Infant Baptism in the New Testament

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

The chief Baptist argument against infant baptism is that there is not a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament.  John Gill says, for example:

It is strange ... that among the many thousands baptized in Jerusalem, Samaria, Corinth, and other places, there should be no one instance of any of them bringing their children with them to be baptized, and claiming the privilege of baptism for them upon their own faith, nor of their doing this in any short time after.[1] 

This is a very popular argument and one which has great appeal to those who are not willing to look into the matter and study Scripture carefully.  Many paedobaptist writers have agreed with the argument and defended infant baptism on other grounds.

      

In fact, this Baptist argument, if true, would carry considerable weight.  It would be strange, indeed, if the New Testament advocated infant baptism and included not a single example of such practice.

      

Gill’s argument, however, assumes that just because infants are not specifically mentioned in the recorded instances of baptism in the New Testament, they were not present and were not baptized.  Neither, however, are they mentioned in Exodus 14, which tells the story of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea and was one of the great baptisms of the Old Testament.  Yet we know that they were present and were baptized with the rest of the nation:

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. (Exod. 12:37)

With regard to the lack of an express command, not everything in Scripture is proved or commanded by an express command.  What we need to establish something as our own practice is a warrant by way of precedent, practice, commission, direction, promise, or rule.  We do not look for an express command regarding every New Testament practice.  The keeping of the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week is a good example.

      

We have before us a book by a Baptist writer who argues for the admission of women to the Lord’s Supper, not from an express command regarding the place of women at the Lord’s table (there is no express command or specific instance of women being present at the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament), but by bringing different Scriptures together and drawing conclusions from them.[2]  We only seek to do the same.

      

This same writer states that the New Testament rule for baptizing adult believers “is Christ’s commission to His apostles, which stipulates ... that baptism be administered to professing believers.”[3]  But what rule was John the Baptist following, then, if his baptism is an example of New Testament baptism?  John baptized them not as believers in Christ, but with the command that they had to go on and believe in Him who was to come (Acts 19:4).

      

What is more, there are no examples of teenage children coming for baptism when they are old enough to make their own independent profession of faith.  The argument from silence, in other words, works both ways.

      

Gill also implies that the sheer weight of numbers is against the practice of infant baptism and speaks of thousands being baptized without mention of infants being baptized among them.  In fact, after Pentecost, there are only seven other occasions on which baptism was administered that are recorded in the book of Acts:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (8:12-13)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (8:36-39)

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (9:18)

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.  Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (10:47-48)

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (16:15)

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. (16:31-33)

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (18:8)

There are also two in I Corinthians 1:14 and 16 where Paul speaks of baptizing Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanus:

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (I Cor. 1:14-17)

What is more, of these nine baptisms, five were of households:

• the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48)

• the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15)

• the household of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-33)

• the household of Crispus (Acts 18:8)

• the household of Stephanus (I Cor. 1:16) 

Of these household baptisms we will have more to say, but it must be clear that there is no argument in numbers, for if there is, then it favors an argument for household baptisms.

      

All that aside, however, there are, in fact, two examples of infant baptism in the New Testament in I Corinthians 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:18-20.  Accepting these as examples of infant baptism, however, requires acceptance of some points we will be making in further chapters.  One must, for example, accept the complete unity of the Old and New Testaments and of Israel and the church, in order to accept these verses as examples of infant baptism.

      

Without getting ahead of ourselves, it is evident that

      

1. the references to these two events are found in the New Testament, and

      

2. they are referred to as “baptisms,” using the New Testament word, which the Baptists would say only describes the practice of immersing adult believers.

I Corinthians 10:1-2

The first of these passages is I Corinthians 10:1-2.  There we read:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

This passage:

1. uses the New Testament word, baptism.

2. describes the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea as a baptism.

3. teaches the baptism of infants, in that there were infants among the Israelites, who were also baptized:

And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the LORD. (Exod. 10:9)

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. (Exod. 12:37)

I Corinthians 10:1-2 is a New Testament passage, therefore, that speaks of infants being baptized and gives an example of that practice.

The usual Baptist objection is that this refers back to the Old Testament and is merely a “typical” baptism.  That objection, however, holds no water.  The truth is that all baptisms are typical.  Water baptism is only ever a sign.  There is, therefore, no real difference between the baptism of Israel in the Red Sea and baptism in the New Testament, in that both are with water and both are symbols of our regeneration and the beginning of our new life in Christ.

Baptists also object that these were different kinds of baptisms—the baptism of Israel in the Red Sea being a kind of “national” baptism marking Israel’s birth as a nation.  That, however, contradicts I Corinthians 10:1, 2 which uses the ordinary New Testament word to describe the event and gives no indication at all that this “baptism” was in any way different from any other New Testament baptism.

That the baptism of Israel symbolized regeneration and the beginning of the Christian’s new life is clear from the verses that follow in I Corinthians 10.  These verses speak of eating spiritual meat, drinking spiritual drink and of being followed by Christ.

Not only that, but the Word of God in this passage calls the Israelites “our fathers” and makes the whole of their life an example to us.  We belong to the same family as they did, therefore, and must do as they did, accepting their practice as ours.

There is one more question that needs to be answered about this passage, however: What does it mean to be baptized into Moses?

There is a similar passage in I Corinthians 1:13:

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

              

We do not believe that “to be baptized in the name of Paul … or unto Moses … is on the part of the baptized, to be made the believing and obedient disciples of Paul or Moses.”[4]  Rather we believe that it refers to union with the person in whose name we are baptized.  The very language used bears this out.  The phrase is literally “into the name of” in I Corinthians 1:13, in the great commission, and in I Corinthians 10:2—though translated differently there in the KJV (literally, the Israelites were baptized “into Moses”).

In I Corinthians 1:13, therefore, Paul is making the point that, by baptism, the members in Corinth were not brought into union with him.  Rather (and this is assumed in I Cor. 1:13), through baptism we are brought into union with Christ.

That, of course, leaves the question of what I Corinthians 10:2 means.  We, however, agree here also with Adams, who says:

Make of it what you will, ‘baptized into Moses’ cannot be interpreted apart from “as many as have been baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3), the same teaching found two chapters later in the words: “for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (I Cor. 12:13).[5] 

We would, then, interpret the passage along those lines: that through their “baptism” in the Red Sea the Israelites were identified thereafter with Moses, their mediator.  The history of Moses as mediator bears this out and shows just how closely they were identified.

Galatians 3:27 goes even further in our explanation of the fundamental meaning of baptism “into” Christ by defining it as a “putting on of Christ”:

              

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Nor does the verb necessarily imply any activity on the part of the person who has put on Christ (indeed, how can we who are dead in sins until we put on Christ, be active in putting Him on?).  The Greek verb translated “put on” can mean “to clothe oneself” but can also mean “to be clothed” or “to be invested”—Luke 24:49 uses the word this way:

              

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.

              

Infants may not be able to “put on Christ’s livery,” but they certainly can have it put on them by God.

Hebrews 9:18-20

The other passage is Hebrews 9:18-20.  It reads:

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Here the New Testament proves conclusively that the Jews did baptize, that these baptisms were sprinklings, and that they were applied to children.  In verse 10, the word “washings” of which this is one, is actually the Greek word “baptisms.” This can be checked in a good concordance.  Verse 19, which speaks of one of these baptisms—a sprinkling of blood and water—says that it was applied to all the people.  We know from the Old Testament that all the people means just that.  When the Israelites gathered, they gathered also with their children:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (Exod. 20:12)

On the occasion referred to in Hebrews 9:18-20, they gathered with their children to be baptized.  The same happened at the ratification of the covenant:

Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.  Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day. (Deut. 29:10-15)

              

This is one of the passages, therefore, that stands as a New Testament warrant for infant baptism.  It speaks:

1. of baptism (the New Testament Greek word for baptism is used);

2. of baptism by sprinkling;

3. of the baptism of infants (“all the people”);

4. of this baptism as a pattern for the New Testament, since that is the main point of passage (v. 20).  As the Israelites were baptized, ate the same spiritual meat and drink, and yet perished in the wilderness (they were not all believers), so must we who are also baptized and partake of that spiritual meat and drink beware lest we fall after the same example of unbelief.

      

The argument that this refers back to the Old Testament is beside the point.  The only questions that can legitimately be asked about this baptism are:

      

1. What did it signify?  There can be no doubt that it signified the same thing as all other biblical baptisms—the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ—for it included both blood and water as the following passages so clearly show:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (I Cor. 10:1-4)

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Pet. 3:21)

Especially Hebrews 9:13-14, and 22-23:

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ... And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

      

2. What covenant or testament did it represent? And was that covenant, in any essential features, different from the new covenant?  A comparison of Hebrews 8:10, Exodus 19:5-6 (cf. also Deut. 14:2), I Peter 2:9, and Revelation 1:6 show that they are not different in essentials:

The passages listed compare in this way:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people (Heb. 8:10).

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (Exod. 19:5-6).

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (I Pet. 2:9).

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Rev. 1:6).

We refer our readers to chapter 12 of this section for a more detailed explanation of this point.

The thing that needs to be remembered in all of this, then, is that there is no fundamental difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, even in the matter of baptism.  To think otherwise is to go in the direction of Dispensationalism and to separate the Old Testament and the New Testament.

No more, therefore, than baptism was something new and unheard of to the Israelites when John began baptizing at the River Jordan, is the thought of baptism in the Old Testament a surprise to us.  There is but one people of God, one covenant, and one way of salvation.

[Next section: “Faith, Repentance Discipleship and Baptism”]

==========

FOOTNOTES:

1. Gill, Body of Divinity, vol. II, p. 638.

2. Ibid., pp. 46-47.

3. Ibid., p. 48.

4. Ibid., p. 51.

5. Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, p. 30.