Basic HTML Version
616
spiritual meaning. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart,
Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ezek. 44:7,9, so baptism refers to the washing away of sin,
Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5, and to spiritual renewal, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11,12. The last passage
clearly links up circumcision with baptism, and teaches that the Christ-circumcision, that is,
circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by baptism,
that is, by that which baptism signifies. Cf. also Gal. 3:27,29. But if children received the sign
and seal of the covenant in the old dispensation, the presumption is that they surely have a
right to receive it in the new, to which the pious of the Old Testament were taught to look
forward as a much fuller and richer dispensation. Their exclusion from it would require a clear
and unequivocal statement to that effect, but quite the contrary is found, Matt. 19:14; Acts
2:39; I Cor. 7:14.
(5) As was pointed out in the preceding, the New Testament contains no direct evidence for
the practice of infant baptism in the days of the apostles.
Lambert, after considering and
weighing all the available evidence, expresses his conclusion in the following words: “The New
Testament evidence, then, seems to point to the conclusion that infant baptism, to say the
least, was not the general custom of the apostolic age.”[The Sacraments in the New Testament,
p. 204.] But it need not surprise anyone that there is no direct mention of the baptism of
infants, for in a missionary period like the apostolic age the emphasis would naturally fall on the
baptism of adults. Moreover, conditions were not always favorable to infant baptism. Converts
would not at once have a proper conception of their covenant duties and responsibilities.
Sometimes only one of the parents was converted, and it is quite conceivable that the other
would oppose the baptism of the children. Frequently there was no reasonable assurance that
the parents would educate their children piously and religiously, and yet such assurance was
necessary. At the same time the language of the New Testament is perfectly consistent with a
continuation of the organic administration of the covenant, which required the circumcision of
children, Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:13-16; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14. Moreover, the New Testament
repeatedly speaks of the baptism of households, and gives no indication that this is regarded as
something out of the ordinary, but rather refers to it as a matter of course, Acts 16:15,33; I Cor.
1:16. It is entirely possible, of course, but not very probable, that none of these households
contained children. And if there were infants, it is morally certain that they were baptized along
with the parents. The New Testament certainly contains no evidence that persons born and
reared in Christian families may not be baptized until they have come to years of discretion and
have professed their faith in Christ. There is not the slightest allusion to any such practice.
(6) Wall in the introduction to his History of Infant Baptism points out that in the baptism of
proselytes children of proselytes were often baptized along with their parents;
but Edersheim
says that there was a difference of opinion on this point.[Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah II,