The New Testament Openly Commands the Baptism of Children

Acts 2 at Pentecost provides key verses for interpreting baptism.

THE BAPTISM FIGHT OVER ACTS 2

When credobaptists and paedobaptists contend over the meaning of Acts 2.37-39, the baptists (credobaptists) usually have the easier time in front of the audience because most of us are ready to hear through baptistic ears – doesn’t it say “repent”? And so they posit that a baby cannot turn from idols. The paedobaptist thinks the baby is turned in heart toward God, and that the direction of heart requirement is taken care of. Hasn’t God always been “God to you and to your children”? Isn’t that enough?

The other major argument which works well as a crowd-pleaser in favor of the credobaptist view is the word, “and” connected to the apparent qualifier, “all those who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself.” That is, “the promise,” they say, is not for every last one of you-plural, but for as many of you-plural whom the Lord calls. It is not for your children, but for as many of your children as the Lord calls; and it is not for all those far off, but for as many foreigners as the Lord calls.

Isn’t this an obvious and simple use of the distributive property of multiplication?

(A + B + C)(X) = AX + BX + CX

We might ask: if no group is being specified, then why is a listing of groups given at all? We might wonder why God would issue a command so similar to the list of groups in the Old Covenant ritual since he is in the process of destroying that structure, even the only structure we have ever known? BUT…this is not what is happening in the passage.

In fact, I believe that Acts 2.37-39 is maybe the single most important exegetical passage for the sake and cause of the command to baptize infants. There are many passages prefiguring infant baptism, and others implying it, and others requiring it by good and necessary inference. But in Acts 2.37-39, Peter explicitly commands a covenant of baptism whose recipients include infants (“for you and your children”), and who’s sign is baptism. This follows a pattern set up by God in Genesis 17 in “the covenant of circumcision.”

BUT WHAT ABOUT “AS MANY AS”?

What needs to be dealt with, however, is the inclusion of the crucial phrase, “all those who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself.” I believe this phrase is mistaken because we usually do not make adequate comparison to the connection that is being implicitly established between the initiation of the covenant of baptism (Acts 2) and the initiation of the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17). When we open these passages side by side, a clarity falls down which is brilliant in its alleviation of all the problems. Suddenly, old and new covenant make sense eschatologically (a change in time) and they match the history of the early church as well. Infant inclusion has always been the way.

The post, as written below, has been sitting in my hard-drive for many weeks. I have wanted to post it, but have been afraid I wouldn’t get it just right. It was not written as an objection to the baptistic “as many as” argument, but after writing it, I feared that it did not address this counter-argument thoroughly enough. So I have waited around some more. Reading a discussion on Facebook yesterday triggered my attempt to pre-addend this bit on the mathemagic of the passages. And then, you must be warned it is a long post. Longer than you have time for if you are merely on a coffee break at work. But I do ask you to consider it. I claim that this is a substantive and an important argument. I do not believe this to be the kind of argument that you can only see if you know 18 levels of layers of twisting, reflecting patterns of dark secrets in the bible. There is a great place for that, because such stuff is real. But this argument is all on the surface:

Genesis 17 says the promise is for

A + B + CX

Acts 2 says the promise is now for

A + B + CY

The difference is NOT in (A + B). The presence of C is not even a surprise. It is formulaically necessary, and even expected. The surprise is the qualifier on C has changed from X to Y.

In what follows, I argue that “as many as” is a qualifier for “those far off” and not a restricter for A (You) or B (Your children). Now, lest you say, “don’t you and your children need to be believers too?” Of course!, but that is assumed, just as it also is assumed in Genesis 17 (“God to you and to your children after you.” The difference which matters here is the difference of:

(A) You, (B) Your children, (C) Foreigners  (X) in your house

and

(A) You, (B) Your children, and (C) Foreigners (Y) anywhere who believe.

A and B are about covenant succession. They are the same in the New Covenant. CY and CX are about the eschatology of the wall separating Jews and Gentiles. The priestly-land covenant is now given outside of the strip of land in Palestine so the foreigners can be in without joining the family of Jacob. But that’s to be seen.

I hope I haven’t lost you yet, because the flashy surface-level exegesis is in the actual, old post, written weeks ago. I hope you like it.

—- Well —- without giving too much else away. Let me direct you to a post you might want to print and read when hopped up on what the French call “ka-fay-een.”

Begin olden post written in days of yore:

THE NEW TESTAMENT OPENLY COMMANDS THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN

It is sometimes argued that we may not baptize babies, because the Bible never says to. But the truth is that the very passage of the apostolic institution of the covenant of baptism tells us that the intended recipients of baptism are “you, your children, and all those who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself.”

When Peter speaks to those who have believed at Pentecost, he tells them that the New Covenant sign is baptism, and that the New Covenant is for you and your children. The passage also contains many other clues to help readers learn that the covenant of baptism is built on the same structure as the covenant of circumcision, and that the phrase “to you and your children” still means exactly what it meant when God said the phrase over and over again to Abraham in the institution of circumcision. We will look at these other clues.

Acts 2.37-39 is, I believe, the single most important exegetical passage for arguing for the rightness of infant baptism. I think this is so for two reasons:

1) it is clear: The text openly states that the covenant of baptism is made with “you and your children.”

2) It is at the beginning where it should be: It is the institution passage for the church’s practice of baptism, spoken to the resurrection-church on day 1 of the publicly called church. If you were going to have any best place to put the “baptismal promise is for your children” then this is it. And lucky for us, it’s there.

Plus, even if someone has a hard time automatically perceiving that such a statement is what is actually being said, a little time comparing Acts 2 and Genesis 12-22 (or especially Genesis 17) will do the work of making the necessary connections.

A COUPLE OF BRIEF NOTES BEFORE WE BEGIN

NOTE #1 – CHILDREN WERE ALWAYS INCLUDED AND WERE NOT REMOVED

When believers in Jerusalem worried that Paul was teaching the end of including children, he went out of his way to show them that it was okay to continue declaring their children as covenant members (Acts 21.17-26).

This is because it was important that children had always been included in the covenant itself, in the community, in the sign, in the promises, and in the salvation of God being their God, as is clearly seen in Genesis 17 (the institution of the covenant of circumcision). And the words used to indicate the inclusion of children in the time of Abraham were, “to you and your children” (Gen 17). It would have been unexpected and difficult to suddenly stop including the children in the promise and in the sign, for as we saw in Acts 21, such a change would have been a big, unpleasant deal. But far from exclusion, we hear of their continued inclusion, explained by the very same words in Acts 2: “the promise is for you and your children.”

NOTE # 2 – PROMISE, GIFT, AND SIGN ARE CALLED “THE COVENANT”

“This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.” (Genesis 17.10)

“And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs” (from Stephen’s sermon – Acts 7.8).

In Gen 17.10, circumcision itself is said to BE the covenant, such that in Acts 7, we may even call the covenant by the title: “the covenant of circumcision.”

But reading that chapter (Gen 17), we also can tell that the covenant is the promise of land, of multitudes of offspring, and of God himself bound in relationship as “god to them.” This is why we can at different times hear that…

• Covenant = the sign of the covenant
• Covenant = promise
• Covenant = salvation^a

All of these things are seen as tied inextricably to the covenant.

Since Abraham’s covenant is biblically called “the covenant of circumcision.” Then New Covenant may also be called, “the covenant of baptism.”

So let us look at the institution of Christian Baptism, and see that the “covenant of baptism” is built in the same way and with the same expected words as the covenant of circumcision, thus indicating that the covenant promise is “for you and your children.” After viewing the connections, it should be easier to see that Peter’s words mean that children are still included and still receive the promise and the gift, God as their god, and, indeed, also the sign of Baptism.

———-
———-

DETAILING THE CLUES
In this more concrete text analysis, let’s look between the two key passages to see a matching set five key terms, and a repeated three-fold structure.

THE TWO PASSAGES
Open up Acts 2, Genesis 17, or both together  — from Bible Gateway by clicking the appropriate choice in this sentence.

THE FIVE TERMS:

1) “cut to the heart”
2) “into the name”
3) “gift”
4) “promise” and
5) “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”

THE TRI-FOLD STRUCTURE:

1) you, 2) your children, 3) those far off (gentiles)

THE PASSAGE AT PENTECOST

37 Now when they heard this they were CUT TO THE HEART, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will RECEIVE THE GIFT of the Holy Spirit. 39 For THE PROMISE is FOR YOU AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and FOR ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2.37-39, ESV, emphasis added)

CIRCUMCISION IDENTIFIED AS THE SUBJECT

“they were cut to the heart,” (Ac 2.37)

As soon as the section begins, we hear an thematic link to circumcision. Cutting or piercing the flesh of the heart is most directly a reference to Deuteronomy 10 and 30, both mentioning circumcision of the heart (see footnote^b). But the language in Deuteronomy of changing the heart by cutting is an intentional picture of the flesh-cutting of circumcision.

Circumcision is itself a symbolic reference portraying that the heart should be pierced or cut. So we have a passage where the hearers at Pentecost are “cut” and Peter commands them to be “washed.” They are circumcised, and Peter says be baptized. So we are to sense that the topic is identified as circumcision – but the subject actually proves to be about baptism.

More clues are coming, building up a list of confirmatory terms converging our focus on Genesis 17.

“PROMISE” IS A GENERAL TERM FOR THE COVENANT

“For the PROMISE is for you and for your children…“

The New Testament regularly refers to the covenant God made with Abraham as the “promise” God made to Abraham. Here are six NT examples and an OT example of the same:

Samples:

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” (Rom 4.13)

“But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt…” (again from Stephen’s sermon – Acts 7.17)

Notice that in the same sermon, Stephen treats the sign of circumcision as the covenant itself (Ac 7.8), and he also calls the covenant “the promise” (Ac 7.17). Both of these play into how we read Peter’s words in Acts 2.37-39).

In short: “Promise” is a word regularly associated in a key way with the Abrahamic covenant. These Promises are made most explicit in Genesis 17. Both cutting and promise point us to Genesis 17.

ABRAHAM IS QUINTESSENTIALLY THE ONE WHO WAS CALLED BY THE LORD

“…and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Now hang with me here, because I am serious – this is not tendentious, wishful thinking.

“Call” is a theme to be recognized, rather than being a keyword to be found in a concordance. Where is the “call of Abram?” Genesis 12.1-3 is the call where the Lord directs Abram out of one house and into another, out of one land and into another. It is the beginning of adoption – Leave your father and come into my fatherhood. And we know that is what is happening in Acts 2, as we see in the next heading-section.

In short, when Peter says that the “promise is for…[every Gentile] whom the Lord our God calls to himself,” he is repeating a famous foundational story, when the Lord called a gentile who was far off to himself, and promised him an inheritance. He is saying it is a “family by adoption” kind of covenant.

ADOPTION and RENAMING

“…be baptized every one of you [into] the name of Jesus Christ…“

They are not just called, but like Abraham, they are called into adoption.

When Abram and Sarai were adopted, God covenanted them into new names: Abraham and Sarah. That name change happens in Genesis 17, the chapter of the covenant of circumcision. When we are baptized into the Christian family, our names change to bring us into the family of the Trinity, for we are baptized “INTO the name of Jesus Christ.”

This is initiation into a family – entrance into a name. The Greek is eis which is “into.” We are not baptized merely “in the name,” that is, we aren’t baptized merely “by authority of the name,” but rather, “INTO the name” of Christ or INTO the name of the Trinity. This naming ceremony is an adoption by baptism into the family of the Trinity.

We must think of Abram who received a covenant of Adoption (Gen 12.1-3): he was transfered from father to father, from land to land, from inheritance to inheritance. Abram received the covenant seal of circumcision to display and seal his adoption, and when he did, he was renamed by God (Gen 17.5, as well as Sarah in 17.15).

We too are renamed in baptism. I am not merely saying that this is a similarity between baptism and circumsision, but that Acts 2 intentionally brings this up as part and parcel of the connection. Especially since joining a new adoptive family means receiving a new inheritance.

GIFT AND INHERITANCE

“…and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.“

Later on, as I mentioned before, you will see that Stephen uses the term “inheritance” for this specific gift, helping to show that “gift” is a heavy word – a meaningful word.

But even within Acts 2, we know the word “gift” to specifically mean an inheritance, because it is “for you and your children” in the next verse (Ac 2.39). Inheritance language is rife in Genesis surrounding Abraham’s covenant^c But we can ascertain the point I would like to make merely on the basis of the idea of God giving something to someone. God’s covenant is that bond through which he /gives the gift/ of himself, his land, and his descendants. This language is very strong in the various covenant establishmet passages in Genesis between God and Abraham. I list quite a few out here so you can hear the confirmation of the importance of the otherwise innocuous word “give.” You can know that “give” is a key word:

Gen 13.15: “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.“

Gen 13.17: “Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.“

Gen 15.2: “But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?””

Gen 15.7: “And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.””

Gen 15.18: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land…””

Gen 17.8 “And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings…“

Gen 17.16: “… I will give you a son by (Sarah)“

In Acts 2, The Holy Spirit isn’t just a blessing or a benefit of coming to Jesus, He is the very downpayment gift of the rest of the New Covenant inheritance gift. You come into the family (into the name of the Trinity) and now begin to receive your promised inheritance – the “gift” of the Holy Spirit).

STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH: TO YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN

“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” (Gen 17.7ff).

The covenants of God have always followed the non-new pattern of Acts 2.37-39. It is not just a one time issue – it is for your children, and if your children remain in the church, then it is also for their offspring “throughout their generations.” This is how it has always been.

There is no reason at all for Peter to have used such words if he intended the exact reversal of the only polity the church had ever known. There is also simply no way for anyone to have heard these words in any context other than the only way they had been used in history.

They had to assume the continuation of the doctrine of the family inheritance of God as their God. But they did hear a difference at another point, a point concerning the inclusion of Gentiles. The covenant of circumcision had been given to gentiles, but only to those legally adopted into Israel, but the covenant of baptism would include gentiles who did not become Israelites. The newness can be seen in the words Peter uses. First let’s see the passage.

STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH: INCLUSION OF GENTILES

“You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.” (Gen 17.11-13)

From Abraham to Pentecost, the church covenant was issued only to one nation. This confuses most of us so here’s my attempt to shed light on things I wish I had always understood.

God has always saved gentiles. Abraham was a gentile before his adoption, Melchizedek was a gentile priest of God most high. The Queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezer and Cyrus were all gentile converts, Jonah’s audience in Nineveh were gentiles. All these gentiles, except for Abraham, were left outside the covenant people, even though they were saved. This is because the covenant indicated a specific task for one group of God’s saved people.

Israel served the “priestly” or “intermediary” function of being the missionary ambassadors for God from the LAND THAT HAD THE TEMPLE AND SACRIFICES. Of course, saved gentiles could evangelize also, but they could not do so as emissaries from the land of the right temple, right sacrifices, right law, right worship. Jesus mentions this in John 4 to the woman at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” He doesn’t say it is “for the Jews,” but rather that all people are saved by the God of that land over there in Jerusalem.

So when God issues the covenant to Abraham, he is marking off the missionary people, and he does include gentiles that are legally part of Israel, gentiles who are like Israelites in that they have covenanted to fully keep the law of Moses, and be tied to the Land for local worship. Whether slaves adopted in the houses, or other gentiles who converted in order to be close up as part of the actual temple worship, they were law-bound, and were full ambassadors of the land of the law and of the temple.

When the land was local, only the locals could have the deed.

Others (called “God-fearers”) were not naturalized national Jews, but remained saved men outside the walls of the covenant.

There was a big change at Pentecost, and again we mention John 4 and the woman at the well, because Jesus said that a time was soon coming when the structure of worship for foreigners would change – before Pentecost, we make the point that “salvation is out of Israel,” that is, we have missionaries linked to the land of the temple, but a time is coming when “all people everywhere” would be allowed into the sacred worship service without naturalizing and being bound to the Law of Moses. It doesn’t mean that gentiles started getting saved, but that we got rid of the Mosaic temple, and the Mosaic law, and did not need a special missionary class to mark off Israel as the geographic source anymore.

This is the exact reason that in Genesis 17 the covenant of circumcision is given to:

You, your children, and your circumcised household gentiles.

Whereas Acts 2, the covenant of baptism is given to:

You, your children, and all gentiles anywhere who are called.

It is convenient to change the sign of the covenant from circumcision to baptism so that we can continue to have a sign of being in a covenant that is familial, but also insist that you don’t have to be a national Israelite by law or by diet or by temple anymore. And this is the argument of the rest of the New Testament (See Galatians, and Colossians, and Ephesians).

CONCLUSION
What this means is that when Peter says “the promise is for you and your children,” we have already identified the material that teaches us what those words mean: Gen 12-22.

As a concluding bit of confirmation, listen as Stephen preaches about that section of Genesis a few chapters later in the same book, in Acts 7.2-8, and he also basically reiterates all the same key terms and themes we are looking at today. They had Genesis 12-22 on the brain:

And Stephen said: “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’ [CALL] 4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. 5 Yet he GAVE him no INHERITANCE in it, not even a foot’s length, but PROMISED to GIVE it TO HIM AS A POSSESSION AND TO HIS OFFSPRING AFTER HIM, though he had no child. 6 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. 7 ‘But I will judge the nation that they serve,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.’ 8 And he GAVE him THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

And by the way, Acts 2.37-39 and Acts 7.5 mean the same thing and use the same words. It’s fairly irrefutable, I humbly but stridently contend.

When God makes a promise to his missionary people, he has always included their children in the promise, given them the blessing as well, called them as family readied for inheritance, he has been God to them, and he has also given children of believers the sign of that covenant.

And so the church too has continued through all of church history to do what we always did before Pentecost as well – marking out the call to mission and the promise of gift which we inherit as the family of the Trinity, since “the promise is for your and your children.” And the sign of that promise is baptism.

Luke Welch 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<>самостоятельный анализ а

1. The relationship between covenant and salvation is discussed at length near the end of this essay.  (back)
2. Deut 10.16, 30.6  (back)
3. Look up “inheritance,” “heir,” and similar terms at Bible gateway. Ask what Abraham is asking for in Genesis 15, and what he tries to get by effort in Genesis 16, and what God promises by miracle in Genesis 18.  (back)