ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS
Condensed from a letter by the Rev. Bob Hackendorf
Since this is an issue of continual debate in the Church, I decided to post this letter, which I wrote to a young couple some years ago, in order to help them work through the question of whether or not Christians should baptize their infant children. Here is (a slightly edited) copy of that letter:
At the onset, I would stress that I think that this is an issue that families should be given permission to act on in accord with their conscience. I would be happy to baptize your children right away, but I would also respect your desire to delay their baptism until a later date.
Interestingly, Martin Luther waited until his youngest son turned 4 to baptize him. No one really knows why he did this, but some have speculated that the delay may have had theological significance. Karl Barth was of the opinion that infant baptism was the biggest mistake the early church ever made. This is a hard issue for people who look at it biblically and historically. However, in the final analysis, I have come to believe that infant baptism is not only highly desirable, but that it was the practice of the Earliest Christians and is taught by Holy Scripture, and therefore is to be practiced by the Church today.
Areas of Agreement
Here are some points that I think we might agree on:
1. Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by Christ himself (Matt 28:18-10).
2. Baptism is to be done with water, in the Name of the Holy Trinity.
3. Baptism is a sign of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and is also representative of the washing away of sins by Holy Ghost. (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21)
Points of Disagreement/Key Questions
1. What is the proper mode of baptism (sprinkle, pour, immerse)?
2. Who is the proper recipient of baptism (infants, or only those old enough to make a conscious faith commitment)?
3. What is the fundamental nature of this Sacrament (is it “something we do for God”, i.e., a testimony of our faith, or, is it “something God does for us” i.e., a mark or seal of His covenant)?
Background
From the start, it must be conceded that the vast majority of Christians from a very early date (possibly from the New Testament era, but this is hard to definitely prove) baptized their infant children. Now of course, this in and of itself does not make the practice correct, but it does, I think, place the burden of proof on those who would reject infant baptism. Or, to put it another way, before we completely reject infant baptism, we should be prepared to explain why infant baptism became the standard practice of the church so early on, and, (perhaps more to the point) why, if believers-only baptism was the apostolic and New Testament practice, the “transition” to infant baptism happened with no documented opposition or protest. The best I can do is to walk through the evidence I understand it and leave you with some concluding thoughts.
The Biblical Data
It is hard to prove much one way or another from the Biblical evidence. Although it is probably true that the early method of baptism was immersion, this does not prove much about *who* was baptized, since the Ancient Catholic and Orthodox practice was the triple immersion of infants (I believe the Eastern Orthodox do this to this day). Somewhere in the British Museum, there is an ancient wood-cut image of an infant King Henry VIII of England being immersed in baptism in Medieval England. It should be noted however, that the interpretation of the Greek verb baptizo (from which we get the word baptize) is really primarily to wash, and only secondarily to immerse. Although in Classical Greek the word meant to immerse, as in “to sink a ship,” by the NT era, the word was a more generic word meaning to cleanse or wash. One evidence of this (I have to apologize- my reference works are already packed, I have to “wing” this from memory) is Mark 7:4
And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.
The word used for “wash” here is baptizo. (There is a good technical discussion about the mode of baptism and the full meaning of the word baptizo at
http://www.mailgate.org.uk/uk/uk.religion.interfaith/msg04862.html
We know that the NT Sacraments have their roots in OT practices– the Eucharist has its roots in Passover, for example, but where does baptism come from? Baptism actually has two OT precedents– circumcision and the various ceremonial washings commanded in the Torah, most notably the mikveh bath (women were required to bathe in the mikveh monthly, and all coverts to Judaism were required to receive this ceremonial washing– but more about this later.)
In terms of circumcision, it was, in many respects, an Old Testament “sacrament.” Circumcision was an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, namely, the outward sign of God’s covenant relationship with his people. Now I, and those who end up supporting infant baptism, would argue that baptism is precisely the NT equivalent of circumcision, pure and simple. The Apostle Paul seems to make this connection himself in Colossians 2:8-15 (ESV):
8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him
Here, Paul seems to be drawing a parallel between baptism and circumcision. We must ask the question, “how are baptism and circumcision similar”? Here are some thoughts:
1. Both baptism and circumcision were outward signs of the covenant God made with His people (see also Genesis 17:10-12). Notice that the infant is customarily circumcised on the eighth day (Gen 21:4, Luke 2:21), which is the day on which infants were often baptized in the Early Church, note also that 8 is the number of resurrection in Scripture, Christ’s resurrection is thought to have taken place on the 8th day (early Christians referred to the Lord’s Day as the eighth day, making the point that Christ’s resurrection was in fact the first day of a New Creation, thus adding a “new day” to the week). In addition, baptismal fonts/pools had eight sides, for the same symbolic reason. Interestingly, the numerical value of the name Iesus in Greek is 888.
2. The application of the outward sign was not a magical cure for sin, or a guarantee of inward spiritual commitment. (see Deut. 10:12-13) In other words, a person could receive the sign of circumcision, but not be “spiritually circumcised”—not everyone who received the outward sign demonstrated the fruits of true commitment to the Lord. So also with baptism—even some baptized as believers show little if any spiritual fruit.
3. Even though the outward sign of circumcision (and later baptism) was not a “bulletproof” guarantee of Salvation, it did represent, in a sacramental fashion (spiritually, symbolically) the promise of God. Notice how the circumcision of the Hebrews in the Wilderness (Joshua 5:2-8) prompted God to declare that "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." (Josh 5:8, ESV) Notice too how the OT foreshadow of Baptism (circumcision) immediately preceded the celebration of the OT foreshadow of Eucharist (Passover) in Joshua 5.
But a less discussed parallel between Jewish practice and Christian Baptism exists in the Mikveh bath. The Mikveh was a pool used for ceremonial cleansings (probably alluded to in Hebrews 9:10—the word “washings” (ESV) is baptizo, the same word translated “baptism” in other places.) The Mikveh had two primary uses—first, as a monthly cleansing for women following their monthly menstrual period, and second, as a rite of initiation for converts to Judaism. Interestingly, both of these functions were actually linked together.
When a family converted to Judaism, all the males were circumcised, and then every family member, male and female, from the youngest infant to the oldest adult, were immersed in the mikveh bath. And, because the mikveh was linked to the reproductive cycle of the woman, this immersion was called “being born from above”—in other words, since the convert hadn’t been fortunate enough to have been born biologically as a Jew, the mikveh was “womb” that gave the convert status as “spiritually born” into the covenant of Abraham.
What John the Baptizer was doing in the Jordan River was a form of a mikveh ritual. And that is why what he was doing was so offensive to the religious establishment of his day—it was implying that they had the outward mark of the covenant (circumcision) but were still lacking the inward “circumcision of the heart” and thus were no better off than unconverted heathen—and indeed, were in need of a spiritual conversion (symbolized by the mikveh immersion). Also, this explains the context of John 3. When Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about being “born from above” (this is probably a better translation than “born again,” although it is possible to understand Jesus’ words both ways) he is using the language of the mikveh conversion ritual. This also makes sense of the references to “water and the spirit” in the same passage. Jesus is saying that being “born (physically) into the covenant is not enough. Like the adult convert, you need to have a spiritual transformation—a second birth “from above”.
Now, the million dollar question is—what did the Early Church do with its mikveh conversion ritual (what we now call the Sacrament of Baptism)? Given the fact that the Jewish precedent is unambiguous—whole families, including infants, were immersed—it is difficult to believe that the early Christians did anything differently. If they did, one might wonder why. Also, if they broke from the Jewish precedent here, one might expect a more explicit requirement to be stated, either in Scripture or Tradition, that unlike Jewish baptism, Christian baptism was only for those of a certain age. Further, one would expect some kind of rule specifying what the proper age might have been. But no such discussions exist. Further, given the Jewish background of whole family baptism, it is not hard to surmise that if their were infants in the household baptized in Acts 16:33, that they too received Christian baptism. It was a very natural assumption in the Jewish context of the NT Church.
Theological Issues
Here, I think the crux of the matter is the question we have already posed: Is baptism primarily something we do for God (an act of testimony and profession) or is baptism something God does for us (the marking of a person for the covenant purposes of God)?
Obviously, whenever an adult convert to Christ is baptized, baptism could serve both functions at once. But when an infant is baptized, the second understanding of the purpose of baptism must be dominant.
There is no quick and easy answer to this, but over time, Cheryl and I have become convinced that baptism is (primarily) something God does for us (an act of grace) and not something we do for God (a good work). This is not to say that baptism saves us, or in any way guarantees admission into heaven. However, it is a way of admitting that none of us can save ourselves, and the whole process is one where God does the giving and we do the receiving. In that light, spiritually, we are all babes, born again by the work of Christ through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the marking of sheep to signify that they belong to the Good Shepherd—and what sheep can brand themselves? It is this line of thought that gradually brought me to believe that infant baptism is both biblical and desirable.
Notice too the logic of the transition between the Old and New Covenant. The New Covenant expands the Covenant Community. The transition from Old to New means that all enter the People of God with equal standing—the covenant boundaries have expanded from ethnic Israel to the “corners of the Earth,” the covenant sign is now applied to both males and females, but credobaptists (those who practice believer’s baptism) would have us believe that the boundaries have receded when it comes to this issue--- formally the infant children of believers were included in the covenant family, now they are to be excluded until their public profession of faith. Imagine a small cicumcized Jewish baby whose family converts to Christianity. The covenantal status of that baby actually suffers a set back (according to credobaptist logic), because before he was a full participant in the covenant, but the New Covenant in Christ’s blood actually disenfranchises this little one. Do we really believe the New Covenant to be less expansive in the reach of God’s grace than the old covenant that Hebrews describes as “obsolete and inferior (Hebrews 8)? For the infants of believers, under credobaptism, the Old Covenant was a better deal!
Finally, it seems to me that whether or not we baptize our infant children says something about how we regard our children. Are they baby believers, or little pagans? Are they inside God’s family or outside. If inside, then why, on what basis? In other words, are they part of the visible Church, or outside the boundaries of the visible Church? Notice what Paul says about the children of believers in I Corinthians 7:14 (ESV): “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” The word “holy” is “hagios,” which elsewhere is simply translated as “saint.” The children of believers are sanctified. They are saints. As such, they are part of the visible church and they should receive the Sacraments of the Church, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion! (this second part is whole other issue for another day!) To say otherwise assumes the children of believers are not saints, but the Bible says they are!
It is true that there is no explicit example of an infant receiving baptism in the NT, but, then again, there is also no explicit example of a female receiving the Eucharist, and yet we administer the Sacrament to both sexes without an explicit biblical mandate. Still, the lack of explicit biblical instruction on the matter will always leave us with some debate as who should receive baptism (and when they should receive it). Both Cheryl and I have a host of Baptist relatives who will disagree with us until we meet in Glory... and I can prove I was right! ;)
To this day, while I allow for sprinkling, pouring and immersion, I have a strong preference for immersion as a mode. But I have come to not only tolerate, but embrace infant baptism. If the Lord blesses us with another baby, we will no doubt baptize him or her early on.
Most importantly, our prayer for your girls (and all our children) is that (regardless of the timing of their baptisms) come to an early and unwavering faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. Our prayers are with you both as you work through this issue and as you prepare for the arrival of these precious girls. May God bless your all richly.
In Christ,
Pastor Bob
