The Table is indeed for sinners, but for sinners who are willing to repent of their sin and come to Christ where forgiveness is found. John’s warning in his first epistle applies nicely to this matter of self-examination, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Until a child gives evidence that the truth is in them by way of uncoerced repentance, it is in the best interest of the child’s spiritual well-being (1 Cor. 11:29) to wait until such a time as they repent on their own volition.

Dear Pastor: My son has been asking lots of questions about the Lord’s Supper and particularly why he doesn’t partake yet. I have been doing some research online and found there are Presbyterians in favor of child communion, or paedocommunion. I have to admit that some of their arguments sound pretty convincing. Could you explain why our church doesn’t admit all covenant children to the Lord’s Table by virtue of their baptism but only those who have made a profession of faith? 

Let me start by saying—Praise God! I love hearing that your son is taking an interest in the Lord’s Supper. Clearly he’s paying attention, and that in itself should be a tremendous encouragement to you as a parent. The simple means of grace are doing their good work even now.

There are a lot of ways to approach your question, but here are (in my opinion) the two strongest arguments you’ll find in support of paedocommunion and my answer to each from a confessional and Reformed perspective. (1) Fair warning, my answers will be on the longer side, but given the importance of your question I feel that it merits a thorough response:

Argument 1: In the same way that baptism is equivalent to and replaces circumcision, so too is the Lord’s Supper equivalent to and the replacement of the Passover. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night of the Passover and explained the significance of His sacrifice in distinctly paschal terms, thereby indicating His intention to eclipse the Passover with the Lord’s Supper. And if, as is the case with baptism and circumcision, the parties who participated in the Old Testament sacrament is determinative of the parties that ought to partake in the New Testament (i.e. baby boys were circumcised at eight days old, long before they could profess faith, therefore we can and should baptize covenant children before they are able to profess faith), then we should also allow all covenant children to partake of the Lord’s Supper since all within the household ate the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:1-4, 26-27).

Answer: This argument seems pretty airtight on the surface, but there are several noteworthy difficulties:

1. The Lord’s Supper is the culmination of the Passover, but not just the Passover—it is the culmination of every Old Testament festival and sacramental meal. It’s true that Christ is “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7), but He is also our burnt offering (Lev. 1), grain and drink offering (Lev. 2), peace offering (Lev. 3), sin offering (Lev. 4), and the scapegoat upon whom all our sins were laid (Lev. 16). Instead of seeing Jesus replacing the Passover to the exclusion of all other Old Testament sacraments (which prompts the question “Where is their New Testament equivalent?”), we would do better to see Jesus fulfilling and replacing all of these ceremonial rites in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. And because the scope of participation in these rites was not uniform but varied (e.g. see Lev. 6:16, 24-26 where the priests eat a portion of the grain and sin offerings), we cannot look to any one Old Testament sacrament as normative for who should and should not be admitted to the Lord’s Table. We need more than just Exodus 12 to determine who can rightly partake, hence the importance of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11. 
2. If we grant that the Lord’s Supper replaces the Passover in the same way that baptism replaces circumcision, then we have to acknowledge that there is not an exact correlation of participation in the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. Case in point: under the Old Covenant, circumcision was limited only to males (whether converted in adulthood or born within the covenant). Does that mean then that we should limit baptism only to males under the New Covenant? Of course not. (2) Paul baptized Lydia and her household in Acts 16:15 and this was perfectly consistent with what he would later write to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). So, while there are obvious parallels between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, not every detail of the Passover is meant to be reflected in the Lord’s Supper. 
3. Not every circumcised individual ate of the Passover lamb. Even diehard paedocommunion advocates have to acknowledge that an 8-day-old circumcised baby boy was not eating the Passover lamb. And nor was his abstaining from the Passover meal seen as tantamount to a denial of his covenantal membership. It was physically impossible for him to do so. And, as the question posed by the child in Exodus 12:26 demonstrates, it wasn’t just the ability to chew and swallow that enabled a child to participate in the Passover meal. At the very least, the child’s comprehension was of such a quality that he could inquire of his parents, “What do you mean by this service?” 

This sounds like where your son is right now! Affirm him as he asks these questions. Invite further conversation. (3) Offer to spend one-on-one time with him to talk about your experience of first coming to the Table. Loop in one of your elders to discuss any questions he may have and to demonstrate that his elders really do have an interest in his soul. Such curiosity is the first step toward admittance to the Table. But, beyond curiosity, there needs to be a level of commitment on his part before he can rightly partake. This is where 1 Corinthians 11 offers us helpful clarity on the nature of this commitment. 

Argument 2: 1 Corinthians 11:29 does not preclude covenant children who have yet to profess faith from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. It only excludes those who are positively disruptive to the life of the body (that is, the body of believers [cf. 1 Cor. 10:17]). In the same way that the command “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…” (Acts 2:38) does not preclude those who cannot visibly repent of sin (i.e. infant children) from being baptized, nor does the exhortation “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:28-29) preclude children who have yet to understand the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper from partaking of it. 

Answer: First, I want to commend those who maintain this position for their desire to uphold the 3 C’s of biblical interpretation—context, context, context.

Read More