return to the infant baptism page
Infant Baptism and New
Testament Texts
OUTLINE:
Would you like to comment on this article? If so, then feel free to join the discussion here or here.
I believe the
infant baptism argument is very strong and convincing when based upon Covenant
Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I take the more
“baptistic” approach of looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of
Scripture, just to demonstrate that every
method of approach, properly done,
still leads to the same truth. In this
paper, I do not start with the Abrahamic Covenant, and I do not start with
circumcision in Genesis 17. Rather, I
simply focus on a number of New Testament texts which explicitly teach about
baptism. Let’s see where this approach
leads us.
New Testament Baptism – An Old Testament Doctrine?
When trying to
determine a proper Biblical view of baptism, many people flip over to the
Gospels and start with John the Baptist.
But this is a big mistake!
Starting with John the Baptist to understand baptism is like trying to
understand a movie by watching the last 30 minutes of it. Some of what you watch may be understandable,
but most of it probably will make no sense at all until you first hit the
“rewind” button and watch the first hour and a half. You can’t comprehend the message of a book by
only reading the last 3 chapters.
Neither can you comprehend Biblical baptism by ignoring the Old
Testament.
“But baptism is only found in the New Testament, isn’t it?
No. There are several New Testament passages
which point to specific Old Testament events, and explicitly call them
“baptisms”. So even if we try to start
with the New Testament to study baptism, it just proceeds to point us back to
the Old Testament. The apostle Peter said
that Noah’s flood was a type of baptism.
The apostle Paul said that the Israelites were actually baptized during
the exodus from
“But aren’t these Old Testament ‘baptisms’
irrelevant to the church today?”
No. The New Testament doctrine of baptism was
solidly built upon its historical background which was already established in
the Old Testament. And to remove all
doubt of this, the apostles Peter and Paul explicitly told us that the Old
Testament accounts of baptism are parallel to baptism in the New Testament.
The apostle
Peter talked about Noah’s flood, and then specifically tells us that New
Testament baptism “corresponds to this”:
God's patience waited in the days of
Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons,
were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,
not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear
conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject
to him. (1 Peter 3:20-22)
In the New
Testament, the apostle Paul explicitly says that the Israelites were “baptized”. He also mentions a number of other things
that the Israelites experienced. Then he
goes on to say that these things he wrote down “occurred as examples” for us:
For I do not want you to be ignorant of
the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they
all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual
drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that
rock was Christ. . . . Now these things occurred as examples . . . . (1 Corinthians 10:1-6)
Also, we need to
keep in mind that Hebrews 9, John 3, and Colossians 2 each discuss baptism, and
each point us back to various Old Testament passages as well.
We do need to
carefully consider the baptisms of John the Baptist, baptism in the Holy
Spirit, and water baptism in the New Testament.
But these are the last baptisms we need to consider, not the first. Please join me as we take a look at various Old
Testament baptisms. Then, and only then,
we will see how the Biblical doctrine of baptism made its way into the New
Testament.
Baptism
– A Passage from Darkness to Light
In The Beginning
Before the word
“baptism” is ever used in Scripture, we see darkness and light introduced,
separated by the Holy Spirit and water:
In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness
was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering
over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and
there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)
Notice the
pattern:
1) Darkness
2) The Holy Spirit & water
3) Light
In the beginning
there was darkness, followed by light.
And in between the two, we see the Spirit of God hovering over
water. This is a pattern we see
recapitulated throughout the rest of Scripture.
Of course, I am not saying that a baptism occurred in Genesis chapter
1. Rather, I am suggesting that later in
Scripture, baptism continuously points back to creation. Every time a baptism occurs in Scripture, the
same pattern emerges:
The Great Flood
The earliest explicit reference to baptism in Scripture is Noah's flood in
Genesis 6-9, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. Consider the pattern:
1) Spiritual
darkness (the world is
covered in evil)
2) Water (the flood . .
. also called "baptism")
3) Spiritual light (the
new world begins with 8 people in covenant with God)
The Exodus
Now consider the Israelites' exodus from
1) Bondage in
2) Crossing the Red Sea (water baptism)
3) Freedom from
Cermonial Purifications in the Old Testament
Now consider the various OT ceremonial purifications which Hebrews 9 calls
"baptisms". The pattern holds true:
1) Ceremonial uncleanness - can't approach God (spiritual darkness)
2) Ceremonial purification - (baptisms by blood, water, or both)
3) Ceremonial cleanness - can approach God (spiritual light)
John the Baptist
Then, in the book of John, we see a recapitulation of the first few verses in
Genesis:
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in
the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:1-5)
The world was lying in spiritual darkness, but the Light was coming! And that
Light is Jesus. But who would point the
way to the Light? The next two verses answer this question:
"There came a man who was sent from
God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light,
so that through him all men might believe." (John 1:6-7)
And what was
John's ministry? It was a ministry of baptism, of course. The world was in spiritual darkness, and John
the Baptist came as a voice crying in the wilderness, baptizing people, and
pointing them to the Light. Thus, the pattern is still alive:
1) The world is in spiritual darkness.
2) John baptizes with water --- John points toward the "Light"
3) The "Light of the world" comes.
Spirit Baptism
But Jesus Himself had a far greater baptism to give: the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. This is the baptism toward which all other baptisms point. What happens
in Spirit baptism? The heart is cleansed from sin and is regenerated. Note the
pattern:
1) A soul is in spiritual darkness.
2) Jesus baptizes him/her with the Holy Spirit.
3) The soul is now in spiritual light.
Water Baptism
And what about water baptism in the New Testament? On
the external level, it works the same way:
1) A person is outside the visible church (apparent spiritual darkness).
2) The person is baptized in water.
3) He/She is now inside the visible church (apparent spiritual light).
Notice the very close parallels between water baptism and Spirit baptism. Water
baptism brings one from darkness to light, externally. Spirit baptism brings
one from darkness to light, internally. Both are passages from darkness to
light, but one is with water, while the other is with the Holy Spirit. One is
the sign, while the other is the thing signified.
So, to come full circle, I do not think it is any mere coincidence that we see
the "Spirit of God hovering over the waters" in between the
"darkness" of Genesis 1:2 and the "light" of Genesis 1:3.
Baptism marks the passage from darkness to light, from death to life, from
being an outcast to being in God's presence, from being "formless and
empty" (Gen. 1:2) to being "very good" (Gen. 1:31).
Baptism points back to the passage from darkness to light in creation. It is a sign of cleansing from sin and of regeneration
(i.e. "new creation") by the Holy Spirit.
Now, let’s look
in more detail at each baptism in Scripture:
Noah’s
Flood – The First Baptism
The
earliest explicit reference to baptism in Scripture is Noah's flood in Genesis
6-9, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. The apostle Peter talked about Noah’s
flood, and then specifically tells us that New Testament baptism “corresponds
to this”:
God's patience waited in the days of
Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons,
were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,
not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear
conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject
to him. (1 Peter
3:20-22)
Now, if New
Testament baptism “corresponds” to what happened with Noah and his family, then
we need to turn back to Genesis 6-9 to see just what happened. Peter is telling us that this is the first
place in Scripture where we can learn about baptism.
First, God tells us that everyone
on earth was wicked:
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great
in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
But then God points out someone
special:
“But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. . . .
Noah was a righteous man . . . Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:8-9)
Note that the only one said to be
“righteous” was Noah. Scripture does not
say this about those in Noah’s family.
Then, God said:
“I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to
destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under Heaven; everything that
is on the earth shall die. But I will
establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your
sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” (Genesis 6:17-18)
So, on the basis of Noah’s
righteousness, God saved Noah and his family. Scripture does not say that God found 8
righteous people, who all just happened to be in the same family. Rather, the Bible says that one man walked
with God, and therefore his entire household entered the ark and was saved. ---
And in 1 Peter
3:20-21, the apostle Peter tells us that New Testament baptism looks like this.
At this point, there are some who
will probably try to see some way around what has been demonstrated from the
Scriptures. For example, someone might
say, “Maybe every member of Noah’s family was regenerate.” But I am merely emphasizing what Scripture emphasizes. Is it theoretically
possible that all 6 of Noah's kids were regenerate? I suppose so. But God
didn't seem to figure it was important to tell us this. He easily could have
written, "Noah's family was righteous, blameless among the people of the
time, and they walked with God". But God chose a very different emphasis.
God said, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his
time, and he walked with God." We aren't told about the other 7 people
because their righteousness/unrighteousness before God is apparently unimportant in this context.
God only cares to tell us that He found Noah righteous, one man.
In this same
vein of thinking, notice carefully the very specific wording used in Genesis
7:1 --- "The Lord then said to Noah , 'Go into
the ark, you and your whole family <everyone>, because I have found you <singular> righteous in this generation."
God tells us that He saved Noah and his family, because He found Noah
to be righteous.
Also look at Genesis 6:22 and 7:5 --- "Noah did everything just as God
commanded Him", and "Noah did all that the Lord commanded him."
We are told explicitly, twice, that Noah was obedient to everything the Lord
commanded. But these statements are not made about Noah's family. Of course,
that doesn't mean that they were disobedient, either . . . it just means that
their obedience was not important enough
for God to share with us. We are told in Genesis 7:7 and 7:13 that all 8 of
them went into the ark to escape the flood, but that is a far cry from saying
that all 8 people were obedient to everything that the Lord commanded. In fact,
for all we know, some of Noah's family may have heckled him just as badly as
the surrounding people, up until the day the flood started. After all, they
didn't all enter the ark until the very day the water started pouring out of
the sky (cf. Gen. 7:7). So, we just do not
know either way . . . we cannot say whether Noah's family was a obedient bunch, a disobedient bunch, or a mixture of both.
However, once we get to Genesis 9, the spiritual states of Noah's children
become more clear. Ham is wicked, dishonoring his
father, and his son
So if we are to make any conclusions from the text at all, we have good reason
to assume that the 8 entered the ark as a mixed bunch . . . some regenerate,
and at least one unregenerate.
Genesis 6:8 - Who found favor in God's eyes, Noah himself, or
all 8 of his family?
Answer: only
Noah is mentioned.
Genesis 6:9 - Who was righteous, blameless, and walked with
God?
Answer: only
Noah is mentioned here
And yet, God obviously doesn't mind mentioning Noah's
sons . . . in fact, He mentions them by name in the very next verse, Genesis
6:10. But significantly, God says nothing about their righteousness, like He
had said in verse 9 about Noah. (Rather,
God states that which is especially important about the 3 of them: that they are the sons of Noah.)
So far in Genesis 6, only Noah is said to have found favor with the Lord, and
only Noah is said to walk with God.
Genesis 6:18 - Because of Noah's righteousness, who will be saved? Answer: Noah
and his family
Genesis 6:22 - Who obeyed God's command, Noah, or the whole family of 8?
Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.
Genesis 7:1 - Who did God send into the ark? Answer:
Noah and his whole family
Genesis 7:5 - Who was obedient to God? Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.
Was every member
of Noah's family regenerate? Answer: Apparently not, according to Genesis
9:22-27
Nevertheless, did God bless all three sons
of Noah? Yes, God blessed Noah, and all three of his sons. (Genesis 9:1)
So, here is how this all may be summed up:
1) Noah alone is said to walk with God.
2) Noah alone is said to be obedient.
3) Noah's entire family receives a type of baptism (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).
4) God blesses Noah, and God blesses all 3 of his sons, too.
5) Nevertheless, Ham proves to be wicked, and is thrice-cursed.
A man walks with
God.
That man and his family are baptized.
All family members receive blessings.
Nevertheless, not all are necessarily regenerate.
In the New Testament, the
apostle Paul explicitly says that the Israelites were “baptized”. He also mentions a number of other things
that the Israelites experienced. Then he
goes on to say that these things he wrote down “occurred as examples” for us:
For I do not want you to be ignorant of
the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they
all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual
drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that
rock was Christ. . . . Now these things occurred as examples . . . . (1
Corinthians 10:1-6)
It has been
estimated that over 2 million Israelites crossed the
Why did God save
the Israelites from
The Israelites groaned in their slavery
and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God.
God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with
Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about
them. (Exodus 2:23-25)
So, here is how
this all may be (very briefly) summed up, regarding the exodus of the
Israelites:
1) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally Moses, walked with God.
2) The entire
family (the nation of
3) Every
Israelite partook of Christ in some sense (1 Corinthians 10:6)
4) Nevertheless,
not every Israelite was regenerate.
A man walks with God.
That man and his family are baptized.
All family members receive blessings.
Nevertheless, not all are necessarily regenerate.
There is an
additional point that should be made regarding the baptism of the Israelites in
Exodus 14. If we pay close attention to
the broad context of this redemptive-historical event, a very interesting thing
emerges: a powerful link between baptism and circumcision.
God had
commanded circumcision over 400 years earlier, in Genesis 17. And circumcision did not pass away until well
over 1000 years later, after the coming of Christ. So circumcision was still in effect during
this period of time. Just shortly before
the exodus, God made it clear that He took circumcision very seriously. In fact, in Exodus 4:24, God almost put someone
to death for failing to obey God’s circumcision command! And yet, after the 2,000,000 Israelites are
baptized in the cloud and in the sea, they go 40 years without circumcision
(cf. Joshua 5:5), and God never complains at all! He judged the Israelites for many sins, and
even refused to let Moses cross into the Promised Land because of a single sin
he had committed. But we never see a
repetition of Exodus 4:24. Before the
baptism of the Israelites, God was ready to put someone to death for failure to
circumcise. But after the baptism of the
Israelites, no circumcision was necessary for 40 years. (It is also interesting to note that there is
no Passover for these 40 years, either.
1 Corinthians 10 seems to present the picture that the manna and water
in the desert temporarily took the place of the Passover sacrament, and was a
precursor to the bread and wine of the New Testament Lord’s Supper. But I digress.)
By the way:
Just
as a sidenote, it is interesting to make a brief
observation regarding the Biblical mode of baptism at this point. Peter said that Noah received a type of
baptism. And Paul said that 2 million
Israelites were baptized. But none of
these people were immersed in water!
Rather, it was the enemies of
God that were immersed in both cases. In
Genesis 7:23, we see that all the wicked men on earth were immersed: drowned in the judgment of God. And in Exodus 14:28, we see that all the
Egyptians behind the Israelites were likewise immersed: drowned in the judgment of God. --- But did
God’s people who were baptized get wet at all?
Yes! Psalm 77:17 reveals to us
that God rained upon the Israelites at the time of the Red-Sea-crossing
baptism. God was sprinkling water upon
them! And while we don’t have anything
so explicit concerning Noah and his family, there is at least a possibility
revealed in Genesis 7:7. There, we find
that Noah and his family didn’t enter the ark until the day it started
raining. Is it possible that God
sprinkled water on them too, as part of their “baptism” before entering the
ark? We cannot say for sure. But the possibility cannot be denied. In any case, it is quite clear what happened to the two million Israelites in the
exodus. God sprinkled His covenant
people in their baptisms. But the
immersion of their enemies was the very judgment of God. Which message are we sending by the mode of
baptism we choose today?
OT Ceremonial Purification Baptisms
Hebrews 9
discusses Old Testament worship in the earthly tabernacle. And as a part of this discussion, Hebrews
9:10 mentions “various washings” that were an important part of the Old
Testament system. But, interestingly
enough, the Greek word for “washings” here is “baptismos”,
which simply means “baptisms”, and is used elsewhere in the New Testament as
well. In fact, Young’s Literal
Translation of the Bible reflects this fact in English:
. . . only in
victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till
the time of reformation imposed upon [them].
(Hebrews 9:10)
Thus, we have
yet another New Testament passage discussing baptism, which points us back to
the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews
is telling us that the Old Testament cleansing/purification ceremonies were
called “baptisms”.
A close reading
of John 3:22-26 likewise reveals the correspondence of baptisms and Jewish
purification rituals.
For this current
article, there is one particular Old Testament purification ceremony to which I
want to give particular focus:
Then the LORD spoke to Moses,
saying, “Speak to the children of
Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she
shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall
be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be
circumcised. She shall then continue in
the blood of her purification
thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled.
‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in
her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.
‘When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a
daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt
offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of
the tabernacle of meeting. Then he shall offer it before the LORD, and make
atonement for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a
male or a female.
‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or
two young pigeons—one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So
the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” (Leviticus
12)
Note that the
time of purification (i.e. baptism) is doubled when a woman gives birth to a
girl, compared to when she gives birth to a boy. With a boy, the primary time of purification
is 7 days, and then there are 33 additional days of cleansing. But with a girl, the primary time of
purification is 14 days, and then there are 66 additional days of
cleansing. Why the difference?
Some people have
suggested that God was a misogynist, and just considered little girls to be
twice as unclean as little boys. But
this suggestion fits neither the character of our God, nor the collective
evidence of the Scriptures. As Gallant
has aptly noted:
This cannot be the case;
the cleansing rites for men with discharges and those for women are strongly parallel
(see Lev. 15.13-14, 28-30; the most significant difference is the additional
requirement for the man to wash his clothes and bathe).
Rather,
there is another explanation for the difference that fits the evidence much
better. Gallant continues:
It is better to suppose
that the difference in the period of uncleanness is connected to the other
difference mentioned in Leviticus 12: namely, that the male is circumcised. It is precisely after seven days, when the infant male is
circumcised on the eighth day, that the mother's primary uncleanness comes to
an end; in the case of the female, the mother's primary uncleanness continues
for another seven days.
(Source:
http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/ecclesiology/infantbaptism.htm)
Thus, a woman had
to participate in a purification (baptism) ritual for a total of 80 days when
she gave birth to a little girl. But
when she gave birth to a little boy, he was circumcised, and because of this
circumcision, the mom only had to participate in the purification (baptism) for
a total of 40 days.
There is a
parallel to be seen here:
Thus,
we can hardly say that Colossians 2:11-12 is the only direct Biblical link made
between baptism and circumcision. On the
contrary, Israelites in the early church very likely already had a firm link in
mind between circumcision and baptism, long before Paul even wrote the book of
Colossians.
In
Deuteronomy 30:6, God promised to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites, as
well as the hearts of their descendants.
“Heart circumcision” is a synonym for “regeneration”. Just as the flesh was cut away in the outward
sign of flesh-circumcision, so the sinful carnal nature is cut away when the
Holy Spirit regenerates the heart of a person.
In short, physical circumcision is the sign, and heart circumcision
(regeneration) is the thing signified. Nevertheless,
physical circumcision was applied to infants.
Similarly,
water baptism is a sign, and the washing of regeneration is the thing signified
(cf. Titus 3:5, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, etc.). Thus, if water baptism signifies the same
thing signified by circumcision, then should not the subjects be the same? If Old Testament infants received the sign of
regeneration, then should not New Testament infants also receive the sign of
regeneration?
Of
course, a pivotal text often used to show the link between circumcision and
baptism is Colossians 2:11-12, the text of which follows:
In Him you were also circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you
also were raised with Him
through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Much debate has centered around this text. Some
have suggested that Paul made a direct connection here between physical
circumcision and water baptism. And
understandably, Baptists have vehemently disagreed. After all, the circumcision mentioned here is
a “circumcision made without hands”, and is a reference to heart circumcision,
rather than flesh circumcision.
Some Baptists (such as John Piper),
have suggested here that Paul is drawing a parallel between heart circumcision
and water baptism. But this suggestion
does not help the Baptist position, because physical circumcision was already a
sign of heart circumcision (regeneration) in the Old Testament, as a look at
Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4 and numerous other texts
will show. So, if heart circumcision is
linked to water baptism just as much as it is linked to physical circumcision,
then the paedobaptist argument has been supported, and it stands to reason that
the subjects of water baptism should be the same as the subjects of
circumcision.
But I think Colossians 2:11-12 can
be approached a little more simply. Paul
is simply drawing a tight connection between OT heart-circumcision and NT
spirit-baptism. When people are
Spirit-baptized, they are heart-circumcised.
In short, Col. 2:11-12 says that OT
heart-circumcision prefigured NT spirit-baptism.
I think that some people get
mixed-up whenever they try to use Colossians 2:11-12 to make an immediate and
direct connection between OT physical circumcision and NT physical water
baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 does make a powerful
case for paedobaptism, but only if it is used correctly. Contrary to some arguments that have been
suggested regarding this passage, I would argue as follows:
Ø We know that OT physical
circumcision was an outward picture of heart-circumcision.
Ø We know that NT water baptism is an
outward picture of Spirit-baptism.
Ø In Colossians 2:11-12, the apostle
Paul draws a tight connection between heart-circumcision and
Spirit-baptism. All believers who
receive one, necessarily receive the other as well.
Ø Therefore, since the spiritual
reality behind water baptism is inextricably linked to the spiritual reality
behind circumcision, it only makes sense to also draw a parallel between these
two outward signs, also.
In short, if the spiritual realities are parallel, then the physical
signs should also be parallel.
I think this
makes a much stronger case for
paedobaptism than the "physical circumcision = water baptism"
argument sometimes used in this passage. If the spiritual realities go hand-in-hand, then
how much more should the outward signs do the same!
As we have seen
above, the New Testament itself points us back to numerous Old Testament
passages, in order to teach us about baptism.
The apostle Peter said that Noah’s flood was a type of baptism. The apostle Paul said that the Israelites
were actually baptized during the exodus from
In the New
Testament, the apostle Peter points back to Genesis 6-9. Noah was righteous, so Noah and his family
received a type of baptism. And in 1
Peter 3:20-22, he tells us that New Testament baptism “corresponds to
this”.
In the New Testament,
the apostle Paul points back to Exodus 14-15.
God remembered the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Righteous Moses now led these people. And God baptized all two million of them,
infants and all. Before the baptism, God
strictly required circumcision. But
after the baptism, God allowed all the Israelites to go 40 years without
circumcision.
In the New
Testament, the author to the Hebrews points back to numerous Old Testament
ceremonial cleansings and purifications, and calls these “baptisms”. The apostle John also draws a link between OT
purifications and NT baptism. One of
these OT purifications is found in Leviticus 12, in which purification
(baptism) was performed when babies were newly born. The birth of a girl necessitated 80 total
days of purification (baptism). But the
birth of a boy, due to his circumcision, reduced the length of baptismal
purification by 40 days.
In the New
Testament, the apostle Paul draws an explicit link between heart circumcision
and baptism. It matters not whether we
view the baptism in Colossians 2:11-12 as water baptism, Spirit baptism, or
both. If water baptism is in view, then
Paul is merely saying that water baptism points to heart circumcision, just
like physical circumcision pointed to heart circumcision; thus we would expect
each ordinance to apply to the same subjects (namely: infants). But if Spirit baptism is in view, then Paul
is simply saying that heart circumcision corresponds to Spirit baptism. And if the realities themselves are parallel,
then it follows that the physical administration of the signs should also be
parallel. Either way, infant baptism is
affirmed.
And of course,
we also see John’s baptism in the New Testament, we see baptism by the Holy
Spirit, and we see water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Many people only focus on these baptisms.
But in this article, we have already covered much Biblical ground
concerning baptism, which is logically prior to determining what happened in
New Testament water baptism. And with
all of this information in mind, we need to ask some questions:
v
Is
it logical to assume that the institution of New Testament water baptism
completely ignored all of the Old Testament precursors?
v
Does
it make sense to assume that Peter affirmed baptisms only for individuals,
rather than for entire family households, in light of his explicit statements
in 1 Peter 3?
v
Should
we think that Paul believed in baptism for adults and older-children only, even
though he uses the word “baptized” to describe what happened to even Israelite
infants, and then said that these things happened as “examples” for us?
v
It
is sensible to assume that there is no link between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12, especially in light of the other Biblical evidence
linking the two rites?
I believe the
infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and
the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more
“baptistic” approach of just looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions
of Scripture, just to demonstrate that every
method of approach, properly done,
still leads us to the same truth. These
are some of the truths which have been demonstrated by this method:
Ø
Even
when we look in the New Testament for baptism, we find many passages that point
us back to the Old Testament.
Ø
We
cannot say that the Old Testament types of baptism are irrelevant to the
church, because the apostles Peter and Paul specifically tell us that they are relevant.
Ø
Colossians
2:11-12 is not the only passage of Scripture which links circumcision and
baptism. The Israelite exodus and the
Leviticus 12 purification ceremony each point us to the same truth, as well. (Not to mention the obvious fact that
physical circumcision pointed to heart circumcision, which is just another term
for “regeneration”.)
Furthermore,
close looks at the Noahic and Israelite baptisms
reveal a covenantal, federal headship approach to baptism, rather than an
individualistic approach. And the multiple
links between circumcision and baptism further solidify this covenantal
tie. So, even though this project began
simply by observing numerous explicit New Testament references to baptism, we
end up at the same place where many other baptismal articles begin: with the covenant.
I will not go
into any detail concerning Covenant Theology at this point. Many other authors, far better than I, have
already done this. But since a Biblical
study of New Testament baptism has led us to the doctrine of covenantal
headship, I will close with one of my favorite quotes concerning the membership
of believers’ children in the church:
The argument in a nutshell is simply
this: God established His Church in the
days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts
them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His
Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is
baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision
in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
-B.B. Warfield
Amen!
--- Article by Joseph M. Gleason - Semptember, 2005
Would you like to comment on this article? If so, then feel free to join the discussion here or here.
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a bookmark-friendly copy of this page.