Sacramental Hermeneutics

Leithart notes his frustration with Berkhof's typological assumptionshere, claiming that the move from the purely carnal and external to the purely spiritual and internal between antitype and type is more in line with Baptist theology. No thanks Peter, you can keep him.

Anyway, he picks up the same theme in his chapter in The Case for Covenant Communion entitled 'Sacramental Hermeneutics and the Ceremonies of Israel', in which he highlights, what is to me, the weakness of the paedo-baptism and paedo-communion argument. (Leithart refers to these generically as the paedo-argument). Leithart begins by stating that Reformed paedo-arguments basically hold the following logic.

Children were included in Israel in the OT, Israel and the church are the same people, bearers of the same promise, therefore just as children (males) were marked for inclusion by circumcision and children ate with their parents at the feasts of Israel in the old covenant, so children should be marked for inclusion by baptism and participate in the Christian feast under the new covenant.

Leithart acknowledges that these paedo-arguments raise several hermeneutical questions, among which are:

1. They assume that 'ceremonial' regulations of the old covenant have 'ceremonial' import in the new. Whilst Leithart acknowledges that the 'ceremonial' / 'moral' distinction is 'legally unworkable and practically awkward' he suggests that it is wrong simply to 'moralise', 'spiritualise' or 'humanise' the OT ceremonial regulations, if the NT warrents that they can support NT ceremonial practices.

2. Further, the paedo-arguments assume a typological hermeneutic in whihc the OT persons, institutions, and events not only typify Jesus Christ but also have some regulatory authority in the church. In Augustinian terms, these arguments assume that the OT is typological not of Jesus simply but of the totus Christus, the whole Christ, both head and body.

3. Paedo-arguments assume that in the midst of discontinuities between the institutions of the old and the new there is continuity. The question is, how do the arguments determine which features shared by circumcision-baptism and Passover-Supper are relevant and which are not. (112-113)

Leithart deals most fully with points 1. and 2. in his chapter and states that

Though not often admitted, accepting the paedo-arguments involves a prior commitment to particular answers to these problems. Accepting that infant circumcision supports infant baptism logically entails accepting the ceremonial regulations of the Old can be applied as ceremonial regulations in the New. And accepting that the inclusion of children at the Passover is an argument for their inclusion at the Lord's Supper assumes that we are capable of discerning a specific point (or points) of similarity between the two meals in the midst of their evident dissimilarities.

That these assumptions go largely unexamined is evident from the inconsistent hermeneutical practices of some paedobaptists. Applying the logic of the paedo-arguments, some (myself included) have argued that the sacrifical procedures of the Levitical law govern the order and procedures of Christian worship. That is, the ceremonial regulations and patterens of animal offerings in Leviticus provides a pattern for the ceremonies of worship in the church.(113)

The point is that after dealing with 1 Corinthians 5, 9, 10; Acts 15:20, 29; Romans 15:15-16 and briefly alluding to Hebrews 13:10-13, Leithart concludes the chapter thus

This exploration has not uncovered any knock-down text that proves the paedo-arguments beyond a shadow of doubt. But it has, I hope, given a plausible account of, and justification for, one key assuption of those arguments.(129)

That key assumption that Leithart hopes he has given a plausible account of are hermeneutical issues 1. and 2. above, but it is far from clear that he has been sucessful. At most, from a mixture of Romans 15 and 1 Corinthians 9 Leithart may demonstrate that the ceremonial regulations of the old can tropologically apply as ceremonial regulations in the new. But it is unclear how this application should be made if valid, and especially if the point of application supports the paedo-arguments. My suggestion is it doesn't and that Leithart fails to give anywhere near conclusive evidence that it does.

Leithart's suggests that his account of how the priestly ministry and accompanying benefits (access to meat from sacrifices) have moved from the sole preserve of the Levitical order under the old, to the priesthood of all believers under the new supports paedo-communion, given that children are to be included in the holy priesthood based on 1 Cor. 7:14. But even conceeding Leithart's understanding of 1 Cor. 7:14 as correct, which I wouldn't want to, this appears suprising weak for someone so capable and who has spent so much time and effort on this subject. From Paul's statement that as an apostle he carries out priestly duties (Rom. 15:15-16) and that ministers of the gospel should be recompensed for their labours in the Lord even as those who ministered at the alter did (1 Cor. 9:13-14), Leithart maintains that all the Christian communtiy (including those holy infants) may partake of the Lord's supper.

Leithart appears to think that if he can prove that points 1.and 2. above occur in any way in Scripture, then this gives support for the paedo-arguments. I'd suggest that this is nowhere near the level of support required. Leithart would need to show that Scripture demonstrates the OT

• is typological not only for Jesus simply but for totus Christus specifically in respect to the paedo-arguments (point 2. above).
• and that the 'ceremonial' regulations of the old covenant have 'ceremonial' import into the new specifically with respect to the paedo-arguments.

One feels Leithart recognises he has failed to do this and acknowledges as much in his own conclusions.