26. Acts 2:38-39

Why do we baptize infants? Well, for the same reason that Abraham was supposed to circumcise his infants. The covenant was not just made with Abraham. It was made with Abraham, and his descendants after him. And the promise of the covenant continues to be made with our children. In Acts 2:38, Peter sums up his sermon on the covenant by telling the covenant breakers, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized” [and then he goes on to give the reason for his command] “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” God continues to make a covenant with our children, and even with those who have not yet been born, to all who are afar off. And so we baptize children of believers because God has never authorized us to remove them from the Abrahamic covenant. They’re in. There is not a word of their removal in the New Testament.

The second reason is that Peter somehow connects baptism logically with the Abrahamic promise. The logic of the passage is, “Be baptized . . . for the Old Testament promise is to you and to your children.” What is the relationship between baptism and the Abrahamic promise that was given to believers and their children? If baptism was a brand new rite utterly unconnected to the Abrahamic covenant, how could Peter reason in this way? You see, what many people do not realize is that infant baptism was a parallel rite that accompanied circumcision for baby males and substituted for circumcision for baby girls. It is first discussed in the Mosaic economy, but the Scriptures imply that these purification rites went on earlier. On the eighth day, mother and baby both were baptized in what was called a baptism of purification. The same language that is used of this purification rite is used of baptism in the New Testament.

So there was no controversy over infant baptism in the early church. There would have been massive controversy if infants had been excluded from the sign of the covenant. But we have no evidence of controversy over baptism in the New Testament. There never has been controversy until recent history. John’s disciple Polycarp baptized infants. Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus, one of the most important church fathers, said, “infants and little ones and children and youths and older persons” are baptized. And every century after that is full of testimony to the universal practice of infant baptism.

All the controversy in the New Testament came over stopping circumcision. Now let me explain that a little bit. Consider females in the Old Testament. How was it that they could be called “the circumcised” when females were never circumcised? For a Jew, the answer to that question is simple. Her eighth day baptism was counted as if she were circumcised. And so we find many non-Biblical writers who find no difficulty in calling baptism a circumcision. They were used to that for females. The male on the other hand was circumcised and baptized on the eighth day. And by the way, when Gentiles became Jews, the same practice was done: females were baptized and males were baptized and circumcised. And when God stopped male circumcision and said that his baptism would also be treated as if he were circumcised, there was a big uproar. And it took a great deal of discussion for the Jews to be convinced that males did not have to be circumcised. They understood the baptism part. That had always been done with females. But they didn’t understand that baptism was the only part that continued into the New Testament for anyone, whether male or female. Romans 2 can say that all baptized Gentiles are “counted as if” they are circumcised. Colossians 2 calls baptism “Christian circumcision.” For a Jew, that phrase would not have raised an eyebrow. Baptism had frequently been called a circumcision and early church fathers call baptism the great circumcision. Likewise, Philippians 3 calls Gentile believers the circumcision, and Ephesians 2 says that Gentiles are no longer Gentiles in the flesh. If this language had been exclusively applied to women, Jews would not have been troubled, but to say that no circumcision had to accompany baptism for males was more than many Jews could handle. And when you understand that background, all of the circumcision controversy makes sense. Galatians 3 can go right from circumcision to baptism and say that baptized Gentiles are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

I hope that now you can see why Peter is saying that the Old Testament promise is tied logically to baptism. It was not a New Testament doctrine. And I hope you can see why the household baptisms of the New Testament were not something new, but were a continuation of proselyte baptism. The New Testament is full of household baptisms. Of the 11 baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, five are explicitly said to be baptisms of the entire household, two hint at the household in the context, three have no household. (The Eunuch couldn’t have any children, Paul didn’t have any, and the 12 disciples of John didn’t have any wives.) That leaves one passage that neither denies nor affirms baptism of the household. It just says males and females were baptized. And so the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament is that we are to continue to follow the Old Testament practice of including infants in the baptism rite and treating that as if it was circumcision.

Let me end by giving two mentions of infants included in baptism. 1 Corinthians 10 makes Israel’s baptism into Moses a type of the church being baptized in Christ. And it says, “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Infants were not excluded. 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes this point for the New Testament period. It says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” We looked at this in-depth during the last baptism, but suffice it to say here that both unbelieving spouse and child are set apart by God for the special working of his spirit. Verse 16 indicates that this gives hope of their future salvation. But only the infant is said to be clean. Now in the Bible there are only two ways that clean and unclean are used: of the heart, and of the body. Either he is saying that every child of one believing parent is regenerated, which is contradicted by other Scriptures and by experience, or else he is saying that every child in the church of Corinth was outwardly cleansed. Again, in the Old Testament you could go from unclean to clean by either circumcision or by baptism. In the New Testament, there is only one ritual that makes you outwardly set apart as clean: baptism. The same word that is used here for unclean without the negative is used of John’s baptism, of Jesus’ baptism in John 3, of Christian baptism in Ephesians 5 and Hebrews 10:22, and of Old Testament baptisms in Hebrews 9 and other passages. There are only two legitimate options for interpreting 1 Corinthians 7:14 — either this passage is teaching automatic regeneration of our children or it is teaching infant baptism. I believe a legitimate paraphrase of that verse could be, “Otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” They are set apart to God because of His promises to us and to our children. And as the [parents] come forward at this time to present [child] for baptism, they are claiming the many promises given in Scripture concerning the salvation of our children. Acts 16 tells us, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household. . . And immediately he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:31,33).