest and most helpless. It accents His mighty power to
commune with children. Just because an infant does not know how to
verbalize hunger in an articulate way does not mean that mother’s breast
does not nourish him or her. Likewise, when Jesus blessed the toddlers and
infants who had been brought to Him (Matt. 19:13–15), He was not hand-
cuffed because they were too young and intellectually undeveloped to
appropriate a theological discourse. His flesh is the life of the world, and not
merely the adult world.
The prophet Isaiah promised that the Servant would not break a bruised
reed or snuff out a smoldering wick (Isa. 42:3). Grace is not for the strong
and secure, but for the weak and the helpless. In close context to discussion
of the Lord’s Supper, Paul similarly insists that the duty of the body is to
honor the weaker members. And further, avoiding schism in the body
requires having the same care for one another (1 Cor. 12:20–26).
What this means for us is that we may not treat our covenant children as
“members of the body, second class.” That is not God’s way. To the contrary,
He teaches us that unless we are converted and become like these weak ones,
we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3). The model of saving
faith is not yours or mine, but your child’s. Because salvation is not about us
and our capacities; it is about God’s power and grace.
The powerful preaching of free justification by Paul centered upon table
fellowship, as we have already seen. In the face of those who would impose
restrictions upon Gentiles, and in the face of those who cut off the “have-
nots” from the Lord’s table, Paul’s gospel of grace is fierce in its loyalty to
what Christ has accomplished for all of His people. Not natural advantages,
but participation in Christ, granted through baptism (Gal. 3:27): this is the
foundation of the solidarity of the church.
Paul’s gospel demands paedocommunion. The kingdom of heaven,
which identifies covenant children as full members, demands paedocom-
munion. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gives of Himself unreservedly to all
His people, including our little ones, demands paedocommunion. It’s time
we got it right.
 4
C HILDREN AND THE R ELIGIOUS
M EALS OF THE O LD C REATION

J AMES B. J ORDAN

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ESSAY IS TO SURVEY and discuss what the Hebrew
Scriptures (the “Old Testament”) say about the place of children in
religious meals. The relevance of such a study is that it provides the
background for the final portion of the Scriptures (the “New Testament”).
It tells us what the people addressed by the New Testament writings—
which are “to the Jew first”—had been thinking and doing for the previous
1400 or so years.
To get at this question, we have to consider what the various religious
meals were, and what was the condition for being present at them. By
“religious meals,” I mean meals that have some kind of sacral quality that
makes them different from common daily meals. These include covenant
making and covenant renewing ceremonies, religious feasts of a more
general type, meals linked to the Tabernacle and Temple rites, and
occasions when God provides food or drink in an exceptional manner (as
with manna and water from the rock). (I have avoided the word “sacra-
ment” and have put it in quotation marks where I have employed it,
because the term carries a lot of freight, and differing freight in various
traditions.)
Before we begin, however, a few general observations are in order.

49
50 JAMES B. JORDAN

The first is that every single passage in the entire Bible that mentions or
discusses children speaks of them as included in whatever religious event
is under consideration. Jesus says to let the children come to Him. Paul
addresses children in his letters. Moses tells Pharaoh that the children
must accompany Israel to the great feast God is calling them to. Moses, in
Deuteronomy, commands that children be allowed at the feasts. Search
how you will, you will find no passage anywhere that hints at the exclu-
sion of children from any religious event or meal.
Second, there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that commands,
hints, or shows that children need to go through some ritual before they
are included at any religious meal. There is neither “bar mitzvah” nor
“confirmation” in the Bible.1
Third, there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that commands,
hints, or shows that children need to be catechized or instructed in order to
make them eligible for any religious meal. Instruction took place at the
meal, not before it.
Fourth, there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that commands,
hints or shows that children need to make some kind of declaration or
decision in order to make them eligible for any religious meal.
Fifth, there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that commands, hints,
or shows that children need to be of a certain age in order to be eligible for
any religious meal. And we should note that the Bible is quite specific in
Numbers that a man must be twenty to be enrolled in the muster of Israel’s
army, that a Levite must be twenty-five to start assisting the other Levites
and thirty to begin full service, from which he retires at fifty (Num. 1:3; 4:3;
8:24–26). Also, Leviticus 27 provides a list of ages for both men and women
by which they were to be valued if given to the sanctuary. If God had
wanted to provide an age for children to come to Passover or anything
else, He could easily have done so.2

1. Jesus’ appearance in the Temple at age twelve is sometimes linked with the
bar mitzvah rituals of later Judaism. No such ritual custom existed in Jesus’ day,
however, and nothing in the text hints that this was the first time Jesus had ever
been to Jerusalem to a feast. As The Encyclopedia of Judaism states, “There is no
evidence of a bar mitzvah ceremony prior to 1400” (New York: Macmillan, 1989),
102. Moreover, Jewish children participate in Passover long before bar mitzvah! The
writings of the rabbis give strong indication that children participated in the
Passover meal at the time of Christ. See Christian L. Keidel, “Is The Lord’s Supper
for Children?” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 314f, and Tim Gallant,
Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children (Grande
Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Pub., 2002), 56ff.
2. It is sometimes asserted on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:28 that a child must
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 51

Sixth, it is sometimes asserted that because engaging in religious

meals wrongly is dangerous, it would be a sin for parents to let children
participate, lest the children slip up. This bizarre notion indicates a very
unworthy and borderline heretical understanding of the lovingkindness of
God—as if God were just waiting for a chance to damn our children!
Moreover, as Mark Horne has pointed out, God requires us to cover or
fence off dangerous property like open pits (Ex. 21:33–34). If religious
meals are so dangerous to children, why does God never give any warnings
about it?3
To summarize: the Bible contains no warnings against children’s par-
ticipating at religious meals. It provides no age limit or other qualification
of entry that differs from what is required of adults (circumcision for
Passover; ritual cleansing for all Tabernacle events). On the contrary, every
single passage that discusses children speaks of them as included in
religious events.
Because of this, it is rather difficult to “prove” child participation in
religious meals, because the Bible almost never sees the need to address
the matter directly. Child participation is presupposed. Nevertheless, there
is information that bears more or less directly on the matter, and it is the
purpose of this essay to survey it.

R ELIGIOUS M EALS IN G ENESIS

The Bible begins with food. The plants mentioned as made on the third
day of creation are food plants: grains and fruit trees. God planted a
garden, really an orchard, for Adam and Eve to begin life in, and the two
special trees in the center of the garden had some kind of special religious
purpose. One, the Tree of Life, would mediate life; the other, the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil, would mediate death.4
Because the sin of Adam broke off the history of what might have
been, speculation about how and when the children of an unfallen Adam

be old enough to examine himself before being served the Lord’s Supper. But it is
clearly adult sins that are being discussed, and, if this verse excludes children, then
we should be starving our children on the basis of the command “If a man will not
work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).
3. Mark Horne, God’s Uncovered Pit: Kenneth Gentry on Paedocommunion. Biblical
Horizons Occasional Paper 20 (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995).
4. For a discussion of the trees and their sacral meanings, see James B. Jordan,
“Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?” in Steve Wilkins and Duane
Garner, eds., The Federal Vision (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004), 151ff; and
Jordan, From Bread to Wine: Toward a More Biblical Liturgical Theology (Niceville, FL:
Biblical Horizons, 2001).
52 JAMES B. JORDAN

might have eaten of the two special trees must be approached with care.
All the same: since, as we shall see, children were always included with
their parents in religious meals in the world of sin and death that followed
Adam’s fall, we can be sure that the children of an unfallen Adam would
have grown up “at the table of the Lord.”
In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel brought “offerings” (literally “tributes,
gifts”) to Yahweh, but there is no hint of any meal in connection with these
rites. Both Noah and Abraham brought Ascensions (“burnt offerings”) to
the Lord, but as is required in this type of ritual, the flesh of the animal
was wholly transformed into smoke and sent up to God (Gen. 8:20–21;
22:2, 13; Lev. 1). In all these cases the idea of communing with God is
present, but not a meal.
The first religious meal we encounter in the text seems to be in Gene-
sis 31:54:

And Jacob sacrificed a sacrifice on the mountain,

and he invited his relatives to eat bread,
and they ate bread,
and they spent the night on the mountain.

Although “bread” is the word used, it may well refer to the flesh of the
sacrifice. The word “sacrifice” (zabhahh) is used only for communion meals
in the Hebrew Bible. Hence it does not mean “sacred slaughter” per se, but
“slaughter to prepare a sacred meal.”5 Accordingly, the related word
“altar,” mizbeahh, means “place of communion,” not “place of slaughter.”
Communion, not slaughter, is the idea common to all altars, including the
incense altar and the symbolic altar of Joshua 22.
The question here is whether this meal is merely a communion be-
tween Jacob’s people and Laban’s, or is more than that. Given the cove-

5. Unfortunately, in English the word “sacrifice” is also used for all the ritual
“nearbringings” (qorbanim) of the Levitical system. Thus, we speak of the “sacrificial
system” and of the “five basic sacrifices.” In Hebrew, however, the verb “sacrifice” is
only used of the animal slaughtered to provide a communion meal—in the Levitical
system this is the Peace Sacrifice—and is never used in connection with any of the
others. In Hebrew, one never “sacrifices” a “burnt offering” or a “meal offering” or a
“sin offering,” etc., though “sacrifice” can be used to cover the entire process if one
of these is linked with a Peace Sacrifice (See Ex. 20:24 and 24:5).
This is why the early Church, and some traditional churches, call the Lord’s
Supper a sacrifice, because it is a communion meal with God. Similarly, since altar
means “place of communion,” the Church’s table is often called an “altar.” In terms
of Hebrew usage, this is entirely appropriate.
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 53

nant-making context, in which God is called upon as witness and

judge (v. 53), this would seem to be a religious meal. The fact that it was
held on a mountain or high-place also points in a religious direction, as
also of course does the use of the word “sacrifice.” On this occasion, only
the men involved in the covenant-making were present.
The second religious meal we encounter is in Genesis 46:1:

And Israel set out with all that was his.

And he came to Beer-Sheba.
And he sacrificed sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac.

The plural “sacrifices” here indicates more than one animal. The reli-
gious context is indicated by that word, and by God’s appearing to
Jacob/Israel in a vision that night.
Who shared in this communion meal? It would seem that the people
with Jacob participated in it, since more than one animal would have been
too much for Jacob to eat by himself. Verse five states that when they left
Beer-Sheba the following day, “the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob
and their little ones and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to
carry him.” These are the people present on this occasion. Did they all
participate in the sacrificial meal?
We cannot be dogmatic here, but let us notice that it is “Israel” who
sets out in verse one, and who brings the (plural) sacrifices, while it is
“Jacob” whom God addresses in verse two, and “Jacob” who arises in verse
five and is carried to Egypt along with his family. This contrast hints that
the “Israel” of verse one carries corporate connotations: it means Jacob, but
it also means the people with him. If we ask who slaughtered, cut up, and
cooked the sacrifices, we may well believe that the sons of Jacob assisted
him in doing so, so that it was “Israel” who made the sacrifices. And if this
is so, as seems likely, it would be odd for wives and little ones to be
excluded from the meal.

T HE J OURNEY TO P EACE
This brings us to Exodus, and to the Journey to Peace. God sent Moses to
Pharaoh with one demand: that all the Israelites be allowed to go a three-
day journey6 into the wilderness to have a worship festival, to “sacrifice,”

6. Since the worship was to be at Horeb/Sinai, which was more than three days
away, it seems that “three-day journey” is an idiom for “several days.” See Cornelis
Houtman, Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1993),
1:376.
54 JAMES B. JORDAN

and hence to have a communion meal with Him. This is the demand
iterated and reiterated in Exodus 3:18; 5:3–17; 8:8, 25–29. What is in view
here is not the Passover, which will happen inside of Egypt, but an event
that must take place on Mount Sinai (Ex. 3:12; 8:28).
It needs to be noted that Pharaoh might have let the people go for
their festival, but had he willingly done so, he would have been recogniz-
ing Yahweh as their God. When, after the festival, the people returned to
Egypt, Pharaoh could no longer have held them as slaves, but would have
had to treat them the way Joseph’s Pharaoh treated them originally. God
makes it clear at the outset, however, that Pharaoh will not respond
positively, and that the result will be the removal of Israel from Egypt.
As the contest between Moses and Pharaoh intensifies, it is precisely
the presence of children at the feast that becomes the issue. During the
plague of locusts, the eighth plague, Pharaoh dismisses Moses to go and be
a slave to Yahweh. But then he asks who is going, and Moses says that all,
including children, must go, and livestock for sacrifice as well. Pharaoh’s
response is that he will not let both them and their little ones go. The men
may go to the communion meal, but not the children (Ex. 10:8–11).7
During the next (the ninth) plague, of palpable darkness, Pharaoh
allows the children to go, but demands that the livestock remain. Pharaoh
wants them to go out and have a purely intellectual worship event. Moses,
however, insists on the animals because both “sacrifices and Ascensions”
will be required. We must take every single animal, he says, because we
don’t know in advance how many Yahweh will require (Ex. 10:24–26).
Let’s be very clear about what is being demanded of Pharaoh. Yahweh
intends to have a feast with Israel. Communion-sacrifices as well as
Ascensions (“burnt offerings”) are required. And Yahweh insists that the
children be present for this feast. For the men alone to be present, without
wives and children, is unacceptable.
This is the whole purpose of the exodus: to celebrate a feast to the Lord at
which children are present along with adults.
This feast, as mentioned, is not Passover. It is, in fact, an event that will
take place in connection with the giving of the Torah, which becomes the
feast of Pentecost. Passover is preliminary to it; the goal all along is
Pentecost at Mount Sinai.

PASSOVER
We come now to the first Passover itself. In Exodus 12:27, Passover is called
a “sacrifice,” because it is, after all, a communion meal. But in context, this

7. Personally, I’d be nervous about siding with Pharaoh on this.

 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 55

language links the Passover with the coming wilderness sacrifice that
Yahweh has been demanding. The notion that children were excluded
from this first Passover, and from later ones, is wholly without biblical
support. According to Exodus 12:3–4, one was to take a lamb or kid for
each household, according to how many people were in the household.8
Moses had been telling Pharaoh that the children must be included in the
coming sacrificial meal. Passover is also a sacrificial meal. The idea that
children were served something else, while only adults, or only men,
partook of Passover, is wholly without any foundation in the text. On this
night, Passover was the meal for all.
It should be remembered that the whole purpose of the original Pass-
over event was to spare the firstborn sons of Israel. These were sons
between one month and five years of age.9 Passover was for these children,
but they were not allowed to eat at the meal? On the contrary: these
children were the most important participants in the meal! The notion that
God was claiming these small boys, but at the same time excluding them
from His feast, is bizarre.
Later in Exodus 12, rules are given for the annual Passover. We read in
verse 47 that “all the congregation of Israel are to do this.” Does “all the
congregation” exclude children? In verses 52 and 50 we read that the

8. The phrase is “a man according to his eating.” The word for man is ‘ish,
which usually means man in contrast to woman. Some have argued from this that
only men were to eat Passover. Exactly the same phrase occurs in Exodus 16:16, 18,
and 21, however, in connection with the manna. Clearly, every human being except
newborn infants ate the manna, since there was nothing else to eat. Hence, we must
take “man” (‘ish) in its more general meaning of “each person,” as we find it for
instance in Genesis 10:5, Exodus 19:13, Leviticus 15:5, and numerous other places.
9. This calculation emerges from the following: the number of grown men, over
twenty years of age, who left Egypt was over 600,000 (Ex. 12:37; 38:26; Num. 1:46).
Most of these would have firstborn sons; many would have been firstborns
themselves. But the count of firstborns that were spared at Passover, and claimed by
God, was 22,273 (Num. 3:43). That is far too few, if we assume that all firstborn sons
of whatever age were claimed by Passover.
The purpose of this count was to substitute the Levites for the firstborn, head
for head. Those counted were from one month upward (Num. 3:43).
Four chapters before this, we have read in Leviticus 27 the valuations of per-
sons. According to verse six, a son from one month to five years is valued at five
sacred shekels. Now, in Numbers 3:46–47, we find that there were 273 more
firstborn than Levites. These were redeemed at the rate of five sacred shekels each.
This proves that the firstborn sons under consideration were those between one
month and five years. It is quite reasonable that out of 600,000+ men there were
22,273 firstborn males of that age.
56 JAMES B. JORDAN

Passover applied to the “sons of Israel.” Does this exclude women? Well,
consider Exodus 16:1, “all the congregation of the sons of Israel came to the
wilderness of Sin.” Does this mean that only the men came, while the
women and children were left behind? Obviously not. Clearly, both
“congregation” and “sons of Israel” are expressions that can and often do
mean “every Israelite.”10
The attempt to say that “congregation” means only adults, or that
“sons” means only men, actually proves too much. In Exodus 12:3, Moses
is told to speak to all the congregation and tell them the rules for the
Passover. Clearly this is not all 2,000,000 Israelites. But neither can it be the
600,000 men.
Speaking to “all the congregation” in 12:3 obviously means speaking
to the representatives of the people, and through them to all the people. If
we were to force this meaning all through the passage, we would conclude
that only a few representative leaders of Israel were to do the Passover!
Common sense needs to take over. Clearly, Passover was the meal for
everyone in the household on that event.
Additionally, the rules for the week of Unleavened Bread in Exo-
dus 12:19–20 state that anyone (any “soul”) who eats leaven (sourdough) is
to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. This rule applies in all
dwellings. Clearly it applies to women and children. Now, the week of
Unleavened Bread begins with the Passover meal (12:18). It is ridiculous to
maintain that women and children were under the Passover rules as
regards what was commanded not to be eaten, but were not included in
what was commanded to be eaten!
God is, in fact, very particular about who is not to be at future Pass-
overs, and it is the uncircumcised, not children (Ex. 12:43). God says who is
to be excluded; He says nothing about children. Later on, in Numbers 9:1–14,
we find that a person who is unclean is also excluded.11 But again, we never
read that children are excluded. If children were to be excluded from Passover,
God would have said so.
Now, a slave bought with money, who had been circumcised, was to
partake (Ex. 12:43–49). Consider this slave. He was born, let us say, in
Persia, and was captured and now is part of a caravan traversing the
King’s High Way through Israel. A compassionate Israelite purchases him.

10. Similarly, “Daughter Zion” and “Daughter Jerusalem” do not mean only
women, but include all citizens of Zion/Jerusalem.
11. Numbers 9 only mentions uncleanness from a human corpse, but verse 13,
which says that a person must be clean, extends it to all uncleanness. See also
Leviticus 7:20–21 and 2 Chronicles 30:3, 17–20.
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 57

Of course, our Persian does not know any Hebrew, nor does our Israelite
know any Persian. But, somehow they communicate enough for the
Persian to let the Israelite get him drunk enough to stand the pain of
circumcision. And then, as yet wholly ignorant about Yahweh and Israel’s
history and calling in the world, our circumcised Persian (now an Israelite)
partakes of Passover. If such an ignorant slave was to participate in
Passover—and there can be no doubt but that the law in Exodus 12 covers
such a situation—then surely children were to participate as well.
Let me remind the reader that Paul says that the condition of children
and of slaves is the same in Galatians 4:1. The principle is the same in both
cases. Participation in the feast begins in ignorance, and the child and the
slave learn about what it means as they participate.
One final straw that anti-paedocommunionists grasp at is Exo-
dus 12:26–27, which says that when your children ask “What do you mean
by this service?” you are to explain the Passover to them. Supposedly, this
is some kind of catechizing that comes before a child is eligible to partici-
pate in Passover. Nothing in the text, however, hints at any such thing.
First of all, this is not a ritual part of Passover; the child might ask this
question any time. Exactly the same kind of question and prescribed
answer is found in Deuteronomy 6:20–21 with reference to the law, and in
Joshua 4:6–7 about the memorial stones at the Jordan river. These are not
ritual events, but examples of a child’s curiosity being satisfied in a
perfectly normal manner.
Second, there is no hint that the child has not participated in Passover
before this time. Just as the child has been under the law from infancy, but
asks about it as he grows up, so the child has been at Passover all along.
The “you” in “what do you mean by this service?” is taken by some to
mean that the father does the service and the child does not. But if that
were a valid argument, it would mean that in Deuteronomy 6:20–21, “what
about these laws that God has commanded you?” the father is commanded
to obey the law and the child is not.

T HE S ACRIFICE OF P EACE
Up to this point the Scriptures have used the word “sacrifice” to refer to
religious communion meals, but the expression “Sacrifice of Peace” has not
appeared. It appears first on the first Pentecost, when the Ten Words were
spoken by God, in Exodus 20:24.12 There the leaders were told to make an

12. On the chronology and demonstration that tradition is correct in linking the
giving of the Ten Words with Pentecost, see James B. Jordan, A Chronological and
Calendrical Commentary on the Pentateuch (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 2001), 48f.
58 JAMES B. JORDAN

altar of earth or of uncut stone. This would be the rule until the Tabernacle
was set up, about ten months later. This altar would be used for Ascen-
sions and for Sacrifices of Peace.
The following day, Moses built an altar and the “young men” (dea-
cons; liturgical assistants) “sent up Ascensions and sacrificed Sacrifices of
Peace to Yahweh, consisting of bulls” (Ex. 24:5). Afterwards, Moses and the
elders of Israel went up on Mount Sinai and participated in a sacrificial
meal in God’s presence (v. 11). This event, worshipping on the mountain
with a sacrificial meal, is the precise fulfillment of Exodus 3:12 and 18. God
did not strike the elders down (24:11), because peace had been attained.
All of Israel was present at this meal by way of their representatives.
Or are we to believe that God was at Peace only with the seventy elders? Of
course not. The covenant was being made with the entire nation and all the
people in it. God was at peace with all of them, including the little children
that He insisted be present (remember Exodus 10:9–10). The children were
as much at this meal as the elders were.
Having made the Journey to Peace with God, Israel was to maintain
this Peace. The rituals prescribed in Leviticus all center on Peace, and on
the Sacrifice of Peace:

A. Leviticus 1–3 moves to the Sacrifice of Peace as the climax of

the series of rituals, then moves back in chapters 4 and 5 to
discuss the two preparatory rituals.
B. Leviticus 6–7 gives the “Torah” of the rituals, and ends with
the Sacrifice of Peace.
C. Leviticus 17 begins with rules about Sacrifices of Peace.
D. Leviticus 19 also begins almost immediately with Sacrifices
of Peace.
E. Leviticus 22 consists of rules about Sacrifices of Peace, as the
climax of chapters 21 and 22.
F. “Making whole” (“making peace”) is the purpose of the eye-
for-eye law of Leviticus 24:18 and 21. Note also that the
mother of the blasphemer in this passage is Shelomith, “Mrs.
Peace,” so to speak.

This “centrality” of the Peace Sacrifice in the Levitical system is impor-

tant background for the thinking of Jewish believers in the early church.
Clearly the Lord’s Supper was the new form of Peace Sacrifice (communion).
This is stated in 1 Corinthians 10:18, where speaking about the Lord’s
Supper, Paul writes, “Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the
altar?”
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 59

Who was present at the Peace Sacrifices, then? Since the sacrifice itself
consisted of a whole animal, it is not likely that the idea was that the only
layman who ate from it was the one making the sacrifice. Moreover, leavened
and unleavened bread were also part of the Peace meal (Lev. 7:12–14). It
seems clear that others would join in the meal at the worshipper’s invitation.
Would that include his children? We can answer this quite clearly by
looking at how the priests participated in the Peace Sacrifice. According to
Leviticus 7:30–31, the breast of the Peace Sacrifice was lifted up (“wave
offering” in many Bibles) before God and was thereafter for the priests.
The priests shared in the eating of it. Also, the right thigh was given to the
particular priest who mediated the ritual for the layman (7:32–33), and this
“contribution” (“heave offering” in some Bibles) was particularly for him.
Leviticus 10:14 is crystal clear about who eats these parts of the Sacri-
fice of Peace:

And the uplifted breast and the contribution thigh you are to eat in a
clean place,
you and your sons and your daughters with you,
because as your share and the share of your children they are given
from the Sacrifices of Peace of the sons of Israel.

Leviticus 22:1–16 amplifies on this rule, adding that slaves purchased

with money (and hence circumcised) also partake in the holy gifts, and that a
daughter who returns home as a widow or divorcee may also eat of the holy
gifts.
Now, since the children of the priest participate in the Peace Sacrifice,
sharing in their father’s portions, clearly the children of the layman may also
share in the Peace Sacrifice.
In our consideration of Passover we saw that God was quite specific
about who was to be excluded from that meal: the uncircumcised. Children
were quite clearly included. In the same way, God is quite specific about
who was to be excluded from the Sacrifice of Peace, and it is not children:

And the soul that eats flesh from the Sacrifice of Peace that is for
Yahweh,
and his uncleanness is upon him,
then that soul must be cut off from his people.
And a soul: if he touches anything unclean—uncleanness of man, or
livestock’s uncleanness, or any detestable unclean thing—
and then eats from the flesh of the Sacrifice of Peace that is for Yahweh,
then that soul must be cut off from his people. (Leviticus 7:20–21)
60 JAMES B. JORDAN

Without going into full detail in our analysis, it is clear from these two
commands that one was not allowed to eat of the Sacrifice of Peace in a
condition of uncleanness. Since Passover was a variety of the Thanksgiving
Peace Sacrifice, this rule would apply to Passover as well (see Leviti-
cus 7:15–17 with Exodus 12:10). While God-fearing Gentiles were not
under the laws of clean and unclean, the provision in Numbers 15 that
allowed them to perform the Sacrifice of Peace implies that they would
have to conform to those laws in order to draw near to the Tabernacle
(Numbers 15:15–16, “one statute,” “one law,” “one ordinance” for both
Israelite and sojourner).
The varieties of uncleanness are delineated in Leviticus 11–15 and Num-
bers 19. The most powerful forms of uncleanness come from the human
corpse and from the “flesh” of human beings, and all kinds of uncleanness are
symbolic forms of death. The way to remove uncleanness is by cleansing with
water, which therefore is a symbolic form of resurrection (e.g., Lev. 11:24–28,
39–40; 14:5–9; 15:5–8, 10–11, 13, 16–18, 21–22, 27; Num. 19:12, 21). The person
who was thus symbolically dead was not allowed into the holy area of the
Tabernacle for any purpose, and depending on the kind of uncleanness, was
exiled from the camp of Israel as well.13
The author of Hebrews (an eminent “Old Testament scholar”) under-
stands these cleansings as baptisms, linking them with Christian baptism.
He considers “instructions about baptisms” as part of the elementary Old
Creation teaching (Heb. 6:2), and refers to “various baptisms” as part of the
symbolic ritual structure of the Law (9:8–10). These are obviously in contrast
to, though anticipatory of, Christian baptism. Similarly, the author contrasts
the ashes-laden sprinkling for the dead with the pure water that sprinkles
New Creation believers (9:13–14 and 10:22).
What emerges from this is that baptism is the ticket to the meal. 1 Corin-
thians 10, as we shall see, links baptism with being at the religious meal of
manna in the wilderness. Here we see that baptism is the doorway back to
the holy spaces and to the holy food of the Sacrifice of Peace. It is the only
requirement.
To summarize this section: we have seen that children ate the Passover

13. The most extensive discussion of all this is David P. Wright, The Disposal of
Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature,
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
See also James B. Jordan, “Holy Ground,” in The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law: Five
Exploratory Essays (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1989). Useful also is Philip Peter
Jenson, “Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World,” in Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 106 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992).
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 61

meal. We have also seen that the whole purpose of the exodus, as origi-
nally stated, was to introduce Israel to Peace with God, expressed in the
Peace Sacrifice. And we have seen that children participated in the Peace
Sacrifice meals.

F ESTIVALS
If there were any question about the inclusion of children at the religious
meals of Israel, a couple of passages in Deuteronomy seal the matter. In
Deuteronomy 12:10–14 Moses instructs the people that there is to be one
central sanctuary, and that this is the only place where the Levitical rituals
may be performed. Verse 11 lists the following:

Ascensions
Sacrifices (Peace)
Tithes
Contributions (including the Thigh of the Peace)
Vows (a variety of Peace)

Then verse twelve says that at this place, “you shall rejoice before
Yahweh your God, you and your sons and daughters, your male and female
servants. . . .”
The suggestion that this means that the children are to be brought to
the Tabernacle, and rejoice, but only stand by and watch their parents eat
the Peace meal, is utterly ridiculous. Such a Gnostic notion would never
have occurred to an ancient Hebrew.
Similarly, Deuteronomy 16:11 and 14 state that children are to be in-
cluded in the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and the Feast of Booths (Taberna-
cles). These are feasts held at the Tabernacle, later Temple, and thus in the
near-presence of God. Any study of the festival calendar of Israel, from
Leviticus 23 or Numbers 28–29, will reveal that these feasts were part of a
large-scale series of covenant-renewals. The food eaten by laymen at these
two feasts was not taken from the altar, though obviously if a layman
wanted, he could make a Peace Sacrifice during these feasts. But the feasts
themselves were religious meals. At the feast, in the near-presence of God,
all the food was special and all the meals religious. And children were
involved. There was, after all, nothing else to eat!
1 Samuel 1:4 also shows us children at the special religious meals of
Israel. Each year, according to verse 3, Elkanah would visit the Tabernacle
at Shiloh and make sacrifice. As always, this means a Peace Sacrifice, and
verse 21 tells us it is of the Vow variety (Lev. 7:16). Whether this took place
as a private pilgrimage or at one of the annual feasts we are not told. What
62 JAMES B. JORDAN

we are told is that Elkanah gave portions to his two wives and to the sons
and daughters of his wife Peninnah.
Joel 2:15–16 remarkably includes children in a call to a fast:

Blow a trumpet in Zion!

Consecrate a fast!
Proclaim a solemn assembly!
Gather the people!
Sanctify the congregation!
Assemble the elders!
Gather the children and the nursing infants! . . .

While this is a special fast, the only appointed annual fast in the law was
the Day of Coverings (“Atonement” in many Bibles). Leviticus 16:29–31 says
that “you shall humble your souls,” both Israelite and God-fearing sojourner.
Who is the “you” here? On the basis of Joel 2:15–16, it would seem to be
everyone, including nursing infants.14

I N THE W ILDERNESS
Let us hear from one of the greatest Old Testament scholars of all time, the
apostle Paul:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,

that our fathers were all under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea,
and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea,
and all ate the same Spiritual food;
and all drank the same Spiritual drink,
for they were drinking from a Spiritual Rock that
followed them;
and the Rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:1–4)

Paul is very clear that the food and drink in the wilderness came from
the Spirit and anticipated the Lord’s Supper, which is his topic (10:15–18).
It seems ridiculous to have to do this, but we have to think about

14. The odd view of Leonard Coppes that the Lord’s Supper is tied most fully
to the Day of Coverings, and that children were not involved in that event, is utterly
destroyed by Peter J. Leithart, Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated? An Examination of
Leonard J. Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion? (1992, repr., Niceville, FL:
Transfiguration Press, 1998).
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 63

Paul’s use of “fathers” here. For you and me it is clear that he means
“forebears.” But for some people, “fathers” would have to mean “only men
who have had children.” Only such men were baptized into Moses; only
such men participated in the Spiritual meals, etc. Everyone else ate the
same food, of course, but it was not “sacramental” for them. This is the
kind of reason one finds in the writings of some (not all) anti-
paedocommunionists.15
But consider: Paul begins by writing, “I do not want you to be un-
aware, brothers.” Are we supposed to think that Paul is only addressing the
men in the congregation, and that women don’t need to be unaware of
these things? Or maybe Paul is only speaking to those men who had the
same parents as he had!
Writers like F. Nigel Lee want to say that “fathers” here means “adult
men.” But of course, it does not mean that. It means men who have had
children. If the only people who were sacramentally participating in these
meals were “fathers,” then neither children nor women nor bachelors nor
childless husbands were sacramentally participating.
To look at it another way: according to Lee, the adult men were bap-
tized into Moses and ate the manna sacramentally. All right. What
happened when one of the young children grew up? Was there some rite
by which he was baptized into Moses? And at what point did his eating of
the manna become “sacramental”?
“Fathers” obviously means “forebears” here, just as “sons of Israel”
often means “people of Israel.” This is by synecdoche, mentioning the
prominent part (“father,” “son”) to allude to the whole (“all,” “people”).
Throughout Leviticus 16, for instance, the rite of the Day of Coverings is
said to be for the sins, uncleannesses, and rebellions of the “sons of Israel”
(vv. 5, 16, 19, 21, 34). Does this mean that the sins of the women were not
covered by this rite? No, and in fact the word “people” is used parallel to
“sons of Israel” throughout Leviticus 16, establishing that “sons of Israel” is
a way of speaking of the whole nation (16:3, 15, 24, 33).
Turning back to Paul, we see that he is assuming that the entire forty
years in the wilderness was one long religious meal, a special meal which
God provided by the Spirit.
Psalms 77 and 78 seem to be strongly in the background of what Paul

15. “1 Corinthians 10:1–4 does not say that ‘all our mothers’ or ‘all our chil-
dren’ . . . but only that ‘all our fathers’ were, and that they ‘did all eat the same
spiritual food. . . .’ ” Francis Nigel Lee, in Concerning Paedocommunion: Lee Versus
Jordan and Jordan Versus Lee (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995), 7, #33. This is a
series of discussions emerging from Jordan, “The Biblical Doctrine of Paedocom-
munion: Four Taped Lectures” (Biblical Horizons, 1994).
64 JAMES B. JORDAN

is writing here. Both deal with the exodus from Egypt. Right at the end of
Psalm 77, Asaph indicates that God sent rain upon the people as they
passed through the sea led by Moses and Aaron (vv. 16ff). While sprin-
klings from the heavens may not be the only thing Paul has in mind in
referring to baptism in the sea under the cloud, it certainly appears that the
idea in both Psalm 77 and in 1 Corinthians 10 is that the baptism consisted
of rain from the cloud while they passed dryshod through the sea. This
baptism, says Paul, was “into Moses,” and that is just what Psalm 77:20
indicates when it says that God led His people by the hand of Moses and
Aaron.
Moving to Psalm 78, as Paul seems to do, verses 13 and 14 put the sea
and the cloud right next to each other, but then Asaph moves on to the
heavenly food and the water from the rock. Verses 15 and 16 celebrate the
split rock, and then verses 17–25 discuss the coming of the manna. Asaph
calls the manna “grain from heaven” (v. 24) and “bread of mighty ones,”
which in context seems to refer to angels.
Asaph moves in verses 26–31 to a second food that came from the
sky—the quails. He says that God’s anger rose against them while the food
was in their mouths. Paul also, in 1 Corinthians 10:5ff, moves to God’s
judgment upon the wilderness generation.
A couple of things call for comment here. First, the analogies between
the wilderness meals of chapter 10 and the Supper of chapter 11 could use
more attention. Is not water called “blood” in 2 Samuel 23:17, and does not
Jesus convert old “Jewish” water into wine in John 2:6 and 9? It would
seem that the old meal of Rock-water and Heaven-manna is found anew in
the Lord’s Supper of wine and bread. And this being so, the fact that
children as well as every other baptized person were included in the old
meal has much to say about who is included in the new.
Second, just like the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:30, there is
judgment in the wilderness meals. They were designed as heavenly
blessings, but they ministered death to those who rebelled. The fact that
the bread from heaven (when despised) brought about judgment links the
forty years of manna with an Inspection of Jealousy. The memorial bread
of Numbers 5 calls upon God to come and judge, as do all memorials.
Memorial bread is found in Leviticus 2, in Leviticus 24:5–9, and of course
in the Lord’s Supper, which is also an inspection of jealousy for the Bride.16

16. I have dealt with this at length in Jordan, “Lectures on the Inspection of
Jealousy,” (8 lectures), presented at the 2002 Biblical Horizons Bible Conference, and
available from Biblical Horizons, Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32578. There are a great
many more jealousy inspection passages in the Bible than most people realize, such
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 65

This “sacramental”/memorial aspect of the manna certainly made it

Spiritual food.17
Who participated in this great forty-year religious meal? Everyone
who lived with Yahweh in the wilderness. This means not only the
circumcised Israelites and their families, but also the uncircumcised mixed
multitude. All of these people were baptized in the cloud, sea, and Moses.
Were the Gentiles of the mixed multitude “our fathers” as Paul puts it
in 1 Corinthians 10? Yes, they were. Israel did not practice circumcision in
the wilderness. By the time of Joshua, when almost all the original adult
males had died off, virtually all the Israelite men were uncircumcised. A
thirty-nine-year-old Israelite, born right after the exodus from Egypt, was
uncircumcised, and had never been to any Passover.18 In other words,
there was no longer any distinction between Israel and the mixed multi-
tude. They were all in the position of Abram after he came to belief but
before he was circumcised. Hence there is no mention of the “rabble” or
mixed multitude in the book of Numbers at the end of the wanderings, or in
Deuteronomy or in Joshua. Then, after crossing the Jordan, all the men who
crossed over were circumcised, including all the former mixed multitude
men. A new Israel came into being (Josh. 5:2–8).
The fact that Gentiles along with Israelites participated in the “sacra-
mental” manna and water meals of the wilderness is matched by what we
find in Numbers 15:14, which says that an uncircumcised alien who
wished to worship Yahweh at the Tabernacle was free to do so in exactly

as Belshazzar’s “Great Bread” in Daniel 5, the whole book of Malachi, and the Book
of Revelation.
17. The placement of a jar of manna in the Holy of Holies, before the enthroned
Yahweh, also puts the manna in a memorial position (Ex. 16:33–34). Yahweh looked
at the manna in the Holy of Holies in the same way that the Lampstand looked at
the memorial faces of bread in the Holy Place (Ex. 25:27).
18. Probably Passover was not celebrated after the people rebelled and were
condemned to wander. If it were celebrated, there were fewer and fewer people
eligible to attend, and the last one would have consisted of a pretty small and
elderly bunch of people. My own opinion is that probably no Passovers were held
after Numbers 9.
We also can wonder about the Tabernacle rituals. The Tribute of Leviticus 2 is
required to consist of semolina (wheat). If all that was available was manna, and
that is all that was available, then this ritual could not have been performed unless
God told them that they might use manna, and we have no record of such a thing.
According to Numbers 15, semolina had to accompany every animal offering, which
calls into question whether it was possible to do any of the animal rituals. It seems
possible that the entire system went into abeyance, as part of the judgment upon the
wicked generation, until their children entered the land.
66 JAMES B. JORDAN

the same way an Israelite would. In context, this means every single kind
of offering, including the Sacrifice of Peace (Num. 15:1–16). The only
exception was Passover, which was only for the circumcised and their
families.
I suggest that the fact that Gentiles participated at these wilderness
and Tabernacle meals on exactly the same basis as Israelites is an important
subtext for Paul’s concern throughout his letters.
I have spent some time with all this because one strand of anti-
paedocommunionist thinking tends to an extremely restrictive view of the
old covenant “sacraments.” According to this line of thought, the only
“sacrament” was Passover, and only men were allowed to eat of it.
Everything else was just a common meal. We have seen F. Nigel Lee simply
dismiss 1 Corinthians 10 as referring only to “fathers.” Similarly, the notion
that uncircumcised God-fearers could draw near to the Tabernacle in
exactly the same way as Israelites, and could participate in the centrally-
important Sacrifice of Peace, would seem to be off the map.
Against this kind of restrictive view, the Bible presents a God who
generously feeds multitudes from His table. He showers down “sacramen-
tal” bread from heaven upon Israelite and Gentile alike, upon man and
woman alike, upon old man and baby alike. Jesus similarly fed 5000 men
and their families on one occasion, and 4000 on another, without seeming
to worry about who was “worthy.”
In fact, the inspection that God is interested in does not take place
before the meal, as a way of excluding people from it. Rather, it takes place
at the meal. God judged Israel while they ate the heavenly food
(Num. 11:33; Ps. 78:29–31). Paul says that the Supper ministers judgment,
but he never says that because of this anyone should stay away. (Indeed,
those in the wilderness had no choice: they had to eat the heavenly food, or
starve.) In Matthew 22:11–13, the king inspected his guests while they were
already at the wedding feast. Belshazzar’s Feast is another example.

A LL T HIS AND THE L ORD ’ S S UPPER

Various writers insist that only Passover is the forerunner to the Lord’s
Supper, or only the Day of Coverings. Some admit that the Sacrifice of
Peace might be included. Many are nervous about seeing the manna and
Rock-water as forerunners of the Supper.
What we need to do, however, is allow the restrictive sociology of the
Old Creation to speak to the situation. Adam’s sin led to the Great Exile
from the Garden sanctuary. After that time, nobody was allowed to draw
near to God; worship had to be “at a distance.” The call of Abram and the
rite of circumcision set aside the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews as priests to all
 CHILDREN AND THE RELIGIOUS MEALS 67

the other nations. Circumcision was not a sign of salvation, but of priestly
service. Later on, within Israel itself, the house of Aaron was set aside as
priests to Israel and through Israel to the nations.
We now have three concentric circles of people: priests, Israelites, and
God-fearers. The religious meals in Israel existed at these three levels.
1. The Aaronic priests were allowed to eat the holy food that came
from God’s own table. They ate parts of the Purification (“Sin”) and
Trespass animals, as well as the Uplifted Breast and Contributed Thigh of
the Sacrifice of Peace. They also ate part of the Tribute Bread given to
Yahweh at the altar. All this is laid out in Leviticus.
These were the holiest of all meals, and any layman who ate any of it
was asking for God’s judgment to fall upon him. Clearly, these holy meals
are background for the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus broke bread as
memorial, and then took wine, the apostles instantly realized that He was
visiting the twice-daily Tribute ritual of Leviticus 2 and Numbers 15.
Formerly only the priests might eat of this bread; now Jesus gave it to all
His people. Formerly the wine was poured out; now Jesus gave it to His
people to drink.
As we have seen, the children of the priests enjoyed being part of
these holy meals. Should it not be so today?
2. The circumcised Israelites and the Aaronic priests were allowed to
eat of the Passover. This was the only meal especially for them, and they
participated in it as a reminder of their position as priests to the nations. It
reminded them that God had delivered them so that they could be a light
of witness to the uncircumcised world.19 Since Jesus instituted the Lord’s
Supper during Passover time, it is clear that Passover is part of the
background of the Supper.
As we have seen, the children of Israel enjoyed being part of Passover.
Indeed, the firstborn male children under six years of age were the most
important participants. Should children be excluded from the greater
Passover of the church?
3. All three groups were invited to the other two annual feasts, and
were free to eat the Sacrifice of Peace, and during the wilderness were
sustained by heavenly manna and Rock-water. The Sacrifice of Peace was
the climax of the exodus and of the system of worship at the Tabernacle; it

19. It might be good to remind the reader that any man who was circumcised was
required to come to the sanctuary three times a year at the three feasts (Deut. 16:16).
Obviously, believers living at great distances could not have made such a trip three
times a year, and hence were not circumcised. Uncircumcised God-fearers are all over
the Old Testament scriptures: Hiram of Tyre and his people; Melchizedek; the Queen
of Sheba and her people; Jonah’s Ninevites; Jethro and his people.
68 JAMES B. JORDAN

is what the Journey to Peace was for, and was always the final and most
glorious part of the whole ritual system. And it was not only for Israelites,
who by their tithes maintained the Tabernacle, but was also for the God-
fearers as well.
As we have seen, children were included in all these more open meals,
which point to the width and breadth of God’s kingdom. Should it not be
so today?

C ONCLUSION
Anyone living with this system of law and festival for 1500 years would
naturally think that children belong at the Lord’s Supper as soon as they
are old enough to eat, and that Christian baptism is the ticket to the Lord’s
Supper. That’s how it had always been.
The burden of proof in this matter lies with those who think Jesus or
the apostles introduced some striking change. The Jesus who said to let the
small children come to Him has now changed things so that they may no
longer eat at His table! The Paul who addresses children in his epistles
does not want them to dine with the grown-ups. They are old enough to
hear and obey, but not old enough to eat?
Moreover, it is a fact that the big changes introduced by the coming of
the New Creation were quite scandalous. Paul has to deal with them: the
food laws, the laws of uncleanness, the calendar and festivals. But we find
absolutely no indication that anyone was upset because suddenly children
had been excluded from the religious and covenantal meal of the kingdom.
And the reason there is no scandal about the exclusion of children is clear:
they had not been excluded.
 5
C HRIST ’ S W AY - BREAD FOR A C HILD

R AY R. S UTTON

But we call it lembas or waybread, and it is more strengthening than

any food made by Men,” . . . “All the same, we bid you spare the food,”
they said. “Eat a little at a time, and only at need. For these things are
given to serve you when all else fails. The cakes will keep sweet for many,
many days, if they are unbroken and left in their leaf-wrappings, as we
have brought them. One will keep a traveller on his feet for a day of long
labour, even if he be one of the tall Men of the Minas Tirith.1

J. R. R. TOLKIEN’S LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY is now legendary. In the first

book of the series, The Fellowship of the Ring, there is a powerful scene in
which the real heroes of the story, little people called Hobbits, are presented
with way-bread for their long journey. This mysterious food is unique
because it only takes a little to provide much. It is small yet it is large in
effect. It can feed the largest of people and therefore, by implication, the
smallest, lowliest of creatures—such as the Hobbits—for a long, long time.
J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Christian. Christian theology and imagery

1. J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com-

pany, 1987), 360–61.

69
70 RAY R. SUTTON

abound throughout his classic story.2 Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and other

intellectual members of that distinguished group, the Inklings, met in a pub
in Oxford every Tuesday for many years to discuss their writings that
became a form of Christian apologetics. They discovered fantasy literature as
a way to slip up on the academic community with the Christian message.
They could say the most profound Christian realities under the imagery of
other, science fiction-like worlds. For C. S. Lewis it was the world of Narnia.
For Tolkien it was the realm of the Shire and the Hobbits. These imaginary
realms were all used to convey a Christian world and life view.
In regard to way-bread, for example, the amazing food is no doubt a
symbol of the sacrament of Holy Communion. In the New Testament, pieces
of bread broken in Holy Communion are the crumbs from the table of God.
Jesus graphically communicated this sacramental reality in His meeting with
a woman pleading for the healing of her child. He told her, “It is not meet to
take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs” (Matt. 15:25). Her response
was simply, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their
master’s table” (v. 27). The Son of God commended her for her “great
faith” (v. 28).
The woman in essence was arguing that a little bit of God’s blessing
goes a long way. All she needed was a small portion of what He offered. In
the final analysis, a piece of what the Lord gives is all one needs, for a part
actually forms the whole. This principle carried over to the sacramental
reality of the Lord’s Supper in which the church is given crumbs from the
Lord’s table, a small portion of bread and wine representing the entire
reality. One of the most famous prayers in the ancient Eucharistic liturgies of
the church incorporates this teaching: “We do not presume to come to this
Thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness but in Thy
manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the
crumbs under Thy table. . . .”3
Pieces of bread are broken that represent the Lord Jesus Christ in some
mysterious way. Yet those little pieces of bread and sip of wine are like the
way-bread for the Hobbits. It is enough for big people, and even other small
ones. Could it even be argued that children need the way-bread of Christ for
the adult journey of life?

C HILDREN C OMING TO J ESUS . . . O H M Y !

Once upon a time, children were prevented from coming to Christ. As a
matter of fact, one of the most shocking scenes in the New Testament

2. Norman F. Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages (New York: Quill William Mor-
row, 1991), 205–33.
3. The 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, 82.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 71

concerns the spiritual mistreatment of children by those who should have

known better. The text of Holy Scripture records, “Then little children were
brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the
disciples rebuked them” (Matt. 19:13). The parents of these children took
them to Christ for a blessing, for Him to lay on hands for this specific
purpose. This practice was an ancient way of patriarchs, teachers (rabbis),
and redemptive deliverers of the Old Testament to transfer the promissory
blessings of the covenant of God. It was a moment of the greatest of
privilege for these parents and their children to be escorted into the
presence of the Son of the Living God to receive the laying on of hands.
Disgustingly, “the disciples rebuked them.” How un-pastoral! Loving
parents brought their covenant children to Jesus. The closest followers of
the Son of God told them to go away. Where could the disciples possibly
have derived from Biblical history or from Christ’s teaching and ministry
that He would have wanted them to fence His presence from children?
Somehow, they thought that Jesus and children needed to be protected
from one another. Whatever the answer to this vexing question of provid-
ing some rationale to how the disciples’ minds were working at the
moment, the ramification of pushing little children away from Jesus’ tactile
transfer of blessing was offensive to Him. The actions of the disciples
understandably provoked the Master’s displeasure.
Given Christ’s response, it seems the situation directly warns those
who would tell little children to stay away from a tactile, tangible, yes
sacramental, or any association with Jesus. The matter of children at
baptism or at the Eucharist thereby touches the “forbid not the children”
passage. Our purpose is not with the subject of baptism,4 particularly
infant baptism, to which this passage is often applied. Clearly, it informs
the theology of baptism, forming also the sacramental foundation in
Matthew 19, for the theology of the recipients of the Lord’s Supper.
Matthew 19 speaks of children being brought into the real presence of
Christ for the laying on of His hands for a blessing. Later in the Gospel at
the Last Supper, the Eucharist is made into the source of blessing by the
laying on of the hands of Christ. The Eucharist, as a point for receiving the
blessing of the Lord, continues in the rest of the New Testament. St. Paul,
for example, speaks of Holy Communion as real fellowship (koinōnia) with
Christ in some sense (1 Cor. 10:16), and therefore the means of tangible

4. Ray R. Sutton, Signed, Sealed and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism (Houston:
Classical Anglican Press, 2001), 159–74. I specifically wrote this book to present a
biblical, theological, and pastoral analysis of the subject of baptism. Chapters 7 and 8
on infant baptism should be consulted for an application of the Matthew 19 passage
to the sacrament of baptism.
72 RAY R. SUTTON

blessing.5 The biblical logic is flawless.

Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace to convey His
presence after He was gone. Just as Christ could be met by children in
Matthew 19, so He can be met in, at, with, or by means of faithful reception
of the Lord’s Supper. If He is there in some sense, then the same principles
of admission into His presence established in the Gospels, and in Mat-
thew 19 in particular, would apply.
Since the church really meets Jesus at the Eucharist, however real
presence would be understood, the passage about the overly-protective
disciples is also critically relevant to the issue of young-child communion.
Disallowing children into the sacramental presence of Jesus could be
tantamount to the same violation of the disciples when they forbade
children from coming to Jesus for His blessing. Thus, a consideration of the
“forbid not the children” text should carefully be understood for its
Eucharistic applications to young humans.

T HE B ROADER C ONTEXT OF M ATTHEW 19

A context appears in St. Matthew that demands wisdom, a predominant
theme in the Gospel. Jesus is presented in this Gospel as the true Solomon
and wise teacher of Israel.6 Time and again, the events of Christ’s life call
for the kind of divine wisdom that He can uniquely give. Only He, like
Solomon of old, is able to solve the riddles presented through catastrophe
(storm at sea), need (food in the wilderness), sickness (blindness), demon
possession, opposition, and even antagonistic, trick questions such as in
Matthew 19. In this case, the questions concern the family. The situation
reminds us of another circumstance when the true king of Israel, the first
Solomon, was presented with a family crisis.
The Hebrew king was brought two women both claiming to be the
mother of a child (1 Kings 3:16–28). King Solomon called for a sword to
settle the dispute. He decided to divide the child in half and give each
mother part of the child. Faced with the gruesome death of her child, the
real mother revealed her love by a willingness to give the child to the

5. St. Paul speaks of the “cup of blessing which we bless.” Note that an inani-
mate object, a “cup of blessing,” is blessed. This was the biblical argument against
the Puritans by the Anglicans for the Scriptural allowance of blessing things as well
as people. The blessed cup of blessing in some way was therefore set apart for use
by God to apply His grace. In this sense, the sacrament becomes a means of grace.
God is not trapped in a material object, but He clearly associates His presence with
it such that it is a blessing used by Him to convey grace.
6. Richard A Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994), 65–98.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 73

pretender mother. The true mother was then recognized by all, and
awarded her rightful child by Solomon. The child was spared, but most of
all, Solomon’s miraculous gift of wisdom from on high was manifested to
the world. This was not just any king. It was a king imbued with the very
mind of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, in the context of 1 Kings, God demonstrates in history what
He had promised the mighty king in private. The holy potentate had asked
for wisdom when given the chance to have anything or anyone he wanted
(1 Kings 3:5–15). Like a loyal child of the covenant, he had asked for
wisdom. God gave it.
Immediately following this godly request, the dispersal of grace was
therefore graphically portrayed in the scene of the quarreling women. A
family, a child, and both mothers were saved from disastrous conse-
quences of disobedience. The stage is set for later when another Messianic,
Solomonic King of all kings would save families, even Gentile ones, for the
covenant.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is revealed as the true Son of David, a
title mentioned in the first line of the genealogy at the beginning of the
book (Matt. 1:1). The initial true son of David was Solomon. The ultimate
and eventual Son of David, the final Redemptive-Deliverer, like Solomon,
was of course Jesus Christ. Hence, Christ the Messiah is presented in the
Gospel of Matthew as the true Son of David and Son of Abraham, the long-
expected wise teacher of wisdom. Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew is
arranged in terms of the sermons of Jesus—wisdom teachings. These
teachings often follow, or are the result of, scenes analogous to the women
quarreling before King Solomon. All the events confronting the Solomonic
Christ cry out for wisdom to resolve them. With event after event, Christ
follows wisdom teaching with wisdom encounter. A perplexing question
or scene evokes wisdom. Christ mysteriously provides the solution every
time.
Wisdom was once again required in the Matthew 19, when the Phari-
sees asked Christ a difficult question about divorce. In fairness to the
Pharisees, they understood that the Old Testament spoke of the great and
final eschatological kingdom, the return of the Solomonic domain on earth in
all its fullness. They believed that one like Solomon, but greater, would
become King of the Jews. The Gentiles were to come into the holy covenant
of God, meaning Israel would finally fulfill its mission to be “a light to
lighten the Gentiles.” The Jews were to accomplish their mission just as the
people of God did in Solomon’s day—by means of wisdom, since they
lacked superior military might. Solomon taught the Gentiles (1 Kings 10:1–15
and the Queen of Sheba) wisdom and attracted their leaders to the kingdom
of God with his profound insight. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were in
74 RAY R. SUTTON

some sense looking for this type of Messiah.

The Gospel of Matthew presents an apologetic for Christ as the final
Solomon who brings the Gentiles into the covenant with wisdom. The tax
gatherer, servant of a pseudo-Solomon, Herod, came to see Jesus as the
wise Messiah to bring the Gentile world to the Heavenly Father. He ends
with this didactic, wisdom way of accomplishing the mission of being a
light to lighten the Gentiles. The passage is called the Great Commission
(28:19–20). It even speaks of the teaching mission of the church as “disci-
pling the nations,” the “nations” literally being the Gentiles (cf. the Greek
text of 28:19, “disciple the nations”). This means the Gentile nations would
be reconciled through baptizing and teaching the Word of the Lord, the
achievement of which would become the eschatological fulfillment of the
kingdom of Solomon. The coming of this kingdom, however, raised
questions about the family, and particularly about divorce, for the
expectant Pharisees.

T HE I MMEDIATE C ONTEXT OF M ATTHEW 19

The Pharisees provoked the need for the wisdom of Solomon by asking
questions about the legitimacy of divorce. The questions seem to come
from nowhere. Jesus’ response indicates His penetrating comprehension of
the real issue(s). He answered their queries with the original intent of
marriage (vv. 4–5). From Jesus’ perspective, the initial design of human-
ity’s most sacred union lay behind any questions about divorce. In the
Garden of Eden, one man and one woman were intended for each other as
long as they lived. First, male and female were to start out in a parent/child
relationship. This birth relation of dependence on parents was to be only
temporary. The ultimate purpose of a man and woman was to be found in
the blessing of marriage.
The Lord describes the blessing as a one-flesh union, where two be-
come one without losing their distinctness as persons. Their oneness is a
mystery so sublime and fulfilling that it transcends the physical.7 It is an
organic union modeled after only the most sacred of unions in the
universe, the triune union of the three persons of the Godhead, and the
hypostatic union of the divine and the human natures in Christ. Two
become one without losing their distinctness. They enfold into each other
such that their oneness creates a companionship closer than any other. The
means for being joined in the one-flesh relation of man and woman is
God’s own declaration, a solemn oath: “What God has joined together, let

7. Mike Mason, The Mystery of Marriage (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books,

1985), 87–111.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 75

not man put asunder” (19:6).8 A one-flesh relation in the context of a

permanent commitment and the pronouncement of God Almighty is the
way marriage was intended by the Lord to be formed from the beginning.
Thus, Jesus moved the topic of divorce back to the original fulfillment
of marriage, for only it could put divorce into proper perspective. Like all
great teachers, Jesus knew what had to be understood before secondary
questions could be answered. In the face of the wonder of the mystery of
marriage, the woe of divorce could only be broached by these teachers. The
Pharisees seemed oblivious to the level to which Jesus was attempting to
take their conversation. Instead, they took His penetrating insight to the
tangential issue of divorce. They wanted to know how divorce could be
allowed if God had desired for marriage to be permanently wonderful.
More importantly perhaps, they were attempting to see how the Solomon
of an age of the world to come, when marriage would be restored, would
deal with the haunting travesty of divorce. The Lord’s answer explains
that divorce was only ever allowed because of the “hardness of your
hearts.” Sin necessitates divorce. As long as sin is in the world, covenant
relations will die the death introduced by the perniciousness of original
sin. Nevertheless, Jesus returned to His initial point about the design of the
Divine: “But from the beginning it was not so” (19:9).
Not to neglect their questions totally, the Lord Solomon then adds
further explanation of the biblical rationale for divorce. Fornication is the
only justification, indicating that divorce was to be the exception, not the
rule. The Greek word for fornication encompassed covenantal unfaithful-
ness having to do primarily with sexual perversion, adultery, and
including witchcraft and idolatry.9 Significantly, Christ’s exception for
divorce precisely matches Moses’ allowance for ending a marital relation.
The ancient law-maker had used the phrase to describe a justifiable reason,
“an unclean thing.” The phrase can be literally translated, “uncovering
nakedness.” It is used of sexual relations, especially those that are illicit.
Apparently, therefore, Jesus had implemented a word for allowing divorce
that perfectly captured the same intent as Moses’ legislation. As He stated
at the beginning of the Gospel, He had not come to abolish the law and the

8. Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994),

216–79. Hugenberger has an excellent discussion of the oath-ratifying form of the
marriage covenant. Also, on page 151, the author develops further the parallel
between Jesus’ declaration and Genesis 2:24, as well as Malachi 2:15.
9. John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, Works, ed. Pitman (London,
1823), 9:116–17.
76 RAY R. SUTTON

prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He was not altering Moses.10
Thus, in typical Solomonic wisdom, Jesus carefully avoided contra-
dicting Moses while providing brilliant insight in the Holy Scriptures. He
directed their attention to His redemptive intent. He had come to restore
the family, to take marriage back to what it was intended to be. Further-
more, this concern to heal the family was part of His larger mission of
reconciling the nations. The Gospel ends with a Great Commission to
“disciple the nations.” The Book of Acts records how the nations were
actually brought to the Gospel. The message of Christianity was spread
household by household (cf. Acts 16). In every mention of someone with a
family who is converted in the New Testament the household is directly or
indirectly said to be baptized.11 “Consider all of the references to baptism
in the New Testament. There are ten specific instances cited. Two of those
have to do with individuals, such as the conversion of Paul (Acts 9:18) and
the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:38). In these references, ‘there are no families
to be baptized.’ ”12 The disciple-making that Jesus commanded was
intended to be in terms of the family unit, not just individuals.13 Thus, the
Gentile nations were to be brought family by family to Christ.
The setting of Matthew 19 reinforces this larger intent to disciple the
Gentile nations. At the beginning of the chapter, Matthew informs us that
the conversation with the Pharisees occurs on “the coasts of Judea beyond
the Jordan” (19:1). This was Gentile territory, meaning the interrogation by
the Pharisees was set amidst the very Gentile world that was part of
disciple-making to Christ.
This Gentile setting is also a Solomonic theme fulfilling the Abrahamic
covenant. The Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15, 17) spoke of how the seed
of Abraham would consist of kings and nations, somehow encompassing
the Gentile world. In the Old Testament there were brief glimpses of this
prophecy. Joseph went to Egypt, was elevated to a position of influence
and even became part of Pharaoh’s household. Solomon extended the

10. John Murray, Divorce (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing

Company, 1961), 14.
11. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972),
616–22.
12. Sutton, Signed, Sealed and Delivered, 169. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 622.
13. It should be observed that the language of the Great Commission could
imply the family by family approach. Jesus commanded, “Disciple the nations,
baptizing them . . .” The personal pronoun “them” is masculine. Its antecedent is
“nations,” neuter. Normally in the Greek language, pronoun and antecedent have
the same gender unless there is some kind of special emphasis being made. The
discrepancy between pronoun and antecedent could imply that disciple-making
was not to be done individual by individual.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 77

teachings of the law to Gentile monarchs like the Queen of Sheba. In a

sense, Christ was beginning to do the same. He stood outside the land,
essentially telling the Pharisees how the Law of Moses, particularly
regarding marriage, would be applied to the Gentiles. The means for
taking Moses to the Gentiles would be through Christ. Specifically, He
would restore their families, indeed their children, to the altar of His
presence.

C HILDREN IN THE S ANCTUARY OF THE L ORD ’ S P RESENCE

Having acquitted Himself well of the Pharisees at the beginning of
Matthew 19, families begin to come to Christ in the pericope immediately
following the discussion on marriage and divorce. The leaders of families
listening to Jesus become convinced that He is the one to bless their homes.
Maybe they were Gentiles. Perhaps in their mind they began to make the
connection between ancient, Old Testament passages that spoke of a new
covenant—a Solomonic age when families, even Gentile ones, would be
restored. The curse of Genesis 3 would be removed, and the blessing of
God would return to parents and their children. Marriage and family
would be taken back to their original intention when the greater Solomon
brought in the new covenant.14
In fact, the Old Testament prophets such as Malachi described the
effect of the Messianic age as the healing of parent/child relations. They
coalesced the bringing of the Gentiles into the covenant with the restora-
tion of the family.

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded

unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord: and He shall turn the heart of the
fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,
lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Mal. 4:4–6)

Notice the flow of the final verses of the prophet Malachi. He begins
with the call to observe the Law of Moses. He then speaks of an eschato-
logical moment in time when another “Elijah” would be sent. Importantly,
the other, second Elijah cannot be comprehended until the first one is
understood.
The first Elijah, who lived long before the prophet Malachi, intro-
duced a proleptic new covenant by entering the land of the Gentiles. There
he healed a family and restored a child to its mother, who was a widow.

14. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 13–26.

78 RAY R. SUTTON

The scene occurred outside the land of Israel in the same way the encoun-
ters between the Pharisees and Jesus and the rejection of the little children
by Christ’s disciples took place in Gentile territory. Elijah journeyed
beyond Israel’s borders to a place where he was even cared for by a
Gentile widow woman (1 Kings 17:10–24). His presence brought light (oil
for the lamp) and sustenance (food) without end (17:14). He also raised up
her son from death. The mercy of light and life were extended to the
Gentiles outside the land. Like Solomon, Elijah took the kingdom of God to
a Gentile woman and, in this case, her child or heir.
The imagery is powerful. The blessings of God restored the woman’s
family. Most importantly, the blessings of light and life were given to her
child. A hallmark of the coming of this new covenant was its impact on the
family, specifically the place of children in the covenant. Children would
be blessed, restored into the covenantal presence of God, just the way the
widow’s child had been raised up by Elijah. This new covenant ministry
therefore reversed the curse by bringing blessings to the family and
especially the children.
The expectation of the Messianic (Solomonic) Age was that children
would be brought by their parents, through the aforementioned familial
restoration, before God at His altar. This meant that children would one
day, under a coming new covenant, be able to worship fully with their
families in God’s immediate presence. In the language of the psalmist,
children would praise God in the temple (Ps. 148:12; Mal. 4:4–6). It should
be remembered that women and children were technically not allowed
before the altar/table of God in the old covenant temple. In some sense
they were not permitted the benefit of blessing in this holy place context.
Yet, Malachi clearly spoke of a day when all of this would change.
Children would be allowed back at the altar/table of the Lord.15 Malachi
and other prophets refer to the altar interchangeably with the word
table (Ezek. 41:22; Mal. 1:7).16 Hence, for those parents bringing their
children to the new Elijah—Jesus—He had provoked an insight indirectly
by answering questions about Mosaic legislation on divorce.
The parental bystanders to the interrogation of Jesus about divorce
seemingly got the message, whereas the disciples did not. Like all biblical
parents wanting the spiritual best for their children, the believing familial
guardians of Christ’s day drew near to the one they perceived to be the
Son of David, the ultimate Elijah, and Solomon, all wrapped up in one

15. Ronald C. D. Jasper, ed., Worship and the Child: Essays by the Joint Liturgical
Group (SPCK, 1975), 9.
16. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of
Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: Illinois, 1998), 21. See article on “Altar,” 20–21.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 79

Person. Their desire was for Him to lay hands on their offspring. The
disciples, by contrast, surprisingly interpreted this holy parental desire as
an encroachment, a massive violation of some spiritual reality. The word
describing the disciples’ response is “rebuke,” not a mild term. They
fenced the presence of Christ from parents and their children. Why would
the disciples respond so harshly as to prevent children from coming near
to Christ?
The disciples were still thinking entirely in terms of a pre-Messianic
Age, old covenant separatist model. For the disciples, this meant the
sanctuary of the Lord was closed to women and children. No young ones
were allowed into the presence of the Holy Place where the Almighty had
His throne of glory. The separatist model endemic to the old covenant
holiness code prevented all except the priests to approach the holy place,
the Temple.17 Children, not even the children of priests, were not allowed
near the holy things of God. The little ones could partake of the Passover,
but the sacred space of worship was out of bounds. They could not enter
the Holy of Holies and certainly not partake of the showbread from the
Holy table in God’s presence. Only the priests and the Messianic king,
who was by definition a priest of a higher order (cf. Genesis 14, noting the
Melchizedekian priest and king, and Hebrews 7, in which a greater
priesthood than the Aaronic priesthood is discussed), were allowed. Thus
Christ had directly addressed legislation about divorce and remarriage,
while at the same time announcing to all parents that a new Solomon and a
new kingdom and covenant had come, by which families and children
would be restored to God and His altar.
The parents who came to Christ with their children clearly sensed a
new day was taking place. One of the signs of the inauguration of the
ultimate Davidic kingdom was that children would begin to praise the
name of God (Ps. 148:12). They would want their children to be allowed to
partake of the holy things of God just like the priests, because they, by
some covenantal means (Holy Baptism), were also priests and kings before
the most high God. Indeed all were permitted entrance into the holy
presence of God, especially the Temple. Not long after the scene involving
children being brought by parents to Christ, the triumphal entry of Christ
into Jerusalem occurred. It was such an important eschatological moment
because it was an indicator of the fulfillment of what had been spoken of in
the Old Testament. Not surprisingly, in the same Gospel of Matthew the
Evangelist calls attention to the fact that the “children were crying out in
the temple and saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’ ” (Matt. 21:15).

17. Alfred Edersheim, The Temple (1958, repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
61–81.
80 RAY R. SUTTON

Presumably, these were the children who had been blessed by Jesus in the
passage under consideration. They, having been received into His presence
with His blessing, accompanied the Messiah into the city. They joined all
the people in placing palm leaves on the ground before the anointed King
of kings.
Matthew also calls attention later in his Gospel to the fact that the
chief priests and scribes were “indignant” when they saw children come
into the Temple, a place forbidden to them in the old covenant. The
parallel between their response to children in the presence of the Lord, and
the disciples’ when children are brought before Christ, is glaring. Both
groups responded the same way to children in the holy place before the
Holy Person. In the first instance, however, the parents persist. They
desired for their children the blessing of Christ through the laying on of
hands, a pattern not unfamiliar to the people of God in the Old Testament.

TACTILE B LESSING
Obtaining the blessing of God is a major theme in the Old Testament as
well as in the New Testament, according to teaching in the Gospel of
Matthew. Starting with the Old Testament, blessing was the promise of
God through His personal presence in one’s life and family. Blessing was
the favor of God, but this favor was translated into time and space by the
real presence of God with His people. Time and again, God specifies to the
recipients of His blessing-promise that “He would be their God and they
would be His people” (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 6:7). Literally, He would be with
them and they would be with Him. The great promise of the covenantal
presence of God was first given in the Garden of Eden after the fall of
humanity into sin. God promised a Seed, a Son, who would crush the head
of the serpent and inaugurate a new creation, a new heavens and earth, a
new Eden. Throughout the Old Testament, the recipients of this promise
were narrowed. After all, the initial promise was for a Seed, singular, who
would accomplish what God wanted (Gal. 3). From Adam and Eve, the
promissory line expanded and then contracted through one man, Abra-
ham. He became the covenantal narrowing point through which the
promise of God’s blessing would pass. God reiterated to Abraham the
details of the promissory blessing. He told Abraham again that a Seed
would eventually spring from him who would accomplish all that was
promised to the people of God. This Seed, once again singular, would be
the true heir. All who were covenantally united to this heir would also
receive the blessing of the personal redemptive presence of God.18

18. Samuel Baron Pufendorf, The Divine Feudal Law: or, Covenants with Mankind
Represented Together with Means for Uniting Protestants, in which also the Principles of
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 81

Importantly, this promise of blessing was transferred through the laying

on of the hands of the patriarchs (Gen. 27:4, 17–33; 48:5–14). Before each old
sage died, the selected child was to come or be brought to him for the
blessing. The elder saint would extend his hand and touch the recipient,
simultaneously announcing special blessing. Lest one doubt the importance
of the tactile, the story of Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph is revealing.
At the final moment, the old patriarch crossed his hands and blessed the
younger by his touch. The younger inherited the promise of bless-
ing (Gen. 48:13–14). Why the tactile succession? The reasons are juridical
and incarnational.
First, the placing of the hand(s) on the successor was a form of oath-
taking, the juridical. This oath was a way of declaring the legal heir of the
promise. The covenant oath included sanctions of blessing and cursing.
When the covenant heir gathered the successor to transfer the blessing by
means of the laying on of hands, he often enumerated twofold sanctions of
blessing and cursing. They consisted of blessing and cursing as described
in the final blessings and cursings of Jacob to his children (Gen. 49). The
blessings and cursings are expanded in Deuteronomy 27–28. They are the
detailed benefits of faithfulness to the covenant. They range from the
assurance of God’s presence to answered prayer to tangible provision. In
summary, the blessings are the recreation of an edenic atmosphere,
wherever the believer might be, through the personal presence of the
redemptive deliverer. In a sense, the garden-like ambiance of God’s
presence accompanies one in covenant with the Lord’s true heir.
The curses are the opposite. They were the absence of God’s presence
and the lack of an edenic world. They were everything from distance from
God to dispossession of all that God had given. To be cursed was to have
the edenic world literally dismantled—de-created—as was the case in the
first Eden when Adam and Eve rebelled against God. The first parents
were driven outside into the wilderness and away from the garden.
Covenant sanctions assured that the transfer by touch was not magi-

the Lutheran Churches are Stated and Defended, trans. Theophilus Dorington (London,
1703). See also D. A. Weir, Foedus Naturale: The Origins of Federal Theology in
Sixteenth-Century Reformed Thought (St. Andrew’s University PhD, 1984). Pufendorf
was a German Lutheran scholar at Heidelberg University at the end of the
seventeenth century. He is important because he developed federal theology on a
feudal model, which modified the overly contractual approach of pure federalism.
He attempted a via media between the Reformed and the Lutherans with a more
organic element to the covenant. For fuller discussion of the importance of this
scholar, cf. Ray R. Sutton, The Sacramental Theology of Daniel Waterland (Wycliffe Hall,
Oxford/Coventry University PhD, 1998), 70–79.
82 RAY R. SUTTON

cal. It entitled the recipient to the blessing, assuming he were faithful. It

also sealed his doom should he ever abandon the covenant (Ishmael, Esau,
the rebellious sons of Jacob, and so forth). Faithfulness, in other words,
was required for the blessings to be applied. They would not come
mechanically.
Second, the touch of the patriarch was more than a legal process of
declaring an heir; it was a way of extending the promise of God’s presence
in terms of a human representative united to the Lord. This could only be
done by means of a person. The grace of God was not ethereal, a kind of
blessing in a vacuum or a vapor (Gnosticism). It was concretely expressed
through the creation, specifically, a relation of persons involving the
Persons of the Living God, the Holy Trinity. This human connection to the
Lord, therefore, narrowed to specific redemptive deliverers in the covenant
lineage a succession of heads of the covenant set apart by God through
previous representatives to accomplish His redemptive plan. The touch of
the redemptive deliverer, whether patriarch, king, or priest, was essential
to personal transfer of the presence of the one who preceded to the one
who succeeded, so that the succession was directly and historically
connected to the presence of God Almighty through the laying on of
hands. To be in covenant union with God’s representative was to be
mysteriously united with God.
The above reasoning even became a new covenant argument in the New
Testament. The apostle John used the visual, verbal, and—importantly—the
tactile connection to Jesus to distinguish false heirs of the covenant from the
true ones. Only the ones who had seen with their eyes, heard with their
ears, and touched with their hands the “Word of life” were the true
apostles (1 John 1). The apostle announced to the recipients of his first
epistle that that which they have seen and handled they declared unto
them, that is, transferred by the means of the same proof of reality: seeing,
handling (touching as in the laying on of hands), and declaring. The new
covenant does not remove the requirement of the laying on of hands for
the proper transfer of God’s anointed presence from one disciple to
another, particularly when it comes to ordination (1 Tim. 4:14).
For clarification, one’s being was not confused with God’s by the lay-
ing on of hands. There was no apotheosis of Creator and creature. Rather,
the union was a joining in some inexplicable way of a person, and all who
were connected to him, to the Almighty through the covenant Seed. In a
sense, the Old Testament redemptive deliverers were the incarnation of
God’s presence. Because of this incarnational presence of the Almighty,
wisdom became a distinct manifestation of the nearness of God. If God
were with someone, then that person would demonstrate this presence by
means of wise teachings. For this reason, the Solomonic teacher or rabbi
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 83

was considered to possess the covenant blessing and able to transfer it

through tactile laying on of hands, as well as teaching.
Blessing was proof of the tactile. At the incarnation, the presence of
God was enfleshed in a person, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Presence of the
Almighty came through the Person of the Lord walking on earth. St.
Matthew reveals that Jesus is identified as the ultimate Redemptive
Deliverer in history by His wisdom teachings. His Gospel begins by
defining Jesus as the “Son of David” (Matt. 1), implying that He is the true
Solomon. The Gospel develops further, in the first four chapters, a distinct
emphasis on the Joseph character, Jesus’ earthly father, who displayed
wisdom like a previous Joseph, a descendant of Jacob in Genesis 37–50.
The sequence of events in the first four chapters of Matthew even follows
the pattern of the Joseph pericope(s) in Genesis 37–50. The Joseph who
was the father of Jesus, for example, is led back to Israel by dreams.
After the first four chapters of Matthew, Jesus begins to teach like a
Solomonic rabbi. The heart of His wisdom teaching was blessing through
the character of His presence. He called these blessings “beati-
tudes” (Matt. 5:1–8). From His description of beatitude, only one could
possess them all, which is exactly what St. Matthew wants his readers to
conclude. It is the Christ, the Promised One of old, the son of Abraham, the
Son of David, the definitive Solomon, all of whom were human links
transferring the grace of God through history. Since He is the source of
blessing, He was to be sought out just as any great rabbi was pursued for
his acknowledgement.
The observant parents in Matthew 19, therefore, beheld the Lord’s
wisdom as He spoke to the scribes and Pharisees. They reached one very
important conclusion: Jesus is the Christ, and, as such, the blessing of the
promise of the Old Testament comes only by His touch. So they drew near
to Him, bringing their young children to be marked by His presence that
they might be united with Him and ultimately the promise.

T HE T RANSFER OF B LESSING TO THE E UCHARIST

The Lord Jesus Christ focused His blessing in and through the Eucharist
when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. There is a similarity of pattern
between the blessing of children brought by their parents and the blessing
at the very institution of Holy Communion. On the night in which Jesus
was betrayed, He took bread and wine, prayed or blessed the elements,
and then distributed them to the disciples. In the original (Greek) text of
Matthew 26:26, the verse reads, “And Jesus taking and blessing He broke.”
The literal touching and blessing are parallel. The Lord blesses the bread
by the laying on of hands through the grasp of the element. This way of
blessing was very familiar to these Jewish followers of Jesus. As has been
84 RAY R. SUTTON

developed already, they understood that blessing came through the laying
on of hands by the Redemptive Deliverer. What is significant is that this
blessing associates His presence with the elements themselves.
Importantly, Jesus speaks of the set-apart bread and wine as “this is
My Body,” “this is My blood.” His presence is associated with the elements
of bread and wine. This is not the same as saying that the bread and the
wine were changed in their substance (transubstantiation), a false teaching
for which there was a Reformation in the sixteenth century. Nevertheless,
neither should the elements be viewed as mere symbols, making them into
the real absence of Christ. This would be making Christ’s words into
nonsense. His declaration that the bread and the wine were His Body and
Blood would be falsely interpreted to mean they are not His Body and
Blood, a tautology to say the least.
If one takes the Bible realistically (some would say literally), then
Christ has somehow associated His own flesh and blood with the Holy
Communion. He is really present in a mystical sense, which means His
presence should be acknowledged on the basis of the plain teaching of
Scripture. At the same time, the way in which Christ is present is a
mystery. It is like the mystery of the Holy Trinity, or the hypostatic union
of the divinity and the humanity of Christ in the second person of the
Godhead. These realities are affirmed according to Scriptural teaching
even though they are not able to be comprehended.
In the history of the study of liturgy, this procedure of blessing the
physical elements through the laying on of hands is a called a manual act.
In the ancient liturgies of the church, manual acts are required of the
minister for the blessing of the elements. At one very simple level, the
church is to continue to bless Holy Communion exactly the way Jesus did.
At another level, there is an important theological reason as revealed later
in the Scriptures.
St. Paul’s comments about the relation of blessing and the elements
confirm that indeed the elements are to be set apart or blessed, thereby
facilitating Christ’s continued meeting of His people through the Holy
Supper. How can this be? The apostle elaborates that through the bread
and the wine the recipient really communes with Christ. The exact
language of the apostle is, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). The Greek word
translated “communion” is an important New Testament term from which
we derive the word koinōnia. This word actually means “to participate in,”
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 85

or “to partake of.”19 Indeed, the following verse states that believers are
really united by partaking of a common spiritual food: “For we being
many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one
bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). The communion or koinōnia provided by the
consecrated bread and wine in some incomprehensible yet real way unites
the participant to Christ, the “communion of the body and blood of
Christ,” and joins fellow believers together at one and the same time. This
is the precise argument of the apostle.
By looking at the Eucharistic institution passages of the Gospels to-
gether with St. Paul’s commentary, Christ transfers the blessing of His
presence somehow to and through the Eucharist. He is at the Eucharist in a
special way. He promised that bread and wine would be Him in some
inexplicable way. The church continues what Christ modeled at the Last
Supper. The apostles repeat the practice of blessing by means of the tactile,
the laying on of hands. For this reason, therefore, the sacramental elements
become a means of grace and point of contact with the blessing of Christ.
If indeed the Christ is at the Eucharist, He is the Host, which is why
the bread has historically been called the Host. Anyone who receives the
Lord’s Supper in covenantal faithfulness is blessed by Him. This would
include children as well as adults. There is nothing in St. Paul to qualify
the reception of blessing only to adults. All at the Holy Supper faithfully
encountering the Living Christ are blessed by His touch.
Since all faithful followers of Christ are to come or to be brought for
blessing in the Eucharist, this has been worked out a variety of ways in the
history of the church. Sometimes it has meant only that unconfirmed
children would be brought to the rail for the priest/presbyter to lay on
hands and bless children. Better yet, children have been allowed to partake
of the actual Supper, which is the plain application of the reality of the
blessing of the Eucharist in the context of the meaning of blessing in the
new covenant.
Jesus wanted little children to be allowed into His presence, to be
blessed by Him. He wanted to transfer the covenantal blessing through His
touch. The Eucharist is the biblical extension of His touch. He blessed the
first Eucharist and commended His followers to do the same. He even laid
hands on them and instructed that the setting apart of His ministers would
involve the tactile principle. Again, the presence of the person, in this case
the person of Christ, is conveyed by a manual act. Through the laying on
hands of the first ministers of the new covenant, and they to the Eucharis-

19. The famous sixteenth-century Anglican scholar, Richard Hooker, liked to

refer to this Pauline passage as the basis for a real-participation-view of the presence
of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
86 RAY R. SUTTON

tic elements at the offering of Holy Communion, the incarnational

presence of the risen Christ was and is extended to all who receive the
Lord’s Supper. Coming to Christ for a blessing is therefore centered in the
Eucharist from the Last Supper forward.
If the connection between the blessing of Christ’s real presence and
the Holy Communion is true, to forbid children from receiving this
blessing is no less a violation than the disciples’ resistance of the children
brought by parents to be touched by the Master.20 It is an old covenant
response. It is a denial of the full privileges that have come as a result of
the inauguration of the new covenant.

T HE C HURCH ’ S N EW C OVENANT R ESPONSE TO C HILDREN

The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is called to have a new covenant
response to children. They, along with women, are allowed full access to
the holy things of God when the Messiah comes in history. This was
promised throughout the Old Testament as one of the evidences that a
greater Solomon had arrived.
The day Christ permitted little children to be blessed by Him, He sig-
naled to the whole world that He was the Messiah of the new covenant. At
a later time when He explained His presence in terms of bread and wine at
the Passover meal, He referred to this as the new covenant in His blood.
His touch of blessing was to be extended after His ascension by way of this
promise through the Holy Communion.
The touch of His Supper explained the nature of the blessing as
growth. Putting it negatively, the curse of the covenant is the removal of
growth, the de-creation of the world into desert covered by thorns and
thistles. The blessing of the covenant is growth like that of a garden. Jesus’
touch brings life and growth. Hence, the Lord introduced through the
Holy Communion the important principle of feeding on Him, albeit “after
a heavenly and spiritual manner,” to grow.21 The parents in Matthew 19
brought their children to be blessed for their own spiritual nurture and
development. Christ responded to those parents and their children in a
new covenant manner. He affirmed that His blessing is necessary for
maturation. When He transferred His blessing and presence to the Holy
Supper, He reinforced the reality that humans eat to grow. The church is to

20. Colin Buchanan, Children in Communion (Bramcote/Nottingham: Grove

Books Limited, 1990), 10–14. Bishop Buchanan has a profound summary of the
standard objections to paedocommunion with answers to those objections.
21. This way of explaining the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is found in
the English Reformation confessional statement, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion,
Article 28.
 CHRIST’S WAY-BREAD FOR A CHILD 87

commune with Christ for spiritual growth.

The church is to do no less than Christ when it comes to admitting
people to the new covenant feast. If adults need food to grow, so do
children. If adult believers require spiritual sustenance to mature, so do
children. This is part of the blessing. They are not to be forbidden from the
holy food of God.
The Lord’s Supper is “way-bread” for the believer’s journey in this
world. J. R. R. Tolkien communicates this sacramental principle through
the metaphor of way-bread in The Fellowship of the Ring. Little hobbits are
given the mystical food for their journey. They are told that just a small
portion of lembas is enough to feed large people. By implication it is
sufficient for the little folk, the hobbits. The New Testament teaches the
same. A little bit of grace goes a long way. Crumbs from the table of God
are necessary for expansive growth toward life for the world to come.
Adults must have this spiritual food for their journey. So must children. To
forbid them is to confine the church into spiritual immaturity. Instead,
covenant children should be allowed to come to Christ’s table for the way-
bread of a child’s journey, and, yes, even for the demands and adult’s
journey. All must eat to grow. If they do not, then they will die along the
way from spiritual starvation no less than a hiker will expire in the
wilderness without sustenance. Could this be why forbidding children the
blessing of His food is so serious to Him? To keep the children from the
Supper of the Lord is to cut off the means of grace and source of growth,
indeed, the necessary way-bread of God.
 6
G OD OF M Y Y OUTH :
I NFANT F AITH IN THE P SALTER

R ICH L USK

H ISTORICAL B ACKGROUND
Our children are a gift from God, which means parenting is a form of
stewardship. As John Calvin emphasized, every child is a special blessing
from God and every birth is a divine visitation. Parents are given a tremen-
dous task: they are to take these little bundles of blessing and help them
grow to Christian maturity. But while virtually all Christian parents share a
common goal for their children (Christ-like character), not all agree on the
starting point or how to arrive at the desired destination. The Spiritual
nurture and formation of our children are weighty, difficult issues. One key
question revolves around the nature of the child’s relationship with God
even from the womb. More specifically, this is the question of fides infantum,
or infant faith.
The question of whether or not infants belonging to believing parents
can have faith has been a troubling one in the history of the church. On the
one hand, if we deny that they can have faith, we must either say that these
children are lost if they die in infancy or that their salvation is an exception
to the great Reformation principle of sola fide. (A further option is tendered
by some who simply deny original sin. Infants are not yet sinners so they

89
90 RICH LUSK

cannot be condemned. Of course, one wonders why they are subject to the
curse of death at all if they are innocent!) On the other hand, if we affirm the
possibility of infant faith, we have the difficult task of explaining how
persons who lack intellectual and verbal abilities can enter into personal,
trusting relationships with others. Is infant faith theologically credible and
psychologically plausible?
Some have adamantly denied the possibility of infant faith. Certainly
this has been true of the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions, but it has also
been the case with many Reformed theologians as well. Others have
vigorously affirmed infant faith, pointing to infants as the best illustrations
of gospel grace. Apart from intellectual and rational abilities, the Spirit is
able to regenerate and sanctify infants so that they have a kind of “baby
faith.” This view was advocated by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John
Calvin, and Zacharias Ursinus among others.1 They all connected infant

1. For example, Zwingli insisted that children of believers be regarded as elect

and as believers themselves. “All of those infants who are within the elect, who die,
are elect. And this is my reason, because when I find no unfaith in any one I have no
reason to condemn him; contrariwise, since I have the indubitable word of promise:
they shall come and sit down with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I shall be
impious if I eject them from the company of the people of God. . . . What, then, of
Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him among the elect?
Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And rejection remains also. But listen.
If Esau had died an infant he would doubtless have been elect. For if he had died
there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not have rejected him
eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the
fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord.” Quoted in Peter Lillback, The
Binding of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 105. Ursinus argues that infants
believe “after their manner, or according to the condition of their age.” Since the
Holy Spirit works in them “regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such
other things as are necessary for their salvation,” they have everything required as a
condition of receiving baptism. See Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the
Heidelberg Catechism, trans. by G. W. Williard (no publication data, 1851), 369–70.
Lutherans and Anglicans have done the most to preserve the early Protestant
teaching on infant faith. For example, Lutheran Charles P. Krauth offers a helpful
and comprehensive defense of receptive faith in infants in The Conservative
Reformation and its Problems (Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House,
1913), 578–84. See also Anglican Colin Buchanan’s excellent A Case for Infant Baptism
(Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove Books, 1990) and Buchanan’s dialogue with David
Pawson in Infant Baptism Under Cross Examination (Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove
Books, 1974 and 1976). British Presbyterian missionary Lesslie Newbigin argued that
the Church’s practice of infant baptism serves as a “reminder” that “the work of God
the Holy Spirit in recreating us as children of God begins before we have any
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 91

faith with infant baptism. They insisted that faith was necessary to a right
reception of the sacrament and that infants were capable (by grace) of such a
right reception. Many early Reformers viewed infant faith as having a kind
of normativity with regard to those infants born in the context of the church.
To further complicate the subject, however, some later theologians, such
as scholastic Francis Turretin, tried to take a middle way, insisting that
covenant infants have a seed of faith, a kind of potential faith, but denying
that this is actual or active faith. Many fine nuances were made in order to
create a distinction between the faith of infants and adults, since adult faith
includes a propositional confession (e.g., Rom. 10:9–10, 13). The net result, at
least in some instances, was to make infant baptism latent until the child had
a conversion experience.2
The questions we are left with are these: Is infant faith taught in the
Scriptures, and if so, what version of infant faith? Is such faith active or
passive? How much continuity does it possess with full grown faith? Is there
any psychological evidence for infant faith, and if so how does it relate to the
Bible’s teaching on the subject? How does infant faith relate to the life of the
church community, including the administration of the sacraments?
My overall argument will be that in the book of Psalms we see strong
testimony of infant faith, and this provides great comfort and encourage-
ment for Christian parents, whether their children die in youth or live to
reach old age. We will find that psalter-based parenting and piety stand in
marked contrast to the patterns of American, revivalistic, individualistic
Christianity. We will also see that both paedobaptism and paedocommunion
are necessary corollaries of sola fide and the Bible’s covenant promises.

I NFANT F AITH IN THE P SALTER

P SALM 22
In Psalm 22:9–10, David asserts that he had faith as an infant. His strongest
statement is in verse 9b: “You made me trust while on my mother’s breast.” In
other words, David had a God-ward orientation from his earliest days. In

conscious understanding of it.” Quoted in Geoffrey Wainwright, Lesslie Newbigin: A

Theological Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 286.
2. Calvin used the language of “seed faith” to describe the mysterious “knowl-
edge” covenant infants have of God (Institutes 4.16.19). Later Reformed scholastics
used the same language to describe the fact that covenant infants were latently or
potentially Christians. This was at least a slight move away from Calvin’s position.
While Calvin did not develop a doctrine of infant faith to the extent that Martin
Luther did, he insisted that covenant infants be regarded as already possessing the
promises in full. Again, later Reformed theologians began to hedge on this point,
until eventually revivalism pushed children out of the life of the Church altogether.
92 RICH LUSK

recounting his formative experiences, David never points to a dramatic

“conversion experience,” but traces back the origin of his Spiritual life to the
very beginnings of his physical life. As far as David knows, a relationship with
God was always already there. He was a believer from the beginning.
This was certainly not because David believed infants somehow es-
caped the pollution of original sin or possessed an innate moral goodness.
David was not a naïve sentimentalist or a proto-Pelagian. In fact, David
confessed elsewhere that he was conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5). He knew
he was programmed by nature for evil. But he also reckoned that because
of the covenant promise, God must have been working to counteract that
innate desire for wickedness from his life’s origin. Thus, grace was already
battling sin in his heart from the beginning. Apparently for David, sin and
faith are no more mutually exclusive in infants than in adults. Man is born
a sinner from the moment of conception; and yet for those infants who are
also participants in the covenant promises, God’s grace is already opera-
tive as well.
How did David know that he had faith as an infant? Certainly not through
conscious remembrance.3 Obviously, none of us can remember that far back
in our experience. But it seems that this observation only strengthens the case
for infant faith as a general, covenant-wide phenomenon. David must derive
the fact that he had faith as an infant from broader covenant principles—that
is, from the covenant promises as such (e.g., Gen. 17:1, 8). God’s declaration
that He is a God to our children must include giving them His Spirit (Isa.
59:21), who enables them to have a trusting relationship with their Heavenly
Father, even apart from ordinary means. Infant faith is a normative covenant
reality.
There is another reason why David could not present his infant faith as a
unique case. His description of faith, even from the womb, was part of Israel’s
public hymnbook, used in corporate worship. This is not a private prayer
journal, but part of a covenantal liturgy. In public praise, every Israelite would
have made the words of David his own, and would have been expected to be
able to identify with them in some form or fashion. Thus, infant faith is
paradigmatic. It is the normal course of events, part of a typical covenant
child’s pattern of development. In much the same way that hymns like John
Newton’s “Amazing Grace” have made adult conversion the norm (Newton
recalls a period of blindness and “the hour I first believed . . .”) in many

3. This should be compared with other great saints who have claimed to have
served Christ from infancy, e.g., the martyr Polycarp, who claimed before his
execution to have served Christ for 86 years, most likely dating back to his birth (or
his paedobaptism).
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 93

revivalistic churches, so David’s psalm made infant faith and covenant nurture
the norm in ancient Israel. Certainly, God is free to work when, how, and
where He pleases, but God’s ordinary way of dealing with covenant infants
includes giving them the gift of faith in the womb.4 The revivalistic paradigm
turns David’s experience inside out and effectively eliminates the possibility
of growing up Christian.
What is the nature of this faith that David exercised even as an infant?
Clearly, it was not a matter of cognitive reflection. Instead, it seems to be a
matter of relational disposition. For example, David perceives the care of God
through his mother’s breast. Her milk becomes a means of grace to him. His
mother stands in loco Dei. Even though he knows no more propositions about
his mother than he knows about Jesus, he still has a dependent, trusting stance
towards her. Really, this relational posture is the essence of faith.
Faith is, as James Fowler has said, a particular way of “leaning into life.”
Faith is an inescapable aspect of human life and development, though apart
from grace, faith is always misdirected (e.g., Jer. 17:5–6). Given that there is no
religious neutrality, even for infants, we might even say that infant faith (and
human faith in general) is universal since every person at every stage of
development has some particular “approach” to life. The only question, then,
is, toward whom is this faith directed? The living God? Or an idol? David’s
claim is that he was “leaning into life” in God’s way even from his earliest
days. He had a relational inclination and desire for God from infancy. As his
sense of self-identity and view of the world developed, they were profoundly
directed toward and integrated by his faith-relationship with Israel’s Lord. His
life leaned toward God, rather than away from him, from the outset.5 Obvi-
ously, this was not a natural disposition, but a gift of covenanted grace.

P SALM 7 1
Of course, Psalm 22 is not the only reference to infant faith in the psalter.
We find something similar in Psalm 71:5–6. Here, the psalmist once again
describes himself as having a trusting, personal relationship with God
from his earliest days. The beginning of Spiritual life is, for the child of the
covenant, coordinated with the beginning of physical life. When a sperm
and egg unite in a covenant womb, the embryo already has a promise from
God and an inescapable relationship with God. Just as covenant marriages

4. See Geoffrey Bromiley, Children of the Promise: The Case For Baptizing Infants
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 71–72.
5. See the helpful discussion in Mark Searle, “Infant Baptism Reconsidered,” in
Alternative Futures for Worship, Volume 2: Baptism and Confirmation (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1987), 40ff.
94 RICH LUSK

belong to God, so the fruit of those marriages is claimed by God as

well (cf. Mal. 2:15). This is not because infant faith is some kind of natural
inheritance from the parents. Rather, it is because the child has a relationship
with God, created by Christ through the Spirit, in accord with the covenant
promises. Parents do not save their children by their genetics or bloodlines
any more than by their works (cf. John 1:12–13); but the divine promise of
salvation provides a basis for parents to serve as means of grace to their
children, building upon a work God has already begun. Because God is at
work in the child, the parents can be effective in parental nurture.
Specifically in 71:5, the psalmist speaks of having hope in God from his
earliest days. There was apparently never a time in his life when he lived
without this hope. In verse 6, he speaks of God’s special care for him from
birth. God brought him out of the womb safely, and it is this past track
record of divine faithfulness that serves to bolster the psalmist’s mature
confidence that God will now deliver him from the wicked men who seek
his harm and ruin (71:4). Because God has sheltered him with favor and care
from his earliest days, he will continue to do so on into old age (71:9). From
cradle to death bed, the Lord will be faithful to the covenant. Infant faith is
simply a manifestation of God’s own covenant fidelity. The covenant
provides cradle-to-grave security for believers.
If we take the framework of the psalmist seriously, the covenant child
would never need to pose the question “What must I do to be saved?” in
the way an outsider must ask that question. Indeed, that question would
never even occur to the child if he is made to understand the covenant
relationship that has been given to him. Salvation has belonged to him
from the beginning because of God’s covenant promise (71:6; Acts 2:39;
16:31). He does not need a “conversion experience” when he reaches a
mythical “age of accountability.”6 Instead, he simply needs to continue
maturing and growing in the trust of his youth (71:5). Indeed, the psalmist
pledges himself to just this kind of faith-filled, grace-enabled perseverance
later on in his prayer (e.g., 71:14–16).
Certainly this paradigm of covenant nurture in the psalter does not pre-
clude the possibility of passing through various “crisis points” as the child
matures. It does not mean the child’s growth will be a straight upward
climb. In fact, even in Psalm 71 we find David facing challenges to his faith.
As God brings him through the trial, he will enter a new phase of maturity.
His faith will be strengthened and confirmed, and he will confess that faith
publicly in a new way. A fresh chapter will have been added to his

6. For a full analysis, see my Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation
and a Handbook for Covenant Parents (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2005), 134–35.
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 95

testimony of God’s care and provision. Thus, infant faith does not negate
the need for the child’s Spiritual growth; rather, it gives us a basis for
expecting our diligent instruction, discipline, and nurture to be effective in
the life of the child, as he grows toward maturity.
If covenant parents grasp the reality of who their children are, they
will be in a better position to shepherd them through life’s vicissitudes and
quietudes. David had a covenantal framework for dealing with his trials
and struggles. He knew he could bank on God’s ongoing covenant care
because his eyes had been trained to see God at work all through the
course of his life. In the same way we must provide a covenantal platform
for our children so that they can rightly interpret the pattern of God’s
covenant faithfulness at work in their life-stories, discerning His love and
provision even from their earliest days. By teaching our children that they
were already embraced in God’s care from infancy, we bolster their
confidence in God for the future. This nurture does not guarantee their
perseverance in faith, of course, but it does press them in the right
direction.7

P SALM 1 3 9
Another important psalm is Psalm 139. Psalm 139:14–15 has been pressed
into generic usage because of contemporary debates over abortion, but these
verses have a very specific, covenantal focus. Jack Collins, professor of Old
Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, suggests the following as the
best translation of 139:14: “I praise you for the fact that I have been awe-
somely distinguished [as a member of your covenant people]; your works
are wonderful, and my soul knows it well.” Without repeating Collins’ fine
linguistic work on the passage, we should note the nuance of the verb “to be
distinguished” in this context. Collins points out that each time this verb is
used in the Old Testament (e.g., Ex. 9:4; 11:7; 33:16; Ps. 4:4) “the distinction is
one in which the covenant member is set apart for God’s gracious attention.”
Thus, in Psalm 139:14, the psalmist is expressing awe not simply over God’s
creative work in forming him in his mother’s womb (as many translations
imply); rather, he is praising God for having set him apart as a participant in
His covenant of salvation. “In context this is praise that one’s experience of
God’s covenantal blessings extends back to the very beginning of one’s
existence,” as Collins puts it. This is not a generic declaration, applicable to
all in utero children; it is a special proclamation of God’s care and favor for
those children who belong to His covenant. These children are “awesomely

7. On the possibility of apostasy, see Paedofaith, 61–63.

96 RICH LUSK

distinguished” from children conceived outside the pale of the covenant

community (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14).
Collins echoes my earlier point about Psalm 22:9–10: it will not do to
say that this is an experience unique to David. It has normative force, and
so we are warranted in applying it to covenant children as a class. All such
children are conceived and grow up within the sphere of covenanted
mercies. They are awesomely distinguished as believing members of the
covenant community even from infancy.

Is this simply a record of the personal experience of the author? No:

whatever its origin, it is now in the psalter, which means that its pri-
mary function is to provide fitting words for God’s covenant people
to use in their public, corporate worship. The redemptive-historical
setting of this psalm is an era in which virtually all the pious mem-
bers of the covenant people were raised in what we would call be-
lieving covenant homes; and this psalm is equipping them to trace
their experience of God’s intimate love and care right back to the
time they were embryos.
[T]he people sing that their relationship with God dates from
their time in the womb. Indeed, God’s care for the children of His
covenant people is inherent in the covenant itself (Gen. 17:7, 18:19;
Ex. 34:7, “who keeps loving-kindness for thousands [of genera-
tions]”), so it is hardly surprising that it would figure in the worship
of the covenant people.8

Psalm 139:14 does not contain an explicit reference to the psalmist’s

infant faith the way Psalm 22 and Psalm 71 do. However, it is not at all
difficult to see the connection between the way David describes his pre-
birth experience of grace here with the way it is described elsewhere. Even
in the womb, the relationship between David and his God is so intimate, it
must have been one of mutual faithfulness. It is not simply that God knew
(loved) David, but that David knew (loved) God. Surely such knowing and
loving on David’s part included faith. The covenant distinction that set
David apart, even in the womb, strongly suggests the presence of embry-
onic trust, consistent with what we find elsewhere.
Psalm 139:15 is also interesting in regard to the question of infant
faith. The psalmist speaks of God having “woven” him together in his
mother’s womb. The verb used here does more than merely indicate that
each new conception and gestation is a work of God through created

8. C. John Collins, “Psalm 139:14: ‘Fearfully and Wonderfully Made’?” Presbyte-

rion: Covenant Seminary Review, 25/2 (Fall 1999), 115–20.
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 97

means and processes. This verb is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to
describe the making of the veils and curtains that hung in the taberna-
cle (Ex. 26:36). The covenant infant is woven together, like fine fabric, for
holy purposes. The child is already a sacred person (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14), a kind
of mini-temple in which God dwells by His Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19). Obvi-
ously, the child will enter a greater degree of holiness at circumcision (or
baptism in the new covenant), and will need to grow up into his covenan-
tal status by professing faith and walking in obedience in the years to
come. His infant faith must grow into mature, more fully actualized adult
faith. But the covenant child’s starting point should be clear: he belongs to
the Lord; he is God’s special workmanship; he is a member of the believ-
ing covenant people.

O THER P SALMS
Finally, we should make brief mention of a few other passages in the
psalter which bear upon the question at hand. Psalm 8:2 speaks of infants
as true worshippers of God. Babbling covenant children are actually
chanting God’s praises. As Calvin says in commenting on this text, God
does not wait until men reach mature years in order to make His glory
shine through them; rather, “even from the very dawn of infancy [His
glory] shines forth so brightly as is sufficient to confute all the ungodly . . .
[God] has no need of rhetoricians, nor even of distinct and formed
language, because the tongues of infants, although they do not yet speak,
are ready and eloquent enough to celebrate it.” Calvin rejects the allegori-
cal interpretation of this verse which makes infancy a metaphor for new
Christians, and insists the psalm is describing actual infants as “witnesses
and preachers of God’s glory” and “invincible champions of God.” 9 It is
hard to escape the conclusion that if infants are all these things, they must
also be believers in some sense. Infant faith is presupposed rather than
stated, but it cannot be denied.
Psalm 78 calls upon covenant parents to train their children in the
story of God’s gracious dealings with Israel. Children love stories, of
course, and certain narratives become fundamental to their personal and
corporate identities.10 In verses 1–8, Asaph calls upon fathers in Israel to
inculcate a sense of covenant “belongingness” in their children, so that

9. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Volume 1 (repr., Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1993), 95–96.
10. Flannery O’Connor put it well: “[In] the long run, a people is known, not by
its statements or statistics, but by the stories it tells.” Quoted from Mysteries and
Manners (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: 1969), 104.
98 RICH LUSK

they will understand themselves in light of Israel’s history. By knowing

their past, they are also inspired with hope for the future, for the story
reveals the triumph of God’s mercy over and over again (78:9ff). Giving
our children the redemptive story in such a way that it becomes their story
is a way of forming their character and strengthening their faith. Again,
there is no overt mention of faith on the part of the children, but it is easy
to see how their faith is a presupposition of the text. Covenant nurture in
the covenant narrative makes sense because the children are regarded as
full covenant members.
Psalms 127 and 128 are useful in drawing out the psalter’s theology of
children. The psalmist says children are a heritage and reward from the
Lord (127:3), meaning they are distributed to us not by chance but in
accord with God’s counsel and pleasure for our benefit. We should rejoice
when God gives us offspring (Psalm 128:1, 3).
But we know that many children grow up to cause their parents grief
and sorrow. How can the psalter speak of children as such blessings? It is
because God promises to give us children who are like arrows in the hands
of a mighty warrior (127:4). If parents sharpen and straighten these arrows
through faithful nurture, their children will be equipped to fight the
wicked in the city gate (e.g., in public and cultural life).
Psalm 128:3 reinforces this point. Our children are like olive plants.
Provided that we water and fertilize them, prune and protect them, we can
be assured they will grow into fruitfulness. Olive plants elsewhere are
symbolic of covenant membership (Rom. 11) and holiness (Zech. 4). Our
homes and churches are to be like greenhouses in which we seek to
optimize growing conditions for these covenant seedlings. Through our
stories and songs, our festivals and fasts, our public and familial worship,
our teaching and discipline, and our example and prayer, we control the
lighting, humidity, and temperature levels in the greenhouse, enabling our
little olive plants to flourish.
While neither of these psalms speaks directly of infant faith per se, it is
easy to see how compatible these images and metaphors are with the
psalter’s more literal description of covenant children elsewhere. These
images mesh well with David’s profession to have been a paedo-believer.
No conversion experience is demanded in order for our children to be
regarded as arrows or olives; instead, this is simply who they are from
their infancy, by virtue of God’s covenant. We are called upon to receive
and raise them accordingly.11

11. In other words, if the glorious vision of family life described in these two
Psalms of Ascent is not realized, something is abnormal. The psalter is describing
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 99

Psalm 58:3 is important to our discussion, even if only by way of con-

trast. We are told the wicked are alienated from God from birth. Indeed,
they are actively, not just potentially, wicked. As soon they are born, they
speak lies. Obviously, this forms a sharp contrast with the babies of the
righteous who speak truth and praise God even in their youth (cf. Ps. 8:2).
But if the sons of the wicked are practicing idolatry even from infancy, it
only makes sense (in terms of the text’s implied contrast) that the children
of the righteous are in some way practicing righteousness. Their faith is not
just latent; it is every bit as concrete and “actual” as the wickedness of
covenant-breaking children. Of course, both sin and faith will be more fully
actualized later on life, but the Bible does not draw a hard and fast line
between infants and adults in their exercise of the will for or against God.
There is no religious neutrality, even in the womb.
At this point we should add a qualification. None of these Psalms sur-
veyed indicates that faith among covenant infants is absolutely universal.
The covenant often has fuzzy boundaries. For example, it is hard to
imagine Psalm 22:9–10 applying with the same force during times of
declension and idolatry in Israel as it did in David’s time, given that he
was raised in the godly home of Jesse. In our day, many infants are
baptized in a context of apostasy because the family or church (or both
institutions) have rejected the orthodox faith and only carry on an outward
shell of the sacrament of baptism. In these cases, where a child is baptized
unlawfully or where there can be no realistic expectation that baptism will
be followed up by parental discipleship and nurture, the probability of
infant faith is uncertain.
But in more normal circumstances, such as those addressed by the
psalter, where the faith of the parents and the covenant community is in
tact, there is no good reason to doubt the presence of faith in the heart of
the child. In a faithful situation, the children have faith as well as their
parents. The children share their parents’ posture of trust and God-ward
orientation. They have a favorable relationship with the Lord.
If we ask why there aren’t even more references to infant faith in the
psalter (and elsewhere in Scripture), we should note that this is one of
those relatively “invisible” doctrines. That is to say, it is everywhere
assumed but rarely talked about explicitly. However, there are all kinds of
corroborating evidences.
For example, we do not see the patriarchs in Genesis seeking to convert

the expected, paradigmatic pattern of life for covenant families. See Calvin,
Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Volume 2 (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1993), 111, 117.
100 RICH LUSK

their children out of unbelief and into faith when they reach a certain age
point. Jesus does not say that little covenant children need to be converted
so they can enter the kingdom of God, but says they already belong to the
kingdom. Paul does not tell Ephesian children to believe the gospel, but to
obey their parents in the Lord. In other words, he deals with them as saints
and disciples, not as unbelievers in need of conversion. In the same way,
Paul does not instruct Ephesian fathers to seek the conversion of their
children, but instead tells them to provide a comprehensive pattern of
training for their children in the Lord. For Christians, the whole parent-
child relationship is contextualized “in the Lord.”
Everywhere along the way, it is assumed that the children of God’s
people belong to God from their youth, and this assumption is grounded
in God’s covenant promise. The picture drawn in the psalter is consistent
with what we find in the rest of Scripture.

W HAT I NFANT F AITH I S N OT : T HE R OLE OF B APTISM AND

THE P SYCHOLOGICAL P RESSURE OF C OMMUNAL E XPECTATIONS
I NFANT B APTISM AND I NFANT F AITH
Thus far, we have seen that there is strong biblical warrant for believing
that our children are believers. However, we need to clear away a couple
of important misconceptions before unpacking the practical implications of
this teaching.
First, this doctrine of infant faith means, simply put, that Christian
parents give birth to Christian children. After all, what could be more
sensible? If anything is evident from providence (not to mention the Bible),
God has ordained an intimate life-bond and organic connection between
parents and children. Muslims give birth to Muslim children. Jews give
birth to Jewish children. Chinese parents give birth to Chinese children.
Roman Catholic parents give birth to Roman Catholic children. Presbyteri-
ans give birth to Presbyterian children. Baptists give birth to . . . well, never
mind! But the point should be clear. Children inescapably share in the
cultural and religious life of their parents.12
However, the point is also easily misunderstood because, when it
comes to Christian children, there is a complicating factor. Scripture makes
it plain that because of our fallenness, everyone is by nature out of
fellowship with the living God (e.g., Eph. 2:1ff). Left to themselves, the
children of even the holiest parents would be conceived as God-haters and

12. The trans-generational nature of the covenant in built into the fabric of crea-
tion and rooted in the Trinity. Just as the life of the Father includes the Son, so human
sons are included in the lives of their fathers (cf. Rom. 5:12–21; Deut. 5:9–10; 7:9).
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 101

unbelievers. Our children are not innocent or even neutral; they are
without God and without hope on their own. Grace is a not a natural
possession that can be passed on from one generation to the next the way
other traits are. Faith in the Triune God is not a natural inheritance but a
gift of divine mercy.
This is precisely why the covenant is so important. The covenant
promises reveal that God does not leave our children to themselves—even
for a moment. He takes initiative to claim the children of His people and
make them His own. He does not wait for either parents or the children to
make the first move. His grace runs ahead of us, and prepares the way for
us. His Spirit is always already there in the life of the covenant child.
God’s people do not give birth to children of trouble but rather of blessing
(Isa. 65:23; cf. 59:21).
It is sheer mercy, not some natural necessity, that makes the next gen-
eration partakers of the covenant relationship. Covenant membership
becomes part of the “givenness” of the child’s life situation, not because of
his own virtue or his parents’ virtue, but because of God’s free favor.
Covenant children share their parents’ relationship with God because God
graciously wills it to be so, and binds them to himself. In this way, grace
intersects and transforms nature. Grace interrupts the “natural” transmis-
sion of the Adamic curse, restoring the creation (specifically the family) in
and through Christ and the Spirit.
The only question, then, is this: At what point in the life of the cove-
nant child can we expect the grace of God to begin taking effect? At what
age in the life of the child do the promises become operational? Does God
put His blessing on hold, and wait until the child reaches a certain age to
become the God of that child? Or does He act earlier in the child’s life,
even in the womb? At what age can parents begin to claim and apply
God’s promises to their children?
The answer of the psalter is clear. The promises are effective from the
moment of conception forward. God is the God of believers; if He is the
God of our children, that must mean our children have faith. This does not
exempt our children from participating (organically and legally) in the
corruption and guilt of original sin. But it means that God is already at
work counteracting the native depravity and culpability of our children
from the beginning of their lives. There is never a time during which they
exist outside the bounds of the covenant of grace. In fact, to affirm original
sin, and simultaneously deny that God can and does perform a counter-
work in the children of His people is, as Charles Krauth suggested, to
make nature more potent than grace since it places a portion of “nature”
(infants) in the grasp of sin but beyond the reach of mercy.
102 RICH LUSK

Of course, the answer of the psalter makes perfect sense in light of the
promises God makes in His covenant. God does not say, “I will be a God to
you and to your teenagers.” Nor is it even, “I will be a God to you and to
your toddlers.” No, it is “I will be a God to you and to your children.” The
promise covers our children as soon as they exist. But note that it is the
covenant promises, not some natural faculty, that ensure our children’s
standing before God. It is the trans-generational covenant of grace, not a
biological connection, that makes our children heirs of life together with
us. The tie that binds parents and children together in the Lord is not
shared bloodlines or DNA, but the promised grace of the Holy Spirit, who
sanctifies what would otherwise be unclean (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14).
Thus, the sacrament of initiation into the covenant (circumcision in the
old covenant, baptism in the new) plays a critical role. The practice of
infant baptism proves that our children are fallen and that the resources of
father and mother cannot restore them. The parents are impotent to pass
along saving grace to their children. When parents bring their child for
baptism they are confessing that child needs a redemption and cleansing
they cannot provide. They are confessing the family is fallen and has no
redeeming powers within itself. But, again, this is precisely where the
covenant promises step into the situation and answer to our need.
This means we must beware of so emphasizing parental nurture that
we squeeze out the importance of the covenant administration in the
church. Parents are not sacraments, and parental training, no matter how
important or influential, cannot replace baptism. There is no substitute for
the divinely appointed and ordained means of grace in the church.
The purpose of baptism, then, is to put a solid foundation of grace un-
derneath the work of the parents. Through the ministry of the church, God
enfolds families into His eschatological family, so they function as He
originally designed (cf. Mal. 4:6). Parental nurture then builds upon the
solid foundation laid down in covenantal baptism.
The fact that we baptize our infants manifests and testifies that 1) our
children are not okay as they are, in a state of nature, but are in need of the
cleansing blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which gifts are
already promised to them in baptism; 2) God makes His claim on covenant
children through their parents, as they are compelled by promise to bring
their children for initiation into the covenant and correspondingly pledge
to raise them accordingly; and 3) God acts publicly in baptism to make our
children part of His family in their earliest days, loving them long before
they can express love in return to Him.
So what changes at the baptism of a covenant child? If our children
already have faith in some sense, what does baptism effect? Before baptism,
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 103

the covenant is already applicable to our children in some form or fashion.

Psalm 22 indicates the Spirit is already at work, even in the womb. Indeed,
it is the Sprit’s prior work in the child that makes infant baptism reason-
able and necessary. When we baptize our children, we are baptizing
believers. In evangelical, faithful churches, paedobaptism is a subspecies of
believer’s baptism. After baptism, the covenant becomes the child’s full
possession, since he has been officially adopted into God’s family and
united to Christ. In baptism the child transitions into a state the Bible calls
“forgiveness” (Acts 2:38) and “regeneration” (Titus 3:5), though that in no
sense precludes possession of those blessings in some way even prior to
baptism. Baptism is not merely a re-appropriation of a pre-existing
relationship, but neither does it create a relationship from scratch. Instead,
it is the means God uses to bring His relationship with the one baptized
into a new and solemnized state. Baptism does for the child what a
wedding service does for an engaged woman or a coronation service for a
prince-in-waiting.
If asked the question, “Do you baptize your children because they are
already Christians or in order to make them Christians?” we can only reply
by saying, “Both!” This is like asking a godly man, “Did you marry your
wife because you love her, or do you love her because you’re married to
her?” The pre-baptismal relationship of mutual faith and love provides a
basis for baptism; after baptism, the God-child relationship takes on a
more formalized covenant structure. Thus, we can do justice to passages
which speak of pre-baptismal faith and grace (e.g., Ps. 22:9–10), as well as
those which describe baptism as a decisive, transitional event in a person’s
life (e.g., Rom. 6:1ff; Acts 22:16).13

T HE P SYCHOLOGY OF I NFANT F AITH AND C ONVERSION

This doctrine of infant faith does not mean that our children never have a
conscious point when it first dawns on them that they are believers. Infant
faith does not negate the varieties of religious experience our children may
undergo. It does not mean that every Christian child should be forced into
the same straight jacket of experience, so that they all have identical stories
to tell.
In fact, as we continually press upon our children the need to repent
and believe, we expect them to experience the grace of God in a wide
range of dramatic ways as they grow up. But the way this happens

13. One solution to the pre-/post-baptismal status question is to see “regenera-

tion” as a kind of process, begun in the womb at conception by the Spirit and then
completed in the sacrament of baptism.
104 RICH LUSK

requires us to be willing to rethink the evangelical doctrine of conversion

as it is usually understood. We have not done justice to the psychology of
the Spirit’s work in our children.
What is going on when kids today from faithful, evangelical homes
grow up and have what are often deemed “conversion” experiences? It is
quite simple, actually. Parents and churches insist and expect that that their
kids will have a decisive and dateable transition point, and (guess what?)
they do so. However, in light of the above data, it is actually likely that such
experiences are not about “conversion” per se, except in the more general
sense that the whole Christian life is one of continued deeper and deeper
conversion from sin and unbelief to repentance and faith (e.g., Luke 22:32).
It is more likely that they are appropriating an already existing relation-
ship with God in a new and more mature fashion. The confused interpreta-
tion of the experience stems from a confused paradigm.
Consider David’s case again: he grew up trusting in God, but at sev-
eral junctures in his life (as we know from numerous psalms!) he was “re-
converted” and renewed as he passed through crisis situations. The same
dynamic happens to all of us, including our children. Thus, we shouldn’t
discount their new experiences of God’s grace as they hit puberty, or go off
to college, or start families of their own, or face illnesses. These are
experiences through which God brings true change and real spurts of
Spiritual growth.
But these “awakenings” or “mini-conversions,” however powerful,
should not be confused with initial conversion, as though the child was not
a believer in any sense until he went off to a summer camp in high school
or got involved in a campus ministry in college or met with the church
elders to state his profession of faith for the first time publicly. These
experiences should be interpreted against the backdrop of texts like
Psalm 22:9–10 and 71:5–6.
In light of the current evangelical conversionist paradigm, many
covenant children grow up and come to despise, or at least discount, the
Christian nurture they were given in their youth. They say, “Well actually,
I was never a Christian until I got to college and finally heard the gospel.”
But if they grew up in an orthodox context in home and church, this is
either a sign that something went drastically wrong or a sign that their
experience is being badly misinterpreted.
Unfortunately, this misinterpretation of experience is not harmless.
Kids who grow up under Christian nurture in some form or fashion, only
to have their experience squeezed into a revivalistic mold, are taught
(implicitly or explicitly) to disregard the worth of God’s work in them as
children. They do not value the baptism they received in infancy and they
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 105

become skeptical about the Spiritual experiences of children in general.

They think, “I was not a Christian in my youth, and so no one can be.”
They tend to pin their assurance on an experience.
Further, because the emphasis is placed on their “independent” deci-
sion (which they are told to make apart from the influence of family or
church), they come to regard Christianity as a highly privatized, individu-
alistic affair. They are told to explicitly break with the faith of their parents
or the church community to make their own decision, rather than being
called into a more personalized appropriation of that same faith. The
conversionist paradigm treats the decision to believe in Jesus as a basically
autonomous choice, which must be made apart from parental or pastoral
persuasion (though explicit or implicit pressure from others is, of course,
unavoidable). We have to ask: Is this approach likely to foster in our
children an appreciation of the covenant community and the corporate
dimensions of Christian living? Or is it going to make them think of
Christianity as a privatized “me and Jesus” affair?
In addition, they may all too easily fall into a “once saved always
saved” doctrine in which a one-time crisis conversion experience is
thought to secure salvation even apart from a subsequent life of obedience.
Parents pressure them to make a one-time decision (which is easy enough
to coax out of the child), and then fail to follow-up with the much harder
work of discipling them in the whole counsel of God. All this fosters an
unhealthy view of the means of grace and a hankering after spectacular
experiences, rather than an appreciation for God’s more ordinary ways of
working in the sacraments and the covenant family. It puts more weight
on a crisis conversion experience than on the objective promises of God.
The bottom line is this: the psalter is the Bible’s comprehensive hand-
book of covenant life and experience, and yet (as we have seen) there is not
a shred of evidence that covenant children must pass through some distinct
“conversion” experience, or make some independent decision, in order to be
regarded as believers and full members of the people of God. In the covenantal
paradigm, we continually call upon our children to express and live out
their faith, but we do not ever treat them as unbelievers (unless and until
they grow up and apostatize). Nor do we call upon them to make an
independent, autonomous decision in favor of Christ, since such a decision
is impossible anyway.14
Colin Buchanan provides some helpful thoughts on how infant faith

14. No one comes to faith autonomously or independently, whether child or

adult. For more, see Lesslie Newbigin, Truth and Authority in the Modernity (Valley
Forge, PA: Trinity International Press, 1996), 30–31.
106 RICH LUSK

functions as the child matures psychologically and Spiritually. There is no

legitimate psychological argument against infant faith and to deny its
possibility creates insuperable practical problems.

To put this another way—it is not that one day a child comes face to
face with the Savior and makes a conscious decision. It is that, grow-
ing up in a home where the Savior is known, only slowly does it
dawn upon the child that there are odd people (at school and else-
where) who are trying to live life on their own. One could go further
into the psychology of this. Is it, for instance, probable that the par-
ents stand in loco Dei from the earliest moments, and the transfer of
devotion to God Himself by the child is a gradual and unselfcon-
scious process which he or she cannot possibly be expected to report
accurately? If so, we are surely best trying to treat the child as a be-
liever in the true God, rather than try to catch the child at the point of
the watershed, and baptize him or her then. It is not, after all, that the
child is passing from heresy to faith—it is that God Himself has cho-
sen to reveal Himself to the child in this way, and the faith in a par-
ent who is in loco Dei is to be accepted as faith in God. Consciousness,
we say, dawns. But who can say when dawn begins? Many psycholo-
gists would say this dawn begins before birth.15

The fundamental problem with the conversionist paradigm is not that

the children lack faith, but that their parents do! They refuse to take the
covenant promises about their children seriously. Again, I am not neces-
sarily saying the conversion experiences of evangelical kids are “trumped
up” by parental and ecclesial expectations, but I do think those expecta-
tions bear a lot of weight in shaping their Spiritual experiences. The wrong
framework is controlling how they interpret the data of their own
experience.16 If we applied the Davidic paradigm to our children (reckon-
ing them as believers and treating them accordingly from infancy onward),
we might be surprised at how differently their experiences of God’s grace
would look and feel and sound. No doubt, they would be considerably
more in line with the testimony given in Psalm 22:9–10.
Montagu Barker has also examined several factors that shape the way

15. A Case for Infant Baptism, 27. A big part of the reason so many of our chil-
dren cannot relate directly to David’s words in Psalm 22 is because we have trained
them (that is, conditioned them) to seek after and interpret their experiences of God’s
grace through a different (conversionist) paradigm.
16. If I may risk an analogy: covenantal theologians reinterpret the experience
of children raised up and “converted” in revivalist contexts the same way cessation-
ist theologians reinterpret the experiences of their charismatic brethren.
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 107

we experience God’s grace (or at least the way we interpret our experience
of God’s grace). Our personality tendencies play a critical role in the way we
process experiences and the expectations we create for ourselves and
others.17 Even more relevant for our purposes is Barker’s demonstration that
our religious experiences and practices are radically shaped by the family
and church context in which we grow up. Barker’s fascinating study
explains how various branches of evangelicalism have emphasized their
own particular understandings of conversion, with unsurprising results:

[T]here are still churches where a certain kind of conversion experi-

ence is expected, and even demanded, and by a process of suggestion
and exclusion the pattern tends to be repeated. The more suggestible
the individual, the more readily will the experience be reproduced.
The less suggestible the individual, the greater may be the difficulty
in reproducing the expected experience and consequently the greater
the distress for that individual. This was particularly noteworthy in
the Kentucky Camp Meetings of the nineteenth century in the United
States. Whole families with adolescent children were marched off to
these yearly meetings, and then in response to a week’s preaching all
the children returned soundly converted every year. That was the
way it was done. This is still seen in some denominations in Europe,
where sudden conversion experiences are particularly valued.

Statistics bear out Barker’s thesis with remarkable consistency.

There was a questionnaire on conversion given to some theological

students some years ago. Among the students of a particular Baptist
college, ninety-seven percent of the students had had a conversion ex-
perience. The majority of them had had a sudden conversion experi-
ence. Within the evangelical Anglican college studied, ninety-three
percent of the students had had a conversion experience, but only fifty
percent of the students had had a sudden experience. Within an Anglo-
Catholic college, fifty percent of the students had had a conversion ex-
perience but none of them had had a sudden conversion experience.
Even among evangelicals with the same theology of regeneration, the

17. See Barker’s essay “Psychological Aspects of Inner Healing” in Pulpit and
People: Essays in Honor of William Still on His 75th Birthday (Edinburgh: Rutherford
House Books, 1986), 86–102. Barker’s examples of the diverse pieties of John Wesley,
George Whitefield, Martin Luther, and John Calvin on pages 92–93 bear this out
wonderfully.
108 RICH LUSK

frequency of the actual type of conversion experience may be very dif-

ferent according to church background.18

In other words, when it comes to covenant children, we basically get

what we expect (because our expectations are inescapably tied to our faith in
God’s covenant and shape the way we carry out the parenting project). Our
children are extremely malleable, and we have incredible influence over their
sense of identity and their interpretation of experience. Given these facts, why
not expect (by faith) the best case scenario? Why not impress upon our
children a Christian self-concept from the beginning? Why not expect our
children to grow up as believers (especially since the surest way to lead them
to unbelief is to treat them as unbelievers)? Why not reinforce their covenan-
tal identity from their earliest days so that we do not lose precious time that
can be used positively in character formation? Why not expect every covenant
child to share David’s testimony? In short, why not expect God to keep His
promises from the very beginning of our children’s lives? Why take a
parsimonious view of God’s grace?

I NFANT F AITH AND THE S ACRAMENTS

Finally, we come to the main question at hand. How does this theology of
covenant children bear upon our children’s participation in the life of the
church, especially in the sacramental dimension of the church’s ministry?
Obviously, this doctrine of infant faith means our children have every right to
the sacraments. If they are actually believers, promised the benefits of the
covenant of grace, then nothing hinders them from being baptized. Indeed,
they must be baptized. The major Baptist objection to infant baptism is cut
away since our infants consent (after a fashion) to baptism through their
relational trust in the Lord. They are not strangers and aliens to God; indeed,
we know that He desires to have them enrolled into His family in the
initiatory waters of baptism. We trust that our children fit the Davidic mold.
We treat them as Jacobs until and unless they prove to be Esaus.
Likewise, the table belongs to covenant children. They can receive the
body and blood of the Lord through the elements of bread and wine as soon
as they are able to eat. To hold them back from the table is to demand
something in addition to faith, which in principle denies sola fide and tends
toward works-righteousness. If Christ is received by faith alone, and our
children have faith, then the case for paedocommunion is closed. To demand
that their faith must have a certain quality (e.g., a certain level of intellectual

18. Barker, 94. Of course, Barker admits that none of our paradigms can ulti-
mately squelch the work of the Spirit.
 INFANT FAITH IN THE PSALTER 109

maturity or discernment) is to suggest that faith alone is not enough after all.19
There is only one entry requirement to the table, and our children meet it.
In other words, paedocommunion is simply a corollary of sola fide. The
table is a gift to us and to our children; it is a matter of pure, unearned,
unalloyed, uncompromised, unmixed grace. Our children belong to God and
He desires to feed them with His free food. This is the highest and best form
of “youth ministry” the church can provide! When God’s children ask for
bread (even if it’s an inarticulate cry!), He is happy to oblige. The denial of
paedocommunion is an implicit (albeit unintentional) threat to the great
Reformation principle that God’s gifts are received by the instrumentality of
faith alone. It is a threat to the Reformational teaching that Christ (even in the
bread and wine of the Eucharist) is received by a simple faith, and nothing
but faith. There are no other hoops to jump through—no special experiences,
no minimum score on a theology exam, no minimum number of Bible verses
memorized, no set quantity of good works.
To withhold our children from the table because they cannot yet perform
some work like answering catechism questions, narrating a testimony, or
having a protracted and dramatic crisis conversion experience, is to risk
psychologically damaging the child’s ability to understand and live by grace.
We take from him the very thing God intends to give him in baptism and at
the table, namely, a sense of covenantal identity and belonging. A child may
not know much systematic theology, but he does know what it is like to be
included or excluded, especially when food is involved. He may not have a
deep grasp of doctrine, but he intuitively senses the importance of ritualized,
symbolic actions. He may not be able to articulate his feelings, but he knows
when he is being asked to perform some work in order achieve a reward, as
opposed to being given a free and unearned gift. Paedocommunion is
important because of the way it shapes our children’s psychology of grace.
I consider the exegetical case for paedocommunion to be firmly estab-
lished (as the rest of this book shows). But there is more at stake in the
paedocommunion debate than simply exegeting a few key texts. Our whole
understanding of the covenant promises, the way God would have us regard
and rear our (really, His) children, the relationship of the sacraments to faith
and the covenant community—and more—are bound up in the paedocom-
munion debate. Many Christian parents are faithful in the work of covenant
nuture in many respects, but they do not practice paedocommunion. They
treat their children like Christians, on the whole, reminding them of God’s
grace, inculcating in them the skills and virtues that constitute a life of

19. 1 Corinthians 11:21–34 is misused by anti-paedocommunionists on this

point. See elsewhere in this volume for detailed exegesis.
110 RICH LUSK

discipleship, and they assure their children that God loves them. They teach
them to pray “Our Father” and sing “Jesus loves me.” They do everything but
the most central thing, namely, include their children at the table. This is a sad
inconsistency. A fully covenantal and consistent approach to our children
requires the whole package—combining parental faith in the promises, the
application of the sacraments to our children, and continual parental nurture
through teaching, discipline, and prayer.

T AKING D AVID ’ S T ESTIMONY S ERIOUSLY

In conclusion, infant faith is biblically plausible, pastorally practical, and
psychologically credible. By taking David’s claims to infant faith seriously,
we can construct a doctrine that embraces both the free grace of the covenant
as well as its stipulated condition of faithfulness. However mysterious, our
children have a relationship with God based on faith and grounded in grace.
We are called to raise our children accordingly, so their testimonies will
match David’s: “From my mother’s womb, You have been My God.”
Hopefully, this chapter demonstrates the way paedofaith, paedobaptism,
paedocommunion, and parental nurture all converge together in God’s
beautiful design for church and family.20

20. For a full account of the biblical doctrine of infant faith, see Paedofaith.
 7

S ACRAMENTAL H ERMENEUTICS
AND THE C EREMONIES OF I SRAEL

P ETER J. L EITHART

SIMPLY PUT, THE MOST COMMON REFORMED argument for infant baptism is
this: (male) children were included in Israel in the Old Testament; Israel
and the church are the same people, bearers of the same promise; there-
fore, just as (male) children were marked for inclusion by circumcision in
the old covenant, so children should be marked for inclusion by baptism in
the new covenant. The argument for the inclusion of young children in the
Lord’s Supper has the same structure: children ate with their parents at the
feasts of Israel;1 Israel and the church are the same people; therefore,
children should participate in the Christian feast.

1. For the purposes of this essay, I take it as proven that children participated in
the feasts of Israel. In addition to other resources, especially Tim Gallant’s Feed My
Lambs: Why the Lord’s Supper Should Be Restore to Covenant Children (Pactum
Reformanda, 2002), I point the reader to my own contributions to this question: “A
Reply to ‘1 Corinthians 11:17–34: The Lord’s Supper’ ” in E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The
Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological
Seminary, 2004), 297–304; more fully, “Paedocommunion” in David Hagopian, ed.,
Beyond the Basics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, forthcoming).

111
112 PETER J. LEITHART

These arguments raise a number of hermeneutical questions, among

which are the following:
1. The rule requiring circumcision on the eighth day and the rules of
access to the Israel’s feasts are ritual ordinances, governing the manner of
celebration for ceremonies. Likewise, the admission requirements for
access to baptism and the Supper are ceremonial regulations for the
church. The paedo-arguments2 assume that “ceremonial” regulations of
the old covenant have “ceremonial” import in the new. Do we have any
New Testament warrant to appeal to Old Testament “ceremonial”
regulations to support New Testament “ceremonial” practices? Or, do the
ceremonial regulations of Israel get “moralized,” “spiritualized,” or
“humanized” as they cross the threshold between Malachi and Matthew
(or between cross and resurrection)?3
2. But the paedo-arguments assume a typological hermeneutic in
which Old Testament persons, institutions, and events not only typify
Jesus Christ but also have some regulatory authority in the church.4 In
medieval terms, the paedo-arguments assume that the Old Testament
contains not only “allegories” of Christ but also moral and ritual “tropolo-
gies” applicable to the church; or, in Augustinian terms, these arguments
assume that the Old Testament is typological not of Jesus simply but of the
totus Christus, the whole Christ, both head and body. Circumcision points

2. For simplicity’s sake, I bundle together the arguments for paedobaptism and
paedocommunion under the phrase “paedo-arguments.”
3. For the sake of argument, I assume here that distinctions can readily be
made between “moral” and “ceremonial” rules, though I am deeply skeptical about
the usefulness of that distinction. Markus Bockmuehl is correct to insist that “the
very distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, aside from being
unknown to the Old and New Testaments and to Judaism, is legally unworkable
and practically awkward. Who would confidently classify the laws about gleaning
or the taking of a bird’s nest, not to mention the Sabbath and the command about
images?” (Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian
Public Ethics [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], 149n14). In this essay, “ceremonial”
regulations have to do with liturgical forms and patterns, while “moral” covers all
other spheres of life.
4. For the purposes of this essay, I assume the legitimacy of a typological her-
meneutic that sees all the Old Testament fulfilled in Jesus. I have defended some
aspects of typological interpretation in the introductions to my A House for My Name
(Moscow, ID: Canon, 2000), 17–42, and A Son To Me (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2003). See
also James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), and
Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical TYPOS
Structures (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series; Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 113

not only to the “cutting of Jesus’ flesh” on the cross, but to the baptismal
rite of passage; Passover points not merely to the cross but the Eucharist.
Does the New Testament justify this form of typology?
3. Paedo-arguments do not claim that there is total continuity between
the institutions of Old and New. The menu at Passover was different from
that of the Supper, and baptism does not involve a cut in the flesh. In the
midst of discontinuities, however, the paedo-arguments locate aspects of
continuity. How do the arguments locate the analogy between the Old
Testament ceremony and the New? How do the arguments determine
which features shared by circumcision-baptism and Passover-Supper are
relevant and which are not?
Though not often admitted, accepting the paedo-arguments involves
a prior commitment to particular answers to these problems. Accepting
that infant circumcision supports infant baptism logically entails accepting
that ceremonial regulations of the Old can be applied as ceremonial
regulations in the New. And accepting that the inclusion of children at
Passover is an argument for their inclusion at the Lord’s Supper assumes
that we are capable of discerning a specific point (or points) of similarity
between the two meals in the midst of their evident dissimilarities.
That these assumptions go largely unexamined is evident from the
inconsistent hermeneutical practices of some paedobaptists. Applying the
logic of the paedo-arguments, some (myself included) have argued that the
sacrificial procedures of the Levitical law govern the order and procedures
of Christian worship. That is, the ceremonial regulations and patterns of
animal offerings in Leviticus provides a pattern for the ceremonies of
worship in the church.5 Yet, not all paedobaptists accept this extension of
the logic of the paedo-arguments. In a recent web essay against the “high
church” (HC) movement within Reformed churches, Andrew Sandlin
rightly identifies the temple as a key issue. If the church is a temple, then it
follows that the rituals of the church are somehow analogous to the temple
rites. Paedobaptist and paedocommunionist though he is, Sandlin does not
accept the idea that the church is the temple of God, or the liturgical
implications closely allied with it:

The high church view rests, in large measure, on the premise that the
primitive church is an extension and outgrowth of the Old Testament

5. For details of how this works out, see James B. Jordan, Theses on Worship
(Niceville, FL: Transfiguration Press, 1994); Jeff Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace
of Covenant Renewal Worship (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2003); and my From Silence to
Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2003).
114 PETER J. LEITHART

temple. If this belief is mistaken, virtually the entire liturgical edifice

comes crashing down. And it should. There is slender or no biblical
evidence for it. But it’s even excessive to suggest that the premise for
this belief is validly inferential. The apostle Paul does refer to the
people of God as the temple (Eph. 2:21), but it is not a forgone conclu-
sion that he is speaking only corporately, or even speaking corporately
at all. He’s obviously not speaking corporately in 1 Corinthians 3 and
6, where “body” is the individual Christian’s body and which he iden-
tifies as the temple. None of the New Testament writers, nor Jesus,
acted as though the primitive church was a sort of extension of the
temple. More significantly, however, the distinctives of the temple
were a central aspect of the Jewish religious cultus that Hebrews
emphatically declares has passed away in the new covenant era
(chaps. 8–10). The temple was the public worship expression of the
Aaronic-Levitic order. No Christian would ever argue that this order
was somehow not temporary, so it is perplexing why they would
suggest that the temple itself would be something of a model for the
new covenant era. Worship in the new covenant era is certainly an-
chored in the Old Testament—the Melchizedekian order, not the
Aaronic order (Heb. 5; 7:1–19). To the thought of the writer of He-
brews, an Aaronic order was a Johnny-come-lately. Jesus restores the
original order of godly worship. The Aaronic order wasn’t bad; it
was simply temporary. The Melchizedekian order as fulfilled in
Christ, the great priestly King, is permanent.6

While my interest is mainly in the hermeneutical assumptions behind

Sandlin’s argument, I cannot refrain from making some critical comments
about the substance. For starters, N. T. Wright has persuasively argued
that Jesus was leading a “counter-temple” movement and that He was
offering His disciples the blessings they would normally seek in Jerusalem
(festivity, food, cleansing, the presence of Yahweh).7 If Wright is correct,
Sandlin is wrong to claim that Jesus did not “act as though the primitive
church was an extension of the temple.” But Wright’s claim is contested, so
let us leave it to the side.
Several of Sandlin’s statements are obviously wrong. He states that
“The Apostle Paul does refer to the people of God as the temple
(Eph. 2:21), but it is not a forgone conclusion that he is speaking only
corporately, or even speaking corporately at all.” But Ephesians 2:11–22

6. http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi
?category=3&id=1110954488.
7. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of
God, vol. 2; London: SPCK, 1996), 432–38.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 115

could not be more corporate. The passage is all about the reconciliation of
Jews and Gentiles in the “one body” of Jesus Christ (v. 16). Further, the
context is infused with temple imagery—not only the explicit “holy
temple” of verse 21, but the references to “access” (v. 18), “strangers and
aliens” (v. 19), “saints/holy ones” (v. 19), “God’s household” (oikeioi tou
theou, v. 19), and “dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (v. 22). In short, the
whole passage says that the new body, the “one new humanity” composed
of Jews and Gentiles is God’s house, His temple.
Though it is somewhat more ambiguous than Ephesians 2, there is
little doubt in context that 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 is describing the church as
a temple. Paul is defending his labors as a minister of the church, a
“builder” of the house of God (v. 10). If he wants his work to endure, he
must build on the foundation stone of Jesus and work with temple
materials—gold, silver, and precious stones (vv. 11–12). Some laborers,
however, build with flammable materials that will be consumed during
building inspection. Now, in this context, the clause “if any man destroys
the temple of God” refers to false apostles and teachers engaged in
deconstruction rather than construction. Specifically, Paul is referring to
the false teachers of Corinth, who are self-deceived and think of them-
selves as “wise in this age” (v. 18).
Though Sandlin gets Hebrews 5–10 right enough, his anti-temple in-
terpretation fails to account for the conclusion of that letter. By the end of
Hebrews, the author, who has declared an end to sacrifice, an end to
Aaronic priesthood, an end to the Mosaic covenant and Mosaic sanctuary,
suddenly declares that we Christians still have our sacrifices to make:

Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken,

let us give thanks, by which we offer8 to God an acceptable worship
with reverence and awe. (Heb. 12:28)

Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God,

that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. (Heb. 13:15)

And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices
God is pleased. (Heb. 13:16)

8. The TDNT notes, “According to LXX [Septuagint] usage the primary refer-
ence of latreuein is to the sacrificial ministry which is to be offered to Yahweh in
contrast to other gods. . . . But the distinction between leitourgein (priestly sacrificial
ministry) and latreuein (cultic worship generally), which is so strict in the LXX . . . is
now obliterated” (Gerhard Kittel, ed., trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 4:63).
116 PETER J. LEITHART

Christians even have a sin offering (cf. Lev. 4), though the dispersion of
the sacrificial flesh has been changed markedly (13:10–13). The trajectory of
Hebrews is not from an old covenant centered on sanctuary and sacrifice to a
new covenant bereft of both. Instead, Hebrews demonstrates that Christians
do not leave behind priesthood, covenant, sacrifice, and temple when they
leave behind Judaism. On the contrary, they find all that was good in the old
transfigured to something strange and new.
Leaving aside the specific passages that refer to the church as temple,
there remains the massive fact that the New Testament identifies the body of
Christ with the temple of Christ: “But he was speaking of the temple of His
body” (John 2:21). Of course, Jesus is referring to the temple of His personal
body, but within the New Testament the personal body of Jesus becomes
conceptually (and really) intertwined with the corporate body of Jesus and
the Eucharistic body.9 Jesus’ personal body is the basis for His corporate
body: it is because the Eternal Son took on flesh that He is united with His
people as Bride and Body. As a result, the church united to the Incarnate Son
becomes all that the Son is: we are Abraham’s seed in the seed of Abraham;
Adams in the Last Adam; saints in the holy one, and righteous in the Risen
One.10 And if the personal body of Jesus is a temple-body, then the corporate
body of Jesus is likewise a temple-body (as well as a bride). This is simply
the ana-logic of the New Testament.
For my purposes, the most intriguing aspect of Sandlin’s argument is
that it runs counter to the paedo-arguments that, as a Reformed paedobap-
tist, he presumably accepts. On the one hand, the “ceremonial” requirement
that Israel’s infants be circumcised translated into a “ceremonial” require-
ment that the church’s infants be baptized. On the other hand, the “ceremo-
nial” regulations governing temple worship have no role in governing the
church’s worship. In medieval terms, Sandlin is willing to accept a “tro-
pological” application from Genesis 17, but not from Leviticus 1. Or, in
Augustinian terms, he is willing to apply Genesis 17 to the totus Christus, but
limits the application of Leviticus 1 to the solus Christus.
It would be intriguing and fun (for me, if not for the reader) to follow
this line of thought to show that paedobaptist arguments from circumcision
commit Reformed people to high liturgical forms. That is not my purpose

9. The medievals had it exactly right when they worked out their sacramental
and ecclesial theology through reflections on the triplex corpus Christi.
10. This could be refined by recognizing a gender gap at each point: in Christ,
we are femininely what He is masculinely. Even with this qualification, the point
stands.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 117

here, however. Rather, this chapter is an effort to justify the assumed but
often unstated hermeneutical assumptions embedded in the paedo-
arguments. My focus is on the first of the assumptions listed above (namely,
that “ceremonial” regulations of Torah apply to “ceremonial” issues in the
church), though on the way toward that argument I tarry to defend the
second as well (in case you forgot—the Augustinian totus Christus).
The third assumption would require a very different kind of treatment
than can be offered in this paper. But, in the interest of semi-completeness,
let me say a few words about that. You will remember, kind reader, that the
third assumption of the paedo-arguments is that we are able to pick out
those features of two ceremonies that are common. As stated, it appears to
be a mystical and well-nigh impossible undertaking, but we perform similar
operations all the time. We know, for instance, that Solomon’s simile
comparing his beloved’s eyes to “doves behind your veil” (Song of
Songs 4:1) does not mean a) the woman’s eyes are feathery, b) the woman’s
eyes are pure white, c) the woman’s eyes are equipped with small claws,
d) the woman’s eyes can fly, e) the woman’s eyes each have two dark eyes of
their own, f) the woman’s eyes have a beak, or any of a hundred other
possible analogies. How do we know this? It is difficult to say, but we do.
And it is equally difficult to say exactly what the analogy is in this case: how
are a woman’s eyes like doves? That question has no straightforward or
simple answer, but that does not make the comparison nonsensical.
Discovering appropriate analogies between baptism and circumcision,
Passover and Eucharist, is much easier. The point is that we navigate
through simile and metaphor and analogy every day, without a second
thought.
Having made this feeble gesture toward addressing this question, I turn
to a more elaborate treatment of the other issues raised above.

T OTUS C HRISTUS
As noted, near the heart of the paedocommunion argument is at least an
implicit affirmation of the Augustinian principle of the totus Christus.
According to this principle, the entire Old Testament is fulfilled in Jesus,
but it is equally fulfilled in the Christian church. For instance, the Passover
points to Jesus, but also points to the festive life of the body of Christ. The
Augustinian principle is evident in the New Testament, perhaps most
clearly in the way various New Testament writers treat the typology of
Israel’s Exodus and wilderness wanderings. On the one hand, the gospels
make it abundantly clear that Jesus, the true Israel, passed through the
waters and succeeded in the wilderness trial that Israel failed (Matt. 3–4;
118 PETER J. LEITHART

Mark 1:9–13; Luke 3:21–22, 4:1–13).11 For the evangelists, the two events
are connected by several details, a series of parallels . . .

God’s Son, Israel = God’s Son, Jesus

Israel through waters = Jesus baptized
Israel in wilderness = Jesus in wilderness
Israel tested = Jesus tested

that lead to the critical, contrasting, punch line:

Israel sins repeatedly = Jesus resists temptation and remains

faithful.

Paul’s treatment of the exodus-wilderness narrative, however, is quite

different. He explicitly describes the history of Israel as typological (tupoi,
tupikos) for the Corinthian Christians (1 Cor. 10:6, 11). And he does find
Christ in the story, though not in the same place as Matthew, Mark, and
Luke. For Paul, Jesus is not Israel but the Rock of Israel (v. 4). Paul thus
identifies Jesus with Yahweh Himself (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18), the Holy One
who provided water and bread in a desert place. This is fertile ground for
a rich Christological allegory, for the story of the wilderness is in this
perspective the story of the Passion, the story of Israel forsaking her Rock
and rejecting the God who gave her birth (Deut. 32:15–18). Paul, however,
develops not a Christological but an ecclesiological typology. Israel in the
wilderness is not a foreshadowing of the story of Jesus but the story of the
Corinthian church, baptized and fed by the (rejected) Rock of Israel, but now
in danger of being laid low for craving evil and seeking idols (vv. 6–11).
Israel’s history serves as a parabolic cautionary tale for presumptuous
Christians: Not baptism, not the Supper, not even the real presence of
Christ the Rock guarantee the favor of God to those who turn away and
grumble against the Lord—for Israel had all those things and fell in the
wilderness.
As Richard Hays points out, Paul makes a direct “tropological” move
from Israel to the church because he sees the church as the same people as
Israel, albeit in a new stage of history (the “ends of the ages”). The story of
Israel is the story of the “fathers” of the Corinthian church, and this along
with the fact that Paul says that the Corinthians “were Gentiles” shows

11. Virtually every commentator on the gospels recognizes this point, but one
of the best expositions is Dale Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 137–72. N. T. Wright’s insight into the “Israel
Christology” of Paul and the gospels builds on similar exegetical observations.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 119

that “Paul thinks of the Corinthian Christians as Gentiles no longer; they

have been incorporated into Israel.”12 Hays argues that

Paul’s hermeneutic is not christocentric in this passage. He does not

begin with the postulate that the rock is Christ and then infer a typo-
logical correspondence between Israel and the church. Rather, the
Israel/church metaphor is the generative poetic insight from which
the identification of the rock with Christ is an imaginative inference.13

To employ the terms that we have been using, Paul’s application of

the wilderness wandering to the church at Corinth assumes that the Old
Testament prefigures the totus Christus.

C EREMONY M ORALIZED
But here dark clouds of difficulty gather. There are many, but let us focus
on one. Assume that the allegory of Passover issues in a tropology—that
the church, as the body of Christ, participates in the fulfillment of Passover
in Jesus. The question is, how does it participate? Here the Augustinian
principle itself gives us no answer. On the Augustinian assumption that
the Passover typifies both the death of Christ and the church’s participa-
tion in that death, one might conclude that the church’s and the believer’s
participation is limited to deliverance from the angel of death. That is,
Passover points to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and in regard to the totus
Christus, it points to our spiritual experience of conversion. But that is not
sufficient for the paedo-arguments to work. We must also be able to justify
the conclusion that the Passover feast (or Pentecost or Booths) points to an
actual Christian feast, the Lord’s Supper. What warrant do we have to
make this move?
1 Corinthians 10 provides a useful example of the difficulty. Paul’s
exhortation assumes a typological connection between the Red Sea
crossing and Christian baptism. Hence, the Old Testament event is typical
of the initiation rite of the totus Christus. Yet, Paul does not draw any
conclusions about the mode or subjects of baptism from that typology. He
teaches that the manna and water were the same spiritual food and drink
(to auto pneumatikon . . . epion poma) as that given to the Corinthians at the
Supper, but he again refrains from drawing any conclusions about the
proper administration of the Supper.14 That Paul finds Old Testament

12. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale, 1989), 95–102.
13. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 98.
14. I realize that some commentators dispute that there is a direct sacramental
reference here, but the point is so obvious as to not require argument. One has to go
120 PETER J. LEITHART

types of Christian sacraments is hermeneutically very significant, because

it demonstrates that Paul does not see the Old Testament shadows
exhausted in the work of Jesus. Instead, he extends the “allegory” into a
“tropology” applicable to the sacramental life of the church. The analogy is
not merely

Israel eats in wilderness = Jesus keeps the fast in the

wilderness

but also

Israel eats in wilderness = the church eats and drinks in her

sacraments.

Yet, the sacramental typology is background to Paul’s warning that

the Corinthians must avoid the sins of Israel. Paul does not draw ceremo-
nial regulations for the church from the narrative of Israel’s wilderness
meals. He does not argue that children should be baptized because they
were baptized in the sea, nor that children should be given the Bread from
Heaven because they ate the bread of angels in the wilderness.
We are heartened to find that Paul reads the Old Testament through a
hermeneutical lens something like the Augustinian principle of totus
Christus. But 1 Corinthians 10 does not lend support to the paedo-
arguments, since Paul draws no ceremonial conclusions from his typology.
Perhaps we can find more support elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 5, we
see Paul working in a similar fashion:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of
dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just
as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been
sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven,
nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleav-
ened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:5b–8)

Before we can assess the hermeneutical implications of this passage,

several exegetical issues need to be addressed. First and foremost, what
does Paul mean by “celebrate the feast” in verse 8? Is it a reference to the
Supper as a Christian Passover, or to some Christian experience that can be
described as a feast but is not a literal feast? Context supports a sacramen-

through exegetical contortions to remove the sacramental dimensions from the

passage.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 121

tal interpretation. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul is exhorting the

Corinthians to deal discipline to a man guilty of incest (5:1), and instructs
them to deliver the man to Satan during an assembly of the congregation
(sunachthentōn humōn, v. 4). His exclusion from the church includes an
exclusion from table fellowship (v. 11), and the word translated as
“associate” (NASB) in verses 9 and 11 is sunanamignusthai, which, accord-
ing to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, includes a notion of
fellowship in a cultic meal:

In 1 Corinthians 5:11 mēde sunesthiein [not to eat with] serves to give

precision to the mē sunanamignusthai [not to associate with] of verse 9.
Since both private and cultic table fellowship is included in inter-
course as the broader term, mēde cannot be construed as the adding
of something more. The translation “not even” would also be suitable
only if we had here a surprisingly penetrating application even to the
peripheral adiaphora of intercourse. Private table fellowship, how-
ever, could not be regarded as peripheral, let alone the Lord’s Sup-
per. As things stand, tō toioutō mēde sunesthiein is to be translated
epexegetically to mē sunanamignusthai: with such a one you ought not
to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.15

The “lump” that can be “leavened” by a small bit of leaven is the

church infected and polluted by the presence of the immoral incestuous
man. Cleansing out the old leaven involves an act of church discipline, and
this is legitimate because the Passover that initiates the Feast of Unleav-
ened Bread has been done in Jesus.
The Greek terminology of “let us celebrate the feast” (heortazōmen, a
New Testament hapax related to heortē, “feast”) also supports this sacra-
mental interpretation, since it is used throughout the Septuagint to refer to
celebration of feasts:

And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus
says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may
celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.’ ” (Ex. 5:1)

Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a
feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it
as a permanent ordinance. (Ex. 12:14)

15. Vol. 7, 855.

122 PETER J. LEITHART

When he had brought him down, behold, they were spread over all
the land, eating and drinking and dancing because of all the great
spoil that they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from
the land of Judah. (1 Sam. 30:16)

Behold, on the mountains the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace! Celebrate your feasts, O Judah; Pay your vows.
For never again will the wicked one pass through you; He is cut off
completely. (Nah. 1:15; Septuagint 2:1)16

In the usage of Paul’s Greek Bible, heortazō refers to the celebrating of

one of Israel’s ancient festivals. Finally, the verb in 1 Corinthians 5:8 is in
the present tense, and is often rendered as “keep on celebrating.” The fact
that Paul refers to a continuous activity of the Christian life lends addi-
tional support to the conclusion that Paul is referring to a literal ritual
meal, a festival of the new Israel.
Paul thus is exhorting the Corinthians to celebrate the Christian feast
that corresponds to Israel’s feast of Passover-Unleavened Bread. In the
context of 1 Corinthians, the literal feast to which Paul refers is the Lord’s
Supper. As in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul’s typological reading of the Old
Testament terminates in the church and not in Jesus alone. For Paul the
Passover was not only about the death and resurrection of Jesus but also
about the continuing practices in the life of the church. Rather than seeing
the bread of the Passover fulfilled in the gift of Jesus as bread (as in John 6),
Paul immediately equates the “unleavened lump” with the church (vv. 6–7).
1 Corinthians 5 thus indicates once again that Augustine’s notion of the totus
Christus was central to Paul’s reading of the Old Testament.
But this passage moves a step closer to the paedo-arguments than
1 Corinthians 10 did. Paul does not rest with the bare equation of Passover
and the Lord’s Supper, or the bread of Passover with the church. He draws
practical conclusions about how the Christian Passover is to be celebrated
based on the allegorical/tropological connection he assumes and develops.
By the regulations of the Mosaic Passover, the festival was to be celebrated
with unleavened bread (Ex. 12:8), and the Passover meal itself was
followed by the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. Paul alludes
directly to this festival custom when he urges the Corinthians to “clean out
the old leaven.” This is sometimes describes as a transfer from a “cultic”
into a “moral” register, but that contrast does not quite capture the nuance

16. In addition, the verb is used in the same sense in Exodus 23:14; Leviti-
cus 23:39, 41; Numbers 29:12; Deuteronomy 16:15; Psalm 41(2):5; Zechariah 14:16,
18–19, and elsewhere.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 123

of Paul’s argument. After all, he is still operating in the “cultic” sphere of

the Lord’s table. There is, to be sure, an “allegorical” disruption rather than
a literal application of the requirements of Torah. Paul is not talking about
literal leaven, but about the “leaven of malice and wickedness” (v. 8) and
the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Yet, Paul is applying a
“ceremonial” regulation to a “ceremony” of the church. He has not moved
entirely out of the cultic sphere.
Thus the hermeneutical implications of 1 Corinthians 5 go beyond those
of 1 Corinthians 10. In the latter Paul draws moral applications from a
narrative, but in the former Paul draws a moral conclusion from a “ceremo-
nial” ordinance. The ceremonial regulation of Torah no longer functions
straightforwardly as ritual law—Paul does not prohibit leavened bread from
the Lord’s Supper, but he cites a ritual ordinance of Torah to instruct the
church about the manner of observing a Christian ceremony. Further, the
effect of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 5 is to set an admission require-
ment for access to the Lord’s table. It is a “moral” admission requirement,
but it is an admission requirement nonetheless. Paul determines who is
permitted to participate in the Supper by reference to the Old Testament
regulations governing Passover. Anyone categorized as “leaven” (such as
those listed in verse 11) must be purged from the table company of the
church.17

C EREMONY TO C EREMONY
The most challenging aspect of Paul’s hermeneutic in these passages is to
determine why he places the inverted commas where he does. How does
he decide what is “under erasure” and what remains “literally” in force?
Importantly, he does not place the inverted commas in the same place as
many contemporary commentators. Evangelicals commonly read passages
like 1 Corinthians 5 as exhortations about moral life in general. In other
words, evangelicals tend to treat not only the “bread” but “feast” as
metaphors. By this approach, Paul’s typology is limited to Christology:
Christ fulfills the Passover sacrifice, and that works out in the life of the

17. Paul makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 9:13–14 (priests have a share
of the altar; therefore, ministers should be paid for the gospel ministry). L. William
Countryman makes the intriguing argument that in Paul “purity” language has to do
with offenses against social harmony, particularly greed; see Dirt, Sex, and Greed:
Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), 97–123. With Countryman’s larger arguments concerning New
Testament sexual ethics, I have no sympathy.
124 PETER J. LEITHART

church as conversion and the “feast” of fellowship with Christ.18

We have determined that this is not Paul’s method. Rather, in 1 Corin-
thians 5, the equations function as follows:

Passover = Christ’s sacrifice

Passover Feast = Lord’s Supper
Unleavened bread = “Unleavened” “lump”

The literal death of the Passover lamb is typologically equated to an-

other literal (though human) death; the feast of Passover typifies a literal
Christian feast; the leavened bread does not point to any literal bread in
the new covenant, but to the guileless life of the church’s members.19 The
erasure is nestled within a more literal analogy. The same pattern is
evident in 1 Corinthians 10:

Crossing Red Sea = Baptism in water

Water and Manna = Bread and wine
Judgment on sin = Judgment on sin
Rock = “Rock”

When we apply this pattern of thought to paedo-arguments, it is not

difficult to chart Paul as an opponent of paedocommunion:

Passover sacrifice = Christ’s sacrifice

Passover feast = Lord’s Supper
Children included = “Children” included

18. Marion Soards, for instance, writes of 5:8 that “[o]nce more Paul extends the
imagery of the Passover metaphor in order to call the Corinthians to a manner of
living consistent with God’s will for their lives. He admonishes them and appar-
ently all other Christians, therefore let us keep the Festival. If Christ is the lamb and
yeast is immorality, those celebrating Christ are to free themselves by the power of
God of malice and wickedness and to devote themselves to sincerity and truth. This
admonition is not a mere exercise in moral cheerleading; rather, Paul is calling the
Corinthians to live freed from sin and freed for godliness because God has already
acted in Christ to make provision for the reality of their new living”
(1 Corinthians [New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1999], 115). Soards never considers the possibility that Paul might be speaking of an
actual feast.
19. In the larger context of 1 Corinthians, however, even the “bread” has a lit-
eral referent, in the “bread that we break,” which loaf symbolizes the unity of the
church living in sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 10:16–17).
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 125

On this model, the New Testament import of including children in

Passover is that the “childlike,” the humble and meek, are invited to share
in the Supper. Or, we might chart the last part this way:

Circumcised included = “Circumcised” included

On this analogy, the ritual requirement of circumcision becomes a

“moral” requirement in the new covenant. Only those who manifest the
moral condition that circumcision pointed to (the circumcised heart) are
admitted to the Lord’s table.
To this, it is possible to reply: “If the ‘children’ are admitted to the
table, then children are surely welcomed as well.” But this logic cannot be
employed across the board, for no one would propose “If we celebrate the
feast with ‘unleavened’ bread, then we must surely celebrate it with
unleavened bread” nor “If the ‘circumcised’ are admitted to the table, how
much more the circumcised.”
So, we come to the nub of the question: is there any New Testament
evidence of the ceremony-to-ceremony typology that is assumed by the
paedo-arguments? Yes. The decision of the Jerusalem council recorded in
Acts 15 provides an example of Levitical ceremonial regulations applied to
the church, quite literally, as ceremonial regulations. In particular, the
Torah’s prohibition of eating blood (cf. Lev. 17:10–14; 19:26) is extended to
Gentiles (Acts 15:20, 29), without even an allegorical disruption.20 This
example has a few unusual features that somewhat undermine its usefulness
for my purposes. First, the prohibition on blood pre-dated the Torah
(cf. Gen. 9:4), and thus is arguably a part of the general revelation to the
nations given to Noah. Second, and along similar lines, the Torah explicitly
extends this prohibition, as it does the other prohibitions of the Jerusalem
Council, to Gentiles. This appears to be the reason for imposing these
particular regulations on Gentile believers (Lev. 18:26).21

20. It might be argued that this is not a “ceremonial” regulation in the sense I
identify in note 3. But the prohibition on blood in Leviticus 17 is premised on the
liturgical use of blood at the sanctuary, and the prohibition appears within the so-
called Holiness Code. This objection does illustrate, however, the clumsiness of the
distinction between “ceremonial” and “moral.”
21. Jonathan Klawans has argued that there was a double purity system operat-
ing in ancient Israel, one concerned with the purity of the sanctuary and encompass-
ing “ceremonial” regulations and the other concerned with the purity of the land
and involving moral commandments. Gentiles living in Israel would thus be under
the rules governing “moral purity” though not under the “sanctuary purity” rules.
See Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
126 PETER J. LEITHART

1 Corinthians 9:13–14 comes closer to the requirements of the paedo-

arguments. Defending his right to make a living from his ministry in the
gospel, Paul argues from an analogy with the ceremonial regulations of
Israel’s priesthood:

Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food
of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their
share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim
the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

Paul is referring to a variety of regulations from Leviticus, under

which the priest who performs the priestly portion of the animal offering
receives perquisites, including grain, meat and the leather skin of a bull:

Then one of them shall lift up from it a handful of the fine flour of the
grain offering, with its oil and all the incense that is on the grain offer-
ing, and he shall offer it up in smoke on the altar, a soothing aroma, as
its memorial offering to the Lord. What is left of it Aaron and his sons
are to eat. It shall be eaten as unleavened cakes in a holy place; they are
to eat it in the court of the tent of meeting. (Lev. 6:15–16)

The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy
place, in the court of the tent of meeting. (Lev. 6:26)

Also the priest who presents any man’s burnt offering, that priest
shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering which he has
presented. (Lev. 7:8)

Paul’s application of these rules to gospel ministry assumes that there

is an analogy between presiding at an altar and preaching the gospel. Paul
makes this assumption explicit in Romans 15:15–16:

But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind

you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a
minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the
gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become ac-
ceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Paul conceives of his proclamation of the gospel as a sacrificial slaugh-

ter, in which He slays the Gentiles through his preaching so that they can
ascend as smoke well pleasing to God. He preaches so that the Gentiles
will join believing Israel as living sacrifices.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 127

In 1 Corinthians 9, then, Paul is arguing according to the following

logic:

Priestly ministry = Preaching

Sacrificial victim = Disciples
Meat from sacrificial victim = Support from disciples

For Paul, the analogies are quite exact. The priest ministered before
the Lord and received literal flesh; Paul sows “spiritual things” [ta
pneumatika] among the Corinthians and receives “fleshly things” [ta sarkika]
from those converted and edified under his ministry (v. 11).
The critical point for my purposes is that Paul here appeals to a cere-
monial law regarding access to sacrificial food to support a regulation in
the church regarding access to the offerings and gifts of the membership. A
ceremonial rule of access from the old covenant is transferred, through an
allegorical disruption, to a ceremonial rule of access for the new covenant.
This is perhaps sufficient to find Pauline warrant for the paedo-
arguments: though Paul treats his own ministry as a special form of
priestly ministry, he also clearly recognizes the priestly dimension of the
church as a whole. All Christians, not only apostles and preachers, are
involved in offering sacrifice to God (cf. Rom. 12:1–2), and as such all who
are of the priestly people have access to the perquisites due to priests. All
those who minister at the altar receive benefit from the altar. By this
argument, it might appear that all members of the church should be paid
for their part in the Christian sacrifice of praise. If all are priests, why can’t
all receive from the tithes and offerings? To that objection, there are two
responses. First, there is a sense in which all do benefit from the tithes and
offerings of the church, insofar as the bread and wine of the Eucharist are
purchased with those tithes and offerings. Second, and more seriously, this
objection misses the specificity with which Paul applies the ceremonial
regulations. Under the Levitical system, priests received certain perquisites
for their ministry, and common Israelites received other portions of the
sacrifices (cf. Lev. 7:11–36). If one were applying the ceremonial regula-
tions of the sacrifices to the church’s liturgy, one would expect ministers to
receive something that the lay members do not.
The question then turns back to larger questions about who is included
in the holy priesthood, a question to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 provides a
fairly decisive answer. Yet, the hermeneutical point does not depend on the
answers to these larger questions. Regardless of the answers, 1 Corinthians
9:13–14 provides New Testament support for one of the key assumptions of
the paedo-arguments, the assumption that ceremonial regulations of the
128 PETER J. LEITHART

Old can tropologically apply as ceremonial regulations in the new.

One final passage, perhaps Pauline, gives additional, if more compli-
cated, support to the hermeneutical principle I have sought to defend.
Hebrews 13:10–13 applies regulations concerning the “sin offering” (or
“purification offering”) to the church:

We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no
right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought
into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are
burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify
the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let
us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

According to the rules governing this offering, the flesh of any purifi-
cation offering whose blood goes into the holy place has to be burned
outside the camp (Lev. 4:5–7, 11–12, 16–18, 20–21). The placement of the
blood depended on the one making the offering: blood of a priest’s sin
offering had to be placed on the golden altar of incense, as did the blood of
an offering for the whole congregation of Israel (Lev. 4:2, 13). In these
cases, then, the sacrificial flesh was not eaten, but destroyed.
Anyone but Paul,22 the author of Hebrews clearly sees Jesus’ death as
the sin offering. Jesus’ blood has gone into the sanctuary (9:11–12) and
therefore His “flesh” had to be taken outside the camp (13:11). Christ’s
blood did not enter the sanctuary to cleanse His own sins, since He had
none (4:15; 9:7). Rather, he offers His blood to “sanctify the people” (13:12),
giving Himself as a purification offering for the whole congregation
(Lev. 4:13). For Hebrews, Jesus is not a sin offering in some generic way;
the specific details of His history—His death outside the gates of Jerusa-
lem, His ascension to heaven, His presentation of blood in the heavenly
sanctuary—fulfill the typological sin offering of Leviticus.
Hebrews also moves toward an ecclesial application of the sin offer-
ing, following the logic of the Augustinian totus Christus. The sin offering
not only points to Jesus, but to the church, and indeed to the specific
sacramental practices of the church.23 Here, there is a massive allegorical
disruption—or, more accurately, an allegorical inversion. Not even the

22. I owe this quip, such as it is, to Jim Jordan.

23. Some commentators take the “altar” and “eating” in 13:10 as pure meta-
phor, without any sacramental application. From the arguments presented above,
we have seen that this is unlikely. For a thoughtful but unconvincing non-
sacramental interpretation, see Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 574–78.
 SACRAMENTAL HERMENEUTICS 129

priests of Israel ate from the purification offering, but Christians do have
access to that meal. In the context of Hebrews, though, the implication of
“those who serve at the tabernacle” is even more pregnant. It refers not
only to the priests of ancient, Mosaic Israel, but to the Jews of the first
century who clung to the “tent” even after the coming of the Christ. To “go
out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” is to leave Judaism
behind, and to follow Jesus as a disciple. Only those willing to make that
risky move have access to the “altar” from which Christians eat.
In short, the writer of Hebrews appeals to the ceremonial regulations
of Leviticus 4, suitably inverted by their fulfillment in Jesus, to determine
who is permitted to “eat” from the altar. He moves tropologically from
Israel’s ceremony to the church’s ceremony, just as we hoped he might.

C ONCLUSION
This exploration has not uncovered any knock-down text that proves the
paedo-arguments beyond a shadow of doubt. But it has, I hope, given a
plausible account of, and justification for, one key assumption of those
arguments. Further, I hope it has made a contribution to the ongoing task
of learning to read the Bible aright—a task, I expect, we will be at when the
trump sounds, the angels descend with a shout, and the stars fall from the
heavens.
 8
T HE T ESTIMONY OF THE A NCIENT C HURCH

B LAKE P URCELL

PAEDOCOMMUNION HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES to be the practice of all the

ancient bodies of Eastern Christianity. But since the 1200’s, Western
Christendom has been debating the question of how and why children
should be allowed to the Lord’s table. In about 1418, “Good King
Wenceslas” faced 50,000 Hussite men in Bohemia who were willing to
fight and die before they would see their infant children suspended from
Holy Communion. The Hussites denounced those “who have allowed
their own will to triumph, rather than the authority of Scripture, in the
matter of infant communion.”1 King Wenceslas was so alarmed he made
major concessions to the Hussites.
One of the grand traditions of the Reformation faith, in all three of its
major denominational expressions—Lutheran, Episcopalian and Re-
formed—is its attitude toward church history. Alister McGrath puts it this
way: “The magisterial Reformation (Lutheran and Reformed churches) was
theologically conservative . . . Equally, it is hardly surprising that we find the

1. David R. Holeton, “The Communion of Infants and Hussitism” in Communio

Viatorum 27 (Prague: Charles University, 1984), 27:4:216.

131
132 BLAKE PURCELL

reformers appealing to the fathers as generally reliable interpreters of Scripture”

(italics mine).2
In short, the Reformers of the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed ilk
viewed church history as the Westminster Confession sees it in 31.3: “All
synods or councils since the apostles’ times may err. Therefore, they are not to
be made a rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.” Therefore, I
present this chapter as a help to our study of the Scriptures on the practice
of whole-church communion.

T HE T ESTIMONY OF THE A NCIENT C HURCH

The following quotes show in their authority, consistency, antiquity, and
geographical diversity that the practice of paedocommunion was wide-
spread in the ancient church. At the same time, anyone who has studied
the records of the early church is immediately struck by two facts. From 70
to 150 AD we have few extant writings. We are left to surmise and to work
with very few primary reference materials in the earliest period and some
which are believed to be dated within that period, but no demonstrable
proof can fully assure us. As we consider the early sources, note that the
ancient fathers were notoriously “of their own time.” They often speak in
ways with which we are unaccustomed. It scandalizes evangelicals when
they routinely attribute the whole of salvation to the sacraments. Perhaps it
will aid the modern evangelical reader to remember that these men faced
persecution and sometimes martyrdom in order to gather on the Lord’s
Day, be washed with water, and eat bread and drink wine with their
brethren. They were not lacking in faith, as we so often suppose from their
high view of sacramental efficacy.
We begin with evidence from the earlier sources, and move onto
sources from later periods. We will interact with several church texts that
have been used to support the theory that the early church suspended
children from the Lord’s table after that, and look at the protests against
their suspension in the Western Church. Finally, we will draw some
conclusions from the evidence extant. (All italics are mine.)

The Constitution of James the Brother of John, the Son of Zebedee; 60 AD;
Palestine; from Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book 8, Chapter 13:

And after that, let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and dea-
cons . . . and then the women . . . the widows; then the children; and
then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without
tumult . . . let the deacon say: now we have received the precious

2. Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought (Oxford UK: Blackwell, 1998), 145.

 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 133

body and the precious blood of Christ, let us give thanks to Him who
has thought us worthy to partake of these His holy mysteries.3

This is dated “not later than the fourth century” and many scholars believe
that this portion of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles attributed to
James is in fact from the apostolic era.4 The children appear to be included
in the Eucharist, with no mention of any separation in the body in the
prayers that follow. Note that children communed before the men.

The Teaching of the Apostles (Didache); As early as 80 AD, up to 120;

Syria, Jerusalem, or Antioch; Chapter 9:

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist) but they who
have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the
Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. 5

The practice of infant baptism has been documented as widespread in the

ancient church. Therefore, the above text indicates that baptism was the only
criterion for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. You will see throughout the
documents that this consistent position was taken by the fathers, and so
seems to imply child communion.
The Greek of this earliest-known book of church order would indicate
that it was used in a broad area in the Greek-speaking part of the world. If
there were a competing or prevalent practice of suspending children from the
table, we would expect this document to address it, especially because the
document requires weekly communion (chapter 14). Such language is
conspicuously absent.

Justin Martyr, 150 AD, Ephesus or Rome; The First Apology of Justin:

No one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that these
things are true, and who has been washed, and has been living as
Christ enjoined. . . . And when the president has given thanks, and all
the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us
deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine

3. “Apostolic Teachings and Constitutions” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7 (Pea-

body, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 490.
4. “Apostolic Teachings,” 388ff.
5. “Apostolic Teachings,” 380.
134 BLAKE PURCELL

mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced. 6

I include this passage as another example of implied infant communion. If

we accept the other records as valid, baptized children were present at the
above mentioned worship services. Therefore, they were given the
elements of communion. In any case, it would be strange to think of all
parents leaving their children at home, and there is no reference to them
being driven out of the building at the time of communion.

The Catacombs of Rome, 200 AD:

The quotations on the tombs of children from the ages of six to eight-
een months describe the deceased children as “brother,” “faithful,”
“believer.” This combined with the later testimony of Justin Martyr
and Hippolytus, give a high probability that the church in Rome gave
communion to these babes.7

Tertullian; 200 AD; Carthage, North Africa; The Chaplet, or De Corona, Chapter 3:

We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of

none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the
Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be
taken by all alike.

We know that in his treatise on baptism, Article 18, Tertullian admits to the
regular practice of infant baptism at that time, from which we deduce that
infants, after their baptism—apparently within a week—were given
communion.

Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome; 220 AD; Canon 29 of the Church of Alexandria:

Of the keeping of the oblations which are laid upon the altar, . . . that
nothing fall into the chalice and that nothing fall from the priest nor
from the boys when they take communion. (Apostolic Tradition 20–22,
as quoted by Williston Walker) . . . The ceremony itself began “at cock-
crow” on the Lord’s Day. . . . They were taken by a deacon into the
water—infants (for whom their parents spoke) and children first. Com-
ing out of the water the candidates were . . . dried, clothed, and

6. “Apostolic Teachings,” 1:65:185.

7. Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (1878, repr., Presbyterian Publishing
Company of St. Louis, 207 North Eighth Street, 1996), vol. 2, lecture 66, 792.
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 135

brought to the assembled church. There the bishop laid his hand on
each with prayer . . . the rite continued with a celebration of the Eucha-
rist, in which the newly baptized participated for the first time.8

Cyprian, Presbyter of Carthage, 250 AD; Epistle 62.8:

For by baptism the Holy Spirit is received, and thus by those who are
baptized and have attained the Holy Spirit, is attained to drinking of
the Lord’s Cup.9

Treatise III on the Lapsed #25:10

Learn what occurred when I myself was present and a witness. Some
parents who by chance were escaping, being little careful on account
of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-nurse.
The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They
gave it, in the presence of an idol whither the people flocked (because
it was not yet able to eat flesh on account of its years), bread mingled
with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been
used in the immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the
mother recovered her child.
Moreover, the girl mingled with the saints, became impatient of
our prayer and supplications, was at one moment shaken with weep-
ing, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent
excitement of her mind; as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul
of that still-tender child confessed a consciousness of the fact with
such signs as it could.
When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to
offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn ap-
proached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away
its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup.
Still the deacon persisting, and, although against her efforts,
forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup.

This odd account is nowhere near as strange as the events that follow it,
but I include it here to complete the record of the early practice of child
communion. Cyprian was a highly respected bishop of Carthage.

8. Walker, Williston, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, and Robert T. Handy,

A History of the Christian Church (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: 1985), 106–7.
9. “The Epistles of Cyprian” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:360.
10. “The Epistles of Cyprian,” 444.
136 BLAKE PURCELL

The Council of Nicea, Area of Modern Turkey, 325 AD; Canon 13:

Concerning those about to die, the ancient church and canonical law
is to be kept even now, so that if someone is about to die he should
not be deprived of the last and absolutely necessary Viaticum.11

Dying infants were given the Viaticum, presumably from “vatic,” (oracu-
lar), the Eucharist. Van Espen comments, “at the beginning of life, after
baptism and confirmation (anointing with holy oil at baptism), the
Eucharist was given even to infants. . . .”12

The Arabian Version: 13

Canon 22. Of sponsors in baptism.

Men shall not hold females at the font neither women males; women
females, and men males.

Canon 25. That no one should be forbidden Holy Communion unless

such as are doing penance.

I assume the above canon law requires children to commune. This canon
law was made by the 318 bishops present at the church’s first worldwide
council after the one in Acts 15, and therefore should be seen to represent
the rule of the universal—unbroken—catholic church. When the fathers
studied the decisions they had made they cried out not, “This is what the
Bible teaches!” but “This is the faith of the fathers! . . . The apostles thus
taught: Cyril thus taught!”14

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles; Syria, 325 AD; Book 2, Chapter 57:

Let the young persons sit by themselves . . . For they who are already
stricken in years sit in order. For the children which stand, let their
fathers and mothers take them to them . . . Let those women which
are married and have children be placed by themselves; as to the

11. “The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in
Bithynia” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:29.
12. “The Canons,” 30.
13. “The Canons,” 47.
14. “The First Ecumenical Council. The First Council of Nice. A.D. 325” in Ni-
cene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:2.
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 137

deacons, after the prayer is over, let some of them attend upon the
oblation of the Eucharist . . . let every rank by itself attend to the
Lord’s body . . . but let the door be watched, lest any unbeliever or
one not yet initiated, come in.

The Prayer for the Faithful, Book 8, Section 2, Chapter 11:15

And let the people say, “And with thy spirit . . . and let the clergy
salute the bishop, the men of the laity salute the men, the women the
women. And let the children stand at the reading-desk.”

The Form of Prayer After the Participation:

Sanctify Thy people, keep those that are in virginity, preserve those
in the faith that are in marriage, strengthen those that are in purity,
bring the infants to complete age, confirm the newly admitted; instruct
the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission.

I include the lower selection to again affirm that children were regularly
attending the worship service. This prescription precedes the Eucharistic
order of James listed first above. Notice here that the infants are not at all
confused with the catechumens, and that the catechumens were not yet
admitted to the Supper.

The Canons of the Blessed and Holy Fathers Assembled at Antioch in

Syria; 16 341 AD, Antioch in Encaeniis; Canon 2:

All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not
communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of
some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of
the church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having
brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they
shall have obtained forgiveness.

This is Numbers 9 brought into the New Testament. The avoidance of the
Supper was a church offence.

Augustine,17 Bishop of Hippo. 400 AD, North Africa; The Works of

15. “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:486, 491.

16. “The Canons of the Blessed and Holy Fathers Assembled at Antioch in
Syria” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Farthers, 14:108.
17. “The Works of St. Augustine” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 5:24, 25.
138 BLAKE PURCELL

St. Augustine (Book 1), On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism:

Chapter 25
Infants are Described as Believers and as Penitents.
Sins Alone Separate Between God and Men.

Someone will say: “How then are mere infants called to repentance?
How can such as they repent of anything?” The answer to this is: if
they must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of
repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they like-
wise have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called believ-
ers, because they in a certain sense profess faith by the words of their
parents, why are they not also held to be before that penitents when they are
shown to renounce the devil and this world by the profession again of the
same parents?

Chapter 26
No One, Except He is Baptized,
Rightly Comes to the table of the Lord.

Well, then, let us remove the doubt; let us now listen to the Lord, and
not to men’s notions and conjectures; let us, I say, hear what the Lord
says—not indeed concerning the sacrament of the laver, but concern-
ing the sacrament of His own holy table, to which none but a baptized
person has a right to approach: “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my
blood, ye shall have no life in you.” What do we want more? What
answer to this can be adduced unless it be by that obstinacy which
ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?

From a sermon:

Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are
denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat,
who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying
nothing else than that for believing infants—infants, that is, who
have been baptized in Christ—Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all,
what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom
He doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well, for them, He
isn’t Jesus. Well, now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not
Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure
your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes,
they’re infants, but they are His members. They’re infants, but they
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 139

receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in
order to have life in themselves.18

Chapter 27
Infants Must Feed on Christ

“The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” For, it is
according to this statement, that we find that that sacrament pertains
also to us, who were not in existence at the time the Lord spoke these
words; . . . For as He says in another passage, “The children of this
world beget and are begotten.” From all this it follows, that even for the life
of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that
even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man.

Chapter 34
Baptism is Called Salvation, and the Eucharist Life
by the Christians of Carthage

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments,

when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the
sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however,
was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition,
by which the churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that
without baptism and partaking of the Supper of the Lord it is impossible for any
man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation for everlasting
life? . . . And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came
down from heaven”; and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the
life of the world”; and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such di-
vine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any
man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these
blessings to infants without them.

Chapter 36
Infants not Enlightened as Soon as They are Born

18. Saint Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle, New York:
New City Press, 1992), 5:261.
140 BLAKE PURCELL

But, strange to say we see how reluctant infants are to submit to bap-
tism, resisting even with strong crying. And this ignorance of theirs
we think lightly of at their time of life, so that we fully administer the
sacraments, which we know to be serviceable to them, even although
they struggle against them. And why, too, does the apostle say: “Be
not children in understanding,” if their minds have been already
enlightened with that true Light, which is the Word of God?

African Code;19 419 AD; Ancient Epitome of Canon 72. Of the baptism of
infants when there is some doubt of their being already baptized:

It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable wit-
nesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized
and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender
age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such
children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive
them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish
Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the bar-
barians.

“Sacraments” implies the Eucharist for all children.

T HE W ESTERN C HURCH S USPENDS C HILDREN AND P ROTESTS

Philip Schaff’s history relates succinctly the story of how children were
suspended from the early practice of the church.

The communion of children practiced in the early church, and attested by

Augustine and still practiced in the Greek Church, seems to have been general
as late as the reign of Pascal II. Writing in 1118, Pascal said it was suffi-
cient to give the wine to children and the very sick, as they are not able
to assimilate the bread. In their case the bread was to be dipped into
the wine. Just how the change took place is unknown. Odo, Bishop of
Paris, 1175, forbade the communion of children. The Synod of
Treves, 1227, denied to them the bread, and the Synod of Bor-
deaux, 1255, the wine as well as the bread. The denial of the cup to the
laity—the custom of the Roman Catholic Church until Vatican II—
became common in the thirteenth century.20

19. “The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers Who Assembled at Carthage” in
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:478.
20. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Hendrickson Publishers, Pea-
body, 1996), 5:724.
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 141

In the late 1300s, just a century after the most influential council con-
cerning paedocommunion—the Fourth Lateran of 1215—Milic of Kromeriz
argued for universal communion for the baptized in Moravia, now the
Czech Republic. The Eucharist reform movement came to maturation in
1417 and soon thereafter at the Synod of St. Wenceslas, two years after
John Hus was burned at the stake.21 In June of 1421, the wording of the
article was changed to “the Eucharist is to be given in both kinds to all true
Christians, old and young.”22
The second protest against the Western Church’s barring of children
to the table was that of Martin Luther, who wrote:

Paul in Corinthians—“a person should examine himself”

(1 Cor. 11:28)—speaks only about adults, because he speaks about
those who were quarreling among themselves. But he does not set an
obstacle in the way to why it would not be possible to give the Sacra-
ment of the Altar even to children.23

The third protest was that of Wolfgang Musculus of Bern (1497–1563).

Wolfgang was a German, discipled by Martin Bucer in Strasbourg, but was
forced to leave Germany by the Augsburg Interim in 1548. He then was
helped by Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich to obtain the professorship of
theology at Bern.24
The Puritans of England conducted the fourth protest against the sus-
pension of children from the Eucharist. Among them was Richard Baxter.25

T HE E ASTERN C HURCHES R ETAINED W HOLE -C HURCH C OMMUNION

It is important to note that all of the Eastern churches maintained the
communion of infants. There are three helpful observations to be gleaned
from their witness. First of all, neither the Eastern Orthodox churches,
namely the Greek, Bulgarian and Russian, nor the non-Orthodox eastern
churches, ever canonized transubstantiation. They all became independent
before or during the Great Schism of the eleventh century, half of them

21. Tommy Lee, The History of Paedocommunion from the Early Church until 1500,
www.reformed.org/sacramtology/tl_paedo.html.
22. The History of Paedocommunion.
23. Table Talk #365 on Mark 10:14, 1532.
24. Morton H. Smith on Musculus in Systematic Theology (Greenville, South
Carolina: Greenville Seminary Press, 1994), 2:689.
25. David Holeton, Infant Communion—Then and Now: Grove Liturgical Study 27
(Bramcote UK: Grove Books, 1981), 16–24.
142 BLAKE PURCELL

before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.26 The suspension of children took
place at the same time as the suspension of laity from the cup, apparently as
the result of the solidifying and codifying of the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion in the fear that the body of Christ might be trampled on by children, and
the blood of Christ spilt by careless laity. The Eastern churches “would
consider a term like ‘transubstantiation’ (metousiosis) improper to designate
the Eucharist mystery.”27 The real Eucharist is Jesus Himself, the risen Lord,
manifest in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:35).28
Second, many of these churches look to the canon laws cited above as
the source of their practice. The Russian Orthodox Church sees the canons
of the first seven ecumenical councils as its “operative law.”29 Others
would see only the first two. Nevertheless, this means that in their
understanding, paedocommunion fully accords with the ecumenical
councils. Third, the Book of Church Order of the Russian Orthodox
Church is probably a fair representative of how all these Eastern churches
refer to child communion now. I translate it here from the Russian:30

Infants until their sixth year are included in those that are to be com-
muned without preparation . . . not in both kinds, Blood and Body,
but only in the Blood . . . [t]o make sure that the infant is able to swal-
low (the wine), raise him up (the priest is to) with the right hand to
the cup. While communing the infant, the priest is to say, “Infant
(name) is communing in the real and holy Body and Blood of the
Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to life eternal.”

S UMMARY OF E VIDENCE FROM A NCIENT C HURCH T ESTIMONY

In summary, I have presented twelve primary documents which are
geographically diverse and stretch back as early as the first century—three
from Rome, from 150 AD to 220 AD; four from the area of Syria, possibly
including Jerusalem and Palestine, from 80 AD to 325 AD; four from Africa,
from 200 AD to 419 AD; and one from Nicea, Turkey, 325 AD. The Nicene
Council is officially recognized as a true council of the world-wide church
by most Protestant denominations, and included representatives from
almost all the countries of the Roman Empire.

26. Williston Walker, 179, 391.

27. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University Press,
1987), 203–4.
28. Byzantine Theology, 204.
29. “Appended Note on the Eastern Editions of Synodical Literature” in Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:xxvii.
30. Orthodox Priest Manual (Moscow Patriarchate, Moscow, 1983), 4:289.
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 143

The modern representatives of the ancient Eastern churches are the

Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Iraqi Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, and Ethiopian
Orthodox. The descendants of these churches include the Bulgarian,
Serbian, and Russian Orthodox churches. Therefore, the churches that still
practice child communion spread from North Africa to Baghdad to
Istanbul to Eastern Europe and all of the former Soviet Union. This is
probably about a fourth of the earth’s land surface.

A NTIQUITY AND A UTHORITY

Of the twelve documents, five are church canon law or the equivalent, six
are written by bishops or the equivalent, and one, the Catacomb Writings,
were written by laymen, presumably. Due to the antiquity of the sources
and the authority that church canons and bishops held in the church, we
can safely conclude that these documents represent the mainstream of
church practice at that time, between 100 AD and 419 AD.
There are three theories that could explain the above data, two of
which support my conclusion above.
1) The Apostolic Hypothesis: The apostles practiced infant (or small
child) communion, as did Israel in the feasts, and this practice spread
wherever the church was planted. The strengths of this view include that
a) it accounts for the unanimity of practice and perspective on the right
and necessity of small children to the Eucharist, and b) it accounts for the
lack of clear, convincing, and prevalent documents that would suggest that
infants were baptized and then not communed until they were catechized.
This is a rather loud argument from silence.
On the other hand, other documents yet to be discovered may admit to
an earlier practice of the suspension of children. Joseph Bingham, author of
the ten-volume work Antiquities of the Christian Church, held this view. He
wrote that “it is beyond dispute, that as she [the church] baptized infants,
and gave them the unction of chrism with imposition of hands for confirma-
tion, so she immediately admitted them to a participation of the Eucharist, as
soon as they were baptized, and ever after without exception.”31
2) The Early Sacramentalism Hypothesis: The apostles did not practice
child communion, nor did Israel, but pagan influence and superstition, as well as a
high infant mortality rate put pressure on the church to commune infants and
little children after 200 AD. Before this, the church required the practice of the
catechism of baptized children before they were communed.
Strengths of this theory include that a) it protects children from the
dangers thought inherent in “improper” communion, and b) this view

31. Joseph Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, (London: Henry G.

Bohn, 1856), 2:797.
144 BLAKE PURCELL

emphasizes the catechistic demands of the early church.

However, there was a universally high view of baptism held by the
apostolic fathers. The early church was very serious about catechizing its
catechumens (which were never the infants of believers but converts to the
faith), but this was in preparation for, not subsequent to, baptism.32 The
text of “Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite” in the seventh century ex-
plained that the Eucharist was itself a form of catechism, and that the
church demanded serious catechizing of all the children taking commun-
ion that were old enough to be taught. Communion aided and did not
hinder their spiritual growth.33
The Catholic Encyclopedia, John Calvin, as well as Schaff and Dabney,
are advocates of the early sacramentalism theory.34 Still, John Calvin
admitted that “this permission [paedocommunion] was indeed commonly
given in the ancient church.”35 If the Apostles taught everywhere to
suspend children, and this practice was given up by the church, or a good
portion of it by 250 AD, we would expect to find some record of either
debate or at least discussion of this change. The early church, as the New
Testament epistles and writings of the fathers attest to, was full of heresies
and problems that were constantly discussed in writing. To assume that
this large-scale change took place when no records of such a change have
been found could be presumptuous.
3) Catechizing the Baptized Hypothesis: The apostles suspended children
and treated baptized infants as catechumens and, as they got older, did not allow
them to the Supper without training.
Nigel Lee36 and Leonard Coppes are advocates of this third theory.37
This view is the only one that asserts that there are two traceable practices
in our primary documents, and that many of those works written before
300 AD advocate a catechism of small children before their first Eucharist.
In a sense, this view makes hypothesis number two more plausible as well.
This view has all the weakness of the early sacramentalism theory, but

32. “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:475.

33. “Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite,” The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, trans. Tho-
mas L. Campbell (Washington: University Press of America, 1981), 89–91.
34. Patrick Morrisroe, “Communion of Children” in The Catholic Encyclopedia
(The Encyclopedia Press, Inc: New York, 1908), 170.
35. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeil, ed., trans.
Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2:1352.
36. Catechism Before Communion, Frances Nigel Lee, (doctoral dissertation at
Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida, 1988), 130.
37. Leonard J. Coppes states that “the early fathers seem to have barred infants
and children from participating in the Lord’s Supper.” Leonard J. Coppes, Daddy,
May I Take Communion? (Thornton, Colorado: 1988), 43.
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 145

requires more reading between the lines to see “suspension” in the

ambiguous passages of the church fathers. It is an argument which hopes
for more evidence, rather than one built on the basis of evidence already
discovered.
In this chapter I have not argued that the Scriptures teach child com-
munion, only that it was the dominant practice everywhere in the ancient
church, and the best explanation for this is that such was the legacy of the
apostolic era.
 9
T HE P OLEMICS OF I NFANT C OMMUNION

G REGG S TRAWBRIDGE

THE MATTER OF CHILDREN AT COMMUNION evokes strong convictions on both

sides of the practice (inclusion and exclusion). Currently, paedocommun-
ion is not the received tradition of the West, generally, nor of Reformed
and Presbyterian traditions specifically.1 Nevertheless, from the third
century there is much evidence showing that the Western church regularly
communed little children, and, even in the last few decades, a growing
number of Reformed churches and officers have embraced the practice.2

1. This title is meant to call to mind B. B. Warfield’s excellent article “The Po-
lemics of Infant Baptism” answering the Baptist theologian A. H. Strong’s anti-
paedobaptist arguments.
2. G. I. Williamson (OPC) and Robert Rayburn (PCA) led study committees
and produced substantial defenses of the practice. Beyond those from the CREC,
PCA, CRC, and the REC within this book, other prominent paedocommunionists
include N. T. Wright (Anglican), William Willimon (United Methodist), and, of
course, there are several traditions practicing paedocommunion, such as Eastern
Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Reformed Episcopalian (discretion of local church),
Evangelical Catholic Church (which subscribes to the Formula of Concord), much of
Anglicanism, and some Lutherans.

147
148 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

T HE P ROBLEM OF C ONSISTENCY
I remember candidly challenging a Presbyterian, while I was a Baptist:
“You can’t baptize babies because they’re in the covenant, and then
require them to confess their faith before communion. What’s sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander. You can’t have it both ways. If children are
in the covenant, then they are all the way in.”
At the time, as a “new covenant” Baptist, I argued that only regenerate
people are in the new covenant people of God. You can read about my
conversion on that point in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism.3 I believe
that I was flat wrong about the nature of the new covenant. But my
argument, it seems to me, is still cogent. Both baptism and communion are
covenantal sacraments. Those in covenant have a right to the rite.

T HEOLOGICAL C ONSISTENCY
If you believe in infant baptism as a Reformed believer, you probably do
so because you hold that the child of even one believer is a rightful heir of
the redemptive covenant first clearly disclosed to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3,
17:7ff). And since baptism is a sign of this redemptive administration in
the new covenant era, even infants born into the household of a believer
are to be baptized.
Some of the most well-known representatives of the Reformed tradi-
tion have made this kind of argument. Louis Berkhof, the writer of the
well-known and loved systematic theology, argues just this way. He states
the “covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the ‘new
covenant’ of the present dispensation.”4 He says,

But if children received the sign and seal of the covenant in the old
dispensation, the presumption is that they surely have a right to re-
ceive it in the new, to which the pious of the Old Testament were
taught to look forward as a much fuller and richer dispensation.
Their exclusion from it would require a clear and unequivocal state-
ment to that effect, but quite the contrary is found— Matthew 19:14;
Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14.5

But, then, why not inclusion in covenant communion? Does covenant

3. If you are working through these issues, I highly commend the essays in this
volume, written by more than a dozen pastors and scholars, published by Presbyte-
rian and Reformed (Philipsburg, NJ, 2003).
4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2nd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941), 633.
5. Berkhof, 634.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 149

continuity not require it? He even writes, “Just as there were analogies to
Christian baptism among Israel, there were analogies of the Lord’s Supper
. . . [he cites sacrificial meals, particularly the peace offerings and Pass-
over]. They were expressive of the fact that, on the basis of the offer and
accepted sacrifice, God receives His people as guests in His house and
unites with them in joyful communion, the communal life of the cove-
nant.”6 If this is true, then why not paedocommunion?
Why does Berkhof not accept paedocommunion? “Children, though
they were allowed to eat the Passover in the days of the Old Testament,
cannot be permitted to partake of the table of the Lord, since they cannot
meet the requirements for worthy participation. Paul insists on the necessity
of self-examination previous to the celebration . . . [1 Cor. 11:28].”7 Does this
argument not have exactly the same structure and content as the Baptist case
against infant baptism? In the previous era they were admitted, but now, in
the new covenant, they must meet greater spiritual qualifications.
A recent representative, Robert L. Reymond, writes, “To summarize,
because little children, even babes in arms, of covenant parents are
covenant children, they are not to be excluded from the church as the
kingdom of Christ.”8 So then, such children are to be participants in the
kingdom and church. Are they not, then, to be fed in the kingdom? Are
they not to commune in the covenant community?
No, he says. “I would urge that it is appropriate to draw a distinction
between the two sacraments in this regard and to include infants and
young children in baptism, but to require them to mature sufficiently to
the point where they are able to examine themselves before they are
permitted to come to the Lord’s table.”9 However, his view of the Lord’s
Supper is a commemorative celebration “just as Passover was.”10 Like
Berkhof before, many exegetes admit that children did participate in
Passover, other peace offerings, and sacrificial meals.11
The apparent inconsistency of permitting children to one sacrament

6 Berkhof, 644.
7. Berkhof, 656. John Murray and others disagree that little children partook of
Passover, however (Christian Baptism [Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed,
1962], 76–79).
8. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. (Nash-
ville: Nelson, 1998), 945.
9. Reymond, 958–59.
10. Reymond, 964.
11. For example, Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants Between God and
Man, vol. 2, trans. W. Crookshank (London: T. Tegg and Son, 1837), 269.
150 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

(baptism) on the basis of covenant membership, but not the other, has not
escaped the piercing gazes of Baptists. It is a routine objection raised by
Anabaptists and Baptists against paedobaptism. In Fred Malone’s journey
away from paedobaptism, he cites this as a major rationale.

Why is New Testament regulation sufficient to define the subjects of

the Lord’s Supper but not infant baptism? . . . What has changed in
the application of the covenant family concept from the old covenant
to the new covenant? Why does the household child participate in
the Passover and not in the Lord’s Supper? Has the new covenant
child of believers less blessings than the household old covenant
child?12

For those convinced of paedobaptism from the unity of the covenant,

surely John Murray’s words ring true that “less would be at stake in
admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandon-
ing infant baptism.”13

H ISTORICAL C ONSISTENCY
The same inconsistency between inclusion of covenant children at the
font but not at the table may be found in our appeal to history. Samuel
Miller of old Princeton (1835) urged,

if the doctrine of our Baptist brethren be correct—that is, if infant

baptism be a corruption and a nullity—then it follows . . . that the
ordinance of baptism was lost for fifteen hundred years: yes, entirely
lost, from the apostolic age till the sixteenth century.14

Paedobaptists rejoice! But inasmuch as they are anti-paedocommunion,

the noose of consistency tightens.
In my view, the greatest Baptist defense was that of Paul K. Jewett. He
writes that “the earliest express mention of infant baptism is found in

12. A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Theological Journey Into Believers’ Baptism

(Founders Press: Cape Coral, FL, 1998), 12.
13. Christian Baptism, 79. Of course Murray does not accept paedocommunion,
but his point still stands. Less would be at stake to embrace the full continuity of
paedocommunion than to become an Anabaptist because of incongruities in the
traditional Reformed practice.
14. Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable: and Baptism by Sprinkling or Affusion
the Most Suitable and Edifying Mode (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,
1835), at www.swrb.com.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 151

Tertullian’s De Baptismo (200–206 AD), a document in which the author

entertains reservations about giving baptism to infants. But Cyprian, on
whose shoulders his mantle fell, speaks not only of infant baptism, but also
of infant communion as a custom which provoked no scruples. Barely fifty
years separates these two witnesses. Obviously, therefore, the initial
evidence for infant baptism and infant communion shows a proximity of
time (205–250 AD) and place (North Africa) which makes it difficult to see
why the former usage should be accepted while the latter is rejected.”15
In the previous chapter, Blake Purcell provides full citations, but it is
clear that many early references show that the earliest recorded sacramen-
tal practice evidences paedocommunion. Upon investigation we find that
Cyprian,16 the Apostolic Tradition (20–22),17 the Constitutions of the Holy
Apostles,18 and our “Protestant” father, Augustine, imply or explicitly refer
to paedocommunion as “ancient and apostolic tradition.”19 Elsewhere
Augustine writes, “They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to
have life in themselves.”20
Reformed and Presbyterian folks routinely appeal to church history to
justify paedobaptism. On what basis can we accept paedobaptism as
historical, all the while rejecting paedocommunion as unhistorical?
In conversations with most objectors to paedocommunion, two polem-
ics arise repeatedly: 1) the alleged criterion of professing the faith before
communion (from 1 Corinthians 11), and 2) the argument from Reformed
tradition. On the first challenge on self-examination, Jeffrey Meyers has
dealt carefully and directly with this in chapter two. On the second, many
Reformed objectors do not seem to take into account that it is our tradition
which is in the historical minority on the question.
Calvin and the Council of Trent do not agree on much, but on this fact
they concur. Paedocommunion was the ancient practice of the church.21

15. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 42. I
have a pointed critique of that in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (P&R, 2003),
and online at www.wordmp3.com/baptism.
16. Ante-Nicene Fathers, (1886, repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 5:258.
17. Cited in Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 106–7.
18. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:490.
19. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, 17–18.
20. The Works of Saint Augustine, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle, 11 vols.
Part 3—Sermons. (New Rochelle, New York: New City Press, 1992), 5:261.

21. Trent (Twenty-First session, chapter 4) reasoned that those who have “been
regenerated by the laver of baptism . . . cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of
152 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

The first objections to it were in the West in the high Middle Ages, and it
has ever been the practice of the Eastern communions. A Reformed
historian of no less a stature than Philip Schaff indicates as a matter of
factual record that until the 1200’s paedocommunion was the universal
practice (East and West). “Two important changes occurred in this period
in the distribution of the elements—the abandonment of the communion of
children and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity.”22
This should be instructive for traditionalist objectors. But the rationale
for the abandonment of paedocommunion should be even more instructive
for Reformed believers. Rome’s practice of anti-paedocommunion was
required since it forbade giving the cup to the laity for fear of spilling the
transubstantiated blood of Jesus.23 The Catholic Encyclopedia frankly
admits, “It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century,
in the West as well as in the East, public communion in the churches was
ordinarily administered and received under both kinds.”24 Since, to the
youngest children, the sacrament “was usually given . . . under the species of
wine alone,” removing the cup created a practical excommunication of such
little ones.25 So, children were put out of covenant communion and the
laity were placed into a halfway covenant communion (bread only, on pain
of excommunication).
It is well known that the Reformers themselves “denounced the Catholic
practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of
the sacrament.”26 But what is the result of the Reformation? The pungent
reproof of Presbyterian Philip J. Lee should be heard.

The irony of Protestant history is that although the sixteenth-century

Reformers fought like tigers to restore the wine to the people, their
descendants have now deprived the people of both bread and wine.
The Protestant celebration, when it is on rare occasions held, has been

God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in

some places it at one time observed that custom.” (history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/
ct21.html). Calvin writes, “this permission was indeed commonly given in the
ancient Church.” Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 2:1352.
22. History of the Christian Church (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, 1996),
5:724.
23. They also appealed to salvation by baptism, which cannot be lost until after
“years of discretion” (Twenty-first session, decree four).
24. “Communion under Both Kinds,” available at www.newadvent.org.
25. “Communion under Both Kinds.”
26. “Communion under Both Kinds.”
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 153

spiritualized to the extent that it could scarcely be recognized as a

meal at all. The purely symbolic wafer of the Roman celebration,
which John Knox thundered against as a distortion of Christ’s “com-
mon bread,” has, in most Protestant churches, been replaced by min-
ute, carefully diced pieces of bread unlike any other bread ever eaten
by any culture. The common cup which the medieval Church with-
held from the faithful is, except among Anglicans, still the sole
possession of the clergy. The unordained are now given thimble-like
glasses filled with Welch’s grape juice. The symbolism is quite clear.
We all come before God individually; with our individual bits of
bread and our individual cups of juice, we are not of one loaf and one
chalice. Our relationship to Christ is private and personal. What may
be even more significant is that by partaking of this unearthly meal
with our unbreadly bread and our unwinely wine, we are making a
clear statement that the bread and wine of spiritual communion has
no connection with earthly communion.27

No doubt Reformed people in every place and time roar as lions at

removing the cup from the people. But why are there no uproars about
removing the cup and the bread from covenant children?
To think that the blood of Protestant martyrs, the theological labor of
Reformed fathers, and the ardent prayers of a Reformed Church have only
succeeded in establishing a rather Gnostic form of communion so infre-
quently practiced is sad indeed. Several enigmatic questions arise in my
mind. Why do Calvinists follow the Genevan City Council rather than
Calvin on the frequency of communion? Why do Presbyterians serve
unbreadly bread rather than follow Knox’s admonition about common
bread? Even more, for our purpose, why do the Reformed still follow
Rome on who comes to the table?

P RACTICAL I NCONSISTENCY
The procedure for a baptized child to be approved for covenant communion
presents problems as well. On “professing the faith,” one prominent
Presbyterian Church book of order says, “They then make public confession
of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the
discipline of the Church.” And, “The time when young persons come to
understand the Gospel cannot be precisely fixed. This must be left to the
prudence of the Session, whose office it is to judge, after careful examination,

27. Against the Protestant Gnostics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987),
272.
154 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

the qualifications of those who apply for admission to sealing ordinances.”28

What is implied by the dilemma that one must “make public confession
of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the
discipline of the Church”? After all, there are many who simply are disabled
and unable to make such a profession. And then what of those who die prior
to such a profession? A covenant theology that cannot comfort us here is of
little value. But of course Reformed people do take comfort from covenant
promises—but in the case of anti-paedocommunionists, it is an inconsis-
tency.
If a baptized child is not qualified for communion until professing the
faith, yet grows up without making such a profession, what then? The
language above states clearly that they are to become subject to the
discipline of the Church. But what would such discipline entail? What
censures could be mustered against such a baptized unprofessor? Would
excommunication not be the final and most drastic form of the discipline
of the Church (Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:4–8)? Yet, how can those not
admitted to “communicant” status be excommunicated?
The Presbyterian Church in America wrestled with this prior to the War
Between the States. In 1853, the Presbyterian Synod of Pittsburgh concluded
that such children were not to be subject to discipline and in 1859 the Book of
Discipline was revised to define that discipline only applied to “professed
believers.”29 James Henley Thornwell of Southern Presbyterian fame urged
that “it was no more illogical to exempt them from discipline, than to
exclude them from the Lord’s table.”30 Accordingly, Thornwell argued that if
an adult communicant member came to believe he or she was unregenerate,
such a person could simply resign their membership without discipline,
censure, or sanction. The principle of church membership advocated was
“voluntary assent.” This seems to provide an easy way out of covenant
sanction, as well as frame a newly created back door out of the covenant,
kingdom, and Church—one which surely did not exist for covenant breakers
in the older era. This is back door of which the writer of Hebrews is
completely unaware (Heb. 10:28–30).
Not only do consequences foul up our order, there are also conceptual
difficulties. “Non-communing member” (PCA/BCO 57-1) is a convenient

28. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), Book of Church Order, BCO 54-4.j
and BCO 57-2 (http://www.pcanet.org/bco).
29. Presbyterian Advocate 16.19 (February 22, 1854); cf. Presbyterian Advocate 16.5
(November 23, 1853), cited in Peter Wallace, “The Bond of Union”: The Old School
Presbyterian Church and the American Nation, 1837–1861 (www.peterwallace.org/
dissertation/9discipline.htm).
30. Wallace.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 155

label and one which Presbyterians have so often used, it rolls off the
tongue more subtly than the line in Shakespeare, “Feather of lead, bright
smoke, cold fire, sick health!”31
But a “non-communing member” is, upon analysis, incoherent with
respect to membership in the body of Christ. “Member” signifies participa-
tion or being part of something, in this case Christ’s body and the commu-
nity of His people (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 7:14). But “participation in” is conceptually
identical to “communion in”—biblical koinōnia. For example, the Liddell-
Scott Greek dictionary lists “communion, association, partnership, fellow-
ship” as synonyms for the term koinōnia, often translated “fellowship.”
Would paedobaptists deny that their immature children are “in fellowship”?
Only because the word “member” and “commune” sound differently does
this not strike us as a flat oxymoron. A static category of “non-communing
member” is like saying there is a “non-communing communer,” or a “non-
participating participator,” or a “non-member member.”
Beyond the conceptual conundrums awaits the very practical pastoral
question of how covenant children should “profess the faith.”

The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot
be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session,
whose office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifica-
tions of those who apply for admission to sealing ordinances.32

In my experience, both as a Reformed Baptist pastor and as a Presby-

terian pastor, I have found a very divergent sense of what is required in
believers’ children professing the faith. I have heard of “professions” as
simple as “Do you love Jesus?” “Yes.” I have heard of sessions admitting
children with as formal a profession as a recitation of the Apostles’ Creed
or selected Shorter Catechism answers. On the other hand, others require
the testimony of a conversion experience, in good New England Puritan
fashion. There is everything in between.
In the PCA presbytery in which I formerly served, I could not find any
established practice on pastorally leading covenant children to make such
a profession or criteria for the “careful examination.” The church had no
specific pattern, but there was a vague sense that a “communicants class”
would be in order. This is what we did, and nothing like it had occurred in
our congregation for several years before. But of course communion was
so infrequent, years of not admitting children was hardly a problem. Thus,

31. Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, scene 1.

32. PCA, BCO 57-2.
156 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

if all Calvinistic churches followed Calvin’s views and practiced weekly

communion, a great deal more pressure would mount for a consistent
pattern of admission.33
The reason a more developed approach to this important rite of pas-
sage has not arisen in conservative Presbyterian circles is very simple. To
do so and to demand that such is biblical—well, one would need to
consider the biblical grounds. This proves to be a problem, since no
example of additional requirements above church membership or
covenant inclusion is found for admission to covenant meals.34 So the
process is left deliberately vague.
Let me be clear. In no way am I faulting my Presbyterian brethren for
obeying their commitments to their church order. I am seeking to point out
the patent difficulties which emerge from the practice that our tradition
provides.
Professing the faith seems to move along a continuum: from a rather
formal assent (what other bodies call “confirmation”) to an all out “becoming
a Christian” conversion testimony. Granted, the latter is not so popular in
Presbyterian circles. And most of the examples of profession that I have seen
from covenant children sound like this:

Elders: “Mary, when did you come to believe the gospel?”

Mary (age 12): “I don’t remember when I didn’t believe, but I know
more about it now that I’ve gone through this com-
municant’s class.”

If that is the routine example of faithful children, and I am persuaded

that it is, then why not ask those questions at six or at five or at four or at
three? For a child raised in a godly home, a formal profession is available
from the earliest days and the conversion testimony is next to impossible—
or perhaps invented to satisfy the expectations of the context.

33. For an excellent study, obtain the two recorded lectures from the 2002 Re-
formed Liturgy Conference titled “The Importance of Weekly Communion” by
Rev. Wes Baker, available through WordMp3.com. Also, I have tried to make the
case exegetically in “Congregational Worship as Covenant Remembrance: An
Exegetical Basis from 1 Corinthians 11:25” presented at the Evangelical Theological
Society Meeting (2002), available at www.wordmp3.com/gs.
34. For those that believe 1 Corinthians 11 does this, please consider that there
is no discussion of qualifications for admission, only “how” we should eat and
drink. See Rayburn and Meyers for more.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 157

E XPLICIT C ONSISTENCY
There are many evangelicals who are quite willing to veto all of the historical
Church, recreating the wheel of their own sacramentology. So I must fight
with two swords, with one hand toward those who are anti-paedobaptists
and with the other toward those that are inconsistently paedobaptists, such
as my own Reformed tradition.
While admittedly there is no explicit New Testament example of baptiz-
ing or communing the children of believers, the judgment is far from over on
this account. This knife cuts both ways: neither is there an explicit case of a
Christian’s child who grows up and is baptized and/or is admitted to
communion only after professing the faith. The explicit cases of baptism are of
adult converts and their households (whomever they included). The explicit
examples of communion in the post-Pentecost Church provide even less
information on the ages and any alleged procedures of admission.
Still, the implications are far from weak. The first phrase about com-
munion in the apostolic Church is well known. They were “breaking bread
from house to house” (Acts 2:46). Paedobaptists often point out that such
houses often contain children—when talking of baptism. This observation
will no doubt meet with Baptist objection: there is no explicit mention of
children or infants. Yet, this Greek phrase “from house to house” (kata oikos)
is the same as “[a lamb] for his family” and “for each household” in the
Passover instructions in the Greek version of that text [LXX] (NIV, Ex. 12:3).
When our sacramentology is not at stake, we all readily admit that Paul
could hardly have meant only the adults when he taught the Ephesians
“from house to house” (kata oikos, Acts 20:20). After all, we have his epistle to
them in which he teaches children to obey their parents (Acts 20:20;
Eph. 6:1).
The undisputed texts on baptism are of the adult converts. There are
dozens of texts which indicate by example or precept that adult converts
must profess their faith before baptism. This is the major theme of Baptists
who insist that such is the rule for covenant children too. “I cannot say that
children of believers are ‘in’ the new covenant or church or kingdom or
are ‘God’s people’ until they show, by outward confession, evidence of
regeneration.”35 To this the paedobaptist has always rejoined, “Would it
not be a more reliable method to develop one’s conclusions regarding the
status of children from passages which actually address the status of
children?” Baptists infer that the children of believers are to be put out
from texts which do not even address the status of children.
But the paedobaptist who insists on believer communion overlooks

35. Malone, A String of Pearls, 19.

158 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

many “believer baptism” texts on the same grounds, by insisting these are
addressed to adult converts. Then he insists on “self-examination” as the
absolute requirement for admission to communion. While the baptistic
exclusion of children from baptism is grounded on a misreading of dozens
of texts, the Reformed exclusion of children from the table is threadbare
with only one strand, 1 Corinthians 11:28.
What can be said of the Baptist hermeneutic which creates require-
ments for covenant children from texts addressing adult converts is doubly
true of the reading of 1 Corinthians 11. Calvin’s eloquent logic applies
equally to a misuse of 1 Corinthians:

“They who believe and are baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Is
there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What
form of reasoning, then, is this with which they assail us? That those
of mature age are to be instructed in order to believe, before they are
to be baptized; therefore, it is unlawful to make baptism common to
infants as well! . . . But, to make their deceits evident even to the
blind, I shall indicate them by a quite clear comparison. If any man
subtly reasons that infants ought to be denied food on the pretext
that the apostle allows only those who labor to eat (2 Thess. 3:10),
does not such a man deserve to be spat upon by all? Why so? Because
he applies to all men without distinction what had been said of men
of a definite kind and definite age.36

Yet, our favorite doctor engaged in the same reasoning as the Anabap-
tists regarding admission to the table.

For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But
he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but
only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of
the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the
Lord’s death, and of considering its power. . . . A self-examination
ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants.37

Of course, Baptists believe that “repent and be baptized” and “believe

the gospel” set the exact same kind of requirement. Though, I hasten to
add, that I do not intend to spit upon Calvin or our Anabaptist and Baptist
brethren.

36. Institutes, 4:16:28–29.

37. Institutes, 4:16:30.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 159

C OVENANT C ONSISTENCY
The deepest basis for inclusion of children in the Church is covenantal
inclusion. This is so often argued with regard to infant baptism, but it is
more explicitly true of communion than even baptism. While baptism is
never called a covenant sign in Scripture (but is correctly deduced to be
such), Jesus told us, in effect, that communion is the new covenant sacra-
ment (“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” Luke 22:20).38 To develop
a case for who participates, we must consider inclusion in covenant.
I believe generational inclusion is explicit in all covenant administra-
tions in Scripture. Reviewing the biblical information on various covenantal
administrations, we find either the explicit inclusion of children or the
generational inclusion of children. The covenant with Adam involved all of
the children of Adam—“As in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12). The
covenant with Noah included the “salvation of his household” (Heb. 11:7).
The sacrifices of the patriarchs (including Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob) were for the whole family. Job offered “burnt offerings according to
the number of them all [his children]” (Job 1:5). Circumcision was given to
Abraham as a representative sign of God’s covenant for “you and your
descendants after you throughout their generations” (Gen. 17:9). Under
Moses, the Israelites were commanded to put the blood of the Passover
lamb on their doors to preserve the firstborn in the household. Israel was
to observe Passover “as an ordinance for you and your children for-
ever” (Ex. 12:24). Even in the promise to David, the Lord said, “I have
made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I
will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all genera-
tions” (Ps. 89:3–4).
It has been argued extensively in several other chapters that in the
tabernacle and temple, children were included in the peace offer-
ings (e.g., Lev. 10:14). And Passover was an example of a peace offering.
Just as Warfield writes, “The Lord’s Supper in its fundamental significance
is just what the Passover meal was: the symbols are changed, the substance

38. The language of covenant sign, in Hebrew (oth) and Greek (semaion) in the
Septuagint and the New Testament, is first seen in the Noahic covenant. The
rainbow is the “sign of a covenant between Me and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). In the
Abrahamic covenant, circumcision “shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and
you” (Gen. 17:11) and for Abraham it was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith he
had while uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). In the Mosaic administration of the covenant,
the sacrifices and festival days are carefully defined and the covenant meal is given.
In the institution of the covenant meal, Passover, the Lord said, “the blood shall be a
sign for you on the houses where you live” (Ex. 12:13).
160 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

remains the same . . . a peace-offering.”39

Therefore, at least in the Old Testament, the pattern of covenant ad-
ministration includes a principle of family inclusion and successive
generations in both covenant content and covenant recipients of the signs.
The visible portrayal of covenant promises in signs and seals is inclusive of
the children of believers. Those who come into that household by birth or
adoption would also have a right to the rite.
No one can deny that the “old covenant” revelation of redemption
includes children as recipients, not least because the very content of the
covenant promise was that the Lord shall be the saving God “to you and
your descendants” (Gen. 17:7). The original promise to Abraham was at its
core a promise of generational inclusion in the blessings of the righteous-
ness of faith. This is not simply so for the covenant of circumcision, it
echoes on every page of Scripture (Ex. 6:7; Ruth 1:16; Ez. 38:28; Hos. 1:10;
Joel 2:26–27; Zech. 8:8). As I shall argue more fully below, this is just as
clear in the New Testament where the same covenant promise is explicitly
repeated (2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10; Rev. 21:3).

N EW C OVENANT C ONSISTENCY
Now, hands may be waving the back of the room. The objection is that the
new covenant is different from previous covenants in just this sense: the
promise of the new covenant excludes successive generations. That was,
indeed, my own argument as a “new covenant” Baptist.40 Let us ask, then:
are the children of new covenant believers explicitly included in the new
covenant promises? David Kingdom, like Paul K. Jewett, argues, “I would
argue then that the principle of believers and their seed no longer has
covenantal significance, precisely because the age of fulfillment has
arrived . . . Nowhere in the content of the new covenant is the principle

39. “The Fundamental Significance of the Lord’s Supper,” Selected Shorter Writ-
ings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 1, John E. Meeter, ed. (Philipsburg: NJ, Presbyte-
rian & Reformed, 1970), originally from The Bible Student, 3, 1901, 77–83.
40 For a bit of my pilgrimage, see my introduction in The Case for Covenantal
Infant Baptism. While I was never fully persuaded of it then and am definitely
opposed to it now, “new covenant theology” seeks to be distinct from dispensation-
alism and covenant theology and has become of growing movement among
baptistic Calvinists. See John G. Reisinger’s seminal manuscript, Abraham’s Four
Seeds (Webster NY: Sound of Grace, 1990) at www.soundofgrace.com and Wells,
Tom and Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology (Frederick, MD: New Covenant
Media, 2002).
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 161

‘thee and thy seed’ mentioned.”41 “The age of fullness,” in their view,
demands that only individuals who are capable of self-conscious faith are
permitted to be heirs of these promises. As Jewett says, “the temporal,
earthly, typical elements of the old dispensation were dropped from the
great house of salvation as scaffolding from the finished edifice.”42
Among the ruins of the scaffolding lies the fruit of the womb, which was
so jealously included in past eras. This reading of the new covenant yields
the conclusion that both Jews and Gentiles no longer should consider their
children members of the covenant.
I want to turn this over to see the price tag. The cost of this is a fire
sale on the whole of the covenant conception. Such a change in recipients
and promises could hardly be more drastic! Covenant membership has
always and ever included “you and your children” and covenant content is
most fundamentally that the Lord is “God to you and your descendants”
(Gen. 17:7; Deut. 7:9; 30:6; 1 Chron. 16:15; Ps. 103:17; 105:8). But, in fact, the
claim of paedo-exclusionists is demonstrably false. There are many explicit
statements about the new covenant which expressly include the “off-
spring,” “children,” “descendants,” and “you and your children.”43
The very first word about the new covenant is in Deuteronomy 30:6:
“Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of
your descendants.” In the classic text of the new covenant, the entire
context is inclusive of children. “Their children also shall be as formerly,
and their congregation shall be established before Me; and I will punish all
their oppressors. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God”
(Jer. 30:21–22). The new covenant chapter begins, “ ‘At that time,’ declares
the LORD, ‘I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be
My people’ ” (Jer. 31:1). “The woman with child and she who is in labor
with child, together; a great company, they shall return here” (Jer. 31:8).
Though Rachel weeps for her children (destroyed in captivity), when they
return, “there is hope for your future . . . your children shall return to their
own territory” (Jer. 31:17).
This is context in which it is claimed that “thee and thy seed” is not
mentioned! But even more, the specific text of the new covenant says the
offspring of covenant participants are explicitly included.

41. David Kingdom, Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the
Covenant, and Children (Sussex, UK: Carey, 1973), 34–35.
42. Jewett, 91.
43. Consider these an incomplete list: Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 30:9, 18–22;
31:1, 17, 33–37; 32:15–18, 37–40; 33:22–26; Zechariah 10:6–9; Joel 2:1–29; Isaiah 44:3;
59:20–21; Malachi 4:5–6; Luke 1:17; 2:49–50; Acts 2:39; 3:25; 13:32–33; Romans 4:13–17.
162 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

“I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and
I will be their God, and they shall be My people. . . . If this fixed order
departs From before Me,” declares the LORD, “then the offspring of
Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever. . . . If the
heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth
searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel
for all that they have done,” declares the LORD. (Jer. 31:34–37)44

This point could be made with virtually every other Old Testament
reference to the new covenant promise and era (e.g., Jer. 32:37–40;
Ezek. 37:25–28; Zech. 10:9; Isa. 44:3, 59:20–21; Joel 2:23–29). And in the
New Testament, we find repeatedly the principle of “you and your seed”
in the advent of fulfillment.

Luke 1:17: “And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in

the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to
the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as
to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Luke 1:49–50: “For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and
holy is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation
toward those who fear him.”

Acts 2:39: “For the promise is for you and your children, and for all
who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”

Acts 13:32–33: “And we preach to you the good news of the promise
made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children
in that He raised up Jesus.

These texts provide overwhelming, explicit biblical support across a

range of new covenant prophetic texts and fulfillment texts for the belief
that the children of believers are included in the new covenant. Jesus said,
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you”
(Luke 22:20). If our children are in the new covenant and we claim that the
redemption purchased with so great a cost is for them, why withhold the
cup which “is the new covenant” from them?

44. Read in context “my people” is already inclusive of children, explicitly.

Implicitly, it would hardly be good news to such a people to exclude their little
ones. For an exposition of this text, see Jeffrey Neill’s chapter in The Case for
Covenantal Infant Baptism or my appendix in Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It? at
www.wordmp3.com/baptism.
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 163

The point of this discussion, for my paedobaptist brethren who hold

to believer communion, is that there is no such thing as half-covenant,
halfway covenant members—in the Bible at least. Of course, New England
Puritans did invent it. Small wonder that they are all gone.
All included in the covenant administrations by promise and sacra-
mental oath have a right to the new covenant rite. Upon analysis the
covenant promises and the covenant signs of inclusion require both the
font and the table.

Covenant Covenant Signs Descendants

(Administration) Included
Creation/Adamic Tree of Life 1 Corinthians 15:22
Noahic Rainbow Genesis 7:1
Abrahamic Circumcision Genesis 17:11–13
(Other Patriarchs) Sacrifices/Meals Job 1:5
Mosaic Passover (blood, then meal) Exodus 12:24
Davidic Throne (?) Psalm 89:3–4
New Covenant Baptism Acts 2:39
Communion 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:13

CONSISTENT INCLUSION
All of this is made more evident by Paul’s refrain throughout the epistles.
Gentiles are equal heirs with Jews. For the apostles, the demonstrable
proof of this was that uncircumcised (unproselytized) Gentiles (as
households) received the Spirit just as the apostolic Jews did.45 We also
know that these Gentiles were baptized, and in every explicit case of their
baptism, it was of their households. Every Gentile baptism expressly
recorded is a household baptism!46 As it turns out, the actual view of
paedo-exclusionists is not so much Gentile inclusion as it is child exclu-
sion. But this progeny exclusion project finds no explicit basis in the New
Testament and certainly none in the Old Testament.
It is also refuted by Paul’s insistence that the Abrahamic promise is “cer-

45. If this seems striking, I urge you to review Acts 11:9, 14–15; 15:3–9; 16:30.
46. The eunuch was a proselyte; Crispus is a Jew; and the twelve disciples of
John are clearly Jews or at least proselytes (cf. John’s ministry purpose). That leaves
the following Gentile households: Cornelius and household, the very first Gentile
convert; Lydia (and household), a worshipper of God (God-fearer); and the first
outright pagan to be baptized, the Jailer and household of Acts 16:31. He gets the
compact lesson in covenant theology (believe and you shall be saved, “you and your
household”). Less certain is Stephanas’ household who may have been Gentiles as
“the firstfruits of Achaia” (1 Cor. 16:15), and perhaps Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14).
164 GREGG STRAWBRIDGE

tain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to
those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is
written, ‘A father of many nations have I made you’)” (Rom. 4:16–17). This
deeply new covenant strain of argument by Paul assures the reader that
covenantal Gentiles are fully included within faithful Jewish promises.
What was true of Isaac is true of the Philippian Jailer. What was true of
Joseph was true of Cornelius. He could expect God’s covenant promises in
operation no less than any faithful Jew.
Certainly, the Jews had reason to think their children were included in
Paul’s day—even the Judaizing distortion points to this, since they were
seeking the circumcision of Gentiles, and not just adult Gentiles. Their
misguided enforcement of the circumcision of believing Gentiles was
manifestly of Gentile boys, as well as men (e.g., Acts 15:5). But here, no one
takes away from the Gentiles the very promise so jealously held by the
Jews—the inclusion of their children. Given the known beliefs of the
Judaizers, if the situation had really been (as the paedo-exclusionists must
argue) that in the new covenant there was no covenant inclusion for
children whatsoever, it is a certainly a loud silence that the Judaizers did
not protest! If they protested against Gentile adults (and children) not
having to be circumcised (a sign of inclusion for the whole household),
how much more would they have protested that their own children were
no longer considered in covenant with God!
While there is no example in so many words of the children of believers
in baptism or communion, there are numerous explicit texts on the inclusion
of believers’ children in the new covenant (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:36–37;
Acts 2:39), in the Church (Eph. 1:1; 6:1–4; Col. 1:2; 3:20; 1 Cor. 7:14), and the
kingdom (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). Communion is participation
in these, if it is anything at all. No one can produce even one verse that
explicitly excludes them from the tangible participation in the covenant
promises through baptism or communion. In the final analysis all paedo-
exclusion (anti-paedobaptism or anti-paedocommunion) is generated in
theological inference from texts which are not explicitly addressing
children.
Therefore, I believe that theological consistency, historic precedent,
challenges with practical and conceptual exclusion, and covenant signs
and promises—all of these require an inclusion of the children of the
faithful at the font and the table. Covenant children are members of the
church. Let the lament no longer arise—“The young children ask for bread,
but no one breaks it for them” (Lam. 4:4).
Thus, what the august Rev. Dr. Warfield said of baptism is equally
applicable to communion: “The question of the subjects of baptism is one
 THE POLEMICS OF INFANT COMMUNION 165

of that class of problems the solution of which hangs upon a previous

question. According as is our doctrine of the church, so will be our
doctrine of the subjects of baptism.”47

47. “The Polemics of Infant Baptism” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 9
(1927, repr., Baker, Grand Rapids: 1991), 389. Warfield’s view insists that covenant
children do have a right to the table, while he intends this to include profession. It
would seem that his view would lead to early communion: “The ordinances of the
Church belong to the members of it; but each in its own appointed time. The
initiatory ordinance belongs to the members on becoming members, other
ordinances become their right as the appointed seasons for enjoying them roll
around” (408).
 APPENDIX

THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN,

COVENANT NURTURE, AND COVENANT SUCCESSION

ROBERT S. RAYBURN

[Editor’s Note: Are you saying that covenant children are saved? Will our children go to
heaven? Is there a guarantee that covenant children are elect? No doubt, these questions
arise. Upon an initial consideration of paedocommunion by evangelicals, our concern is
for authentic relationship with Christ, and, at the same time, an assurance of a faith kept
to the second generation. Such questions of a practical, pastoral, and familial nature are
important and should be answered by a study of the biblical doctrine of covenant
succession. I am grateful, then, to commend this truly classic article on this subject. In
providing this, the editor and publisher acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Robert A.
Peterson, editor of Presbyterion and the Presbyterion committee, for permission to
republish Robert S. Rayburn’s article, “The Presbyterian Doctrines of Covenant
Children, Covenant Nurture, and Covenant Succession,” as it originally appeared
in Presbyterion 22.2 (Fall 1996), 76–112. This permission was granted on the condition
that we also include the original appendix to the article by V. Philips Long, then editor of
the journal.]

ONE OF THE FEATURES OF PRESBYTERIAN thought and life which ought most
dramatically to distinguish it from the prevailing evangelicalism is its view of the
church’s children. That even evangelical Presbyterianism is not clearly differenti-
ated in this way is, in my judgment, one of the saddest and most dangerous
consequences of the debasement of our theology in both pulpit and pew. I do not
hesitate to say that there has been such a debasement in respect to the doctrine of
covenant succession—i.e., that set of truths connected with the purpose of God
that his saving grace should run in the lines of generations—and that this
debasement has resulted in Presbyterian people being robbed of one of the most
precious parts of their inheritance.
There are various indications that the doctrine of covenant succession in its
various parts is either imperfectly understood or misunderstood. I have noticed
as a pastor, in countless interviews for church membership, the assumption on
the part of many who have grown up in Presbyterian churches that it is neverthe-
less expected that they should know when and how they were converted. Very
often, upon further reflection, these same people are quite willing to admit that
what they had counted as their conversion may not, in fact, have been the
beginning of their new life in Christ, and that they may well have been Christians
long before. I have myself listened to more than a few Presbyterian sermons
devoted to one aspect or another of this truth only to be dismayed by how far

167
168 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

removed such instruction regularly is from the doctrine of our church and our
theological tradition. It is now quite common, for example, to hear ministers rise
to the defense of parents whose children have betrayed the gospel as if they have
quite forgotten the emphatic connection the Bible makes between the faithfulness
of parental nurture and the eventual spiritual convictions of children.1 And no
wonder! For all the books available defending paedobaptism, there is not
currently in print, to my knowledge, a single work of substance and worth
devoted to the doctrine of covenant succession, providing a Biblical exposition of
the doctrine in its various parts, clearing objections, and applying the whole to
the practicalities of child-rearing in the Christian home.
Such work is most definitely a desideratum. It is hard to imagine how the
church may rightly understand this part of the Scripture’s teaching, alien as it is
to the individualism and voluntarism of American evangelical culture, when it is
so little considered in the literature available to the typical pastor or church
member. Though a graduate of a Presbyterian seminary, I do not recall any
serious consideration of this aspect either of theology or pastoral ministry, even
though it very obviously bears directly and profoundly on the health and growth
of any church.2 My informal investigations suggest that my experience would be
typical of today’s Presbyterian seminary graduate. I recently attended a church
growth seminar taught by a Presbyterian pastor. Listed as topics for possible
consideration were more than a dozen subjects bearing on ways and means to
enlarge the church. Conspicuous by its absence was any mention of anything
having to do with the birth and subsequent nurture of the church’s children, even

1. John R. DeWitt, in his excellent exposition of the parable of the prodigal son, while
acknowledging the tremendous responsibility laid upon parents for the spiritual nurture
of their children and the blameworthiness of parents who neglect that nurture, neverthe-
less argues: “But it is by no means possible to argue back from a life wrecked by sin to
parental blame, and to say that because a son or daughter comes to lead a life of
wickedness, therefore the parents must certainly have been at fault. Who of us is sufficient
for these things? It is, after all, only the grace of God that brings any to Christ and spares
any a life of folly and ruin. Some godly and faithful parents have had wretched children,
for the wreckage of whose lives they were not responsible. That the instance of the
prodigal son also makes clear.” Amazing Love, (Edinburgh: 1981), 23–24. It is noteworthy
that this conclusion is almost precisely that of my friend Bruce Ray who writes from a
Reformed Baptist persuasion. Withhold Not Correction (Phillipsburg: 1978), 67. This is still
more interesting in view of de Witt’s splendid and thorough refutation of the Reformed
Baptist perspective. “Children and the Covenant of Grace,” Westminster Theological Journal,
vol. 37 (Winter, 1975), 239–55. Surely it strains the principles governing the interpretation of
parables to draw such a conclusion from the backsliding of the prodigal son. Moreover, it
would seem rather obvious that the eventual repentance of the son and reconciliation with
his father rather argues for the opposite conclusion.
2. I am happy to report that the situation is now otherwise at my alma mater, Cove-
nant Theological Seminary. Prof. David Jones’ syllabus for the course in ecclesiology
contains a historical-theological and exegetical consideration of the place of covenant
children in the economy of grace.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 169

though it is easy to prove that since the church’s beginning in Eden and still
today the primary instrument of her growth has been that of covenant succes-
sion. We must, alas, offer as final evidence of the loss of this doctrine in Presbyte-
rian circles the substantial number of the church’s children that are being lost to
the world in our day.
In these, and other ways, it appears that the thought and practice of evan-
gelical Presbyterian churches is in the present day often untrue to their theologi-
cal tradition. It also appears that this betrayal has occurred by default,
unwittingly. Our doctrine has not been well taught in seminaries, in pulpits, or in
books, whether written for ministers or laymen. Consequently, many ministers
and congregations have only a vague notion of the theological substructure of the
practice of paedobaptism, of the underlying method by which God’s grace is
appointed to run in the lines of generations. Too often today we find Presbyteri-
ans quite capable of fighting the good fight on behalf of infant baptism, but who
then think of their children and raise them according to what are indubitably
baptistic principles.
This is a phenomenon which demands explanation. How is it that this aspect
of Reformed thought should be so poorly understood in our day? Why should
this doctrine and not others have been left behind as the Reformed Faith made its
way into the modern era?

THE DOCTRINE OF COVENANT

SUCCESSION IN REFORMED THEOLOGY
A major effort to offer just such an explanation has been made by Lewis Bevens
Schenck in a dissertation for Yale University, published in 1940 by the Yale
University Press as The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An
Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in
America. It is a most valuable book, covering important ground not covered
elsewhere. It is only further evidence of the problem that Schenck’s book has
been for so long out of print and is so little known by Presbyterian pastors. In my
judgment, it is far more valuable and bears more directly on the necessities of the
ministry than most books being read by them today.
Schenck’s book, as the title indicates, is a historical study. It begins with an
account of the doctrine of the status of children in the covenant as that doctrine
was given its definitive construction as an aspect of Calvin’s revolutionary
ecclesiology. Building on his conviction that the covenant which God established
between himself and Abraham contained nothing less than the promise of eternal
life and that it was a spiritual reality and communion of life between God and
man,3 Calvin proceeded to draw out the implications of the fact that Abraham’s
descendants were likewise participants in this covenant.

3. Institutes, 4.16.3; Schenck, 6–9.

170 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

[I]t will be evident that baptism is properly administered to infants as some-

thing owed to them. For in early times the Lord did not deign to have them
circumcised without making them participants in all those things which
were then signified by circumcision.4

Therefore, the promise of covenant relationship meaning what it does, the

salvation of such infants is included in the promise: “I will be a God to you and to
your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). Such children “do not become the sons
of God through baptism; but because they are heirs of adoption, in virtue of the
promise, therefore, the church admits them to baptism.”5 The covenant belongs
to the children, since the promise of God places them in the same position as
Abraham. Nor is it any different for children of Christians in the new epoch. The
covenant promise of God today is the same promise of God’s fatherly love, the
forgiveness of sin, and eternal life made before to Abraham and it similarly
embraces children with their Christian parents. Christ’s appearing and the
revelation which came through him and his apostles should make us not less but
more sure of the salvation of the children of the covenant.6
According to Calvin, the infants of believing parents belong to the church
before they are engrafted into its visible membership by baptism. The child of a
Christian parent is presumptively a Christian and an heir of eternal life.

The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in
the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the
covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on
any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the church
before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For
how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ?
Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not
the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salva-
tion is afterwards ratified by Baptism.7

Calvin was, of course, entirely aware that all professions were not genuine and

4. Institutes, 4.16.5.
5. Articuli A Facultate Sacrae Theologiae Parisiensi Determinati Super Materiis Fidei
Nostrae Hodie Controversis Cum Antidoto (1544), Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 35, 7, cited by
Schenck, 9.
6. Schenck, 9–10.
7. Interim Adultero—germanum: cui adiecta est vera Christianae Pacificationis et Ecclesiae
Reformandae Ratio. Per Joann. Calvinum. Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 35, 619, cited by Schenck,
13. Similarly Calvin says, “. . . the children of believers are baptized not in order that they
who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children
of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to
the body of Christ, they are received into the church with this solemn sign.” Institutes,
4.15.22.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 171

that many baptisms, therefore, were empty. Only where the conditions of the
covenant were genuinely embraced should it be expected that the Lord would
confer its blessings.
Objections to Calvin’s doctrine, especially as it pertained to infant baptism,
were raised from many sides and his responses to those objections served to
clarify his meaning. To those who objected that infant children were incapable of
that spiritual regeneration which is the prerequisite of baptism, and, therefore,
“that children are to be considered solely as children of Adam until they reach an
appropriate age for the second birth,” Calvin replied that “God’s truth opposes
all these arguments.”8 He appealed to the fact that Christ summoned the little
children to himself and called them members of the kingdom, to the fact that
there can be no hope of salvation except one be engrafted into Christ by
regeneration and even his opponents did not deny that infants—who are
conceived in sin and under the wrath of God—can be saved, to the fact that
God’s work in regenerating infants cannot be denied by us simply because it
remains beyond our understanding, and to the fact that John the Baptist was
sanctified in his mother’s womb.9
A related objection to Calvin’s doctrine was that faith should precede bap-
tism but that infants were incapable of faith and repentance. Calvin’s reply again
referred the objectors to the fact that such considerations did not appear to weigh
with God himself.

These darts are aimed more at God than at us. For it is very clear from
many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repen-
tance. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith. For although
infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend
with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised
to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that
they would afterward practice in mature years. To sum up, this objection
can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance
and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the
seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.10

As he also puts it, “. . . let them only tell me . . . what the danger is if infants
be said to receive now some part of that grace which in a little while they shall
enjoy to the full? . . . Why may the Lord not shine with a tiny spark at the present
time on those whom he will illumine in the future with the full splendor of his
light?”11

8. Institutes, 4.16.17; Schenck, 15–18.

9. Institutes, 4.16.17.
10. Institutes, 4.16.20; Schenck, 18–24.
11. Institutes, 4.16.19.
172 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

Schenck then proceeds to show that Calvin’s doctrine was substantially the
same as that of Zwingli and Bullinger, who likewise held that the children of
believers were to be reckoned the children of God because they are embraced, as
their parents, by the promise and covenant of God.12 Further, this same doctrine
is embodied in a variety of Reformed confessions and catechisms and in the
teaching of the representatives of the mature Reformed theology, including
English Puritans and those of Presbyterian Scotland.13 Schenck’s conclusion is
that “at least until the time of the Westminster Standards, there was no difference
in the views of the leading exponents of covenant theology and those of John
Calvin on the subject of children of the covenant.”14
Schenck accounts for the modern eclipse of the Reformed doctrine of cove-
nant succession by the dramatic impact of the Great Awakening and the resultant
revivalism, with its exclusive emphasis on a conscious experience of conviction
and conversion as the essential evidence of genuine salvation. The background of
the revival, as is well known, was a nominalism in which infant baptism was
practiced without discrimination and without regard to the necessity of
covenantal faithfulness. The often powerful experiences of conversion common
to the revival’s leadership, most of whom were themselves children of the
covenant, together with similarly dramatic episodes of conviction of sin and
anguish of soul followed in time by joyful assurance of peace with God on the
part of many touched by the revival, created first an expectation and then a
demand that true evangelical experience would conform to such experiences.
That a child was from a believing family made no difference. Gilbert Tennent, for
example, not only preached the necessity of such an experience of conviction and
conversion as had become the revival paradigm, but insisted that genuine

12. Schenck, 23–27.

13. Schenck, 28–34.
14. Schenck, 34–52. Although this statement is true only as a generality, it appears to
be substantially correct. Differences did appear, for example, regarding the construction
of the doctrine of the ground of infant baptism and regarding what Calvin called “the
seed of faith” in infants, but “for the most part our Reformed divines followed the
presentation of Calvin, with many alterations in wording.” H. E. Gravemeijer, Leesboek
over de Gereformeerde Geloofsleer, vol. 3, Utrecht: 1894, 431–32. The consensus was
challenged later in another way by the assertion of certain Presbyterian authorities, such
as Rutherford and Brown of Wamphray, that it was desirable that the church should
include many who are presumably unregenerate in hopes of their salvation. The peculiar
position of covenant children as generally understood in Reformed theology was thereby
undermined. A somewhat similar view prevailed in New England in connection with
what came to be called “the Halfway Covenant.” These views were definite innovations,
were roundly rejected by other authorities such as Thomas Boston, and later, Jonathan
Edwards, and were never accepted or adopted by any Presbyterian church.
Cf. J. MacPherson, The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, Edinburgh, 1903, 74–90;
J. Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, Edinburgh, reprinted 1982, 121–26.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 173

believers will inevitably know when they were not Christians.15

Perfectly understandable as revivalistic thinking was, both as a necessary
corrective to the nominalism which preceded it and as the natural result of such
powerful spiritual impressions as were common during the Great Awakening, as
a view of salvation and spiritual experience it was an obvious over-reaction, one-
sided and seriously defective. In particular, this thinking left little place for the
divine provision of covenant succession and in so doing, as I have subsequently
to show, subverted the Bible’s clear and emphatic teaching. Charles Hodge,
speaking of a revival of religion such as occurred during the Great Awakening,
wrote:

It may be highly useful, or even necessary, just as violent remedies are often
the only means of saving life. But such remedies are not the ordinary and
proper means of sustaining and promoting health. No one can fail to re-
mark that this too exclusive dependence on revivals tends to produce a
false or unscriptural form of religion. The ordinary means of grace become
insipid or distasteful. Perhaps however the most deplorable result of the
mistake we are now considering is the neglect which it necessarily induces
of the divinely appointed means of careful Christian nurture. Family train-
ing of children, and pastoral instruction of the young, are almost entirely
lost sight of. We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this
is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches.16

With regard to the issue of covenant succession itself, L. H. Atwater, also of

Princeton Seminary, added:

Still, it is apparent that this great revival, while it resulted in a great and
blessed increase of true piety . . . while it removed the fongous misgrowths
which sloth and unbelief had educed from the church membership of bap-
tized children; also, in many quarters, unsettled the faith of the church in
that pregnant truth, and its logical and practical relations. The fruit has
appeared in the distinguishing features of our American Christianity for
better and for worse; in a remarkable vigour of aggressive evangelism upon
those that are without, and in too often putting without the fold the lambs
of the flock, so far, alas! That immense numbers of them are lost, past recov-
ery, upon the dark mountains of sin! The latter we ought to correct; the
former we should hold fast, and let none take our crown. These things
ought we to have done, and not to leave the other undone.17

15. Cited in Schenck, 71. See further L. H. Atwater, “The Children of the Church and
Sealing Ordinances,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, vol. 29, no.1 (Jan. 1857), 13–15.
16. “Bushnell on Christian Nurture,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, vol. 19,
no. 4 (Oct. 1847), 520–21.
17. Atwater, “Children of the Church,” 16.
174 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

The tendencies fostered in the Great Awakening were given further impetus
in the revival of 1800 and others which followed in the first half of the nineteenth
century.
These were then institutionalized in the revivalist paradigm of the experi-
ence of salvation which quickly became dominant in American evangelicalism.
The penetration of revivalist thinking into the Presbyterian church, Schenck
argues, created a situation in which

many influential leaders and a large popular constituency held the histori-
cal Reformed doctrine of the significance of infant baptism in a “non-natural
sense.” Many held that children of the covenant were only “quasi” members
of the church. There was no trace or recognition of a vital church relation
until, by conscious conversion, they came “out of the world.”18

Schenck cites J. W. Alexander, L. H. Atwater, Ashbel Green, Samuel Miller,

and Charles Hodge, among others, whose voices were raised in protest against
the growing tendency to consider baptized children as though they were out of
the church and to neglect the church’s historic doctrine of covenant succession.
Nevertheless, at the same time powerful voices were raised within the
church in defense of the new thinking. Especially among southern men, notably
J. H. Thornwell and R. L. Dabney, it was held decidedly that baptized covenant
children were to be presumed unsaved until they gave evidence of the new birth.
This altered conception of covenant children was given theological justification
by constructions of the doctrines of the covenant of grace and infant baptism
which introduced a clear distinction between the status of covenant children and
professing Christians.19
These differing conceptions of the meaning and significance of covenant

18. Schenck, 80. Schenck is citing Atwater, “Children of the Church,” 6–7, who con-
tinues: “We are sure it is no exaggeration, when we say, that in a considerable portion of
our evangelical Churches there is no recognition, no consciousness of any relation being
held by baptized children, prior to conscious and professed conversion, other than that of
outsiders to the church, in common with the whole world lying in wickedness—at least
that portion of the world which, having the light of the gospel, heeds it not . . . Whenever
they see their way clear to profess their faith, and come to the Lord’s table, it is regarded
as joining the Church, just as if they had never belonged to it. No difference is put
between them and the unbaptized, in the apprehensions, the procedures, the whole
practical life of the Church, except that the latter, in joining its fellowship, receive the
initiatory rite, which they have never received before. One great evil of this inadequate
system is, that while it makes infant baptism a seal of Christian teaching and training, to
be given the child, it always, in some degree, and often wholly, prevents such instruction
and nurture, or frustrates their efficacy. And this, in our opinion, is among the most
formidable barriers to the growth and prevalence of pure religion in the rising genera-
tion.”
19. Schenck, 84–89.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 175

succession collided in the discussions, begun in 1857, regarding a proposed

revision of the Book of Discipline. Dr. Thornwell, chairman of the committee,
whose membership also included Charles Hodge, prepared the draft of the
revision which was controversial in only one point: the relation of baptized
children to the church. Dr. Thornwell’s revision provided that “only those . . .
who have made a profession of faith in Christ are proper subjects of judicial
prosecution.” It was understood on all sides that opinions on this specific
question regarding church discipline took on an unusual importance as reflecting
more fundamental conceptions of the covenant and church. Those supportive of
the proposed revision, with the difference in status which it introduced between
covenant children and those who had professed their faith, held that this
difference in status was of such consequence that the two classes of baptized
persons could not be regarded or treated in the same way. Covenant children
and adult professors were thus related to the church in an entirely different
way and according to fundamentally different principles. Dr. Thornwell
argued in regard to covenant children:

It is clear that while they are in the church by external union, in the spirit
and temper of their minds they belong to the world. Like Esau, they neither
understand nor prize their birthright. Of the world and in the church—this
expresses precisely their status, and determines the mode in which the
church should deal with them.20

Grace was offered to them in their baptism and the task of the church was
the conversion of her baptized children. The position of covenant children, in this
view, was a position of privilege and special opportunity. It was definitely not
the communion of the saints. In the most fundamental respects the church’s
children were of the world not the church. Thornwell went so far as to say that
the church is to treat her children

precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men—she is to

exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of
the saints. She is to debar them from all the privileges of the inner sanctu-
ary. She is to exclude them from their inheritance until they show them-
selves meet to possess it.21

He likened the church’s situation to that of a commonwealth of free citizens

20. “The Revised Book Vindicated,” The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell,
vol. 4, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1974, 340. According to Thornwell, “The two classes of which
the church consists are not equally related to the idea of the church. The class of
professors pertains to its essence; that of non-professors is an accidental result of the
mode of organization.” (339)
21. Thornwell, 341.
176 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

in which is found a body of slaves who are marked for eventual liberty. “Is it not
clear,” he asks, “that their condition, as slaves, determines their treatment . . .
until they are prepared to pass the test which changes their status?” He contin-
ues:

Is not this precisely the state of things with the church and its baptized
unbelievers? Are they not the slaves of sin and the Devil, existing in a free
Commonwealth for the purpose of being educated to the liberty of the
saints? Should they not, then, be carefully instructed on the one hand, and
on the other be treated according to their true character as slaves, in every
other respect, until they are prepared for their heritage of liberty?22

Thornwell maintained that his views were those of the historic Reformed
church.23 The unlikelihood of that claim may have had much to do with the
success of Charles Hodge in forestalling the adoption of the proposed revision
until the church was divided between north and south in 1861. As Schenck
argues, Hodge was surely correct in insisting that the historic doctrine of the
Presbyterian church was that “the child of Christian parents, no less than the
adult who made a personal and voluntary profession of faith, was a member of
the church on the same basis of presumptive membership in the invisible
church.” Consequently, Hodge argued, “we see not how this principle can be
denied, in its application to the church, without giving up our whole doctrine,
and abandoning the ground to the Independents and Anabaptists.24 Dr.
Thornwell’s position was not that of Presbyterianism historically but was
materially that of revivalism.

22. Thornwell, 348. A helpful discussion of this and related questions as they were
discussed in nineteenth-century American Presbyterianism is furnished by D. Jones, The
Doctrine of the Church in American Presbyterian Theology in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, ThD
thesis, Concordia Seminary, 1970, 49–86.
23. Thornwell’s attempt to demonstrate that claim by citations (350–63) is severely
compromised by an anachronistic reading of the sources and, still more, by his assump-
tion that his view of the status of covenant children was necessarily shared by those who
may have, for other reasons, shared his conclusion regarding their susceptibility to church
censures. Further, it is not difficult to find contrary evidence on the point at issue.
C. Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. 2, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1979, 290.
A. W. Miller, a prominent southern Presbyterian, opposed Thornwell at this point
precisely on the ground that his views were not those of the Reformed Church.
Addressing the General Assembly of 1866, Miller argued: “This principle should ever be
kept in mind, that baptism is not conferred on children in order that they may become
sons and heirs of God, but because they are already considered by God as occupying that
place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism.” This,
Miller argued, was Calvin’s doctrine and that of the Reformed Church historically.
Schenck, 96.
24. Cited in Schenck, 99. Further see Charles Hodge’s critique of Thornwell’s posi-
tion in The Church and its Polity, London, 1879, 215–17.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 177

Schenck’s thesis—that the classical doctrine of covenant succession was in

the eighteenth and nineteenth century overwhelmed by the extension of the
revivalist paradigm of a crisis of conversion to the church’s children—was, of
course, by no means original to him. His exposition, as already indicated, relied
heavily on the analyses of Charles Hodge, L. H. Atwater, Samuel Miller, and
others. But this same thesis was still more comprehensively and popularly
advanced by the Congregationalist Horace Bushnell in his Christian Nurture, first
published in 1847 as Discourses on Christian Nurture and subsequently considera-
bly enlarged and often reprinted. As Williston Walker wrote in an introduction to
the edition of 1916, Bushnell “strove to correct [the one-sidedness of the revival
impulse] and to vindicate for Christian childhood its normal place in the
Kingdom of God. In so doing he adopted positions consonant with the great
historic experience of the church, however little in agreement with the local
American outlook of his time.” In fact, Bushnell’s eloquent and weighty book,
notwithstanding its serious deficiencies, is of abiding value and deserves a wide
readership today, especially among ministers. It exists virtually alone as a full-
scale examination of the nurture of covenant children in its theological, psycho-
logical,25 and sociological aspects.
Bushnell’s theology was in several respects wholly unacceptable to the con-
servative Presbyterians, which makes only the more noteworthy the general
pleasure with which they welcomed his book. Reviews by Charles Hodge,
Lyman Atwater, and Henry B. Smith were generally appreciative.26 They all
agreed with Bushnell’s general thesis that Christian nurture in a godly home,
beginning in infancy, is the divine instrumentality of the salvation of the church’s
children and that this nurture was the primary method appointed for the
propagating of the church. They were further agreed, however, that Bushnell’s
manner of stating his thesis left the impression that the saving operations of the
Spirit of God were confined to natural laws of parental influence and did not do
justice to the necessity of the immediate working of the Spirit to overcome the
native sinfulness of every covenant child.27

25. C. Hodge expressed a special appreciation for Bushnell’s development of the

power of parental influence upon a child—by “the look, the voice, and handling”—even
before the development of the child’s reasoning. Essays and Reviews, 312, cited in Schenck,
143. R. L. Dabney developed some of these same themes in a splendid sermon, preached
in 1879, “Parental Responsibilities,” reprinted in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological,
vol. 1, London, 1967, 676–93.
26. Lyman Atwater, in his own article devoted to Bushnell, wrote: “In its way [Chris-
tian Nurture] was another instance of the attempted recovering, in a partial and distorted
way, of a truth which was grievously fading out of sight in Dr. Bushnell’s surroundings.
This was cordially recognized in leading Presbyterian reviews of the book.” Presbyterian
Review, vol. 2, no. 5 (January 1981), 128.
27. C. Hodge, “Bushnell on Christian Nurture,” 502–39. It is to be noted that a view
of infancy and childhood which does not take adequate account of original sin is hardly
unique to Bushnell, being found already in the apostolic fathers and widely thereafter. Cf.
178 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

The thesis advanced by these several authors that the classical Reformed
doctrine of covenant succession and Christian nurture was largely displaced in
the American Presbyterian church by the revivalist requirement of an experience
of conscious conversion and by a corresponding alteration in the status of
covenant children, is, in my judgment, substantially correct. The doctrine of
Thornwell is definitely not the doctrine of Calvin nor is his view of the church’s
task in respect to children of the covenant that of the great reformer. The
difference is profound. Yet Thornwell’s views more nearly approximate the
unstudied opinion of most evangelical Presbyterians today, not because they
intend to follow Thornwell against Calvin, but because of the compatibility of his
views with that of revivalist thought and practice which thoroughly penetrated
conservative Presbyterian thought and life in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, displacing the historic Presbyterian viewpoint.
My own experiences growing up in conservative Presbyterian circles and
my observations since confirm this. The doctrine of covenant succession with its
various parts and implications has been largely in eclipse. In the individual
circumstances where covenantal nurture in a Reformed sense has not been
supplanted by evangelism as the paradigm of child-rearing, this is more often the
result of instinct than conviction, rarely the result of comprehensive instruction.
Inattention to the doctrine of covenant succession, an evangelism which makes
no significant distinctions between the church’s children and those outside of the
community of faith, a widespread hesitation to charge Christian parents with
responsibility for the unbelief of their children, a doctrine and practice of infant
baptism which bears little living connection to the practical approach taken to
covenant children subsequently, covenant children themselves who have little
sense of the immensity of their blessing, and an almost universal practice of
permitting baptized young people living in rebellion against the gospel and law
of their covenant God to walk out of the church unimpeded, as if they had never
genuinely belonged, never having “joined the church”—all this is only a partial
demonstration of the extent to which the contemporary Presbyterian church has
lost touch with its own doctrine.
Nevertheless, the thesis of Hodge, Schenck, and others does require modifi-
cation in this respect: they have somewhat overstated the extent to which the
doctrine of covenant succession was given its rightful place and emphasis in the
formative period of the Reformed theology. Schenck is, I believe, largely correct
in his claim that covenant succession by nurture was the doctrine of the Re-
formed church from Calvin through the period of the great scholastic systems.28

S. Legasse, Jesus et L’Enfant: ‘Enfants,’ ‘Petits’ et ‘Simples’ dans la Tradition Synoptique

(Etudes Bibliques), Paris, 1969, 269–76.
28. Though A. Kuyper’s formulation of the doctrine is problematic, it was not the mis-
take it is sometimes represented to be that he regarded covenant succession as an essential
mark and ingredient of the Reformed theology. Cf. C. Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Barth:
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 179

It is not difficult to trace the consensus on this point through the theological
literature of the period. While not copious, the attention devoted to this matter in
the creeds and catechisms is sufficient to indicate that the convictions to which
Calvin had given expression in his Institutes were soon received as part of the
Reformed theology, if not in every case with the same emphasis and consistency.
In particular, confessional status was granted to the affirmations that covenant
children are Christians, that they are baptized because the power and substance
of the sacrament belongs to them, that they are heirs of the same blessing
promised to their parents, that they are capable of regeneration of the “seed of
faith,” and that, should they die in infancy, they are saved.29
Neither the Westminster Confession nor the two catechisms provide as
complete a statement of this doctrine as may be found in other Reformed
symbols, but the Directory of Worship does provide a more definitive statement
of the thinking of the Westminster Assembly concerning the status of covenant
children.
In the service of baptism therein described, the sacrament is defined as “a
seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with
him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal.” Concerning
the ground of infant baptism it is said, among other things, that

the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and
posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, in-
terest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privi-
leges of the church. . . . That the Son of God admitted little children into
his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, “For of such is the
kingdom of God”: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into
the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them
that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized
in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to
fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians,
and federally holy before baptism. . . . That the inward grace and virtue of
baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is adminis-

Oorspron en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme,

‘s-Gravenhage, 1987, 294, and C. Veenhof, Prediking en Uitverkiezing, Kampen, 1959, 283–86.
29. Calvin’s Geneva Catechism, Questions 336–339; The Heidelberg Catechism, Ques-
tion 74; Craig’s Catechism [Q. What if our children die without baptism? A. Then they are
saved by the promise. Q. Why are they baptized, when they are young and do not
understand? A. Because they are of the seed of the faithful. Q. What comfort do we have
in their Baptism? A. This, that we rest persuaded that they are inheritors of the Kingdom
of Heaven. Q. What should that work in us? A. Diligence in teaching them the way of
salvation. Q. What admonition are they given through this Baptism? A. That they are to
be thankful when they come to age. Q. What then is Baptism for our children? A. An entry
into the Church of God, and to the Holy Supper.]; The Belgic Confession, Article 34; The
Scots Confession (1560), Article 16.
180 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

tered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course
of our life.

The minister is to admonish the parent “to consider the great mercy of God
to him and his child; to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the
Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him
know the danger of God’s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent:
requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty.”
After the sacrament, the minister’s prayer begins with the acknowledgement
of the Lord’s mercy: “that he is good and gracious, not only in that he numbereth
us among his saints, but is pleased also to bestow upon our children this singular
token and badge of his love in Christ: That, in his truth and special providence,
he daily bringeth some into the bosom of his church, to be partakers of his
inestimable benefits.” It then continues with this petition:

That [the Lord] would receive the infant now baptized, and solemnly
entered into the household of faith, into his fatherly tuition and defence,
and remember him with the favour that he sheweth to his people . . . and
if he live, and attain the years of discretion, that the Lord would so teach
him by his word and Spirit, and make his baptism effectual to him, and
so uphold him by his divine power and grace, that by faith he may pre-
vail against the devil, the world, and the flesh, till in the end he obtain a
full and final victory.

This, I admit, is less than might have been said and less than Calvin did say.
But it is his doctrine of covenant succession in its broad outline. Further, it is easy
enough to locate in dogmatic works, especially in the loci devoted to calling or
regeneration and baptism, more or less complete statements of the doctrine of
covenant succession. An example would be this lovely passage from Witsius’ The
Economy of the Divine Covenants:

Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon
as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath com-
manded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom as it were into his
own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens
of our dignity and future kingdom; that he should put that song into our
mouth, “Thou didst made me hope, when I was upon my mother’s
breast: I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my
mother’s belly,” (Ps. 22:9, 10) that, in a word, he should join us to himself
in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remem-
brance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like
manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness,
through the whole course of our lives.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 181

Nothing ought to be dearer to us than to keep sacred and inviolable

that covenant of our youth, that first and most solemn engagement, that
was made to God in our name.30

But, the general consensus notwithstanding, the doctrine of covenant suc-

cession was never as comprehensively developed or as thoroughly integrated
into the theological system as it could and should have been nor was it as
emphatically stated as it deserved to be. Its connections with other parts of the
system were never completely delineated and certain difficulties were left
inadequately furnished with satisfactory resolutions. It did not receive sufficient
attention to ensure that the rough edges left in the original theological construc-
tion of the Reformation era would be made smooth. Indeed, while great effort
was made to defend, elaborate, and polish certain doctrines, this was left largely
in its original form. Indeed, there seems to have been in some cases a diminish-
ment of Calvin’s own emphatic presentation of the doctrine. That this is so may
be demonstrated in several ways.
In a goodly number of manuals of Reformed theology and monographs on
Reformed soteriology, the doctrine of covenant succession is given only cursory
treatment. Either attention is devoted to only a few of its parts or, worse, the
doctrine appears only as part of the argumentation for paedobaptism.31 It cannot
be said that the exposition of this doctrine in the Reformed literature leaves the
clear impression that covenant succession through parental nurture is the
principle way in which salvation comes to the elect of God. Parental nurture finds
no regular place in the treatment of the means of grace; neither faith nor
justification are regularly treated so as to accommodate those doctrines to the
reality that the largest number of Christians in the world do not receive the gift of
faith only subsequently to a life of conscious rebellion against God and by means
of a crisis of conversion, and that in very many if not most cases justification

30. ET 1837, vol. 2, 440. Herman Witsius himself was the son of godly parents who
had dedicated their firstborn to the Christian ministry before he was born. In the
dedication of one of his first works, Practijcke des Christendoms (1665), he paid tribute to
the spiritual nurture which he had received from his parents, making the words of
Proverbs 4:3–5a his own. J. van Genderen, Herman Witsius, ‘s-Gravenhage, 1953, 7–8.
31. In H. Heppe’s summation of the Reformed theology, consideration of the doc-
trine of covenant succession, in one respect or another, appears but briefly and only, so far
as I could determine, in connection with the discussion of the calling or regeneration of
infants and that of infant baptism. Reformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the
Sources, ET London, 1950, 540–41; 621–24. Popular manuals such as those of Ames (The
Marrow of Theology, Boston, ET 1968, 179–80; 211) or Wollebius (Christianae Theologiae
Compendium [1626] reprinted, Neukirchen, 1935, 88, 93, 116) give only meagre attention
and that in the form of brief standardized affirmations in the customary loci.
182 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

precedes a conscious experience of conviction of sin and guilt.32 The entire

treatment of the ordo salutis in this literature is characteristically written as if, in
fact, the typical experience of salvation were that of the person called out of the
world only after he or she gained full possession of rational and spiritual
powers.33
It cannot be doubted that this is, in large part, the consequence of Scripture’s
own emphasis upon paradigmatic conversions, especially that of the apostle
Paul, and the fact that the New Testament’s historical narrative of the history of
salvation covers only a brief period of evangelization of hitherto unreached
people, a period, that is, before covenant nurture could begin to supply the
fledgling church of the new epoch with large numbers of members.34 Neverthe-

32. Kuyper calls this the “weak spot” in much Reformed discussion of justification.
Always there is this exception, whether stated or unstated: “loquor de adultis.” Dictaten
Dogmatiek, vol. 4, Kampen, n.d., 62–63.
33. Interestingly, the exception to this generality is that of the case of infants dying
in infancy which, no doubt due to the punishing necessities of life in those days, did
receive more careful consideration. Reformed writers, many of whom had suffered such
losses themselves, expressed themselves with great confidence and often with an
exquisite pathos in regard to this one part of the doctrine of covenant succession. Upon
the death of his daughter Katherine, at that time the youngest of his children, Thomas
Boston wrote: “I never had such a clear and comfortable view of the Lord’s having other
use for children than our comfort; for which ends he removes them in infancy; so that
they are not brought to the world in vain. I saw reason to bless the Lord, that I had been
made father of six children, now in the grave, and that were with me but a very short
time; but none of them lost; I will see them all at the resurrection. That clause in the
covenant, ‘And the God of thy seed’ was sweet and full of sap.” The Complete Works of
Thomas Boston, vol. 12, reprinted, Wheaton, 1980, 278–79. Rutherford, in a number of his
immortal letters, bent his genius to bring the Reformed theology with its wonderful
consolation home to grieving parents. Letters of Samuel Rutherford, reprinted, Edinburgh,
1984, Letters 28, 238, 287, 300, 310, 326. Conclusions bearing on this subject were
integrated at several points in the theological system. However, the bearing of those same
considerations on the case of infants who lived to and beyond the age of discretion did
not seem to be as clearly grasped, at least with respect to the necessity of theological
integration. Reformed treatments of the doctrine of the salvation of infants dying in
infancy and its integration into the larger soteriology are furnished by R. A. Webb, The
Theology of Infant Salvation, reprinted, Harrisonburg, 1981, and B. B. Warfield, “The
Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 9,
New York, 1932, 411–44. These works are tarnished, however, both by the consideration
of infants dying in infancy as a separate class whose status is governed by separate
principles—a position for which only the most doubtful Scriptural support has ever been
advanced—and by the still more doubtful conclusion that in this class of infants the
difference between covenant infants and infants outside of the covenant is immaterial.
34. The number of references to children in the New Testament is not large. It is
striking, however, that, taken together, what references there are serve simply to reiterate
the commonplaces of the Old Testament’s doctrine. There is definitely no new doctrine of
children or of their status in the New Testament.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 183

less, taking the Scripture’s evidence together, as I hope to demonstrate below, it

cannot be to the credit of the Reformed theology that so often its treatment of the
doctrine of covenant succession has the appearance of a concession rather than an
affirmation of central importance.
Furthermore, the same understatement and lack of full integration can be
observed in the popular literature. Again, it is not difficult to find sermons and
pastoral material in which the Reformed consensus is expressed. For example, in
Richard Baxter’s A Christian Directory, the most comprehensive work of Puritan
pastoral theology, the doctrine of covenant succession by nurture is the basis of
his consideration of the motives and means of the spiritual upbringing of
children.35 In the course of his treatment of these subjects, he affirms that the
children of believers belong to the Lord, that they are engaged in their baptism to
the life of faith, and that parental nurture is the ordinary appointed means of
their salvation. His exposition of parental nurture, especially in its psychological
aspects, anticipates the larger study of Bushnell.
But it must be said that the Puritan emphasis upon a sound conversion
more often than not overwhelmed these sometimes virtually parenthetical
concessions that the experience of covenant children did not always conform to
the standard paradigm. When J. I. Packer, in his sympathetic but not uncritical
account of the Puritan emphasis on gospel experience,36 writes, “All the
Puritans agreed that the way by which God brings sinners to faith is through a
‘preparatory work,’ longer or shorter, of contrition and humbling for sin,” he
does not mean to exclude the experience of many covenant children whose
experience is otherwise. Neither did the Puritans themselves who generally
spoke in the same way. But, unwittingly or not, the diminishment of covenant
succession as a primary instrumentality and distinctive experience of divine

35. Reprinted, Ligonier, PA, 1990, 409–31, 449–54. Other examples include Thomas
Manton’s sermon on Psalm 102:28, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 15,
reprinted, Worthington, PA, n.d., 463–74 and William Guthrie’s classic exposition of true
faith in Christ, The Christian’s Great Interest, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1969, 38–39. Guthrie
acknowledges that some Christians are called to faith in Christ from the womb and have
no experience of being prepared for conversion by the work of the law, such as would
ordinarily be the case for someone called out of a life of unbelief. An exposition with
many similarities to Baxter’s was published in 1679 in Amsterdam by J. Koelman, a major
figure of the Nadere Reformatie, whose thought was deeply influenced by English
Puritanism. De Plichten der Ouders in Kinderen voor Godt op te voeden, reprinted, Houten,
1982. Koelman readily acknowledges the possibility of regeneration in the womb, even
urges parents to pray for it during pregnancy (42). He is, further, better than most in
laying emphasis upon the fundamental place which parents’ faith in God’s promise to be
their children’s God and Savior occupies in a true covenantal nurture (46–47).
36. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, Wheaton, 1990, 172.
Bavinck provides a striking example of this phenomenon in an autobiographical reference
concerning childhood in the separatist Dutch Reformed churches. V. Hepp, Dr. Hermann
Bavinck, Amsterdam, 1921, 22–23.
184 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

grace was the result. This left the doctrine vulnerable to the counter-influences
of the revival period.

THE DOCTRINE OF COVENANT SUCCESSION IN SCRIPTURE

Interesting and valuable as a historical-theological account of the Reformed
doctrine of covenant succession and its development and present fortunes may
be, to Presbyterians the fundamental issue must remain the teaching of Holy
Scripture. The eclipse of this doctrine and the distinctive child-rearing derived
from it should be chiefly dismaying to Presbyterians not because it amounts to an
abandonment of their theological tradition, but because Holy Scripture is
straightforward in developing this doctrine in its various parts and emphatic in
describing its momentous consequences. The doctrine of covenant succession
was founded on the plain statements of the Bible and the drift away from the
former amounts to a betrayal of the latter. The power and persuasiveness of the
Reformed theology has always derived from the simplicity and clarity with
which it reproduces the Bible’s teaching, from the straight line which connected it
to biblical commonplaces.
The biblical data themselves yield a series of conclusions which, taken to-
gether, form an anatomy of the biblical doctrine of covenant succession. That
doctrine itself presupposes that the family, as biblically described, is by divine
appointment the fundamental principle of organization of human life. From the
beginning to the end of Holy Scripture it is by the commandment, the wisdom,
and the kindness of God that he “sets the lonely in families” (Ps. 68:6). The
significance attached in Scripture to family relationships and connections
requires no demonstration.
It is a principle the validity of which is as easy to demonstrate in contempo-
rary life as from Holy Scripture. Not only do children derive their appearance,
intelligence, physical health, etc. from their parents—all which bear so mightily
on the outcome of one’s life—but, likewise, they are greatly influenced for good
or ill by the family environment and quality of parental nurture. But Scripture
goes further in teaching that God weaves his purposes of grace and judgment
within the threads of an individual’s family life. The family is not the sole
instrumentality of the divine purpose, of course, but it is of vast importance.37

37. B. B. Warfield writes: “[T]he family . . . is the New Testament basis of the church
of God . . . [God] does, indeed, require individual faith for salvation; but He organized
His people in families first; and then into churches, recognizing in their very warp and
woof the family constitution. His promises are all the more precious that they are to us
and our children. And though this may not fit in with the growing individualism of the
day, it is God’s ordinance.” “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield, vol. 9, New York, 1932, 405–6. Herman Bavinck, who was himself raised in a
Christian home and often bore witness to the happy effect of his parents’ instruction and
godly example, offers this panegyric to the family in his “Het Christelijk Huisgezin”: “The
family is not of man’s making; it is a gift of God and full of life. Upbringing in the family
bears a quite special character. No school or educational institution can replace or
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 185

This becomes all the more apparent as the doctrine of covenant succession is
constructed on the foundation of this family solidarity.
The doctrine of covenant succession as it is taught in Holy Scripture, like all
other doctrines, is composed of parts, each of which must be integrated with each
of the others.

GRACE RUNS IN THE LINES OF GENERATIONS

This is not only a principle which can be persuasively demonstrated in any
church, but it is a biblical commonplace. It is a fact emphasized at the headwaters
of revelation. Immediately following the dismal report of the generations
descending from Cain, whose own viciousness comes to its ugly consummation
in Lamech, is the genealogical record of “the sons of God,” generations of
righteous fathers and sons from Seth to Noah, with Enoch a luminary among
them (Gen. 4:7–6:2). Subsequently the Scripture offers numerous examples of
similar successions of faith and godliness: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph;
Boaz, Jesse, David, and Solomon; Lois, Eunice, and Timothy, etc. The number of
faithful men and women of biblical history whose lineage is provided with
sufficient detail to determine that they were the children of God-fearing parents
is very large, including most of the faithful kings of Judah, most of the heroes of
faith mentioned by name in Hebrews 11, and such New Testament figures as
John the Baptist, the Lord himself, and Mark the Evangelist. No doubt many
other such men and women, the spirituality of whose parentage is not indicated
in the Bible, were the products of believing households.
What is customary in Scripture is likewise a fact everywhere to be observed
in subsequent history. In the early church the faith of Polycarp, Origen, Chry-
sostom, and Augustine, to name but a prominent few, lived first in their parent or
parents.38 This succession of faith continued in the modern era. Thomas Boston

compensate for the family. Everything educates in the family, the handshake of the father,
the voice of the mother, the older brother, the younger sister, the baby in the cradle, the
sick loved one, the grandparents and the grandchildren, the uncles and the aunts, the
guests and friends, prosperity and adversity, the feast day and the day of mourning,
Sundays and workdays, the prayer and the thanksgiving at the table and the reading of
God’s Word, the morning and evening prayer. Everything is engaged to educate one
another, from day to day, hour to hour, unintentionally, without previously devised plan,
method or system. From everything proceeds an educative influence though it can neither
be analyzed nor calculated. A thousand insignificant things, a thousand trifles, a
thousand details, all have their effect. It is life itself that here educates, life in its greatness,
the rich, inexhaustible, universal life. The family is the school of life, because there is its
spring and hearth.” (In A. B. W. M. Kok, Herman Bavinck, Amsterdam, 1945, 18–19)
38. Paeon and Euelpistus were two Christians martyred with Justin c. 165 AD. They
were asked by their inquisitor where they learned their Christianity. Paeon replied, “From
our parents we received this good confession.” Euelpistus said, “I willingly heard the
words of Justin. But from my parents also I learned to be a Christian.” The Martyrdom of
Justin Martyr, ANF, vol. 1, 306.
186 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

used to spend days and nights in prison with his covenanter father. Donald
Cargill, the Presbyterian martyr, is reported to have told his accusers: “I have
been a fearer of God from my infancy.”39 Matthew Henry was the product of a
godly Presbyterian manse. The Wesleys were the sons of a most pious and
spiritually principled mother, as was John Newton, as was a hero of mine,
Alexander Whyte. The modern missions effort has been carried on the backs of
sons and daughters of the covenant. William Carey, Robert Morrison, David
Livingstone, and John Paton were all the products of godly homes.40 Jim Elliot is
a recent example.41 In the church history of America it is no different. Godly
successions such as that of Richard, Increase, and Cotton Mather or Charles,
Archibald Alexander, and Caspar Wistar Hodge,42 or that of the family of
Jonathan Edwards are everywhere to be found.43 And what is true of notable
Christians is no less so of great multitudes of believers of little or no reputation. I
pastor a church rich with evidence of the fact that grace runs in the lines of
generations. I am myself the third in a line of believing ministers in my Presbyte-
rian family.44 The evidence for this principle of succession in grace can be
collected from every theological tradition, from every Christian denomination,
and from every period of church history. It is as surely the experience of
Christians who would repudiate covenant succession as a theological principle,
as it is of those who embrace it. The families of Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham,
or Paul Crouch serve the point as well as those of Abraham Kuyper or J. Gresham
Machen. I do not hesitate to claim that far and away the largest part of the
Christian church at any time or place—excepting that historical moment when
the gospel first reaches a place and people—are those who were born and raised
in Christian families, and that this is true whether one is considering Christen-
dom as an outward phenomenon or only the company of the faithful followers of
Christ.

39. J. Howie, Lives of the Scottish Covenanters, reprinted, Greenville, 1981, 391.
40. There is an especially exquisite account of the spiritual world which John Paton’s
devout parents provided for their children and the force of their instruction and example
in his autobiography, John G. Paton: Missionary to the New Hebrides, reprinted, Edinburgh,
1965, 3–26.
41. E. Elliot, The Shadow of the Almighty, New York, 1958, 23–27.
42. The latter was the grandson of Charles, the nephew of Archibald Alexander,
indicating the width as well as the depth of piety in the Hodge line.
43. On the Christian patrimony of Jonathan Edwards consult I. Murray, Jonathan
Edwards: A New Biography, Edinburgh, 1987, 3–9. On the manner in which Edwards
bequeathed the same to his own children, see 401–20.
44. When I came to my present pastorate I was delighted to discover that one of the
elders in the congregation was the son of a man who had been converted through the
preaching of my grandfather in 1914, becoming thereby the first Christian in his family.
This elder’s daughter is also a member of the congregation and now has children of her
own who are being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 187

IT IS GOD’S WILL AND DECLARED PURPOSE THAT

HIS SAVING GRACE RUN IN THE LINES OF GENERATIONS
The remarkable phenomenon of succession of Christian faith through genera-
tions, fundamental as it is to the life of the church in the world, is provided a
comprehensive explanation in Holy Scripture. It is neither an actual coincidence
that the largest number of Christians have Christian parents nor is it simply a
phenomenon left unaccounted for. Everywhere in the Bible the Lord declares it to
be his purpose that Christian marriages produce a holy seed (Mal. 2:15). One of
the primary features of the covenant the Lord established with his people is that
it embraces families and has always in view the continuation of its saving
blessing for generations to come (Gen. 17:7–9). The place this feature occupies in
the divine economy of salvation is indicated by its comprehensive and
emphatic reiteration throughout Scripture (e.g. Ex. 20:6; Deut. 4:37–40;
Ps. 100:5, 102:28, 103:17–18; Isa. 44:4, 54:13, 59:21, 65:23; Jer. 32:38–39, 35:19;
Ezek. 37:25; Zech. 10:6–7; Acts 2:38–39, 16:14–15, 31). It must be plainly stated
that the promise made to the children of the covenant is not that of a special
status of privilege but is precisely the promise of the gospel, eternal life in
heaven. Whether the form of the promise is that God should be their God
(Gen. 17:7), or that he will extend to them his righteousness (Ps. 103:17), or his
Spirit (Isa. 59:21), or his forgiveness (Acts 2:28–36), or his salvation (Acts 16:31),
the covenant which thus embraces the children with their believing parents is the
covenant of grace.45
That the Lord should so direct his saving love down the lines of generations
is only to be expected of a Father who knows what it is to love a son and to suffer
a son to fall under the divine wrath and who teaches his own children that

45. This assertion is, without question, the pivot upon which the entire discussion of
the doctrine of covenant succession must revolve. It is for this reason above all others, that
one can speak of a Reformed consensus, because Reformed theology did recognize from
the beginning that the promise God made to Abraham and his seed was, as Paul confirms,
nothing more or less than the gospel. It was on this ground that they held that covenant
infants, dying in infancy, must be saved. For God to be that infant’s God and yet that
infant not be saved would make a travesty of the Lord’s promise and empty his words of
all meaning. “To be our God” is the Scripture’s way to comprehend the whole of eternal
salvation in the fewest words. The predicament of the unbeliever is precisely that he is
“without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12) and heaven is the place where God is our God and
we are his people (Rev. 21:3). This point was not missed in Reformed theological reflection,
however much its implications may not always have been adequately elaborated. Cf.
C.Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, reprinted, Cambridge, 1960, 365–66; J. Owen, The
Works of John Owen, vol. 11, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1965, 204–225; and, with particular
application to the matter of covenant children, L. Atwater, “The Children of the Covenant,
and their ‘Part in the Lord’,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, vol. 35, no. 4 (October
1863), 622–43. The Reformed always argued that baptism was to be given to covenant
infants because, according to the covenant, the things signified therein belonged or
pertained to them, viz. the forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and the kingdom of heaven.
F. Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, pars tertia, Geneva, 1690, 465.
188 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

“everyone who loves the father loves his child as well” (1 John 5:1). It is only to
love his people genuinely and deeply that the Father should also love their
children, whom John Flavel, with a parent’s insight, somewhere describes as
“pieces of themselves wrapped in another skin.” Imagine the contrary: that
Christian parents brought children into the world with no confidence at all that
the saving grace which had been pitched upon them—among the comparatively
few in all the world so favored—would likewise be pitched upon their children,
whom they love as they love life itself. Christian parents do not imagine
themselves to be populating hell when they bring sons and daughters into the
world! Their hope and expectation are otherwise (Ps. 90:16). The fact that so
many whose theology provides no ground for such an expectation nevertheless
do not anguish over bearing children is sobering evidence of the appalling lack of
seriousness which characterizes the generality of Christians today. As McCheyne
put it in one of his characteristically solemn sermons, if anything would spoil the
joy of heaven, it would be to know that one’s children were not there.46
Contrarily, there is no joy that surpasses the joy of a spiritually minded parent
who sees his or her children walking in the truth.47 It is a true Father and a
perfect fatherly love that made and then so often repeated the promise to be a
God to his people and to their children.48

THE BIBLICAL PARADIGM IS FOR COVENANT

CHILDREN TO GROW UP IN FAITH FROM INFANCY
It is surely remarkable, the voluntarist and revivalist mentality of the modern
evangelical church notwithstanding, that Holy Scripture furnishes only one
unquestionable example of a covenant child, reared in a pious home, growing up
in unbelief to be converted in adulthood. Furthermore, the usefulness of that sole
example to justify a paradigm of “covenant conversion” is severely compromised
by its peculiar place in salvation history. The Lord’s brothers did not believe in
him during the days of his ministry, but are found together with the disciples
following the resurrection (Acts 1:14). The purpose they thus serve as witnesses
to the resurrection suggests itself as the primary explanation for their youthful
unbelief rather than that adolescent or young adult conversion is commonly to be
expected of covenant children, much less that it should be the norm. The Bible
may offer a few other examples (e. g., Josiah, 2 Chron. 34:3) of the conversion of

46. Sermons of Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Edinburgh, 1961, 30–31.

47. The reference is to 2 John 4, which may have to do with an actual mother and
children or may instead refer, under the figure of a Christian materfamilias, to a church
and its members. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, London, 1970, 137.
48. William Romaine told a correspondent of his: “Mr. Whitfield used often to say to
me, ‘how highly favoured I was; that whereas, none of his family were believers, all mine
were like those blessed people, Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.’ My
father and mother, and my three sisters, share in his love.” Works of William Romaine, vol.
8, London, 1796, 18.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 189

covenant children in adolescence or young adulthood, but these statements could

be otherwise explained and little weight should be placed upon them. Attempts
to demonstrate that Jacob was converted at Peniel or Bethel are sheer speculation.
It is not to be doubted that sometimes covenant children do grow up in unbelief
and are subsequently converted. It is striking, however, that many memorable
examples of this phenomenon (e.g., Augustine, John and Charles Wesley, Charles
Spurgeon, and A. W. Pink) suggest that there was a peculiar divine purpose in
exposing such men as the Lord would make these men to be to the experience of
unbelief, conviction, and conversion.49 For all the tacit assumption in the
evangelical world that the church’s children will have a “conversion experience,”
a conscious stepping from darkness into light, this is surely not the biblical
expectation. Several times witness is born to faith stretching back to infancy
(Ps. 22:9–10, 71:5–6;50 2 Tim. 3:15; cf. 1 Kings 18:12), and even beyond (Luke 1:15).
Further, it is emphatically clear from Deuteronomy to Proverbs to Ephesians
that nurture, not evangelism, is the paradigm of a child-rearing in the covenant
home, a nurture which presupposes a heart, however young, set free, or soon to
be set free, from the native blindness and opposition to the truth into which the
fall has cast all mankind from conception (Ps. 51:5). It can only be thought
remarkable that the contrary paradigm—adolescent unbelief overcome in an
experience of new birth—now so securely fixed in the evangelical mind, never
once appears in Scripture in an exemplary role and almost never appears at all.
Instead, there is everywhere the assumption that the covenanted grace will
overtake covenant children at the headwaters of life so that, in response to a
faithful parental and ecclesiastical nurture, they will both claim the promises
made to them and respond to the summons issued to them in a way appropriate
to each stage of life according to the measure of faith.51

49. It is worth noting as well that in the cases of Augustine or the Wesleys, an unbe-
lieving father or a very poor example of a Christian father may well have been the
providential instrumentality of their youthful unbelief. In the cases of Spurgeon and Pink,
the conversions in young adulthood were still not unrelated to the faithful nurture of their
parents.
50. Of these verses Kidner writes: “These thoughts run parallel to those of 22:9ff.,
though they are differently expressed. Here the psalmist looks back to the limits of his
memory (5) and beyond (6), to be reassured by the threefold cord of a relationship that
was lifelong, that had sufficed in other times of frailty, and that was not of his own
devising. On his side there had been filial dependence, but God had been already at work
for him, ‘Before my infant heart conceived/From whom these comforts flowed.’ ” Psalms,
(TOTC) vol. 1, 251.
51. Whether it is wise to speak of covenant infants as presumptively regenerate, as
do Kuyper and Schenck, is a separate question. Even Kuyper himself was careful to say
that to speak thus was not to suggest that all covenant infants were born again in infancy,
only that they were to be considered regenerate and treated accordingly. A. Kuyper,
“Calvinism and Confessional Revision,” Presbyterian Quarterly, vol. 5., no. 4 (Oct. 1891),
502–3. The problem, in my judgment, lies less in the notion of this presumption, carefully
190 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

circumscribed as it could be, than in Kuyper’s view of regeneration which he took over
from certain Reformed theologians of the scholastic period. Voetius, for example,
maintained that regeneration was essentially the implanting of a habitus or a seed of grace,
which can for a long time slumber in the heart without coming to expression in actual
conversion. In this sense Voetius held that the apostle Paul and the thief on the cross had
been born again from their earliest infancy. “De Statu Electorum ante Conversionem,”
D. Gysberti Voetii Selectarum Disputationum Fasciculus, Amsterdam, 1887, 262. Witsius
thought similarly. See van Genderen, Herman Witsius, 218–19. Cf. C. Graafland, De
Zekerheid van het Geloof, Amsterdam, 1977, 151–52. The always-judicious Bavinck preferred
to say that Reformed theologians always held that such regeneration in infancy can occur,
often does occur, and that the church is to consider and treat her children, according to the
judgment of love, not as heathen children but as true children of the covenant until they
prove the contrary. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. 4, Kampen, 1918, 116; cf. 30–35. Sibrandus
Lubbertus, for example, wrote in 1618 that while it cannot be known with certainty that
any particular child has received the Holy Spirit, we may be certain that the Holy Spirit is
given to covenant infants as a class on the grounds of the covenant and the promise of God.
C. van der Woude, Sibrandus Lubbertus: Leven en werken, in het bijzonder naar zijn correspon-
dentie, Kampen, 1963, 374. Van der Woude goes on to say that in holding this opinion
Lubbertus shows himself a good disciple of Beza and Ursinus. On the controversy on this
point in the Dutch church, cf. Veenhof, Prediking en Uitverkiezing, 290–312. Hodge wrote,
“we do not assert their regeneration, or that they are true members of Christ’s body; we
only assert that they belong to the class of persons whom we are bound to regard and
treat as members of Christ’s Church. This is the only sense in which even adults are members of
the Church, so far as men are concerned.” “The General Assembly,” Biblical Repertory and
Princeton Review, vol. 20, 351, cited in Schenck, op. cit., 129–130. Warfield speaks for a “fair
presumption of inclusion in Christ’s body” built upon a divine promise. “The Polemics of
Infant Baptism,” The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 9, New York 1932, 390. J. Murray
says that “baptized infants are to be received as children of God and treated accordingly.”
Christian Baptism, Philadelphia, 1972, 59. Any of these constructions is greatly to be
preferred to the view of Archibald Alexander who held, as did Thornwell subsequently,
that “the education of children should proceed on the principle that they are in an
unregenerate state, until evidences of piety clearly appear.” Thoughts on Religious
Experience, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1967, 11–13. For a period of several years during his
ministry Alexander doubted the validity of infant baptism [See K. W. Alexander, The Life
of Archibald Alexander, D. D., reprinted, Harrisonburg, 1991, 203–224]. His description of
what should constitute evidence of regeneration in the young, if applied, mutatis mutandis,
to adults, would leave the largest part of the believing church in a state of perpetual
anxiety. I do not know what Scripture text could be cited in support of Alexander’s
theory. He cites none. William Young subjected Kuyper’s “presumptive regeneration” to
severe criticism in his “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism,” Westminster Theological
Journal, vol. 36, nos. 1–2 (Fall–Winter 1973–1974), 48–64, 156–173. He does demonstrate the
tenuousness of Kuyper’s claim that the Reformed theology in its formative period
typically defined the status of covenant children specifically in terms of presumed
regeneration. Young does not demonstrate, however, that there was not, in fact, a
presumption—based on the divine promise and the church membership of covenant
infants—upon which these children were considered and treated as Christians. Young’s
appeal to Alexander’s viewpoint as typical of Reformed and Presbyterian thought is
clearly a mistake and substantially vitiates his general criticism of what he calls Kuyper’s
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 191

Though not impossible, it is clearly not the normal expectation in Scripture

that a covenant child should experience a conscious conversion or endure a
period in which he or she has a sense of standing outside the covenant commu-
nity, without God and without hope in the world. Rather, the normal experience
of the children of believers should be that of David, who trusted in the Lord from
his mother’s breasts. No doubt this is in fact the experience of many covenant
children who, nevertheless, “have” a conversion experience in adolescence
because it is required of them by their ecclesiastical tradition. My own observa-
tion confirms some recent research suggesting that both the frequency of
conversion experiences and their type vary distinctly according to church
background.52 That such “experiences” in the case of covenant children actually
represent passage from darkness to light is, in many cases, highly doubtful,
though they may well represent certain particularly important crises of illumina-
tion or repentance.53
The significance of the biblical expectation of infant faith for both the impor-
tance and the method of parental nurture in a covenant home cannot be
overstated. The incalculable mercy that it is to grow up in the faith should be
often acknowledged in home and in church.54

THE CHILDREN OF THE COVENANT ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

This part of the biblical doctrine of covenant succession needs less elaboration
because it is better represented in the standard works of Reformed ecclesiology
and defenses of infant baptism.55 By virtue of their sacramental initiation, of the
requirement of their presence at renewals of the covenant (Deut. 29:9–15;
Joel 2:16), of their being addressed as among the saints and as part of the church
with corresponding obligations (Eph. 1:1; 6:1–3), of their holiness (1 Cor. 7:14), of
the kingdom of God being theirs (Matt. 18:13–15), they are members of the
church. All the more, given the presumption of early faith, they meet the
requirements of church membership. Another lovely and highly important way
of making this point in Scripture is the Lord’s practice of speaking of covenant

“presumptivism.” My own opinion is that to speak of a presumption of regeneration is

not helpful. It is not the way the Scripture speaks and introduces unnecessary complica-
tions. Further, in current usage, “presumption” may well imply to many minds an
unwarranted assumption.
52. M. Barker, “Psychological Aspects of Inner Healing,” in Pulpit and People: Essays
in Honor of William Still on His 75th Birthday, Edinburgh, 1986, 93–94.
53. So John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1977, 199–201.
54. “The Duke of Buccleuch, at the unveiling of the [Sir Walter] Scott monument at
Westminster some years ago, said he had spoken with Scott (perhaps been fondled by
him), but it was before he could remember, and yet it was one of the great memories of his
life. Baptism should not be less to any than that.” P. T. Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and
the Sacraments, London, 1917, 168.
55. R. Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism, London,
1651.
192 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

children as his children (Ezek. 16:20–21; Mal. 2:15; cf. Isa. 29:23). It is again
extraordinary how thoroughly rooted in evangelical culture has become the
practice of covenant children “joining the church” when Scripture provides
neither instruction nor illustration supportive of the practice, but, rather, in every
way regard such children as already part of the community of the saints from the
beginning of their lives. Indeed, the recognition that covenant children are church
members from their infancy furnishes the simplest resolution of certain practical
objections commonly raised against the doctrine of covenant succession. If, for
example, it be objected that it cannot be known that a very little child is or will
eventually become a faithful follower of Christ, it needs only be pointed out that,
so far as human judgment is concerned, that uncertainty applies equally to those
who enter the church from the world by profession of faith.56 Just as those who
enter the church from the world, covenant children are required, as all church
members, to grow up in the grace and knowledge of God and to live worthy of
the calling they have received. As with older church members, others are
appointed to help them do so.57
The immensely important consequence of this infant membership is that
the duty of parents and the church becomes, thereby, to train their children to
believe, feel, and live as becomes the children of God and members of his
household, which they are! Especially parents, who are the masters of their
children’s thoughts in the formative years, are responsible to ensure that the
children of the covenant grow up fully aware and appreciative of the promises
which have been made to them by name and the summons which was issued
to them at the headwaters of their lives. Surely one of the most dismal
evidences of the debasement of this doctrine in Presbyterian churches is in the

56. So Warfield, “Polemics of Infant Baptism, 390; C. Hodge, The Church and Its Pol-
ity, 216.
57. Thornwell’s opinion, elaborated above, that covenant children were but quasi
members of the church with an entirely different status from that of professors, is so far
removed from the statements of Holy Scripture itself and so alien to the Bible’s entire
approach to the question, that it serves well as both a warning of the power of even an
evangelical spiritual culture to deafen the church to the Bible’s actual words and as a
reminder that, even among our Reformed authorities, from time to time it is to be
observed that bonus dormitat Homerus! On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the
common practice in Reformed churches of allowing persons, baptized in infancy and thus
members of the church, who grow up to spiritual indifference or active rebellion and
who, accordingly, never “join the church,” to be treated as if they were never members of
the church is practically Thornwell’s view, however unwittingly. It has not been so
always and everywhere. John a Lasco’s method with baptized children who, once adults,
did not seek the Lord’s table was to warn them and then to expel them from the church.
A. G. Honig, Alexander Comrie, reprinted, Leiden, 1991, Stelling 13.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 193

general insensibility of covenant children themselves to their status, their

breathtaking privileges, and their sacred obligations.58

PARENTS ARE CHARGED TO NURTURE THEIR

CHILDREN IN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND LOVE
The spiritual culture of their children, their instruction in the works and will of
God, their preparation for a life of faith is made the direct responsibility of the
church’s parents according to a great many texts (Gen. 18:19; Ex. 10:1–2, 12:24–27,
13:8, 14–16, 31:12–13; Deut. 4:9, 6:4–9; Ps. 44:1, 78:1–8; Isa. 38:19; 2 Tim. 3:14–15).
The entirety of Proverbs is illustration both of the manner and substance of that
covenantal nurture (the covenantal name of God is used throughout the book).
According to Scripture the covenant home is to be both a school of faith and a
temple in which the acknowledgment of God and his worship confirm and adorn
the instruction (cf. Ps. 118:15; 2 Sam. 6:20). The larger community of faith and
especially the ministry also bear responsibility for this nurture of mind and heart
(Hos. 4:6; Mic. 2:9; Jer. 2:8–9; 2 Chron. 24:2, 26:5; cf. Zech. 11:16).

FAITHFUL NURTURE OF COVENANT CHILDREN IS THE

DIVINE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THEIR AWAKENING TO SPIRITUAL LIFE
The Scripture repeatedly and emphatically connects the fact and the quality of
the nurture of covenant children with the spiritual outcome of their lives. It
draws this connection both positively and negatively.
First, over and again the Scripture declares that the nurture of covenant
children in knowledge, faith, love, and obedience will issue in a life of covenantal
faithfulness. Faithful parenting will result, by covenanted grace, in believing
children. Immediately upon the definitive revelation of the promise of covenant
succession in Genesis 17:7, covenantal nurture is identified as the instrumentality
of its fulfillment (18:19, cf. 22:16–18, 26:3–5; Deut. 28:1–4). The straightforward
connection established between the meeting of this condition and the fulfillment
of this promise must neither be ignored nor minimized. That the faith and
salvation of the covenant’s children is suspended on the faithfulness of their
nurture is a biblical commonplace. The point is made repeatedly and emphati-
cally. Psalm 78:1–8 may be regarded as a locus classicus (cf. Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:40,
5:29; Ps. 102:28, 103:17–18, 112:1–2; Isa. 59:20–21). The fact of the connection
between faithful nurture and covenantal faithfulness in the life of the church’s
children is one of the grand themes of Proverbs (e.g., 2:1–7:27, 14:26, 19:18, 22:6,

58. “But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating our children in the Church, just
as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, ‘You are
Christian children, you are Christ’s, you ought to think and feel and act as such!’ And, on
this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping
them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and
join the church? I am distressed with long-harbored misgivings on this point.” J. W.
Alexander, “Forty Years’ Familiar Letters,” 2, 25, cited in Schenck, 81.
194 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

15, 23:14) and is unquestionably the presupposition of these many texts (some of
which are listed under the previous section) which urge upon parents the duty of
instructing their children in the faith and leading them in the ways of God! We
find Paul in Ephesians 6:1–4 playing the role of the godly father to the church’s
children and in the same breath admonishing parents so to raise their children as
to bring their spiritual blessing to pass.
The same connection between parents’ faithfulness and their children’s sal-
vation is also made negatively. This is a specific application of the general laws,
comprehensively taught and illustrated in Scripture, that children will suffer for
the sins of their parents (Ex. 20:5; Jer. 2:9; 32:18; 36:31; Lam. 2:11; Hos. 4:6;
Luke 11:50) and will imitate their parents in wrongdoing (1 Kings 22:52;
2 Kings 17:41; Ezek. 20:24, 27). Responsibility for the betrayal of the covenant on
the part of the priests Hophni and Phinehas is laid at the feet of their father,
Eli (1 Sam. 2:29, 3:13; note “young men” in 2:17). It is surely intended to be
instructive that the account of Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam. 13) immediately
follows upon the account of David’s adultery. David was no Job (1:1–15). It is no
slander to acknowledge that he was an inattentive and ineffective father who by
his instruction, to the extent he gave it, showed his children the way to heaven,
but by his example too often led them by the hand to hell. The sorry history of his
indulgence of Absalom demonstrates his parental incompetence, the rebellion of
his son Adonijah is directly attributed to his parental failings (1 Kings 1:6), and
Solomon’s spiritual collapse in his maturity is a striking imitation of his father’s.
It is most instructive how the chronicler pays attention to the influence of
parentage for good or ill on the kings of Judah. All the righteous kings have
Hebrew mothers, so far as can be determined, and the fact that these women are
identified as they are strongly suggests that they were to some significant degree
responsible for the faithfulness of their sons. Contrarily, in two cases (12:13–14,
22:3), the identity of the king’s mother is offered as an explanation for his betrayal
of the covenant it was his duty to obey and protect. A particularly noteworthy
and solemnizing instance of a godly parent nevertheless horribly failing his
children is that of Hezekiah, perhaps Judah’s best king, whose cruelly self-
centered response to the announcement of impending judgment upon the nation
for his own sin must have had a profound effect upon his young son, Manasseh,
who was soon to succeed him.59
Further, there is the very important evidence of Titus 1:6 where Paul lays

59. It is worth pondering the fact that Manasseh was at a most impressionable age
when Hezekiah so terribly betrayed his faith, but Josiah was at a similarly impressionable
period during Manasseh’s late repentance. Manasseh was Josiah’s grandfather, but the
facts that Josiah’s father, Amon, became king when he was only twenty-two years of age
and reigned for only two years suggest that the imposing grandfather, with his im-
mensely interesting and impressive personal history as well as his furious repentance,
may well have made the far greater impression on the boy growing up at court than his
own father’s weak and inconsequential life.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 195

down the requirement that to qualify for consideration for the eldership a man
must have believing children.60 Upon this rock must finally shatter every attempt
to argue that parents are not directly accountable for the spiritual issue of their
children’s lives. A man with unbelieving children is a man with a defect which
disqualifies him from the leadership of the church.
It is to be noted, finally, that nowhere does the Scripture suggest the con-
trary, that blameless parental nurture might still result in one’s children growing
up to a life of unbelief.61 That faithful nurture should be a real condition of the

60. Paul uses here the adjective rather than the participle, but the authorities agree
that the sense is “believing in Christ” or “being a Christian.” BAG, 671.
61. It is not enough to imply, as is often done, that taking with full seriousness the
suspension of the fulfillment of the promise to the children upon the faithfulness of the
parents somehow undermines the sovereignty of grace. Bruce Ray writes: “Neither
reading the Bible nor praying will bring a man to salvation unless God is pleased to do a
mighty work of grace within his heart. So it is with our children. We can administer the
rod under God’s authority with all firmness, and with all persevering consistency in a
context of love, and it will come to nothing unless God works a work of grace in their
hearts. . . . We can never assume that if we properly raise our children they will
automatically be Christians. There are too many examples in the Scriptures of godly
parents who had wicked offspring.” Withhold Not Correction, 67. But that is a misstatement
of the case in more ways than in his speaking of covenant children “automatically”
becoming Christians, an idea it would be very difficult to demonstrate has ever been held
by any Christian writer, much less a Reformed one. The question is not whether a parent
is godly, but whether he or she was faithful in the matter of parenthood. Even the most
godly of men and women fall short in many ways. And where does the Scripture ever
suggest that a blameless nurture could end in a son or daughter’s unbelief? The texts
which Ray cites as teaching the responsibility of parents seem rather explicitly to exclude
that possibility. It is highly significant that not once in his entire book devoted to the
spiritual nurture and discipline of Christians’ children, does Ray ever appeal to the
promise of God to be our children’s God. But to put parental obligations ahead of or to
consider them in isolation from a divine promise is to place works before faith. That
promise may indeed be suspended upon conditions, as are all the promises of the gospel,
conditions which divine grace will ensure are fulfilled in the case of the elect, but there
remains the promise of God. It is a false disjunction to pit that promise against the
sovereignty of grace. It is to doubt God’s Word to believe that His promise will not be
kept even if the required conditions are met. Grace does not abolish conditions, it fulfils
them. The appeal to Jacob and Esau does not serve the purpose. It is not at all clear that
the two sons were similarly nurtured in the faith or that either one was given a godly
upbringing. God’s grace may well cover many parental sins. His promise only constrains
him to crown his own gift when, by his grace, parents raise their children faithfully in the
love and fear of God. Why in the same family one believes and another does not can often
be accounted for by the different nurture or example each received. Joseph did not receive
the same upbringing as his brothers. There are many factors, however, which are known
and can be weighed only by God. On the “divinely constituted relation between the piety
of parents and that of their children” and on the conditionality of the divine promise to be
the God of believers’ children, cf. Hodge, “Bushnell on Christian Nurture,” 504–7 and
Atwater, “The Children of the Church and Sealing Ordinances,” 16–17. The whole point
196 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

fulfillment of the promise of covenant succession is, after all, only to be expected.
It is exactly parallel to other such conditions and to the stress placed on other
instrumentalities of saving grace. Just as those who are far off will not be brought
near unless someone is sent to preach to them, just as the church will not remain
faithful to God unless her ministry remains faithful, so the church’s children will
not awaken to a life of living faith without covenantal nurture. Such are the
appointed means of grace which divine sovereignty, with its secret purposes,
provides for all who are being saved.62
I am entirely aware of the poignant pastoral dilemma posed by the necessity
of preaching the accountability of parents for the salvation of their offspring. In
almost any congregation there are parents grieving over the unbelief of their
children. No faithful pastor wishes to rub salt in an open wound. Further, the
calculation of any parent’s accountability is no simple matter and distinctions,
even when carefully noted, are too easily ignored to the further dismay and
confusion of everyone. Scripture itself clearly introduces mitigating factors and
points, by analogy, to the possibility of others. How old were the children when
the parents became believers? It would seem that virtually all accountability for a

was put in a more homely way by the mother of Wilhelmus a Brakel, the celebrated figure
of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. Brakel himself often acknowledged that he could not
recollect a time in his life when he was an unbeliever, having trusted in the Lord from his
mother’s breasts. His biographer notes that the principle of grace, which had been so
early implanted in his heart by the Spirit of God, was nurtured by the faithful instruction,
discipline, and godly example of his parents, especially their prayers. His mother prayed
so incessantly that her son would walk with God, that he remembers her frequently
saying to him, “O, what you will have to answer for, if you do not fear God!” F. J. Los,
Wilhelmus A Brakel, reprinted, Leiden, 1991, 25–26.
62. It is the faithful acknowledgement of the seriousness with which the Lord views
this parental nurture as a condition of the fulfillment of his promise that is the true
protection against a nominalism which denatures the doctrine of covenant succession and
bases upon it a false presumption of the eternal security of the church’s children. Holding
fast to the clear connection drawn in Scripture between the fulfillment of God’s promise
and the divinely appointed instrumentality of its fulfillment is a much more effective
deterrent to a careless presumption than having accurately stated the ground of infant
baptism. Both Kuyper and his critics lay the stress on the latter rather than the former. Cf.
Veenhof, Prediking en Uitverkiezing, 290–305; Young, “Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.” It is
interesting that it is precisely this biblical emphasis upon the divinely appointed
instrumentality of the promise’s fulfillment which is missing both in the Reformed Baptist
treatment of Bruce Ray and the arguably “hyper-Calvinistic” treatment of Herman
Hoeksema. Believers and Their Seed, Grand Rapids, 1971. In both works the concern is to
protect the absolute sovereignty of grace. It seems to me that in both works there is a
failure to do justice to the covenantal character of the divine grace and a similar
propensity to argue from God’s secrets, instead of resting content with the actual
statements of the Bible. A grateful and faithful undertaking of the appointed means in
reliance upon the required and promised grace is what is asked for in Scripture.
H. Bavinck, Paedagogische Beginselen, Kampen, 1904, 90–92.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 197

failure of nurture could, in some cases, be thus expunged. Were both parents
Christians (note Paul’s indefiniteness in 1 Corinthians 7:14–16)? Was the
unbelieving parent passive or hostile? How well-served were the parents by the
instruction of their church (Isa. 3:14, Jer. 2:8–9, 10:21; Lam 4:13)? In many cases it
would seem that a church and its ministry would be directly responsible for the
unbelief of children whose proper nurture was undermined by the teaching of
false views of the relation between God, the gospel, and the church’s children.
What was the general condition of the church at the time (Judges 2:10, 19; 3:6)?63
Accountability for a covenant child’s betrayal of the gospel lies chiefly with him
or her (Ezek. 18:1–4). The remainder of the accountability parents bear with
church and minister—but always according to such aforementioned principles of
equity introduced in Scripture. Further, God’s dealings are an impenetrable
mystery and latitude must be given to God’s freedom to be merciful in varying
degrees (Luke 7:41–50; Matt. 20:1–16). The Lord has a right to cover more
parental sins in one case than in another and is free to require that one parent see
the fruit of his parental sins while hiding it from another. Moreover, no doubt in
regard to parental nurture, as everything else in the Christian life, “to whom
much is given, much is required.”
All of this notwithstanding, it needs finally to be faced squarely that in our
day Christian people suffer from a terribly diminished estimation of sin. The
generality of Christians today genuinely and feelingly acknowledge only
relatively innocuous transgressions. The defensiveness of most Christians, even
when accused of relatively minor and common misdeeds, is only to be expected
of people who have come to measure their guilt chiefly in terms of those sins
which are generally tolerated in the church as common frailties. There is an eerie
disjunction between the contemporary Christian’s measurement of his or her
own sin and the same Christian’s doctrines of an infinitely costly atonement and
an everlasting hell. Few Christians today are prepared to acknowledge that they
have a direct responsibility for someone else’s eternal damnation. Even among
ministers there are few who seem actually to be bearing the terrible weight of
their accountability, notwithstanding the Scripture’s plain-speaking
(Ezek. 3:17–19; Acts 20:26–27; Heb. 13:17). But Christians must be made to see
that the sins which sent our Redeemer to the cross are not peccadilloes, but titanic
things, high crimes. And among those terrible evils which are found in the life of
even some of the most godly men and women, such as David himself, are those
sins of parental unfaithfulness which contribute to the spiritual death of their
children. Consequently, no Christian, thinking rightly, should pray any less
solemnly and urgently than this about his or her parenthood:

63. “But, alas, we may say of most men’s religion what learned Rivet speaks con-
cerning the errors of the fathers, ‘They were not so much their own errors, as the errors of
the times wherein they lived.’ ” “To the Christian Reader, especially Heads of Families”
[The preface to the first edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith], reprinted,
Edinburgh, 1967, 4.
198 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

O Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, give us such a seed! Give us a seed
right with Thee! Smite us and our house with ever-lasting barrenness rather
than that our seed should not be right with Thee. O God, give us our chil-
dren. Give us our children. A second time, and by a far better birth, give us
our children to be beside us in Thy holy covenant. For it had been better we
had never been born; it had been better we had never been betrothed; it had
been better we had sat all our days solitary unless our children are to be
right with Thee. . . . But thou, O God, art Thyself a Father, and thus hast in
Thyself a Father’s heart. Hear us, then, for our children, O our Father. . . . In
season and out of season; we shall not go up into our bed; we shall not give
sleep to our eyes nor slumber to our eyelids till we and all our seed are right
with Thee.64

CONCLUSION
It is imperative that the doctrine of covenant succession be recovered in our
churches. Its loss has deeply diminished the church’s appreciation of and wonder
over the liberality and perfection of divine grace.65 Further, the appropriation by
faith of this divine promise and summons is the means appointed to furnish the
church with generation after generation of great multitudes of Christian servants
and soldiers who reach manhood and womanhood well taught, sturdy in faith,
animated by love for God and man, sophisticated in the ways of the world and
the Devil, polished in the manners of genuine Christian brotherhood, overshad-
owed by the specter of the Last Day, nerved to deny themselves and take up their
cross so as to be counted worthy of greater exploits for Christ and Kingdom.
Currently the church not only suffers a terrible shortage of such other-worldly
and resolute Christians, superbly prepared for spiritual warfare, but, in fact, is
hemorrhaging its children into the world. Christian evangelism will never make a

64. A. Whyte, Bunyan Characters, vol. 3, London, 1902, 289–290. Whyte, I believe,
beautifully sums up the Lord’s own summons and invitation to parents when he writes:
“God cannot resist a parent’s prayer when it is sufficiently backed up with a parent’s
sanctification.” Lord Teach us to Pray, London, n.d., 124. In a similar vein P. T. Forsyth
writes: “Prayer is one form of sacrifice, but if it is the only form it is vain oblation. If we
pray for our child that he may have God’s blessing, we are really promising that nothing
shall be lacking on our part to be a divine blessing to him. And if we have no kind of
religious relation to him (as plenty of Christian parents have none), our prayer is quite
unreal, and its failure should not be a surprise. To pray for God’s kingdom is also to
engage ourselves to service and sacrifice for it.” The Soul of Prayer, London, 1916, 28.
65. “It is precisely this which Satan is attempting in assailing infant baptism with
such an army: that, once this testimony of God’s grace is taken away from us, the promise
which, through it, is put before our eyes may eventually vanish little by little. From this
would grow up not only an impious ungratefulness toward God’s mercy but a certain
negligence about instructing our children in piety. For when we consider that immedi-
ately from birth God takes and acknowledges them as his children, we feel a strong
stimulus to instruct them in an earnest fear of God and observance of the law.” Calvin,
Institutes, 4.16.32.
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 199

decisive difference in our culture when it amounts merely in an effort to replace

losses due to widespread desertion from our own camp. The gospel will always
fail to command attention and carry conviction when large numbers of those who
grow up under its influence are observed abandoning it for the world. Recover-
ing our Presbyterian inheritance and inscribing the doctrine of covenant
succession upon the heart of family and church must have a wonderfully
solemnizing and galvanizing effect. It will set Christian parents seriously to work
on the spiritual nurture of their children, equipping them and requiring them to
live the life of covenant faith and duty to which their God and Savior called them
at the headwaters of life. And, ever conscious of the greater effect of parental
example, they will forsake the easy way, shamelessly and joyfully to live a life of
devotion and obedience which adorns and ennobles the faith in the eyes of their
children. This they will do, who embrace the Bible’s doctrine, lest the Lord on the
Great Day should say to them: “You took your sons and daughters whom you
bore to me and sacrificed them to idols.”66

EDITOR’S APPENDIX:
QUESTIONS RAISED BY READING RAYBURN’S ESSAY
(V. PHILIPS LONG)

IN READING, AND RE-READING, ROB RAYBURN’S essay in preparation for its

publication, I and other faculty members found ourselves beginning to compile
lists of questions and concerns that his provocative piece raised in our own
minds. The following is my own list, and so I have signed my name to it, but it
may be taken as representative of concerns raised by other faculty members as
well. Perhaps some of these concerns will resonate with readers of Presbyterion. I
offered to submit my list to the author so that he might consider them and
perhaps make some adjustments to the essay, but in the end we agree that it was
probably best to let him speak for himself. Nevertheless, he graciously encour-
aged me to include my questions and concerns as an appendix, since one of his
primary objectives is to spark fruitful discussion on what is a very important
topic. (There is no particular significance to the order of the items in the list; I
simply present them more or less as they occurred to me while reading and
reflecting on the essay.)

1. Salvation by works—of the parents? How would you safe-guard your assertion
of an “emphatic connection . . . between the faithfulness of parental nurture

66. “ ‘They incur the guilt of an infamous robber or thief,’ as Bucer has gravely ob-
served, de Regno Christi, lib. 2, c. 9, ‘who are not at the greatest pains to bring up and
form those they have consecrated by baptism to the Lord Christ, to the obedience of
Christ. For by this neglect, as much as in them lies, they again rob God of the children
they gave up to him, betray and enslave them to the devil.’ ” Witsius, Economy of the
Covenants, vol. 2, 441.
200 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

and the eventual spiritual convictions of children” (168) from devolving into
a kind of salvation by works, one generation removed? On page 193 you
write, “Faithful parenting will result, by covenanted grace, in believing chil-
dren.” And on page 194 you maintain that parents are “directly accountable
for the spiritual issue of their children’s lives.” Should not such statements
be qualified? For example, should not your statement of page 194 be framed
in such a way as to prevent the assumption that “directly accountable . . .”
means “solely, or ultimately, responsible for the spiritual issue of their chil-
dren’s lives”? On page 184 you write: “The family is not the sole instrumen-
tality of the divine purpose, of course, but it is of vast importance.” And on
page 196 you do finally introduce a number of qualifications (“mitigating
factors”), but these come only on the twenty-ninth page of a thirty-two-page
essay. You acknowledge, for instance, that “accountability for a covenant
child’s betrayal of the gospel lies chiefly with him or her (Ezek. 18:1–4),” and
you admit that “God’s dealings are an impenetrable mystery.” Would not
much confusion be avoided, if such statements were made earlier and more
frequently in the essay?
2. Can parental faithfulness “constrain” God? On page 169 you equate the
covenantal promise to Abraham with the promise of eternal life. Is this a
conditional promise (as your footnote 61 implies)? If so, on what grounds is
parental nurture singled out as the condition determining the child’s spiri-
tual health? Should not other factors—such as the will of the child, envi-
ronmental circumstances outside or beyond parental control, etc.—be given
due weight? (Again, your list of “mitigating factors” on page 196 helps, but
seems “too little too late” to prevent misunderstanding of the full picture.)
Your description of the godly upbringing of Wilhelmus a Brakel (end of
footnote 61) may serve to illustrate the difficulty I sense here. After high-
lighting “the faithful instruction, discipline, and godly example of his par-
ents,” you write: “His mother prayed so incessantly that her son would walk
with God, that he remembers her frequently saying to him, ‘O, what you
will have to answer for, if you do not fear God!’ ” If Brakel qualifies as a
covenant child, and he does, and if (as you assert earlier in footnote 61) “His
[God’s] promise only constrains him to crown his own gift when, by his
grace, parents raise their children faithfully in the love and fear of God,”
then shouldn’t Brakel’s mother’s cry have been “O, what I shall have to
answer for, if you do not fear God!” Simply put, to assert that faithful par-
enting “constrains” God with respect to covenant children seems to leave
little room for other mitigating factors, page 196 notwithstanding.
3. What about the issue of “presumptive regeneration” of covenant infants? Granted
that it is wrong to view covenant children as “out of the church” (174), in
what sense are they to be considered “in the church”? On page 176 you
quote Hodge to the effect that children of Christian parents are to be viewed,
no less than professing adults, as members of the church “on the basis of
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 201

presumptive membership in the invisible church.” Does not “membership in

the invisible church” suggest regenerative status? And if so, does not
Hodge’s statement imply the presumptive regeneration of covenant infants—
or at least leave itself open to that construal? In footnote 51 you rightly ques-
tion the wisdom of using “presumptive regeneration” language with respect
to covenant children and cite (approvingly) a statement of Hodge’s that
appears to me to be (happily) inconsistent with his earlier: “we do not assert
their regeneration, or that they are true members of Christ’s body; we only
assert that they belong to the class of persons whom we are bound to regard
and treat as members of Christ’s church.” Would not such an important
qualification as this serve better to forestall misunderstanding if it were ele-
vated to the main body of the text?
4. Are “nurture” and “evangelism” mutually exclusive categories? Is it necessary or
helpful to present “covenantal nurture” and “evangelism” as mutually ex-
clusive approaches to covenant children? (See, e.g., 178.) If “evangelism”
involves presenting the good news of Christ’s atoning death on behalf of
sinners and enjoining confession of sin and response in faith, what part of
this would not be a part of “covenantal nurture”? Indeed, your description
on page 189 of the pervasive biblical assumption that “the covenanted grace
will overtake covenant children at the headwaters of life so that, in response
to a faithful parental and ecclesiastical nurture, they will both claim the prom-
ises made to them and respond to the summons issued to them in a way ap-
propriate to each stage of life according to the measure of faith” (my
emphasis) is close, or even identical, to how a response to evangelism might
be described.
5. Does “promise” imply potentiality or possession? When you cite the historic,
Reformed confessional status of the view that “covenant children are Chris-
tians” (179), do you mean “presumptively Christians” and thus to be treated
as Christians, or do you have something stronger in view? If the latter, then
how could parental failure jeopardize the child’s status, once saved? As you
continue in the same paragraph, you describe covenant children as “heirs of
the same blessing promised to their parents”; would you make a distinction
between being an heir and being in possession of the blessing? In a similar
vein, does not an ambiguity inherent in the phrase “promise of . . .” em-
ployed several times on page 187 and passim? Does “promise” imply poten-
tiality or possession?
6. General or individual—what is the nature of God’s promise regarding covenant
children? On pages 187–88 you argue forcefully that “the promise made to
the children of the covenant is not that of a special status of privilege but is
precisely the promise of the gospel, eternal life in heaven.” Is this promise,
and indeed are the Old Testament promises to which you refer, to be under-
stood as promises made to families (or peoples) in a general sense or to each
individual member in particular? If the promise appertains to each individ-
202 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

ual and implies more than mere potential, then how can any circumstance—
parental failure or some other—reverse it? It may be inferred from your
summary of the view of Sibrandus Lubbertus—i.e., “while it cannot be
known with certainty that any particular child has received the Holy Spirit,
we may be certain that the Holy Spirit is given to covenant infants as a class
on the grounds of the covenant and the promise of God” (footnote 51, my
emphasis)—that you would favor the general-sense view. But just what does
it mean that the Holy Spirit is given to covenant infants “as a class”? And if
“it cannot be known with certainty that a particular child has received the
Holy Spirit,” how should this be factored into the assessment of parental
accountability for the spiritual state of a particular child? This leads to my
next question.
7. Does an unbelieving child necessarily indicate a defective parent? On page 194,
you assert that “a man with unbelieving children is a man with a defect
which disqualifies him from the leadership of the church.” How would this
rule be worked out in practice? What percentage of unbelieving children
would disqualify a man? How should “unbelieving” be defined? And at
what point in the child’s development should the verdict believ-
ing/unbelieving be rendered? If applied rigorously, such a blanket statement
would mean that Billy Graham, for example, and many other prominent
Christian leaders would have had to withdraw from their leadership posi-
tions for a significant period, if not permanently. Or are you simply saying
that a man whose children are behaving in such a way as to bring public
disgrace to the name of Christ and to the gospel should withdraw from
leadership for a time to search his own heart and to seek fervently to bring
his house into order?
8. Is faithful parental nurture a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, or but one
of many conditions that bear upon the promise of covenant succession? When you
assert on page 196 that “faithful nurture” is a “real condition of the fulfill-
ment of the promise of covenant succession,” what class of condition do you
have in view? It is apparently not a necessary condition, for you note, “God’s
grace may well cover many parental sins” (footnote 61). Is it then a sufficient
condition? Statements such as “[f]aithful parenting will result, by cove-
nanted grace, in believing children” (193) and “His promise . . . constrains
him to crown his own gift when, by his grace, parents raise their children
faithfully in the love and fear of God” (footnote 61) could easily be con-
strued as affirming “faithful parenting” as a sufficient condition for the salva-
tion of their covenant children. And this brings me back to my original
concern—viz., that qualifications and “mitigating factors” should be high-
lighted more frequently, and sooner rather than later, if misunderstandings
are to be avoided (see comment 1).
 S CRIPTURE I NDEX

GENESIS EXODUS
2:24 75n8 12 55
3 77 12:3 6n3, 56
4:7–6:2 185 12:3–4 55
7:1 163 12:4 5, 6n3
8:20–21 52 12:6 6n3
9:4 125 12:8 122
9:13 159n38 12:10 60
10:5 55n8 12:13 159n38
12:1–3 148 12:13–14 198
14 79 12:14 121
15 76 12:18 56
17 76, 116 12:19–20 56
17:1 92 12:24–27 193
17:7 17, 80, 96, 148,160, 161, 12:21 6n3
170, 189, 193 12:19 6n3
17:7–9 187 12:24 159, 163
17:8 92 12:26 5n3, 6n3
17:9 159 12:26–27 57
17:11 159n38 12:27 54
17:11–13 163 12:37 55n9
18:19 15, 96, 193 12:43 56
22:2 52 12:43–49 56
22:13 52 12:47 6n3
22:16–18 193 12:47 55
26:3–5 193 12:50 55
27:4 81 12:55 55
27:17–33 81 13:8 193
31:54 52 13:14–16 193
37–50 83 16:1 6n3
48:5–14 81 16:16 55n8
48:13–14 81 16:18 55n8
49 81 16:21 55n8
16:33–34 65n17
EXODUS 19:13 55n8
3:12 54, 58 20:5 194
3:18 54, 58 20:6 187
5:1 121 20:24 52n5, 57
5:3–17 54 21:33–34 51
6:7 80, 160 22:3 198
8:8 54 23:14 122n16
8:25–29 54 24:5 52n5, 58
9:4 95 24:9–11 39
10:1–2 193 24:11 58
10:8–11 54 25:27 65n17
10:9–10 58 26:36 97
11:7 95 31:12–13 193

203
204 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

EXODUS LEVITICUS
31:53 53 17:10–14 125
33:16 95 18:11 7
34:7 96 18:26 125
38:26 55n9 19 58
46:1 53 19:26 125
21 58
LEVITICUS 22 58
1 52, 116 22:1–16 59
1–3 58 23 61
2 64, 65n18, 67 23:39 122n16
4 116, 129 23:41 122n16
4–5 58 24:5–9 64
4:5–7 128 24:18 58
4:11–12 128 24:21 58
4:16–18 128 27 50
6:15–16 126
6:26 126 NUMBERS
6–7 58 1:46 55n9
7:8 126 3:43 55n9
7:11–36 127 3:46–47 55n9
7:12–14 59 4:3 50
7:15–17 60 5 64
7:16 61 8:24–26 50
7:20–21 56n11 9 56n11, 65n18,
7:32–33 59 138
10:14 7, 59 9:1–14 56
11:24–28 60 9:13 56n11
11:39–40 60 11:33 66
14:5–9 60
15:5 55n8 DEUTERONOMY
15:5–8 60 1:3 50
15:10–11 60 3:6 201
15:13 60 6:2 13
15:16–18 60 4:2 128
15:21–22 60 4:9 193
15:27 60 4:13 128
16 63 4:20–21 128
16:3 63 4:37–40 187
16:5 63 4:40 193
16:15 63 5:9–10 100
16:16 63 5:29 193
16:19 63 6:4–9 193
16:21 63 6:6–9 15
16:24 63 6:20–21 57
16:29–31 62 7:9 100, 161
16:33 63 10:14 159
16:34 63 12:6–7 7
17 58, 125n20 12:10–14 61
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 205

DEUTERONOMY 2 KINGS
12:11 61 1:6 194
12:12 7 17:41 194
12:18 7
14:29–30 31 1 SAMUEL
14:30–31 46 1:3 61
15 60, 65n18, 67 1:4 61
15:1–16 66 1:21 61
15:14 65 2:17 197
16:11 7, 61 2:29 197
16:14 7, 61 3:13 197
16:15 122n16 15:22 11
16:16 67n19 30:16 122
19:12 60
19:21 60 2 SAMUEL
27–28 81 6:20 193
28:1–4 193 9:1 1
28–29 61 9:1–13 1
29:2–15 194 9:13 1
29:11 7 13 194
29:12 122n16 23:17 64
30:6 161, 161n43, 164
32:4 118 1 CHRONICLES
32:15 118 16:15 161
32:15–18 118
32:18 118 2 CHRONICLES
24:2 193
JOSHUA 26:5 193
4:6–7 57 30:3 56n11
5:2–8 65 30:17–20 56n11
22 52 34:3 188

JUDGES EZRA
2:10 197 9 44
2:19 197 9:2 44
10:11 44n18
RUTH 10:11 44n18
1:16 160
JOB
1 KINGS 1:1–15 197
3:5–15 73 1:5 159, 163
3:16–28 72
10:1–15 73 PSALM
17:10–24 78 4:4 95
17:14 78 8:2 97, 99
18:12 7, 189 22 106, 103, 91, 93,
22:52 194 22:9–10 7, 91, 96, 99, 103,
104, 106, 180, 189
41:5 122n16
206 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

PSALM PROVERBS
44:1 193 2:1–7:27 193
51:5 92, 189 4:3–5a 182n30
58:3 99 14:26 193
68:6 186 19:18 193
71 93, 94, 96 22:6 193
71:4 94 22:15 193
71:5 94 23:14 193
71:5–6 7, 93, 104, 189
71:6 94 SONG OF SOLOMON
71:9 94 4:1 117
71:14–16 94
77 63, 64 ISAIAH
77:16 63, 64 1:10–20 11
77:20 64 3:14 197
78 63, 97 25:6 37
78:1–8 15, 17, 97, 193, 197 29:23 192
78:9 98 38:19 193
78:13 64 40:9 36n5
78:14 64 42:3 47
78:15 64 42:6 42n14
78:16 64 44:3 161n43, 162
78:17–25 64 44:4 187
78:24 64 49:8 42n14
78:26–31 64 54:13 187
78:29–31 66 59:20–21 161n43, 162, 193
89:3–4 159, 163 59:21 92, 101, 187
90:16 188 65:23 101, 187
96:3 36
100:5 187 JEREMIAH
102:28 187, 193 2:8–9 193, 197
103:17 161 2:9 194
103:17–18 187, 193 7:1–29 11
105:8 161 10:21 197
112:1–2 193 17:5–6 93
115:3 36 30:9 161n43
118:15 193 30:21–22 161
127 98 30:18–22 161n43
127:3 98 31:1 161, 161n43
127:4 98 31:17 161, 161n43
128 9 31:33–37 161n43
128:1 98 31:34–37 162
128:3 98 31:36–37 164
139 985 32:15–18 161n43
139:14 95, 96 32:18 194
139:14–15 95 33:22–26 161n43
139:15 96 32:37–40 161n43, 162
148:12 78, 79 32:38–39 187
35:19 187
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 207

JEREMIAH ZECHARIAH
36:31 194 10:6–9 161n43
10:9 162
LAMENTATIONS 11:16 193
2:11 194 14:16 122n16
4:4 164 14:18–19 122n16
4:13 197
MALACHI
EZEKIEL 1:7 78
3:17–19 197 2:15 75, 94, 187, 191
16:20 7 4:4–6 77, 78
16:20–21 195 4:6 102
18:1–4 197
20:24 194 MATTHEW
20:27 194 1 83
37:25 187 1:1 73
37:25–28 162 3:2 36n3
38:28 160 3–4 117
41:22 78 4:17 36n3
5:1–8 83
DANIEL 5:17 76
5 65n16 5:22–24 31
11:11 37, 42
HOSEA 11:13 37
1:10 160 12:28 36n3
4:6 193, 194 14:13–21 37n7
6:6 11 15:25 70
15:27 70
JOEL 15:28 70
2:1–29 161n43 15:32–39 37n7
2:15–16 62 18 42
2:16 7, 191 18:2–14 42
2:23–29 162 18:3 47
2:26–27 160 18:13–15 8, 191
18:15–18 154
AMOS 19 71, 71n4, 72, 73
5:18–27 11 19:1 76
19:4–5 74
MICAH 19:6 75
2:9 193 19:9 75
6:8 11 19:13 71
19:13–14 41
NAHUM 19:13–15 47
1:15 122 19:14 148, 164
19:28 39
ZECHARIAH 20:1–16 197
4 98 21:1–11 39
8:8 160 21:15 79
10:6–7 187 22:11–13 66, 76, 77, 83
208 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

MATTHEW ACTS
23:13 36n4 11:9 163
28:19 74 11:14–15 163
28:19–20 74 13:32–33 161n43, 162
26:26 83 15 136
15:3–9 163
MARK 15:5 164
1:9–13 117 15:20 125
10:14 25, 141n23, 164 15:29 125
16 76
LUKE 16:14–15 187
1:15 8, 42, 189 16:15 8
1:17 161n43, 162 16:30 163
2:49–50 161n43, 162 16:31 94, 163, 187, 190
3:21–22 117 16:33 8
4:1–13 117 17:11 xi
7:41–50 197 20:7 38
11 46 20:20 157
11:50 194 20:26–27 197
14:15–24 37 22:16 103
17:21 36n3
18:16 164 ROMANS
22:15–16 39 4:11 159n38
22:20 159, 162 4:13–17 161n43
22:32 104 4:16–17 164
24:35 142 5:12 159
5:12–21 100
JOHN 6:1 103
1:12–13 94 10:9–10 91
2:6 64 10:13 91
2:9 64 11 98
2:21 116 12:1–2 127
6 122 14:17 42
6:51 39, 40 15:15–16 126
14:23 39 15:26 38n8

ACTS 1 CORINTHIANS
1:14 188 1:2 25, 44
2:38 103 1:9 25, 38, 40, 155
2:39 94, 148, 161n43, 162, 1:10–13 23
163, 164 1:14 163
2:38–39 8, 187 1:31 23
2:42 37 3 114
2:46 157 3:1 24
3:25 161n43 3:3–4 24
8:38 76 3:10 115
9:18 76 3:11–12 115
10 40n13 3:13 21
11:3 40n13 3:16–17 115
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN 209

1 CORINTHIANS 1 CORINTHIANS
3:18 115 11 9, 10n7, 11, 12,
4:6–7 24 13, 15, 19, 20, 22,
5 120, 122, 123, 124 23, 24, 31, 41, 46,
5:1 121 64, 151, 156n34,
5:4 121 158
5:4–8 154 11:17–18 21, 27
5:5b–8 120 11:17–22 22, 23, 41
5:8 18, 120, 122, 123, 124 11:17–34 111n1
5:9 121 11:20 38, 39
5:11 121 11:20–22 21
6 114 11:21–22 29
6:1 24 11:21–34 109
6:6–7 24 11:22 21, 32, 27, 29
6:19 97 11:23–32 23
7 44 11:25 156n33
7:14 8, 24, 25, 32, 43, 44, 11:27 27
44n17, 96, 97, 102, 148, 11:27–28 31
155, 164, 191 11:28 19, 20, 27, 45,
7:14–16 197 50n2, 149
8:1 24 11:28–29 22
8:9–12 24 11:29 19, 20, 28
9 127 11:29–32 30
9:11 127 11:30 64
9:13–14 123n17, 126 11:31 29
9:19–22 24 11:33–34 21, 23, 29
10 22, 29, 60, 64, 65, 66, 12 24, 29
119, 120, 122, 123, 12:1–31 24
124 12:12 24, 25, 30
10–12 21 12:12–14 24
10–14 22 12:13 41, 45, 163
10:1 31 12:14–26 20
10:1–4 62, 63n15 12:20–26 47
10:1–5 24 12:21–27 24
10:1–11 46 12:22–25 25, 41, 45
10:3 11 12:25 24
10:5 64 14:15 38n9
10:6 118 15:22 163
10:4 118 16:3 21
10:6–7 122 16:15 163
10:6–11 118
10:11 118 2 CORINTHIANS
10:14–18 24 6:16 160
10:15–18 62 8:4 38n8
10:16 38, 71, 84 8:8 21
10:16–17 22, 24, 27, 31, 124n19 8:22 21
10:17 21, 26, 45, 85, 163 9:13 38n8
10:18 11, 58 13:5 21
210 ROBERT S. RAYBURN

GALATIANS TITUS
2 40 1:6 194
2:12 40 3:5 103
2:20 39
3 80 HEBREWS
3:16 41 4:15 128
3:27 41, 47 5 114
3:28 41 5–10 115
3:29 41 6:2 60
4:1 57 7 79
7:1–19 114
EPHESIANS 8:10 160
1:1 8, 164, 191 8–10 114
2 115 9:8–10 60
2:1 100 9:11–12 128
2:11–12 114 9:13–14 60
2:12 187n45 10:22 60
2:16 115 10:28–30 154
2:18 115 11 185
2:19 115 11:7 159
2:21 114 12:28 115
2:22 115 13:10 128n23
4:5 41 13:10–13 116, 128
5:1–2 43 13:11 128
5:2 39 13:12 128
5:22–6:9 43 13:15 115
6:1 43, 157 13:17 197
6:1–3 8, 191 13:16 38n8, 115
6:1–4 42, 43,164
6:3 195 1 PETER
1:7 21
COLOSSIANS
1:2 164 1 JOHN
3:20 164 1 82
5:1 188
1 THESSALONIANS
2:4 21 2 JOHN
4 188n48
2 THESSALONIANS
3:10 51, 158 REVELATION
21:3 160, 187n45
1 TIMOTHY
4:14 82

2 TIMOTHY
3:14–15 193
3:15 8, 189
 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#"
"
"
!"#$%#&'($%)"#**'*+#%,-)#&./,%%
0"-.,%#$%$"/%$#&./1%
"
$%"&%"'($)*+",$%"
"
-./$/"0'"10'2)3"04"-./"560)3" 7.5$2"&5'/'"358/"9)$":52"+51%;" 042//2<"
=>"=?"@AA">BB"C@?D"EFCG">HD=GI">B"J=?KCHG">=LCAC??"C>F=K@A">HM>F?">B"IC>"AB?>"
=G"@"?C@"BN"71CAA<"EF@>"=N">F=?"F@OOCGCJP;")G">FC"B>FCH"F@GJ<"BGC"KBMAJ<"
=G">MHG<"@HIMC">F@>"F@HJ"K@?C?"HCQC@A"R@J"A@E%"1=>FBM>"E@G>=GI">B"KBLS
L=>">FC"RC@HJ"N@AA@KD<"EFCHC"=?">FC"A=GC"RC>ECCG""#$%&'()!*$!*+,%"$%-"@GJ"
HCJ"FCHH=GIP")GC">BBA"L@D"RC"=G">F=?TFBE"A=UCAD"@HC"EC">B"@K>M@AAD"HMG"
=G>B"BGC"BN">FC?C"7F@HJ"K@?C?P;"0N"LD"MGJCH?>@GJ=GI"BN"KBQCG@G>"?MKKC?S
?=BG"K@GV>"CQCG"RCI=G">B"@G?ECH">FC"WMC?>=BG<"71F@>"@RBM>"R@R=C?"EFB"
J=C" =G" >FC" EBLRP<;" 0" K@GV>" @K>" @?" >FBMIF" >FC" WMC?>=BG" =?" @" J=?>H@K>=BG"
NHBL">FC"HC@A"=??MC%"
0>" E@?" GB>" LD" CXOCK>@>=BG" >B" HMG" FC@JABGI" =G>B" @" F@HJ" K@?C%" :M>"
YBJ" ?CG>" BGC" @GDE@D%" 0" @L" @" KFMHKF" OA@G>CH<" @" (HC?RD>CH=@G" KFMHKF"
OA@G>CH%" 0G" OHBOCH" (HC?RD>CH=@G" O@HA@GKC<" >F@>" L@UC?" LC" @G" CQ@GICA=?>%"
5G" CQ@GICA=?>" =?" I=QCG<" =G" (HC?RD>CH=@G" K=HKAC?<" ?BLC" KBLO@H@>=QCAD"
?>HBGI"OBECH?%"1FCG"@"KFMHKF"=?"NMAAD"C?>@RA=?FCJ<"NBH"=G?>@GKC<">FC"CGS

!"
!" #$%&"%'()&"*$%++(+," "

-./0" 1011.23" .1" 4.503" -60" -718" 29" :;<4.34" -60" =/0<.>.?.-@" 29" -60" =234/0A
473-1B"=239011.231"29"97.-6C"&60@"-240-60/"<0-0/D.30"E62".1"7>?0"-2"F7/A
-780" 29" -60" G2/<B1" *;FF0/H" 73<" E62" .1" 32-C" ';-" E603" @2;" 7/0" 23" @2;/"
2E3H" .-" .1" ;F" -2" @2;C" &60" 057340?.1-H" 23" 73@" 3;D>0/" 29" 3230" =23901A
1.237?" D7--0/1H" 671" 9/00" /0.43" -2" D780" <0=.1.231C" I" 42-" -2" <0=.<0" E67-"
8.3<" 29" =234/047-.237?" 1.34.34" E0" E2;?<" 6750H" -60" 9/0J;03=@" 29" =2DA
D;3.23H"E60-60/"E0"E2;?<"6750"7"=62./"2/"1F0=.7?"D;1.=C"I"F?7330<"-60"
?.-;/4@" 71" E0??C" K6;/=6" F?73-.34" 29-03" D0731" ?.D.-0<" /012;/=01H" 1D7??"
=/2E<1H" 73<" 7112/-0<" 67/<16.F1C" ';-" @2;" 40-" -2" D780" 73" 7E9;?" ?2-" 29"
<0=.1.231C"
&60/0" E0/0H" 62E050/H" ?.D.-7-.231" -2" D@" F2E0/1C" I" E71" 1-.??" ;3<0/"
7;-62/.-@H"7?>0.-"7"<.1-73-"230C"I"E71"32-"7??2E0<"-2"F/07=6"2/"-2"F/7=-.=0"
F70<2=2DD;3.23C"&60"<032D.37-.23"I"E71".3"92/>7<"1;=6H"73<"I"74/00<"
-2"1;>D.-"-2"-60./"/0J;./0D03-1C"I"E71H"62E050/H"7>?0"-2":;<40"-60"=/0<.A
>.?.-@" 29" F/29011.231" 29" 97.-6C" %3<" 12" I" <0-0/D.30<" -2" 607/" F/29011.231"
32-" >@" -60" 1-73<7/<1" 29" D73@" 29" D@" >/2-60/1L12D0" 29" E62D" 7/03B-"
17-.19.0<"71"-2"-60"1.3=0/.-@"29"7"F/29011.23";3?011".-".1"7==2DF73.0<">@"7"
/0=.-7-.23"29"-60"03-./0"#01-D.31-0/"*62/-0/"K7-0=6.1DC"I31-07<H"I"E2;?<"
/0=0.50"E67-"2-60/1"6750"=7??0<"M740A7FF/2F/.7-0"=239011.231"29"97.-6CN"I"
<.<"32-H"73<"<2"32-H"?228"92/"7"=7/09;??@"/071230<"7/4;D03-"23"-60"3;A
73=01" 29" .DF;-7-.23" 50/1;1" .39;1.23H" 32/" -60" 37-;/0" 29" 175.34" 97.-6C" I"
?228" .31-07<" 92/" 7" /0=243.-.23" 29" 1.3H" 73<" 7" <0F03<03=0" ;F23" K6/.1-"
7?230C"
I-" E71" :;1-" 7" 90E" <7@1" ;3-.?" 2;/" 9./1-" E2/16.F" 10/5.=0C" O@" 2?<01-"
=6.?<H" P7/>@H" E71" -6/00" @07/1" 2?<C" #0" E0/0" 23" 2;/" F2/=6" 73<" I" 7180<"
60/H" 71" =71;7??@" 71" I" =2;?<H" MP7/>@H" <2" @2;" ?250" Q01;1,N" %3<" :;1-" 71"
=71;7??@" 160" /0F?.0<H" M+2CN" I" <.<3B-" >0?.050" 60/" 731E0/H" F?0710" ;3<0/A
1-73<C" I" <.<3B-" -211" 73<" -;/3" 7??" 3.46-" E2//@.34" 7>2;-" 60/" 12;?C" ';-" I"
830E"-60/0"E71"32"E7@"I"=2;?<"7==0F-".-"71"7"=239011.23"29"97.-6H"32"D7-A
-0/"E67-"60/"740H"73<"32"D7--0/"62E"D;=6"<.1=/0-.23"I"67<"71"73"0573A
40?.1-C"RS2;B??">0"67FF@"-2"832E"-67-":;1-"7"90E"D23-61"?7-0/"160"D7<0"7"
/2>;1-" =239011.23" 29" 97.-6H" 73<" 671" >003" 9071-.34" E.-6" 2;/" G2/<" 050/"
1.3=0CT"
&62;46"2;/"=6;/=6"32E"03:2@1"7"9;??"=2DF?.D03-"29"0?<0/1H"-6.1".1"
1-.??"2;/"F/7=-.=0C"#0">0?.050".3"F70<2=2DD;3.23H">;-"E0"?.80E.10">0A
?.050" .3" 1;>D.--.34" -2" 2;/" 0?<0/1C" &6210" E62" E2;?<" 9?00" 7;-62/.-@" -2"
 ! "#!$#!%&"'()!*"#! +!

,-./01/2!,.234/45567147!8.92!54-2!17!/45547!:108!0821-!;7.<.,01=0!
>4-2<2.-=!08.7!:108!082?!34!:108!0821-!/4927.70.@!7.52=.A2=#!!
&24,@2! .-2! =4520152=! /47>6=23! .<460! 46-! ,-./01/2#! B2! 8.92! 8.3!
91=104-=!04!46-!/86-/8!:84C!A74:17D!08.0!E!<2@1292!17!,.234/45567147C!
.73! =2217D! /81@3-27! ?467D2-! 08.7! :8.0! 082?! .-2! 6=23! 04! 2.017D! .73!
3-17A17DC!<2@1292!:2!.-2!,-./01/17D!,.234/45567147#!'72!32.-!>-1273!
91=1023!46-!:4-=81,!=2-91/2=#!B827!10!/.52!0152!>4-!082!=./-.5270C!721F
082-!82!74-!81=!>.51@?!/.52!>4-:.-3#!;!525<2-!4>!082!/86-/8!04@3!815!
08.0!82!:.=!51==23!.0!082!0.<@2!.73!82!2G,@.1723C!HE!/46@37I0!,.-01/1,.02!
<2/.6=2! ?46-! /86-/8! ,-./01/2=! ,.234/45567147#J! K8.0! 525<2-! 2GF
,@.1723! 46-! ,-./01/2C! .>>1-517D! 08.0! 74C! :2! 17=02.3! ,-./01/2! /-234/45F
567147#!L92-?472!:84!.02!.73!3-.7A!8.3!5.32!.!92-<.@!,-4>2==147!4>!
>.108#!
'92-! 082! 72G0! >2:! 54708=! 081=! =.52! D270@25.7! <2D.7! .! =063?! 4>!
082! 1==62#! M2! 91=1023! .D.17C! .73! .D.17! 3137I0! ,.-01/1,.02#! M2! :.=! D-.F
/146=@?! .=A23! .D.17! .<460! 81=! .<=27/2C! .73! 081=! 0152! 82! 2G,@.1723C! HE!
/46@37I0! ,.-01/1,.02! <2/.6=2! ?46! 347I0! ,-./01/2! ,.234/45567147C! .73!
082-2>4-2!?46!347I0!31=/2-7!082!<43?#J!B81@2!E!=?5,.081N2!:108!81=!,4F
=10147C!EI5!740!-2.3?!04!2G/455671/.02!082!51@@147=!4>!<2@1292-=!492-!082!
@.=0!/2706-12=!:84!:-47D@?C!0846D8!:108!D443!170270147=C!8.92!2G/45F
5671/.023! =5.@@! /81@3-27! >-45! 082! 0.<@2#! B2! .-2! 740! 31=/2-717D! 082!
<43?!1>!:2!:46@3!2G/@632!.@@!084=2!:84!:46@3!2G/@632!46-!/81@3-27#!
'6-!,-./01/2!:4-A23!:2@@!>4-!082!72G0!=292-.@!?2.-=#!;<460!082!0152!
5?!=2/473!/81@3C!$.5,<2@@C!:.=!.<@2!04!5.A2!.!,-4>2==147!4>!>.108C!5?!
:1>2! .73! E! :2-2! <@2==23! :108! .! 081-3! /81@3C! %8.7747#! )2==! 08.7! .! ?2.-!
@.02-C!46-!>46-08!/81@3C!O2@.72?C!:.=!<4-7#!O6-17D!08.0!?2.-!5?!:1>2!.73!
E! 8.3! 17/-2.=17D! /47/2-7=! .<460! %8.7747I=! 82.@08#! %82! :.=7I0! D.1717D!
:21D80#!M2-!@15<=!0-25<@23!=@1D80@?!.0!0152=#!%82!:.=!.!@100@2!<28173!082!
/6-92!3292@4,5270.@@?#!!
B827!=82!:.=!>46-0227!54708=!4@3!:2!044A!82-!04!.!=,2/1.@!84=,1F
0.@!>4-!/81@3-27#!;!$K!=/.7!=84:23!08.0!=82!=6>>2-23!>-45!@1==27/2,8.@?C!
:81/8! 52.7=! H=54408! <-.17#J! B82-2! ?46-! <-.17! .73! 5172! 8.92! :-17F
A@2=!47!082!04,C!82-=!1=!=54408#!P4=0!/81@3-27!:108!82-!/47310147!=,273!
0821-! =84-0! @192=! @?17D! 17! .! /-1<! :108! .! >22317D! 06<2#! Q.--17D! .! 51-./@2!
3-.5.01/!2746D8!04!>4-/2!52!04!/8.7D2!5?!6732-=0.7317D!4>!=1D7!D1>0=C!
!" #$%&"%'()&"*$%++(+," "

-./"012"1034"5633"0/7/8"9:884;"0/7/8".:7/"<.63=8/0;">?2"-./"5633"0/7/8;"
2.6-"-6=/"1@"A3184;"-B/:CD"
&.1?A."62"6-":">3/--60A"@18"5.6<."E":9":35:4-"A8:2/@?3;"E".:7/"0/7/8"
>//0" 918/" A8:2/@?3" 2.:0" 2.1-/" @68-2" @/5" 5//C-" :@2/8" 2./" =6:A01-6-" 21"
.:7/"94"@:2./8"@18":"@:2./8D"E":9"012"1034":"F-.1?3=" >/"62:36<6G/=H"I:3J
7606-2;" >?2" 2./" -10" 1@" 2./" F-.1?3=" >/" 62:36<6G/=H" I:37606-2D" E0" 2./" @:</" 1@"
2.6-".:8=-.6B;":-"94"B:8/02-"60K?68/=":-"21"94"-B6862-;"E"/LB3:60/=;"MEN7/"
>//0"B8/B:860A":33"94"36@/"@18"2.6-"919/02DO"*.:0010N-"<10=62610;"E"?0J
=/8-211=;" 5:-0N2" -19/2.60A" P1=" 69B12/0234" 56-./=" =6=0N2" /L6-2D" E2"
5:-0N2"/62./8"-19/2.60A"2.:2"$/"MB/89622/=DO"&./"P1="1@" 2./"?067/8-/"
.:="A67/0"*.:0010"2.6-":@@36<2610;"@18"$6-"A3184;":0="@18"*.:0010N-":0="
1?8"A11=D"
E2"6-":"A11="2.60A"21">/"2./"-10"1@":"=/@/0=/8"1@"2./"Q/@189/="@:62.D"
'/36/760A"60":0="=/36A.260A"60"2./"-17/8/6A024"1@"P1="6-"10/"8/:-10D"'?2"
2./8/"6-":012./8">/0/@62D"R4"@:2./8"012"1034"60-2633/="60"9/":"B:--610"@18"
2./"=1<2860/"1@"2./"-17/8/6A024"1@"P1=;">?2"A:7/"9/":0"/K?:3"G/:3"@18"2./"
!"#$!" 1@" 2./" Q/@189:2610D" #./0" E" 5:-" @1?8" 18" @67/" 4/:8-" 13=" 94" @:2./8"
5:-" 607137/=" 60" 2./" /:834" 518C" 1@" S7:0A/36-9" SLB31-610;" 2./" /7:0A/3J
6-9"28:6060A"B81A8:9"@819"I18:3"Q6=A/"T8/->42/86:0"I.?8<.D"U?-2":-"E;"
:-" :0" /7:0A/36-2;" .:=" K?6GG/=" 94" =:?A.2/8;" -1" 94" @:2./8" K?6GG/=" 9/D"
$/" :-C/=" 9/;" ME@" 41?" 5/8/" 21" =6/" 2106A.2" :0=" -2:0=" >/@18/" P1=;" :0="
5/8/" $/" 21" :-C" 41?;" V#.4" -.1?3=" E" 3/2" 41?" 6021" 94" C60A=19,;N" 5.:2"
51?3="41?"-:4,O"E"311C/=":2".69"562.":"=:0A/81?-"96L2?8/"1@"60<8/=?J
3624":0="=6-A?-2"2.:2"./"51?3=":-C"9/"-?<.":"-2?B6="K?/-2610D"S62./8"./"
5:-"B:28106G60A"9/"562."-?<.":"-69B3/"K?/-2610;"18;"6@"./"8/:334"=6=0N2"
C015"2./":0-5/8;"2./0"./".:="31-2".6-"9:8>3/-D"#62."A8/:2"69B:26/0</"E"
8/B36/=;"M#/33;">/<:?-/"EN9"=/:=DO"
%-" :" @67/J4/:8J13=" T/3:A6:0;" E"5:-":" @689" >/36/7/8" 60" 2./" -6L2." !"#$;"
W?-26@6<:2610" >4" 41?2." :310/D" '?2" E" .:7/" 1?2A8150" -?<." @1136-.0/--D" E"
>/36/7/"2./8/"6-">?2"10/"5:4"6021"./:7/0;"2.81?A."2./"@606-./="518C"1@"
I.86-2D" %0=" E" >/36/7/" 2./8/" 6-" >?2" 10/" 5:4" 21" .:7/" 2.:2" 518C" :BB36/=;"
:0=" 2.:2" 6-" 2.81?A." 2./" A6@2" 1@" @:62.D" E" 8/W/<2" 012" 1034" W?-26@6<:2610" >4"
41?2." 2.:2" 2/0=-" 21" <19/" @819" %89606:0" <68<3/-;" >?2" W?-26@6<:2610" >4"
/3/<2610" 2.:2" <19/-" @819" Q/@189/=" <68<3/-D" X/-;":33" 2./" /3/<2" :8/" -:7/=;"
:0="010/"5.1":8/"012"/3/<2"5633">/"-:7/=D"'?2"2./"518C"1@"I.86-2"=1/-0N2"
 ! "#!$#!%&"'()!*"#! +!

,-./0-!/123!,-.413-!/12!540-!63!65!78-!,//9!/:!;6:-#!<7!./0-3!7/!13!,=!
:4678>!45?!:4678!4;/5-#!
%/!@847!4,/17!%8455/5A!$45!38-!,-;6-B-A!C/-3!38-!84B-!78-!.4D4.E
67=! 7/! ,-;6-B-! 78-! F//?! 5-@3!/:! $82637A! G3! 0=! :478-2! 741F87! 0->! 45?! <!
4F2-->!78-!453@-2!63>!HI/#J!K4,6-3!7847!?6-!65!78-!@/0,>!@8-78-2!84B65F!
4! 8-4;78=! ,2465! /2! 5/7>! ?/5L7! 84B-! 78-! .4D4.67=! 7/! ,-;6-B-#! ':! ./123->!
5-678-2!?6?!0=!?41F87-2!C42,=!84B-!7847!.4D4.67=>!?1265F!8-2!:6237!-ME
4065476/5!/2!8-2!3-./5?#!%8-!63!5/@!-;-B-5!43!<!@267->!45?!376;;!?/-35L7!
84B-! 78-! .4D4.67=! 7/! ,-;6-B-#! N8-5! 38-! 2-4.8-3! 78-! 4F-! /:! 04O/267=!
P@86.8! 63! ;//065F! 2478-2! ;42F-! 65! 0=! 2-42B6-@! 0622/2Q! 38-! 376;;! @/5L7!
84B-!67!65!8-2!7/!,-;6-B-#!I/D->!5/7!-B-5!<>!43!<!4DD2/4.8!:/12!?-.4?-3!/5!
78-!D;45-7>!84B-!78-!.4D4.67=!7/!,-;6-B-! 78-!F/3D-;#!RB-5!0=!4F-?!D42E
-573!?/5L7!84B-!67!65!78-0!7/!-0,24.-!78-!@/29!/:!*-313#!S/2!7847>!67!749-3!
4!0624.1;/13!@/29!/:!T/?#!!
U=!./5:6?-5.-!65!%8455/5L3!34;B476/5!/,B6/13;=!843!5/7865F!@847E
-B-2!7/!?/!@678!8-2!657-;;-.714;!.4D4.67=#!I-678-2>!/5!78-!/78-2!845?>!63!
0=!./5:6?-5.-!65!8-2!;4.9!/:!657-;;-.714;!.4D4.67=#!V//!045=!/:!13>! ,-E
.413-! @-! 42-! 0/B-?! ,=! D67=! /B-2! 8-2! @-495-33>! 0633! @847! 63! 4;;! 7//!
/,B6/13! 7/! 8-2! 0/78-2! 45?! 0-W7847! %8455/5! 63! 4! 3655-2#! %8-! 63! 371,E
,/25>!3-;:638>!2-,-;;6/13#!%8-!.-27465;=!843!78-!.4D4.67=!5/7!/5;=!7/!2-:;-.7!
,17!D24.76.-!78-!3653!/:!8-2!:478-2#!X-2!3653!42-!5/7!0-2-;=!D/7-5764;>!,17!
4.714;#!V//!045=!/:!13!:/2F-7!7847!@-!42-!01.8!.;/3-2!7/!%8455/5!65!/12!
/@5!.4D4.676-3!7845!@-!42-!7//!T/?#!!
N86;-!<!,-;6-B-!@678!4;;!0=!3/1;!65!31,3767176/542=!47/5-0-57>!<!?/!
5/7!:/2!4!0/0-57!,-;6-B-!65!31,3767176/542=!:4678#!V847!63>!<!D;4.-!5/!./5E
:6?-5.-!65!0=!:4678!7/!34B-!45=!/:!0=!.86;?2-5#!<5!/5-!3-53->!<!4F2--!@678!
0=!K4D7637!,2/78-23Y!5/!/5-!049-3!67!657/!8-4B-5!/5!78-!./47746;3!/:!78-!
:4678!/:!45/78-2#!T/?!?/-35L7>!65!7863!3-53->!84B-!45=!F245?.86;?2-5#!<L0!
4:246?!7847!@-!@8/!8/;?!7/!D4-?/,4D7630!7-5?!7/!./5:13-!/12!,4D76376.!
,2/78-23!@8-5!78-=!@675-33!78-!34.240-57#!N847!78-=!3-->!7=D6.4;;=>!63!4!
3-26-3! /:! B/@3! 749-5! ,=! 78-! D42-573! P@86.8! 42-! D-2:-.7;=! 4DD2/D2647-Q!
,-:/2-!78-!,4,=!63!,4D76Z-?#!V8-=!78-5!O10D!7/!78-!./5.;136/5!7847!@847!
63! 4,/17! 7/! 84DD-5! 63! 4,/17! 78-! D42-573#! N-! 3D-49! 7/! 78-! D42-573>! 45?!
78-5! 3D2659;-! 78-! ,4,=#! <7L3! ;69-! F6B65F! @-??65F! B/@3! 7/! 4! 045! 45?! 4!
@/045>!/5;=!7/!84B-!78-!265F!,-42-2!042.8!?/@5!78-!463;-!7/!78-!V210E
D-7!S45:42-!@86;-!-B-2=/5-!782/@3!26.-#!!
!"# $%&'#&()*'#+%&,,),-# #

$.#/01.#/02#304/.3#0#53.04#2.06#78#49::6;<5#78#604.#71.3#4/.#<0493.#
78#=0>4;:?@#A#/01.#2.03#83;.<2:#7<#4/.#3;5/4#B/7#:..#=0>4;:?#:;?>6C#0:#0#
1;:;=6.#.<430<D.#;<47#4/.#1;:;=6.#E/93D/F#B/;D/#4/.C#2.8;<.#0:#4/7:.#B/7#
/01.# 0# D3.2;=6.# >378.::;7<# 78# 80;4/F# >69:# 4/.;3# D/;623.<@# '/.:.# D/;623.<#
03.#47#=.#D7<:;2.3.2#G/76CH#;<#7<.#:.<:.F#=94#B.#?9:4#B0;4#873#4/.?#47#
>378.::# 4/.;3# 80;4/# 0<2# :/7B# .1;2.<D.# 4/.3.78# =.873.# B.# D0<# /01.# 0<C#
0::930<D.#4/04#4/.C#03.#0#>034#78#4/.#;<1;:;=6.#E/93D/F#4/.#E/93D/#78#4/.#
3.2..?.2@# A# /01.# 74/.3# 2.03# 83;.<2:# B/7# =.6;.1.# 4/04# =0>4;I.2# ;<80<4:#
=.6;.1.#4/.#57:>.6F#0<2#B.#J<7B#4/;:#=.D09:.#4/.C#/01.#=..<#=0>4;I.2@#
'/.C# 0359.# 4/04# K72# ;:# >6.0:.2F# 732;<03;6CF# 47# 530<4# 4/.# 5;84# 78# 80;4/# 04#
4/.# ?7?.<4# 78# =0>4;:?@# A# 2;:053..# B;4/# =74/# 4/.:.# 1;.B:@# A# =.6;.1.# ;<#
=0>4;I;<5# 4/.# ;<80<4:# 78# =.6;.1.3:# <74# =.D09:.# A# =.6;.1.# :9D/# ;:# 0# 5772#
4/;<5#4/04#5.4:#4/.?#>034B0C#;<47#4/.#J;<527?@#,.;4/.3#27#A#=.6;.1.#;4F#
7<# 4/.# 74/.3# /0<2F# =.D09:.# A# =.6;.1.# :9D/# ;:# 0# 5673;79:# 4/;<5# 4/04# 5.4:#
4/.?#066#4/.#B0C#;<#4/.#J;<527?#L=94#;:<M4#:988;D;.<4#47#?0J.#:93.#4/.C#
:40C#;<N@#A<:4.02#A#=.6;.1.#;4#=.D09:.#A#=.6;.1.#4/04#4/.#;<80<4:#78#=.6;.1O
.3:F# 0:# 803# 0:# B.# D0<# 4.66F# =.6;.1.@# A# 27<M4# =.6;.1.# 4/.C# =.6;.1.# =.D09:.#
4/.C#03.#=0>4;I.2@#P04/.3F#A#=0>4;I.#4/.?#=.D09:.#A#=.6;.1.#4/.C#=.6;.1.@#
A#=.6;.1.F#=.6;.1.#;4#73#<74F#4/04#=0>4;:?#;:#0#>9=6;DF#873?06F#.<873D.0=6.F#
?0<;8.:404;7<# 78# 0<# 063.02C# .Q;:4;<5# 3.604;7<:/;>@# L$/;D/# ;:# B/C# A# =.O
6;.1.# 4/04# 4/.# D/;623.<# 78# =0>4;:4;D# E/3;:4;0<:# 03.F# 0:# 803# 0:# B.# J<7BF#
=.6;.1.3:F#.1.<#4/795/#4/.C#/01.<M4#/02#4/.#:0D30?.<4@N#A4#;:#0<067579:#
47#0#B.22;<5@#,7#7<.#=.6;.1.:#4/04#;4#;:#;<#4/.#:0C;<5#78#4/.#GA#27M:H#4/04#
/9:=0<2#0<2#B;8.#D7?.#47#671.#0<2#8..6#0#D7??;4?.<4#47#7<.#0<74/.3@#
,.;4/.3F#7<#4/.#74/.3#/0<2F#27.:#0<C7<.F#04#6.0:4#;<#4/.#E/93D/F#=.6;.1.#
4/04# =.D09:.# 4/.# D7??;4?.<4# B0:# 063.02C# >3.:.<4# ;<# 4/.# /.034# 4/04#
<74/;<5#/0>>.<:#;<#4/.#B.22;<5#D.3.?7<C@#
(94# B/04# 0=794# +/0<<7<-# RC# 83;.<2:# 7<# ?C# 3;5/4# B7962# /01.# 9:#
=.6;.1.#4/04#B.#/01.#<7#3.0:7<#47#=.6;.1.#4/04#:/.#;:#0#E/3;:4;0<@#'/.;3#
B732:#78#D7?8734F#B/.<#4/.#20C#D7?.:#873#/.3#47#>0::#7<47#4/.#<.Q4#6;8.F#
B7962#4.33;8C#?.#;8#A#=.6;.1.2#4/.?@#GS9:4#3.:4#;<#4/;:FH#4/.CM66#:0CF#G4/.#
K72# 78#066#4/.#9<;1.3:.#B;66#27#3;5/4@H#+/.#;:#0#:;<<.3F#T9:46C#2.:.31;<5#
K72M:#2;:>6.0:93.@#&<2#K72#4.66:#9:#4/.3.#;:#=94#7<.#B0C#873#/.3#47#.:O
D0>.# 4/04# 2;:>6.0:93.F# ;8# :/.# B;66# 439:4# ;<# 4/.# 8;<;:/.2# B73J# 78# E/3;:4#
067<.@#A8#:/.#/0:<M4F#.1.<#B;4/#K72M:#53.04#>7B.3F#4/.#0=;6;4C#47#=.6;.1.F#
:/.#B;66#:988.3#.4.3<066C@#
 ! "#!$#!%&"'()!*"#! ++!

,-!./012!32415678!0.91:128!9.;<6!0=:1!012!><..?!/.!012!@=A/47B#C!
D2.;@<1! 478! 1:15! /0171! 3241567! E.5E161! /0=/! 01<<! 47! 3;<<! .3! 91/F01=616!
A1.A<1#! G0121! 47! /01! E.B3.2/! /0121H! I:15! 9121! 701! 21J1512=/16! =/! 012!
@=A/47B8!1:15!43!K.6!E0.71!/0=/!B.B15/!/.!J43/!012!94/0!3=4/08!@1E=;71!
/0=/!47!90=/!L1!=<9=-7!6.178!=EE.2645J!/.!B-!32415678!91!0=:1!5.!9=-!
.3!?5.945J!/0=/!701!7/4<<!/2;7/7!45!/01!9.2?!.3!$0247/!=<.518!/0=/!701!0=7!
?1A/!/01!3=4/0#!
D01!/2;/0!478!91!M;7/!E=5N/!?5.9!3.2!E12/=45!=@.;/!=5-.518!901/012!
/01-!=E/;=<<-!/2;7/!45!/01!34547016!9.2?!.3!$0247/!=<.51#!D01!/2.;@<1!475N/!
/0=/!%0=55.5!E=55./!A2.3177! /01!3=4/08!@;/8!=7!O!<4?1!/.!A.45/!.;/! /.!B-!
P=A/47/!3241567!90.!9=5/!/.!711!.5<-!/01!>/2;<-!7=:16C!@1!@=A/4Q168!/01!
/2.;@<1!47!/0=/!91!E=55./!?5.9#!D01!9.2<6!47!3;<<!.3!A2.3177.27!90.!=21!
5./!A.77177.278!904E0!@245J7!;7!@=E?!/.!%0=55.5#!D01!R;17/4.58!901/012!
=@.;/! @=A/47B! .2! /01! ).26N7! %;AA128! 475N/! >L.9! E=5! 91! ?5.9! 3.2! E12F
/=45!90.!@1<.5J7!=56!90.!6.175N/HC!D01!R;17/4.5!478!457/1=68!>G0.!E=5!
91! E2164@<-! @1<41:1! 0=7! 7=:45J! 3=4/0HC! D0.71! .5! B-! 24J0/! 0=:1! =! A2.F
3.;56! 64<1BB=#! O3! 91! E=55./! E2164@<-! @1<41:1! /0=/! /0.71! 90.! 6.! 5./!
7A1=?!0=:1!7=:45J!3=4/08!/015!91!B;7/!E.5E<;61!14/012!/0=/!=<<!90.!641!
45!7;E0!=!E.564/4.5!7;3312!1/125=<<-8!.2!/0=/!K.6!0=7!A2.:4616!B.21!/0=5!
.51!9=-!45/.!01=:15#!I4/012!91!E.5E<;61!/0=/!=<<!7;E0!E04<6215!=21!E04<F
6215!.3!/01!61:4<8!.2!91!E.5E<;61!/0=/!9015!/01!S=/012!/.<6!/01!%.5!/0=/!
/0121!9=7!5.!9=-!3.2!/01!E;A!/.!A=778!L1!9=7!=!<4=2#!I4/012!91!E.5E<;61!
/0=/!=<<!7;E0!A1.A<1!=21!.;/7461!/01!J2=E1!.3!K.68!.2!91!B=?1!/01!E2.77!
=5!.A/4.5#!
D0171!=218!45!.51!715718!21=<!.A/4.57#!O!=B!5./!0121!=2J;45J!/0=/!.51!
B;7/!.5<-!E0..71!/01!:419!O!0=:1!/=?15#!O!=B!457/1=6!=7?45J!/0.71!90.!
/=?1!=!64331215/!:419!/.!;56127/=56!/01!E.571R;15E17!.3!/0142!:419#!O!=B!
5./!=2J;45J!/0=/!91!B;7/!@1<41:1!/0=/!%0=55.5!E=58!@-!K.6N7!21J1512=/F
45J!A.9128!@1<41:18!.2!1<71!O!9.;<6!@1!:12-!7=6#!O!0=:15N/!3.2J.//15!/0=/!
701!47!M;7/<-!61712:45J!L47!647A<1=7;21#!T.2!0=:1!O!3.2J.//15!/0=/!1:15!43!
O!=B!24J0/!=@.;/!/01!A245E4A<18!4/!47!7/4<<!5.!J;=2=5/11!/0=/!L1!0=7!J4:15!
012!3=4/0#!!
"=/0128!O!E<45J!/.!K.6N7!E.:15=5/!A2.B4717#!L1!0=7!A2.B4716!/.!@1!=!
S=/012!/.!B18!=56!/.!B-!E04<6215#!L1!E=5!.5<-!@1!B-!S=/0128!.2!=!S=/012!
/.! B-! E04<62158! /02.;J0! 3=4/0! 45! /01! %.5#! D0=/! A2.B4718! 91! =<<! =J2118!
475N/! B=/0#! O/! 47! =! E.:15=5/=<!A2.B4718! =! A2.B471! /0=/! 5./17! /0=/! /047! 47!
!"# $%&'#&()*'#+%&,,),-# #

./012#3455678#98#:925/7;<#)=#>/?726#&@74:4A#>48#:4B6#48#C2:A46D#480#
C244># >/?D0# :4B6# 48# E24?<# %6# F9DD# :4B6# A67>;# /8# F:/A# %6# F9DD# :4B6#
A67>;<#(?5#95#92#%92#:/D;#:4@95#5/#2:/F#A67>;#5/#G6867459/8#4=567#G68674H
59/8#/=#@6D96B672<#':45I#8/5#:67#@43592AI#92#F:;#+:488/812#3/226229/8#/=#
=495:#92#>7609@D6<#
$:9>:# 92# F:;# 2:6# 2:/?D0# @6# 4@D6# 5/# >/A6# 5/# 5:6# '4@D6<# C# 2?33/26#
5:676#476#5:/26#F:/#@6D96B6#98#3460/>/AA?89/8#F:/#@6D96B6#5:6#J/7012#
+?3367# 92# =/7# @6D96B672I# 480# 5:697# >:9D0768<# C# 4A# 8/5# /86# /=# 5:6A<# C# @6H
D96B6#5:6#J/7012#+?3367#92#=/7#@6D96B672I#480#5:45#F6#/?G:5#5/#98>D?06#4DD#
5:/26# F:/A# F6# >7609@D;# @6D96B6# 5/# @6D96B6<# )5:672# 98# 5:92# B/D?A6I# C#
57?25I#:4B6#064D5#F95:#5:6#47G?A6852#76G47098G#092>67898G#5:6#@/0;I#480#
6K4A9898G#/8626D=<#L/7#F:45#95#92#F/75:I#C#F9DD#F/77;#4@/?5#5:626#5:98G2#
F:68# A;# D955D6# >:9D0768# 476# 98# 5:6# >/7867# G65598G# 07?8MI# 480# D//M98G#
0/F8#5:697#8/262#45#/5:672#98#5:6#>:?7>:<#
+/A6# /=#A;#0647#=796802#/8#5:6#/5:67#2906#/=#5:92#922?6#:4B6#@668#
?84@D6#5/#M663#>/A34229/8#=7/A#G65598G#5:6#@625#/=#5:6A<#+:488/8#92815I#
4=567#4DDI#4#=9>5959/?2#37/3#98#5:6#A4M98G#/=#48#47G?A685<#':6;#:4B6#A65#
:67I# 480# 2/# 476# F9DD98GN2/A6# 6B68# 64G67N5/# A4M6# 48# 6K>6359/8# =/7#
:67<#C#4A#8/5#2?76#5:45#C#F/?D0#@6#2/#F9DD98G<#C1A#?8>D647#4@/?5#:/F#F6#
>/?D0#6B68#A4M6#2?>:#48#47G?A685<#$:45#92#57?6#/=#:67I#5:45#92815#57?6#
/=# :67# D955D625# 292567I# F:/# 92815# ;65# 4@D6# 5/# A4M6# 4# 37/=6229/8# /=# =495:-#
+?76I#4#04;#92#>/A98G#F:68#:67#D955D6#292567#F9DDI#98#4DD#D9M6D9://0I#A4M6#4#
37/=6229/8I#480#2?>:#4#04;#F9DD#8/5#>/A6#=/7#+:488/8#/8#5:92#2906#/=#5:6#
B4D6<#(?5#F:45#09==67685#0/62#5:45#A4M6I#/8#4#G9B68#+?804;-#
C#@6D96B6#98#5:6#24>74A6852<#C# @6D96B6#5:6A# 5/#@6#6==9>4>9/?2#A6482#
/=#G74>6<#C#@6D96B6#5:6A#5/#@6#29G82#480#264D2#/=#5:6#F/7M#/=#./0#98#/?7#
D9B62<# C# D/8G# =/7# +:488/8# 5/# @6# 4@D6# 5/# 645# 5:6# @/0;# /=# O:7925I# 480# 5/#
0798M#/=#%92#@D//0I#P?25#42#C#0/#=/7#6B67;#D955D6#>:9D0#98#A;#/F8#>/8G76H
G459/8#5:45#:42815#;65#A406#37/=6229/8#/=#=495:<#C#@6D96B6#A;#0647#@7/5:H
672#480#=45:672#98#5:6#068/A98459/8#98#F:9>:#C#267B6#476#F7/8G#/8#5:92#
922?6I#480#C#374;#5:92#B/D?A6#F9DD#@6#4#:6D3#5/#5:6AI#480#A;#@7/5:672#98#
/5:67#068/A98459/82<#
(?5# 5:6# 677/7# /=# A;# =45:672# 480# @7/5:672# 92815# 257/8G67# 5:48# 5:6#
G74>6#/=#./0<#%6#:42#37/A9260#5/#F/7M#5:7/?G:#5:6#@7640#480#5:6#F986I#
@?5#%6#92#8/5#2/#>/825749860<#C80660I#F6#@6D96B6#5:45#F6#476#@D62260#4DD#
5:6#A/76#0663D;#42#4#@/0;I#@6>4?26#F6#265#/?7#:647521#062976#42906#5:45#
 ! "#!$#!%&"'()!*"#! +,!

-.! /0123! 4.! 05! 26/47.! 84.90.5:.! 38! 328;.! -28/! <.! 2=;! >7=:.9! 8?.@!
6;#!A!3.=:2!32.!:851@.1=3085!A!;.@?.!32=3!-2.5!-.!1=32.@!=3!32.!3=47.!-.!
=@.!583!1=32.@051!05!;8632-.;3!B0@1050=#!C.032.@!=@.!-.!1=32.@051!85!=!
>=@30:67=@!%659=D!.=@7D!05!32.!3-.53DEF0@;3!:.536@D#!"=32.@G!A!=@16.!32=3!
-.! 1=32.@! 381.32.@! 85! 32.! 3@6.! =59! .3.@5=7! H8653! I085G! 32=3! -.! =@.!
70F3.9!6>!38!<0;!287D!/8653=05G!=59!32=3G!=;!-.!:8/.G!-.!.53.@!0538!<0;!
@.;3G! 0538! 32.! :85;6//=3085! 8F! 32.! J05198/#! A3! 0;! 86@! 2=403! -2.@.! A!
;.@?.!38!:8/.!F8@-=@9G!@8-!4D!@8-G!38!>=@3=J.!.=:2!-..J!8F!32.!;=:@=E
/.53#! (548@5! :2079@.5! =59! 328;.! -28! 2=?.5K3! D.3! /=9.! =! >@8F.;;085!
=@.! 70J.-0;.! =3! 32.! 3=47.G! =59! -.! >@=D! F8@! 32.;.G! 32=3! L89! -8679! 4.!
>7.=;.9!38!2.7>!32./!38!1@8-!05!1@=:.G!=59!38!4.=@!/6:2!F@603#!A3!0;!85.!
8F!32.!1@.=3!9.70123;!8F!32.!/050;3@D!38!1.3!38!;=D!32.;.!>@=D.@;#!M.!=@.!
=77G!-.!-8679!=@16.G!=3!32.!3=47.!8F!32.!)8@9G!328612!857D!;8/.!8F!6;G!=3!
>@.;.53G!/=D!.=3!=59!9@05J#!
N63! 03! 0;G! A! /6;3! :85F.;;G! =5! .?.5! 1@.=3.@! 9.70123! -2.5! A! 2=?.! 32.!
8>>8@36503D!38!>@=D!8?.@!%2=5585#!A!2879!2.@!301237D!05!/D!=@/;G!=59G!
2=?051!=;J.9!L89!38!47.;;!2.@G!A!-20;>.@!3-8!32051;!0538!2.@!.=@G!32051;!
A!4.70.?.!-032!=!>=;;085O%2=5585G!*.;6;!78?.;!D86G!=59!%2=5585G!*.;6;!
0;!2.@.#!A3!0;!/D!2.=@3F.73!:85?0:3085!32=3G!4.:=6;.!-.!2=?.!.53.@.9!0538!
86@!@.;3!-2.5!-.!:8/.!38!32.!3=47.G!32=3!%2=5585G!328612!;2.!D.3!:=5E
583! ;>.=JG! 583! 857D! 659.@;3=59;! .?.@D! -8@9! 32=3! A! ;>.=JG! 463! 659.@E
;3=59;! 32.! @.=703D! F=@! /8@.! >83.537D! 32=5! A! 98#! A! 4.70.?.! 32=3! *.;6;! 0;!
>7.=;.9!38!47.;;!2.@!-032!=!9..>!=-=@.5.;;!8F!<0;!>@.;.5:.G!.?.5!0F!;2.!
:=5583!.=3!32.!/.=7#!A!4.70.?.G!=59!788J!F8@-=@9!38!32.!1@=:.!8F!L89!05!
/D! 8-5! 70F.G! F8@! 32=3! 30/.! -2.5! A! -077! 4.! =47.! 38! ;..! =;! :7.=@7D! =;! ;2.!
98.;#! P8@! 8F! ;6:2! 0;! 32.! J05198/! 8F! 2.=?.5#! A! 788J! F8@! 32.! 9=D! -2.5!
%2=5585!-077!583!857D!F.=;3!-032!86@!Q051G!463!-077!9=5:.!-032!<0/#!A!
788J! F8@! 32.! 9=D! -2.5! ;2.! -077! 3.77! /.! 583! 857D! 32=3! ;2.! J58-;! *.;6;!
78?.;!2.@G!463!32=3!;2.!=7-=D;!J5.-!03#!
A!4.70.?.!70J.-0;.!32=3!*.;6;!0;!4@051051!=77!<0;!.5./0.;!659.@!;64E
R.:3085#! S2=3! /.=5;! 32=3! 85! =! 1@=59! ;:=7.G! 32051;! =@.! 1.33051! 4.33.@#! A!
4.70.?.! 05! 36@5! 32=3! 32.! :.53.@! 8F! $2@0;3K;! -8@JG! F@8/! <0;! =;:.5;085! 38!
<0;! @.36@5G! 0;5K3! ;0/>7D! 38! 4@051! 05! 32.! 78;3G! 8@! 38! ;64R61=3.! 32.! @.>@8E
4=3.G! 463! @=32.@! 03! 0;! 38! ;=5:30FD! <0;! 4@09.#! P8@! 32.! F0@;3! F0?.! 2659@.9!
D.=@;!8F!32.!20;38@D!8F!32.!$26@:2!32.@.!-=;!36@/807!=59!=5160;2!8?.@!
32.!0;;6.!8F!32.!>.@;85!8F!$2@0;3#!C8-G!328612!-.!98!583!4D!=5D!;3@.3:2!
!"# $%&'#&()*'#+%&,,),-# #

./012345/0# 566# 47131# 478/93:# ;72834# 753# 98<1/# %83# =2801# =>./052813# 8/#
471# 92154# 1?.@1/8?56# ?21103A# B8<1# 7./0210# C1523# 59># 471# ;7.2?7# D53#
5D537#8/#?>/E.38>/# ><12#7>D#84#83#4754#5#@5/#83#@501#28974#D847#F>0A#
F>0# 95<1# .3# 471# G1E>2@548>/:# 4754# D1# @8974# =14412# ./012345/0:# 1<1/#
@>21# E.66C# 475/# 4754# D78?7# ?5.310# 471# 01?61/38>/# >E# 471# @80061# 5913:#
471#@15/3#=C#D78?7#D1#75<1#H15?1#D847#F>0A##
%1#83#54#D>2I:#47>.97#%1#83#54#D>2I#36>D6CA#J#0>/K4#I/>D#D71/#84#
D866#=1:#=.4#5#05C#83#?>@8/9:#J#=1681<1:#D71/#471#;7.2?7#D866#3.EE12#471#
684461#?786021/#4>#?>@1#./4>#%8@A#&#05C#83#?>@8/9#D71/#566#F>0K3#?786L
021/#D866#154#5/0#028/I#D847#%8@A#&3#D1#6>/9#E>2#471#/>4#C14:#7>D1<12:#
614# .3# />4# 6>31# 38974# >E# 471# 562150CA# B>2# 84# 83# F>0K3# 0168974# />4# >/6C# 4>#
=6133# 566# 471# +75//>/3# 8/# %83# ;7.2?7:# =.4# 4># =6133# %83# ;7.2?7# D847#
@5/C# +75//>/3A# +71# 83# 5# =61338/9# 4># >.2# E5@86C:# 5/0# 4># >.2# ?>/92195L
48>/:#5/0#4>#471#)/1#D7>#753#21011@10#>.2#E5@86C:#5/0#>.2#?>/92195L
48>/A#%1#6><13#712:#53#0>#JA#
%520#?5313#?5/#@5I1#E>2#=50#65DA#(.4#=50#65D#?5/:#8/#4.2/:#@5I1#
E>2# 7520# ?5313A# '7121#521# >.4345/08/9#3?7>6523# >/# =>47# 38013# >E# 4783# 83L
3.1A# J# 75<1# 2150# 0833124548>/3# 5/0# =2>5038013:# H>3848>/# H5H123# 5/0# H>L
61@8?3A#'7131#92154#3?7>6523#521#5=61#4>#H5231#471#5/?81/4#41M43:#5/0#H>21#
><12#471#D830>@#>E#>.2#E547123A#(.4#D754#471C#@833#83#471#38@H68?84C#>E#
>.2# ?786021/A# J# =1681<1# 6133# 8/# H510>?>@@./8>/:# 5/0# @>21# 4754# +75/L
/>/:# 5/0# @C# 68446134# 05.97412# N5868:# 5/0# 566# 471# 684461# ?786021/# >E# 471#
;7.2?7:#37>.60#=1#98<1/#471#=2150#>E#68E1A#
#
#
#
#
#
#