UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to
all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts
2:38–39).
Pedobaptist Interpretation
This verse has often
been used by pedobaptists (those who believe in infant baptism) to show that
the Abrahamic covenant is still in force for believers and their children, and
that therefore both believers and their children should be baptised. Peter was
preaching to the Jews who had gathered for Pentecost (Acts 2:5). The Jews no
doubt understood that the promise of the covenant was not only for them but for
their children as well. They were, after all, specifically instructed to
circumcise their children:
And
I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in
their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee.… This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and
you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised
(Gen 17:7, 10).
In anticipating the inclusion of Gentiles,—“all that are afar off, even as many
as the Lord our God shall call,”—into the church, and the breaking down of the
middle wall between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:11–17), God instituted baptism as
a replacement for circumcision as the symbol of covenant membership. Now, at Pentecost,
the Jews understood that the covenant remains, but those who would receive
Jesus Christ as their Messiah were required to be baptised. That day, about
3,000 “souls” (Greek: psuchê) were baptised and added into the
church (Acts 2:41). It is very likely that these 3,000 souls included women and
children, although in the second survey (Acts 4:4) only the men (Greek: anêr)
were counted. This was a Jewish manner of reckoning based on the headship of
the men.
Now, since all Gentile believers are also children of Abraham (Gal 3:29) and
are grafted into the same olive tree as the Jews, their children are to be
baptised.
Calvin’s comment on Acts 2:39 is typical of the Reformers and will be readily
agreed by all pedobaptists, though some may suggest that Calvin could have
misinterpreted the Anabaptist’s understanding of the verse:
We must note these three degrees, that the promise was
first made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it is
also to be imparted to the Gentiles. We know the reason why the Jews are
preferred before other people; for they are, as it were, the first begotten in
God’s family, yea, they were then separated from other people by a singular
privilege. Therefore Peter observeth a good order, when he giveth the Jews the
pre-eminence. Whereas he adjoineth their children unto them, it dependeth upon
the words of the promise: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after
thee, (Genesis 17:7,) where God doth reckon the children with the fathers in
the grace of adoption.
This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the
Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the
faithful, to be baptised, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy
a starting hole in the allegorical sense, and they expound it thus, that by
children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross
impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thus
because God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare that
the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made
his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of
Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the
same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of
your seed.
Baptist or Anti-Pedobaptist Retort
In
recent days, however, there has arisen anti-pedobaptist or Baptist theologians
who have attempted to dispute this view of Acts 2:39, and have succeeded in
changing the minds of some members in pedobaptist churches. Thus David Kingdon,
one of the most respected Baptist polemists, argues against the pedobaptist
position:
In the first place, the promise of the Spirit includes
the pledge that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young
men shall see visions” (Acts 2:17), which hardly applies to infants. In the
second place, the promise of verse 39 turns upon the phrase “even as many as
the Lord our God shall call.” Paedobaptists commonly distinguish between the
children mentioned, regarding them as covenant children, and those who are afar
off, i.e., born “out of covenant.”
This latter group alone must, they claim, be called to repentance and faith in
order to be baptised. But if one thing is clear it is this; the last phrase of
the verse, concerning God’s call, governs all the preceding phrases. The
promise is not only to those who respond on the day of Pentecost, but also to
their descendants (children) and to those who are either outside the circle of
Judaism or are beyond the confines of the land of Israel to as many of these
groups as God will call. What that call involves is plain to see, the inward
work of the Spirit (“they were pricked in their heart” v. 37), and the response
to that call (“what shall we do?” v. 37) after which one is baptised into the
name of him who is freely offered in the gospel. Plainly the mention of
children in this context provides no warrant whatsoever for infant baptism
(David Kingdon,Children of Abraham [Sussex: Carey Publications
Ltd., n.d.], 88–89).
It is amazing how Kingdon could dismiss the pedobaptist interpretation of this
important passage without any substantive exegesis. But it is no doubt
persuasive for anyone who either has tried to understand the pedobaptist view
and failed, or has already closed their minds to pedobaptism. Therefore in
responding to such a passage, the pedobaptist takes a risk that his arguments
will be dismissed even before it is considered. For it could be dismissed
simply on account: “It is obvious and clear that this verse does not speak
about infant baptism!” The fact that it is not so clear to one who either
understands the pedobaptist position, or one who practices pedobaptism, but
have not thoroughly studied the issue, does not matter. It has been presented
clearly that it does not give any warrant whatsoever for infant baptism, and
that is enough! “If the counter-arguments are so difficult to understand surely
they must be wrong!” But, could it be difficult to understand because of
preconceptions in the mind?
In general, Kingdon’s and other Baptists’ objection to the pedobaptist
interpretation has two prongs. The first is that the phrase “as many as the
Lord our God shall call” must apply to all three groups of people mentioned by
Peter. Thus only the children who are effectually called (“as many as the Lord
our God shall call”) are given the promise of the Spirit. And since children
can only be effectually called when they have come to an age at which they can
exercise faith, young children or infants should not be baptised. The second,
which is related to the first, is that the promise that Peter speaks about is
not the Abrahamic promise, but the promise of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:17),
who is given only to those who are able to exercise faith.
Allow me to show that these two objections cannot be sustained. First, I would
like to point out that when we look at the structure of the sentence, it is not
so certain that the phrase “as many as the Lord our God shall call” applies to
all three groups of people mentioned by Peter. In fact, if anything, the
structure of the sentence suggests otherwise. Second, I would like to show that
grammatically and semantically, the adjectival phrase cannot be applied to the
first two groups. Third, I would like to show that it is an over-simplification
to say that the promise is only a promise of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to
do with the Abrahamic covenant.
Sentence Structure
The
Greek of verse 39 with interlinear translation is as follows:
humin
|
gar
|
estin
|
ê
|
epangelia
|
to you
|
for
|
is
|
the
|
promise
|
kai
|
tois
|
teknois
|
humôn
|
and
|
to the
|
children
|
of yours
|
kai
|
pasin
|
tois
|
eis
|
makran,
|
and
|
to all
|
the
[ones]
|
in
|
far away
[places]
|
hosous
|
an
|
proskalesêtai
|
kurios
|
ho
|
theos
|
hêmôn.
|
as many as
|
may
|
call to
|
[the]
Lord
|
the
|
God
|
of ours
|
The word kai is
the equivalent of the English ‘and.’ Notice that there are only two kai’s.
This means that there are three groups of people rather than four groups of
people mentioned. Kingdon asserts that the adjectival phrase “even as many as
the Lord our God shall call” qualify all three groups. This is, however, not so
certain in the Greek.
You see, the Greek kai used in this way does often makes
each of the conjunctive phrase separate and distinct, so that adjectives
qualifying any of the phrases do not get distributed. Thus, the qualifying
phrase “Jews and proselytes” in Acts 2:10 only applies to “the strangers in
Rome” rather than all the 12 groups of people mentioned prior to Rome. This
interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Cretes and Arabians (v. 11)
occur after the qualifying phrase.
Likewise, in Revelation 16:18 a similar structure occurs: “And there were
voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as
was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.”
The Greek with interlinear word translation is:
kai
|
egenonto
|
astrapai
|
kai
|
phônai
|
and
|
there
were
|
lightnings
|
and
|
voices
|
kai
|
brontai
|
kai
|
seismos
|
egeneto
|
megas,
|
and
|
thunders
|
and
|
an
earthquake
|
happened
|
great,
|
hoios
|
ouk
|
egeneto
|
aph’
|
hou
|
anthrôpos
|
such as
|
not
|
happened
|
from
|
when
|
man
|
egeneto
|
epi
|
tês
|
gês,
|
came into being
|
upon
|
the
|
earth,
|
têlikoutos
|
seismos
|
houtô
|
megas.
|
so mighty
|
an
earthquake
|
so
|
great
|
In
this verse, there are three conjunctive kai (ignore the first
as it is not used conjunctively), and four terms: lightnings, voices, thunders
and earthquake. There is also an adjectival phrase: “such as was not since men
were upon the earth….” We can hardly miss the fact that this adjectival phrase
modifies the earthquake only.
Similarly, most of those who argue that “as many as the Lord our God shall
call” in Acts 2:39 modifies all three terms, will not hesitate to point out
that the adjective “spiritual” in Ephesians 5:19a refers only to songs, and not
to psalms and hymns. This is because the three terms are separated by a kai:
lalountes
|
heautois
|
[en]
|
psalmois
|
speaking
|
to each
other
|
in
|
psalms
|
kai
|
humois
|
kai
|
ôdais
|
pneumatikais,
|
and
|
hymns
|
and
|
songs
|
spiritual
|
This is despite the fact
that a good case can be made to show that ‘psalms,’ ‘hymns’ and ‘songs’ were
regarded as more or less synonymous to the Apostles, and so the adjective
‘spiritual’ (i.e., belonging to the Holy Spirit) can equally be applied to all
three terms.
Strangely however, when it comes to Acts 2:39, these who insist that the
adjective ‘spiritual’ applies only to ‘songs,’ will maintain that “as many as
the Lord our God shall call” applies to all three groups of people mentioned.
Grammar and Semantics
The
second reason why the adjectival qualifier “even as many as the Lord our God
shall call” qualifies only “all that are afar off,” and not to “you” and “to
your children” is because it does not make sense grammatically or semantically.
Grammatically, the verb translated “shall call” (Greek: proskalesêtai)
is in the Greek subjunctive mood. The Greek grammarians James A. Brooks and
Carlton L. Winbery define the subjunctive mood thus:
The subjunctive expresses action or a state of being
which is objectively possible. It is a mood of moderate contingency. It is the
mood of probability. It is used for doubtful assertions. By the nature of the
case the subjunctive deals with the future. As a result it is closely related
to the future indicative, and in some instances a future is used where we might
expect a subjunctive. The future, however, indicates what will take place, the
subjunctive may take place (Syntax of New Testament Greek [University
Press of America, Inc, 1979], 118).
In other words, in the case of Acts 2:39, if the adjectival qualifier is
applied to any of the three groups of persons, it makes the calling of the
persons in the group, a future probability. Now, while it may sound right that
the promise is only to the children that the Lord shall call, it will not be
very meaningful for the Apostle Peter to tell the listeners whom he was going
to baptise (v. 38) that the promise is to as many of them as the Lord shall call.
If he did not have any reason to believe that the Lord had already called them,
or at least to assume that they were already called, why was he ready to
baptise them? Kingdon, himself, points out that those who were hearing Peter’s
message were effectually called (see above), though in reality effectual
calling can never be ascertained infallibly by human observation. In any case,
from a grammatical standpoint, to have the adjectival qualifier applied to the
first group (the immediate hearers of Peter) would contradict what Kingdon
would assert, namely that they have already been effectually called.
To push the argument further, suppose “as many as the Lord our God shall call”
qualifies “you” too; then, according to Kingdon’s reasoning, Peter would
essentially be saying, “Repent and be baptised everyone of you who are already
effectually called… the promise is for you if the Lord might
effectually call you”! I believe, it is not difficult to see the improbability
that this is what Peter meant. Kingdon may argue that the statement is not
wrong since the substance of the promise will eventually only be received by
those whom God does effectually call. This is indeed true, but a qualifier to
the promise in such a manner would hardly be meaningful nor serve to persuade
his hearers. Remember that Acts 2:39 is part of Peter’s sermon which was being
heard. If Peter’s statement was made in a theological treatise, such as in
Romans, we might have some reason to think that Kingdon could be right (despite
it being unusual grammatically), but here the statement is sermonic and immediately
directed to a listening audience.
Indeed, apart from all the grammatical and sentence consideration, a plain,
unbiased reading of the text will show you that “your children” should be
grouped together with “you” as the present recipient of the promise. “As many
as the Lord our God shall call” qualifies the phrase “all that are
afar off.” The promise could not possibly be to “all that are afar
off,” and therefore it is right to qualify the phrase.
The Baptist reader may argue: “But what about the children? These are not
already effectually called: How could the promise of the Holy Spirit be unto
them? If the promise of the Holy Spirit could not be to all that are afar off,
then equally, it cannot be to the children of all the hearers.” This question, I
believe, will be answered in the next point.
The Promise
As
mentioned earlier, the third anti-pedobaptist argument is founded on the fact
that the promise that Peter referred to is really a new or standalone promise
of the Holy Spirit, which can only be made to the elect or to anyone who is
capable of understanding and believing the Gospel. We believe this is not the
case. Rather, Peter was referring to the promise of the Abrahamic covenant:
“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee
in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). The fact is, the promise of the Holy Spirit is
the promise of the Abrahamic covenant.
The first indication of this fact is found in Acts 3:25, where Peter explains
that it was already predicted in the Abrahamic covenant that the “kindreds of
the earth be blessed” through Christ:
Ye
are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our
fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the
earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him
to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities (Acts
3:25–26).
But the most conclusive evidence that the promise of the Holy Spirit referred
by Peter was a promise in the context of the Abrahamic covenant is made by the
Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:14—“That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith.”
It is no doubt, because the promise of the Holy Spirit is really the Abrahamic
promise, that Peter included the children in the promise. Peter’s hearers would
have no problem believing that the promise was to them and their children,
since all of them were Jews and proselytes. These were the covenant people of
the Lord in the Old Testament. Yes, those who did not believe had been cut off.
But here Peter’s audience comprised believing Jews and proselytes. They would
represent the remnant or the olive tree that remained after the unbelieving
branches were broken off. But we know that ultimately only the elect will
receive the promise of the Holy Spirit. Would Peter then be accurate in saying
that the promise to all his hearers (without qualifying, “as many as the Lord
shall call)? Certainly! Remember that they had the sign and seal of the
covenant, namely circumcision. As long as they had the sign and seal of the
covenant and they had not denied Christ, they were to be regarded as God’s
children. Peter had the divine warrant to tell all of them that the promise was
unto them. In the same way, today, though a minister of the Gospel may not tell
everyone without exception that God loves them, he has the warrant to tell the
baptised members of the church (adult and children) that God loves them. The
fact that Peter or other ministers of the Gospel may ultimately be wrong
concerning the individual does not really matter. They do not know the heart of
the individual and cannot judge the heart of the individual, and so they are to
regard the individual according to the seal of the righteousness of faith,
namely circumcision or baptism that is applied to them. That is, as long as
they have the seal of the covenant, it may be said to them that God’s favour is
upon them and that the promise of the covenant belongs to them.
Does this not contradict the Apostle Paul’s assertion in Romans 9:8—“They which
are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed”? No, Paul was referring to
theactual application of the promise, for which only the elect will
receive. Ultimately, only the elect are the children of the promise. However,
as God has not revealed who is elect and who is not, all the children of
believers ought to be treated as covenant children alike. Just as Peter told
his hearers that the promise is for all of them, though there was no way for
him to ascertain that all of them were elect, so in the same way, it was proper
for Peter to say that the promise was unto their children too.
Conclusion
Based on the discussion
above, we have little doubt that the pedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:39 is
correct. The verse does give a very strong case for infant baptism. Of course,
Peter was speaking to the Jews, but he was speaking to them as the covenant
people of God. Today, all Christians,—Gentiles and Jews,—constitute the
covenant people of God (cf. Gal 3:16). The promise of salvation is still unto
us and to our seed: we are not worst off than the Jews, so that we cannot think
of the promise as being to our children more than to any one else in the world.
No, we praise God that He has given us the warrant and hope that the promise
will be applied to our children, and so we treat our children as covenant
children, and we baptise our children in the same hope and confidence that the
faithful believers in the Old Testament had when they circumcised their
children.
—JJ Lim