What Happens at the Lord’s Supper

The second of two lectures on the Lord's Supper at the Free Church College, Edinburgh, on 9/4/2014

The Reformation radically changed the way countless millions understood several crucial church practices and one was how the Lord’s Supper affected worshippers when they participated in the sacrament. What was wrong with the way the Lord’s Supper was performed before the Reformation? Timothy George states that at the time of the Reformation the rite of the Lord’s Supper had developed beyond recognition from the practice of the early church: 

• the rite had become clericalised, in that the Mass was the function of the priest rather than the people; 
• The rite had become commercialised, in the growth of private Masses offered for a wide variety of personal reasons, and which were purchased with money; 
• the theology of the Sacrament was scholastized through the dogma of transubstantiation with its use of Aristotelian philosophy; 
• the rite had become an occasion of spectator excitement, particularly at the moment of the consecration of the bread, with parades and processions following the host through the streets. It is not surprising that an attempt was made to reform the church.

In order to appreciate what took place at the Reformation we need to grasp something of how the Roman church explained what happened at the Lord’s Supper. Then we will need to grasp something of three views that were responses to, corrections of, or replacements of the Roman view. The Roman view is called transubstantiation. Each of the three responses has become identified with a leading Reformer. Consubstantiation has been identified with Martin Luther; memorialism has been identified with Ulrich Zwingli; the real spiritual presence has been identified with John Calvin.

 

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation, which was prescribed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, is the teaching that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the concept of transubstantiation was the contribution of the Latin theologians. The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079) and was used by several theologians before it was adopted by several ecumenical councils, including the Fourth Lateron Council (1215) and the Council of Trent. The Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that the fundamental notion of the concept of transubstantiation is the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 

But how did the notion of transubstantiation develop? Robert Letham suggests two reasons. First,

'In the Western or Roman Catholic view, Aristotelian philosophy was used to explain what appears at first glance to be impossible. How can the bread and wine be changed into the actual physical body and blood of Christ when it is obvious to our eyes that they are still the same as they ever were? The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents was the means to resolve this conundrum. The substance of a thing is what that thing really is, its intrinsic nature. On the other hand, accidents refer to incidentals, features relating not to a thing’s inner nature but more to what it may appear to be, or to something adventitious that could be withdrawn without altering the thing’s substance. The works of Aristotle were rediscovered from around 1050 and so proved a fruitful resource for the church. Hence, the bread and wine were held to change into the body and blood of Christ according to substance (hence trans = change, substantia = of substance), according to what they really were intrinsically, while they remained bread and wine per accidens, in terms of accidents or appearances. Certainly they seemed to remain what they had been, while having undergone this change of inner essence. At root, this was not magic but a sacramental mystery. It occurred when the priest consecrated the elements.'

Letham explains his second reason for the development of transubstantiation:

'Again, the position of the Roman church on the relationship between nature and grace also helped in the development of transubstantiation. According to Rome, grace perfects nature. Natural gifts and gifts from the Holy Spirit are effectively one and the same. In this sense the physical and the spiritual are so closely identified that in practice they merge into one. From this perspective, it is easy to see how the bread and wine can be said to be the body and blood of Christ and how spiritual grace can be conveyed more or less automatically by physical means.'

The acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation results in two inevitable consequences. First, since the bread has been changed into the body of Christ it becomes an object of worship, which occurs when the priest elevates it in the sight of the worshippers for them to adore it. Second, since the bread that has become the body of Christ does not return to being bread and the wine that has become the blood of Christ does not return to being wine, it means that any of the sacramental elements that remain after the Supper cannot be discarded; the bread must be preserved and eaten at a subsequent sacrament and the wine drunk immediately by the priest.

A major response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of the Reformers was the Council of Trent, where among other doctrinal matters, the official teaching of the Church concerning the Lord’s Supper was clarified. Among its decisions are these statements, which allow responses to be made to Roman Catholic teaching at the Reformation period.

A first response is that the Council interpreted Jesus’ words of institution literally and did not recognize that his words concerning the bread and the wine could be interpreted symbolically. 

Second, the Roman Catholic concept of the Mass does not accept the New Testament emphasis on the finality and completeness of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. 

Third, the Council of Trent argues that the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The biblical accounts do not suggest that the last Supper was a sacrifice; rather it was a sacrificial meal of fellowship based on the sacrifice of Christ. 

Fourth, transubstantiation removes the necessity of faith by the participant. Since after the consecration of the bread the person was now eating the actual body of Christ, he did not need to have faith in order to feed on Christ.

Consubstantiation

Advocates of consubstantiation insist that Christ’s statement, ‘This is my body,’ must be understood literally. Luther’s teaching was that while the bread did not become the physical body of Christ, yet the body of Christ was present ‘in, with and under’ the bread. Grudem gives an illustration of this idea: ‘The example sometimes given is to say that Christ’s body is present in the bread as water is present in a sponge – the water is not the sponge, but is present “in, with, and under” a sponge, and is present wherever the sponge is present.’ 

Luther disagreed with three practices of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Lord’s Supper. The first was withholding the cup from the laity. The second was the practice of transubstantiation, which he regarded as philosophical meaninglessness, and instead he preferred to accept by faith Jesus’ words about the bread being his body. The third practice was the Mass, which the Roman church regarded as a sacrifice, but which Luther wanted to regard as a promise ‘of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God’. 

Nevertheless Luther had to explain how Christ was present in the bread and wine. Instead of using philosophy he preferred more visible illustrations. Luther likened the denial of Christ’s presence to a person removing the contents of an egg and leaving only the shell (Christ is the contents and the bread and wine is the shell). He accused these teachers of not being willing to accept the clear meaning of Christ’s words when he said at the first Lord’s Supper, ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’. Luther dismissed their claims that the presence of Christ in the elements was neither fitting nor necessary. 

Concerning the fitness of Christ’s presence, Luther notes that Christ did many things that were not fitting for God, as evidenced in his incarnation and in his cruel death; therefore, it is not up to men to decide what is fitting or not for the Son of God. In attempting to prove the reality of Christ’s presence in the elements, Luther resorts to subtle analogies; for example, (a) a person’s soul is present at all times in all the members of his body; (b) a person can think and speak simultaneously, and see and feel as one does so, and at the same time can digest food; (c) a spoken word can influence many people at the same time. When Christ is preached, and by a bodily voice (the preacher) brought into a person’s heart, Christ’s presence is real; and this experience can be known by many people at the same time, with each person receiving a whole Christ. This does not mean that Christ has left heaven, rather he is still there and also in the heart of each believer. If one believes this, then it is not difficult to accept that Christ can also be in heaven and in the elements of bread and wine at the same time. What causes the elements to have the presence of Christ is the Word of divine authority indicating he is there. ‘Just as he enters the heart without breaking a hole in it, but is comprehended only through the Word and hearing, so also he enters into the bread without needing to make any hole in it.’

As far as the necessity of Christ’s presence in the elements is concerned, Luther comments that it is not men but God who decides what is necessary. A person could just as well ask why God should feed us through the bread and wine when he could have done so by the Word itself. For Luther, such arguments were the devil’s activities to cause people to measure God’s will and work by human reason. Instead, believers should listen to God’s Word and remain in it.

Obviously, Luther has to explain his argument that the human nature of Christ could be everywhere. There is no doubt that Luther believed in the full deity and full humanity of Christ. Yet in explaining how Jesus could be present in consubstantiation he had to allow that the human nature of Jesus possessed divine attributes such as being in more than one place at the same time. He argued that at times his humanity was confined to one place, at other times he can do what a human nature usually cannot do, and at other times his human nature can perform what a divine being does.

It is obvious that Luther had several profound insights into the function of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, his comments on the humanity of Christ indicate that for Luther to advocate consubstantiation required him to believe Christ’s human nature possesses omnipresence, to not only be in heaven but also to be present in the Supper. 

Memorialism

Ulrich Zwingli did not accept the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation or the Lutheran alternative of consubstantiation, which meant he faced hostility from both Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians. In several places his teaching was condemned, including the Swiss canton of Uri and the German city of Nuremburg. His early writings on the Lord’s Supper were written in Latin, but his response to opposition was to publish his teachings in the common language so that, as he said, ‘the ordinary and simple Christian may learn the truth for himself’. Zwingli preferred the name ‘Eucharist’, although he would use terms such as the ‘Lord’s Supper’ and ‘communion’.

Zwingli affirmed that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper had several virtues:

1. They were instituted by Christ and he himself received them.
2. They testify to historical events.
3. They take the place, and name, of that which they signify.
4. They represent high things: for example, the bread represents the body of Christ.
5. There is an analogy between the signs and the things signified. In the Supper, there is a twofold analogy. First, just as bread and wine sustain human life and bring joy, so Christ sustains and rejoices the soul. Second, just as the bread is made up of many grains and the wine is made up of many grapes, so the many members of the church are constituted one body.
6. They augment faith and are an aid to it.
7. They act as an oath of allegiance to Christ and to fellow Christians.

  

As with Luther, Zwingli realised that the central matter was the meaning of the presence of Christ in the Supper, particularly in relation to the physical body of Christ. Those who say that Christians eat the body and blood interpret ‘This is my body’ literally. Zwingli notes that Christ often compared himself to objects, for example, he said, ‘I am the vine’, by which he did not mean he was a literal vine. Moreover he stressed that since the Ascension the human nature of Jesus has been in heaven since his Ascension, so references to the presence of Christ with his people must refer to his omnipresent divine nature.

For Zwingli, the ‘is’ in ‘This is my body’ means ‘signifies’, which he regards as important for the emphasis on remembrance: ‘Behold the end for which he [Jesus] bids them eat, namely, the commemoration of him.’

Zwingli stressed the corporate aspect of the commemoration: ‘Since, therefore, this Lord’s Feast, or in Paul’s words, Lord’s Supper, was instituted that we might call to remembrance the death of Christ, which he suffered for us, it is clear that it is the sign itself by which those who rely upon the death and blood of Christ mutually prove to their brethren that they have this faith.’ He regarded Paul’s teaching concerning the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10 as referring to the body of Christians rather than the physical body of Christ. In emphasising the corporate nature of the Supper, his teaching at one level was a response to the Roman Catholic practice of the Mass in which the laity played a spectator role. 

Stephens helpfully summarises Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper: ‘thanksgiving for Christ’s death for us, a confession of our faith, and a commitment to our brethren, to love them as Christ loved us.’ 

Yet his teaching does not give sufficient weight to the biblical details. Bromiley identifies an important aspect of Zwingli’s writings on the Supper when he says that while Zwingli gave effective criticism of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views, he did not provide an alternative method, which gives the impression that he was only able to offer a bare sacramentalism. He so separated the sign from what it signified in the Supper that he ‘did not show any clear sense of its unity’. It is not fair to speak of Zwingli’s interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Supper as ‘the real absence’, because he did believe that Christ was present in his divine nature. But since Christ is present everywhere in his divine nature, it is possible that Zwingli did not regard Christ as present in a special sense.  

Spiritual presence

In his chapter on the Lord’s Supper in his Institutes, John Calvin makes many pertinent points as he not only refutes the Lutherans and Roman Catholics but also explains his own understanding of what occurs at the Supper.

First, the Lord’s Supper is a provision of our heavenly Father to ‘assure us of his continued liberality’. Because Christ is the only food for our soul, ‘our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.’ Because no-one can see by nature the secret union between Christ and believers, the Father gives visible signs (the bread and the wine) in order to show ‘that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine’  (4:17:1).

Second, it is not sufficient to limit communion with Christ to being made partakers of the Spirit, and omitting all mention of flesh and blood (4:17:7).

Third, before the Incarnation, Christ as life was the source of life for all creatures. By the incarnation, Christ is the life both as God and man (4:17:8, 9) – ‘in his humanity also fulness of life resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the participation of life.’ The flesh of Christ ‘is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself.’

Fourth, the Holy Spirit ‘truly unites things separated by space’ i.e., Christ and believers. In the Supper, Christ exerts ‘an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises’ – ‘the sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us’ (4:17:10). Although the physical body of Christ remains in heaven, the Holy Spirit, who unites us to Christ, is ‘a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us’ (4:17:12).

Calvin had two safeguards in attempting to understand Christ’s presence in the Supper: ‘First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures [such as “affixes him to the element of the bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way”]. Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.’

Calvin disagreed with the view that the Supper is only an act of remembrance. To regard the Supper as only an act of remembrance does not explain other biblical passages such as Paul’s words that ‘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). Paul’s words point to a form of communion with Christ in his death. 

Calvin asserted that it was not a physical presence, for the human nature of the ascended Christ remains in heaven. He taught that the presence was spiritual, that by ‘the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the body and blood of Christ’. This means that the presence is more than one accomplished by Christ’s divine omnipresence. For Calvin, the presence of Christ is achieved by the Spirit, this secret agency being ‘the bond of our union with Christ’. So ‘the body of Christ is given to us in the Supper spiritually, because the secret virtue of the Spirit makes things which are widely separated by space to be united with each other, and accordingly causes life from the flesh of Christ to reach us from heaven.’ The Spirit nourishes believers with life from the flesh of Christ as they partake of the elements. The Spirit ensures that there is real communion between Christ and believers as they receive from Christ the benefits he purchased for them on the cross. It is important to stress that Calvin affirmed the necessity of the believer’s faith being active, in the sense of receiving from Christ, during the Supper. 

There is a real mystery here. It seems to me that Calvin was correct to object to both a mere remembering and to the consubstantiation interpretation of the Supper. In doing so he indicated that it is possible to deny that the elements are mere memory aids or that they are affected in some way. Some of what happens at the Supper is not comprehensible to the human mind. The Lord Jesus, through the Spirit, imparts to his participating people the benefits he died to give them, spiritual blessings such as assurance of forgiveness, the peace of God and so on. But Jesus also gives himself, including his body and blood.

Most Reformed theologians admit to a twofold sense of the presence of Christ: first, the second person of the Trinity must be present because of his inherent omnipresence; secondly, he is present through the working of the Holy Spirit employing the means of grace. But Calvin has been criticized for his third sense of Christ’s presence, with William Cunningham basically saying it was nonsensical. 

In response to these criticisms, it is admitted that Calvin’s view does contain aspects difficult to understand, particularly his idea that spiritual life comes to believers through partaking of the physical body and blood of Christ. Yet, as Sinclair Ferguson comments, there is the possibility that ‘discomfort with Calvin’s language masks a discomfort with the language of Scripture itself.’ 

What can we say?

The obvious lesson that comes from a survey of the views of the leading Reformers is the seriousness with which they regarded the Lord’s Supper; for them it was an important means of grace. As Timothy George puts it, we need to reclaim a theology of presence. The Reformers differed as to what was involved in Christ’s presence in the Supper, but they did stress that he was present. The Lord’s Supper is not only a meal with symbols, it also involves communion with Christ. 

Connected to the above point is the lesson that a true understanding of the Lord’s Supper cannot take place in isolation from other doctrines of the faith. In particular, such an understanding involves appreciating the person and work of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the functions of the church and its ministers. The Reformers remind us that it is possible for a religious rite to descend into an exhibition of clericalism, commercialism, scholasticism and spectatatorism (to use George’s insights mentioned earlier). But they also remind us that it is possible to recover a comprehensive range of biblical doctrines which will lead to a restored biblical practice.

In response to the various views of the Reformers, several other comments can be made. First, the notion of consubstantiation is non-biblical, because it requires that Christ’s human nature received divine properties, particularly the property of omnipresence, when he was exalted at his ascension. In effect, the idea of consubstantiation denies the ongoing humanness of Christ’s human nature. 

Second, the emphasis on memorialism is fine as far as it goes, but Paul’s comments on communion indicate that what happens at the Supper is more than an act of remembrance.

Third, while we need not accept every aspect of Calvin’s teaching, it is recognized that his emphasis on communion through the Spirit with the risen Christ who conveys spiritual life to his people through what is symbolised at the Supper is a biblical teaching. This emphasis of Calvin’s also leads to another important aspect of the Supper, that it is primarily an activity of Christ in feeding his people, and then secondarily an act of his people in remembering him. 

Fourth, we should not forget Zwingli’s emphasis on the corporate nature of the Supper, that in addition to fellowship with Christ, believers have fellowship with one another.

Fifth, we need to return to the practice of more frequent communions. The Reformers wanted weekly celebrations, and although they failed in the attempt, they were aiming to return the church to New Testament practice. Reformation should not be left to the past, rather it should be an ongoing phenomenon. The common objection to more frequent communions is the possibility of becoming so used to the practice that it becomes a mere ritual. But that objection can be made against any biblical feature of worship, whether it be the singing of praise, prayer or preaching. 

Sixth, we need to restore the balance between Word and sacrament in Christian worship. For the Reformers, the believers needed both the audible Word of God in sermonic form and the visible words of God in the sacraments. A service containing both a sermon and a supper conveys truth in both these mediums. The audible explains what the visible depicts and the visible enables the worshipper to be involved in what is proclaimed.

The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament

The first of two lectures on the Lord's Supper given in the Free Church College, Edinburgh on 9/4/2014

Perhaps the most surprising feature about the Lord's Supper is that it is not mentioned very often in the New Testament. For example, John does not refer to it in his writings (nor does he refer to Christian baptism) - this has led some to try and find a mention, so they suggest baptism is found in Jesus' statement to Nicodemus about being born of water and the Spirit and they suggest the Lord's Supper is found in Jesus' teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Peter does not refer to the Lord's Supper in his letters. Paul only refers to it in 1 Corinthians, although he does say there that he had handed on what he had received, from the Lord, which may mean that the Lord conveyed it directly to Paul or that the Lord uses others to inform Paul. One reason for the lack of references may be that there were not many problems connected to the Lord's Supper, with Corinth being the only church that faced such an issue. Yet it is surprising that Paul does not mention it in Romans, which summarises his theology, or in Ephesians, which is an explanation of his concepts of the church. Of course, behind the authors of scripture is the Holy Spirit and obviously since he guided them what to write we have sufficient information about the Lord's Supper.

The Synoptic Gospels

We are all familiar with the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. It took place on the evening of Passover day (the Jewish day went from evening to evening). This raises the issue of what kind of meal Jesus arranged because the Passover Lamb would not be slain until the following afternoon. This has led some scholars to suggest that the meal was not the actual Passover meal but a kind of solemn religious festival meal. Other scholars, such as D. A. Carson, have defended the view that the Supper was the Passover meal. The solution involves complex discussions of calendars and whether or not more than one religious calendar was recognised. I would suggest you read the various commentaries or even my book on the subject if you wish to know more about this detail. Suffice to say here that the timetable I accept is this: 

Thursday afternoon 14 Nisan two disciples prepare for the Passover 

Thursday evening 15 Nisan  Jesus and his disciples eat the Passover 

Thursday evening  15 Nisan Jesus arrested, tried 

Friday                            15 Nisan Jesus crucified 

The Passover could not be eaten until sunset, and the meal had to be taken within the city limits of Jerusalem, which explains why Jesus remained in the city instead of going out to Bethany as he had on the previous evenings. 

At a stage in the Passover meal, Jesus took some of its features and gave them new meaning.  

The significance of the instruction, ‘remember’.  

The remembrance mentioned by Jesus is one that acknowledges his authority to institute a meal, the celebration of which was binding on his followers. It is evident that the early church obeyed this requirement – we have a record of it being done in Troas (Acts 20:7) and in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34) as well as in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42) – which indicates that there was submission on the part of Christians concerning the practice.    

When Jesus instructed his disciples to remember him by means of the Lord’s Supper he was not asking them to shut their eyes and engage in mental imagination in order to recall his death (which is a common response at the Lord’s Table). Rather he asked them to use the symbols of bread and wine as signs pointing to his death. In doing so, he arranged for the Lord’s Supper to be a visual, as well as a verbal, reminder in a way similar to the way in which the Passover was a visible reminder to Israelites. The Passover had its elements of unleavened bread, a roast lamb and bitter herbs, as well as other elements. The Lord’s Supper has bread and wine. The Lord’s Supper is not only about eating the bread and drinking the wine; it also involves watching the breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine into the cup. 

Jesus and the new covenant 

In each record of the institution of the Supper, reference is made to the covenant (Matt. 26:7-8; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The Passover was connected to the old covenant given through Moses by God, when Moses ratified the covenant by the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrificed animal (Exod. 24:8). Jeremiah had predicted that the old covenant would be replaced by a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) in which three salvation benefits would be given. Firstly, God’s laws would be written on the minds and hearts of believers; secondly, all believers would know God by having a personal relationship with him; and thirdly God would forgive them their sins. Kevan notes that Jeremiah’s prophecy is incomplete, in that he does not mention the ratifying blood which Jesus himself mentioned. Because of his ratification, the Lord’s Supper is a source of assurance to Christians that the blessings predicted by Jeremiah will continue to be given to them.  

The cup was a sign of Jesus’ shed blood that would ratify the new covenant and result in forgiveness of sins for those in this covenant. Other covenants that God made with his people had signs that reminded them of his commitment to them: while the rainbow was primarily a sign for God to remember his promise, it was also a sign to Noah that God was keeping his promise (Gen. 9:12-17); Abraham had the sign of circumcision; the Israelites had the details of the Passover and other feasts. In a similar way, Christians have the symbols of bread and wine to remind them of God’s, and Christ’s, commitment to them. 

It is possible that Jesus had in mind Isaiah’s language concerning the death of the Servant of the Lord as recorded in Isaiah 53, particularly verse 12. In Isaiah 53:11-12, the prophet predicts that the Servant will justify the many and make intercession for the many, with both these benefits linked to his bearing their iniquities and sins. It seems clear that ‘the many’ are the people of God because it is only believers who can be described as justified. Some argue from this point that ‘the many’ is limited to the elect and does not include every person. Whether or not the passage is an evidence of a particular atonement rather than a universal one, the benefits of Christ’s giving is limited to those who believe in him, who have ‘experienced the remission of their sins in and through Jesus’ sacrifice and so are enabled to participate in the salvation provided under the new covenant’ (William Lane).  

The disciples’ eating of the bread and drinking from the cup was also symbolic of their communal involvement in the benefits coming from the death of Christ. Jesus’ actions raised for his disciples the question of their identity. This is seen in two ways.  

Firstly, the Passover was a time of remembrance of God’s rescuing Israel as a nation from Egypt; Jesus in telling them to remember him was requiring that they now get their identity from being his people, and no longer as the descendants of those liberated from Egypt. Instead of recalling what had happened on the night of the Exodus they were to recall what had happened to Jesus when he laid down his life.  

Secondly, Jesus’ celebrating his meal with his followers rather than with his family points to a new relationship. The Passover was usually a family occasion, but here the disciples are reminded that their connection to Jesus has priority over earthly relationships. 

Jesus’ actions also raised for his disciples a further dimension as to the question of their loyalty. In a real sense, they had now come to the dividing line between their previous loyalties and their future dedication. Up until then it had been possible for them to be disciples of Jesus and still remain within the Jewish system; indeed Jesus himself had encouraged such participation. But here was a new test. Right at the onset of the Passover, probably the meal that indicated most clearly why they were Israelites called to serve God, Jesus initiates a replacement meal that would take priority over their connection to Israel. 

The institution of the Supper by Jesus stresses several things that we should note: 

• The various actions of the Lord’s Supper point to Jesus, particularly to his death. While it is the disciples who break the bread and drink the cup, they do these actions as symbolic of his voluntary death. Their action could also point to their responsibility in the sense of causing Jesus to have to die for their sins. 
• The Lord’s Supper depicts a substitutionary death by Jesus, in which he used language reminiscent of the Suffering Servant described in Isaiah 53. 
• The Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the new and permanent relationship believers have with God through the inauguration of the prophesied new covenant having come into reality. 
• The Lord’s Supper is a memorial. This is clear from Jesus’ command to his disciples that they remember him. 
• The Lord’s Supper is a communal act. It is not an action for individuals to engage in order to have fellowship with Jesus, as Bible reading or prayer can be. The Supper stresses the togetherness of those who are Christ’s disciples. Does this mean that a housegroup of believers or Christians living in the same street should have celebrations of the Lord’s Supper? The Gospel accounts don’t answer this question, but, as I will argue in the next section, the example of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2 could indicate that it is appropriate for a large community of believers to have celebrations of the Lord’s Supper at which only a proportion of the believers are present. Indeed, there is no suggestion in Acts that the entire church in Jerusalem met together for any meeting. 
• The Lord’s Supper has a future aspect to it. This is brought out by Jesus’ statement that the kingdom of God is yet to come. As believers look back and remember Jesus through the symbols of bread and cup, they look ahead to what is also signified, the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). 
• The Lord’s Supper is a simple ritual, in that the occasion of its inauguration did not involve a great number or detail of rituals. 
• There was a time gap between the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. 
• The Lord’s Supper is associated with a meal (either the Passover or another meal) but distinct from it. 

The Lord's Supper in Acts

In the Book of Acts, the Lord's Supper is called 'the breaking of bread' (2:42; 2o:6-12). Some have argued that the phrase only means an ordinary meal, but it is hard to imagine Paul wanting to stay on in Troas merely to have a meal. In 2:42, the Lord's Supper is mentioned along with other corporate activities of the church. Since the activities took place in homes, it raises the question as to who led the services, given that the apostles could not be in every room. Unfortunately, Luke does not tell us.

The event in Troas is definitely a public worship service. It is interesting that the only title in the New Testament of a Christian service is given here, and it is breaking of bread. This, of course, means that Luke would have to find another term to describe most of our services. Luke's description also makes it clear that the Lord's Supper was held every Lord's Day, that on this occasion it was part of an evening service, that Paul preached and interacted with the congregation, and may have intermingled with them afterwards at a congregational meal. 

The Lord’s Supper in the Epistles 

Outside the writings of Paul, there are not many references to the Lord’s Supper in the epistles. Jude refers to love feasts, which presumably included the Lord’s Supper, in connection with false teachers (Jude 12). There may be a reference to the love feast or to the Supper in Revelation 3:20: ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.’ It is not clear that the risen Christ does have the Supper in mind, given that his focus is on an individual rather than a corporate meal. 

What is not often realised is that Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 11 of the Lord’s Supper is the oldest account of its institution, since 1 Corinthians predated the earliest Gospel by about a decade. First Corinthians is also the only letter in the Pauline correspondence that refers to the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, it is likely that Paul gave instructions concerning the Supper in each of the churches founded by him. Paul’s two references to the Supper in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 indicate that participation in the Supper has consequences regarding involvement in certain non-Christian social activities and in how rich and poor Christians behave towards each another.  

1 Corinthians 10 

In this chapter Paul responds to the practice of some Christians in Corinth of attending meals connected to pagan temple worship. He begins by mentioning the divine judgment that fell on the Israelites in the desert after they participated in pagan feasts, emphasising his point by noting that the Israelites had previously undergone a baptism into Moses and shared in divinely provided food and drink. The parallel between the Israelites and the Corinthians is obvious: the latter had been baptised into Christ and had been given spiritual food and drink in the Lord’s Supper, but because of their involvement with pagan religious meals they were in danger of divine judgment. Possibly, as Fee suggests, the Corinthians imagined that baptism and the Lord’s Supper had magical qualities of protection that secured them from any dangers arising from attendance at the pagan temples. 

Concerning the dangerous situation facing the Corinthian believers, and also believers living in other locations near to pagan temples, Ralph Martin has written: 'The custom of taking a meal in a shrine dedicated to a cult deity, or of receiving wine which had been formally offered as a libation to a cult god, was a very popular one in the ancient Greco-Roman world. An Oxyrhynchus papyrus dated in the second century ad may be cited as a striking parallel to such an invitation as we have recorded in 1 Corinthians x, 27[: "Chaeremon invites you to dinner at the table of our lord Serapis (the cult god) in the Serapeum tomorrow the 15th at nine o’clock." Such an invitation to a meal, whether in the temple or in a private house, would be commonplace in the social life of the city of Corinth. For converted men – and perhaps, at times more acutely, for converted women – there was a problem posed by this custom. Should a Christian join in these feasts (many of them, the Corinthian Church told Paul, were harmless – they were on a par with the lunch engagements of the modern business-man), or may a Christian housewife buy in the market meat that had been left over from the sacrifice?'

Paul makes it clear that sharing in these temple meals involved communion with the pagan gods (or the demonic powers behind these gods), which was similar, in a way, to the communion believers had with Christ at the Supper. Paul’s response was that it was incompatible for a person who had fellowship with Christ also to have fellowship with the demons behind the worship of the false god. This passage indicates that there is a real fellowship between Christ and his people at the Supper. Taking the bread and drinking the cup are acts of communion with Christ (10:16). As Richard Pratt comments, ‘Paul assumed a similar spiritual effect also took place between the demons and the worshippers in the idols’ temples, and he forbade participation in pagan ceremonies as a result.’  

Therefore, the Lord’s Supper was a separating ordinance. It not only gave identity to who or what Christians were, but it also required that they not identify with a group that would compromise what they had in Christ.  

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 

This is the only occasion in the Bible where the meal is referred to as ‘the Lord’s Supper’. The expression can suggest a number of meanings, for example, ‘the Supper belonging to the Lord,’ ‘the Supper hosted by the Lord,’ ‘the Supper which the Lord ordained,’ ‘the Supper at which the Lord’s body and blood are shared.’ Paul’s description of the practice in Corinth reveals that the Lord’s Supper was connected to a meal. His description also reveals that the entire church, particularly the poorer members, did not share in this meal. But what did Paul say the purpose and the meaning of the Supper is? 

The Lord’s Supper is a sacrificial meal, not in the sense that the participators are offering a sacrifice, but in the sense that they, in eating and drinking the elements of the bread and wine, participate in the benefits that Christ gives to them because of his sacrifice. This aspect of a sacrificial meal is evident from Paul’s contrasting the Supper with the pagan sacrificial meals associated with the temples in Corinth (1 Cor. 10:21). A parallel connection is Jesus’ relating the Supper to the Passover, which also involved a sacrificial meal. 

The Lord’s Supper is a communal meal. It is a meal that expresses the unity of the congregation. This emphasis is found in both of the 1 Corinthian passages, 10:14-22 and 11:18-34. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul uses the bread not only as a symbol of Christ’s physical body but also as a symbol of Christ’s figurative body, the church. His argument is that the solidarity that the Supper brings to the unity of the congregation means it is not appropriate to engage in a meal associated with a false religion. Every believer is a partaker in the Lord’s body, that is, the church, and cannot therefore belong to a group that is linked to an alternative religion (Fee). The implications from this aspect of the communal meal are similar to those of the Supper as a sacrificial meal. 

In 1 Corinthians 11 the emphasis is slightly different, although Paul does use the image of body again. On this occasion he uses the image to argue for behaviour appropriate to those within the body whereas in 1 Corinthians 10 it was behaviour towards those outside the body. Usually, in the early church, the Lord’s Supper was part of a longer meal, the agape. In Corinth the wealthy believers were using this agape meal as an opportunity for gluttony and drunkenness; poor believers, some of whom would have been slaves, were deprived of a share in the agape and were being humiliated. Instead of indicating unity the meal in Corinth highlighted social diversity. Paul’s response was to instruct the wealthy believers to eat their normal menu at home, a response that also suggests that the agape was not essential for the Lord’s Supper to take place. He regarded the selfish behaviour of the wealthier believers in this regard as a great evil, for in abusing the poor they were despising the church of God. It is evident that Paul would not tolerate any activity connected to the Lord’s Supper that denied the visible unity of believers. 

The meal is also a proclamation that says something to those looking on. Donald Macleod notes that it is probable the early Christians did not sit in silence at the Supper. An account of what happened to Jesus was narrated, either from recollection or from written accounts. He also notes that Jesus gave instructions during the first Lord’s Supper. It was this combination of ritual (taking the bread and wine) and Word (reading the accounts) that Paul referred to by ‘proclaim’. Fee comments that ‘the verb “to proclaim” does not mean that the meal in itself is the proclamation, but that during the meal there is a verbal proclamation of Christ’s death. He supports this by noting that on every other occasion of its use in the New Testament the verb means to preach Christ or the gospel.  

Alan Stibbs, while affirming that partaking of the bread and wine was essential to the proclaiming, also suggests that there was a verbal confession of faith by the participants. He thinks that each believer, when taking the bread, ‘proclaimed the Christian significance of his participation’, by saying words such as, ‘I take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for me, and I feed on Him in my heart by faith with thanksgiving,’ and then said something similar regarding the cup.  

This combination of word and action suggests that the Lord’s Supper is an act of prophetic symbolism. Gordon Fee comments, concerning Jesus’ breaking the bread, that ‘for Jesus himself this is almost certainly a prophetic symbolic action, by which he anticipated his death and interpreted it in light of Isa. 53 as in behalf of others’ (p. 551). Old Testament prophets engaged in symbolic actions. Some actions were only illustrative of the accompanying message, such as when the prophet Ahijah tore a new garment into twelve pieces, gave ten to Jeroboam, thus indicating that he would be king of the ten northern tribes (1 Kings 11:29-40). A different type of symbolic action is detailed in the interview between Joash and Elisha in 2 Kings 13:15-17, which resulted in Joash being rebuked for only striking the ground three times with the arrows. Joash was not acting by divine command when he struck the earth three times, yet he is criticised for limiting himself to three strikes. Other symbolic actions include Isaiah’s walking naked and barefoot (Isa. 20:2-4), Ezekiel’s lying on his side (Ezek. 4:4-6), and Hosea’s marriage to Gomer (Hos. 1). The point of a symbolic action was to illustrate God’s purpose for his people, and indicated his initiative in their situation, whether it was a response of judgement or one of restoration. Some of the actions were unexplained until the prophet was asked concerning his unusual behaviour: for example, Isaiah walking barefoot and naked for three years was ‘a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles’ (Isa. 20:3f.).   

It is possible that the disciples of Jesus, as they reflected on what he did in the Upper Room, would have concluded that Jesus there acted in a prophetic manner. His actions and words were typical of prophetic behaviour in that they were, as Steve Motyer observes, surprising and shocking, and yet powerful (p. 101). His actions with the bread and the cup, along with his words that accompanied them, were prophetic in the sense of the prophetic symbolism recorded in the Old Testament. 

Jesus is not visibly present at the Lord’s Supper. Yet the bread and wine are signs of his presence, speaking of and giving to us the blessings he obtained for his disciples through his death for them. Yet they have to be received by faith, otherwise nothing is given to them by Christ. The elements are prophetic signs promising pardon and fellowship to those who partake expectantly, believing that what is depicted will take place.  

In this age, all believers are prophets, a feature stressed by Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). This general prophetic status exists alongside the particular spiritual gift of a prophet that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and 14:1-40.  The general prophetic activity can be described as witness to society by word and deed, with the aim of producing a response in which a person asks Christians to explain their actions. The Lord’s Supper is one means of prophetic witness, although its nature means it is always a corporate witness. For example, their meeting together illustrates their reconciliation to God through the death of Christ and their reconciliation to one another in Christ. The failure of the church in Corinth to publicly display this unity by action meant that the accompanying word was not illustrated to observers, with the further effect that true prophetic symbolism was not performed. The unbelievers in Corinth would have asked why there were divisions at the Lord’s table, an indication that the believers were not functioning in a truly prophetic capacity. Prophetic symbolism is a reminder that the teaching contained in God’s Word must be lived out in the lives of his people.  

The Lord’s Supper is also a meal that anticipates another meal, the banquet that is to mark the coming of the eternal kingdom. There is a sense in which believers, because of the blessings of the new covenant, already enter partly into the blessings associated with this future age. But the fullness of that age will not be known until Jesus returns. The Bible often depicts that fullness by the image of a banquet (Luke 12:37; 22:29, 30; Rev. 19:9). Jesus indicated that he was anticipating this banquet when he said, as he instituted the Passover, that he would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God would come (Luke 22:16-18). Matthew and Mark present Jesus as saying this after the taking of bread and wine, whereas Luke has him saying the words before they took the elements. This suggests that Jesus said this more than once during the evening meal and points to the stress he laid on this aspect of the Supper. The anticipation of believers, as they share the Lord’s Supper, should be one of joy. 

Paul mentions two other aspects of participating in the Lord’s Supper. First, he stresses the need for self-examination as part of the process of preparation for participating (1 Cor. 11:27-29). Second, he mentions the fact of divine judgment because of abuse of the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:27-32). 

Self-examination is a reminder that the Lord’s table is holy and that the guests are still sinful (the Lord’s Supper is an holy occasion because the Lord Jesus instituted it as an activity of his church and because he is present by the Holy Spirit). In a passage that has strong corporate emphases, Paul stresses this individual responsibility. Paul does warn against partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unthinking and irreverent manner. His warning enjoins ‘seriousness and deliberation and at least that measure of hesitancy which regards preparation as indispensable’ (Macleod). 

The initial reason for self-examination is the Corinthians’ failure to discern the body, which may be a reference to the symbols of bread and wine or to the church as the body of Christ. Many manuscripts only say ‘body’ (as translated in the English Standard Version) and not ‘the Lord’s body’ (as translated in the King James Version). Blomberg suggests that the addition is a copyist’s attempt to explain the meaning of ‘body’, which also indicates that there was an acceptance in the early church that it referred to the symbols and not to the congregation. In further support of ‘body’ being a reference to the symbols of the bread and wine is its close proximity to the phrase ‘body and blood of the Lord’ in verse 28. 

Having said that, it is also the case that in previous references where Paul wishes to specifically use the term ‘body’ in connection to Christ or to the symbols of bread and wine he uses the necessary qualifiers, either of action (eat the bread and drink the cup, vv. 26, 27, 28) or of description (‘of the Lord’, v.27). 

The context also lends support to ‘body’ being a reference to the believers; Fee suggests that Paul is referring back to his mention of ‘body’ in 10:17. What Paul may have been doing here is using a term which pointed to both meanings. The Corinthians, in any case, failed in both these regards. With the former, they did not regard the meal as holy, and with regard to the latter, the affluent members mistreated the poorer members and so did not treat the body of Christians as should have been done.  

Paul does not expect self-examination to result in a person not partaking. His comment is, ‘Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat’ (11:28). This expectation is noteworthy given the lax procedures tolerated in Corinth. Paul anticipated that ‘any unworthy Christian would make the necessary amendments immediately’ (Macleod). 

Self-examination followed by appropriate behaviour will prevent divine chastisement. In Corinth, the chastisement involved illness and, in some cases, death (1 Cor. 11:30). There is a parallel between the judgment that fell on the Israelites who abused their spiritual food and drink and the judgment on the Corinthian Christians who abused the Lord’s Supper. The Israelites can be regarded as failing to respect the blessings that God gave them and also of failing to recognise that they were all set apart to be the Lord’s people, which made their sinful behaviour more serious. In the Lord’s Supper, believers are open to both divine blessing and divine chastisement – blessing for those who partake in faith, and chastisement for those who engage in the Supper with sinful aims and actions.   

Paul’s account gives no hint that a particular person was in charge of the Lord’s Supper. As Motyer notes, for Paul, ‘the antidote to disorder is not proper structures — the right words, the right leadership — but proper relationships, rightly understanding the respective roles of men and women in worship’ (p. 93). 

Paul’s short treatment of the Lord’s Supper highlights several crucial elements: 

• The Supper is communion with Christ. 
• The Supper is communion with and an expression of unity with all fellow believers, despite their various social standings. 
• The Supper is a proclamation of Christ’s death. 
• The Supper is a separating ordinance. 
• The Supper is an anticipation of the Messianic banquet. 
• Practices that may cause abuse, such as an accompanying meal, should cease if that is the only way to prevent the abuse.  
• Individual self-examination is essential preparation for sharing in the Supper. 
• Wrong partaking of the Supper will result in divine judgment. 

Who Should Get Baptism

The second of two lectures given at the Free Church College, Edinburgh on 8/4/2014

2 

Who Should Get Baptism? 

In this lecture I want to speak about the subjects of baptism and if we have enough time a little about the goals of baptism. As B. B. Warfield points out, ‘the question of the Subjects of Baptism is one 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.’  It is the practice of the Reformed Church to give baptism to adults who profess faith in Christ and to their children. As far as such adults are concerned, there are several biblical passages that make their involvement clear. With regard to children, the biblical evidence is claimed to be there but it has to be teased out. I want to do so from the Bible obviously, but I also want to think about it out of some pastoral experience. 

Adult Baptism 

For most professing Christians the answer to the question of who should get baptism is straightforward. Those who believe that baptism can only be given to those who make a public confession of faith don’t see how the answer can be extended beyond them. And some of those who believe in baptismal regeneration would suggest that it should be given to anyone. It is those who are not classified as belonging to those groups who have to give deeper thought to this issue. 

What is my concern about adult baptism? I think we still practice it as if we live in a Christian country where everyone knows what the Bible says and I think we practice it as if every candidate was in the same state of heart. Clearly both of these aspects have consequences. My comments may illustrate my concern. 

The requirement for adult baptism is repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ. I suppose many would think this requirement is easy to appreciate. Yet we must ask what kind of faith or what degree of faith is required of adults in order for them to be baptised? In order to make my point a bit clearer, here are three types of authentic faith in Jesus.  

First, there is the faith of affirmation in which an individual states his belief that everything in the gospel is true. It could be that this type of faith is only intellectual and is the outcome of the individual weighing up the information he has been given. Yet it is also the case that this type of faith can come from the person’s affections, and be an expression of strong devotion to the Saviour’s cause. How can the leadership of a church distinguish whether or not the individual has real faith? I would suggest that they cannot do so and it is not their responsibility to do so. Therefore baptism of such must be allowed. 

Second, there is the faith of adherence in which an individual is not in possession of strong faith and is unlikely to say that he is a real Christian despite giving many evidences that he has been born again. It was common in the past, and perhaps still is, for such individuals to exist in Scottish Highland Christianity. Their lack of faith usually showed itself in their reluctance to participate in the Lord’s Supper. This failure was not the consequence of wilful disobedience to Christ’s command to participate. Instead it was connected to them not possessing assurance at certain stages in their spiritual journey. Can church leadership refuse baptism to such a person because his faith is weak and his assurance absent? Can they then deprive his children of baptism because of the weakness of his faith? I would say that such leaders would have to be very careful before denying baptism to that individual.  

The Westminster divines were of the opinion that a person who doubted should participate in the Lord’s Supper because it would strengthen his faith. Yet he cannot participate if he has not been baptised or has been refused baptism for his children (a refusal is an expression of church discipline) and the decision not to give him baptism prevents him from receiving spiritual help from the other ordinance that Jesus has given to his church. Often the method is somehow to convince the individual that he is converted and lead him to profess something he is uncomfortable about and not yet ready to affirm because of the weakness of his faith. I suspect a better option is to give him baptism because he is a disciple willing to learn and then let him discover how God will bring him to assurance. 

Third, there is the faith of assurance in which a person is convinced that he has passed from death unto life. Clearly there is no difficulty in giving baptism to such a person. Nor would we as a denomination refuse to baptise the children of such. But what should we do if one parent has the faith of assurance and the other parent only has the faith of adherence, perhaps even overwhelmed by doubts at the time when the baptism is due? 

What can we say in response? 

First, we need to ask what was the practice of the apostles when they gave baptism. We observed in the previous lecture that they baptised disciples very soon after they expressed an interest and did not leave the occasion for a few weeks in order to prove whether or not there were signs of conversion. This practice obviously allowed for the presence of short-term disciples and for those who had professed without fully understanding what they were doing, such as Simon the sorcerer. Yet there was not a call for reviewing the process after his false profession and indeed Luke, in his account in Acts, follows up the story of Simon with the account of the Ethiopian treasurer who was baptised after a discussion with Philip and then left to go home. It is obvious from the apostolic practice that baptism should occur as soon as possible, a feature we see also with regard to the household of the Philippian jailor. It looks as if the apostles were prepared to live with the possibility of false professions and did not see their presence as a reason for delaying baptisms. This is bound to become a circumstance we will face as we meet conversions from non-Christian backgrounds. 

Second, it is almost impossible to imagine the apostles allowing the existence of someone who can be described as an unbaptized believer. For the apostles, baptism was the crossing of a line in a public way. The baptised no longer belonged to the world but were now connected to the church of Christ in its local grouping where they would be discipled. This too has implications for what we are liable to face in our post-Christian world. We live in a society in which individualism is promoted and where each person is free to ignore the demands and expectations of others. The church cannot allow this to happen. It must insist that new disciples are baptised quickly.  

Third, we cannot make the qualifications for baptism to be the position of those with the strongest faith. If we do so, we will compel individuals to obey us but not even from an attitude of weak faith. Instead we are to make the qualifications as low as biblically possible, and in doing so we will run the risk of false conversions. It looks to me from what took place in the Book of Acts that a person should be told about baptism as soon as he expresses an interest in Jesus and then that individual can take it from there. If he wishes to continue with his interest, he may ask for baptism. His baptism may strengthen his commitment or he may begin to withdraw a short time afterwards. I suspect the former is the more likely result because it is following the order given by Jesus in the Great Commission.

Of course, we have a problem accepting that baptism of disciples is ineffective. Yet if we take the parable of the sower and apply it to situations today, how many of those hearers would have been baptised upon profession of faith? Clearly the first responder, who forgot about the message, would not have been baptised. On the other hand, the fourth type of responder, with their marked degrees of commitment, would have been baptised and the church to which they belonged would not have a problem with them. Yet the second and third types of responder would also have been baptised because they followed the Christian way for a period of time. Because they were not genuine, they would eventually have failed to live according to their baptism. But their failure did not make baptism inappropriate.

So the decision to grant baptism to an adult can never be an infallible one as far as guaranteeing that the profession made is of a regenerate person. The individual may be a pretender, may be coerced for a variety of reasons, may be genuine but not born again, or may be regenerate. 

Infant baptism 

Esteeming one’s infant baptism 

Let’s begin by asking some questions. The first is, ‘Have others valued infant baptism highly?’ John Macdonald of Calcutta was the missionary son of the Apostle of the North of the same name. John junior valued his own baptism as an infant. As he contemplated missionary work, he wrote when he was thirty: ‘I know not what is before me; but on this do I rest, that I am the Lord’s. On this day have I renewed my dedication to the Lord — this is all I can do; and I thank Him that He has enabled me so far to prevail against the flesh, that I am enabled to do this freely. What peace is connected with such consecration! Last night, or rather this morning, when rendering up myself before going to rest, I had some sweet and almost overpowering thoughts on being with Christ as the Son of God. O for more fellowship with Him! I am just now closely shut up to Him, for none but He can judge for me or help me. O Lord! I begin this new year by yielding up all to Thee. Accept, rule, judge, defend, guide, bless, and glorify me — all, all is in Thy hands. May that Spirit, blessed Lord! which descended on Thee in thy thirtieth year, rest on me also now. Oh! as thou art calling me to a more trying and public ministry, help me that I may not dishonour Thee! Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whose I am in baptism, and by covenant of redemption, I yield myself up to the one living and true God, for evermore. Amen.’ You are about to step on to the stage of Christian service. Have you brought your baptism into it? 

Appreciating baptism for a child 

In addition, Macdonald valued the baptism of his infant daughter. This is what he wrote on that occasion: ‘Sabbath, November 24. — This day, in the kind providence of God, have I been permitted and enabled to dedicate my little offspring to my covenant God in baptism; and for this I give thanks. O what a privilege is it! I trust I have had communion with the Lord in this deed, if ever I had it. Many encouragements have I felt, and no misgivings as to infant baptism in its faithful form. Yea, I praise God for such an ordinance. I know God’s willingness to bless infants. I know that he did of old receive them into His covenant by seal. I know also that infants are capable of enjoying the blessings of the covenant of grace — that the want of faith in those who are incapable of faith is just as applicable to salvation as to baptism, and therefore constitutes no argument against it. I believe that the seal of the covenant will be just as valid to the child when it afterwards believes, as if baptized when adult — that it is a great privilege to have it externally united with the Church, and for a parent to say, “This, my child, has been solemnly and publicly given to God — it is federally holy.” I believe that the commission of Christ included the children of believers, and that the apostles baptized such; and I know that the holiest of men in all ages have had communion with their God in this ordinance. But why enlarge? O my Lord! I bless thee for saving me from falling into the cold and forbidding doctrines of antipaedobaptism! O give me grace to improve thine ordinance! Look in mercy on my little Catharine! O Spirit of the Lord! inhabit her, regenerate her! I have given her to thee — make her thine own! Bless mother, father, and daughter. O bless us! All glory be to God!’  

What are the bases of infant baptism? 

As indicated earlier, they have to be teased out from the New Testament. Of course, teasing out something is not unusual because we have to something similar with regard to the ongoing relevance of the Sabbath or with regard to the presence of women at the Lord’s Supper as well as with several other practices about which the New Testament is not explicit. 

The first basis I would mention is the apostolic practice of household baptisms. Some are mentioned in the Book of Acts (the household of Lydia and the household of the Philippian jailor) and some are mentioned in 1 Corinthians (the household of Stephanos). It is the case that a household would also include any servants or slaves associated with it. Yet there is no hint that the baptised in a household excluded children or infants. It requires some imagination to assert that somehow the only households to which gospel grace came were ones without children. 

The second basis is the fact that children of believers were regarded as belonging to the church. We get an example of this in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20, passages found in contexts in which various groups that composed the churches are mentioned (interestingly, the groups are also those that would be connected to households). It may be, of course, that all the children in the churches in Ephesus and Colosse were genuinely converted when they were young and that is how Paul was able to address them as professing Christians. Yet I suspect it is more realistic to believe that he is addressing them as such because they were baptised into the name of the Trinity and thus belonged to God and were responsible to serve him. 

The third basis is that there is not a mention in the New Testament of a child of a believer professing faith as an adult and then getting baptised. This absence is very surprising given that there were thousands of them. The absence is easily explained if they were baptised as infants or as children. I am not suggesting that those children were not converted later in life, but I am stressing that there is not an example of any of them being baptised, nor is there any reference to the possibility. So I think this is a reasonable evidence for infant baptism. 

The fourth basis is Jesus’ comment to his disciples that children belong to the kingdom of heaven. Often when we hear the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ we think of the place where we go when we die. Yet that is not how Jesus used that phrase. The kingdom of heaven is a title he gave to the realm he would rule over after his death and resurrection. And he informed his disciples that when it would come there would be children in it. The way by which they would come into it would be by baptism since that is how everyone else would come into it. 

A fifth basis is that children belonged to the covenant community ever since the Lord made his covenant with Abraham. Every Israelite child was born into this privileged relationship whether or not he subsequently became a worshipper of the true God. The terms of the new covenant are far wider than the blessings of the old covenant, so it would be surprising if the new covenant is narrower in extent with regard to children and have none of them within its public display until they are converted later on – and it is very surprising that there is not a passage that says children are no longer to be part of it given that their inclusion was stressed in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It seems to me that Peter’s statement on the Day of Pentecost about the promise (made to Abraham) also applying to their children, and given in the context of baptism, indicates that their children should be baptised. If someone then asks why they were not baptised at Pentecost, the answer is that at that time they were back home in the various countries from which those present at Pentecost came from. 

The Goals of Infant Baptism 

A good summary is found in the PCA church manual: ‘Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and government of the church, and are to be taught to read and repeat the Catechism, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They are to be taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God, and to love and obey the Lord Jesus Christ. And when they come to years of discretion, they ought to be urgently reminded that they are members of the church by birthright, and that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, confess him before men, and seek admission to the Lord’s supper.’ Of course, we cannot say that following this process guarantees conversion. Yet it should be our aim. 

One well-known example is Matthew Henry, the author of the famous Commentary on the Bible. He also wrote a biography of his father, Philip Henry, and in it he explains how his father stressed the importance of their baptism on his children. 

‘He drew up a short form of the baptismal covenant for the use of his children. It was this:

‘I take God the Father to be my chiefest good and highest end.  

‘I take God the Son to be my Prince and Saviour. 

‘I take God the Holy Ghost to be my Sanctifier, Teacher, Guide, and Comforter.  

‘I take the word of God to be my rule in all my actions. 

‘And the people of God to be my people in all conditions.  

‘I do likewise devote and dedicate unto the Lord, my whole self, all I am, all I have, and all I can do.  

‘And this I do deliberately, sincerely, freely, and for ever.  

‘This he taught his children; and they each of them solemnly repeated it every Lord’s day in the evening, after they were catechised, he putting his Amen to it, and sometimes adding, — So say, and so do, and you are made for ever.  

‘He also took pains with them to lead them into the understanding of it, and to persuade them to a free and cheerful consent to it. And, when they grew up, he made them all write it over severally with their own hands, and very solemnly set their names to it, which he told them he would keep by him, and it should be produced as a testimony against them, in case they should afterwards depart from God, and turn from following after him.’ 

Let us thank God for baptism, one of his 'means of grace'.