Greg Koukl writes:

If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I’ve ever learned as a Christian?

Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least.

My Radio Trick

When I’m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It’s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.

I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on.

This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

The numbers in front of the sentences give the illusion the verses stand alone in their meaning. They were not in the originals, though. Numbers were added hundreds of years later. Chapter and verse breaks sometimes pop up in unfortunate places, separating relevant material that should be grouped together.

First, ignore the verse numbers and try to get the big picture. Then begin to narrow your focus. It’s not very hard or time consuming. It takes only a few moments and a little observation of the text.

Begin with the broad context of the book. What type of literature is it history, poetry, proverb? What is the passage about in general? What idea is being developed?

Stand back from the verse and look for breaks in the narrative that identify major units of thought. Ask, “What in this paragraph or group of paragraphs gives any clue to the meaning of the verse?”

There’s a reason this little exercise is so important. Words have different meanings in different contexts (that’s what makes puns work). When we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it’s the right one? Help won’t come from the dictionary. Dictionaries only complicate the issue, giving us more choices, not fewer. Help must come from somewhere else close by: the surrounding paragraph.

With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself. Sum it up in your own words.

Finally and this is critical see if your paraphrase makes sense when inserted in the passage. Does it dovetail naturally with the bigger picture?

Here is an excellent example of how effective this paraphrase technique can be.

Jesus, the Uncreated Creator

In John 1:1 the writer states plainly that “the Word was God.” In verse three he provides backup support for this claim. John writes, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

John says the same thing in two different ways for emphasis and clarity: Everything that ever came into being owes its existence to the Word, Who caused it all to happen. If the Word caused all created things to come into existence, then He must have existed before all created things came into existence. Therefore, the Word could not have been created. Jesus is the uncreated Creator, God.

Those who deny the deity of Christ offer this rebuttal, though. “Wait a minute, Greg. You didn’t read the verse carefully. You missed something in the text. Notice the phrase ‘apart from Him.’ The apostle excludes Jesus from the count. If you said, ‘Apart from Billy, the whole family is going to Disneyland’ you wouldn’t mean that Billy wasn’t part of the family, just that he wasn’t included in the count. Every member of the family is going to Disneyland with the exception of Billy. In the same way, every created thing was created by Jesus with the exception of Jesus Himself. Jehovah created Jesus first, then Jesus created everything else. Jesus is not God.”

Note that this rebuttal turns on the ability to replace “apart from Him” with the phrase “with the exception of Jesus.” Allegedly they’re synonymous. Okay, let’s try the replacement and see what happens. The verse then looks like this: “With the exception of Jesus, nothing came into being that has come into being.”

If your brow is furrowed trying to figure this out, I’m not surprised. The reconstructed phrase is nearly nonsense. Strictly speaking, it means that Jesus is the only created thing that exists. Read it again and see for yourself. Obviously, the phrase “apart from Jesus” can’t mean “with the exception of Jesus.” These phrases are not synonymous.

“Apart from Him” means something entirely different. It means “apart from His agency.” It’s the same as saying, “Apart from me you’ll never get to Disneyland. I’ve got the car.” Apart from Jesus’ agency nothing came into being that has come into being. Why? Because Jesus is the Creator. He is God. That makes perfect sense in the context.

Let me give you some other examples.

Having a “Peace” About It

Colossians 3:15 is a text that is constantly misunderstood by well-meaning Christians. Paul writes, “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.” Some have accurately pointed out that the Greek word for “rule” means to act as arbiter or judge. They see this verse as a tool for knowing God’s will for our lives.

The conventional thinking goes something like this. When confronted with a decision, pray. If you feel a “peace” in your heart, go ahead. If you don’t feel peace, don’t proceed. This internal sense of peace acts like a judge helping you make decisions according to the will of God. A paraphrase might be: “And let feelings of peacefulness in your heart be the judge about God’s individual will for your life.” Is this what Paul means?

This is a classic example of how knowledge of the Greek can be dangerous if context is not taken into consideration. The word “peace” actually has two different meanings. It could mean a sense of inner harmony and emotional equanimity. Paul seems to have this definition in mind in Philippians 4:7: “And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” This is the subjective sense of peace.

The word also has an objective sense. It sometimes means lack of conflict between two parties formerly at war with each other. This definition of peace is what Paul intends in Romans 5:1: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Note the distinction between the peace of God and peace with God in these two verses.)

What sense of peace did Paul have in mind when writing to the Colossians? The Greek gives us no indication because the same word is used in all three cases. Once again, context is king. The specific meaning can only be known from the surrounding material.

In verse 11, Paul says that in the Body of Christ there are no divisions between Greek and Jew, slave and free, etc. He appeals for unity in the body characterized by forgiveness, humility, and gentleness. He then adds that harmony (“peace”) should be the rule that guides our relationships.

Paul has the objective sense of peace in mind here lack of conflict between Christians not a subjective feeling of peace in an individual Christian’s heart.

This becomes obvious when we join the suggested paraphrases with the context:

Put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. And let feelings of peacefulness in your heart be the judge about God’s individual will for your life, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.

vs.

Put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. And let harmony, not conflict, be the rule that guides you, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.

The first is completely foreign to the context; the second fits right in with everything that comes before and after. In the context of Colossians 3, there is no hint of using internal feelings as a divine stamp of approval on our decisions. Personal decision-making is not the point of the paragraph. Harmony and unity in the Body is.

“If I Be Lifted Up”

John 12:32 is another case where a phrase can have two widely divergent meanings. It’s not uncommon for worship leaders to quote this statement of Jesus: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

We “lift up” the Lord when we exalt Him and declare His glory. If we focus on Jesus and ascribe glory to Him, the power of Christ is released to transform the hearts of those listening and they are drawn to Him. This is the meaning the worship leader has in mind, but it isn’t what Jesus is talking about.

When we apply our paraphrase test by adding the very next verse, the results look like this: “‘And I, if I be exalted before the people, will draw all men to Myself.’ But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die” (John 12:32-33).

Oops. Praising Jesus will kill Him? I don’t think so. No ambiguity now. In this instance, being “lifted up” clearly means to be crucified.

Understanding this phrase in context sheds light on another familiar passage, John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up [raised in the air] the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up [raised in the air] that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.”

Our paraphrase looks like this: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be crucified that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.”

This makes perfect sense. Jesus had to be crucified before salvation could be offered, an appropriate lead-in to the verse that comes next, the most famous salvation verse in the world: John 3:16.

Let’s try another.

“My Sheep Hear My Voice”

Many have taken this statement by Jesus in John 10 to refer to the Christian’s acquired ability to “hear” God’s personal instructions to him. “Hearing God’s voice” is advocated as a very useful skill that aids optimal Christian living. Allegedly, this is a learned ability one gains as he matures in Christ. It enables him to sense Jesus’ will in any given situation as he “hears” Jesus’ voice.

Jesus has nothing like this in mind, though. I know because of the context surrounding the verse and a key clarification John himself gives early in the chapter. In verse six, John explicitly states that when Jesus speaks of His sheep “hearing His voice” He is using a figure of speech.

The word “voice,” then, can’t actually mean some kind of inner voice because a thing is never a metaphor of itself. It’s a picture of something else. Jesus must be referring, in a figure, to something else that the phrase “hear my voice” represents. What is it?

The context tells the story. Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me,” and then adds, “and I give eternal life to them” (27-28). Note the sequence: His sheep hear His voice. They follow Him in response. He then gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’ voice is a figure of speech for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation. It results in salvation; it’s not the result of salvation. It’s applied here to non-believers destined for the Kingdom, not believers already in the Kingdom.

This makes perfect sense in the broader context of the chapter. The Jews have no trouble hearing Jesus’ words. They know what Jesus is saying. Their problem is that they don’t respond with belief. Why don’t the Jews “hear” Jesus by responding with belief? Jesus tells us plainly. They don’t “hear” because God is not “speaking” to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son (26).

The voice being referred to here is not the still, small voice of private direction given by God to Christians, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing non-Christians to salvation.

Our paraphrase test comes to our aid once again:

You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. Mature Christians have the ability to sense My personal direction for their lives and obey it, and as a result I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all…

vs.

You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. The ones that the Father gives me my sheep are the ones that respond to my message and believe in me, and as a result I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all…

The first view actually makes salvation dependent on the ability to get personalized communications from God. The second makes salvation dependent on the Father, which is Jesus’ point in the passage.

To Jesus, “hearing” God is not an advanced skill one must develop to open lines of communication to the Father. It’s a figure of speech. Hearing Jesus’ voice is not getting individual, personalized direction. It’s getting saved. It’s the result of the Father drawing the non-believer into Jesus’ arms.

Daily Bread?

This raises legitimate questions about daily devotionals that build a short message from a single verse. In my view, such quiet-time helps can be inspirational, but they come with an obvious drawback.

Fortunately, the liability can be overcome by remembering our basic rule: Never read a Bible verse. Instead, read a paragraph, at least. Always check the context. Observe the flow of thought. Then focus on the verse.

Remember, meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units. A reflection on a Bible passage from a sermon or a devotional may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. If it is not the message of the text, though, it lacks biblical authority even when the quote comes right out of the Word of God.

If you will do this one thing if you will read carefully in the context applying the paraphrase principle you will begin to understand the Bible as God intended. Without the bigger picture you’ll be lost.

Only when you are properly informed by God’s Word the way it is written in its context can you be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it’s working together with the whole.

It’s the most important practical lesson I’ve ever learned… and thing single most important thing I could ever teach you.

---

For Further Reading
Russell, Walt Playing with Fire How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000.
Koukl, Gregory “The Perils of Prooftexting” Solid Ground, Sept-Oct 1999
Sire, James Scripture Twisting. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980.
Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Fee, Gordon, & Stuart, Douglas How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

---

©2001 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 • www.str.org

Shane Lems writes:

Legalism is not a rare thing in Christian circles.  It’s not confined to a certain denomination, age, gender, race, or class.  Legalism is not rare because it’s the default mode of the sinful human heart.  Thomas Boston said it is “engrained in man’s corrupt nature.”  From one angle, then, we could even say that legalism is alive and well in non-Christian religious circles since people, in general, tend to think of God as a strict master demanding obedience to his strict rules.  Many people think that we need to obey God to gain his favour and acceptance.  Legalism is not rare!

Legalism is also dangerous and deadly because, as Sinclair Ferguson notes, it is “separating the law of God from the person of God” (p. 83).  Instead of seeing God as a loving and generous Father who gave the law for the good of his children, a legalist sees God as a “magnified policeman who gives his law only because he wants to deprive us and in particular to destroy our joy” (p. 83).

Legalism is poisonous because it is “not only a distortion of the gospel but in its fundamental character it is also a distortion of the law” (Ferguson, p. 88).  A legalist distorts the gospel by mixing the law with it, as if the gospel has to do with one’s obedience.  He distorts the law by forgetting that God gave it to his people in love as a light for their paths.  Or, like John Colquhoun said, “They [the legalists] perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed for themselves a motley covenant of works.”

There is obviously a lot more to legalism.  Legalism comes in many shapes and sizes, degrees and layers; it is a complex spiritual disease.  Based on Ferguson’s discussion of legalism, my interaction with legalists, and my own experience battling legalism, here are some characteristics of legalists:

• Legalists are unbalanced in that they stress law over grace, God’s justice over his mercy.
• Legalists are typically rigid, harsh, and judgemental because of their emphasis on laws and rules.
• Legalists often lack love; being “law-heavy” makes one “love-light.”  For them, judgement triumphs over mercy.
• Legalists are often unteachable since they believe they are right and others are wrong.
• Legalists are often biblicistic and their biblicism leads them to ignore the context of Scripture as well as other Scriptures which might go against their rigid beliefs.
• Legalists often demand/expect perfection and are impatient with others who are not like them.
• Legalists are often inconsistent and unbalanced.  They emphasise minor, tertiary rules or laws (i.e. clothing rules) but sometimes neglect major important laws (i.e. love and help your neighbour).

More could be said about these things, of course.  Perhaps you could add to the list!  The point I want to make (and repeat) is that legalism is dangerous and deadly.  Here’s Ferguson again:

“[Thomas Boston] knew from experience that a ‘legal frame’ or spirit can pervade the whole of an individual’s life.  It can twist the soul in such a way that it comes near to and yet veers away from the grace of God in the gospel.  Particularly if it is present in someone engaged in preaching and pastoral ministry, it can multiply and become an epidemic in the congregation.  …It lies at the heart of many pastoral problems and is one of the most common spiritual sicknesses” (p. 79-80; 123).

What’s the medicine for the deadly disease of legalism?  It’s for sure not antinomianism.  What then?  The person and work of Christ.  The gospel.  Grace!

For more information, you’ll for sure want to read Ferguson’s chapters on legalism in his excellent book, The Whole Christ.

J. G. Vos writes:

“And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers” (2 Chron. 34:32b).

 

Josiah was king of Judah 639-608 B.C., on the verge of the Babylonian Captivity. During his reign there occurred the last religious revival before the captivity. At the age of 16, having been king eight years, Josiah undertook the religious reformation of his kingdom. When the king and his people set their heart on consistently living according to God’s will, God met them with help and blessing and prospered their efforts. There was a spirit of zeal, unanimity, and spontaneous eagerness in their service of God. This was nothing mechanical or artificially worked up. It was real. It came from their hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit.

False religion cleared away

Read 2 Chronicles 34:3-7. The idolatrous religion was ancient, customary, and deeply imbedded in the life of the people. Only a king and people united in honestly turning to God could eliminate it. It is very difficult to change that which has the sanction of antiquity, custom, long usage, and popularity. Here in Josiah’s reform we see the victory of principle over popularity—something very much needed today. When we get a revival like that, there will be sweeping changes in religious life, customs, and worship. The unscriptural worship of centuries will be swept away with a return to the reign of Scriptural principles.

God’s house was repaired

Read 2 Chronicles 34:8-13. For long years this had been neglected, but a people with a mind to return to God soon put the temple in repair again. The workmen wrought faithfully. It was not necessary to audit their accounts, for they worked conscientiously. A similar revival in our own day would not only take care of the physical repair of church buildings, but would provide for the proper support, in proportion to our real ability, of the whole program of the church and kingdom of God.

God’s work requires not merely money, but money willingly given by a people who have set their heart on the true progress and welfare of God’s church and kingdom.

Attention given to the Word of God

Read 2 Chronicles 34:14-28. For years the Word of God had been lost and neglected. The roll of the Book found was perhaps one lost or hidden during Manasseh’s reign, or one place in a cornerstone when the temple was built by Solomon. At any rate, when found it produced a tremendous effect. Those people really took Scripture seriously. To them the Word of God was not a mere ornament or formality. It made a profound impression on king and people. This would be true in a similar revival today. It may be questioned whether the present revival movement in America is producing a real return to Scripture. The attitude toward Scripture seems still to be a formal and conventional one in may cases.

In Josiah’s day, covenant vows were solemnly taken by king and people. Read 2 Chronicles 34:29-33. Divinely appointed worship, long neglected in whole or in part, was once more observed in an adequate and Scriptural manner. Read 2 Chronicles 35:1, 2, 17-19. In this revival, conscientious devotion to God overcame (1) popular false worship and practices; (2) gross ignorance of God’s will; (3) long continued neglect of divinely appointed worship.

The revival North America needs is along the same lines. How can we help? Not by doing something dramatic or spectacular, but by what Josiah is recorded as doing in 2 Chronicles 34:2-3. If we will be faithful and consistent in keeping our covenant vows to God, he will work in a mysterious way his wonders to perform.

Jeffery Ventrella writes:

I remember my first visit to a Reformed church all too well. There I was, very wet behind the ears. Searching the Scriptures had convinced me that the “doctrines of grace” truly summarised the gospel, and I desired with all my heart to worship the sovereign God.

So I searched for a church that confessed these great Reformational truths. I found one. Upon my arrival at the small church, I was “greeted” by a nerdy guy carrying a stack of books. What he lacked in social skills he made up for in aggressiveness. He approached me quickly and started the interrogation: “Are you new here?” Obviously I was. “Do you study theology?” When I said yes, his breathing became labored and he started to sweat. Then came the coup de grace: “Are you infra- or supra-lapsarian?” I replied, “Neither; I’m vegetarian!”—but my humor was lost on this poor fellow.

Just What Is Hyphenation?

This story illustrates a sometimes humorous, sometimes disturbing phenomenon in today’s conservative church circles: the resurgence of the hyphenated church. A hyphenated church is one which, whether officially or unofficially, judges the orthodoxy or at least the “real maturity” of people on the basis of their adherence to a preference that has been elevated to the status of an essential precept. It becomes a litmus test within the congregation.

I speak of a hyphenated church because the “insiders” in it think of their preference as if it were actually appended to their name: “Trinity Church-KJV Only,” “Grace Reformed Church-A Politically Active Church,” “New Life Community Church-A Homeschooling Fellowship,” etc.

Ecclesiastes informs us that “there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9). Therefore, we should expect to see such sectarianism periodically. Scripture tells us that there were factions in Corinth that were evidently hyphenated (1 Cor. 3:4), and there were the Judaizers in Galatia. They had added an extrabiblical standard for evaluating spirituality.

Hyphenation has resurfaced again, even as we are seeing a resurgence in churches teaching the doctrines of grace. This is not surprising, for as the church grows, the devil groans.

As numerous children of God have experienced the Spirit’s revitalisation of their faith, the hyphens have arisen to muddy the waters. Again, hyphens are preferences that have been anointed as precepts, deviation from which leads to disfavour or even discipline. This hyphenation has become a new legalism. Here are some modern-day examples:

KJV Only

This hyphen has lately been gaining ardent supporters. The debate over Bible translations is certainly not new. Although some people have characterised the Greek text used by the KJV as the “ecclesiastical text,” the church has in its history recognised a number of textual families.

Since the KJV was not published until 1611, its use could not have been essential to a Christian confession before that time—and thus cannot be essential for us today, either. Furthermore, there are actually two “authorised versions” of the English Bible: the 1611 edition and a later Cambridge edition.

Classical Christian Education

In recent decades, God has granted his church a new interest in rearing covenant children. Many Christian parents have recognised that covenant faithfulness necessitates removing their children from the godless secular schools. Home education and private Christian schools have become common.

Some folks have determined that a particular method of nonstatist education is preferable to others: “classical” education based upon the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, logic).

But here come the hyphenaters, demanding that their classical approach be used, usually including the teaching of Latin. There may be nothing wrong with this preference, until it is made an ingredient of orthodoxy. Put differently, would you consider yourself a Christian if your children did not attend a classical school? Some advocates of this hyphen would be hard-pressed to answer yes.

Ironically, it was just this scholastic approach—which imported the philosophical paganism of Greece and Rome—that ultimately produced the humanism of the Enlightenment. Who is to say that the reinstitution of this same approach will not lead to the same mistakes? We should not endeavour to re-create the schools of the 1450s any more than those of the 1950s.

Prolific Procreation

The “home-everything” hyphenaters usually insist that a family committed to real godliness should have lots of children. Certainly our culture is wrong to reject Scripture’s teaching that children are the Lord’s blessing. Nevertheless, Christians should not simply advocate whatever the world rejects.

What if the Reformers had simply rejected whatever Rome did, and then did the opposite? They would then have rejected infant baptism, the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, etc. That would have been disastrous, but often Reformed churches today use that very reasoning on the subject of worship: “Since the charismatics use overhead projectors, we must reject them.”

Similarly, one cannot determine ethical duties merely by reversing pagan practices: “Pagans drink alcohol; therefore, Christians should not drink alcohol.” What then becomes of the Lord’s Table? The issue of birth control is far more complex than simply concluding that the admonition to “be fruitful and multiply” requires prolific procreation. It is true that many Christians have swallowed the world’s nonsense when it comes to so-called “family planning.” The danger of this hyphen, however, is that it establishes judgmentalism within the church, which can only increase when this preference is made a precept.

Courtship

Many Christians have neglected their covenantal responsibility not to be part of the world. But God has been merciful and gracious in reorienting many believers and transforming their minds. One area in which the world and Satan have certainly undermined godliness is that of dating. Enter the hyphenaters.

“Dating” now becomes an evil which is to be replaced with “biblical courtship.” What this exactly connotes is not clear, since even the proponents of courtship do not agree on its details. Do these rules apply to all youth or just young ladies? Just when is the jurisdiction of the young woman’s father terminated? What role do the church’s elders play in this process? Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith, 24.5-6.

What is clear is that a broken courtship is not considered to be a divorce, which might transgress God’s law and thereby preclude a subsequent marriage. Thus, courtship is not really being treated as a betrothal would be (as in Matt. 1:18-20).

Please do not misunderstand. I fully intend to instruct my four boys regarding biblical headship, the honoring of one’s (or someone else’s) future spouse, the unholiness of emotional involvement without marital commitment, the unwise (and perhaps sinful) practice of serial relationships, and so forth. But this instruction does not need to be called “courtship” to be biblical.

In fact, whether one calls a godly approach to impending matrimony “courtship” or “dating” is somewhat arbitrary. A better understanding of the seventh commandment’s prohibitions and requirements would do much to purify guy-girl relationships without hyphenating the church. A man is not prevented from lusting after a woman merely because he “courts,” rather than “dates,” her. Moreover, one man’s (presumably sinful) dating habits could well be another man’s (presumably pure) courtship habits. Courtship is really intended to be nothing more than godly dating.

Paedocommunion

Another hot area for the hyphenaters centers on the Lord’s Table. The notion here is that the covenantal head of the household functions as a priest of sorts. He (1) determines who in his covenantal unit may partake, and (2) distributes the bread and wine to those persons. Often, this practice includes serving very young children.

At the outset, it should be noted that this preference prefers error. Paedocommunion is unconfessional. See, for example, Larger Catechism 168-175. Now it is certainly possible that the Westminster Divines were mistaken in their understanding of the Lord’s Supper. But, until the church reassesses this doctrine and the Spirit grants a more biblical consensus, this preference ought not to be practiced and certainly should not be elevated to being a precept. Rigorous debate, yes; practice before consensus, no.

Furthermore, both aspects of this practice undermine the authority of the elders. While the family and its head may certainly recommend a member to the elders for examination and possible admission to the Lord’s Table, the keys of the kingdom belong to the church and its leaders (Matt. 16:19). The family, though covenantal, is subordinate to Christ’s lordship (Matt. 10: 34-37). Christ’s lordship in the church is expressed by the rule of the elders (Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

Moreover, the Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Because the elders rule in Christ’s name, they represent him in their serving of the communion elements. There is no room for the priestly mediation of the head of the household. Only the ordained servant should distribute and administer the elements of bread and wine. Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.3-4; Larger Catechism, 169.

Thus, paedocommunion is a preference that is actually a perversion of the Westminster standards. Again, the Confession could be mistaken, but until the church is granted a different consensus on this issue, we should adhere to our present confessional standards and reject this divisive preference.

Other potential hyphens have also entered today’s Reformed churches, such as Y2K preparation and preterism. Whenever we are tempted to make a preference into a precept, we would do well to consider Ephesians 4:1-3: “Walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (NKJV).

Reprinted from New Horizons, May 1999.