Ability to Eat – Calvin’s First Argument Against Paedocommunion

I’ve been writing about Calvin’s treatment of Paedocommunion. I wanted to explain in a list what Calvin’s arguments are in that passage. So I ran the passage through a high tech analytical tabulation engine (complete with exegetical calculatrix) and it spat out this list of “prerequisite for eating test topics”:

Calvin says anyone who will eat the Lord’s meal must be able to…

• A – EAT,
• B – DISCERN,
• C – SELF-EXAMINE,
• D – PROCLAIM,
• E – REMEMBER, and…
• F – INQUIRE

Let us focus on the first point:

A – “Must be able to Eat”

From Calvin: “On the other hand, the Supper is given to older persons who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.”

——-

I do think that Calvin is saying something as normal as, “People who can’t eat don’t eat.” And he is not insinuating this is the only point or even a substantial argument. But this point, of course, does not eliminate children who can eat.

If that were the only argument and suggestion to follow, then we would think that he means that the ability to eat is all it takes to pass into the group of the communing. Children are able physically to eat solid food at around 6 months. Maybe sooner. They are able to chew. But of course, they are not able to dine. They don’t hold a cup or use a fork at that age.

Of course, Calvin later intensifies this by helping us to consider the horror of taking a darling child to a poison table, as we will see in the next post. But up to now, he has just pointed out that there is a floor, a youngest age mechanically.

I am not wishing to linger on this first point since, at its root, it is a practical concern and not a theological one. Of course it would be theological if it were a warning, but the passage doesn’t warn us about not force feeding infants. That is unnecessary, since we know, following biblical precedent, that even when children were explicitly invited to meals (as they often are in the text), no one was commanded to exceed the natural stages of ability to lift and chew. However, let it not be missed: we do know biblically that nursing babes feed from their mothers while suckling in the state of infant faithfulness. Even there, in nursing, they are said to be faithful:

“Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.” (Ps 22.9)

This is covenant faithfulness, not mental knowledge. And that is what the Bible means by faith. Faith is present and the baby is still at breast. We confess this corporately in a psalm of the church, and it is our expectation.

But the practical concern is a fine one for practical reasons: There is a difference in inviting and force-feeding a child to a table. Or put in reverse – there is a difference between allowing a child to sit (included) at the table without eating since it is so young, and officially rejecting it because it is young.

Imagine:

Grandma has you over for Thanksgiving, and you have a 5 month old. Will the child eat a turkey leg? No. Is the child rejected from the table? No, he merely is unable to eat, though the invitation, as it were, would be extended. In fact, let us say the child is indeed invited to the house, but that we all follow God’s built-in timing for food consumption.

In the Orthodox “East,” where they have always given paedocommunion, they use a special spoon to give the baby the Eucharist after baptism. I believe this is unnecessary, but it is not contrary to the Lord’s invitation. The bread and wine are the property of the baptized infant. I believe we let them eat it when they, in God’s natural timing, are eating food at home. They would have eaten Passover and Pentecost and Booths also…as they became able to chew and swallow. Just like you do with your kids at home. Thanksgiving is available if you can eat it.

The question here is not “is the baby eating immediately after baptism?” but rather, “If he were able to eat at home, would you still reject him from the Lord’s lunch table until he could fulfill the rest of the list?”

We have not proven the answer to that question yet, since there ARE theological arguments, but that is the place where we will pick up next time.

Again this is not a meaty argument, and it is basically rendered irrelevant by the additional and substantial arguments presented next by Calvin. In the next post, we will see that Calvin pursues the question of limiting the meal based on “discerning the body.”

—-

Luke Welch admits he has vested interests in Paedocommunion. He has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>анализ посещаемости а