BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 36
April, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
Matthew 8-9 records three clusters of miracles, interspersed with snatches of Jesus’ teaching about various aspects of discipleship. Just as the Sermon on the Mount displays the authority of Jesus’ Word in teaching, these chapters display the authority of Jesus’ Word over sickness, uncleanness, the creation, demons, and death. In Jesus, the kingdom comes not only in Word, but in deed; or, better, the Word of the King accomplishes deeds. These chapters make clear that Jesus has come not only to redeem from sin and to teach the way of salvation, but to redeem from all the effects of sin.
One of the most intriguing passages in these chapters is Matthew 9:18-26, the combined story of the raising of Jairus’s daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. The passage is interesting on purely literary grounds. The story of Jairus’s daughter frames the story of the woman with the hemorrhage, helping us to see the parallels between the two healings. The comparison is strengthened by the repetition of the number 12: The woman has suffered from the hemorrhage for 12 years, and Jairus’s daughter is 12 years old (cf. Mk. 5:42). In keeping with the Old Testament purity laws, the gospels present the cleansing of uncleanness as a symbolic resurrection.
On the whole, Matthew’s presentation of this dual miracle is much more compact that Mark’s. Matthew refers to Jairus simply as "one ruler," without mentioning his role in the synagogue or his name. He does not tell us that the woman with the hemorrhage had visited physicians, or that Jesus inquired who touched him. He does not tell us the age of Jairus’s daughter, nor does he tell us that after her resurrection she received food.
In the light of all these omissions, it is surprising that Matthew includes one fact of the story not found in the other gospels. Verse 23 tells us that when Jesus came into the synagogue ruler’s house, he was greeted by "flute-players." Mark and Luke simply tell us that the house was full of weeping and wailing (Mk. 5:38; Lk. 8:52). Given that Matthew has greatly condensed the story, it is unlikely that this is an extraneous detail. Instead, it provides an ironic insight into the connection of this passage with the larger context.
The irony of the encounter is seen when we realize that the Bible usually associates flute-playing with feasting (1 Sam. 10:5 (prophesying); 1 Ki. 1:40; Job 21:12; 30:31; Is. 5:12; 30:29; Rev. 18:22). The use of flutes in mourning was not entirely unknown in the Old Testament. Jeremiah compares his mourning over Moab to the wailing of flutes (Jer. 48:36). But the emphasis of the Old Testament is that flutes are instruments of joy. We suspect that something strange is going on when we find flute-players at a wake.
This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that Jesus Himself spoke of flutes as instruments appropriate to the joy of wedding feasts. He compared the Jews of His generation to children playing games of wedding and funeral. They did not mourn when John came calling for repentance, nor did they rejoice when Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Mat. 11:16-17, and see standard commentaries). Instead, they said that John was being demon-possessed and accused Jesus of capital offenses (vv. 18-19; cf. Dt. 21:18-21).
Matthew 11:7-19 has many parallels to 9:14-26. Several themes are common to both passages: the relationship of the old and new orders (11:11-12; 9:15-17), the role of John the Baptist (11:14; 9:14), the joy that Christ’s coming brings (11:17-19; 9:15). Given these strong thematic parallels, it seems no accident that flute-players would appear in both.
The flutes of Matthew 11 are associated with the joy of the kingdom announced and inaugurated by Jesus, an announcement to which the Jews responded with hostility. In order to understand the role of the flute-players in Matthew 9, we must take a closer look at the larger context. Immediately prior to his encounter with Jairus, Jesus had been discussing fasting with the disciples of John (Matthew 9:14-17). When asked why His disciples did not keep the rigorous fasts of the Pharisees and of John’s disciples, Jesus explained by contrasting the old and new. John was still part of the old order, the time of anticipation. Fasting was appropriate to John, since the wedding feast had not begun and the Bridegroom had not arrived. When the Bridegroom appears, however, the feast begins. It is an insult to the Groom to mourn in His presence. The coming of the Groom means an end to fasting and mourning, and the beginning of the feast of the kingdom.
The following passage, in which two women are healed, continues the theme of the Divine Bridegroom, come to rescue His Bride. Jesus has just identified Himself as the Bridegroom, and immediately He goes out to heal two women. Two women associated with the number 12! The typology is clear: Jesus as the divine Bridegroom has come to bring healing to His unclean, dead Bride, Israel. He comes to the Jew first.
(The woman with the issue of blood, significantly, reaches out to touch the "tassel" of Jesus’ garment [Mat. 9:20; the word is frequently translated as "fringe," but can, and probably should, be understood as "tassel"]. Spreading the tasselled garment over a woman is a sign of engagement [cf. Ruth 3:9; cf. Dt. 22:12-30]. By reaching out for the tassel, the unclean woman was seeking engagement with the Divine Bridegroom, seeking to be covered by His skirt. Instead of rejecting her for her uncleanness, Jesus cleanses her and accepts her into His new marriage covenant.)
How utterly ironic, then, that Jesus’ arrival at a wake would be greeted with flute-playing. He is the Groom, come to bring His virgin Bride back to life. It is appropriate that He be greeted by flute-players, by the sounds of a wedding feast. It is appropriate that the Groom be greeted with laughter. But the flute-players do not realize what they are doing. Theirs is an unconscious announcement of the Bridegroom’s arrival. Jesus has come to raise the dead to life, but the flute-players wish to continue mourning the girl’s death. They laugh, but not in joy; instead, like Ishmael, they laugh in derision at the Greater Isaac. They greet the groom not with joy but with mourning; theirs is a deadly parody of the Wedding Feast. In their dullness of heart, they are typical of that generation: like children, playing flutes without dancing.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 36
April, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
The fact that Paul was by trade a tentmaker has usually been taken as the springboard for a discussion of whether pastors should have other jobs or not. The Biblical answer is yes and no. The apostles received tithes so that they could devote themselves full time to the ministry of the word and prayer (Acts 6:2, 4; 1 Cor. 9:14). On the other hand, in situations with small churches and missionary situations, it is well for the pastor to "make tents" in order to sustain himself. Another situation in which tentmaking is in order is this: Many churches today are so full of carnal people that a pastor’s livelihood will be threatened if he preaches anything like a true gospel message. In such a situation, it is good for the pastor to have a trade he can fall back on, so that he will be bold in preaching. Then, if 3/4 of the congregation departs, he can still keep the pastorate and build the church back up with real sheep.
Another observation that is often overlooked in connection with tentmaking is this: Paul’s trade enabled him to sit in the market and talk with people during the day. Tentmaking was a trade that kept him in constant touch with an important aspect of his ministry. Pastors who need to make tents should think about similar jobs. A job as an editor will hone his communication skills, for instance. In a technological society, it is harder for a pastor to find a tentmaking job that is "close" to his pastoral calling, but he should think about the problem and try to find something as close as possible.
All this is true, but does not go far enough. Such an interpretation does not rise above moralism, failing to do justice to the theological undercurrents of the text. It is significant in a symbolic sense that Paul was a tentmaker. His occupation is directly related to his work of church planting and building, and fulfills a pattern found in the Old Testament. When we understand this, we can get a better picture of what modern tentmaking jobs might be like.
When the Sinaitic Covenant was established, God called Moses to be the prophet. God gave Moses the blueprint for the Tabernacle, the tent of God. God gifted another man, Bezalel, with the Holy Spirit of "wisdom, understanding, and knowledge" and put him in charge of actually building the Tabernacle (Ex. 31:3). God appointed another man, Oholiab, to help him, but nothing is said about the Holy Spirit in connection with him (Ex. 31:6). "Bezalel" means "God Protects," and that is what the Tabernacle as a shelter was all about. "Oholiab" means "Father’s Tent," which is also what the Tabernacle was all about. Theologically, the Spirit-filled Bezalel represents the Spirit, and Oholiab represents the contribution of Israel, the Bride. In terms of the theology of Exodus, we see God give Moses the blueprint in Exodus 25-31, and we see the Spirit and the Bride building the Tabernacle in Exodus 35-40.
When the Kingdom Covenant was established, God called David to be the prophet. God gave David the blueprint for the Temple (1 Chron. 28:11-19), the house of God. God gifted another man, Solomon the son of David, with "wisdom and knowledge" to build the Temple (2 Chron. 1:11-12). The Holy Spirit is not particularly mentioned here, but we are to understand that He alone gives wisdom and understanding. Solomon appointed another man, Hiram-abi, to help him (2 Chron. 2:13-14). Theologically, Solomon represents the Spirit of God who builds the Temple after David is gone, and Hiram-abi represents the Bride, who assists. In terms of the theology of Chronicles, we see God give David the blueprint in 1 Chronicles 22-28, and we see the Spirit and the Bride building the Temple in 2 Chronicles 2-7.
There are certain advances in conception from Sinai to Jerusalem. Moses does not die and go to heaven before Bezalel starts his work, while David does die before Solomon starts his. Also, while the Tabernacle was made of Egyptian spoils as well as Israelite contributions, the part played by Gentile God-fearers is much greater in the building of the Temple. Hiram of Tyre, a convert, sends much material for the Temple, and Hiram-abi himself was the son of an Israelite woman and a Tyrean man (2 Chron. 3:3-16 and 3:14). In fact, it was Hiram of Tyre who recommended Hiram-abi to Solomon (2 Chron. 3:13).
The kings of Judah, who repair the Temple from time to time, are permanent Bezalels, permanent Solomons. As the Holy Spirit is the Second Comforter and Heir of Jesus Christ the King, so Solomon and his successors are the heirs of David.
King and priest cooperate at all times in the building of the tent and house. Exodus 28 and Exodus 31 belong together, as God appoints Aaron to oversee the spiritual and moral aspect of the Tabernacle and Bezalel to oversee its physical plant. The covenant with Phineas, guaranteeing his line permanence in the house of God as priest (Num. 25:10-13), is parallel to the covenant with David, guaranteeing his line permanence in the house of God as king (2 Sam. 7). The Phineas line of Zadok came to permanence when Solomon became king. (The Davidic Covenant cannot be understood rightly unless it is connected with the Phineas Covenant, its complement.)
It is less explicit, but I believe we can see the same pattern recapitulated at the time of the Restoration Covenant. The prophets this time are Haggai and Zechariah, especially the latter, who in his "night visions" receives a blueprint of how the new covenant is established by God’s removal of sin so that the Temple can be rebuilt (Zech. 1-6, especially chapter 3). These two men carry on the previous work of Ezekiel, who revealed the Spiritual dimensions and social structure of the Restoration Temple before his death (Ezk. 40-48). The Restoration Temple is then built under the direction of the last Davidic prince Zerubbabel and the high priest Jeshua. For reasons I have explained elsewhere (Biblical Chronology III:3, March 1991), the death of Jeshua the high priest completed the work of restoration, since the death of the high priest enables all those in exile to return to the land (Num. 35:28; Num. 20:29-21:1; Josh. 24:33). His death immediately precedes the arrival of Ezra with materials to furnish the Temple, a point that emerges when we realize that the Darius of Ezra 1-6 is the same as the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 1-13 (Biblical Chronology III:2-5).
In the Restoration period, the Temple-maintainers are no longer the Davidic-Solomonic kings, but the line of high priests. King and priest are combined in the crowning of Jeshua (Zech. 6), and the Davidic king-line goes "underground" until the coming of Jesus. Zerubbabel, then, becomes Chief Layman, as Ezekiel 46 had prophesied concerning the Restoration Temple. With this in mind, we can see Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Haggai as Moses, Jeshua as Bezalel, and Zerubbabel as Oholiab. In the next generation, the work of Jeshua as Temple-builder is carried on by Ezra, and the work of Zerubbabel as Chief Layman (representing the Bride) is carried on by Nehemiah.
Once again there is a progression from the Kingdom Covenant to the Restoration Covenant. The presence of the God-fearing Gentiles is much more pronounced in connection with the Restoration Temple. The God-fearing kings of Persia, Cyrus and Darius, order that the Temple be built and help furnish it. They send Ezra and Nehemiah to make sure that it is being done correctly. While the Jews are busy apostatizing by marrying heathen women (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13) and allowing heathens to have rooms in the Temple (Neh. 13), the Godly Persian kings are actively working to purify the Temple through their agents Ezra and Nehemiah.
We now have a pattern that we can abstract as follows:
1. God gives the blueprint to the Prophet.
2. The Prophet enlists a Chief Tentmaker.
3. The Chief Tentmaker enlists other tentmakers among the members of the Bride.
When we get to the New Covenant, we see this pattern played out in its fullness. The Father gives the blueprint to the Son, who is the Great Prophet, and who speaks and does only the Father’s will. After the death and ascension of the Son, the Son commissions a Second Comforter, His Heir, to become Chief Tentmaker. This is the Holy Spirit, whose arrival in Acts 2 begins the building of the Church, the new house of God. The Spirit enlists members of the Bride to help Him. The leaders of the Bride are the Apostles and pastors, including Paul.
Thus, the Father is God the Author; Jesus is Moses the blueprint-revealer; the Spirit is Bezalel the Chief Tentmaker; and Paul is Oholiab the leader of the Bride’s contributions.
The Father is God the Author; Jesus is David the blueprint-revealer; the Spirit is Solomon the Chief Templebuilder; and Paul, a Jew raised in Gentile Joppa, is Hiram-abi the leader of the Bride’s contributions.
The Father is God the Author and is also represented by the Godly Gentile commissioners of the Restoration Temple. Jesus is Ezekiel-Haggai-Zechariah, prophetic blueprint-revealer. The Spirit is Jeshua-Ezra. And Paul is Zerubbabel-Nehemiah.
When we see this we see that we are all, like Paul, tentmakers. Pastors are the leaders in this tentmaking operation, the building of the Church.
From all this we see that Paul’s tentmaking occupation carries with it a deep association with God’s plan for building the Church. Paul’s occupation as tentmaker symbolizes and thus is intimately related to his calling as Church builder. He made tents not primarily so that he could be fed and clothed, but primarily to relieve the Church of the burden of caring for him, so that the Church’s money could be used elsewhere in the building up of the Church (Acts 20:34; 1 Cor. 4:12; 9:15; 2 Cor. 11:7; 12:13; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8).
I derive the following two applications from this study. First, it is appropriate for men to engage in tentmaking when the Church is small and struggling. This frees up the money of the Church for other uses.
Second, tentmaking occupations should ideally be related to ministry work. For instance, music is one of the most important aspects of the work and worship of the Church. For a pastor to make his money as a music teacher would be an excellent tentmaking job, because his experience there would play into the upgrade of the work and worship of the Church. A similar occupation would be teaching Bible in a Christian school. Financial counselling would also be a good tentmaking occupation, because the pastor could use his expertise and experience to help the members of his parish. But of course, if these jobs are not available, anything will do.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 4, No. 4
April, 1992
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1992
by James B. Jordan
I pointed out in Biblical Chronology 3:9 (September, 1991) that the years of Judah’s kings are given in chronological fashion. "When we read of a Judahite king’s reign as lasting 4 years, it means that 4 years of the chronology have been given to him, and there is no chronological overlap with another Judahite king. When we read of an Israelite king’s reign as lasting 4 years, it means that he reigned during four years of the chronology, but his first and last years are also included in the reigns of his predecessor and successor." I also pointed out, however, that "later on, there are complications that we shall have to examine in detail when we get to them."
We arrive at the first of these complications in this essay. It is the problem of co-regencies. There is no reason to doubt or be surprised at the existence of co-regencies in the histories of Israel and Judah. For any number of reasons, most often the desire for orderly succession, a king will put his son on the throne next to him before he dies. What this means for the Biblical text, as we shall see, is that when the years of these two kings are given, they do indeed overlap, so that we cannot simply add them together to get an accurate chronology. At the same time, however, all the information necessary to construct an accurate chronology is provided, so there is no real problem.
Let us return to the chronology where we left it in December, 1991 (Biblical Chronology 3:12), before our necessary excursus into the Assyrian Eponym Canon. We saw that at the end of his reign, Ahab of Israel launched the Third Syrian War, and got Jehoshaphat of Judah to go in with him (1 Kings 22). Both kings set sons on the throne to rule while they were fighting the war. According to 1 Kings 22:51, Ahaziah of Israel reigned in the 17th and 18th years of Jehoshaphat of Judah, which were also the last two years of Ahab’s reign. Thus, it seems that Ahab left Ahaziah on the throne and went off to battle, just before the end of the year, and died right at the beginning of the next year. Ahab’s 21st and 22nd years are the same as Ahaziah’s 1st and 2nd years.
As we saw, immediately after the defeat of Israel in the Third Syrian War, the Moabites rebelled against Israel and Ahaziah had an accident and died (2 Kings 1). Thus, during this same year, his younger brother Jehoram of Israel came to the throne (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1).
Looking back at the Third Syrian War, it seems that Jehoshaphat of Judah put his son Jehoram of Judah on the throne when he left to fight next to Ahab against the Syrians. This emerges from 2 Kings 1:17, which says that Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. Now, actually Jehoshaphat was still supreme king over Judah, but Jehoram of Judah is called king. The only way to reconcile this is to assume that Jehoshaphat had left Jehoram of Judah on the throne of Judah while he went to fight the Syrians. He had not yet returned to resume the throne when Jehoram of Israel became king. Thus, Jehoram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, which was also the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, as 2 Kings 3:1 tells us.
Now, when Jehoshaphat got back to Jerusalem, he removed Jehoram from the throne. This is clear from 2 Kings 8:16-17, which says that Jehoram of Judah came to the throne (again) in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, while Jehoshaphat was still reigning (in his 22nd year).
Why would Jehoshaphat depose Jehoram temporarily, and why reinstate him later on? We can only guess. 2 Kings 8:18 says that when Jehoram of Judah became sole king later on, he actively pursued the idolatrous ways of Ahab. 2 Chronicles 21 expands on this to show that Jehoram of Judah’s brief reign was one of the most murderous in all the history of Judah. We may assume, then, that while Jehoshaphat was away fighting the Syrians, Jehoram was acting corruptly in Jerusalem. When Jehoshaphat returned, being a righteous king, he took his son off the throne. Perhaps Jehoram put on a show of repentance and conformity to righteousness, so that Jehoshaphat was willing to reinstate him as co-regent a few years later.
As I mentioned above, 2 Kings 8:16-17 says that Jehoram of Judah became king in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, which was while Jehoshaphat was still supreme king in Judah. These verses also say that Jehoram of Judah reigned 8 years. Now, how do we count those eight years? There are three possibilities:
1. We can stack them on top of Jehoshaphat’s 25 years, so that Jehoram’s 8 years don’t begin until after Jehoshaphat’s death. We cannot do this, though, because it would take us well into the reign of Jehu of Israel, who killed Jehoram’s successor Ahaziah at the beginning of the his (Jehu’s) reign. Thus, Jehoram’s 8 years must overlap some of Jehoshaphat’s.
2. Second, we can start Jehoram’s 8 years in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, which is Jehoshaphat’s 22nd year. This is what Anstey does. There are two problems with this approach. First, 2 Kings 8:25-26 says that Ahaziah the son of Jehoram became king in the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel and reigned one year. In terms of the Judahite mode of reckoning, this year should not also be the 8th of Jehoram of Judah, which on Anstey’s reckoning it is (and which he says is the sole exception to the rule; Anstey, p. 181). Second, 2 Kings 8:16-17 says that Jehoram of Judah reigned in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, a formula that almost everywhere else means that Jehoram of Judah’s accession year is the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, and implies that the actual count begins the following year. Finally, third, the text has already assigned two years to Jehoram, during the Third Syrian War, and it seems simplest to take these as the first two years of his total eight.
3. Thus, third, I suggest that we take the two years of the Third Syrian War as the first two years of Jehoram of Judah, after which there is a hiatus while he is not on the throne. This enables us to take the numbers absolutely, and is the simplest scheme. Accordingly, the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel is the accession year of Jehoram of Judah. Jehoram of Judah dies in the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel, and is succeeded by his son Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 9:29). The next year is the official one year of Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 8:25-26), who is then killed by Jehu.
This third solution is simpler, I believe, and does better justice to the details of the text. The author has already counted two years of Jehoram of Judah’s reign, so we should subtract them from the total eight. Also, this interpretation means that there are no exceptions to the chronological way of recording the years of Judah’s kings. Finally, this interpretation eliminates the suggested co-regency of Ahaziah and Jehoram of Judah, which Anstey must suppose in order to resolve the numbers on his interpretation.
It should be noted, however, that both Anstey’s and my interpretation bring us down to the same year, the year 3119 A.M.
| YEAR | JUDAH (Anstey) | JUDAH (Jordan) | ISRAEL | HISTORICAL DATA, TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR PROOF | |||
| 3106 | Jehoshaphat | 16 | Jehoshaphat | 16 | Ahab | 20 | |
| 3107 | (Jehoram 1) | 17 | Jehoram 1 | 17 | Ahaziah 1 | 21 | 3rd Syrian War, 1 Ki.22:51 |
| 3108 | (Jehoram 2) | 18 | Jehoram 2 | 18 | Ahab | 22 | Death of Ahab, 1 Ki.22 |
| Ahaziah 2 | Death of Ahaziah, 2 Ki.1 Ascension of Elijah, 2 Ki.2 |
||||||
| Jehoram | 1 | Accession of Jehoram, 2 Ki.1:17; 3:1, Moabite War, 2 Ki.3 | |||||
| 3109 | 19 | 19 | 2 | ||||
| 3110 | 20 | 20 | 3 | ||||
| 3111 | 21 | 21 | 4 | ||||
| 3112 | Jehoram 1 | 22 | Jehoram acces. | 22 | 5 | 2 Ki.8:16-17 | |
| 3113 | Jehoram 2 | 23 | Jehoram 3 | 23 | 6 | ||
| 3114 | Jehoram 3 | 24 | Jehoram 4 | 24 | 7 | ||
| 3115 | Jehoram 4 | 25 | Jehoram 5 | 25 | 8 | Death of Jehoshaphat, 1 Ki.22:50 | |
| 3116 | Jehoram | 5 | Jehoram | 6 | 9 | Jehoram of Judah sole king | |
| 3117 | Jehoram | 6 | Jehoram | 7 | 10 | ||
| 3118 | Jehoram | 7 | Jehoram (dies) | 8 | 11 2 Ki.9:29. Anstey: Ahaziah becomes co-regent | ||
| Ahaziah co-rex | Ahaziah accession | Jordan: Jehoram dies; Ahaziah accession | |||||
| 3119 | Jehoram (dies) | 8 | Ahaziah | 1 | 12 | 2 Ki.8:25-26 | |
| Ahaziah | 1 | Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel slain by Jehu |
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 20, April 1992
Copyright (c) 1992 by Biblical Horizons
(Editor’s Note: This essay is an abridged version of Rev. Leithart’s extended and comprehensive critique of Leonard J. Coppes’s book, Daddy, May I Take Communion? The full 56-page critique can be obtained for $7.00 from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.)
Since the early 1980s, several of the conservative Reformed Churches have debated and wrestled with the issue of paedocommunion (infant communion). The PCA and the OPC assigned study committees to examine the question, both of which produced useful reports both in support of and against the position. Though the debate seems to have subsided in recent years, there are signs that it continues to percolate in the Reformed Churches. Rev. Steve Wilkins, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) of Monroe, Louisiana, for example, has recently produced a widely-distributed tape series giving a strong defense of paedocommunion, and in 1988, Dr. Leonard Coppes published his book Daddy, May I Take Communion?, endorsed by Rev. Joseph C. Morecraft as "the first serious response to the `paedocommunion challenge.’" (Rev. Wilkins’s four-tape series can be obtained from Covenant Productions, c/o Erik Stoer, 26 Kathy Lane, Freeport, FL 32439 for $10.00.)
Though one hesitates to raise what has been a divisive issue, it is not an issue that can be ignored. Belief in paedocommunion is not, to be sure, in any sense a test of orthodoxy. But its significance for the system of Reformed doctrine is vast. It is plausible to argue that many of the tensions that have arisen in Reformed theology are crystallized by, if they do not actually arise from, the traditional antipaedocommunion position. I do not believe that paedocommunion implies any discarding of the foundational doctrines of the Reformed faith, but it does certainly imply a recasting and refinement, a further reformation of Reformed theology.
The paedocommunion debate raises questions not only concerning the character of the sacraments and the relationship of the two sacraments, but also touches on such major areas of theology as the doctrine of the Church, the meaning of the covenant, the relationship of the covenant to eternal election, the doctrines of perseverance and assurance, the relationship of faith and the sacraments, the relationship of faith and understanding, the relationship of faith and works, and other questions of great theological significance. Hermeneutical questions, including the meta-issue of relating the OT and NT, are also implicated. For these reasons, in the PCA, where many have a less than Scriptural view of baptism, paedocommunion is rightly seen as a profound challenge to the prevailing thought and practice. If true, paedocommunion requires the contemporary Reformed churches to undergo a far-reaching theological repentance.
Practically, the stakes are, if anything, even greater. Advocates of paedocommunion claim that their opponents are dishonoring Christ’s invitation to let the little children come to Him to dine at His table. Opponents of paedocommunion claim that the table of the Lord is defiled by the admission of "undiscerning" children and infants. Whoever is right, Christ is displeased with a portion of His Church.
In the following, I hope to advance the debate by considering the main arguments of Coppes’s book. For readers interested in a more thorough examination of Coppes’s positions and arguments, I have written a longer, chapter-by-chapter review of Coppes’s book, which is also available from Biblical Horizons .
Presuppositions
At the outset, a few of stylistic comments are in order. Coppes’s book is extremely difficult to read. It is highly repetitive, uses vague and sometimes obscure language, and includes more than its share of incoherent or fallacious arguments and outright false claims. Coppes’s argument includes many twists and turns. Debatable assertions are sometimes qualified dozens of pages later, and the qualifications undermine the original assertions. Coppes has done some good work in the past, particularly in his contributions to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. This book is far from his best effort.
Let us examine a few of the recurring problems in Coppes’s book. First, Coppes tends to employ a rigid, nominalistic hermeneutical and theological method in which things and concepts are sharply distinguished from one another. Thus, for example, he claims that each of the meals and sacrifices of the OT depicted a particular "aspect" of redemption. If this is taken to mean that each particular meal highlighted one aspect or another of the work of Christ, it is unobjectionable. But for Coppes it evidently means something different. It means, quite literally, that each OT sacrifice and meal signified and sealed one and only one part of redemption.
Thus, for example, Coppes argues (pp. 81ff.) that the Passover was "propitiatory," but did not depict a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice. God was turned from His wrath by the slaughter of the Passover lamb and the presentation of its blood, but "there is nothing in the explanation of the rite to say that the lamb was the vicarious substitutionary sacrifice or atonement for the sins of the people" (p. 82). Again, he suggests that the Passover signified propitiation (the satisfaction of God’s wrath) but not expiation (the removal of sin, p. 113). He hedges his statements by admitting that the Passover was "generally expiatory," but not "immediately expiatory." Yet, he concludes that, because it lacked the element of laying on of hands, the Passover "was not, in itself, a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice" (p. 81). (For an extended discussion of the Passover, see J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin [Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock, (1863) 1980], pp. 355-76.)
This line of argument implies that God’s wrath can be propitiated without the removal of sin. It suggests the possibility that God’s wrath can be satisfied by something less than the death of a substitutionary victim. That, in turn, suggests that God can justify without being Just. Coppes’s response to this criticism would perhaps be that the Passover is but one OT rite among many. Redemption, he urges, was depicted in the whole of the sacrificial system, not in any single rite or sacrifice. Though the Passover did not expiate sin (at least not "immediately"), other OT sacrifices and rites did. But this answer does not meet the objection. If Coppes is correct, the Israelites who participated in the original Passover were delivered from God’s wrath without being delivered from sin.
The sacrificial system of the OT was designed to restore communion between God and man. Sin alienates man from God. God is angry with sinners so long as their sin is not removed. That sin, and therefore God’s anger, are removed by sacrifice. Coppes’s discussion leaves the impression that redemption can be achieved in part, and that communion with God can be restored in part. If Coppes is correct, we are left wondering about the status of a sinner for whom God’s wrath is propitiated, but whose sin is not covered. Does the Passover lamb suffice to restore communion with God, or does it not? If the blood of the Passover lamb did not restore communion with God, why did the people share a communion meal?
Surely, Coppes is on to something important. The important truth in his discussion is that no single OT sacrifice or meal exhaustively typified the fulfillment of that redemption in Christ. The question is how we relate the multiplicity of the OT types to the One Christ and His work of redemption. It seems to me that a more satisfying way to describe the relationship among the various meals and sacrifices is in terms of "perspectives," as that notion has been developed by John Frame and Vern Poythress. (See Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987], and Poythress, Symphonic Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988].) A perspective is a limited view of a whole. Seeing each element of the sacrificial system as a "perspective" on the coming Redeemer would mean that each sacrifice and meal and rite emphasized one particular dimension of the sacrifice of Christ, without excluding the other dimensions. Indeed, properly understood, each sacrifice and meal would imply all the others. Each depicted the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ from a particular angle. (See Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 49.) Employing a "perspectival" approach, we can avoid distinguishing the different sacrifices too sharply and implying that the sacrifices dealt with one and only one "aspect" of sin and redemption.
We run across a similar quagmire when Coppes begins to talk about the application of redemption. Again, the various "aspects" of salvation are neatly separated. He claims that each meal and rite of the OT brought the worshiper closer to God only in respect to the particular aspect of redemptive reality signified and sealed by that particular rite. Coppes is operating along the traditional Reformed lines of the ordo salutis, which has been subjected directly and indirectly to a searching critique by a long line of Reformed scholars from Geerhardus Vos and John Murray to Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., and Herman Ridderbos.
Gaffin’s work especially has laid the foundations for a thorough-going Biblical refinement of the Reformed doctrine of the application of redemption (a refinement that at the same time is a recovery of some of Calvin’s best insights). By emphasizing the centrality of union with Christ and the eschatological character of redemption, Gaffin and others have avoided sterile separations between various stages in redemption. If we are justified, it is because we are united by faith to the One who was justified by His resurrection (Rom. 4:25); if we are sons by adoption, it is because we are united to the Firstborn among many brethren; and so on. Gaffin concludes from a careful study that Paul views justification, sanctification, adoption, etc. "not as distinct acts but as distinct aspects of a single act." (Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, (1978) 1987], p. 138.) Against Coppes’s tendency to separate neatly between stages of redemption, Gaffin would raise Paul’s rhetorical question to the Corinthians, "Is Christ divided?"
Coppes also misconstrues the nature of the institutional transition from Old to New Covenant in some important respects. The NT institutions (sacraments, priesthood, etc.) do not necessarily match one-to-one with the institutions of the OT. It is far too simplistic a view of the NT to suggest, for example, that the Aaronic priesthood is analogous to the New Covenant eldership, and the duties of the Levites exactly correspond to the duties of deacons. The entire OT is fulfilled in Christ, and transformed by His death and resurrection. In theory, Coppes agrees with this. In practice, however, his entire book constitutes a search for a single OT rite that exactly corresponds to the Lord’s Supper.
Finally, Coppes is consistently offering arguments that prove more than he wishes to prove. He argues from Ezekiel 44:5-9, for example, that only people who are circumcised in the heart (that is, who have made a profession of faith) are to be admitted to the Table. But that passage is about restricting access to the sanctuary, not the table per se; the NT sanctuary is the Church. Taken in Coppes’s terms, Ezekiel 44 really proves that only those who have made a profession of faith should be admitted to the Church. Thus, his arguments against paedocommunion continually tend to undermine his own paedobaptist convictions.
The Argument
The basic assumption of Coppes’s book is that the nature of the Lord’s Supper (what it means) determines the design (who should be admitted). He argues that we can make no simple identification of the Lord’s Supper with the Passover; the nature of the two meals is different. This assertion assumes the notion of "aspects" discussed above. The Passover depicted only one aspect of redemption, while the Supper signifies and seals the whole.
Thus, the fact that children were admitted to the Passover does not prove that they should be admitted to the Supper; we cannot determine the design of the Supper from the design of the Passover. Coppes’s argument also implies that no other single OT meal was the consummate antecedent of the Supper. He is also at pains to point out that there were many different meals in the OT, with varying terms of admission.
If no single OT meal determines the design of the Supper, how do we decide whether or not children should be admitted to the Supper? Several lines of thought suggest themselves. First, one could argue that, since no OT feast corresponds exactly with the Supper, we need to decide the question of admission on the basis of more general theological principles, such as the nature of the covenant, the nature of the Church, the nature of baptism, etc. Alternatively, one could look for a general pattern in the OT feasts that could be applied to the Supper. If we discover that all the OT feasts admitted children, then we could conclude that the NT feast should admit children as well. Neither of these lines of argument assumes a simplistic identification of the Supper with Passover or with any other single OT meal.
Coppes, unfortunately, rejects both of these alternatives. Instead, having dismissed the "simplistic" paedocommunion appeal to the Passover, he simplistically identifies the Supper with a different OT rite. Though he never states it in precisely this way, Coppes’s full argument is as follows:
1. The Great Atonement is the heart of the OT sacrificial system;
2. The Lord’s Supper fulfills the entire OT sacrificial system;
3. Since the Atonement is the heart of the sacrificial system, the Supper particularly fulfills the Great Atonement;
4. The rites that "attach" the sacrifices to the Great Atonement are the laying on of hands and approaching the altar;
5. Participation in the Supper thus particularly fulfills the approach to the altar and the laying on of hands;
6. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper should admit only those participants who could approach the altar in the OT (the design of the Supper is determined by its nature);
7. Since only potential federal heads who had made a profession of faith could approach the altar, only federal heads should receive the Supper;
8. Though in the OT, women were not allowed to approach the altar, in the NT women can receive the Supper.
Several criticisms of this argument are in order. First, it seems odd at first that Coppes would choose a fast day (the Day of Atonement) to determine the admissions requirements to the NT feast, or why he would use the rite of "laying on of hands" to determine admission requirements to a meal. The reason becomes clearer on consideration. In the OT, there were two basic kinds of meals: 1) meals in which leaders or priests alone participated and 2) meals in which the whole people of Israel participated. The first type of meal was bound up with the temporary OT holiness boundaries, which have been removed in Christ. To prove from the OT that children should be barred from the Lord’s Table, Coppes has to offer an example of an OT meal that meets two requirements: 1) all the lay Israelites were invited, but 2) their children were excluded.
Coppes never provides any example of such a meal, because the OT knows nothing of such a meal. When lay adults were invited to feasts, their children were invited to eat and drink with them. This was true of the Passover (Ex. 12:3-4), the peace offering (Lev. 7:15-21), the other annual feasts of Israel (Dt. 14:22-29; 16:9-14), and the wilderness meals (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Coppes knows he cannot provide a single example of a common meal that excluded children, so he continually shifts attention from the OT meals to other OT rites. He assumes that the Supper excludes children. To show how this is consistent with the OT types, he must find an OT rite that included lay adults, but excluded children. The rite of "laying on of hands" meets those requirements.
Second, Coppes shifts ground several times in the book. His stated assumption is that the Supper fulfills the entire OT sacrificial system, and therefore no OT rite had precisely the same nature as the Supper. Yet, Coppes also suggests a single OT rite–the laying on of hands–was the main OT antecedent of the Supper. If it is simplistic to identify the Supper solely with the Passover, it is equally simplistic to identify the Supper solely with the "laying on of hands." Similarly, he often says that the Sinai meal of Exodus 24 was the most direct antecedent of the Supper. But there is no reason to say that the Supper fulfills the Sinai meal more directly than it fulfills any other meal.
Third, Coppes confuses the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ with the continual celebration and application of that sacrifice in the Supper. The NT nowhere compares the Supper to the Great Atonement. Instead, the NT compares Christ’s death to the Great Atonement (Heb. 8-10). The Great Atonement is over and done; we now celebrate the release achieved by the Cross. The Supper is the NT Feast of Booths, the feast that followed the Great Atonement.
Fourth, Coppes’s argument is based on the premise that admission to the OT sacrificial rites became more restrictive the nearer one got to the altar. The meals of the wilderness, Coppes claims, were virtually unrestricted; the feasts of Tabernacles and Pentecost were somewhat more restrictive; the Passover, which required circumcision, was more restrictive still; and the rite of "laying on of hands" is the most restrictive rite of the OT system, since it involves a near approach to the altar.
It is true that there were various meals, with varying terms of admission. Yet, Coppes seriously misrepresents the Biblical data. The most glaring error is his treatment of the status of "sojourners" in ancient Israel. He argues that in general sojourners were not circumcised and not admitted to the altar (pp. 96-97). At the same time, he admits that circumcised strangers could bring votive, freewill, and burnt offerings (citing Lev. 22:18). Uncircumcised sojourners could offer sacrifice only through the priesthood, but could not approach the altar. Coppes summarizes the condition of the uncircumcised stranger as follows:
In fact, however, circumcision was not a prerequisite for approaching the altar. The uncircumcised sojourner was to follow the same procedures as the Israelite in making his offering (cf. Nu. 15:14-15). (Jacob Milgrom, Numbers [Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990], pp. 398-402. Milgrom writes, "the ger [stranger] may participate in the voluntary sacrificial cult if he follows its prescriptions [Num. 15:15-16; Lev. 22:17ff.]" [p. 399].) Thus, the uncircumcised sojourner was able to get as close to the altar as any Israelite! The sojourner was able to lay his hands on the head of the sacrificial animal, in accord with the instructions of Leviticus 1-5. The sojourner was allowed to slaughter sacrificial animals. In other words, an uncircumcised sojourner could participate in those ritual acts that Coppes claims are the most restrictive acts of the OT sacrificial system, the acts that are most directly associated with the Great Atonement.
This error in Coppes’s argument undermines his entire thesis. He claims, rightly, that there were degrees of holiness in the OT system. Some meals and rites were restricted to priests, some to circumcised Israelites, some open to sojourners. But Coppes turns the OT hierarchy of holiness on its head. He claims that approaching the altar and laying hands on the head of the animal required a higher level of holiness than did participation in the Passover meal. Yet, any uncircumcised sojourner could approach the altar, but only the circumcised could eat the Passover meal. A chart will help summarize the contrast between Coppes’s position and that of the Bible:
The bottom line here is very significant. Coppes admits that children were admitted to the Passover in the OT. Yet, contrary to his conclusions, Passover required a higher degree of holiness than approaching the altar to offer sacrifice. If Coppes’s scheme were accurate, children should have been excluded from Passover (since it required circumcision), and admitted to the altar (since it did not require circumcision). But Coppes’s scheme is at this point precisely the opposite of the Biblical scheme. Coppes’s argument is based on his premise that approaching the altar required a high degree of ritual holiness. But that premise is simply wrong.
Conclusion
Coppes’s book has certain things in its favor. He challenges any simplistic effort to base paedocommunion solely on the example of Passover, and his emphasis on the reality of Christ’s presence in the Supper is welcome. His most central arguments against paedocommunion, however, are frequently fallacious and based on false assumptions. Though I can hardly claim to have offered a definitive defense of paedocommunion here, I hope that I have shown clearly some of the problems with Coppes’s rather idiosyncratic defense of the traditional position, and shown the plausibility of the paedocommunion position.
