Reflecting on Acts 2:36-41
Very often, when discussions about baptism occur between Baptists and Presbyterians[1] (especially Reformed Baptists such as myself and Presbyterians), Acts 2 comes up in the discussion. Inevitably, we arrive at verse 39, with my Prebyterian brothers pointing to it saying that baptism is also to be given to children, because the promise "is for you and for your children..." and that baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant. The appeal for this understanding is often Genesis 17:
One can see where they might make the comparisons. The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring. The covenant is everlasting, and it is even for foreigners that come to faith (verse 12).[2]
Now don't get me wrong, I very much love my Presbyterian brothers; I'm part of a church that is part of a presbytery association in which there are both presbyterian and baptist churches, including a couple of churches that are both! They are dear brothers, and solid theologians. I would stand back to back with any of them in a fight. I have preached the Gospel alongside some of them in the past, and look forward to doing so again.
Having said that, I do not believe this is a proper understanding of Acts 2 for a few reasons. Before I go into those reasons, however, I want to be sure to take the passage in its context.
First, if we look at verse 39 alone, we can already see the problems with this common paedobaptist and Presbyterian position. The application of the promise, which is rightly understood to be salvation from sin, is very specific, while the application in Genesis 17 is much more general. The last phrase of the sentence in verse 39 qualifies the previous two; that is, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" from the groups of "you" and "your children." To my knowledge, no one affirms that everyone who heard Peter's voice that day was saved; so, only those "whom the Lord our God call[ed] to himself" were saved that day. It follows then, from that fact as well as the qualifying statement at the end of verse 39, that only those children whom God calls to Himself are saved, and then only those children who thus were saved were to be baptized. This flows naturally from verse 38, and is also confirmed in verse 41 with the direct statement that "those who received his word were baptized." Those who received it were baptized, and therefore those who did not were not baptized.
The above is a fairly common way Baptists answer Presbyterians on this verse, and alone it is quite convincing. However, it doesn't completely deal with why the reference to Genesis 17 is incorrect. Didn't Peter have that passage in mind with his statement, at least in some sense? Why does Peter include the statement about the children at all, as they would be included in the first and third statements (the promise is for you, everyone God calls)? After all, the meaning wouldn't be changed if what I am saying is true.
I do believe these are good questions, and they bring us to the second point which is often not visited in this discussion, and it involves something that happened quite recently to these events, the very thing that Peter was talking about in his sermon to the Jews in Acts 2: the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (as can be seen clearly in verses 14-36, especially verse 36, cited above). So then, we move on to Matthew 27, with the relevant section of the text bolded below (emphasis mine of course):
The answer to why Peter included the reference to their children was because he wanted to address what they had said to Pilate in Matthew 27:25.[3] They had called a curse down on their children and on themselves; they knew they were guilty of the blood of Christ, of murdering him, and they also cursed their own children (and probably future generations) with that same guilt! Peter knew this and he wanted to include a measure of comfort to them by emphasizing this point. "Yes, the promise is for you," he effectively says -- "oh, and it is also for your children, the ones on whom you called a curse. God can save you, and He can save them -- anyone the Lord calls can and will be saved."[4]
So, Peter in Acts 2:38-39 is not referring to Genesis 17 at all, but rather to Matthew 27:25, to give hope to his hearers that they and their children can indeed be saved. It's one[5] of the reasons I am still a Baptist, even surrounded by Presbyterians at times, men who I heartily affirm to be solid, Gospel-loving brothers.
Soli Deo Gloria,
David Hewitt
____________________
[1] Technically, the issue is between credobaptists (baptism of believers only) and paedobaptists (baptism of children of believers), but the terms "Baptist" and "Presbyterian" are more often used and probably more easily understood. I many or may not be more specific than the latter in the rest of the post.
[2] Passage such as this (and there are others) are why there is a doctrine that states baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision in much the same way that the Lord's Supper is the fulfillment of Passover. I do affirm this doctrine (even as a Baptist), but do not apply this passage to Acts 2 for the reasons in this post.
[3] If you look at the right sidebar, you'll see a section called "Necessary means of proper Bible study and interpretation." Under it there are three posts, two having to do with context, which is king in all interpretation, the thing by which all other rules are measured. The historical context (immediately following the crucifixion and resurrection), the subject matter in the immediate context (Peter's sermon) and the fact that Matthew 27:25 is speaking about the very thing Peter is talking about (thus we have a passage in the slightly larger context that is referring to the exact same event) all point to this being the right understanding of Peter's reference. To point to Genesis 17 rather than this is to ignore critical, Reformed understanding of hermeneutics.
[4] The applications of this are many, to include the wonderful truth that since God can and does save people who are immediately guilty of the murder of Christ as well as the children of such, how much more can he save us and our own children, wayward as they may be? His salvation is perfect, and His power limitless. Never stop praying for wayward children and friends who need Christ, no matter how hardened they may seem.
[5] There are other passages that are used to justify paedobaptism of course, so this exegesis is by no means the last nail in the coffin on the practice. At the same time, it is certainly a useful tool in the discussion.
Genesis 17:5-12 ESV No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. (6) I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. (7) And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. (8) And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (9) And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (11) You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. (12) He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
One can see where they might make the comparisons. The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring. The covenant is everlasting, and it is even for foreigners that come to faith (verse 12).[2]
Now don't get me wrong, I very much love my Presbyterian brothers; I'm part of a church that is part of a presbytery association in which there are both presbyterian and baptist churches, including a couple of churches that are both! They are dear brothers, and solid theologians. I would stand back to back with any of them in a fight. I have preached the Gospel alongside some of them in the past, and look forward to doing so again.
Having said that, I do not believe this is a proper understanding of Acts 2 for a few reasons. Before I go into those reasons, however, I want to be sure to take the passage in its context.
Acts 2:36-41 ESV Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (37) Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (38) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (39) For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (40) And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." (41) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
First, if we look at verse 39 alone, we can already see the problems with this common paedobaptist and Presbyterian position. The application of the promise, which is rightly understood to be salvation from sin, is very specific, while the application in Genesis 17 is much more general. The last phrase of the sentence in verse 39 qualifies the previous two; that is, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" from the groups of "you" and "your children." To my knowledge, no one affirms that everyone who heard Peter's voice that day was saved; so, only those "whom the Lord our God call[ed] to himself" were saved that day. It follows then, from that fact as well as the qualifying statement at the end of verse 39, that only those children whom God calls to Himself are saved, and then only those children who thus were saved were to be baptized. This flows naturally from verse 38, and is also confirmed in verse 41 with the direct statement that "those who received his word were baptized." Those who received it were baptized, and therefore those who did not were not baptized.
The above is a fairly common way Baptists answer Presbyterians on this verse, and alone it is quite convincing. However, it doesn't completely deal with why the reference to Genesis 17 is incorrect. Didn't Peter have that passage in mind with his statement, at least in some sense? Why does Peter include the statement about the children at all, as they would be included in the first and third statements (the promise is for you, everyone God calls)? After all, the meaning wouldn't be changed if what I am saying is true.
I do believe these are good questions, and they bring us to the second point which is often not visited in this discussion, and it involves something that happened quite recently to these events, the very thing that Peter was talking about in his sermon to the Jews in Acts 2: the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (as can be seen clearly in verses 14-36, especially verse 36, cited above). So then, we move on to Matthew 27, with the relevant section of the text bolded below (emphasis mine of course):
Matthew 27:24-26 ESV So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." (25) And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (26) Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
The answer to why Peter included the reference to their children was because he wanted to address what they had said to Pilate in Matthew 27:25.[3] They had called a curse down on their children and on themselves; they knew they were guilty of the blood of Christ, of murdering him, and they also cursed their own children (and probably future generations) with that same guilt! Peter knew this and he wanted to include a measure of comfort to them by emphasizing this point. "Yes, the promise is for you," he effectively says -- "oh, and it is also for your children, the ones on whom you called a curse. God can save you, and He can save them -- anyone the Lord calls can and will be saved."[4]
So, Peter in Acts 2:38-39 is not referring to Genesis 17 at all, but rather to Matthew 27:25, to give hope to his hearers that they and their children can indeed be saved. It's one[5] of the reasons I am still a Baptist, even surrounded by Presbyterians at times, men who I heartily affirm to be solid, Gospel-loving brothers.
Soli Deo Gloria,
David Hewitt
____________________
[1] Technically, the issue is between credobaptists (baptism of believers only) and paedobaptists (baptism of children of believers), but the terms "Baptist" and "Presbyterian" are more often used and probably more easily understood. I many or may not be more specific than the latter in the rest of the post.
[2] Passage such as this (and there are others) are why there is a doctrine that states baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision in much the same way that the Lord's Supper is the fulfillment of Passover. I do affirm this doctrine (even as a Baptist), but do not apply this passage to Acts 2 for the reasons in this post.
[3] If you look at the right sidebar, you'll see a section called "Necessary means of proper Bible study and interpretation." Under it there are three posts, two having to do with context, which is king in all interpretation, the thing by which all other rules are measured. The historical context (immediately following the crucifixion and resurrection), the subject matter in the immediate context (Peter's sermon) and the fact that Matthew 27:25 is speaking about the very thing Peter is talking about (thus we have a passage in the slightly larger context that is referring to the exact same event) all point to this being the right understanding of Peter's reference. To point to Genesis 17 rather than this is to ignore critical, Reformed understanding of hermeneutics.
[4] The applications of this are many, to include the wonderful truth that since God can and does save people who are immediately guilty of the murder of Christ as well as the children of such, how much more can he save us and our own children, wayward as they may be? His salvation is perfect, and His power limitless. Never stop praying for wayward children and friends who need Christ, no matter how hardened they may seem.
[5] There are other passages that are used to justify paedobaptism of course, so this exegesis is by no means the last nail in the coffin on the practice. At the same time, it is certainly a useful tool in the discussion.
posted by David B. Hewitt at
1:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home