Opbouw, Vol. 9, No. 3 (16 April 1965), pp. 20-21
Translated by Jim Witteveen from the works of Gerard Visee.
As Long as the Heir Is a Child
In connection with the matter that presently occupies us—the participation of children in the Lord’s Supper—the well-known passage from Galatians 4 was cited somewhere: “What I mean is this: as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no respect from a slave, although he is the owner of everything; but he is under guardians and stewards until the time set beforehand by his father.” After these first two verses of the chapter, I shall immediately quote verses 3–5 as well: “So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons.”
The author, who, among other things, thought that by quoting Galatians 4:1–2 he had allowed Scripture itself to speak against the participation of children in the Lord’s Supper, must have reasoned as follows:
- The children of the congregation are indeed heirs of the covenant, but they are not yet heirs who have reached maturity.
- Until they attain maturity, they remain under guardianship and supervision.
- During this minority they do not have free disposal of the inheritance, which is administered for them by guardians and stewards.
- This minority continues until the time appointed beforehand by the Father.
- And in this context the inheritance must be the participation in the Lord’s Supper.
We venture the following questions and observations.
Concerning Point 5
If the inheritance is participation in the Lord’s Supper—and we certainly do not deny that this belongs to the inheritance—then that can only be because the realities signified in the Lord’s Supper, namely, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, belong to the children by virtue of God’s covenant promises. Now the sign and seal of that reality is less than the reality itself. The children therefore possess the reality. But why, then, may they not also receive the sign of that reality?
Concerning Point 4
What is the time appointed beforehand by the Father? Is it the moment of public profession of faith? Where has the Father appointed that? Please provide Scriptural proof! Or has that time been appointed by others? Or is it the time when children come to faith? How old must they be for that? And do the promised blessings become theirs through faith, or were they already promised to them before faith, so that they are to believe because those promises have been given to them?
Concerning Points 2 and 3
Who preserves this inheritance for our children? Father and mother? The elders? The congregation?
Concerning Point 1
When do children become mature? We have asked these questions while assuming that these two verses had something to do with the position of children in the New Testament church. But they have nothing whatever to do with it. For the apostle is not writing here about the relationship between children and adults in the church—whether in the Old Testament congregation or in the Christian church. Rather, he is speaking about the relationship between believers under the old covenant and believers under the new covenant.
The entire Old Testament congregation—adults and children—stood in relation to the New Testament church—adults and children—as an immature heir stands in relation to one who has come of age. All the Old Testament believers were under guardianship and supervision, namely, under the Law of the Horeb covenant. That guardianship and supervision of the Law came to an end when Christ, by being born of a woman, Himself also came under that supervision and guardianship of the Law. But by fulfilling the Law of the Horeb covenant, He redeemed those who were under that Law. And to us, the members of the church, who before His coming, as minors, differed in nothing from slaves, He has given the status of sons. To all of us, surely! To the whole New Testament congregation. To our little children as well.
They too are no longer under the guardianship and supervision of the Law. They no longer need to be circumcised, no longer to observe the Sabbath, no longer to eat kosher food, no longer to celebrate the Passover, nor must purification sacrifices be offered for them any longer, and so forth. That is what the apostle is writing about in Galatians 4. He is not writing about the position of children in Christ’s New Testament church. And if someone nevertheless wishes to use this passage in connection with the question before us, then I ask: If, during the childhood period of the church, under the Law, under the Horeb covenant, the children were permitted to participate in the sacrificial meals (1 Sam. 1:4; Deut. 12:18) and in the Passover (Ex. 12:28), would it then be the case that, in the mature period of the New Testament church, in which all are no longer minors and slaves but have received the status of sons, the children may not sit down at the Passover of the new covenant? Do our children stand upon that firm foundation, yes or no?
And would Christ—who, while He Himself was still under the Law, celebrated the Passover at least as a twelve-year-old boy—now wish to see the children of the congregation deprived of their share in the true Passover Lamb, now that they are no longer under that Horeb Law? “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers!”
We so gladly hear beautiful sermons about the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple. To those who beforehand suspect me of engaging in exemplary exegesis, I reply in turn: this gifted Child was not there pretending to be the Messiah. He was a Child who delighted in the things of His Father, also when He sat at the Passover meal. May we then deprive our children of that Passover meal?
Passover and the Lord’s Supper
The author who erred in his use of Galatians 4:1–2 also wrote in the same article about the relationship between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. He argued—and rightly—that the coming of Christ also brought about a change in the law. For this expression he refers to Hebrews 7:12. And again, quite correctly, he points out that one may not conclude from the fact that under Israel only boys were circumcised that baptism also ought to be administered only to boys.
Now, there is in fact little to conclude on that point, since Scripture itself expressly speaks of the baptism of women when, in Acts 16:15, it recounts the baptism of Lydia, the seller of purple. But we would make the following observation: Under the new covenant God’s grace has evidently not become less extensive but more extensive. Not only persons of the male sex, but also those of the female sex may receive baptism. According to the author whom we have quoted, however, the situation is different with respect to the relationship between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover. Although children were permitted to participate in eating the Passover, they are excluded from fellowship at the Lord’s Table. He argues as follows:
“The same applies to the relationship between Passover and Lord’s Supper. In the typical memorial feast of the deliverance from Egypt, in which nature itself taught at what age children could partake of the Passover lamb, we are dealing, no less than in the case of circumcision, with a ceremony; both belong to the book of the shadow-service of Horeb, Leviticus (respectively chapters 23 and 12). And with respect to the second sacrament no less than the first, the coming of Christ the High Priest signifies a change of law, also concerning participation in that sacrament. For now it is no longer the natural factor—namely, when a child is able to eat and drink independently—and we are still speaking of the covenant child—but the requirement of conscious personal faith. For the apostle writes that one must distinguish the eating (and drinking) of the body (and blood) of Christ from ordinary, everyday eating and drinking (1 Cor. 11:29), which naturally implies that one must understand the meaning of the sacrament. And likewise, that one ought not to celebrate the Lord’s Supper except as one who has examined himself (1 Cor. 11:28). This requires a certain measure of spiritual maturity, a certain experience of communion with Christ. Now, I certainly do not regard children who receive a godly upbringing as unbelievers. But I do regard them as immature with respect to the requirements that the apostle lays down for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And even if they knew the entire Catechism by heart, that would still be too superficial for them truly to understand it. Not to mention children who are not yet even able to handle the cup themselves.”[i]
An Anabaptist Line of Argument
It seems to us that this line of argument, if it is not outright Anabaptist, at least comes dangerously close to accommodating the Anabaptist mentality. For according to the writer, participation in the Passover meal was determined by the natural factor: once a child had become capable of eating and drinking, he was allowed to eat of the Passover lamb.
Participation in the Lord’s Supper, on the other hand, would be determined by the spiritual factor: children must have come to personal faith and must be able to discern the body of the Lord. Even if they knew the entire Catechism by heart, that would still not be sufficient. They must understand the Catechism. If this latter requirement—that one must fully understand the entire Catechism—were seriously imposed as a condition for participation in the Lord’s Supper, then the number of communicants among us would soon diminish drastically. In that case, many adults would be eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.
Now, in this connection we shall leave aside the matter of discerning the body of the Lord. It arises repeatedly, both directly and indirectly, throughout these articles. Here we merely observe that all this is far removed from the simplicity of the church that gave us the Heidelberg Catechism. But we wish to draw attention here to the fact that the relationship between the old and new covenants, between celebrating the Passover and celebrating the Lord’s Supper, is here viewed under the categories of “natural” and “spiritual.” That is precisely the sort of thing the Anabaptists also said.
According to them, the old covenant was a covenant of temporal, natural, and historical benefits and blessings, whereas the new covenant was one of eternal, spiritual, and heavenly blessings. According to them, under the old covenant God fed His people “like swine at the trough.” Participation in the blessings of the old covenant was determined, in their view, by the natural condition of physical descent from Abraham in the line of Isaac and Israel. That was why children could also be circumcised. But participation in the new covenant required personal faith.
It is well known how sharply and vigorously Calvin opposed this Anabaptist teaching, even on this very point. One need only think of the Institutes, Book II, chapters 10 and 11. And I remain convinced that the author of the article quoted above wholeheartedly agrees with Calvin’s refutation. But quandoque dormit bonus Homerus—even good Homer sometimes nods off. The best knitter occasionally drops a stitch. That is what happened here. For the author suggests that the Passover was a meal in which everything depended merely upon eating and drinking: whoever could do the latter was allowed to participate. But the Passover was a memorial meal. It was a remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt, an assurance that Israel had been saved from death through the death of the Passover lamb. And as the light of revelation steadily increased—one thinks of Isaiah 53!—it became clear that the true Passover Lamb still had to come, and would indeed come.
John the Baptist’s preaching pointed to Him: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin”—not merely of Israel, but—“of the world.” Thus the Lord Jesus could move so naturally, at the last Passover and the first Lord’s Supper, from the old covenant to the new, from the blood of the Passover lamb to His own blood. And Paul could say: “For Christ, our Passover, has also been sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5). And later the song of praise of the church resounds concerning the Lamb who was slain.
At the Passover meal—we have already reminded the reader of this—it was precisely to the children that God’s work of deliverance was explained (Ex. 12:26ff.), “so that the coming generation might know them” (Psalm 78). Why do we not celebrate the Lord’s Supper with our children in the same simple way? Why do we not teach them by, at, and through the Lord’s Supper—which is an excellent means of instruction? Why do we not tell them, with the word, a New Testament Haggadah—see what we wrote earlier about that—not only that it happened, and why it happened, but also tell them, by means of the act itself, by allowing them to participate, that the Lamb of God was also sacrificed for them? After all, they belong there. Despite all the Anabaptists! And may they not—and indeed, must they not—believe this according to “the measure of their faith”?
Our Present Practice
How far removed our present practice is from this! To begin with, how many adults who have already made profession of faith nevertheless leave their place at the Lord’s Table empty? And our young people often wait until they are nineteen or twenty years old—or even longer—before coming to the Lord’s Supper for the first time. And we older people regard this as perfectly normal. Not on the basis of God’s Word. The “you and your seed,” the “you and your children,” which, with respect to the baptism of children, we have always steadfastly maintained against the sects and against sectarian tendencies within the church, we have for a long time failed to put into practice with respect to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
To the great harm of ourselves, and even more to the harm of our young people. For our children grow up with the idea that the Lord’s Supper is something for adults. That it is not yet time for them. That they really need begin thinking about it only when they are around twenty years of age. And—what is even worse—that until then they are more or less free. Free—from whom? From Christ? From His commandments? From the requirement that they trust and love the LORD with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with all their strength? Free from their baptism? Free from the God of their baptism? Free from the communion of the body and blood of Christ?
Continuing Reformation
At this point the Reformed urgently need continuing reformation. A purging of the Anabaptist, Remonstrant, Pietistic, and Methodist leaven. For our Passover also has been sacrificed—and that includes our children—namely, Christ. (1 Cor. 5).
Please understand me correctly. When I speak here of “continuing reformation,” I do not mean that we should simply, one-two-three, switch over to another practice. I have a mortal fear of people who are always ready with some “novelty.” Things must not be changed in that way. These matters must first become a source of deep concern to us. Not through newspaper polemics, nor through hasty accusations. Rather, we must speak together as brothers, write to one another in a Christian manner, discuss these matters together, also at congregational meetings and at the gatherings of the elders. And we must ask what God’s Word says.
A common conviction must grow on this point: that after that precious beginning in the church of the Palatinate, in the church of the Heidelberg Catechism, our course has not been a good one. That here we stand guilty together with our forefathers. And together we must return to the LORD. Unless—and then it must indeed be proved from the Word of God, from the Scriptures—it can be shown that our present practice is right and good before the LORD. I do not believe that this is the case. But even if it should prove to be so, the discussion will still have been worthwhile.
One Thing I Do Foresee
I do foresee one thing, namely that the Anabaptist undercurrent within our Reformed life will react with vigorous opposition. Wherever that undercurrent is strong, where Anabaptist, Remonstrant, Pietistic, and Methodist motives help determine the tradition, there people have long viewed the Reformed practice regarding the Lord’s Supper with a critical eye. That opposition will only become stronger if fathers and mothers, not acting independently, but with the approval of the congregation, bring their children with them to the Lord’s Supper.
But that must not prevent us from doing so. And if we should once again find ourselves isolated, then so be it. Yet one thing continues to trouble me: that the Scripture which gave the children of Israel a place at the Passover meal remains silent regarding the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper—just as it is “silent” concerning infant baptism. Nevertheless, with respect to infant baptism we have boldly drawn the line from the old covenant to the new, from the circumcision of children to the baptism of children. Why, then, not also from the participation of the children (Ex. 12:26) in the Passover meal to their participation in the Lord’s Supper?
The Questions of Scripture
At this point we must together ask what Scripture teaches, and certainly with respect to the question: How old must our children be before they are to be brought by father and mother to the Lord’s Supper? (Heidelberg). But I believe it would be a good thing if the whole congregation proclaimed the Lord’s death. The whole people: “Jacob,” the full number. But in order to arrive at a scriptural practice, that will require a profound spiritual reorientation in all of us. But it will require still more: our whole manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper will also have to be reconsidered.
But those are matters of the second order. The first question is this: Is it right that we continue to exclude our children, members of Christ’s congregation, after they have already come to years of understanding, for many years from the Table of communion? Yes—if the Lord Himself excludes them. No—if the words of the Lord Jesus, “for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven,” also have something to say concerning fellowship at the Lord’s Table. However it may be, our present practice needs correction. As things now stand, they are neither right nor good.
- Visee
[i] Rev. I. de Wolff, Kerkblad voor Overijssel en Gelderland (October 3, 1964).
