Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

-1 Corinthians 11:27-32, ESV

Last time, we looked at communion and its various practices.  We saw that unlike the Catholic and Lutheran views, the actual body and blood of Jesus are not physically present in communion, but He is spiritually present and active to impart grace to us through this sacrament.  This post continues the discussion by looking at who should come to the Table and how we should come. That has caused division in the past, but we need not divide over this.

The Lord’s Table

In determining who should come to the Table, we must begin with the understanding that this is the Lord’s Table.  It does not belong to any person, local church, or denomination but to Christ, so He and no one else has the authority to determine who comes to His Table.  All criteria set by any local church must be firmly rooted in Scripture.  Since communion displays the unity of the universal Church, it is inappropriate to bar anyone from the Table solely because they are not part of a particular local church or denomination as Catholics and some Lutherans do.  Considering their view that communicants are actually consuming the body and blood of Jesus, it is understandable that they would hold this position, but they commit the very sin of division that Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 11.  That said, if visiting such a church I would not partake in order to avoid causing division. While those joined to Christ by faith have a right to the Table regardless of denomination, we must always be ready to lay aside our rights for the purpose of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9).  But in our own churches, we must refrain from excluding those whom Christ has not excluded.

Those Clearly Excluded

Christ does exclude some people from the Table.  First, those outside of the covenant must be excluded.  Since communion is a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), those who partake must be joined to Him by covenant.  Therefore it is appropriate—and I would argue commanded—to bar from the table all who are not baptized.  Many churches agree on this today, but it has been a topic of division in the past.  Scripture is clear that those who are not washed by Christ have no part with Him (John 13:8) and therefore must be excluded from His Table.  We proclaim our faith in His atoning death when we come to the Table, so it would be hypocrisy to come to the Table lacking that faith.

Scripture also excludes those under church discipline, particularly for the sin of division, which is a sign of unbelief.  This is the primary context for Paul’s teaching on communion.  The Corinthians had such disunity that it made their practice of communion hypocritical and even blasphemous:

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

-1 Corinthians 11:17-22, ESV

The selfishness, arrogance, and divisiveness shown by these Corinthians was antithetical to the Table, so in partaking they were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves and God judged them with sickness and death (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).  Anyone in the later stages of church discipline for gross and unrepentant sin is similarly displaying the fruit of a lack of faith, so they must be barred from the Table.  This also means that anyone who has been rightly excommunicated from a church and then attempts to join another church must be barred from the Table until reconciliation occurs. If unresolved sin causes division between you and others in the church, that is also a valid reason to refrain from the Table (Matthew 5:23-24).

Children and the Table

What of the baptized children of believers?  Most Reformed churches would bar them from the Table until they can make a credible profession of faith, while some (including my current church and much of my denomination) hold that as part of the covenant people of God these children do have a right to the Table.  As with pedobaptism, I affirm that—called paedo-communion—but view the opposite as a likewise biblical stance.  A committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church came to similar conclusions. So my purpose here is not to convince others to bring their baptized children to the Table but to show that those who do are not sinning. 

For proponents of paedo-communion, the inclusion of baptized children comes as a direct consequence of covenant theology.  Under the old covenant, children were considered part of the people of God and participated in worship, and Passover carried a curse for all worthy participants who did not partake (Numbers 9:13).  Under the greater and more inclusive new covenant we baptize infants and consider them part of the visible church, so can it not be argued that these children have a right or even duty to come to the Table?  To answer “yes” we must resolve the issue of worthy participation raised by Paul: “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29).  Opponents of paedo-communion argue that children cannot examine themselves or discern the body, so they cannot partake.  They also point to the fact that while children participated in Passover, they were expected to understand its significance.  Additionally, baptism is passively received while communion requires active participation, so they argue that infants should receive baptism but not communion.  Finally, they point to parallels between communion and this instance as proof that only professing believers may come to the Table:[1]

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

-Exodus 24:9-11, ESV

This is a remarkable scene in which these men saw and dined with God yet did not die.  In the Upper Room, Jesus similarly invited His disciples to dine with Him to inaugurate the new covenant and told them that since they had seen Him they had seen the Father (John 14:7-9).  Thus it is right to draw parallels between these two events, but the logical link to communion is lacking.  This Sinai meal like the Last Supper was a one-time event that marked the beginning of a covenant, whereas communion in its repetition is more akin to the continual feasts in which the people of God participated.  And while there is certainly an active component to communion, we must not overlook the passive component as well.  We receive the elements by grace just like the waters of baptism, so just as we bring children forward to receive baptism can we not also bring them forward to receive communion?

That brings us back to the crux of the matter: self-examination and discerning the body.  The term “examine” can be defined as “discern through testing and thereby approve” (see Romans 12:2).  It’s negative is “worthless” (i.e. failed the test).  This self-examination is to determine that we are in Christ by faith and repentance, recognizing our sin and looking to Christ alone who has atoned for that sin.[2]  Discerning our own flesh is certainly involved, but so is discerning the body of Christ represented by the elements.  This means being able to “distinguish properly between the elements used in the Lord’s Supper and ordinary bread and wine, by recognizing those elements as symbols of the body and blood of Christ”.[3]  Elders must also discern the church Body, ensuring that those who come to the Table are in Christ and therefore not eating and drinking judgment upon themselves, which is “fencing the Table”.  It is right to say that infants cannot accomplish this self-examination and bodily discernment, which has caused many to conclude that they should be excluded from the Table.  However, such blanket exclusion is inconsistent with covenant theology. 

The covenants have always been corporate in nature and multigenerational, so a key component of all of the covenants—including their signs and seals—has always been representation by heads of households. This type of representation is the responsibility of any leader and is the reason why parents represent their children when bringing them for baptism.  It can be argued then that parents can likewise represent their children in bringing them to the Table.  God holds parents—particularly fathers—responsible for raising their children in the discipline and instruction of His Word (Ephesians 6:4), so as pastors to their families they are in the best position to determine when their children are ready to come to the Table.  We must never forget that God primarily builds His Kingdom through families and rewards parents who faithfully raise their children by bringing those children to faith much more often than not.[4]  Nothing prevents God from instilling a simple understanding of the Gospel and communion in even the youngest children as their parents repeatedly and with appropriate language teach them.  We often underestimate how much children are capable of comprehending, so even before they can articulate it, there is a distinct possibility that they can in fact examine themselves and discern the body.  Regardless, covenant theology leads us to treat our children as believers until we have reason to believe otherwise.  This aligns with the literal meaning of the term for examination: the testing of metals.  Modern Nondestructive Inspection techniques allow us to assume metals are defective until proven otherwise, but the First Century technique—exposing metals to fire—meant they had to be considered good until proven defective.  So parents who continually observe and teach their children while looking for the fruit of faith in their lives can consider them to be believers until proven otherwise.  Since God holds parents responsible for their children—including ensuring they do not eat and drink judgment upon themselves—those parents do have the requisite authority to examine their children and discern the body on their behalf.  If that examination does not yield unbelief, those parents have the authority to bring those children to the Table. 

Just as with baptism, this parental authority does not remove the authority rightly held by elders over the congregation, since they are also responsible for preventing those who come to the Table from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.  This is a very real concern, but in fencing the Table the elders must remember that this is Christ’s Table, so He is sovereign over the invite list.  We should be very hesitant to keep anyone—including ourselves—from the Table unless there is clear Scriptural warrant to do so as discussed earlier.  It was the rampant division, gluttony, drunkenness, celebration of gross sexual sin, and selfishness of adults—not children—that caused the Corinthian practice of communion to be a mockery of the Table that should have united and humbled them (1 Corinthians 11:17-22).[5]  That is why they were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, but the “fact that the Corinthian context bears virtually no resemblance to any celebration of the Supper we may have witnessed seems to have eluded the historical debate”.[6]  If we are serious about interpreting the Bible in light of what the original author intended and the original audience understood, we cannot overlook that context.  Failure to recognize that distinction has caused some churches to set the bar for the Table too high, which we will address shortly.  But first, there is one more point worthy of consideration.  Speaking from a Baptist perspective, Wayne Grudem observed that if a genuine believer who is not yet baptized is barred from the Table, “the person’s nonparticipation symbolizes that he or she is not a member of the body of Christ which is coming together to observe the Lord’s Supper in a united fellowship”.[7]  He then makes the case that they should be able to partake but should also be baptized as soon as possible.  Applying this to paedo-communion, excluding baptized children from the Table similarly communicates that they—considered part of the covenant people of God by baptism—are separated from the people of God regarding communion.  Since the biblical way to remove someone from the visible church is excommunication, barring baptized children from the Table could be considered practically excommunicating them without cause.  In short, a compelling case can be made for paedo-communion.

I have no doubt that I have omitted some key points on both sides and that opponents of paedo-communion would be able to provide logical answers. My point here is not to show that paedo-communion is the only biblical view but that it is a valid biblical view.  There are valid reasons for baptized children to partake of communion, but there are also valid reasons for churches to oppose it.  Parents who bring their children to the Table do so in honor of the Lord, while those who refuse abstain in honor of the Lord.  Let not those who practice paedo-communion despise those who abstain, and let not those who abstain cast judgment on those who practice it, for God has welcomed us both!  This is a matter of conscience in which parents and elders as co-authorities in the lives of children must work together so that the bread and wine of communion will represent unity and not division.

How to Come to the Table

In light of all this, how should we come to the Table to avoid partaking in an unworthy manner?  As a result of the emphasis on self-examination and fencing the Table, many saints approach communion in a very serious and contemplative way.  Certainly we must take communion very seriously, but we must be careful to keep self-examination from becoming morbid introspection that distracts us from the Gospel that is so central to the Supper.  If we neglect the context of Paul’s exhortation to examine ourselves and discern the body, we get caught in infinite soul-searching, thinking that any residual sin would disqualify us from the Table.  But by that logic we would never come to the Table and thereby sin against God by failing to obey His command to partake. We come to the Table not because we are worthy but because Christ is worthy.  We come not because we do not sin but because Christ has already atoned for our sin.  We come not to declare our own piety but to proclaim our dependence on Christ.  So barring unrepentant sin, particularly the sin of divisiveness that would make the communicant a hypocrite, come to the Table:

The story is often told…of Dr. John “Rabbi” Duncan, the Scottish theologian and minister who once noticed a young lady in his Highland congregation so gripped by guilt over her sin that she hesitated to take the Lord’s Supper.  The minister’s counsel to her is worth remembering every time we come to the Lord’s Table: “Take it, Lass.  It’s meant for sinners.”  The Gospel shape of Communion ensures assurance, whereas the emphasis on achieving a “worthiness” always ends in misery and death.

-Derek W. H. Thomas, “Covenant, Assurance, and the Sacraments” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, & John R. Muether (ed.), Covenant Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2020: 584.

In light of this, we should not come to the Table somber but joyful.  Jesus Christ atoned for our sin for the joy set before Him (Hebrews 12:2).  He paid an infinite cost for us, so He delights in us and is ecstatic to invite us to His Table to dine with Him: “Come, ye weary, heavy laden, bruised and broken by the fall; if you tarry till you’re better, you will never come at all: not the righteous, sinners Jesus came to call”.[8]  So I will end this discussion on communion by saying to all saints beloved of Christ: Come to the Table!

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price….He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

-Revelation 22:17,20-21, ESV

Additional Resources

• Paedo-Communion Information
• History of Paedo-Communion
• Paedo-Communion Persuasive Paper
• Orthodox Presbyterian Church Committee Report on Paedo-Communion

---

[1] Summarized from Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 686-687 and J.V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books: 2010: 361-363.

[2] J.V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books: 2010: 364.

[3] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 687.

[4] Douglas Wilson, Standing on the Promises: A Handbook of Biblical Childrearing, Moscow, ID: Canon Press: 1997: 20.

[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 997.

[6] Derek W. H. Thomas, “Covenant, Assurance, and the Sacraments” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, & John R. Muether (ed.), Covenant Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2020: 583.

[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 997.

[8] Joseph Hart, “Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Wretched”, 1759.