Infant Baptism and Acts 15:1–29
March 31st, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
The position of infant baptism can be summarized most concisely in just five words: baptism is what circumcision was. In other words, baptism has the same meaning and the same function in the New Testament Church as circumcision did in Old Testament Israel. According to paedobaptist Pierre Marcel:
The New Testament establishes no essential difference between circumcision and baptism; such differences as there are are only formal. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.
As O. Palmer Robertson writes, “In the fullest possible sense, baptism under the new covenant accomplishes all that was represented in circumcision under the old.”
The belief that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant is foundational to the case for infant baptism. According to this argument, if the covenant sign of circumcision was given to infants in Israel, how can the covenant sign of baptism be denied to them in the church? Baptism is what circumcision was and therefore should be applied to infants.
One of the passages which presents a problem for this view is Acts 15:1-29, which contains an account of what is commonly known as the Jerusalem Council. In this passage, it is recorded that some men from Judea began to teach that a man must be circumcised in order to be saved (v. 1). In response, Paul and Barnabas debated these men (v. 2a), and then the apostles and elders decided to meet in Jerusalem to settle the issue (vv. 2b–6). As the leadership in Jerusalem met to discuss whether it was necessary for believers to be circumcised, Peter addressed this question in a speech (vv. 7–12), James addressed it in another speech (vv. 13–21), and the apostles and elders addressed it in a formal letter (vv. 22–29). But nowhere in these 23 verses did any of them breathe a single word about baptism.
The objection here is obvious: If baptism had replaced circumcision in the way that paedobaptism teaches, why didn’t one of them simply say, “Of course you don’t need to be circumcised, because—as we all know—baptism has replaced circumcision!”?
Paedobaptist Mark Ross concedes that “Acts 15 might have been a convenient setting for making the point that baptism had replaced circumcision,” but he fails to offer an explanation for why the apostles did not do so. Instead, he simply states that this “is not by itself a reason to set aside the claim that baptism does replace circumcision in the paedobaptist sense.” To the baptist, this kind of response is less than satisfying.
Other paedobaptists have responded to this objection in an unexpected way. According to Richard Pratt, “At the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), the Christian apostles determined that circumcision would no longer be required of NT believers, and that baptism alone would suffice as the initiatory rite for the Christian church.” Similarly, Douglas Wilson asserts that the response of the Jerusalem Council was that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles because baptism was sufficient for them. Wilson even cites Acts 15:24 as support of this claim. The problem with this response from Pratt and Wilson is that Acts 15:24, like the rest of the chapter, says absolutely nothing about baptism. So the objection remains.
A related question presents a similar problem: If baptism replaced circumcision, why were the two rites practiced side-by-side in the early church? In addition, as Greg Welty asks,
why did Paul bend over backwards to accommodate the Jewish converts’ continuing practice of circumcising their children? (Acts 21:20–26) Why did he not rather challenge the practice as completely inappropriate for Christian converts, since now baptism has replaced circumcision?
According to Wilson, the fact that circumcision continued to be practiced even after Pentecost is an argument in favor of infant baptism: “The infants of believing Jews were given the sign of circumcision, which, even though it was an ordinance that was fading away, still had profound spiritual and covenantal significance.” This, says Wilson, is a clear example of parents placing the sign of the covenant upon their infants in the New Testament era, which argues convincingly for the practice of baptizing the infant children of believers.
The difficulty with Wilson’s argument is that it greatly exaggerates the theological significance of circumcision during this period. According to Wilson,
The writers of the New Testament always treated circumcision as a God-ordained rite with tremendous covenantal significance—either for blessings or cursings. The New Testament contains no indication that the apostles downgraded circumcision from covenantal status to a mere ethnic emblem.
This understanding of circumcision during the first-century church is critical to Wilson’s argument, but it cannot be sustained by the New Testament (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15). For example, consider the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:1–3, which is the only circumcision recorded in the entire New Testament. Even though Timothy’s mother was Jewish, his father was a Greek. This presented a potential cultural difficulty in the ministry of the apostle Paul, who wanted Timothy to serve alongside of him. According to Acts 16:3, “Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” The reason for this circumcision is clearly stated—it was because Paul wanted to be culturally sensitive to the unbelieving Jews in those places where he would be preaching the gospel.
In light of the fact that Timothy was circumcised “because of the Jews who were in those parts” (Acts 16:3), how can Wilson maintain that the New Testament writers “always treated circumcision as a God-ordained rite with tremendous covenantal significance”? How can he insist that “the New Testament contains no indication that the apostles downgraded circumcision from covenantal status to a mere ethnic emblem”? As Thomas Schreiner observes, “Circumcision continued to be allowed among the Jews for cultural reasons, but there is no evidence that it was practiced because of its alleged covenantal value.” If baptism played precisely the same role in the church as circumcision did in Israel, Paul would not have circumcised Timothy.
Matt,
I am enjoying this series–thank you for addressing this issue. I am curious as to how some of the paedobaptists that you cite earlier in the article react to the point you made in regards to Paul baptizing Timothy. Interesting stuff for sure.
Matthew
I meant “circumcising” Timothy instead of “baptizing” Timothy–sorry.
Matthew
Thanks again for another great installment. This is some pretty clear reading of the NT. It is our paedobaptist brothers who start with their presupposition and the find loopholes in the NT in order to sneak it in. However, is seems that once someone has accepted that presupposition, it is almost impossible to get them to see that it simply isn’t there. The rose colored glasses won’t come off. This kind of careful, thoughtful, irenic work is what is needed. Thanks you so much.
Romans 2
29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
How do the paedo-baptists deal with this verse? It seems to me that it says the circumcision has been replace with the circumsision of the heart, not baptism.
“why did Paul bend over backwards to accommodate the Jewish converts’ continuing practice of circumcising their children? (Acts 21:20–26) Why did he not rather challenge the practice as completely inappropriate for Christian converts, since now baptism has replaced circumcision?”
He did just that, throughout the New Testament (See Phil. 3:2-3).
“Romans 2
29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
How do the paedo-baptists deal with this verse? It seems to me that it says the circumcision has been replace with the circumsision of the heart, not baptism.”
Circumcision of the heart is represented by baptism. My pastor has a great comment on Colossians 2:11-12. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul describes how we as Christians have been circumcised “in Him,” which is of course “in Christ.” That circumcision, “in Him”, wasn’t done with a knife in the hands of a man, but is a spiritual act accomplished by our union with Christ. Specifically, as verse 12 completes verse 11, you, the Christian, were circumcised by being baptized (“having been buried with Him in baptism.”) Therefore, whatever circumcision meant, baptism now means. The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant is made obvious by this transfer of a sign. Then a new phrase begins with the repetition of “in Him,” not “in which” (it is the same Greek word as the beginning of verse 11). “In Him you were also raised up.” Just as you died with Christ you have been made alive with Christ. Thus the sign of baptism is not so intimately connected with the symbolism of burial and resurrection, but with the transferred significance of circumcision.
Clearly, that significance of circumcision was given by God as a sign of his covenant promise, a promise given “to you and to your children.” Hence, the sign was given to you and to your children.
That practice carries over into the New Testament. There are many examples of household baptisms very consistent with that practice, but I admit they are somewhat inconclusive regarding whether or not the recipients of baptism were also professed believers. But the Phillippian jailer is different. In Acts 16:33-34 we read about a family being baptized and they rejoiced greatly as a household. But the Greek verb is very specific. They rejoiced together as a household for the reason stated, “He having believed.” That is a singular participle, and it is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis. The emphasis in the grammar is not that the whole house rejoiced because of their faith, but that they rejoiced together and were baptised because he believed! So it is, when I had my children baptized as infants, we rejoiced as a family. And we claimed for our children the promise of God to my children, because they are MY children. They are not the children of unbelievers, but rather set apart to God and the rightful recipients of his covenant promise: “I will be your God and the God of your children.” That baptism did not automatically saved them, but it marked them as the recipients of this great promise, and I have raised them in that context, teaching them from infancy the Scriptures which are able to make them wise unto salvation. (2 Timothy 3:15) What a great hope and encouragement I have as a parent, that God has made a promise to my children. I have responsibilities as a parent, to be sure, but I fulfill my responsibilities with the encouraging confidence that my children are set apart by God’s promise to them through me. Praise the Lord, I have seen the evidence of the Lord fulfilling that promise, and all my children love the Lord their God with a warm and sincere affection.
In Matthew 19:14, Jesus commands us to “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them.” On what basis will a credobaptist do so today>
Puritan Lad,
You have not addressed the Scripture or the point Matt has made here. I would like to here your response.
Jeff
Puritan Lad,
The promise is “…to those whom our Lord will call”. Clearly there are those he will not call, even some believers kids. You skimmed over those verses (and all the other arguements you’ve mentioned) in exactly the way described in an earlier article.
As far as Matthew 19:14, my children have all professed Christ at 3 years old, I think that sufficiently covers that verse. The only way you can know if some one has “come to Jesus” is if they tell you they have…that’s a little tough for an infant.
You need a better case than that.
By the way, where does circumsion of the heart mean anything other than salvation? Because if it does, you’ve just tried to prove baptismal regeneration, and I doubt you really believe that.
Puritan Lad,
The trouble with your “promise” arguement is that if it is a guaranteed promise to the children of believers, then salvation is granted by heredity, not faith. Also, then the logical conclusion of an unregenerate child of a believer, is that the believer really isn’t a believer, after all the promise was guaranteed to their children.
Ever known an believer who has buried an unbelieving child? They’re out there.
Man, this infant baptism series is great. Yet another reason I’m a huge Matt Waymeyer fan (no hagiography there, Matt, just appreciative of your use of your God-given abilities)
Puritan Lad said:
“Praise the Lord, I have seen the evidence of the Lord fulfilling that promise, and all my children love the Lord their God with a warm and sincere affection.”
This is a wonderful testimony and to God be the glory. I can say with certainty that there are plenty of credobaptists with the same testimony.
Matthew Richards
Wow, the Lad proved my point!
Acts 15 is an argument from silence. The Colossians passage I addressed shows that Baptism is to the New Covenant as Circumcision is to the Old Covenant.
I’ll address the “hereditary salvation” charge after work.
Let me ask this while I’m finishing lunch…
Daryl, your argument only makes sense if you equate baptism with salvation. That would be the logical credobaptist conclusion, though very fiew actually beleive this. Are you suggesting that everyone who gets baptized is saved? Are all those who are partakers in the Covenant Born again? What about Simon Magus, who was baptized, yet was unregenerate? What about Judas, to whom Christ presented the elements of the Lord’s Supper, while know he was a devil? Just as there were many in the Old Covenant (circumcision) that were not saved, so there are many in the New Covenant that are not saved.
Puritan Lad,
My point was…if cirumcision of the heart equals salvation (and I think it does) and if baptism represents circumcision of the heart (and you say it does) then…voila…baptism represents salvation, a salvation you can’t know about until the kiddies can talk and tell you that they’ve repented.
That’s the problem. If circumcision of the heart equals salvation…then what business have in baptizing someone whose salvation or non-salvation we cannot know (or even suspect).
Puritan Lad, actually there are none in the New Covenant who are not saved. There are many who who are not saved who go to church, but if we equate “church attendance” with the New Covenant, we will be doing what Scripture never does.
I guess I should have included verses to show why I would make such a statement as my previous post (LOL). Jeremiah 31:31-40.
Puritan Lad,
You asked, “Are you suggesting that everyone who gets baptized is saved?”
No. Everyone who is saved should get baptized. Baptism is a command only for those who are saved. We are buried with Him in the likeness of His death and raised in the newness of life. When we are saved, we identify ourselves with Christ. The outward action of this indentifying is baptism. If someone is not identifying himself with Christ, then he should not be baptized, since baptism is that identifying.
Physical circumcision also signified circumcision of the heart. Circumcision was the command of those who were saved in Old Testament times as well. The whole question is whether you can be regenerate after you have the sign of the covenant. Gen 17:10-11 answers the question for us: yes you can receive the sign of the covenant before regeneration/belief. And, thankfully to the Jews, you did not need to repeat the sign once you came to faith.
Also, again like Daniel pointed out elsewhere, to equate covenant membership with salvation is to force exegetical gymnastics to get around warning passages. You can be in the visible covenant community without being saved.
Puritan Lad,
You said:
“They rejoiced together as a household for the reason stated, “He having believed.” That is a singular participle, and it is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis.”
One of the earlier articles debunked this argument. Please re-read:
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#more-1252
If you are going to apply the “singular participle” argument to “having believed,” you will likewise need to apply the same grammatical logic to “rejoiced,” as well as the rest of the context.
Jared,
You don’t need exegetical gymnastics to get around warning passages. Warnings are one of the means God uses to keep his elect.
If no one fall over a cliff, does that mean we need intellectual gymnastics to explain why there are warning signs posted? No, we just need to acknowledge that the warning signs worked. Just so, we can recognize that God’s warnings work, they keep the elect from falling over the cliff.
Jared,
You said, “You can be in the visible covenant community without being saved.”
Baptism does not enter you into the covenantal community, salvation does. Baptism is, simply put, a profession of faith. It does not have any power to save, or to make someone a member of God’s family. So referring to your statement, you cannot be in the visible covenant community without being saved, because salvation is what enters you into this community. One could claim to be a part without salvation, but that is a false profession of faith. One could be baptized without being saved, but that does not make him a part of the church. Salvation makes you a part of the church, and baptism (whether saved or not) is an outward profession of faith. Nothing more, and nothing less.
note the use of the word “visible.” You are a member of the invisible church by baptism of the spirit. You are members of the visible church by means of water baptism. Covenant membership might be put in similar terms: visible and invisible, invisible being the truly elect. The problem here is not making a distinction between the visible and invisible church (which even the LBC does in Ch. 26).
If you truly believe that “you cannot be in the visible covenant community without being saved, because salvation is what enters [sic] you into this community.” How do I see it? Do they have a glowing cross on their chest? You admit you may be a false professor, so how can you call anyone a part of the VISIBLE community? How about by water baptism…
Jared,
Along with the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church, we should also note the difference between attendance and membership.
If you are going to say that infant baptism is simply an act of making an infant part of the visible church, then by all means, go ahead. It is when we equate baptism with any sort of entrance into the invisible church that we get into error.
Thanks for the correction on the distinction between the visible and the invisible church.
Had the Apostles declared, at the Jerusalem Synod, that “circumcision had been replaced by baptism,” that would not have solved the dilemma, or been a pertinent response to the Judaizing heresy. They maintained the necessity of keeping the Mosaic law (v. 5). The response given emphasized salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone… the same response given in Galatians. When the pure doctrine of our free salvation in Christ is in jeopardy, it is entirely inappropriate to emphasize that one rite has been replaced by another. To make such an argument from silence, rather than from a positive demonstration that circumcision and baptism are unrelated rites, speaks of one having less of an argument than indicated.
Both circumcision and baptism indicated the same spiritual blessings and privileges, and marked entrance into the visible church. There would be nothing inconsistent with someone receiving both rites (as in the case of Jewish infants). Under the Old Testament, only circumcision served in this capacity, and was therefore administered to proselytes from the Gentiles, as well as Israelites (Exod. 12:48, 49). But under the New Testament, after circumcision had become more exclusively identified with the Jewish people as distinguished from Gentiles, and a new rite had been introduced (baptism), circumcision continued in the Christian church only to Jews, while baptism was administered to both Jews and Gentiles. Timothy (who was half Jewish) was circumcised immediately following the Jerusalem Synod, which declared that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised. Acts 21:20-26 (cited in the quote by Welty) demonstrates that children were still regarded as part of God’s covenant people… their baptism is not mentioned, because it was their circumcision which was of importance in this instance.