Hello and welcome. In this article, we will examine a popular prooftext used to argue for Paedobaptism, which is Acts 2:39. This prooftext often goes in tandem with and/or built off of a particular understanding of the biblical covenants which lends itself to Paedobaptism. We've covered the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism in this article here. We won't be rehashing all of our thoughts on that here. Instead, our focus will be on contextually analyzing Acts 2:39 and critiquing the Paedobaptist interpretations of the verse.
THE TEXT OF CONCERN
Act 2:37-39 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
QUOTES AND COMMENTS FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS ON ACTS 2:39
“The teaching of Peter in Acts 2:39: ‘For the promise is for you and for your children.’ Peter, let it be remembered, was addressing an exclusively Jewish congregation. It is surely an intolerable gloss on his words, and one which his hearers would never have considered possible or intended, to make them mean ‘your children, provided always that they have grown up and have decided for themselves’. Peter is virtually quoting the covenant promise of Genesis 17:7, and he is acting entirely in consonance with the principles of the covenant as God proposed them to Abraham. He is declaring that just as children were welcomed de jure, into the Old Covenant, so, also, they are welcomed into the new. And, furthermore, he spoke these words in a baptismal context. Why should he mention the children of the first converts at all, if he did not wish to assert their right to the same covenant sign which he was proposing for their parents?” - John Stott, The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 61
“Significantly, these words of Peter declare that certain things had not changed and would not change in the new era. The pattern of God’s dealings with believers and their children, as old as creation itself, would continue as a constitutional principle of the visible church.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 77
“First, it is clear that Peter speaks of “the promise” as rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace, which embodies the promise of salvation that he calls upon his hearers to embrace (see Acts 2:21). This promise is the same as the promises made to Abraham, to David, to Israel, and even to the Gentiles. It includes the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins referred to in the previous verse (Acts 2:38).” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 83
“Peter’s words in Acts 2:39 are therefore a covenantal formula. “Unto you, and to your children” simply restates “between me and thee and thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). These words assert the identity of the covenant of grace under all dispensations and the continuity of the covenant pattern in which promises made to believers are extended to their children.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 85
“That infants are in covenant as well as their parents, is undeniably evident from the tenure of that covenant made with Abraham, which was a Gospel-covenant, (Gen. 17:7), as we have abundantly proved; and that the promise of the Covenant is to them, is as evident, Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you, and to your children;” he means the promise of God to Abraham, the promise of Salvation by Christ, which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles. It was to the Jews in the first place. Or do you suppose the Apostle has respect to Jer. 31:33-34, or to Joel 2:28? Either way, it does not alter the case, for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace, and explications of what was virtually contained in that first promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s ordinance, Chapter 4, Argument 5
"Peter did not exclude children of believers from the covenant of grace, and said to the adult Jews on the day of Pentecost, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:38-39). The promise is for the Jews and their children. The audience Peter was speaking to was the dispersed Jews that had gathered for Shavuot—Pentecost. This promise is an allusion to Genesis 17:7." - Purely Presbyterian, A Clear and Concise Case for Paedobaptism
“Instead we find explicit inclusion of children in the covenant promises, and more to the point, an explicit linking of baptism with the Abrahamic covenant…Peter ties his discussion of Baptism with the covenant promise (Acts 2:38-39), and says that this “promise is to you and to your children…” (Acts 3:39).” - Phillip Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles that Call for Infant Baptism, Chapter 2
“You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!” - Catholic Answers, Where is Infant Baptism in the Bible?
“Furthermore, the Apostle Peter specifically tells us in Acts 2:39 that this new sign of the covenant, just like it was in the Old Testament, is "for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." Notice the similarity with Peter's words concerning the New Testament sign of the covenant and God's words to Abraham in Genesis 17:8 concerning the Old Testament sign of the covenant.” - ThirdMill, Why Baptize Your Babies?
“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.” - Kuyperian Commentary, The New Testament Openly Commands the Baptism of Children
“Repent and be baptized every one of you. It doesn’t say except your infants. Yea, it doesn’t say just you and you and a couple of you, but not them. Protestants are adding to the Bible when they say except your infants.” - Christian Catholic Media, Infant Baptism is Biblical - Acts 2:38-39, 0:55 - 1:12
“You see, if it was just 38 we would be like okay everyone should believe and then be baptized but it’s not just 38. 39 says the gift is for your children too.” - Higher Things Inc, Out of Context Tuesday - Acts 2:38, 3:20 - 3:32
“The natural reading of the text is to say that the gift of baptism then and the forgiveness of sins and all these benefits are not just for the people there but also for their children which means also their babies. Babies after all are the children. And there’s no restrictions made.” - Bryan Wolfmueller, Is Infant Baptism Biblical?, 1:42 - 1:59
“And he then says the promise is to you and to your children. So this is not just for the adult hearers. This is also a promise to the children.” - Catholic Answers, The Bible Supports Infant Baptism (here’s why), 0:48 - 0:57
“This passage is speaking of baptism and the blessings and forgiveness given through it. And it says that the promise is also for the children. They receive the forgiveness precisely through water baptism.” - VaticanCatholic, The Proof for Infant Baptism, 6:55 - 7:09
“The teaching of Peter in Acts 2:39: ‘For the promise is for you and for your children.’ Peter, let it be remembered, was addressing an exclusively Jewish congregation. It is surely an intolerable gloss on his words, and one which his hearers would never have considered possible or intended, to make them mean ‘your children, provided always that they have grown up and have decided for themselves’. Peter is virtually quoting the covenant promise of Genesis 17:7, and he is acting entirely in consonance with the principles of the covenant as God proposed them to Abraham. He is declaring that just as children were welcomed de jure, into the Old Covenant, so, also, they are welcomed into the new. And, furthermore, he spoke these words in a baptismal context. Why should he mention the children of the first converts at all, if he did not wish to assert their right to the same covenant sign which he was proposing for their parents?” - John Stott, The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 61
“Significantly, these words of Peter declare that certain things had not changed and would not change in the new era. The pattern of God’s dealings with believers and their children, as old as creation itself, would continue as a constitutional principle of the visible church.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 77
“First, it is clear that Peter speaks of “the promise” as rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace, which embodies the promise of salvation that he calls upon his hearers to embrace (see Acts 2:21). This promise is the same as the promises made to Abraham, to David, to Israel, and even to the Gentiles. It includes the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins referred to in the previous verse (Acts 2:38).” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 83
“Peter’s words in Acts 2:39 are therefore a covenantal formula. “Unto you, and to your children” simply restates “between me and thee and thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). These words assert the identity of the covenant of grace under all dispensations and the continuity of the covenant pattern in which promises made to believers are extended to their children.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 85
“That infants are in covenant as well as their parents, is undeniably evident from the tenure of that covenant made with Abraham, which was a Gospel-covenant, (Gen. 17:7), as we have abundantly proved; and that the promise of the Covenant is to them, is as evident, Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you, and to your children;” he means the promise of God to Abraham, the promise of Salvation by Christ, which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles. It was to the Jews in the first place. Or do you suppose the Apostle has respect to Jer. 31:33-34, or to Joel 2:28? Either way, it does not alter the case, for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace, and explications of what was virtually contained in that first promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s ordinance, Chapter 4, Argument 5
"Peter did not exclude children of believers from the covenant of grace, and said to the adult Jews on the day of Pentecost, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:38-39). The promise is for the Jews and their children. The audience Peter was speaking to was the dispersed Jews that had gathered for Shavuot—Pentecost. This promise is an allusion to Genesis 17:7." - Purely Presbyterian, A Clear and Concise Case for Paedobaptism
“Instead we find explicit inclusion of children in the covenant promises, and more to the point, an explicit linking of baptism with the Abrahamic covenant…Peter ties his discussion of Baptism with the covenant promise (Acts 2:38-39), and says that this “promise is to you and to your children…” (Acts 3:39).” - Phillip Kayser, Seven Biblical Principles that Call for Infant Baptism, Chapter 2
“You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!” - Catholic Answers, Where is Infant Baptism in the Bible?
“Furthermore, the Apostle Peter specifically tells us in Acts 2:39 that this new sign of the covenant, just like it was in the Old Testament, is "for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." Notice the similarity with Peter's words concerning the New Testament sign of the covenant and God's words to Abraham in Genesis 17:8 concerning the Old Testament sign of the covenant.” - ThirdMill, Why Baptize Your Babies?
“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.” - Kuyperian Commentary, The New Testament Openly Commands the Baptism of Children
“Repent and be baptized every one of you. It doesn’t say except your infants. Yea, it doesn’t say just you and you and a couple of you, but not them. Protestants are adding to the Bible when they say except your infants.” - Christian Catholic Media, Infant Baptism is Biblical - Acts 2:38-39, 0:55 - 1:12
“You see, if it was just 38 we would be like okay everyone should believe and then be baptized but it’s not just 38. 39 says the gift is for your children too.” - Higher Things Inc, Out of Context Tuesday - Acts 2:38, 3:20 - 3:32
“The natural reading of the text is to say that the gift of baptism then and the forgiveness of sins and all these benefits are not just for the people there but also for their children which means also their babies. Babies after all are the children. And there’s no restrictions made.” - Bryan Wolfmueller, Is Infant Baptism Biblical?, 1:42 - 1:59
“And he then says the promise is to you and to your children. So this is not just for the adult hearers. This is also a promise to the children.” - Catholic Answers, The Bible Supports Infant Baptism (here’s why), 0:48 - 0:57
“This passage is speaking of baptism and the blessings and forgiveness given through it. And it says that the promise is also for the children. They receive the forgiveness precisely through water baptism.” - VaticanCatholic, The Proof for Infant Baptism, 6:55 - 7:09
This is 15 quotes on Acts 2:39 from various Paedobaptist traditions. So how do Paedobaptists argue for infant baptism in Acts 2? Based on the comments above, it seems there are two possible approaches.
1. The first argument is that "and to your children" just in and of itself means and includes infants as appropriate recipients.
2. The second argument is that in Acts 2:39, Peter is meaning to reference, quote, and apply Genesis 17 to the situation in Acts 2. This is seen as proving Paedobaptism because Genesis 17 refers to infants receiving circumcision. Therefore, if Peter is applying it to the situation in Acts 2, it would mean that infants should receive the ordinance in question.
We will work through and respond to both of these arguments. First, we need to zoom out and look at the context and setting of Acts 2:39.
THE CONTEXT AND SETTING OF ACTS 2:39
Act 1:4-5 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Luk 24:46-49 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
In Luke 24, we see mention of this "promise" that the disciples would receive in Jerusalem and be "endued with power from on high."
Act 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This promise and power from on high is what we see at the beginning of Acts 2 where the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost and began speaking with other tongues. We find this context and setting immediately before the disciples interact with those in Jerusalem and Peter gives his sermon at Pentecost. It's in that sermon where we find Acts 2:39.
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE IN ACTS 2?
Act 2:5-6 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
In the context of Acts 2, Peter is speaking to many Jews out of every nation. Peter calls them "men of Judaea" and "men of Israel". Peter holds them responsible for Jesus' crucifixion when he says "ye have taken" and "ye have crucified". Through appealing to Old Testament passages, Peter makes the case for Jesus being "both Lord and Christ". In light of these details, it seems that Peter's audience is comprised of unbelieving Jewish adults. This aspect of the context is not heavily contested between Paedodbaptists and Credobaptists. From our survey of Paedobaptists on this passage, it seems that all would generally affirm that Peter's immediate audience in his Acts 2 sermon is adults, but even if infant children were hypothetically present, it wouldn't affect any of our arguments here. This leads us to one of the primary points of the passage that is heavily contested.
WHAT DOES "CHILDREN" MEAN IN ACTS 2:39?
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Recall that among the Paedobaptist quotes we provided for Acts 2:39, quite a few seem to argue for Paedobaptism from this passage by simply concluding that "children" in Acts 2:39 inherently means or logically includes infants. With this appeal, Paedobaptists essentially see Acts 2:39 as saying the promise is to your infant children. This is one of the two primary arguments Paedobaptists make from this passage. This appeal is certainly the most simple of the two. To address this argument, we need to look closely at the word choice the author uses for "children" and the usage of this word.
There are a few underlying Greek words that can be rendered as "children". Let's look at them and their definitions.
1. Brephos (G1025): of uncertain affinity; an infant (properly, unborn) literally or figuratively:—babe, (young) child, infant.
2. Paidion ( G3813): a childling (of either sex), i.e. (properly), an infant, or (by extension) a half-grown boy or girl; figuratively, an immature Christian:—(little, young) child, damsel.
3. Teknon (G5043): a child (as produced):—child, daughter, son.
Brephos, Paidion, and Teknon are three prominent Greek words that can be rendered as child or children. Brephos and Paidion can and do inherently indicate and convey an age of infancy. However, Teknon refers to children more generally. Teknon does not inherently convey or indicate a particular age like infancy.
This is relevant to Acts 2:39 because of the authorial intent behind "and to your children". If the author meant to convey that the promise is inherent to or logically includes infants, he had the words at his disposal. It's generally agreed that Luke is the writer of Acts. In his own gospel, he uses Brephos in Luke 1:41, 1:44, 2:12, 2:16, and 18:15. We also see Brephos used in Acts 7:19 and it is rendered as "young children" in English. When it comes to Paidion, Luke uses it in Luke 1:59, 1:66, 1:76, 1:80, 2:17, 2:21, 2:27, 2:40, 7:32, 9:47, 9:48, 11:7, 18:16, and 18:17. Contrary to the usage of Brephos, we do not see Paidion used in Acts.
With all of this in mind, it's evident that the author had a history and knowledge of these various Greek words that can and do indicate infancy. So what word did the author use for "children" in Acts 2:39? Well, in Acts 2:39, the word Teknon is being used. Again, Teknon does not inherently convey or indicate a particular age like infancy. To us, this fact seems to undermine the claim and argument that "and to your children" simply means or includes infants as some Paedobaptists argue. Before moving on, let's look deeper at various biblical usages of Teknon to see patterns and themes when this word is used. To be brief, we will look at eight examples.
Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mrk 13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
In Matthew 10:21, Teknon is rendered as "child" and "children". In Mark 13:12, Teknon is rendered as "son" and "children". These verses are in the larger context of persecution. It would be difficult to fathom an infant rising up, persecuting, and causing their parents to be put to death. Therefore, it seems that children are meant to be taken as generic, non-specific, and describing whichever children are capable of doing what is mentioned.
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
In Matthew 21:28, teknon is rendered as "sons" and "son". It would be difficult to fathom an infant going to work in a vineyard. Therefore, it seems that "sons" and "son" are meant to be taken as generic, non-specific, and describing those who are capable of doing what is mentioned.
Eph 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Col 3:20-21 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
1Ti 5:3-4 Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
In 1 Timothy 5:3-4, teknon is rendered as "children". It seems that Paul is referring to children generically and non-specifically. He's describing whichever children are capable of learning piety.
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly
In Titus 1:6, teknon is rendered as "children". In context, Paul is talking about qualifications for elders. It seems that Paul is referring to children generically and non-specifically. He's describing whichever children are capable of not rioting or being unruly.
2Jn 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
In 2 John 1:4, teknon is rendered as "children". It seems that John is referring to children generically and non-specifically. He's describing whichever children are capable of walking in truth.
What can we learn from these examples when it comes to Acts 2:39? Well, recall some of the Paedobaptist quotes we provided earlier.
“The natural reading of the text is to say that the gift of baptism then and the forgiveness of sins and all these benefits are not just for the people there but also for their children which means also their babies. Babies after all are the children. And there’s no restrictions made.” - Bryan Wolfmueller, Is Infant Baptism Biblical?, 1:42 - 1:59
“The natural reading of the text is to say that the gift of baptism then and the forgiveness of sins and all these benefits are not just for the people there but also for their children which means also their babies. Babies after all are the children. And there’s no restrictions made.” - Bryan Wolfmueller, Is Infant Baptism Biblical?, 1:42 - 1:59
“Repent and be baptized every one of you. It doesn’t say except your infants. Yea, it doesn’t say just you and you and a couple of you, but not them. Protestants are adding to the Bible when they say except your infants.” - Christian Catholic Media, Infant Baptism is Biblical - Acts 2:38-39, 0:55 - 1:12
We can learn that "children" in Acts 2:39 does not inherently indicate or include a particular age like infancy. This is because the underlying Greek word teknon is used rather than brephos or paidion. Therefore, it's incorrect to just assume that "children" means babies or that the author would need to explicitly exclude infants. In its biblical usage, teknon frequently denotes children generally and non-specifically. It's in the surrounding description of context and actions that inform us about age and other details. Suppose actions or details can be applied to people of various ages like adolescents, teenagers, young adults, and adult children. In that case, teknon is the appropriate word to use because it doesn't inherently pinpoint a specific age.
For a modern example, one might say "My children play sports." In this statement, children would be meant generally and non-specifically. The context and actions surrounding the children give us further details. In this example, this statement almost certainly doesn't include newborn infants. Rather, it refers to any combination of adolescent children, teenagers, young adults, or even adult children who play sports at a professional level. The parents of these children could perhaps have an infant child, but they're excluded by the details surrounding what the children are doing. This would not make the statement untruthful, because the meaning of children would be a general and non-specific statement about offspring.
The same could be said with the example, "My children are A+ students." In this statement, children would be meant generally and non-specifically. The context and actions surrounding the children give us further details.
In light of these points, for our interlocutors to argue that "children" in Acts 2:39 inherently refers to and includes infant children, they would need to produce further details in Acts 2 about these children and what they're doing which convey that infants are specifically included in "teknon". It cannot be simply assumed. Therefore, we find this argument problematic and unconvincing.
WHAT OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES DOES PETER REFERENCE IN ACTS 2?
If the mere assumption that "children" in Acts 2:39 inherently means or includes infants doesn't work, what other arguments are there for Paedobaptism in this verse? As we just said, Paedobaptists would need to produce further details in Acts 2 about these children to conclude that infants are included as proper recipients of baptism. The main way Paedobaptists go about gathering details in favor of their view is by appealing to an argument that Peter is referencing a specific passage in the Old Testament. This leads us to the second primary argument for Paedobaptism from Acts 2:39. Let's recall some of the quotes from earlier.
“The teaching of Peter in Acts 2:39: ‘For the promise is for you and for your children.’ Peter, let it be remembered, was addressing an exclusively Jewish congregation. It is surely an intolerable gloss on his words, and one which his hearers would never have considered possible or intended, to make them mean ‘your children, provided always that they have grown up and have decided for themselves’. Peter is virtually quoting the covenant promise of Genesis 17:7, and he is acting entirely in consonance with the principles of the covenant as God proposed them to Abraham. He is declaring that just as children were welcomed de jure, into the Old Covenant, so, also, they are welcomed into the new. And, furthermore, he spoke these words in a baptismal context. Why should he mention the children of the first converts at all, if he did not wish to assert their right to the same covenant sign which he was proposing for their parents?” - John Stott, The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 61
“Peter’s words in Acts 2:39 are therefore a covenantal formula. “Unto you, and to your children” simply restates “between me and thee and thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). These words assert the identity of the covenant of grace under all dispensations and the continuity of the covenant pattern in which promises made to believers are extended to their children.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 85
"Peter did not exclude children of believers from the covenant of grace, and said to the adult Jews on the day of Pentecost, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:38-39). The promise is for the Jews and their children. The audience Peter was speaking to was the dispersed Jews that had gathered for Shavuot—Pentecost. This promise is an allusion to Genesis 17:7." - Purely Presbyterian, A Clear and Concise Case for Paedobaptism
“Furthermore, the Apostle Peter specifically tells us in Acts 2:39 that this new sign of the covenant, just like it was in the Old Testament, is "for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." Notice the similarity with Peter's words concerning the New Testament sign of the covenant and God's words to Abraham in Genesis 17:8 concerning the Old Testament sign of the covenant.” - ThirdMill, Why Baptize Your Babies?
This argument can be summarized in the following way:
P1. In Acts 2:39, Peter is intending to draw his audiences attention to Genesis 17 by quoting, restating, and/or referencing it.
P2. By this reference, Peter means to equate or apply various covenantal aspects of Genesis 17 to his statement in Acts 2:39.
P3. Genesis 17 talks about a covenant being "between me and thee and thy seed after thee." This is quoted, restated, and/or referenced in Acts 2:39.
P4. Genesis 17 includes a token of that covenant being given to infants.
Conclusion. Therefore, since the passage Peter referenced was to "thy seed after thee" and included a token being given to infants, that which Peter is describing in Acts 2:38-39 should be given to infants. So infants should be baptized.
So now the question becomes, is this first premise true? Is Peter intending to quote, restate, and reference Genesis 17? If he isn't, this argument fails to demonstrate Paedobaptism in Acts 2. To answer this question, let's go through Acts 2 and examine the reference pattern Peter uses.
Peter's 1st OT reference:
Act 2:16-21 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
In Acts 2:16-21, Peter is explicitly referencing Joel 2.
Jol 2:28-32 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
When Peter goes to reference Joel 2, he begins by explicitly referencing the prophet.
Peter's 2nd OT reference:
Act 2:25-28 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
In Acts 2:25-28, Peter is explicitly referencing Psalm 16.
Psa 16:9-11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
When Peter goes to reference Psalm 16, he explicitly references David's words.
Peter's OT reference in Acts 2:38-39:
Act 2:37-39 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
So when we arrive at Acts 2:39, what is Peter referencing? He doesn't explicitly point out a prophet or biblical figure. Remember, Paedobaptists argue that Peter meant to draw his audience's attention to Genesis 17. But what is Peter's pattern in Acts 2 for referencing an Old Testament passage? He explicitly references the prophet or biblical figure first. In light of this fact, it seems inconsistent and out of place to insist on Peter referencing Genesis 17.
Instead of referencing a new passage but failing to mention it, we believe Peter is calling attention to one of the passages he already explicitly referenced earlier in the chapter; that passage being Joel 2. Notice the parallels between:
1A. "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38
1B. "I will pour out my spirit" twice in Joel 2:28 and 29
2A. "to your children, and to all that are afar off" in Acts 2:39
2B. "all flesh; and your sons and your daughters" in Joel 2:28 and "whosoever" in Joel 2:32
3A. "as many as the Lord our God shall call" in Acts 2:39
3B. "whosoever shall call" and "the Lord shall call" in Joel 2:32
4A. "filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues" in Acts 2:4 and "wonders and signs" in Acts 2:43
4B. "prophesy...dream dreams...visions" in Joel 2:28
Not only is Joel 2 explicitly referenced earlier by Peter, but we also see multiple parallel points with Acts 2:38-39. So why doesn't Peter explicitly identify the passage again in Acts 2:38? It's simply because he doesn't need to. He already identified it and referenced it up to verse 21. Joel 2 is already on the minds of his audience.
The ultimate significance and relevance of Acts 2:38-39 being a reference to Joel 2 is that the promise of the gospel is available to all people. Peter declaring the promise of the gospel and Holy Ghost to unbelievers does not and cannot be equated to a promise for Christian parents and their infant children as some Paedobaptists wrongly assert. Contextually, there is no evidence that Peter's audience is even saved in the first place. His audience either didn't understand the significance of what was happening or they were mocking (cf. Acts 2:12-13). Peter blamed them for Jesus' death (cf. Acts 2:23 and Acts 2:36). Peter also labored to prove to them that Jesus is Lord and Christ through Psalm 16.
Ultimately, Acts 2:38-39 is about the universal offer of the gospel. We could spend more time on the meaning and application of Acts 2:38-39 but for the purpose of this article, it suffices to demonstrate that Peter is not referencing Genesis 17:7. There are multiple points of continuity between Joel 2 and Acts 2 that Genesis 17 does not have with Acts 2. For example, Genesis 17 doesn't talk about the Spirit. There also isn't a theme of spiritual wonders and signs in Genesis 17.
How do Paedobaptists respond to the Joel 2 connection in Acts 2:39?
“That infants are in covenant as well as their parents, is undeniably evident from the tenure of that covenant made with Abraham, which was a Gospel-covenant, (Gen. 17:7), as we have abundantly proved; and that the promise of the Covenant is to them, is as evident, Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you, and to your children;” he means the promise of God to Abraham, the promise of Salvation by Christ, which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles. It was to the Jews in the first place. Or do you suppose the Apostle has respect to Jer. 31:33-34, or to Joel 2:28? Either way, it does not alter the case, for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace, and explications of what was virtually contained in that first promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s ordinance, Chapter 4, Argument 5
Some Paedobaptists have acknowledged the Joel 2 connection, but the responses we've seen are lacking and not persuasive. Michael Harrison was an 18th-century Presbyterian minister. He briefly commented on this in his arguments for Paedobaptism. It's quite revealing. At its essence, the response is that it really doesn't matter what Old Testament passage Peter is referring to because all of the Old Testament (including Genesis 17 and Joel 2) are under the same singular covenant. This response presupposes a particular understanding of the biblical covenants which we find to be problematic and untrue. We've covered it at length in this article here. Harrison's comment seems circular. First, Acts 2:39 is supposed to show continuity between Genesis 17:7 and therefore prove a connection for infant circumcision/baptism. Second, Acts 2:39 isn't actually referring to Genesis 17:7. Third, it doesn't matter because there's covenantal unity in infant circumcision/baptism anyway. Not only does this response presuppose a particular understanding of the biblical covenants, but it's also essentially unfalsifiable which is not a good trait to have for an argument. If no difference in which Old Testament passage Peter refers to informs the author's intent, we question the sincerity of any interlocutor who makes an appeal similar to Harrison.
Inconsistencies with the Paedobaptist appeal to Genesis 17:
In addition to the uncompelling internal evidence of a Genesis 17 reference in Acts 2:39, when we look closer at the supposed connection between Genesis 17 and Acts 2, we notice multiple inconsistencies from the Paedobaptist perspective. We will point out just three.
1. Do Paedobaptists affirm that parents get cut off if they don't baptize their infant? We're sure that some who are more zealous for Paedobaptism would affirm this. However, many do not and are charitable towards Credobaptists.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
If Paedobaptists are consistent in believing that Acts 2:39 is a reference to and re-administration of the covenant in Genesis 17, they should also affirm that not giving the sign to your infant yields getting cut off as Genesis 17:14 says.
2. The second problem relates to who exactly the sign of the covenant extends to.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Paedobaptists interpret Acts 2:39 to mean that baptism is for believing parents and their infant children. It is normally viewed as not extending down to multiple generations beyond this.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
In Genesis 17 we see the sign is applied to all generations of male infants. If Paedobaptists were consistent they'd baptize the seventh-generation grandchildren of a believer based on that ancestor's faith. But we know Paedobaptists don't extend the sign down through many generations like this. This again is different from what Genesis 17 says.
3. Less congruent with "teknon" in Acts 2:39 than the Joel 2 perspective.
Gen 17:12-13 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
In Genesis 17, it's exclusively males who receive the token of circumcision. But remember, in Acts 2:39, we see "teknon" used for children.
3. Teknon (G5043): a child (as produced):—child, daughter, son.
Teknon normally refers to children generically and non-specifically as we've previously covered.
Jol 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joel 2 talks about God's spirit being poured upon "all flesh" as well as sons and daughters. We believe the subjects in Joel 2 better fit "teknon" and the generality of children than the subjects in Genesis 17 which when referring to the token is just for infant males and adult males. Acts 2:39 is more generic and non-specific, and Genesis 17 is more specific rather than general. Joel 2 is congruent with Acts 2:39 because it too is generic and non-specific. We believe this strengthens our argument that Acts 2:39 is referring to Joel 2 and not Genesis 17.
Paedobaptists require a connection between Genesis 17 and Acts 2 to make Acts 2 promote infant baptism. Yet, when we look at the particulars of Genesis 17, various points are not consistently transferred or are just more consistent with Joel 2. The only real continuity we see between Acts 2 and Genesis 17 that Paedobaptists point out is that one passage says "thy seed" and another says "your children". But is that enough to justify the argument that Peter intends to reference Genesis 17 in Acts 2? There are a multitude of Old Testament passages that use virtually the same language as Genesis 17:7. Here are just three examples.
Jer 46:27 But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and be not dismayed, O Israel: for, behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest and at ease, and none shall make him afraid.
Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
1Ch 17:11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
In light of these examples, if the goal is to find a connection between "your children" in Acts 2:39 and some other Old Testament verses, what's the merit of arguing that Peter is referencing Genesis 17:7 instead of opposed to these examples? Isaiah 59:21 mentions God's spirit which is also mentioned in Acts 2. Isaiah 59:21 might actually have more congruence with Acts 2 than Genesis 17. Therefore, the connection that Paedobaptists point out between "thy seed" and "your children" is far from a compelling reason to think Peter is referencing Genesis 17:7.
There is no direct reference to Genesis 17 like Peter does with other passages he references in Acts 2, and there is an abundance of various inconsistencies, and even more abundant are consistencies between Acts 2:39 and the passage we believe Peter is actually referencing, which is Joel 2.
“You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!” - Catholic Answers, Where is Infant Baptism in the Bible?
1. The first argument is that "and to your children" just in and of itself means and includes infants as appropriate recipients.
2. The second argument is that in Acts 2:39, Peter is meaning to reference and quote Genesis 17 and applying it to the situation in Acts 2. This is seen as proving Paedobaptism because Genesis 17 refers to infants receiving circumcision. Therefore, if Peter is applying it to the situation in Acts 2, it would mean that infants should receive the ordinance in question.
We've now covered both of these primary arguments and discovered that neither of them holds up to scrutiny. But, we are far from done here. It's not enough to just critique the main arguments for Paedobaptism in Acts 2. We will now move on to build a comprehensive case for why Acts 2 is contextually and thematically better aligned with Credobaptism than Paedobaptism.
WHO ACTUALLY GETS BAPTIZED IN ACTS 2?
This point is less contested. Some Paedobaptists do concede that infants aren't baptized in the context of Acts 2, but argue that the principle of the promise being "to your children" means they should also be baptized irrespective of faith. Nevertheless, it's important to touch on this question.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42-47 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
In Acts 2, we're given a few details about the people who were actually baptized. We're told those who were baptized were those who gladly received Peter's word. Following this, those who were baptized also continued in various things, and "all that believed" were together. Given what details we're told, it seems that all who received baptism were whoever among the multitude gladly received Peter's words and believed. Immediately following Acts 2:38-39, the only type of baptism we see any indication of is Credobaptism.
WHAT IS THE PROMISE AND WHAT IS THE PATTERN OF RECEPTION?
We're now going to work through the promise and its reception to see if there is a consistent pattern of reception. Is it consistently said to be received by faith and other credo-centric behaviors? Are there categorical distinctions given for different age groups or a parental representative status? Let's find out.
The promise:
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
The promise spoken of in Acts 2:38-39 is the reception of God's spirit, the Holy Ghost.
“Lutheran theologians also note that St. Peter's words on Pentecost included children in the promise of Baptism, "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. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).” - WELS, Topical Q&A, Circumcision Sacrament of Holy Baptism
This point is relevant and worth touching on because some, but not all Paedobaptists wrongly assert that the promise in Acts 2 is water baptism. The context in Acts 1-2 and other statements about the promise shows this interpretation is false.
Reception in the Gospels:
Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Jhn 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Chronologically before Acts 2, we see a couple references to the Holy Ghost and how the spirit is received. Luke 11 connects the reception of the Holy Spirit to those who ask. John 7 is the most clear gospel account of this. Those who believe in Jesus are the ones who receive the Holy Ghost. Those are the people to whom the spirit is given.
These accounts do not tell us about categorical distinctions between household heads and those they represent. These texts don't talk about a scenario where the head of household believes and then their children are given the Holy Ghost as well because of this but haven't believed themselves. Instead, it seems the only category of people who receive the Holy Ghost are those who believe. The promise is received on a credo basis.
Reception according to Peter:
Act 15:7-9 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, Peter gives us further details about God giving this promise of the Holy Ghost to Gentiles. So what does Peter convey? We see a connection again between hearing the word and believing it, and as a result of God knowing the heart of those who believe, He gives witness to their belief by giving them the Holy Ghost.
Similar to the gospels, we are not given a categorical distinction between household heads and those they represent. Absent from this text about the reception of the promise is there a principle or category of someone receiving the promise who hasn't themselves believed. The promise is received on a credo basis.
Act 10:43-47 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
While Acts 10 is before Acts 15, Peter's words at the Jerusalem council shed some light on what happened in Acts 10. Peter connects the remission of sins to believing in Jesus. We then see hearing Peter's words connected to the reception of the Holy Ghost. With what Peter says in Acts 15 in view, it seems that those who received the Holy Ghost first heard and believed in their heart. This gift of the Holy Ghost then, is part of God bearing witness to this internal reality of the heart. It would seem then, that we again see the reception of the promise on a credo basis.
Reception according to Paul:
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Paul touches on the reception of this promise a few times in his writings. He connects Spirit to promise twice in Galatians 3:14 and Ephesians 1:13. In Galatians 3:2 and Ephesians 1:13 the reception is connected to hearing the word and believing. Galatians 3:14 gives fewer details but nonetheless says the reception is through faith.
There is again no scenario given where a head of household believes and then their children are given the promise despite not believing yet. Paul's account is rather consistent with what the gospels say. It seems the only category of people who receive the Holy Ghost are those who believe. The promise is received on a credo basis.
Act 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
When it comes to the promise in Acts 2:39, we don't suddenly break from the consistent theme we see in the rest of the New Testament. We don't now say that the promise is given to categories of people irrespective of whether they've heard the word and believed it or not. The promise is indeed to all generations and all people in all places. However, this doesn't mean the way of reception and appropriation is different for different categories of people. The burden is on Paedobaptists to show that the pattern of how this promise is received is different in Acts 2:39 and that there is a separate principle and pattern of reception for those who have not yet heard and believed themselves.
JOEL 2 AND ITS USAGE BY OTHER BIBLICAL AUTHORS
We've already demonstrated that Peter has Joel 2 in mind when we arrive at Acts 2:39 rather than Genesis 17. So Peter does not have in mind a passage that explicitly talks about infants receiving a token of a covenant. We want to further show how this reference to Joel 2 increases the likelihood that Peter does not have Paedobaptism in mind in Acts 2:39 and rather has Credobaptism in mind.
Jol 2:28-32 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
The first thing we want to look at is the language in Joel 2 about people receiving the spirit combined with sons and daughters prophesying. How does this play out in the rest of Acts?
Act 19:4-7 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.
Act 21:8-9 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
The most explicit example that connects the Holy Ghost to prophesying is Acts 19. In that passage, we're explicitly told that this is twelve men. They first heard Paul and attended to what he was saying. So this is clearly on a credo basis. But we also aren't told anything about infants receiving this because a parental representative also received the Holy Ghost.
The other example is Acts 21 which does not give us many details. We are told about Philip's four daughters prophesying. We believe the key detail is the point that these four daughters are "virgins". In the New Testament, someone being denoted as a virgin consistently goes hand in hand with the idea that they are a young adult who is unmarried. Someone being described as a virgin implies that they could feasibly or conceivably be otherwise. Given this, it would seem odd to point out infants as being virgins. This description seems to indicate that Philip's daughters who were prophesying were young adults who weren't married.
When we look at the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 in Acts, we aren't aware of any indication that this is happening to infants. Rather, it's fulfilled in those able to hear and believe. It seems to be on a credo basis.
The second thing we want to look at is how Joel 2:28-32 is utilized by other biblical authors. Is it used on a credo basis?
Jol 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
Rom 10:11-14 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Paul utilizes Joel 2:32 in Romans 10. This is one of the verses in Joel 2 that Peter refers to in Acts 2. It's important to recognize exactly what context Paul places Joel 2:32 in. He places it in a credo context. Paul says there's no difference between the Jew or Greek and then he connects Joel 2:32 to preaching, hearing, and believing.
When we look at the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in the New Testament, we see repeated themes of it being connected to hearing and believing. In light of this, it becomes more likely that if Peter is referencing Joel 2 in Acts 2:39, Acts 2:39 is meant to be applied and appropriated on a credo basis. If Joel 2:28-32 is meant to be taken and applied in a way that includes infants irrespective of personal hearing and faith, we would need a contextual reason in Acts 2 to do so.
PETER'S WORD CHOICES IN ACTS 2
We will now observe various word choices that Peter makes in Acts 2. We will then analyze if his inclusions and exclusions of certain words naturally lend themselves more to the Paedobaptist perspective or the Credobaptist perspective.
Observation 1.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
In verse 38, Peter says "every one of you". Now, if he meant to convey that a parent gladly receiving his word and repenting qualified the receiving of baptism for people that parent represented irrespective of their own hearing and repenting, he could have and arguably should have said something different. He could have said something to the effect of "every one of you for your household" or "every one of you for your children". Peter says nothing of this sort. Contextually, it seems that everyone is supposed to attend to what Peter says and do it also. Meaning that the promise is to everyone, but the promise is appropriated and received by hearing and repenting concerning what was heard.
Observation 2.
Act 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Most Paedobaptists would agree that for older children, the faith of their parents would not qualify them for baptism if they haven't themselves believed. Paedobaptists generally don't baptize older unbelieving children.
"Here is my two cents on this question: They can't. Nevertheless, Our Blessed Lord makes it crystal clear how Baptism is necessary for salvation. Because all parents want what is good for their children, they make that choice for their children, and speak for the children, along with their godparents, at the baptismal font." - Ask A Catholic, How Can An Infant Repent?
"The faith of a parent qualifies a child to be baptized and raised as a disciple of Jesus." - OPC, James Scott, The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism
Yet, as we know, in their view the faith of the parents or other representatives would qualify an infant for baptism even though there's no observable sign that the infant has believed. Here's the problem when we get to Acts 2, where does Peter make a categorical distinction between the self-representational repentance of an older child which qualifies them for baptism, and the representational repentance of a parent for an infant which qualifies them for baptism? Peter makes no such distinction. In their application of Acts 2, Paedobaptists seem forced to create various post hoc categories that Peter does not give to make their view of Acts 2 feasible.
But the Credobaptist perspective requires none of this. The promise is to children. But the promise is appropriated and received by hearing and repenting concerning what was heard. So whichever children meet the prerequisites receive the promise. There is no need to create various categories that Peter doesn't give us to make our theology on the recipients of baptism fit.
Observation 3.
Act 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
In verse 38, there's an indication that those who are to repent and be baptized have committed sins plural. However, most Paedobaptists would say that infants are either guilty of a singular Adamic sin or no sin at all. Granted, this issue is complicated by the vast opinions from various Paedobaptists on what exactly baptism is for and/or does for infants, so this point might be more problematic for some traditions than others, but this detail seems incompatible with an infant being in view unless you want to say infants are actually guilty of plural sins.
We'll format this observation into a syllogism.
P1 Acts 2:38-41 describes the recipients of baptism
P2 According to most Paedobaptists, infants who are baptized don’t have any personal sins yet.
P3 Instead, they view infants as either not guilty of any sins at all or are just guilty of Adam’s singular sin in the garden.
P4 Acts 2:38-41 says of those who are to repent and be baptized that they have sins (plural).
Conclusion: Therefore, if infants don’t have sins (plural) yet, they are not among those Peter says are to be baptized.
Observation 4.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
In verse 41, we're given some details about those who were baptized. Some Paedobaptists will acknowledge that in the immediate context, it's only believers who get baptized. What we want to point out here is that Peter could have mentioned something about covenantal household representation for infant baptism in this verse where he points out who received baptism. Peter doesn't do this though. The idea that a parent or guardian's reception and repentance cover and qualify an infant for baptism is not in Peter's mind.
Observation 5.
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
At the end of Acts 2 in verse 47, we're given additional details about the Lord adding people to the church. This is connected with and/or the result of being saved. How do we see this theme play out in the rest of Acts? Does it fall more in line with a Paedobaptist or Credobaptist view?
Act 5:12-14 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
In Acts 5 we see this type of language with people being "added to the Lord". Compare this language with "the Lord added to the church" in Acts 2:47. So who is added? In Acts 5, it's believers. We're also given further details about who these believers are, they're men and women. We aren't given any details about infants being added or anyone being added who hasn't believed but has had someone else believe as a covenantal household representative for them.
Act 11:19-24 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
In Acts 11, we're told about people who heard the word preached, believed, and turned to the Lord. In verse 24, we're told that "much people were added unto the Lord". Again, compare this with the language in Acts 2:47. Contextually, it seems that those who were added unto the Lord were those who heard, believed, and turned. Again, we aren't given any details about infants being added unto the Lord or anyone being added who hasn't heard, believed, and turned themselves but is added based on a covenantal household representative principle.
What are the implications of this for Acts 2:47? The implication is that it would seem those who are "added" are those who have heard the word and believed it. Addition is therefore on a credo basis. It would seem then, that this bolsters and strengthens the Credobaptist perspective and weakens the Paedobaptist perspective. We know this observation gets us into the question of who exactly is in "the Church" and whether there is a visible versus invisible distinction. That issue aside, our point here is just that the way we see this language used in Acts conveys that whatever Peter has in mind in Acts 2:47 is on a credo basis.
When we look deeper at Peter's word choices in Acts 2, we find that there are at least half a dozen times where Peter could have better or more clearly used words that could be interpreted to indicate Paedobaptism but failed to do so. Let's list them out.
1. By explicitly referencing Genesis 17 like he does with Joel 2 and Psalm 16.
2. By using a Greek word for children which inherently would denote infants rather than using Teknon.
3. By saying something to the effect of “each one of you for your household” rather than “every one of you”.
4. By making a categorical distinction between the repentance for an older child/adult and the representative repentance or lack thereof for an infant.
5. By distinguishing the remission of no sin or a singular original sin for an infant with the remission of many personal sins for older children/adults.
6. By mentioning families or households in verse 41 instead of just those who gladly received.
7. By referencing adding families or households to the church in verse 47 instead of using language in Acts which consistently refers to those who have believed.
To conclude this section, there are multiple points in Acts 2 where Peter's word choices do not lend themselves well to the Paedobaptist view of the passage. In multiple areas, it seems that Paedobaptists have to create various categorical distinctions about both description and baptismal prerequisites for different types of people to make their view feasible. In contrast to this, the Credobaptist view seems more consistent with the descriptions and details that Peter gives us in Acts 2. Various post hoc category distinctions like self-representational repentance and parental-representational repentance aren't needed for the Credobaptist view.
IS OUR VIEW JUST MODERN WESTERN INDIVIDUALISM?
The notion that the Credobaptist view of Acts 2 is modern Western individualism is brought up by some Paedobaptists. While we certainly agree and appreciate that there are themes of familial integrity and corporate unity in the Bible, that is not the only theme in the Bible. Many texts in the Bible do speak to guilt, righteousness, responsibility, and more on an individual or personal level. In Romans 14:11-12, every one of us shall give account of himself to God. In Galatians 6:5, every man shall bear his own burden. In Ezekiel 18:20, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. In Mark 16:16, he that believeth not shall be damned. In Jeremiah 31:30, every one shall die for his own iniquity. We could go on, but our point here is to simply say that the Bible has various themes both individual and corporate. It would be a hasty oversimplification to just assume and read familial representation or covenantal household unity into a passage of the Bible. We must look at the author's intent, word choice, passage references, and context to conclude what theme they're leaning into.
WHY ARE CHILDREN EVEN MENTIONED IN ACTS 2:39?
This is a question raised by some Paedobaptists. The root of this question is that if Peter meant to convey Credobaptism, there'd be no point in mentioning children. Instead, Peter should have just mentioned his immediate audience. They see the mere mention of children as somehow indicating or lending itself to Paedobaptism. This is related to earlier comments we've made on what children mean in Acts 2. We have two points to answer this question.
1. First and foremost, children are mentioned in Acts 2:39 because Peter is referring back to Joel 2.
Jol 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
2. Children are mentioned as a parallel to what the Jews said about Jesus' death and their own children.
Mat 27:24-26 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
When Jesus was delivered to be crucified, the Jews claimed responsibility and placed that responsibility on future generations. In Acts 2, Peter's audience is Jews and he places responsibility on them for Jesus' death in verses 23 and 36. In addition to simply referencing Joel 2, the language of children is also a nod to the prior statement made by the Jews in Matthew 27. But instead of the focus being on responsibility or judgment for Jesus' death, the focus is on the promise coming through that very same death in Acts 2:33. This grace and mercy extends beyond the generation that was responsible for Jesus' death. It's available for all generations in all places. With these points in mind, there's nothing inconvenient or out of place for the Credobaptist perspective with the mere mention of children.
SUMMARIZING OUR ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENTS
We've gone through a lot of arguments and verses. Let's lay out some of the main things we've gone over.
1. Some Paedobaptists argue that "children" in Acts 2:39 inherently means or logically includes infants. But this argument does not stand on its own without additional support in the context because the underlying word for "children" is "teknon" which does not inherently or logically include infants. There were words at Peter's disposal like "brephos" or "paidion" which would better lend itself to this argument, but Peter didn't use either of them in verse 39.
2. We find it more common for Paedobaptists to argue that Acts 2:39 is a direct reference to Genesis 17. From this, they believe since the passage Peter referenced was to "thy seed after thee" and included a token being given to infants, that which Peter is describing in Acts 2:38-39 should be given to infants. So infants should be baptized. But this argument doesn't work because there is a pattern in Acts 2 of when Peter is referencing an Old Testament passage. He explicitly mentions the prophet or biblical figure. Prior to verse 38, he does this for Psalm 16 and Joel 2. Rather than referencing a new passage but failing to mention it, we believe Peter is referring back to Joel 2 again, a passage he already explicltly pointed out in the context. This reference makes sense seeing as there's various points of overlap between Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:38-39.
3. The promise in Acts 2:38-39 is the Holy Spirit according to Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4, and Acts 2:33. In the gospels, we see that this promise is received on a credo basis according to Luke 11:13 and John 7:38-39. In Peter, we also see that this promise is received on a credo basis according to Acts 10:43-47 and Acts 15:7-9. In Paul, we again see that this promise is received on a credo basis according to Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:14, and Ephesians 1:13. When it comes to the promise in Acts 2:39, we don't suddenly break from the consistent theme we see in the rest of the New Testament. It's also received on a credo basis.
4. Assuming our assessment of Acts 2:39 being a reference to Joel 2:28-32 is correct, this bolsters the Credobaptist persepctive further when we look at how it plays out in the rest of Acts. With Acts 19:4-7 and Acts 21:8-9 in mind, the fulfullment and application of the spirit spoken of in Joel 2:28-32 does not seem to have infants in view.
5. There at at least half a dozen times in Acts 2 where Peter could have chosen words or phrases which would better convey Paedobaptism. He doesn't do this though. There are various words and descriptions he uses in verses 38, 39, 41, and 47 that don't lend themselves to the Paedobaptist persepctive on this passage.
WHERE CAN PAEDOBAPTISTS GO FROM HERE?
Given all of the verses, themes, and arguments we've gone over we believe the only way forward for the Paedobaptist perspective on Acts 2:39 is to abandon the parental representational faith view which qualifies an infant as a proper recipient of baptism. A view that says infants aren't proper believers themselves yet but are valid recipients of baptism seems at odds with the context of Acts 2 and various other themes we've gone over. The remaining argument then is to say that as a general principle, infants can hear the word, repent, believe, etc., and therefore be included in all the texts that convey what's happening in Acts 2:38-39 is on a credo basis. This would essentially be a variant of the Paedofaith argument. We won't go in-depth on that argument here but we wanted to point out what seems to be the only way forward from the Paedobaptist perspective on Acts 2:39. Its own merits notwithstanding, this argument is untenable for a few Paedobaptist traditions due to their own theology of infants. If we had to place it somewhere, this argument would most likely have a home in the Lutheran tradition. This argument is where we believe Paedobaptists would have to go to maintain and continue arguing their perspective on Acts 2:39.
We will briefly mention one problem with this argument. If Paedobaptists go down this route, it weakens the argument that Peter meant to reference Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant in Acts 2:39. This route creates a further discontinuity. How so? Well, in Genesis 17 and the Old Testament in general, were infant males circumcised because they were believers? If not, and Peter was referencing Genesis 17, it wouldn't be very congruent to say in Acts 2 that infants are baptized because they're believers.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we attempted to offer a comprehensive critique of the Paedobaptism prooftext of Acts 2:39. We cited various Paedobaptists over 15 times to represent their perspective. We worked through the two primary arguments for Paedobaptism in Acts 2:39. After this, we provided a positive case for Credobaptism in Acts 2 while further demonstrating weaknesses and problems with the Paedobaptist view of the passage. In our view of Acts 2:39, we don't depend on any particular anthropology of humanity or a particular understanding of what baptism does. We don't drag in passages unrelated to the subject matter of Acts 2. Our arguments come directly from Acts 2, the passages explicitly referenced in Acts 2, the promise in Acts 2, and its reception through the New Testament. Our goal is to understand Peter's intent in his message in the context he gave it. We do not believe his intent was to demonstrate the principle of infant baptism and the reception of the promise to those who haven't yet believed the gospel.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment