Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

The United Free Church of Scotland General Assembly 2001 Panel on Doctrine Report on Baptism, chapter 5.

This page is a copy of the text of www.ufcos.org.uk/ga01/panel05.htm

The baptism of children: New Testament evidence

Our starting point should be to recognise that there is no direct evidence in the New Testament for or against the baptism of children. The New Testament is silent on the matter. Some have concluded from the silence that only adults were baptised and not children. It goes without saying that the United Free Church of Scotland together with all the churches of the Reformation has always subscribed to and practised the baptism of adult converts, i.e. converts not previously baptised. Given the circumstances of the early church and the large numbers of men and women turning from paganism to Christ it is hardly surprising that adults were baptised in large numbers. G W Bromiley has pointed out that "whenever the church has seriously discharged its ministry of evangelism, it has baptised the adults who constitute the first generation of Christian converts" [Children of Promise, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998, p2]. Bearing in mind the increasing secularisation of our society, the decline of the church in the west, and the ever-increasing number of families whosee no necessity for baptism at all, we ourselves face the situation whereby any significant turning back to God will inevitably see again a significant increase in the baptism of adults. That is something for which we should pray and work. We are wholly for the baptism of adult converts.

The question we have to face is whether it is correct to conclude from the silence of the New Testament that only adults were baptised and not children. It would be equally valid to conclude from the silence that the baptism of children is simply taken for granted. Indeed, given the pattern of belief and practice both in the Old Testament and in contemporary Judaism it is difficult to conceive of children being excluded. The lack of any explicit statement in support of the baptism of children is far from conclusive. There are other elements of Christian faith and practice which lack explicit statements in support. Our belief in the Trinity is one. Another, directly related to the sacraments, is the inclusion of women at the Lord's table. The only occasion when Jesus administered the Lord's Supper and instructed those present to "Do this in remembrance of me" was in the presence of twelve men. There is no explicit text for the inclusion of women and no explicit statement that women were present at any celebration of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament era. The inclusion of women however is on the ground of (what Bromiley calls) "legitimate inference". Taking into account other statements in the New Testament it is inconceivable that women should not be included. If the argument at this point seems trivial it all the more emphasises the futility of arguments from silence and the problem of requiring an explicit statement (a proof text) in support of the baptism of children. The inclusion of children may be determined on other grounds, as may the inclusion of women at the Lord's table.

Is there any evidence at all in the New Testament for the conclusion that the early Christians would have taken for granted the baptism of their children?

"little children" (Mark 10.13-16 and parallel verses: Matthew 19.13-15; Luke 18.15-17)

The words of Jesus most frequently quoted in connection with the baptism of children are those from Mark 10.14: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." They are to be found in most paedobaptist service manuals and on most baptismal fonts. They seem, for some, to offer the final authoritative word for the practice of infant baptism [Forbid Them Not, SPCK 1972]. Cullmann, on this passage, concludes: "this story - without being related to Baptism - was fixed in such a way that a baptismal formula of the first century gleams through it" [Baptism in the New Testament, O Cullmann, SCM pp 77ff, esp p78]. The truth is, of course, that it does no such thing. The argument that because Jesus invited children to come to him we should baptise them is false. It would be more convincing if Jesus himself had baptised the children. He didn't. Neither did he dedicate them. He blessed them, but even with the blessing of the children there is no indication whatsoever that he was instituting an ordinance for his church [Baptism in the New Testament, pp 71ff, and A Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, pp 360f].

The fact that Jesus' words here may not be used as a command to baptise children does not mean that they are irrelevant to the baptism of children. We are in danger of being so concerned to point out what Jesus does not say that we fail to notice what he does say: that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these". The following should be noted:

(a) The children brought to Jesus included "babies".Matthew and Mark have "little children", Luke has "even babies" (kai brephe). Luke is the only evangelist to use brephos. In addition to the passage under consideration he uses it twice of a baby still in the womb (1.41,44; Jesus and John) and twice of a newly born baby (2.12,16; Jesus). He also uses it when referring to the exposure of newborn babies by Pharaoh in Acts 7.19.

(b) The blessing of the children took place on Jewish territory in the region of "Judea beyond Jordan", i.e. in Peraea. Peraea was occupied by Jews, ruled by Herod Antipas, and formed part of the Jewish route from Galilee to Judea, by-passing the territory of the Samaritans. Those who brought their children were members of the Jewish community within the Jewish covenant.

(c) There was nothing unusual in Jewish parents taking their children to a rabbi for them to receive the rabbi's blessing [The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew to Luke (Ed F E Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984, p 420; SB Ferguson, Mark, Banner of Truth 1999, p 160]. We know that such a practice was associated with the Day of Atonement. R T France observes: "It was a Jewish custom to bring a child to the elders on the evening of the Day of Atonement 'to bless him and pray for him' (Mishnah Sopherim 18.5)" [Matthew, IVP 1985, p 283. See also IH Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster 1978, p 682]. Jeremias has argued that the incident "must have happened on the evening of a Day of Atonement" [Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, SCM 1958, p49].

(d) While it is often popularly assumed that those who brought their children to Jesus on this occasion were women the text does not tell us that. Matthew simply tells us that children were brought to Jesus; Mark and Luke tell us that they brought the children to Jesus. In each of the Gospels, however, we are told that the disciples rebuked "them" (autois, v 13). In view of the Greek masculine pronoun here it is not unreasonable to conclude that the children were brought by parents, i.e. fathers and mothers. It adds weight to the idea that the bringing of the children to Jesus was a planned rather than a spontaneous happening and supports, therefore, the Jewish custom referred to under (c).

(e) Jesus insisted that the children be brought to him for the simple reason that "of such is the kingdom of God" or, as most translations have it, "to such belongs the kingdom of God". The term such (toioutôn) refers to a class of people. As D E Nineham puts it, it may mean these and other (literal) children, or these and others who share the characteristics of children [St Mark, Penguin 1963, p267. See also C Brown, article on 'Child', Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Paternoster 1975]. John Murray prefers the first option [Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 61], I H Marshall the second [The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster 1978, p 681] (commenting on the Lucan parallel). Either way the kingdom belongs to the children brought to Jesus. They are included in the kingdom. Sinclair Ferguson helpfully comments: "Sometimes this statement has been read as though Jesus had said, 'The characteristics of these children have a spiritual parallel. If that spiritual parallel is present in your life, then the kingdom of God belongs to you.' But that is not what Jesus is saying in verse 14. It is what he says in the next verse (v15). In verse 14, Jesus is saying, 'I am the King in the kingdom of God. I belong to these children and all those who are like them.' These children should not be held back from him precisely because Jesus and his kingdom belong to them!" [Let's Study Mark, Banner of Truth 1999, p161].

As Ferguson observes we have often misinterpreted and devalued Jesus' words here because we fear one possible implication of taking them at face value, i.e. that children are guaranteed salvation just because they are children, irrespective of personal faith in Christ, irrespective of the operation of God's grace in their lives, and irrespective of their relationship with and their attitude towards God in subsequent years. The truth is that we are all by nature dead in trespasses and sins and children of God's wrath and we all by nature follow the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2.1-3). How then do we square, on the one hand, Jesus' inclusion of little children, even babies, in the kingdom of God with, on the other hand, the fallen condition of every living person with its accompanying necessity of grace on the part of God and of personal faith and commitment on the part of the person? One thing is sure, not by denying either. The message of the Bible is full of such tensions and we do no justice to its message by taking it upon ourselves to remove the tensions. We must live with them and seek understanding for them, but we must not remove them. To do that is to distort the message.

There is one way of coming to terms with this particular tension in Mark 10.14 which flies in the face of the excessive individualism characteristic of our modern western culture but which is thoroughly biblical. It involves taking on board something we have already touched on under Old Testament Background, i.e. the role of the family in Jewish life and the importance of the family in God's covenantal dealings with his people. In God's economy the children of God's people were included in the household of faith until they excluded themselves. The reverse, i.e. that they were excluded until they included themselves, was not the case. Hence the approach of Jesus on this occasion, which Hendriksen describes as "this distinctly positive approach" [Matthew, Banner of Truth 1974, p 722]. Hendriksen also observes that "in principle all blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact which has to be realised progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter" [Matthew, Banner of Truth 1974, p 720]. The modern preference of waiting until children are "old enough to decide for themselves" would simply not have made sense to Jews in Jesus' day. Indeed, it would have been an abrogation of their responsibility both to God and to their children. One of the major concerns that the Church should face today is the failure on the part of professing Christians to take seriously their responsibility under God for the upbringing of their children, children of the covenant, in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord". Nowadays such responsibilities are left largely to others, e.g. the church or school.

(f) We may legitimately ask, "Why is it that the kingdom belongs to such as those brought to Jesus by their parents?" It cannot be because of subjective or spiritual qualities in the children. That would result in salvation being dependent on inherent qualities in us, i.e. salvation by works [The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, Saint Andrew Press 1958, pp 48f (a study document produced by the Church of Scotland's Special Commission on Baptism)]. It must be because God in his love and mercy has determined to give his kingdom to those who have no claim upon it and make no claim upon it. As Cranfield puts it, it has to do with "their objective littleness and helplessness" [St Mark, Cambridge 1959, p 324]. Inclusion in the kingdom is a gift of grace, not a reward for character. That is the consistent testimony of Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments. The words of Jesus to Nicodemus are relevant here [Ibid.]. C Brown writes: "The saying is paralleled in John 3 by the discourse with Nicodemus comparing entry into the kingdom with rebirth" [article on "Child", Dictionary of NT Theology, Paternoster 1975]. Nicodemus' personal qualities would not gain him admission into the kingdom of God. He had to be "born again", he had to become as a little child.

(g) When the disciples attempted to keep the children from Jesus he was indignant and insisted that the children be allowed to come to him. He told his disciples, "Do not hinder (kôluete) them." The use of the verb kôluein is interesting because it has associations with baptism both in the New Testament and in the post-apostolic Church. The following are examples in the New Testament.St Mark , Cambridge 1959, pp 323f.

• Acts 8.36: "Look, here is water. What prevents (kôluei) me from being baptised."
• Acts 10.47: "Can anyone forbid (kôlusai) these people from being baptised with water."
• Acts 11.17: Peter explaining his baptism of the Gentile, Cornelius, "If God gave them the same gift as he gave us…who was I to think that I could hinder (kôlusai ) God."
• Matt 3.14: "John tried to deter (diekôluen) him, saying, 'I need to be baptised by you, and do you come to me?"

Jeremias draws attention to the use of what he calls "the kôluein formula" in reference to baptism in a number of non-canonical writings [Baptism in the NT, SCM 1950, p 72]. While the argument here, by itself, is tenuous it remains a possibility that the early Christians in their approach to baptism were influenced by the words of Jesus on the occasion recorded in Mark 10 and that they made a connection between Jesus' action with respect to little children and the practice of baptism generally.

The question is often asked, "How can we baptise children who are not able to express their own personal faith in Jesus Christ?" That is to put the emphasis in the wrong place. The more relevant question is this, "How can we refuse baptism for those children whom Christ has indicated are in his kingdom?" Or, "How can we refuse baptism for those children who are within God's covenant?" [The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p 49 (Church of Scotland's Special Commission, study document)].

"for you and your children" (Acts 3.39)

After Peter had preached his sermon on the Day of Pentecost those listening cried out in great anguish, "What shall we do?" Peter's response is relevant to our discussion and is given here in full (v38f): "Repent and be baptised, 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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."

That the promise is "for you and for your children" raises a number of questions:

• (a) Are the children referred to the actual children of those adults whom Peter is addressing, i.e. to you and to the children already yours?
• (b) Or does the word 'children' refer to future generations?
• (c) If it refers to future generations, does it refer exclusively to adults of future generations or does it include children of future generations?
• (d) If it refers to or at least includes children (whether current or future) are the children only those capable of making responsible choices or may the children be infants?

The following observations are worthy of consideration.

(1) There is evidence that the early Christians lived in expectation of an early return of Christ, a return which would bring the present age to an end. They expected it in their life-time. It was an expectation that was particularly strong in the earliest days [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Nelson, p 99]. Guthrie concurs: "as Paul grew older he would realise that the possibility of his being alive at the parousia was diminishing" [p 810]. That being the case there is at least a question as to whether a promise for "future generations" would have had much meaning for them. The Study Document of the Church of Scotland puts this rather more firmly: "If the Early Church held widely the expectation of an early Parousia ending the present age …, the only descendants to whom this promise would appear to be relevant would be those who were actually children on the Day of Pentecost" [The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism (convener, TF Torrance), St Andrew's Press 1958, p48].

(2) It is difficult to imagine that parents listening to Peter would not assume the inclusion of their children. "…let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking … First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realise that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4.1-3 makes this abundantly clear … Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realise that the Covenant made with Abraham is immutable, that is, unchangeable. Hebrews 6.13-18 is very definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable,and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation." Romans 4.13 tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham, and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfilment of that promise (cf. Galatians 3.7,8,13,14,25) …The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances – the Passover and Circumcision. 1 Corinthians 5.7,8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians 2.11,12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision. These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer's child, so also the sign of his faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?" [Baptism, Cross Publishing 1973, pp 12-18].

Why should they not assume their inclusion? No restriction is indicated. Most commentators, in whatever way they interpret 'children', are agreed that the reference to those "far off" is to those living away from Palestine, i.e. it has to do with geography rather than time. In other words for the people listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost it had to do with the present and the immediate future. It is at least reasonable to assume that the same was true with respect to "your children".

(3) No distinction is made between children who are and who are not capable of an intelligent and genuine repentance. If it is argued that the context of Peter's response requires such a distinction, e.g. the command to repent, surely that is to beg the question, namely, "Are children included with their parents in the covenant which God has established?"

(4) In Jerusalem, for the celebration of Pentecost, and listening to Peter's sermon were God-fearing Jews from all over "the Graeco-Roman world situated round the Mediterranean basin, indeed (from) every nation in which there were Jews" [The Message of Acts, IVP 1990, p 63 on Acts 2.5-11]. These Godfearing Jews included proselytes (v11). While we cannot be sure when proselyte baptism began [Jewish Proselyte Baptisms, under "The Origins of Water Baptism"] we do know that the children (including infants) of those converting to Judaism were baptised along with their parents. If baptism into Judaism included children would proselytes have expected less when baptised into Christ? [A Case for Infant Baptism, Grove Books 1973, p 21].

Context

To answer the questions raised above we must turn not only to the immediate context of Peter's response but to the context of the covenant established by God with Abraham in Gen 17.7 and confirmed by Moses in Deut 10.10-13: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and your descendants after you…to be your God and the God of your descendants." As Calvin observes, commenting on Acts 2.39, "The addition of their children derives from the word of promise (found in Gen 17.7)." It would be difficult to improve on John Murray's succinct statement with respect to the significance and relevance of the Abrahamic covenant for our understanding of Acts 2.39:

"We are not in a position to appreciate the significance of this (that the promise is to the children as well as to the parents) unless we bear in mind the covenant relationship established by God and clearly revealed in the Old Testament. It is in the light of Gen 17.7 … that this word of Peter is to be understood. It is this principle, institution, or arrangement alone that gives meaning to Peter's appeal … What does this imply? It demonstrates that Peter, in the illumination and the power of the Spirit of Pentecost, recognised that there was no suspension or abrogation of that divine administration whereby children are embraced with their parents in God's covenant promise. It is simply this and nothing less that Acts 2.39 evinces … Nothing could advertise more conspicuously and conclusively that this principle of God's gracious government, by which children along with their parents are the possessors of God's covenant promise, is fully operative in the New Testament as well as in the Old than this simple fact that on the occasion of Pentecost Peter took up the refrain of the old covenant and said, 'The promise is to you and to your children.' It is the certification of the Holy Spirit to us that this method of the administration of the covenant of grace is not suspended. It is because there is such evidence of the perpetual operation of this gracious principle in the administration of God's covenant that we baptise infants. It is for that reason alone that we continue to baptise them. It is the divine institution, not, indeed, commended by human wisdom and not palatable to those who are influenced by the dictates of human wisdom, yet commended by the wisdom of God. It is the seal to us of His marvellous goodness that He is not only a God to His people but also to their (children) …" [Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 68].

Second half of this chapter: Households.

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 15th April 2004.