Introduction
Picture this scene: A Pickup truck pulls into the driveway of a small home on an average-sized piece of property in the country. A couple of dogs alert those inside the house that someone is here. From inside the house, at the front window, a small child smiling brightly, turns her head back towards the rest of the house and shouts, “Daddy’s home!” Dad gets out of the truck, carrying his work shirt, a lunchbox, a coffee thermos, and his car keys. He’s greeted by the two dogs, the smiling girl from the window, and three other excited children. They walk back towards the house talking with one another about the most exciting things that had happened to the children that day. As the man walks inside his home with his children, his wife emerges from the kitchen, towards the dining table with two meatloaves in a ceramic dish, sandwiched between two oven mitts over her hands. She smiles at her husband, greets him with a soft, “Hi, honey. How was your day?” “It was just fine,” he replies. She sits the meatloaf down, and greets him further with a kiss, and a brief hug. As she pulls back, she asks, “Hungry?” He responds with a much expected, “You bet!” The wife then shouts to the children who had dispersed back across the house to the activities they were engaged in before their father’s arrival, “Everybody to the table!” They all rush eagerly back towards the table to their respective spots. The youngest one digs her finger in the mashed potatoes to try to get a quick taste, but she’s stopped and corrected by her mother. Once everyone is settled in, they join hands, pray, and begin to fill up their plates.
What I have just described to you is, or at least at one time was, a fairly normal routine prior to an evening meal enjoyed by a Christian family. Nothing in that story should have struck you as odd. It was so normal, in fact, that you might have been waiting on some creative flair describing an unexpected turn of events; a sudden knock at the door by a stranger, the ringing of a telephone with bad news on the other end of the line, or something else that would throw off the routine of the family. But the story stands where it stands. This is a normal family, enjoying a normal meal together. But what if something odd did happen? What if the mother, after her husband came into the house, did not greet him, sat the food down on the table, and then left the room not to return? What if the father did not join his family for the meal, but rather went straight on to some other task? Or, what if one of the children, as they began to fill their plate, was reminded by their father that they do not get supper that evening? You would know that something was wrong. You would know that there was “sin in the camp” so to speak. Perhaps the mother is angry with the father, or ashamed of herself. Perhaps the father is failing his responsibilities towards his children or is angry with the mother. Perhaps that young child who will be sent to bed hungry that evening, had been particularly disrespectful to his mother earlier in the day. We expect families to eat together, and we know something is wrong when they do not.
Proper Recipients of the Lord’s Supper
Just as with meals in our households, the Lord’s Supper is a meal intended to be eaten by the entire family of God. But there are two unfortunate realities that we need to deal with regarding this point. First, we need to deal with the great injustice that has been done to Christian children in the church as they have been barred from the Table unnecessarily for centuries. Second, once we have restored all the proper recipients to the Table generally speaking, we must identify if and when there are ever incidents where members of the family would not eat the family meal. So, having dealt last week with the various views regarding the nature of the elements of the Supper and Christ’s presence at the Supper, this week, we jump straight to the recipients of the Lord’s Supper. Question 81 asks,
Q.Who should come to the Lord’s table?
A.Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life. Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however, eat and drink judgment on themselves.
I have been pleased throughout this series to have only taken one major difference with the Heidelberger, namely the exposition of the descent clause in the Apostles’ Creed. Other than that, there have only been very minor differences, and I am faced with another one of those today. This difference really isn’t a difference at all, but more of a critique of a subtle and, I think, unintended consequence. The description of the person who could come to the Supper is simply a description of a Christian. Unfortunately, however, the terminology used has led to an unhealthy introspective approach to the qualifications of a worthy recipient. This introspection has then led to an unnecessary solemnity to the mood of the people during the Supper and it has played a huge role in the barring of children from the Supper. The answer to the question could simply have been “Christians.” And, by way of transition to the first of two issues we must deal with, the children of Christians are Christians. So let’s look at the Scriptures and see if we can conclude that these children should not be permitted at the Lord’s Table.
To begin with, given the overall biblical evidence, the burden of proof is not on us to explain how or why children should be admitted to the Table. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who would exclude them to show where in Scripture this would be the case. As I’ve read and studied, I’ve really only found two arguments against this practice: 1) 1 Corinthians 11 says we are to examine ourselves and to discern the body. Children do not have the ability to do either, and are therefore kept from the Table until a time they make a profession of faith. 2) Children were not allowed at the Passover feast, which is the Old Testament expression of Communion, until after they reached the age of 13 and had been thoroughly catechized.
For the sake of time, we will just deal with 1 Corinthians 11. The context seems to show pretty plainly what examining oneself and discerning the body means. Protestants, for the most part, have interpreted them to mean being introspectively aware of one’s faith and knowing what the bread represents. However, this understanding is quite odd in relation to the context of disunity at the Eaucharist. There appear to be, from the context of 1 Corinthians 10-11, three expressions of disunity among the Corinthians: the meat offered in the love feasts, the coverings of the women’s heads, and gluttony at the supper. In each of these areas, Paul argues for unity. He urges wisdom in handling the meat potentially sacrificed to idols, he argues from nature to show that women are to be covered in the worship of God’s people (specifically addressing those who would be contentious [v.16]), and he argues from common decency and unification of the Church in Christ around the Supper.
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)
So the problem presented here is that of disunity around doctrine leading to a despising of the one with “inferior theology” by the one with “superior theology”. Now, let’s take that and, just for now, jump to Paul’s conclusion.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:28-34)
If you just took these two parts, the context and the conclusion, what would you see? Would you see Paul giving examples of specific people that are not allowed to be at the Table? No. You would see Paul instructing the Corinthians to examine their station among the body, and to exercise humility towards his brother at the Table. So “examining oneself” is not an introspection but rather an extrospection. It is not a looking inward, but rather a looking outward. And this is consistent with the Christian life, is it not? We do not look inward, for therein we only find wickedness and sin. But, rather, we look outward to Christ and him crucified for our sins, and there we find salvation for our souls. So, we should examine ourselves in regard to our station among the body, which leads to the next part of this argument–the discerning of the body.
Much of the work on this point has already been accomplished by getting the context straight. We are to examine our station among God’s people when we come to the Lord’s Table. This is what discerning the body means. How do we know it doesn’t mean knowing what the bread symbolizes? Because of the context. When Paul speaks of the bread in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, he always makes that explicitly clear by calling it bread. That’s not to say he doesn’t make reference to the analogy of Christ’s body in the bread. But he makes it clear when he is doing so. Furthermore, we must not ignore what Paul had said earlier about the relationship between the bread, Christ’s body, and us as the body of Christ.
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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)
So we are not merely representing Christ’s physical body which was broken when we eat the bread, that’s the memorial view that we spoke of last week. Rather, we are participating as Christ’s body, the Church, in Christ’s body broken for the Church. Our union in Christ through our baptism is exhibited in our communion with one another around the Eucharist. So, even if discerning the body has direct reference to the bread, the bread is analogous to more than just Christ’s physical body. It is also analogous to the Church.
So, what does this have to do with children? Well, children, as we learned regarding the doctrine of baptism, are baptized into the visible Church and are part of the body of Christ. Therefore, if children are part of the body of Christ, why would they not participate in the communion of Christ’s body? Furthermore, those who would have us believe that 1 Corinthians 11 forbids children at the Lord’s Table are going to need to show us where the reference to children is in the text. And, quite frankly, they can’t, because it’s not there. Can children examine their station among God’s people? Absolutely they can. They are utterly aware of their dependence upon their parents and the other adults and the older children around them. They know their station. Are children able to discern the body? If we take discerning the body as what the context clearly shows it to mean, of course they can! If however we are requiring full understanding of the nature of the molecular structure of the bread to come to the Table, then I suppose all the elements should go ahead and be packed away, I should cease preaching, and go back to school to learn this stuff so I could explain it to you and we could all be restored to the Table after being censured for our intellectual deficiencies. Of course this is absurd. That would have been an interesting twist to our story we told at the beginning; if just as the children began to fill their plates the father had said, “Wait. First, Timmy, tell us what the ingredients in the macaroni and cheese are.” And then, “Susie, tell us what all mom included in the meatloaf and how that all was brought together to make this meal.” That would certainly be odd. And should any father require this of his children before he feeds them, he would be unfit to be a father. May we not be this way in God’s Church. Who can come to the Table? Christians. Christians can come to the Table.
Proper Use of the Keys
Now, to be sure, we are not advocating for a flippant approach to the Lord’s Table. The Table is naturally offered to all who are part of the family of God. But, should any prove to not live according to the families standards, they must be kept from it. Going back to our precious family in the story, imagine as they start to eat, one of the younger children starts to look sad. The father notices this and turns to the child and asks, “What’s wrong?” The child sorrowfully responds, “I miss Levi!” At this everyone at the table is clearly troubled. The father speaks up, “I know, sweetheart. We all do. And we did everything we could to keep him close to us. But, he is more in love with his sin right now than he is with us. Why don’t we pause eating for a moment and each say a prayer for Levi?” The whole family then bows their heads and, in turn, each pray for their oldest son, starting with the youngest child, and ending with the father.
God’s people are a family. And families have standards that they live by. When a member of that family ceases to live according to those standards, measures must be taken to ensure the overall health of the family and to continue to seek the welfare of the wayward member. The end of the answer to question 81 tells us that, “Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant…eat and drink judgment on themselves.” This is plainly taught straight out of 1 Corinthians 11 which we just looked at. Those who would sow disunity among the body, whether by their foolishness (10:23), their contentiousness (11:16), or their pride and gluttony (11:21-22), or any other sin which they might succumb to and refuse to repent of, must be disciplined by those who are given charge over the church. Question 82 asks,
Q.Should those be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who show by what they profess and how they live that they are unbelieving and ungodly?
A.No, that would dishonor God’s covenant and bring down God’s wrath upon the entire congregation. Therefore, according to the instruction of Christ and his apostles, the Christian church is duty-bound to exclude such people, by the official use of the keys of the kingdom, until they reform their lives.
Refusal to live according to the family’s standards results in removal of the family’s benefits and, in the worst of cases, removal from the family structure. The first part of the answer to question 82 teaches us straight from 1 Corinthians 11 that failure for this discipline to take place, could result in further harm to the individual and possibly to the whole body.
I joked during the scamdemic of 2020 that there was certainly a way to get sick from eating the Lord’s Supper. But, covid wasn’t it. It was the least of our worries and still is. There is no room for germaphobia at the Lord’s Table. God will not punish us because we lack a worldly construct of cleanliness. Rather, he will punish us for a failure to maintain corporate godliness. In the Scriptures, God has harsh words for the wicked and the disobedient. Consider these words to the Israelites (symbolically called Sodom and Gomorrah) in Isaiah 1.
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:11-17).
These are hard words. Who could possibly stand up to them coming from the Most High God? But, these words are meant to lead God’s people to repentance. Look now at what comes after these hard words.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
So, when the elders of the Church exercise their authority by way of censuring an individual from the Lord’s Table, they are seeking to honor, rather than dishonor God. They are looking to protect the congregation from God’s wrath being brought down upon them. But, they are also looking to be used of the Spirit in the proper exercise of their office to have that individual “reform their lives.” God’s discipline is meant to be a grace to us to lead us to repentance.