![[ theologia ]](http://www.hornes.org/theologia/images/theologia_title.jpg)
I received this as a text file and understand the the reports to a General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by one of it’s committees are public documents. Rev. Dan Dillard (OPC) informs me that the members of the committee were the Rev. Mssrs. Leonard Coppes, Peter Lillback, Edwin Urban, Roger Wagner, and G.I. Williamson. Minority Report # 1, against paedocommunion, was written by Leonard Coppes. Minority Report # 2, against paedocommunion, was by Peter Lillback. Edwin Urban, Roger Wagner, and G.I. Williamson signed this, the majority report, which argues for the Biblical position that our covenant children should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper by virtue of their baptism. In marking up this document from a text file, I may have made any number of errors; or else the text could be made clearer. If you see anything that needs improving, please let me know.–Mark Horne
INTRODUCTION
Your committee reported to you last year that a great deal has been written in the last few years on the question of the participation of young covenant children m the Lord’s Supper. Many within the Reformed community of North America have addressed the issue from both sides. Several churches are taking a new look at the biblical material and evaluating their own practices in a fresh way in the light of God’s Word.
Last year your committee duplicated and circulated to the ministers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and (through them) the Sessions of the local churches, copies of what we took to be the most insightful and helpful writings on this subject to appear in recent years. In presenting its present report, the majority of your committee has tried to exercise good stewardship of its time (and yours) by not reproducing in its report the extensive argumentation that others have presented in other forums.
The report which follows is in three parts. Part I takes up the case for the admission of young covenant children to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper on the sole basis of their baptism and ongoing faithfulness to the covenant in daily living under the oversight and discipline of the local Session. In developing this argument we have tried to address lines of thought which we have not seen extensively dealt with elsewhere. This portion of the report also attempts to answer some of the objections commonly raised against the position we advocate particularly those arising from the common understanding of I Corinthians.
As Part II of our report, we have incorporated (with permission) material from a recent report (dated May, 1986) prepared for the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Presbyterian Church in America by a committee erected to study the issue of paedocommunion. This report was written by Messrs. Christian L. Keidel, David J. Brewer, and Donald S. Stone. We agree in substance with the findings in this report and believe it is valuable for your consideration, especially in its responses to several further objections (including some raised by previous reports to the General Assembly of the O.P.C.) to the position advocated by the majority of your committee.
Part III of our report presents a practical model for consideration as a means to begin to implement the findings of this committee in the local churches of the O.P.C. Much in this section is suggestive of the direction the majority believes the church should move, and is presented for consideration and refinement with a view to further actions by future General Assemblies.
PART I: ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE ADMISSION OF YOUNG COVENANT CHILDREN TO THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
I THE LORD’S SUPPER AND THE PASSOVER
Much has been written on the covenantal connection between the Lord’s Supper and the Old Testament Passover. There is essential agreement among Reformed theologians and commentators regarding the fact that Passover, and the other sacrificial meals of the old covenant system, find their meaning and fulfillment in the death of Christ and its benefits, sacramentally represented in the new covenant Lord’s Supper.
We will not attempt to reproduce those discussions in this report. We do offer the conclusions of B. B. Warfield as a summary of the findings among covenant theologians on this interrelationship between new and old covenant sacraments, and its significance for our understanding of the Lord’s Supper (cf. B. B. Warfield, “The Fundamental Significance of the Lord’s Supper,’ in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. I, pp. 332-338):
The most salient fact connected with the institution of the Lord’s Supper is, of course, that this took place at, or, to be more specific, in the midst of, the Passover meal (p. 332).[The Lord's Supper] is not something entirely different from the Passover - or even wholly separate from it - now put into its place, to be celebrated by Christians instead of it. It is much rather only a new form given to the Passover, for the continuance of its essential substance through all time (p. 333).
Above all, the true Lamb to which all the Paschal lambs had pointed was at length to be offered up; fulfilled in the antitype it would be indecorous to offer up longer the types. Thus the change that was made in the chosen symbols of the great sacrifice needed to have regard at once to the closing of the old dispensation of typical sacrifices, to the opening of the new dispensation of universal spiritual worship, and to the passing away of the type in the antitype. All of this was beautifully provided for when Jesus, even as they ate the last Paschal lamb, took the bread and wine that lay before him, and, with the unmistakable emphasis of contrast, said, “This is my body given for you;” “This is my blood of the covenant poured out for you.” Whatever his disciples missed in their wonder at the new things that were so mysteriously and so rapidly crowding upon them, we may be sure they did not miss this: that in some way the Master was transforming the Passover for them and giving them not indeed a new symbolism for it but new symbols in it (p. 335).
[In the O.T. sacrificial meals] the victim offered was the material of the meal, and the idea of expiation was therefore fundamental to it - it was a feast of death. But, on the other hand, just because it was a festive meal, it in any case also celebrated rather the effects than the fact of this death - it was a feast of life (p. 336).
Assuredly … the sacrificial feast is not a repetition of the sacrifice; and equally certainly it is something more than a mere commemoration of the sacrifice: it is specifically a part of the sacrifice, and more particularly this part - the application of it. Everyone who partook of the sacrificial feast, had “communion in the altar” … those who ate of the sacrificed victim became thereby participants in the benefits attained by the sacrifice (p. 336).
All who partake of this bread and wine, the appointed symbols of his body and blood, therefore, are symbolically partaking of the victim offered on the altar of the cross, and are by this act professing themselves offerers of the sacrifice and seeking to become beneficiaries of it. That is the fundamental significance of the Lord’s Supper (p. 337).
The Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial feast is accordingly not the sacrifice, that is, the act of offering up Christ’s body and blood; it is, however, the sacrifice, that is the body and blood of Christ that were offered, which is eaten in it: and therefore it is presuppositive of the sacrifice as an act of offering and implies that this act has already been performed once for all (p. 337).
II THE LORD’S SUPPER AND BAPTISM
Baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the covenant of grace. The Lord’s upper is the sacrament of continuance and growth in covenantal grace (cf. Directory for Worship, VI:B,C). The former signifies and seals our union with Christ, the tatter our communion with Him. Both bespeak the benefits that come to the people f God through identification with Christ - in His unique person and work - as the Mediator of the covenant and Guarantor of its benefits.
Both have an objective significance and character which is not determined by :he subjective condition of those participating in them. Thus both can bring either blessing or cursing upon the one receiving the sacrament: blessing upon those who use the sacrament in the context of a life of covenantal faith, love, and loyalty; cursing upon those who participate in the sacraments living as covenant-breakers.
Some have made a point of the relative “passivity” of baptism and the relative ‘activity” of participation in the Lord’s Supper. While there is some obvious truth to this assertion, we must be careful that it not be allowed to distinguish the sacraments on the level of the relative importance of the subjective condition of the participant in each. Baptism is not more objective because the participant is more passive in its administration. Neither is the subjective condition of the participant more vital to the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper because the subject is more active in the celebration of that ordinance.
On the contrary, there is parity between the sacraments as to the central significance of their objective meaning (i.e., their covenantal meaning as prescribed by God). They are, before all else, signs and seals of the covenant of grace, and of covenantal grace. They are equal in that their efficacy depends completely upon he sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the participant. Only secondarily do they tell us something about the participant. The importance of the subjective condition of the participant in each sacrament lies in the fact that blessing or cursing will flow from each according to covenant-keeping or covenant-breaking in the participant.
Some views of the sacraments, which highlight their “memorial” and “proclamation” function (e.g., Zwinglian and Anabaptist views), tend to emphasize the subjective side of the sacraments (particularly the Lord’s Supper). Their significance is understood in terms of the condition and intention of the participant: the sacraments are seen primarily as “acts of faith.”
Calvin, and the other Reformed formulators of our sacramental heritage, ejected this point of view on the grounds that it de-emphasized or undercut the objective character of the sacraments, which they took to be primary. Berkhof points out that Calvin criticizes the position of Zwingli on the Supper because the latter “stresses the activity of the believers rather than the gracious gift of God in he sacrament, and therefore conceives of the Lord’s Supper one-sidedly as an act f profession” (History of Christian Doctrine, p. 255). The same criticism can be brought with some justice against at least some of the reasons given for the current practice of the O.P.C. in failing to admit young covenant children to the Lord’s able.
In recent discussions over the issue of paedocommunion, those who have stressed the active/passive distinction mentioned above have (at least implicitly) laid the same one-sided stress on the subjective significance of the Lord’s Supper as over against Baptism. The Lord’s Supper, they argue, is more “active” than Baptism. Therefore faith in the participant is more vital to the right use of it. Since young children (they allege) cannot demonstrate such faith, they ought to be prevented from participating in the Supper.
The subjective condition of the participant, we answer, is not more (or less) vital to the right use of Baptism than it is to proper participation in communion. To frame a distinction between the two sacraments in this way obscures, at least in practice, the centrality of the objective character of the sacraments: they are both “means of grace” rather than “acts of faith” (though faithful reception of both is necessary to the enjoyment of them as blessings).
We need to address the question of the efficacy of the sacraments, and the role of faith in the proper use of them, within the context of the covenant life of the people of God. The sacraments were given by God to the Church as an integral part of the new covenantal corporate life of the people of God. They cannot be properly described in abstraction from that setting. An understanding of their efficacy cannot be had if they are removed from their covenantal sphere of significance.
In administering the sacraments to the people of God, the question we need to ask is not, “What does the administration of the sacrament do to the subjective condition of the participant in the moment of its administration?” Or, “How does the subjective condition of the participant affect the sacrament in the moment of its administration?” But rather, “What is the content of the declaration God makes in these sacraments?”
Since our practice of Baptism, especially in the case of covenant children in infancy, lays great stress on the objective character of the sacrament, we do not ordinarily become exercised about the question of the efficacy of Baptism in the moment of its administration (cf. WCF, XXVIII:6). We rather draw attention to the promises of God signified and sealed by the sacrament - union with Christ, adoption into God’s covenant family, forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the sanctifying Spirit - which are enjoyed by the baptized person by faith. Further we stress, quite properly, the responsibility of the one baptized (child or adult) to live a life of daily faithfulness and obedience to God in the setting of the corporate life and discipline of the local church. Even when one who has been baptized becomes a covenant-breaker later in life, we do not ask if the sacrament of Baptism in his case was ineffectual. Instead we quite properly discipline the offender, and, if necessary, exclude him from the life of the covenant community, in the hope that he will repent. If such repentance takes place, again we do not address ourselves to the question of the efficacy of his baptism, but we instead proceed to restore such a one to the covenant community and his consequent enjoyment of the privileges of fellowship with God.
All this is as it should be, and results from the fact that the objective character of the sacrament of Baptism controls our understanding and practice of it. But in the case of the Lord’s Supper we are far less willing to look at one’s participation in this sacrament in the context of one’s whole covenantal life. By our calling for self-examination and “discernment” on the part of communicants as part of their preparation for each observance, we direct attention (perhaps unwittingly) away from the objective character of this sacrament. People are making judgments about their subjective condition every time communion is celebrated, and as a result they often “suspend” or “excommunicate” themselves on a week-by-week, or monthly-month basis. And often the criteria for this evaluation are highly emotional and subjective. The effect of the whole is a tendency to obscure Christ, as the object of faith, from our view, and to hinder the very effectiveness of the sacrament in the life of God’s people which we are concerned to promote.
What may be worse, this process of ad hoc excommunication may well get in the way of the elders’ evaluation of the overall spiritual well-being of the flock and their administration of proper church discipline where the need is indicated. A member who continues to sin, but has the integrity to decline to participate in communion, may be allowed to continue in that sin longer than is good for his growth in grace and the glory of Christ. On the other hand, believers who truly need the grace of God which the Supper (as one means) is designed to bring to them may well, through confusion and the application of faulty criteria for “self-examination,” cut themselves off from this encouraging and nurturing ordinance to the detriment of their spiritual growth and maturity.
But finally, and most importantly for the purposes of this study, this sacramental “subjectivism” in the practice of administering the Lord’s Supper can have devastating consequences when applied to the question of the time and means by which covenant children are admitted to the Table. Though we confess otherwise (see above), in practice we act as if the efficacy of the sacrament does depend on subjective conditions at the time of administration. As a result we erect criteria for admission which are at once unbiblical and unattainable for many of Christ’s little ones who are members of his covenant and are entitled to use the means of grace Christ has appointed for their nurture in the faith. We do not judge the faith and faithfulness of covenant children on an ongoing basis by criteria appropriate to the recognition of a growing and deepening life of faith, but rather we seek to erect some standards for examination and “professing faith” which will satisfy us that their use of the Lord’s Supper will not prove ineffectual (i.e., become a curse to them).
On the basis of the parity of the sacraments, and the centrality of their objective meaning, we call upon the church to take more seriously the implications of these considerations for its current practices. The function of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper in the life of a member of the church should be evaluated in the context of the whole life of a member lived out in daily faithfulness and love. It should not be only, or even primarily, on the basis of subjective conditions at the time of administration. Church discipline should then be used to deal with sin in the lives of God’s people. Our present practice has the effect of creating a kind of “halfway covenant” within the church for noncommuning children and adults.
III THE MEANING OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
A. A Powerful Means of Grace
Within the covenant of grace, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a powerful means by which God the Holy Spirit communicates to believers the benefits of the work of Jesus Christ the Mediator. Against magical and memorial interpretations of the Supper, the Reformed have stressed its function as a “means f grace,” an expression of the Spirit’s work in the application of redemption.
The sacraments are given to the Church, the covenant people of God, as n ongoing part of their new corporate life in fellowship with the Spirit, to be a constant reminder and confirmation of the blessings of the covenant until the end
of the age and the return of Christ. When properly used by the Church, these sacraments, and particularly the frequent repetition of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, serve to strengthen and mature the Church’s understanding of the blessings of the covenant of grace. As a result the appreciation of the people for the benefits of their communion with the living God is enriched. For this reason the proper administration of the sacraments is vitally important for all the people of God.
1. A sign of the covenant
The physical elements of the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not merely with regard to the genuineness of his human nature, but specifically with regard to the offering of that flesh and blood in death. The once-for-all atoning sacrifice of Calvary is represented in the elements as explained by the biblical words of institution. In the proper eating and drinking thereof by the people of God, there is an effectual communion in that perfect sacrifice, and a sharing in its saving benefits. That communion is not carnal, but spiritual, in that the efficaciousness of the sacrament depends upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit inwardly in the hearts of God’s people.
2. A seal of the covenant
The physical elements, being visible signs, at the same time confirm and seal the benefits of salvation to the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit. God has graciously determined to confirm the certainty and unchangeableness of his covenant, as he did to Abraham of old, by an “oath” (Heb. 6:17,18). That oath is represented in the sacrament as a “seal” of the covenant, by which use, the faith of believers in the promises of God is confirmed and strengthened.
B. A Vivid Teaching Device
Calvin has rightly pointed out that the sacraments are given by our gracious covenant Lord as a further condescension to our human weakness.
For God’s truth is of itself firm and sure enough, and it cannot receive better confirmation from any other source than from itself. But as our faith is slight and feeble unless it be propped on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters, and at last gives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep on the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings (Institutes, IV, Ch. 14, sect. 3, “Library of Christian Classics” edition, vol. 2, p. 1278).
In the Word made (sacramentally) “visible” our faith is more fully instructed and nurtured. God is the Master Pedagogue who not only speaks in true and clear words, but is also able to give concrete expression to His truth in a vivid use of metaphor, symbol, parable, object lesson, etc. (cf. the teaching method of the Old Testament wisdom literature, etc.).
The sacraments, as visible words, are one means by which God has taught his people throughout their history, and that continues in the case of the new covenant sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Of all the features of the teaching ministry of the Church, the sacraments, in their unique visible/action quality are among the best suited to the instruction of covenant children. The abstractions of the faith are made concrete in the elements and action of the sacrament. This is especially true of the Lord’s Supper, where the elements and actions are directly and closely representative of the spiritual realities they exhibit.
Far from being more difficult for the covenant child to understand, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper will likely be the most accessible and helpful key to his grasping the meaning of the atonement of Christ and its importance to the salvation and present standing of the people of God. The doctrinal formulations of federal theology, the nature of atonement, imputation, justification, and communion with Christ are made vivid in the sacrament. Instruction keyed to the sacramental elements and actions will be far more educational to the covenant child than will efforts that distance themselves from participation in the sacrament
Pastoral experience in the teaching of covenant children about the sacraments indicates that the fears of some that “young children cannot understand the sacraments” is not well-grounded. Indeed the very opposite seems to be the case. Covenant children, not being laden with so much of the confusing intellectual baggage which many adult communicants carry, are often able at a very early age to come to a clear and accurate appreciation of the significance of the Lord’s Supper. It was not, after all, young children that invented the dangerous errors of “transubstantiation” or the “sacrifice of the mass.”
IV PARTICIPANTS IN THE LORD’S SUPPER
A. The Present Ambiguity
What is the paradigm for admission to the church and to the Lord’s Table?
Much confusion in theory and practice has arisen in the Reformed churches because of a failure to appreciate the true paradigm for admission into the sphere of covenant blessing. While Reformed churches universally confess the biblical warrant for, and propriety of, infant baptism, there is often confusion among them which arises in seeking to apply the categories of adult conversion to the case of a covenant child (especially in infancy and early childhood). How do the categories of repentance and faith - recognized criteria for the admission of an adult convert into the church - apply in the case of a covenant child?
While we confess that there is only “one baptism,” yet in practice (if not in principle) we tend to view the meaning of baptism in the case of a covenant child differently from that of an adult convert. The status of covenant children is disputed: Are they believers? Nonbelievers? Are they only “outwardly” in the covenant? Are they “in the church,” but not yet “in Christ?” A two-tiered view of membership develops within the church. Finally, a rite of “public profession of faith” - analogous to that made by the adult convert - is imposed as a requirement on covenant children to insure that they can (at last) be seen and treated in the categories of adult conversion. In practice, the covenant privilege of participation in the Lord’s Supper is accordingly withheld from the covenant child until such an “adult-style” profession of faith (conversion?) takes place. While little or no biblical warrant for such a procedure can be found, the practice is maintained because of the “paradigm problem.” If adult conversion is the norm for admission into the church, then the place and demands made of covenant children must be seen in terms of that pattern.
We propose that this scheme needs to be turned on its head in order for the biblical pattern to be seen, appreciated, and imitated. The norm for entry into the covenant should not be adult conversion, as over against the nurture of children within the covenant. Ever since the inception of the covenant in the days of Abraham, the gracious saving promise of God has been made to the “seed” of the faithful (Gen. 15:4-6;17:5-7; etc.), who in turn receive the promise to their seed after them (Deut. 5:2, 3; cf. Ps. 128:5, 6). God’s covenant is maintained through families from generation to generation.
Accordingly, we would expect children born within the covenant to receive the sign of baptism, which identifies them as the people of God, and fully members of the covenant community. They would be
nurtured by the promises and precepts of God which are the presuppositional norm for covenant living (Deut. 6:7ff.; Pvb. 4:1-9).
Expressions of love and faithfulness to God, as well as loyalty to the people and institutions of the covenant, would be a dawning, growing, maturing experience for the child as a member of the covenant. The privileges of the covenant belong to him as they do to his elders. They provide for his nurture and discipline in the faith, as well as to serve for the expression of his covenant faithfulness to God. As he grows the direct jurisdiction of parents gives way to the oversight of the elders in bearing the responsibility for his discipline within the church. When he finally attains adulthood, and marries and begets children, the process begins again. This is the paradigm for entry into, and growth within the covenant. Covenant children are not an anomaly within the Church. They are not “semimembers” until the day they are examined and approved (like adults), before they can enter into full standing in the church.
When in the fullness of time God sent His Son into the world, to represent His people as the true “son of the covenant,” this is the way He Himself entered into the covenant. He was born, according to the flesh, to a faithful covenant keeping family. He was an heir of the covenant promises, and was therefore circumcised according to the provisions of God’s Law (Gen. 17:7). He was nurtured in the faith of the people of God from infancy, and lived a life of growing, maturing faith and obedience to God (Lk. 2:40, 52). When, according to His humanity, did Jesus make His “profession of faith?” Was the paradigm of an adult proselyte applied to Him? Certainly not. When was his demonstrable faith and loyalty to God credited by the elders so that He could enjoy the full privileges of membership in the covenant community? The answer is: from the first.
With this paradigm in view, the question regarding the adult convert who desires to identify with the people of God, and thus enter the sphere of covenant blessing, becomes, “How can one who ‘was a Gentile by birth … separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of promise’ become an heir of the promises of salvation?” [See Eph. 2:11,12]. This question receives a new urgency in the history of redemption with the dawning of the present age inaugurated by the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ. The answer is found in the certainty of the ancient promise that through Abraham and his descendants “all the peoples of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3) - the promise of the ingrafting of the Gentiles. Under the new covenant administration there is even greater assurance that “outsiders” will come (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 28:28), for this is the era of the universal expansion of the Church under the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
The answer to this question is given in the Scriptures in the call addressed to Gentile adults to repent, believe, profess faith, and be baptized. The model of adult conversion is almost universally accepted by evangelicals as normative because of the New Testament examples of the redemptive-historical “conversion” of Jews at the moment of transition from the old to the new, and the ingrafting “conversion” of Gentiles, to become one “new man” in Christ, and members of His body, the Church.
The very model which fits so poorly when applied to the situation of children growing within the covenant, perfectly describes the experience of, and the proper requirements placed upon, those who were not covenant children, but wish to become heirs of the promise. In their situation repentance and faith has a much more readily identifiable “beginning.” The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the pagan registers much more decisively in his consciousness s requiring a radical break with his past, and a desire to identify with God and His people. In the case of such a convert, both baptism and the privilege of coming to the Table of the Lord are dependent on some overt act of commitment to the covenant. But, as in the case of the covenant child, there is (or should be) no further qualifying demand for the adult convert, beyond Baptism, which must be satisfied before being admitted to the Lord’s Table.
We are not arguing that faith is more necessary for the right participation of an adult in the Lord’s Supper than in the case of a child. We are rather addressing the question of how that faith should be expected to manifest itself in ach case, and the criteria the church should use in evaluating that faith with respect to the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is inappropriate, more, it is unbiblical, to judge the children of the covenant by the categories which are descriptive of (and normative for) adult converts from paganism.
From the perspective of this covenant-nurture paradigm, conversion, repentance, faith, obedience, and admission to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the case of covenant children need rethinking. These need not be tied closely to certain age, nor to an identifiable experience or event. Rather they are seen as existing and growing over years. The kind of “conversion experience” that we often see in the case of an adult convert from paganism need not be (and may not often be) the sort of experience of commitment to God that we will find in our covenant children. We need not expect it, nor ought we to have doubts about a child’s faith where such an experience is lacking. Faith in the covenant child will more likely express itself in a growing understanding of God, his promises, and :he gracious relationship that exists between God and his people. It will feed upon :he training received from the Word of God, and will be confirmed and strengthened by a proper use of all the means of grace. Repentance will be a daily part of :he experience of the covenant child both as a sinner and as a recipient of God’s saving mercy. Obedience to God and loyalty to the people of God and the institutions of the covenant will be manifest in a covenant child’s development toward maturity and service in the church.
Against this background, admitting young covenant children to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ceases to be problematic. Further, the imposition of :he additional demand (besides Baptism) for a rite of “public profession of faith” appears all the more arbitrary. The parallel between the function of the sacrament of Baptism and that of the Lord’s Supper becomes all the more clear. Both have their meaning and proper function within the context of sustained daily living in covenant with God. And finally, church discipline is restored to its proper place as the instrument given to the elders of the church for dealing with unfaithfulness and covenant-breaking (among covenant children just as with adult converts within the church). We believe this is the biblical pattern, rather than the “nonadmission policy” with respect to participation in the Lord’s Supper for covenant children, to which we so often resort thus creating the aforementioned “two-tiered” view of church membership.
We can thus summarize the qualifications for admission to the church and the Lord’s Supper for adult converts and covenant children as follows:
B. The Biblical Qualifications
1. For adults
a. Baptism
The sacrament of inclusion in the sphere of covenant blessing, is administered to the adult convert upon his profession of faith before, and approval by, the Session. No further qualifying criteria must be satisfied in addition to this baptism for admission to the Lord’s Table. As an alien to the covenant and its gracious promises, the adult convert must commit himself to God and to His covenant people as a deliberate and thoughtful choice (cf. Ruth 1:16; Rom 10:9). This he will freely do as an expression of the regenerating and converting work of the Spirit in his heart. The elders have been entrusted by Christ with the authority and responsibility for judging the credibility of that profession, and extending to the adult convert the right hand of fellowship as a member of the people of God entitled to all its gracious provisions, including the sacraments and the other means of grace.
b. Faithfulness
The adult convert is then obligated to live an ongoing life of faith and obedience, and, should he be found delinquent in doctrine or life, he is subject to the discipline of the Lord, administered within the church (formally) by the elders. Such discipline may include suspension or expulsion from participation in the Lord’s Supper (Mt. 18:15-20;1 Cor. 5:6-8). While Scripture calls the new convert to grow in grace and in an understanding of biblical doctrine, it does not mandate that communicants achieve a particular level of doctrinal knowledge. Lack of spiritual growth, including growth in knowledge, should be of deep concern to the elders of the church (Heb. 5:11-6:3), it does not (in itself) disqualify from participation in the Lord’s Supper, except in the context of the proper exercise of church discipline, as mentioned above.
2. For covenant children
a. Baptism
Since covenant children are entitled to the provisions of God’s covenant mercy for their enjoyment and growth in grace, they are to be baptized. By baptism they are, in the fullest sense, members of the church. This includes a right to the use of the means of grace, including participation in the Lord’s Supper when they are physically able to do so in their own right. No criteria in addition to baptism (i.e., “public profession of faith”) ought to be required of the covenant child in order to qualify them for participation in the Lord’s Supper.
b. Faithfulness.
These covenant children are expected to manifest repentance for sin, faith in Christ, love for God and His commandments, obedience, and loyalty, yet these characteristics must be seen and evaluated by the elders in terms of day-by-day living, and maturation as a child is nurtured in the Word of God by his family and the whole covenant community. If such growth in covenant faithfulness is not forthcoming, then the child is and ought to be subject to the biblical discipline of the church. To withhold the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from covenant children who are not “covenant-breakers,” but who have not satisfied the extrabiblical requirement for a “public profession of faith,” is without warrant from the Word of God, and is detrimental to the spiritual well-being of Christ’s “little ones” (cf. Lk. 18:16,17), who, like all the people of God, depend upon the means of grace (including this sacrament) for their growth in a vital and fruitful life of faith.
C. Answers to Objections Against the Admission of Covenant Children to the Lord’s Supper on the Warrant of their Baptism Alone (urged primarily from I Corinthians 11):
1. Preliminary considerations:
a.
The information given by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 11 regarding the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper must not be taken as an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Neither is it necessarily the most basic passage for our understanding of how one - especially a covenant child - ought to participate in the sacrament. Like all of Paul’s writings, the material in I Corinthians 11 is occasional, and his instructions are closely tied to the specifics of the historical and ecclesiastical situation originally addressed. This does not relativize the text in any way, but simply reminds us that it must be contextually interpreted and properly applied.
b.
The interpretation of I Corinthians 11:23-32 has suffered greatly as a result of a liturgical usage of these “words of institution” in the history of the Church. As a result, the warnings and instructions of the apostle have been abstracted from their context in the letter (i.e., vv. 17-34). With the passage of time, the interpretation of these words has developed in isolation from that broader context and the immediate historical setting. Consequently the understanding and application of this passage have become increasingly broad and absolute. A case in point, which is of central concern to this present study, is the way in which the warnings and instructions of this passage have been used as grounds for the exclusion of young covenant children from participation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
c.
The urgent necessity of an understanding and application of this passage controlled (and limited) by its literary context, and its historical and ecclesiastical setting, cannot be overestimated. This report will attempt to answer several objections to paedocommunion on the basis of such a contextual understanding in application of this passage. In so doing the committee has been helped by many fine studies, but is especially indebted to the recent commentary on the passage by Dr. Gordon D. Fee (New International Commentary on the New Testament: I Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 531-569). We will follow Dr. Fee’s exposition in great measure in what follows.
d.
Dr. Fee summarizes the situation in Corinth briefly as follows:
[The Corinthians] are meeting together to eat the Lord’s Supper but in so doing they are “devouring” their own private meals with their privileged portions and thereby humiliating those who have nothing. Because they have treated the Table of the Lord so badly, neither proclaiming the salvation for which this meal is intended nor “discerning the body of Christ, the church,” they are presently experiencing divine judgment. The remedy is simple: “In the gathered assembly, receive one another with full welcome at the Lord’s Table.” Moreover as Paul says in v. 22, “Since you have your own houses to eat and drink in, eat your ‘private’ meals at home.” And the reason is to keep from experiencing any further judgment (pp. 568, 569).
Our understanding of Paul’s use of the “words of institution” (which are, though important, introduced incidentally and supportively in his argument here, rather than for their own sake), and his discussion of the ideas of “unworthy participation,” “examining (or proving) oneself,” “discernment,” and “the body” must be determined by this contextual setting. Further, this setting must guide our determination regarding the relevance of Paul’s statements to the question of the propriety of young covenant children participating in the Lord’s Supper.
2. Some specific objections:
a. Children cannot “examine/prove themselves.”
Paul says that before one participates in the Lord’s Supper (v. 27), he ought to “examine himself” (dokimazeto, v. 28). Many have taken this to refer to an introspective self-evaluation to determine several things about one’s subjective condition in coming to the Table. Paul’s term, however, refers to a very different kind of “examination.” It is a “demonstrative” examination whereby, in the face of testing circumstances, one demonstrates the nature of his godly character by words and deeds that bring approval from God. The cognate adjective is used in v. 19 to refer to those in the Corinthian church who will be “shown to have the divine approval.”
Fee points out that this self-examination “stands in contrast to the ‘divine examination’ to which unworthy participation will lead” (p. 561), and which is already circumstantially evident in the illness and deaths of some of the Corinthian members (v. 30). Paul is therefore calling the Corinthians to realize the immanent danger of divine “examination” and “discipline” (v. 32) that is coming upon them because of their abuse of the Supper.
Specifically, that abuse involved a lack of consideration by the wealthier Corinthian saints for those of poor and humble means. At their “gatherings” for the Lord’s Supper, some of the Corinthians were using the occasion to glut themselves on their own private provisions. In so doing they were “despising” (kataphroneite, a strong word for “showing contempt”) the church of God by “humiliating” (kataischunete, cf. 11:4, 5) those among the brothers who have nothing. This was the cause of the “divisions” among them which led Paul to address this problem in the first place (vv. 17f.).
When Paul calls the Corinthians (especially the well-to-do among them) to “examine themselves,” he is commanding them to cease from their contemptuous behavior of humiliating the poor among them. They are to demonstrate by their behavior - behavior that will follow the specific directives of the apostle outlined in vv. 33, 34 - that they have “passed the test,” and have the approval of God (cf. v. 19). If they do not, then, in their continued sin, they are liable to the providential “examination” of God, to which some have already fallen victim, which will demonstrate that they do not have His approval, but rather have been “disciplined so that they will not be condemned with the world” (v. 32).
Can a covenant child “examine himself” as commanded here in the sense in which Paul uses it? Leaving aside the question of the relevance of this command to the Corinthian children or to our contemporary covenant children (see below), we can answer the question with a qualified “Yes.” It is possible for a covenant child, when tested (cf. I Cor. 10:13), to demonstrate by his words and behavior that he is living a godly life which seeks the approval of God. Such faithfulness can be observed even in a young child by both parents, elders, and other members of the church.
While it is unlikely that a young child would be confronted with a situation precisely like that which Paul addresses in I Corinthians 11:17-34, he may well experience similar occasions where considerate behavior towards others is required, and may well “pass the examination.” Such demonstrable godliness should be part of his growing experience of living in covenant with God, and should receive the approval of God and His people. It is striking that it is just this sort of “examination” which Luke says the young Jesus “passed” over and over
Casting the question and answer in this light clearly illustrates how inadequate the traditional view of “self-examination” is in light of Paul’s teaching in the context of I Corinthians 11. While the periods of pietistic introspection which have become a customary part of our celebrations of the Lord’s Supper may have value to some, they are certainly not what Paul is commanding in this passage. Therefore to keep young covenant children back from the Table because they cannot engage in such “soul-searching,” is simply unbiblical. They are not required by this Scripture to do so, nor is anyone else. What everyone is required to do - demonstrate by godly living that we have God’s approval - can be done by young children as well as adults, and is regularly done by many of our covenant children today.
b. Children cannot “discern the body” (v.29).
The reference in Paul’s instructions to “discern the body” has most often been taken to mean that a communicant must recognize the Lord’s body, symbolized by the bread of the Supper, and, in eating, reflect upon Christ’s death and its significance for the communicant.
Without minimizing the importance of the symbolism of the bread and wine in the Supper, or the central importance of the death of Christ for God’s saving work on behalf of His sinful people, we are still forced to ask if that is indeed what Paul has in mind in this context. When Paul wants to refer to the communion elements, and that which they symbolize, in this passage, he always mentions them both together (cf. vv. 26, 27, 28). So we must look in another direction for the significance of the term “body” in verse 29.
Fee argues that, “the term ‘body,’ even though it comes by way of the words of institution in v. 24, deliberately recalls Paul’s interpretation of the bread in 10:17, thus indicating that the concern is with the problem in Corinth itself, of the rich abusing the poor” (p. 563). That is to say the term “body” here refers not to the symbolism of the bread taken in communion, but rather to the Church. It is the Church which is being affected by the abuse of some of the Corinthian members. It is the Church that is being “despised” by the calloused and humiliating treatment afforded the poorer brethren. And Paul is calling the saints to see and understand this.
Through the explanation of the Supper he has given, and his evaluation of the significance of their inappropriate actions when gathered to celebrate the Supper, he is calling them to “judge” their behavior in a different 1lght, from a different point of view. If they see their situation through his eyes - or more specifically, the eyes of the Holy Spirit speaking through him - they will learn “discernment,” they will evaluate their behavior differently, and make the necessary changes called for by the apostle.
Paul is telling them (to use Fee’s summary, p. 564),
The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is the meal, in which at a common table with one loaf and a common cup they proclaimed that through the death of Christ they were one body the body of Christ; and therefore they are not just any group of sociologically diverse people who could keep those differences intact at this table. Here they must “discern/recognize as distinct” the body of Christ, of which they all are parts and in which they all are gifts to one another. To fail to discern the body this way, by abusing those of lesser sociological status, is to incur God’s judgment.
Can children “discern” (i.e., recognize) the uniqueness of life within the body of the church as over against life in the world? Of course they can, and they are trained to do so in covenant homes and by faithful churches. Covenant children are regularly taught that the distinctions that mean a great deal to the world - racial distinctions, social and economic status, etc. - are not important in the church. What is more, covenant children are often more amenable to such instruction than adult members!
If a situation arose in one of our churches similar to the Corinthian situation, could covenant children be trained to respond appropriately to racial, social, or economic distinctions within the body? They certainly could. We doubt that it was the children in the congregation at Corinth that were creating the problem Paul addresses in this passage, though some may have followed the poor example of their parents. As Paul’s instructions began to have their effect in the Corinthian congregation, and adults began to change their ways in light of their new “discretion,” it is hard to imagine that the children of the congregation would have held back, and stubbornly maintained class-conscious distinctions.
A young child may not be able to grasp all the nuances of sacramental theology with respect to the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper - though they often do better than they are given credit for (adult communicants do not set a very good standard to follow). But is that what Paul is calling them to in the passage? We think not. Further, the very common tendency in our churches to identify this “discernment” (and the “self-examination” that is seen to attend it) with the act of “making a credible (public) profession of faith” is even farther from the context. We have argued elsewhere that such a requirement has no grounds elsewhere in Scripture, and warrant certainly cannot be found here either (without considerable forcing of the passage to say what we want it to say).
c. Children cannot maintain the standards of I Corinthians 11.
This objection raises the basic question of the relevance of Paul’s instructions in this chapter to the issue before us. Can we derive from this passage a comprehensive directory for proper participation in the Lord’s Supper? It is very difficult to say we can when the passage is understood in its proper contextual setting. To be sure the “words of institution” mentioned here by Paul have far-ranging implications. If Paul had introduced them here as a subject of importance apart from any particular historical situation, it might be easier to justify the traditional broad interpretation and application of them, but he does not. They are introduced here precisely because of a particular historical situation and as a reminder that the Supper they gather to eat is the Lord’s. That fact has implications for his later instructions to them. But Paul’s purpose must be allowed to control our understanding and application of his words, and that purpose is very specific.
Taken in context we believe this passage is relevant to covenant children only in an indirect way, and we have also argued that covenant children can conform to the mandates of this passage if they are applied to them properly. More than that we cannot expect, much less require. To build the case against the participation of young covenant children in the Lord’s Supper on the basis of this passage is to force the apostolic instructions to do service for a purpose outside the sphere of Paul’s immediate concerns, and is therefore in error. Rather we should submit our practices of communion - for adults and children - to a proper application of these warnings and instructions for the edification of the whole body young and old alike. It would be ironic indeed, and sad, if we were to use a passage designed by the Holy Spirit to overcome erroneous “distinctions” between groups in the church to establish (or perpetuate) a practice that excludes a large “class” of church members - namely, our covenant children - from the Lord’s Supper.
3. Two further general objections:
a. Communion is of no value to children.
We have already dealt adequately with this issue under the heading of “The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper” (C.2 above).
b. Liberals admit children to the Lord’s Table.
This may be true, but it is irrelevant. An argument from the abuse of the practice of admitting young children to the Table is not sufficient argument against the proper administration of the Lord’s Supper to covenant children. One could as justly argue against admitting adults to the Supper on the ground that liberals also admit non-believing and scandalous adults to their celebrations of the sacrament. What does any of this prove except their ignorance and unfaithfulness as administrators of the holy sacraments?
PART II: EXCERPTS FROM THE STUDY COMMITTEE ON PAEDOCOMMUNION MAJORITY REPORT OF THE PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY (PCA)
I THE OLD TESTAMENT DATA
THE BIBLICAL WARRANT FOR PAEDOCOMMUNION
The biblical case for paedocommunion is founded upon a belief in the essential spiritual unity of the old and new covenants. Thus we can argue by analogy with old covenant practice, just as we do in support of paedobaptism.
Since members of the Old Testament visible church were in later infancy and early childhood commanded by God to eat the Passover and other sacrificed meals of the old covenant, and since the Lord’s Supper has taken the place of these sacrificial meals, and is essentially the same in spiritual significance, infant and child members of the New Testament visible church are therefore commanded by God to eat at the Lord’s Supper, if physically capable, for we are not to add to or take away from God’s commandments concerning worship in his church (Deut. 12:32). Thus to exclude covenant children from the new covenant meal would be to deny them, without any biblical warrant, a privilege which they had enjoyed in the old covenant. We will look at the major parts of this biblical case and try to briefly answer some of the objections that have been raised against it.
A. EVIDENCE FOR INFANT AND CHILD PARTICIPATION IN THE OLD COVENANT SACRIFICIAL MEALS
Opinion among Reformed theologians has been divided over whether children in later infancy and early childhood partook of the Passover and other sacrificial meals: Berkhof - Yes, Murray - No, and Bird - Not clear. We believe there is the following conclusive evidence that they did so:
1. PASSOVER MEALS: In Ex. 12:3, the Lord says a lamb should be taken for each household, verse 4 adding a lamb should be taken “according to the number of persons” in each household. Infants and children physically capable of
eating the meal were counted among these persons because verse 4 becomes even more precise: “each one (or man) according to the mouth of his eating.” Whether the Hebrew means “each person” or “each man” (as a representative head), the phrase appears in the Old Testament in only one other context, in Exodus 16, where it is used three times to refer to the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv. 16,18 and 21). In this context, the phrase certainly included distribution to infants and small children physically capable of eating the manna, for there was nothing else for them to eat. And so why should not the same phrase, used by the same writer, have the same meaning when referring to the same act of apportioning food to households, that is, to mean the mere physical capability of eating? Was some kind of faith expected of infants and children on the basis of the phrase “according to the mouth of his eating,” before they could eat the manna? Obviously not! Why then, on the basis of the same phrase, should we expect faith to have been required of infants and children before eating the Passover lamb? Hence in Exodus 12:3, 4 clear and unambiguous evidence is found for infant participation in the Passover Feast. To say that infants and children did not so participate is tantamount to saying they were not allowed to eat the manna, a patent absurdity.
2. PEACE (FELLOWSHIP) MEALS: These sacrificial meals followed three types of substitutionary sacrifices: the vow, thank and freewill peace offerings (Lev. 3; 7:11-34). They consisted of feedings on the portions of meat which had been sacrificed. Whereas the Passover was eaten only once a year, peace meals were enjoyed more frequently. They were to be eaten only at the place of God’s choosing (Deut. 12:5, 6), and “There, in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and rejoice” (Deut 12:7). The word “families” here refers to children because Deut. 12:18, also speaking of peace meals, specifies “your sons and daughters.” It would be incredible to say this excluded children in later infancy and early childhood, for they must have made the pilgrimage with the rest of the family. Peace meals were also eaten in all the appointed feasts (including the Passover), according to Numbers 29:39. At the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), a freewill offering is to be given, and the “sons and daughters” are also to be present to feed upon it (Deut. 16:10,11). “Sons and daughters” are also to be present at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16:14). Also significant is the peace (fellowship) meal for all Israel at the covenant renewal ceremony on Mt. Ebal. In Deut. 27:7, the Lord says, “Sacrifice fellowship offerings there, eating them and rejoicing in the presence of the Lord your God.” In Joshua’s record of the fulfillment of this event, it states women and children were part of the assembly (Joshua 8:35). This was God’s appointed place, and from Deut. 12:7 we know “sons and daughters” were included in fellowship meals where God chooses for his name to dwell. Thus they ate at this covenant renewal meal. Another passage, in I Samuel 1:3ff., describes a sacrificial meal at God’s appointed place in Shiloh, which Elkanah had yearly with his family. It is uncertain which sacrifice is being referred to here, whether it is one of the appointed feasts, or a peace meal. But portions of the meat which had been sacrificed were given “to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters (v. 4).” These passages show clearly that little children, physically capable of taking and eating, participated in the Passover and other sacrificial meals of the old covenant. Why can they not also eat the Lord’s Supper, the new covenant’s sacrificial meal?
OBJECTIONS:
1. The Passover diet of meat, herbs and bread was unsuitable for children in early infancy and even early childhood (E. Clowney, P.C.A. General Assembly Majority Report, 1985 p. 1903).
ANSWER: We do not argue those in early infancy partook, but only those able to eat and drink, “each man according to the mouth of his eating.” Also there is such a thing as a nursing baby on solids. It’s hard to imagine children had nothing to eat but milk their first three years of life before weaning. They could eat unleavened bread while teething and small pieces of meat and herbs when two years and older. The diet of the Lord’s Supper is even easier to consume because bread has replaced the harder-to-digest meat.
2. Wine was instituted by Christ as one of the two mandatory elements of the Lord’s Supper. Since wine is an intoxicant, it is inconceivable that this was intended for little children (R. Beckwith, “The Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper,” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 38, 1976, pp. 127, 128, 150).
ANSWER: There are certainly many Scriptural warnings against the misuse of wine and drunkenness. But wine, properly used, is often extolled in Scripture as a gift of God which “gladdens the heart of man” (Ps. 104:15). Jesus performed his first miracle by turning water into wine at a wedding party in Canal Now there are two clear examples in Scripture of little children drinking wine. First, while they participated in the sacrificial meals of the various peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 11, 17, etc.), they at the same time ate tithe offerings, which included wine (Deut. 12:17, 18; 14:22-27): “You must not eat in your towns the tithe of grain and new wine …. Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose - you, your sons and daughters …” (12:17, 18). “Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice” (14:26). If the presence of wine did not bar children from participating in these meals, why should it exclude them from the Lord’s Supper? Obviously very small portions would have been given to children. Only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. Where is any danger of intoxication in that? A second illustration in Scripture of children drinking wine is found in Lamentations where we read of Jeremiah’s grief: “Because child and suckling faint in the city’s open places. To their mothers they say ‘Where is corn and wine’; as they faint like those wounded in the city’s open places, as their life is poured out of the bosom of their mothers” (2:11, 12). This passage answers the first objection about nursing infants being unable to eat solids. Here they eat corn, and in Lam. 4:4, they cry out for bread (it is possible for sucklings to call for these things, especially if we remember children were not generally weaned until the age of three). They also drink wine. Beckwith, in a rather arbitrary way, suggests the word translated here as “wine” refers in this context to “bunches of grapes” (p. 128). But the word appears 135 times in the Old Testament and in every context is translated as wine to be used for drinking.
3. Although small children partook of the first three recorded Passovers (Ex. 12; Num. 9; Josh. 5), they were not expected to do so when worship in he central sanctuary was established. Only male adults had to attend (Deut. 16:16). Jesus celebrated the Passover with a company of 12 men, not with his family (Clowney, p.1903). At the time of Christ, women were beginning to attend, and the age at which males were required to do so was lowered to 13. Since Jesus patterned attendance at the Lord’s Supper after the Passover meals of his day, and since little children were not attending at that time, the Lord’s Supper was not intended for little children (Beckwith, pp. 136ff.).
ANSWER: First, it must be noted from the context of Deut. 16:16, that although male adults were commanded to attend annually the three festivals, women and little children were allowed, expected, if not required to attend as well, if physically capable: “Celebrate the Feast of weeks … you, your sons and daughters …” (Deut. 16:10, 11), and “Celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles … you, your sons and daughters” (Deut. 16:13, 14). The command, therefore, for male adults to attend would apply only to their unique role, as the federal heads of their families, of presenting the offerings to be sacrificed in the place of God’s choosing: “No man should appear before the Lord empty-handed …” (Deut. 16:6). Thus it does not refer at all to the requirement to eat the sacrificial meals, which would apply more broadly as something the whole family was expected to do. In addition, Deut. 12:6ff. makes clear that, since the peace meals were attended by whole families, it cannot be argued that worship at the central sanctuary was intended to make attendance by little children (or women) obsolete (e.g., see I Sam. 1:3ff.). Thus there is no reason to assume that little children would not go on eating the Passover meal, even at the central sanctuary, “each man according to the mouth of his eating”. Second, it is not accurate to say little children were not eating the Passover at the time of Christ. Beckwith admits that “very little children” (though not infants) were able to eat the Passover, if able to eat as much as an olive size of meat, according to Mishnah passages (p. 145). He explains, however, that this would have been later in the first century, not at the time of Christ (pp.149ff.). According to Yoma 82a, he goes on to say, thirteen was the age of accountability for male adults. This would explain why Jesus is recorded to have attended at the age of 12 in Luke 2:41-51, because “Jesus was taken up by Joseph a year in advance, in accordance with the practice of preparing children in that way for the duties which would become obligatory when they were thirteen.” Beckwith does not cite his source for this preparation a year in advance, but one may be found in Pesahim 99b. In this same Mishnah book, however, in Pesahim 88a, it is said: “Our Rabbis taught: ‘a lamb for a household’: this teaches that a man can bring (a lamb) and slaughter (it) on behalf of his sons and daughters, if minors … whether with their consent or without it.” Other passages in Pesahim speak of little children partaking (which are also cited by Beckwith, pp. 145ff.). Now if Beckwith applies Pesahim 99b to the time of Christ (to establish why Christ att
May 25th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
This report is truncated! Please fix!
Thanks,
Joe.