Hello and welcome. In this article, we will examine a particular argument for Paedobaptism. This is what we're calling the Jewish culture argument. This argument for Paedobaptism is a complimentary and tertiary argument to other arguments we've written about. Namely, the covenantal unity argument. You can read our article about that here. Also, to a lesser extent, the argument that baptism is the new circumcision. You can read our article about that here. Let's begin by framing this argument.
WHAT IS THE JEWISH CULTURE ARGUMENT?
This argument from Paedobaptists is built upon two primary underlying theological assumptions or premises about 1st-century Jewish thought. The first is that 1st-century Jews understood that there is one covenant in redemptive history and that the covenant in the New Testament is simply an external administration of that one covenant. The second is that 1st-century Jews understood that infants were always included in the covenant(s) by being children of believers and therefore always received the covenant signs and ordinances. These two underlying assumptions don't necessarily go hand in hand. Someone could hold to one and not the other. However, these two assumptions are often affirmed together. These two points then filter how the Paedobaptists interpret the actions and thoughts of 1st-century Jews in the Bible. This premise about 1st-century Jewish theological culture is then used to either bolster already affirmed Paedobaptism prooftexts/arguments or create new arguments for Paedobaptism. Let's look at a few examples of this from Paedobaptists.
“But an infant’s right to the covenant, or to Church membership, there was much said of it in the Old Testament, and it was never denied or called in question by any in the Apostles’ days. They were settled, and had a peaceable possession of their privileges ever since Abraham’s time. Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in an infants’ right, very much would have been said of it. The Jews, who tenaciously adhered to their old privileges, would never so silently have suffered their children to be cast out of covenant, without taking notice of it.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance, Chapter 1, Section 4
“It had been absurd to have given a new command for children, seeing they were in the actual possession of their privilege, and had been so ever since Abraham’s time. No one had ever questioned their right and title to the Covenant.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance, Chapter 6, Objection 1.3
“If the terms of the New Covenant had required the exclusion of previously included circumcised Jewish children, and if the nature of the New Covenant did in fact require the exclusion of these previous members, isn’t it odd that this was accomplished in the New Testament with no controversy at all? Not a peep from anybody? Really?” - Doug Wilson, Infant Baptism, 7:50 - 8:10
“But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament, when the Church was instituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now.” - B.B. Warfield, The Works of B.B. Warfield, p. 1775
“The absence of any express formula enforcing the Baptism of infants in Scripture is more especially and emphatically to be regarded as no argument against the practice, but rather an argument on its side.” - James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 2:101
“The silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of infants militates in favor of, rather than against, this practice.” - Pierre Charles Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 191
From these statements, we see that when Paedobaptists take their understanding of the covenants, membership, and reception of covenant signs, and assume this is also how 1st-century Jews understood things we arrive at a few additional arguments for Paedobaptism. Let's list two of them.
1. Because 1st-century Jews understood that the new covenant was another external administration of the same one covenant there has always been in redemptive history, and because the children of believers have always been included in and received the covenant sign, the Jewish audience in the New Testament would have interpreted and understood the reception of the promise and baptism to include their infant children because of the representative faith of their parent(s) regardless of what any passage might say or convey about baptism being for believers without another distinct category being given. This is less of an argument and more of a justification for how baptismal passages are interpreted by some Paedobaptists.
2. The second point is covered in many of the quotes listed above. The silence of an explicit comment, warrant, or command to baptize infants in the New Testament, which on most issues would be taken as a strike or potential indication against a practice, is turned into an argument supposedly in favor of the practice for infant baptism. How so? Well, because the same assumptions are made about the theological culture of 1st-century Jews. Supposedly, the 1st-century Jews all properly understood and agreed with Paedobaptists on how the covenants, their membership, and the reception of signs operate. Therefore, there would be no need to talk about infant baptism in the New Testament because it would already be assumed by all 1st-century Jews.
These are the two primary points derived from the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism.
OUR PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS
This argument is different from a typical argument for a doctrine where various chapters and verses are quoted. Instead, this argument doesn't really cite any verses in particular. The argument seems to rest on three premises.
1. Assume the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism is a valid argument. We won't be addressing the covenantal unity argument here. We already have an article devoted to it that is 37 pages long. You can read it here. If this covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism isn't a valid argument, the Jewish culture argument almost certainly fails as well.
2. Make a historical claim that 1st-century Jews all believed and understood in agreement with the covenantal unity argument regarding the covenants, membership, and reception of covenant signs.
3. Assert that we should derive affirmative doctrines from what the 1st-century Jewish audience would have thought on this issue in light of there being silence about an explicit comment, warrant, or command to baptize infants in the New Testament. Or, put another way, interpret the baptismal and covenantal texts in the New Testament in alignment with the historical claim made about 1st- century Jews in premise 2.
Since we've already written extensively about the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism, we will be working through the second and third premises listed here. Before working through the historical claim, let's look at some biblical texts in the New Testament that might help us understand various covenantal aspects and Jewish thought at the time.
THE JEWISH CULTURE ARGUMENT EXAMINED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT
While the Jewish culture argument is more of a historical argument, we want to begin our examination by looking at scripture in the New Testament that might shed light on the overall theological climate of Judaism in the days of Jesus and his disciples. We will split these up into various categories.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
In the gospel of Matthew, there is a prominent theme of Jesus asking his Jewish audiences if they've not read certain passages of the Old Testament. The implication is, that his audience often didn't understand certain things Jesus expected them to understand. We will see this theme play out further in other verses.
Jesus rebukes the Sadducees:
Mat 22:23-33 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
The Sadducees were a Jewish sect that thrived during the second temple period and Jesus' earthly ministry. In Matthew 22, Jesus corrects some Sadducees on their denial of a resurrection and tells them "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,".
Dissension between Pharisees and Sadducees:
Act 23:6-8 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
In Acts 23, we get more insight into this. Multiple doctrinal disagreements are pointed out between the Sadducees, and another Jewish sect called the Pharisees.
Traditions of men:
Mrk 7:7-13 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
In Mark 7, Jesus has an encounter with the Pharisees and rebukes them for holding to "the tradition of men" and making "the word of God of none effect through your tradition,". Evidently, some of the Pharisees' beliefs weren't grounded in the Old Testament scriptures.
Nicodemus and Jesus:
Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Jhn 3:9-10 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
In John 3, Jesus has an encounter with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. Contextually, it would seem Nicodemus didn't understand the spiritual rebirth Jesus was talking about.
The Jews and the Mosaic Covenant:
2Co 3:13-16 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
In 2 Corinthians, Paul touches on the children of Israel and their understanding of the Old Testament and by extension the law of Moses. Paul says that their minds are blinded and there's a vail upon their hearts when they read Moses. The implication is that Jews as a general rule didn't properly understand the Old Testament.
The circumcision controversy:
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:7-10 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. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Gal 2:3-4 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 5:1-4 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 6:12-13 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
We see practical examples of what Paul said in 2 Corinthians when we look at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 in tandem with Paul's words in Galatians. At least some Jews thought that circumcision and keeping the law were required for salvation. This idea is rebutted by the disciples.
Jews and Jesus' crucifixion:
Mat 26:3-4 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
Jhn 5:16-18 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Jhn 10:30-32 I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Act 3:13-15 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
1Th 2:14-15 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Probably the biggest elephant in the room on this issue is the fact that the Jews repeatedly sought to kill Jesus in the gospels and eventually succeeded.
What kind of picture do these facts paint? How do they inform our understanding of Jewish theological culture in the 1st century? Do these facts paint a picture of Jewish solidarity on theological truth? Remember, the Jewish culture argument is premised on a historical claim that 1st-century Jews all believed and understood in agreement with the covenantal unity argument regarding the covenants, membership, and reception of covenant signs.
Contrary to seeing solidarity on theological truth, in the New Testament we see divisions in doctrine between various Jewish groups, unbiblical traditions, Jewish leaders not understanding scripture, Jews in general not understanding the Old Testament, and more. The theological environment we see in the New Testament is incredibly messy. Based on these details from the New Testament, making a claim about an unspoken and unmentioned universally held true belief among Jews that affect our practice as Christians seems problematic and weak because we see the exact opposite of what we'd expect if this argument was in fact true.
Paedobaptists are likely to respond by arguing that despite these facts, their argument stands because we don't see any controversy about covenant membership or the recipients of baptism in the New Testament. This still presupposes that the Jews had a universal agreement on these issues in the 1st century that is in agreement with the Paedobaptists. This is a claim we'll be working through soon. The purpose of this section was to demonstrate the overall theological climate of Judaism in the days of Jesus and his disciples don't easily lend themselves to this type of argument.
IS THE CREDOBAPTIST VIEW JUST IRRATIONAL?
With the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism, some talk, argue, and assume that no Jew in the 1st century would arrive at believing that baptism is a rite and ordinance for those who have believed in the Messiah for their salvation. Instead, it's assumed that they all believed the New Covenant was just another external administration as the same covenant made with Abraham and that there's a representative genealogical principle of familial unity that qualifies family members for baptism irrespective of their own faith in the Messiah. In this section, we will challenge this assumption and show how it's completely plausible and rational for a 1st-century Jew to arrive at Credobaptism based on the texts of the New Testament. We will break this up into two primary categories.
1. The Gospel & Family Division
Mat 10:16-21 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 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.
Mat 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
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.
Luk 12:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
In each synoptic gospel, Jesus tells us his coming will bring household division. We get the picture that this is the general rule rather than the exception. Jesus says that parents and children will be divided and entire households will be split in two. These passages don't convey that "from henceforth" as Jesus says, there will be a representative genealogical principle of familial unity.
2. The Condition for Spiritual Connection to Abraham
Jhn 1:11-13 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Jhn 8:44-47 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.'
In the gospel of John, we're told that the sons of God are those who have believed on the Son. The birth connected to being a son of God is not related to the flesh. Later in John, we see that while certain Jews had Abraham as a physical father, Jesus questions their spiritual connection to Abraham and says their father is the devil. Jesus then connects being "of God" to hearing and believing God's words. Being "of God" is not connected to physical genealogical descent. This ties back into John 1:11-13.
Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Paul also points this out in Romans 9 where we see that being a child of Abraham according to the flesh does not necessarily equate to being children of God. A physical genealogical connection does not qualify someone as being a spiritual child of God.
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 3:6-7 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
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.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Paul puts all of this together in Galatians, the epistle where he deals with the circumcision controversy (cf. Gal 2:3-4, 5:1-4, 6:12-13). According to Paul, being a child of Abraham spiritually is not derived from or connected to physical genealogy. All of the spiritual connections Paul makes are conditioned upon and received on a credo basis. Verses 14 and 16 summarize these connections. Promises were made to Abraham and his seed Jesus Christ. We are spiritually connected to Abraham as his children through faith in Jesus Christ. Galatians 3 repeatedly de-emphasizes physical genealogy and instead conditions a spiritual connection to the promise of the Spirit, Abraham, and God on the basis of hearing and believing. Those who themselves hear and believe in Christ Jesus are counted as spiritual children of Abraham. This passage doesn't say people are qualified to receive these spiritual connections because of their physical genealogy or who their biological parents are.
Given what we've examined, would it not be possible and rational for a 1st-century Jew to make the following hypothetical observation?
"Well, if Jesus said in the gospels that households would be divided and split up because of his coming; and if physical descent doesn't indicate or qualify anyone for being spiritually descended or connected to Abraham; and if the promise and blessing of Abraham come through Jesus but given to those who have heard and believed; and since receiving the promise either precedes or coincides with baptism; maybe my children should be baptized when they too have heard and believed."
Instead of relying on and appealing to silence to argue what 1st-century Jews might have thought, we appeal to the affirmative statements and details we're given in the New Testament. Because of what we're told in the New Testament about family division due to the gospel and the conditions for spiritual connection to Abraham, we believe it's completely plausible and rational to arrive at the observation provided above.
All of these points play into Credobaptism. Because the Paedobaptism view is often built on covenantal household representational unity, a genealogical principle for covenant promises, and that the promises can be conferred on those who haven’t yet believed but have physical parents who are Christian. Paedobaptists are actually not far off from falling into the same error some Jews are rebuked for in the New Testament. Some Jews believed they were entitled to certain spiritual benefits and promises because of their physical genealogy and the faith of who they were connected to biologically. This incorrect thinking translates very closely to the type of thinking that Paedobaptists have for justifying infant baptism. But as Jesus said in John 8:
Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Jhn 8:44-47 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
With all this being said, let's move onto the historical side of this argument.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE JEWISH CULTURE ARGUMENT
Remember that the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism is largely derived from historical claims about what 1st-century Jews would have thought about the covenants, their membership, and how the reception of signs operates. Therefore, there would be no need to talk about infant baptism in the New Testament because it would already be assumed by all 1st-century Jews. For this historical claim to stand, we should expect evidence of a consensus across many documents dated to the 1st century AD or slightly earlier. One of the most prominent figures who has covered the source material for this claim from the Paedobaptist perspective is Joachim Jeremias, a 20th-century German Lutheran theologian.
“The first direct mention of the baptism of young proselyte children is by Rab Huna (c. 212-297) who describes the procedure at the admission of a young proselyte child whose father had died: ‘He was directed to take the baptismal bath on the grounds of a decision of the court of justice.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 38
“The next witness is Rab Huna’s pupil Abba, who was one of the orators at the funeral ceremony of his teacher in the year 297” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 39
“There follows an utterance of Raba (299-352): ‘If a non-Israelite during her pregnancy becomes a proselyte, then her child does not need the baptismal bath.’ The passage shows that if the birth occurred before the baptism of the mother, the infant was baptized along with the mother on her admission." - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 39
"Lastly we have to mention also the decision handed down from the fourth century AD that sons and daughters of Gentiles who as minors were received into the Jewish faith along with their parents, could reverse the step when they had attained their majority." - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 39
"We see that the oldest rabbinic sources take it completely for granted that the children, even the smallest children, were admitted with their parents into the Jewish faith; the case is nowherementioned, and is almost inconceivable for the feeling of the times, where on the admission of both parents the children who were minors remained Gentiles." - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 39
In his book titled "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries", Jeremias goes over primary Jewish sources for proselyte baptism being given to children. He lists four sources. Two are dated to the mid-late 3rd century AD. The other two are dated to the 4th century AD. Regardless of the content and validity of these sources, the problem is that they are far too late to make a universal or generic claim about the early 1st-century Jewish audience of the New Testament. To read these sources back into the 1st-century audience of the New Testament would be like reading the canons of a church council in the 5th or 6th century back into 2nd-century Christianity and assuming that these beliefs universally or generally transfer back to the earlier period. This isn't to say that those beliefs wouldn't go back that far, but you'd need sources from the earlier period to validate the claim of continuity. We cannot simply assume something was affirmed in an earlier period because it was mentioned in a later period. It would be one thing if Paedobaptists were arguing that it's merely a possibility that 1st-century Jews had these beliefs in common with them. However, this is not how the argument is commonly framed. The argument is commonly framed that this is the universal and standard Jewish understanding in the 1st century.
Presbyterian minister Steven Nicoletti also makes this observation about the dating of early Jewish sources for proselyte baptism. In light of the sources we've seen, we're not convinced of the historical claims included in the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism. To make any broad statements about what 1st-century Jews would have thought or believed, we would need a consensus of 1st-century sources. Unfortunately, the majority of evidence for this claim seems to come from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. This leads us to our next section.“Regarding how proselyte baptism related to the infants of converts to Judaism in the first century, Jeremias argues that since ‘the oldest rabbinic sources’ that address the topic ‘take it completely for granted’ that the children of converts would be baptised along with their parents, we can assume that this was the common practice. However Jeremias himself acknowledges that the earliest direct references to proselyte baptism being administered to infants originate between the end of the third and the middle of the fourth centuries AD. This leaves us with a long period of initial silence regarding proselyte infant baptism, in a pattern of data not unlike that which we have regarding Christian infant baptism, though our first direct reference to Christian infant baptism actually comes earlier (early in the third century).” - Steven Nicoletti, Infant Baptism in the First-Century Presupposition Pool, 4.4
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE JEWISH CULTURE ARGUMENT
Remember that the argument rests on the premise that there is such a consensus on certain aspects of 1st-century Jewish theological culture. What do we need to show historically to invalidate or at least undermine and weaken the Jewish culture argument? Well, in light of the premise, we would need to demonstrate that there wasn't a consensus among 1st-century Jews. If there isn't a clear consensus, the underlying premise and assumption become unreliable. We don't need to demonstrate a consensus of opinion that aligns with our perspective. Instead, we only need to show that the relevant primary sources are conflicting or diverse enough to invalidate a historical assumption. Our ultimate goal is to get people back to making arguments from the affirmative details and data given to us in the New Testament rather than making historical appeals from silence.
The historical evidence we will cover in this section ranges in dating between the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD. There is unfortunately not much Jewish source material to go off of that is dated to the 1st century AD. By referencing sources dated before the time frame of relevance here, we are simply showing various thoughts and ideas that could have been present by the time we get to the early 1st century AD. Let's begin.
Intertestamental Jewish Texts on the Covenants
Sirach 44:10-12 But these were men of mercy, whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten; their prosperity will remain with their descendants, and their inheritance to their children’s children. Their descendants stand by the covenants; their children also, for their sake.
Sirach 44:17-18 Noah was found perfect and righteous; in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange; therefore a remnant was left to the earth when the flood came. Everlasting covenants were made with him that all flesh should not be blotted out by a flood.
Wisdom 18:22 He conquered the wrath not by strength of body, not by force of arms, but by his word he subdued the avenger, appealing to the oaths and covenants given to our ancestors.
2 Maccabees 8:15 They prayed that if God was not willing to do this for their sake alone, he might be willing to rescue them because of the covenants he had made with their ancestors, and because he, the great and wonderful God, had called them to be his people.
When we look at the intertestamental texts from a couple centuries before the New Testament, we see a few references to the biblical covenants. Remember, one of the points for the Jewish culture argument is the notion that 1st-century Jews understood the biblical covenants in such a way that inherently lends itself to Paedobaptism. This supposed understanding is often framed as falling under the umbrella of covenant theology. Let's look back at one quote from earlier from Michael Harrison.
“But an infant’s right to the covenant, or to Church membership, there was much said of it in the Old Testament, and it was never denied or called in question by any in the Apostles’ days. They were settled, and had a peaceable possession of their privileges ever since Abraham’s time. Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in an infants’ right, very much would have been said of it. The Jews, who tenaciously adhered to their old privileges, would never so silently have suffered their children to be cast out of covenant, without taking notice of it.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance, Chapter 1, Section 4
The basic idea is that there is one covenant in redemptive history with various external administrations. Since there's one covenant, if infants have the right to "the covenant" as Harrison says, and the New Covenant in the New Testament is the same covenant, then it is argued that infants are included as appropriate recipients of signs and ordinances by default. The problem is, that various intertestamental texts don't give us the sense of there being one covenant in redemptive history with various external administrations. Rather, it seems that multiple distinct covenants have been given. With this in mind, we shouldn't assume the 1st-century Jews had a specific understanding of the biblical covenants that lend themselves to Paedobaptism. This idea would need to be argued from the affirmative data we're given in the New Testament.
Qumran Caves Scrolls on Covenant Membership
The Qumran scrolls are a set of ancient Jewish manuscripts from the Second Temple period. The following texts we'll look at are documents dated between the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD.
“For for his life, the book of the rule of the community. They shall seek God with a whole heart and soul; they shall do what is good and right before him in accordance with that which he commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets; they shall love all that he has chosen and hate all that he has rejected; they shall keep away from all evil and cling to all good works; they shall practice truth, righteousness, and justice in the land and not continue walking in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and of lustful eyes, committing all evil. They shall admit into the covenant of love all those who willingly offer themselves to observe the statutes of God, so that they may be joined to the counsel of God and may walk perfectly before him in accordance with all the things that have been revealed at the times appointed for their revelation and so that they may love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the plan of God, and may hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in the vengeance of God. And all those who willingly offer themselves to his truth shall bring all their knowledge, their abilities, and their wealth into the community of God, that they may purify their knowledge in the truth of the statutes of God and may order their abilities according to his perfect ways and all their wealth according to his righteous counsel.” - The Community Rule, Column I, 1-13
“These are the counsels of the spirit for the sons of truth in the world. The visitation of all those who walk in it will be healing, abundant peace with long life, fruitfulness with every everlasting blessing, eternal joy with life forever, and a crown of glory with a garment of honor in eternal light.” - The Community Rule, Column IV, 6-8
“The history of all the sons of men is constituted by these (two spirits): in their (two) classes all their hosts in their generations have an inheritance, and in their ways they walk. All the work that they do (is carried out) in relation to their (two) classes, depending on whether a man’s inheritance is great or small, for all the times of eternity. For God has established them in equal parts until the last time and has put eternal enmity between their (two) classes. An abomination to truth are the actions of injustice, and an abomination to injustice are all the ways of truth; there is a fierce struggle between all their principles, for they do not walk together. But God in his mysterious insight and glorious wisdom has assigned an end to the existence of injustice, and at the appointed time of the visitation he will destroy it forever. Then truth will appear in the world forever, for it has defiled itself in the ways of wickedness during the reign of injustice until the time decreed for judgment. Then God will purify by his truth all the deeds of man and will refine for himself the frame of man, removing all spirit of injustice from within his flesh, and purifying him by the spirit of holiness from every wicked action. And he will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purification (to remove) all the abominations of falsehood (in which) he has defiled himself through the spirit of impurity, so that the upright may have understanding in the knowledge of the Most High, and the perfect of way insight into the wisdom of the sons of heaven. For it is they whom God has chosen for the eternal covenant, and to them shall all the glory of Adam belong.” - The Community Rule, Column IV, 15-23
“Everyone who joins the council of the community shall enter into the covenant of God in the presence of all those who willingly offer themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to return to the law of Moses with all his heart and soul, following all that he has commanded and in accordance with all that has been revealed from it to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and seek his will, and to the multitude of the men of their covenant who together willingly offer themselves for his truth and to walk according to his will. He shall undertake by the covenant to separate himself from all the men of injustice who walk in the way of wickedness. For they are not counted in his covenant because they have not sought or consulted him about his statutes in order to know the hidden things in which they have guiltily gone astray,” - The Community Rule, Column V, 7-12
“Anyone who willingly offers himself from Israel to join the council of the community, the officer in charge at the head of the many shall examine him with respect to his insight and his deeds. If he is suited to the discipline, he shall admit him into the covenant that he may return to the truth and turn aside from all injustice and shall instruct him in all the rules of the community.” - The Community Rule, Column VI, 13-15
The Community Rule makes multiple references to covenant and covenant entrance. Andreas Hauw makes the following observations:
“Since 1QS [The Community Rule] is not concerned with Israel’s past, the promises of a land and offspring (in terms of a nation and people) are absent and now shift to the individualistic promises of peace and long life (iv.6-8).” - Andreas Hauw, The New Covenant at Qumran, p. 15
“The main difference between them is the complete absence of past history in 1QS [The Community Rule]. No past covenants are considered in the present covenant. The human partner must choose to enter the covenant with God, thus human response takes an important role in this relationship.” - Andreas Hauw, The New Covenant at Qumran, p. 20
As Hauw observes, The Community Rule seems to ground covenant entrance on willingly offering yourself to observe God's statutes as Column I, 1-13 says. This is repeated in Column V, 7-12. Column VI mentions an examination period before being admitted to the covenant. This again is grounded in someone who "willingly offers himself". Column IV tells us about an "eternal covenant". The people who are chosen for it are those who are upright and walk in spirit and truth. Hauw makes the additional observation that in The Community Rule, "no past covenants are considered". This does not lend itself to the idea that 1st-century Jews would have understood there to be a single covenant with various external administrations. Rather, this seems to indicate an understanding of various distinct covenants.
“Whoever enters the covenant for all Israel, this is a perpetual observance: Any children who reach the age to be included in the registrants, they shall impose the covenant oath upon them. This is the rule during all the era of wickedness for all who repent of the wicked ways: One the day he speaks to the overseer of the general membership, they shall register him by the oath of the covenant that Moses made with Israel, the covenant to return to the laws of Moses with a whole heart, and to return with a whole spirit to that which is found therein to do during the era of [wickedness]. No one is allowed to tell him the rules until he appears before the Overseer, so that he, the Overseer, is not fooled by him when he examines him; and when he imposes upon him the oath to return to the law of Moses with a whole heart and with a whole soul, they are innocent with respect to him if he proves false. Everything that is revealed from the law for the multitude of the Camp, and of which he (the postulant) is capable, the Overseer should tell him and command him to study for one full year; and then according to his knowledge he may draw near. But no one who is a fool or insane may enter; and no simpleton or ignoramus or one with eyes too weak to see or lame or crippled of deaf or minor child, none of these shall enter the congregation, for the holy angels are in your midst.” - The Damascus Document, 15:5-17
If The Community Rule was ambiguous or unclear, The Damascus Document is explicit. Andreas Hauw makes the following observations:
“So, CD [The Damascus Document] asserts that community membership is only for those that pledge to adhere to the covenant on their own terms (“enter the covenant”). Therefore, this covenant is in effect not for the whole of Israel, but only to a particular group. In other words, emphasis changes from an ethnically broad covenant, such as the Sinaitic Covenant, to a particularistic covenant in which human faithfulness is still demanded.” - Andreas Hauw, The New Covenant at Qumran, p. 10
As Hauw observes, The Damascus Document seems to ground covenant entrance for those who "pledge to adhere to the covenant on their own terms". In 15:5-17, we're told that children are not included in the registrants of the covenants from birth. Rather, they have to reach a particular age first. Later on in the same section, it's said of minor children that "none of these shall enter the congregation". This shows a clear distinction in membership and rights between certain age groups.
From the rather small sample size of primary Jewish sources that fall within a 1st-century AD dating or slightly earlier, we can see there wasn't a clear unanimous consensus among Jews when it comes to covenants and membership that lend themselves to the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism. Some sources seem to articulate covenant membership and entrance in a way that is opposed to what we would expect to see if there was a consensus. In our estimation, the underlying premise and assumptions of the Jewish culture argument fail due to these details.
CONCLUSION
Admittedly, this argument is usually difficult to address biblically because it's grounded in silence and historical claims. In this article, we've interacted with the distinct claims of the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism both biblically and historically. Let's summarize our findings and points.
1. The theological environment we see in the New Testament is incredibly messy. Based on these details from the New Testament, making a claim about an unspoken and unmentioned universally held true belief among Jews that affect our practice as Christians seems problematic and weak because we see the exact opposite of what we'd expect if this argument was in fact true.
2. In fact, based on the information we're given in the New Testament about familial divisions due to the gospel and spiritual connection to Abraham we believe the principles of Credobaptism could have been understood by any Jew in the 1st century.
3. Most of the extrabiblical historical sources used to support the Paedobaptist assumptions about 1st-century Jewish theological culture are between 200 to 300 or more years too late. They aren't dated to the 1st century. It's therefore unreliable and incorrect to read these sources back into the 1st-century theological culture of Jews and assume universality. In fact, we don't even have a plethora of 1st-century Jewish sources available to form any real conclusive opinion on what Jews would have thought in the New Testament. In light of this, we should restrict ourselves to forming arguments that affect our faith and practice to the actual affirmative details we're given in the New Testament.
4. In addition to not having a plethora of conclusive 1st-century documents that support the Paedobaptist assumptions, there are actually Jewish documents dated between the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD which undermine various aspects of the historical assumptions made by the Jewish culture argument. It is on these grounds as well that we find it to be incorrect for Paedobaptists to assume that 1st-century Jews all had particular unmentioned beliefs which lend themselves to the Jewish culture argument.
With all of this being said, we believe Paedobaptists and Credobaptists alike should return to the texts of scripture to determine what Jesus and his disciples believed and taught. The scriptures are where we should ground all of our arguments and beliefs that affect faith and practice. If we are to believe anything about who should be baptized, we should believe it because of what the Bible says and not because of an assumed and unmentioned universally affirmed interpretive grid that alters entire doctrines. In the end, we find the Jewish culture argument for Paedobaptism to be unconvincing and lacking any conclusive evidence both biblically and historically. Let's return to the scriptures.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment