Infant Baptism and Acts 16:31-34
March 27th, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
The absence of a direct command to baptize babies would be easier to overlook if the Bible contained clear evidence that the New Testament church practiced infant baptism. After all, what we do not find mandated in Scripture, we sometimes find modeled there. In an effort to support their view, many paedobaptists point to the baptism of the jailer’s household in Acts 16:31-34 as an example of infants being baptized on the basis of their father’s faith.
Although it is true that the Philippian jailer’s entire household was baptized after he believed in Christ (Acts 16:31–33), the very same passage also indicates that his whole household believed in Christ as well. According to Acts 16:34: “And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household” (emphasis added). In other words, the whole household believed, and therefore only those who believed were baptized.
Some paedobaptists have objected to this translation of Acts 16:34, noting that the Greek participle “having believed” is singular and must therefore refer only to the Philippian jailer, not to the jailer and his household. According to this objection, a better translation of the Greek would be either “and rejoiced with his whole household, he having believed in God” or “having believed in God, he rejoiced with his whole household.” In the words of paedobaptist Bryan Chapell, “The jailer himself believed (singular verb), and his whole house was baptized.”
According to this objection, the singular participle “having believed” precludes the possibility that the household believed along with the jailer. But there are two problems with this argument. First, the verb “rejoiced” is singular as well, so does that mean that the household could not have rejoiced with the jailer either? The phrase “with his whole household” indicates that the household was involved in at least one of these two activities, and yet both activities are expressed with singular verbs. Therefore, paedobaptists are in error to insist that the word “believed” cannot refer to both the jailer and his household because it is singular.
Second, there are two other places in the immediate context where a singular verb is used with two nouns that take part in the action expressed by the verb. In verse 31, Paul and Silas said to the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In this verse, the verbs “believe” and “will be saved” are singular even though they refer to both the jailer and his household believing and being saved. In addition, verse 33 states that “he was baptized, he and all his household.” Once again a singular verb “baptized” is used even though both the jailer and his household were baptized. Therefore, rather than posing a problem, it fits perfectly with the previously established pattern in Acts 16:31–34 for Luke to use a singular verb to describe both the jailer and his household as believing in Christ in verse 34.
In the end, the key question in Acts 16:34 is not whether the participle “having believed” is singular or plural. Instead, the key question is whether the prepositional phrase “with his whole household” modifies the verb “rejoiced” or the participle “having believed.” In other words, did the jailer rejoice with his whole household (the paedobaptist view) or did he believe with his whole household (the baptist view)?
Although either translation is possible, even if we presuppose the paedopbaptist view that the jailer rejoiced with his whole household, this implies the baptist view that the entire household believed as well. As Greg Welty explains,
it would be exceeding strange if (1) the whole household heard the gospel, (2) the jailer believed the gospel but the others rejected it, and (3) the whole household rejoiced that the head of the household believed while they themselves rejected the same message! Only the Baptist view avoids such absurdity.
An additional absurdity concerns the ability of infants to rejoice. According to the paedobaptist interpretation, infants were present in the jailer’s household, and even though they themselves did not believe in Christ, they rejoiced along with their father because of his faith. This raises a question: John the Baptist in Luke 1:44 notwithstanding, is it really possible to affirm that these infants rejoiced apart from a cognitive understanding of what was taking place? Scripture itself indicates that some individuals are simply too young to listen to divine truth with understanding (Neh 8:2–3), and infants would certainly fall into this category. Is it possible, then, to believe that infants could have rejoiced in that which they could not comprehend?
Taken at face value, Acts 16:31-34 sets forth a hearing, believing, and rejoicing household which was baptized in response to its profession of faith, and therefore this passage fits much better with believer’s baptism than infant baptism.
Editor’s Note: Today’s post taken from A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.
I always appreciate sound exposition, and this surely seems to be that, however, it’s interesting that someone would even use this passage in support of “infant” baptism, given that the text never makes mention of an infant. Surely the word “house” or “household” does not necessarily include an infant. Once again, thanks for the thoughtful study.
I have a further question on the whole Philippian jailer thing. I’ve heard it taught that at this time in history, jailers were primarily retired soldiers. They had the experience required to contain the criminal element that the average Joe wouldn’t.
If that’s true (the retired part) then is it not reasonable to assume that there were no little kiddies running around the house anyways?
Greg Welty said it best…it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation.
All of the paedobaptist arguments that I’ve ever come across are either directly tied to, or are inferred from a flawed understanding (misinterpretation of scripture) of Israel and the church. Simplistically, paedobaptists argue that the church has inherited God’s OT covenant promises to the nation of Israel because of Israel’s rejection of their messiah, Jesus. Romans 11 clearly states this is not the case, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Believers on both sides of the arguement have to be extremely careful to not base doctrine (and commands to obey) on inferences and presuppositions. Until we (paedobaptists and traditional baptists) all embrace a common hermeneutic, the debate will rage and confusion will reign. Without a common, agreed upon set of rules of Biblical interpretation, its like trying to compete in an athletic event, with each team playing by two different sets of rules.
The “Philippian Jailer and his family” argument isn’t a straw man Matt set up to easily tear down. Here are two articles defending the paedobaptist view point:
http://www.crcna.org/pages/babies_baptized.cfm
http://www.crcna.org/pages/baptism_new.cfm
The articles mentioned seem like the ususal patchwork arguments that also include praying to Mary and compulsory sabbath observation. I’m sorry, I don’t see it and I don’t know how the reformers could have either.
The Philippian jailor may or may not have been retired but there isn’t anything that I am aware of that states that he couldn’t have been. One reason was the fact that Philippi was a city where retired soldiers often went to live and spend their last years.
Jim K, I agree, that was no strawman. Matt did some careful exegesis. That said, there are other examples of household baptisms that paedobaptists appeal to as well that are not as clear about who believe and was baptized.
Mike, you mentioned a quote from Welty that I believe is too narrow and flawed, “…it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation.”
Welty makes the assertion that there are only 2 responses to the Gospel: 1) Genuinely repent and believe or 2) Genuinely reject the Gospel with disdain. If this were the case, then he has a good point. However, he fails to address another response: Those who receive the Gospel with joy but that joy is temporary and their faith was not genuine. Outwardly it looks like they have receieved the Word even though inwardly they are really rejecting the Word. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 13 concerning the various soils shows that the Word may fall upon rocky soil that receives the Gospel with joy but later proves that it was not genuine.
So it is very possible that that could be the case. Whether he rejoiced with them that he believed or they rejoiced with him that he believed, it is quite possible that they could rejoice and still not be saved!
Ultimately, there is no middle ground between receiving or rejecting Christ (Luke 11:23), but from our viewpoint, a person can surely appear to have received Christ but inside still reject Him.