7. New Testament Proofs

For those who insist on proof texts from the New Testament, we will seek to accommodate. Unlike the arguments for including women in the Lord’s Supper (which must rely exclusively on principle #1 above), there is a great deal of New Testament evidence that children were baptized.

If you skipped over the first six principles, I would encourage you to return to them after you have read principle #7. Without the first six principles, you will have only a fraction of the solid proofs for infant baptism. This principle merely demonstrates that there are proof texts that specifically say that children were baptized. Principle #7 is the “proof text” approach, whereas the first six principles follow the deductive approach that is used to discover the doctrine of the Trinity and several other doctrines.

1 Corinthians 7:14 clearly teaches infant baptism

A synonym for “unbaptized” is used when it says, “otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” Many Baptists will object that the word “holy” cannot imply that infants are baptized since the unbelieving spouse is also said to be “holy” or set apart to the Lord. With that statement I heartily agree. What many fail to realize is that though both unbelieving spouse and children are said to be made “holy” or “sanctified,” only infants are said to be holy and cleansed (i.e., baptized). We will first look at the meaning of “holy,” and then at the meaning of the word “cleansed.” The verse says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified⁴⁵ by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified⁴⁶ by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean⁴⁷, but now they are holy⁴⁸” (1 Cor. 7:14). The word translated as “sanctified” or “holy” cannot mean “saved” or made subjectively holy. That would make nonsense of the word “unbeliever” and take away the force of verse 16 which is to give hope of the future salvation of the unbelieving spouse. (That is the same hope we have for our children; we do not believe in baptismal regeneration or even presupposed regeneration. That our children are “holy” does not mean they are saved!) Nor can it mean that the marriage relationship is made “legitimate” by the believing spouse and that this legitimizing of the marriage relationship makes the children “legitimate.”⁴⁹ This interpretation is laden with several problems. First, the word “holy” is never used in this way elsewhere in Scripture. It always has at least some logical connection with its basic meaning of “to be set apart to God.”⁵⁰ Second, this would be to imply that non-Christian marriages are illegitimate, and that children of non-Christian marriages are bastards. Further, it would imply that the separation of the “mixed marriage” couple (v. 15) would make the children retroactively bastards because of the absence of the believing partner. This is obviously a grasping at straws since Scripture indicates that even the marriages of unbelieving, non-Jews can be both lawful and unlawful (Mark 6:17-18), and not even the strictest interpretations on divorce and remarriage have said that divorce would retroactively illegitimatize the child. Because of this, some Baptists have avoided this interpretation and have merely said that whatever “holy” means, it can’t mean baptize since that would imply the baptism of the unbelieving spouse as well.⁵¹

Whatever interpretation we give to “holy” or “sanctified,” it must mean the same thing for both unbelieving spouse and child. On the Paedo-Baptist interpretation, the normal sense of holy as “to be set apart to God” is used. Geoffrey Bromiley summarizes the paedobaptist position well when he says that “in virtue of the other’s faith he or she is separated to God …and comes into the sphere of evangelical action and promise with a hope of future conversion. But the same is true of the children. (How much more so, one might suppose, when both the parents are confessing Christians.)”⁵² In other words, contact with the believer has set the others apart in God’s plan for the special working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. This fits the context of the passage, which gives as one reason why the believer should not leave his/her unbelieving spouse as: “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (v. 16, emphases added). The hope that you (as believing spouse) will save your unbelieving spouse is parallel to you (as believing spouse) sanctifying your unbelieving spouse. It is the believing spouse who is key in their future salvation. Therefore, what Paul is saying to us in the second part of the verse is that if it were not for this covenantal sanctifying (setting apart) influence of the believing spouse, the children would have to remain in an “unclean” (unbaptized) state. It is the meaning of that word “unclean” that will now be discussed, beginning with the Old Testament and moving to the New Testament baptisms.

The same Greek word for “unclean” and its positive form “clean” is used as a noun (“a purification” or “a cleansing”), a verb (“to make clean” or “to purify”) and an adjective (“pure” or “clean”) The same is true of the words “holiness” (noun), “sanctified” (verb), and “holy” (adjective). For simplification when quoting a verse, I will insert the word for holy (ἁγιος) or clean (καθαρος) followed by the following abbreviations: neg. (negative form), n (noun), v (verbal form) and a (adjectival form). This way the flow of the sentence will not be interrupted. We will begin by quoting 1 Corinthians 7:14 again: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (ἁγιος v) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified (ἁγιος v) by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean (καθαρος neg. a), but now they are holy (ἁγιος a).

There are two ways the word for (un)clean is used in the Bible: There is outward (covenantal) cleansing such as “the purifying (καθαρος a) of the flesh” by ritual baptisms (Heb. 9:13),⁵³ and there is inward cleansing spoken of as the “purifying (καθαρος v) of their hearts” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:9). Which kind of uncleanness and cleanness is being talked about in 1 Corinthians 7:14? If Paul were referring to the purifying of the heart, then it would be teaching that children of one believer are automatically saved, and children of unbelievers are not saved. Though some people teach this, I believe it is a contradiction of the context (see above discussion on “holy”) and a contradiction of other Scriptures which insist that we are “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:13 NIV). We Presbyterians simply do not believe in presupposed regeneration or in baptismal regeneration.

If Paul is not implying that these children have already been regenerated, then the only other alternative is outward, covenantal purification, or what Hebrews speaks of as the “purifying of the flesh.” If it is an outward cleansing, it must refer to baptism, since baptism is the only New Testament ritual that is said to purify the flesh. The following are some examples that use this word in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a synonym for baptism. In John 3:25 (see context of verses 22-26), both John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism was spoken of as a “purification” (καθαρος n). Thus “unclean” is a synonym for “unbaptized,” and clean is a synonym for “baptized.”⁵⁴ Christian baptism is spoken of as having “our bodies washed with pure (καθαρος a) water” (Heb. 10:22). (See Numbers 19:9,13,20-21; 31:23-24; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:13 for the usage of “pure water” or “water of purification” or “purifying water.”) Ephesians 5:26 says, “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify (ἁγιος v) and cleanse (καθαρος v) it with the washing of water by the word.” This verse teaches clearly that being “sanctified” (set apart for the Holy Spirit’s special working) is not enough for membership in the church, and thus the unbelieving spouse could not be a member even though there is great hope of his/her being saved in the future. Nor is being “cleansed” with the washing of water sufficient, and thus children of unbelievers have no right to church membership even if someone was foolish enough to baptize them. To be a member of the church one must be sanctified and cleansed (1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 5:26)⁵⁵. Christ is the one who both sets people apart, and who declares them cleansed by water. Example: The Gentiles of Acts 10:28 were called “unclean” (καθαρος neg. a) because they were outside the covenant, but God showed Peter through the vision of the unclean animals that God had extended the covenant to Gentiles. The Spirit set them apart to God when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in a very dramatic way (10:44; 11:16). Peter accordingly baptized them into the church with water upon their profession of faith (10:47-48). When the apostles complained about Peter’s eating with these “unclean” Gentiles in Acts 11, Peter tells them the story, emphasizing God’s words, “What God has cleansed (καθαρος v) you must not call common” (11:9). Then Peter explained the incident at Cornelius’ house and ended by saying, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15-16). In this passage, Peter ties the concept of uncleanness to those outside the church, and cleansing is declared to be by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (internal cleansing) and the baptism of water (external cleansing). For other examples where the word used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 refers to outward, ritual cleansing in the New Testament, see Matt. 8:2-3; 10:8; 11:5; 23:25-26; Mark 1:40-42,44; 7:19; Luke 2:22; 4:27; 5:12-14; 7:22; 11:39; 17:14,17; John 2:6; 13:10-11; Rom. 14:20; Tit. 1:15; Heb. 9:22-23. In terms of Jewish usage of this phrase, 1 Corinthians 7:14 could be paraphrased as, “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.”

In the Old Testament, the same language could have referred to either ritual baptisms or to circumcision. The word “unclean” is the word that is used to describe the uncircumcised Gentiles (Is. 52:1; 35:8; Acts 10:28). It is most frequently used in connection with the Old Testament baptisms. Whereas there is only one cleansing rite in the New Testament, there were many baptisms in the Old Testament (Heb. 6:2). Hebrews 9 describes several of these sprinkling ceremonies and calls them “washings” (v. 10 - or literally “baptisms”), each of which “sanctifies [ἁγιος v] for the purifying [καθαρος n] of the flesh” (v. 13). Note the same usage of language as in 1 Corinthians 7:14. As one example of those Old Testament cleansing baptisms, Leviticus 13 uses the same word as 1 Corinthians 7:14 to describe the “unclean” (καθαρος neg. a) state of a man with “leprosy.” This ceremonial uncleanness makes it impossible for him to fellowship with God’s people in corporate worship. He is cast out (Lev. 13:46). If God heals him of his leprosy, he can be re-admitted. Since re-circumcision is impossible, baptism was used as a means of re-admitting him into the covenant community. In chapter 14 he says that the sprinkling of the “waters of purification” or “pure water” or “purifying water” (καθαρος a) upon him makes him “clean” (καθαρος a) (“…and he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed (καθαρος v) from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean (καθαρος a)” (Lev. 14:7). Of course, proselyte baptism (of which John 3:22-24 is one example), falls into the category of water being used to declare “unclean” pagans to now be clean, Jews, and full members of the covenant. (See discussion of this under principle #5.) The examples from the Old Testament are too numerous to list. Being “unclean” in an outward, covenantal sense is well established. Therefore, whether we are looking at 1 Corinthians 7:14 through the eyes of the Old Testament or through the eyes of the New Testament, the phrase “otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy” means nothing more and nothing less than “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” Using the “proof-text” method, we have found at least one verse that clearly teaches infant baptism. (See appendix B for the connection of this verse to the O.T. “baptism of nidah.” Paul was talking about something every Jew would have been familiar with.)

Galatians 3:26-4:1 lists those who are heirs of the Abrahamic covenant, and this list of covenant members explicitly includes as an “heir, … a child”

Furthermore, the heirs of Christ are explicitly subsumed under the heading of “as many of you as were baptized into Christ” (3:29, emphasis added). Both Baptists and Presbyterians agree that those listed in 3:28-29 are in the Abrahamic covenant and thus to be baptized, but on what basis is the “child” of the very next verse (4:1) excluded when he is explicitly said to be an “heir” and even compared with the status of the “slave” who was earlier included in 3:28? If those in verses 26-29 are baptized members, then so is the child in 4:1. The relationship in baptism between adult believers (3:26-29) and their young children (4:1) is precisely the relationship that existed long before baptism replaced circumcision. Abraham as a pagan believed before he was circumcised (as in 3:26-27), but from that point on his children were in the covenant (as in 4:1). The major change in emphasis in the New Covenant is that it includes far more, not far less. Whereas only a few Gentiles were included in the covenant in the Old Testament, the Abrahamic promise anticipated a time when “in your seed [Christ] all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Acts 3:25, emphasis added, with Gen. 12:3; 28:14; also see Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). Galatians 4:1 is simply reaffirming the promise that families continue to be included in the Abrahamic covenant. Thus the list of those “baptized into Christ” (3:26) includes not only Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, males and females, but also the children of those believers.

Let’s go through the list of baptized people one by one and show how the very list reinforces this conclusion. In verse 28, Jews who belong to Christ are said to be part of the Abrahamic covenant and “heirs according to the promise” (emphasis added). How was this promise made? The form of the promise given to Abraham was “to you and to your descendants.”⁵⁶ What is the most natural reading that a believing Jew would make of this text? Certainly not that children were excluded. Though the New Testament records great controversy over the change in the sign (from circumcision to baptism), there is not the slightest hint of a controversy over a supposed exclusion of children.

Paul also includes Gentiles as heirs because the Abrahamic promise had not only been made to embrace “nations” (literally Gentiles - see Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4), but had explicitly said, “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (cf. Gen. 12:3; 28:14 and Acts 3:25, emphasis added). Notice that the covenantal concept of “families” being included was not restricted to the nation of Israel, but was extended to the Gentiles. Thus the Gentile believers could expect that children would continue to be in the covenant.

Paul goes on to include slaves and free since they had been included under Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant elevated the status of slaves to be spiritual equals to free. The Abrahamic covenant made revolutionary changes to the status of slaves in every nation up through Rome. Thus Paul addresses the slave Onesimus as “a beloved brother” (Philemon 16) and the slaves in the church of Ephesus as “servants of Christ” (6:6) who equally serve Christ “whether slave or free” (6:8). It was the Abrahamic covenant that gave these slaves an equal footing before God.

He includes males and females since a female infant was in the Old Testament period considered by baptism to be a “daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16).⁵⁷ Women today are not blessed in an entirely different way than Sarah was, but are “like Sarah… whose daughters you are” (1 Peter 3:6). It was not just the New Covenant, but the Abrahamic covenant itself that elevated the status of women to being joint heirs with their husbands. Sarah exercised faith just as Abraham did - “By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised” (Heb. 11:11 in NKJV).

Thus Galatians 3:28 is not a radical overturning of the Abrahamic covenant (as most interpretations believe), but showing the radical nature of the Abrahamic covenant which we are in. There is no controversy about whether adults must profess faith in Christ to be considered heirs of the covenant. What is at issue is whether the children of a believing Jew, Gentile, slave, freeman, male, or female belong to the covenant and are heirs of its provisions. Baptists say “No.” We say “Yes.” 4:1 settles the issue: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child…” The word for “child” is napion and refers to a small child. It is clear that the children of believers continue to be in the Abrahamic covenant and are heirs to the promise. They are under guardians (4:2) to bring them to faith (3:24). As Christ made so clear in Luke 18:15-16, we are called to bring children to Christ because they are in the kingdom in terms of privilege.

Other “proof-texts”

Other “proof-texts” that can be brought forward in defense of infant baptism are the many household baptisms that are recorded for us. (And one text specifically mentions “children.”) Household baptisms have been written off by Baptists as being households where all the members were of age. However, in an age of no birth control and of large families, it is statistically improbable that so many household baptisms would have all occured in families with no young children. In the case of the Philippian jailer it is almost unthinkable since a jailer would have been a man still in his virile years.

In fact, the only recorded baptisms that we can be absolutely certain did not include a household were the baptisms of Jesus (unmarried), the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:36 He couldn’t have children!), of Paul (Acts 9:18; 22:16 Paul didn’t have children!) and of the “twelve men” who came without wives or children (Acts 19:3-5,7 unmarried?). That means that the only baptisms which we know were “non-household” baptisms, were non-household baptisms because there were no households to baptize!

That being the case, it is helpful to statistically evaluate the number and type of New Testament baptisms to demonstrate that household baptisms were the norm, not the exception. I have divided the twelve instances of baptisms in Acts and the Epistles⁵⁸ into four categories: 1) those where it is certain that no children (or wives) were baptized, 2) those where it is uncertain (based on the text itself), 3) those where there are strong hints that a household baptism took place, and 4) household baptisms that are explicitly mentioned.

There is really only one passage that leaves uncertainty about whether household baptisms occurred. This does not mean that households were not baptized, but only that the text does not specify a household. Acts 8:12 records that among the Samaritans “both men and women were baptized.” It could be interpreted to mean 1) that adult men and women were the only ones baptized (in which case it would be a “non-household” baptism), or 2) (as the Greek can be construed) it could mean simply “both males and females were baptized,”⁵⁹ or lastly, it could simply be specifying the heads of households and the women without ruling out children. This last interpretation seems to be the only way to account for the discrepancy between Acts 18:8 (where Paul baptized the whole household of Crispus) and 1 Corinthians 1:14f (where Paul says that the only baptisms he did in Corinth were those of “Crispus and Gaius” and the household of Stephanus.). See discussion of next paragraph. So the language of Acts 8:12 is not unusual even if household baptisms occurred on that occasion, but we have left it in the category of “uncertain” simply based on contextual evidence.

The third category is that which contains hints that households were baptized. The first text is 1 Corinthians 1:14 which says, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.” At first reading, since wives are not mentioned, it may appear that this is a case of bachelors who were baptized. While it is possible they were unmarried and belong in the non-household category, there are strong hints that this was not the case. It is clear that there was a prominent Crispus that was baptized with his whole household in Acts 18:8. It could be objected that Timothy and not Paul possibly baptized this Crispus since both were present. However, since that Crispus was so prominent in Corinth, it would be highly unlikely that he would have spoken of a different Crispus without saying, “the son of ____” or in some other way making clear which Crispus he was referring to. Furthermore, there is no New Testament evidence for another Crispus in Corinth. Therefore, since it is almost certain that it was the same Crispus, and since it is certain that his wife believed and was baptized at the same time (Acts 18:8), it follows that Paul only mentions the head of the household with the understanding that both Crispus and Gaius represented their households. The “also” in 1 Corinthians 1:16 seems to confirm this (emphases added): “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanus.” “Also the household” implies that the other two were households. This would place Crispus and Gaius clearly in the category of household baptisms. However, since there is an outside possibility that there was another Crispus at Corinth, and since it is possible to interpret the “also” without including the “household,” I wouldn’t want to press that point, so I am including both Crispus and Gaius only in the category which hints strongly at household baptisms.

Acts 2 does not specifically say that women or infants were baptized, but there are several strong hints which almost necessitate that interpretation. The text simply says “three thousand souls” were baptized (Acts 2:41). However, in Peter’s admonition to the crowd he said, “Repent [active tense], and let every one of you be baptized [“let be baptized” is a passive tense] …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” (Acts 2:38-39, emphases added). Peter is making a logical deduction, and if the deduction is to follow the rules of logic, there must be the same terms in the conclusion (Repent and let every one of you be baptized) as in the premise (the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call). The “every one of you” surely includes the “children.” This conclusion is further strengthened when it is realized that the promise Peter was alluding to was the “promise of the Spirit” (Acts 2:33) which was first promised through the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal. 3:14) and was later promised again through David (Acts 2:29-34) and through Joel (Acts 2:16-21). In each case, the covenant promise included the children. As we saw under principle #2, this promise that Peter is alluding to necessarily must include the whole family. The connection between the call to repent and the baptism of “every one of you” is the same principle given in Acts 16:31-33 (emphases added): “So they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household…And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” (This is simply an example of the representational principle described under principle #6, paragraph 10.) Notice, too, that prior to Peter’s promise to the children of those who repent, he had quoted Joel saying, “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Acts 2:17-18, emphases added). Every age category was included. The Abrahamic promise was a far reaching promise. Logically, contextually, and theologically, it seems extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that children were baptized on that day.⁶⁰

This leaves five Christian baptisms that are clearly household:

1. the baptism of Cornelius’ family in Acts 10:47-48 and 11:14
2. the baptism of Lydia’s family in Acts 16:15
3. the baptism of the Philippian jailer’s family in Acts 16:32-33
4. the baptism of Crispus’ family in Acts 18:8
5. the baptism of Stephanus’ family in 1 Corinthians 1:16

The following chart shows that this was the norm:

• CLEARLY HOUSEHOLD
  • Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14)
  • Lydia (Acts 16:15)
  • Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16)
  • Crispus (Acts 18:8)
  • Jailer (Acts 16:32-33)
• FAVORS HOUSEHOLD
  • The 3000 (Acts 2:41)
  • Crispus (1 Cor. 1:14)
  • Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14)
• UNCERTAIN
  • Samaritans (Acts 8:12)
• CLEARLY NON-HOUSEHOLD
  • Eunuch (Acts 8:27-38)
  • Paul (Acts 9:1-18)
  • 12 disciples of John (Acts 19:5,7) no wives

You can immediately see that there is not a single clear case of a man failing to be baptized along with his family. The only non-household baptisms are families where there is no household that could be baptized! Thus, of the eight baptisms left (nine if the Crispus of 1 Cor. 1:14 is a different Crispus than in Acts 18:8), one is uncertain, three strongly favor household baptism, and five are household baptisms without any controversy. If, as I have shown, the baptisms in category two are indeed household baptisms, we have a situation where 7 out of 11 (8 out of 12 if the Crispuses are different) are household baptisms. But since category four should be left off of the calculation, 7 out of 8. Since the eighth one is in the uncertain category, it becomes clear that there is no evidence against our position that all families were baptized when the head of the family came to Christ. 1 Corinthians 7:14 shows that children were even baptized when only the wife came to Christ as well. (This may have been the situation with Lydia.) Thus household baptisms are a proof-text for infant baptism, especially when the Acts 2 passage clearly includes the word “children” in it.

Two other Scriptures which are at least logically related to infant baptism are 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 where children were certainly baptized when they went through the Red Sea (“were all baptized unto Moses”) and thus stood as a type of the church being baptized unto Christ, and Ephesians 5:26 which speaks of the baptism of the church shortly before addressing children as if they are already in the church (6:1-4). There is no evidence that children were ever excluded from baptism when they were present, but there is plenty of New Testament evidence that they were baptized.

The doctrine of household baptism is simply the age-old application of the representational principle of the covenant that we looked at earlier. Whether we think it fair or not, what Adam did affected his posterity. What Noah did affected his family. What Abraham did affected his family. Rahab’s faith led to the salvation of her house (Josh 2:13,18; 6:23-25). This representational principle was true even of the yearly Passover sacrifice: “Every man shall take for himself a lamb . . . a lamb for a household.” When we baptize our children, we are declaring as Joshua did, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). Such a declaration of faith brings covenantal blessing upon the whole household. God tells Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation” (Gen. 7:1, emphasis added). It was Noah’s faith that resulted in their salvation. Hebrews affirms this as well. “By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb. 11:7). In fact, Peter thinks this representational work of Noah is precisely what baptism is all about. He applies the story of Noah to modern baptism: “…the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. And corresponding to that baptism now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (emphasis added).”

If children were not baptized, one would expect that the New Testament would instruct children to come to baptism when they came to the place where they made profession of faith. Or one would at least expect that there would be a reference to a child who had grown up in a Christian home being baptized upon profession of faith. On the contrary, during the forty-year period that the New Testament was written, there is not the slightest whisper of a hint of children of believing parents being baptized after profession of faith.

Jews were used to having their children included in the church. If that were no longer the case, we would expect that the Jews would have raised a controversy over it. They certainly raised a big controversy over every other change that was made: they quibbled over meat, drink, impurity, circumcision, sacrifices and a host of other rituals, but we never see even a hint of controversy about the removal of children from the covenant! That was because children were never removed! When one understands the abundance of positive evidence for infant baptism that has been presented in this paper, this silence of the Jews is really a deafening silence! It is unexplainable if infants were excluded from the covenant.