Acts 2:39
Subjects of Baptism, Part 5
Pastor Martin continues his series on the subjects of baptism by examining indirect biblical evidence often cited for infant baptism. He refutes the use of Acts 2:39, arguing that the promise of the Spirit is conditioned on repentance and faith for all, Jew and Gentile, not on covenant status for children. He then addresses 1 Corinthians 7:14, demonstrating that the 'holiness' of children is paralleled by the 'sanctification' of an unbelieving spouse, neither of which implies church membership or a warrant for baptism. Finally, he briefly considers Ephesians 6:1, concluding that children being addressed in an epistle does not prove church membership but rather their presence in public worship.
Primary Texts
Topics
Outline 10 sections · 53 min
- Introduction and Review of Matthew 19 0:01
- Examining Acts 2:39 – The Promise to You and Your Children 3:57
- Exegetical Analysis of Acts 2:39 – Recipients of the Promise 8:36
- Exegetical Analysis of Acts 2:39 – Identity and Reception of the Promise 16:51
- Pastoral Application and Anecdote on Acts 2:39 25:13
- Examining 1 Corinthians 7:14 – 'Now They Are Holy' 29:56
- Refuting 1 Corinthians 7:14 – Parallel with Unbelieving Spouse 35:08
- Paedobaptist Responses and Alternative Interpretations of 1 Corinthians 7:14 41:34
- Examining Ephesians 6:1 – Children Obey Your Parents 49:12
- Conclusion and Prayer 51:22
Key Quotes
“And therefore, since they are included with their parents in the covenant community, they ought to receive the sign of that inclusion, which in the Old Testament was circumcision and which now is baptism.”
“Peter is not here articulating the principle of believers and their seed. Peter is appealing to lost men to turn away from their sins and to come to Christ.”
“The only limitation which is placed upon this promise is the reception of the call of God. Whether you're a Jew, or of the posterity, of the Jews, or whether you're a Greek, or whether you're any other nationality, the only limitation that God places upon this promise is that they are as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him.”
“If you do not repent, if you do not believe, you will not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, no matter who you are. And you will not enter into the Abrahamic blessing.”
“Now, what a confession from a godly, precious man of God who had no more fortress for the practice for 30 years than this flimsy fortress.”
“So therefore, if this then applies that the federal holiness warrants church membership for the child, it warrants it for the spouse. And if it warrants baptism for the child, it warrants baptism for the spouse.”
“But this argument presupposes that the children like the unbelieving husband and wife were not members of the church. And the text therefore furnishes decisive proof that infant church membership was unknown in the time of the apostles.”
“You don't desert your family simply because you are not you only embrace the gospel. That was the issue.”
Applications
All listeners
- We must not only hold out before the unconverted the threat of judgment, but in the preaching of the gospel, we must also lay out before them the promise of the blessing of the Holy Spirit that comes to those who repent and believe.
- Christians are not to desert their unconverted families simply because they have embraced the gospel.
- The practice of a children's church should be called into question, as the Apostle Paul evidently regarded children as present and addressed in public ministry of the word.
- Learn how to plead with sinners and how to appeal to them in the light of God's gracious promises.
- Those who have to bear with the grief of an unconverted spouse should learn to live with that in Christian grace and not be tempted to desert them and their families.
- Take thought for the children who hear the ministry of the word, being kept from errors on the right hand and on the left.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 121 paragraphs, roughly 53 minutes.
Introduction and Review of Matthew 19
This adult Sunday school class was held on July 17, 1983 at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.
Now let's once again pray and ask for the Lord's assistance as we study together his holy word.
Our God, again we come into your presence, and again, Lord, we seek your gracious blessing to be upon us. Do we pray that you would draw near to us as we study the scriptures? Do we pray that you would open up our minds and hearts? Do we pray that you would give to us light from your holy word, that your name would be honored, that it would be glorified as we study these things together?
For we pray in Jesus' name, amen. Amen.
Now, last week I had hoped that we would be able to, complete our consideration of the indirect evidence, which is often quoted or cited in support of the practice of infant baptism, but we were really unable to get any further than simply considering Matthew chapter 19, the passage about Jesus blessing the little children, receiving them into his arms and praying over them. We were really unable to go any further than that. And I hope this morning to be able to complete what I have labeled as Roman numeral II, the indirect evidence, which is often quoted, by considering Acts chapter 2 and verse 39, 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and verse 14, and then Ephesians chapter 6, verse 1 and following, and Colossians chapter 3, verses 20 and 21. It is my hope that we will be able to do that, and that we will be able to complete all of this material this morning, and I think that I have a more realistic hope today than I had last week.
Okay. Can everyone hear me acceptably in the back?
Yes? Okay. Very good. Yes, no problem.
Now, before we pass on from the material that we considered last week, there was at least one question which was brought to me, which I believe, since it was brought by two people, it probably is so that more than two have some questions about it, so I think I ought to just very briefly address the subject. Someone wondered whether when I was giving the interpretation of Matthew 19 that I was laying out last week, someone wondered whether I was at all reflecting upon the state of those dying in infancy. And the answer to that question is that I was not. I was in no way attempting to say that those who died, by an infancy, must of necessity go to hell. I did not say that. I did not infer that. I did not mean to say that or to imply that, but I was not dealing with or addressing the question of those dying in infancy at all.
All right. So if there was anyone else who was wondering but didn't come forward to ask the question, that's the answer to that question. All right. Now, as we come to consider the rest of the...
Examining Acts 2:39 – The Promise to You and Your Children
indirect evidence, let's turn first of all to Acts chapter 2.
Acts chapter 2.
We find here the... what you could call the application of Peter's Day of Pentecost sermon,
beginning in verse 37. Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, unto him. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Then those that received his word were baptized, and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and fellowship in the breaking of bread and the prayers. Now, the phrase which is often employed to support and justify the practice of infant baptism
is found in verse 39.
Generally, what is simply, it is quoted as though a period were found after children in the text in which it is employed. And this does not necessarily reflect an effort to misquote the scriptures, but simply an effort to present only what they regard as the relevant portion of the text. They quote this much, For to you is the promise, and to your children, as though then there were a period. But right on the surface of the text, it should be apparent that there is not a period after children.
For to you is the promise, and to your children, comma, and to all that are afar off, comma, as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
Now, that this text has been widely employed, I think is hardly necessary to prove.
What is said about the text is this, that Peter, in seeking to present the gospel to these Jews, is conscious of, of the covenant principle. And therefore he presents the promise in the light of this covenant principle, which is that the religion which God has established on earth includes both the parents and the children in its corporate form. Thereby conscious of that history which was established at the time of the Abrahamic covenant and being reared in that covenant context, Peter simply says that this covenant principle has not been abrogated but still continues. And therefore he says, for the promise is to you and to your children. And he is articulating the continuance of this covenant principle that the children are included with their parents in the covenant community. And therefore, since they are included with their parents in the covenant community, they ought to receive the sign of that inclusion, which in the Old Testament was circumcision and which now is baptism.
Exegetical Analysis of Acts 2:39 – Recipients of the Promise
I think that that's a fair representation of the way that this passage is employed. Now, what needs to be done is first of all, several exegetical questions need to be asked, which are right on the surface of the text. And the first question is, what is the overall sense, setting of this statement? In the scripture, what is the overall setting of this statement?
Well, the overall setting of this statement is that Peter is preaching the gospel to the unconverted. Peter is preaching the gospel to the unconverted. It is very unlikely, therefore, when Peter is addressing himself to unconverted people, that he would be articulating the principle which applies to believers and their seed. Because Peter is not addressing believers, Peter is addressing the unconverted.
He is appealing to people and seeking to bring them to repentance. He is seeking to use an argument to bring people to repentance, to turning away from their sins. Notice verse 40, "...and with many other words he testified and exhorted them." The same people to whom he spoke these words are the people to whom, with many other words, he testified and exhorted them, saying, save yourselves from this crooked generation. He is preaching the gospel. And again, the same thing is clear in verse 37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in the heart and said, what should we do?
These were the people who had complicity in the crucifixion of Christ. And he points out their sin to them very directly and very bluntly. And the response is that they're convicted of their sin. They're pricked in the heart.
Their mouths are shut and they're overwhelmed with guilt. And they say in this climate of being pricked in the heart and confronted with their sin, what should we do? And he tells them then what their duty is in the light of their sin and the guilt which they've accrued with respect to that sin. He says, repent and be baptized.
Repent. He's pressing upon the hearers of these words the duty of repentance. They had not already repented. They are in this context being pressed and called to the duty of repentance.
And we read in verse 41 that they didn't all repent. Then those that received the word, they didn't all receive it, but those who did were baptized, and they were added about 3,000 souls. Now it's in the context of speaking to the unconverted, preaching the gospel to the lost, not speaking to the people of God, but speaking to the unconverted that the apostle Peter utters these words. Notice verse 39 begins with a four.
He's calling the unconverted to repentance. Verse 39. Verse 38 says, Repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit, for the promise is to you. Peter here is pleading with the lost.
He's pleading with those who are in their sins and under the wrath of God, and he's telling them to turn away, to repent. And this is one of the arguments that he uses to appeal to the lost. Peter is not here articulating the principle of believers and their seed. Peter is appealing to lost men to turn away from their sins and to come to Christ.
And it's in the midst of articulating this appeal that he mentions these words. So whatever the words mean, they must not be taken out of the context. He is speaking to the lost. When he says, therefore, to you is the promise, he is not addressing them in their identity as believers because they're not believers.
They're lost. They're under the wrath of God. They're unconverted Jews. And when he says, to you is the promise, the you is unconverted Jews and their children.
Right? To you is the promise and to your children. Right? To you is the promise and to your children.
So it is not believers and their children who are spoken of in this promise. It is rather the unconverted, the lost, and their children.
Furthermore, it would not be an appropriate answer to say that even though they were lost, the promise applies to them because they were part of the covenant. Because it doesn't simply say, for to you is the promise and to your children. The promise was not addressed to them, not because they were believers, and not because they were members of the covenant community, because the text doesn't stop with to you and your children. First of all, they were unconverted, so it couldn't be addressed to them in virtue of their faith.
And secondly, it's not restricted to them and their children, so it can't be restricted to them in virtue of their involvement in the Mosaic covenant. Notice, for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off.
And to all that are afar off. So this promise is not their property, either in virtue of their faith, or in virtue of their inclusion in the Mosaic covenant. It can't be. Because it's not simply to them and to their children.
It is to them, it is to their children, and it is to all that are afar off too. Who are not identified. Who are not identified with the Mosaic covenant community. This promise is not restricted to the Jews and to their children.
This promise is made to all who are afar off. This promise is made to all, even as many, as the Lord our God shall call unto Him. The only limitation which is placed upon this promise is the reception of the call of God. Whether you're a Jew, or of the posterity, of the Jews, or whether you're a Greek, or whether you're any other nationality, the only limitation that God places upon this promise is that they are as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him.
These are the recipients of the promise. So this promise was not theirs in virtue of their faith. And this promise was not theirs in virtue of their involvement of the Mosaic, in the Mosaic community. Now nothing could be clearer than that on the very surface of the text.
He speaks to unconverted Jews, and he says that this promise is not only to the Jews, it is also to all of those who are afar off. The Gentiles, as that phrase is evidently used in Ephesians chapter 2. The ones that were once afar off are now made nigh in the blood of Christ. So first of all, with regard to the recipients of the promise, Peter's own words make it abundantly clear that they did not receive this promise in virtue of any supposed covenant status.
Exegetical Analysis of Acts 2:39 – Identity and Reception of the Promise
But the second thing is this. The identity of the promise. What is it that they were promised? What precisely did Peter promise to these unconverted Jews?
Well, there's some debate about that. And, it seems anyway, that it is proper to admit that there's some connection here with the Abrahamic blessings. But that doesn't necessarily, of course, imply any such thing as our Paedo-Baptist brethren which wish to attain from the text. Because, there's an intimate connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the giving of the Spirit, which is established in Galatians chapter 2, which is established in Galatians chapter 2, which is established in Galatians chapter 3. Galatians 3 verse 14, At least in thought, is parallel to the idea of text. Beginning in verse 13 it says, 3. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 4. having become a curse for us.
For it is written, 5. cursed is every one that hangs on a tree that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, 6. that we might receive the kingdom of the Son of Man, and without the blood of Jesus, 7. that we might receive the kingdom of the Son of Man, and without the blood of Jesus, 8. that we might receive the kingdom of the Son of Man, the promise of the Spirit through faith. So he makes a connection between the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit. Now believe also that that connection is present in this passage.
Notice verse 33 of chapter 2 of the book of Acts.
Speaking of Jesus, being therefore by the right hand of God exalted and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you see and hear. And again, in the context, that which is held out before them as the blessing to be received is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Verse 38, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So the promised Abrahamic blessing is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And the Holy Spirit comes not only upon the Jews, it comes upon the Gentiles. And the criteria for receiving the Spirit is the exercise of faith, that you might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. And this promise pertains...
It pertains not only to the Jews, it pertains to the Gentiles as well. That all who repent, that is all who believe and turn away from their sins and are converted shall enter into the promised Abrahamic blessing. They will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And that seems to be the identity of the promise.
That they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the culmination of the Abrahamic blessing, and that this Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and who believe. So that there is a condition involved. Notice he says, repent and you will receive the gift of the Spirit. If you do not repent, if you do not believe, you will not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, no matter who you are.
And you will not enter into the Abrahamic blessing. Because those who are the children of Abraham are those who walk in the steps of the faith of their father, Abraham. And so, the identity of the promise is the coming and the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and believe. Now, that's true of the Jews.
That's the promise which they have. They did not have any promise of reception of the Abrahamic blessing of the Spirit apart from their personal exercise of repentance and faith, and neither did their children. Their children, in this text, have the same identical promise which is given to them. There is not one promise to the Jews and another promise to the children and another promise to those who are afar off.
No. The promise, the one and the same promise, is to you. And that one and the same promise is to your children. And that one and the same promise is to as many as are afar off.
And that one and the same promise is you will enter into the Abrahamic blessing you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the exercise of repentance and faith. If you repent and you believe, you will receive the gift of the Spirit. If your children repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit. And if all that are afar off repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit.
You see, he's appealing to the unconverted. And he's telling them that there's one and the same way of entering into the Abrahamic blessing of the Spirit, that pertains to them and that pertains to their children and that pertains to all that are afar off. And that is they must repent and believe the gospel in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
So you have the identity of the promise, the recipients of the promise.
Now, notice the reception of the promise.
Who receives the promise? The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to those who obey him, according to Peter.
Then those that received his word, verse 41, were baptized.
The giving of the Holy Spirit comes in conjunction with the exercise of repentance and faith. Now, I know that there's some question and some debate among commentators and exegetes concerning this calling, which is mentioned, in verse 39. Some say that the promise is limited to those who receive the effectual call. And others say, no, the promise is only limited to those who receive the gospel call.
Whether it refers to the gospel call or to the effectual call, it doesn't change the emphasis of the text. That which limits the recipients of the promise is not that they are unconverted members of the covenant community, and it's not that they exercise faith. It is that they are the recipients of the call of God, whether it be effectual or whether it be the general gospel call. I, for myself, lend to the idea that it's referring here to the general gospel call, although I'm not prepared to be so dogmatic upon it to say that it can't possibly refer to the effectual call.
And the reason I believe that is because he's speaking to the unconverted, and he's telling them that if they repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he's seeking to let the Jews know that they do not have any special favored status with respect to the gospel. If they reject it, they will be rejected. If they believe it, they will be received, and that in this respect, they are on an identical footing with the Gentiles. And so the words contain in them with this, as many as afar off, as many as he calls, whether Jew or Gentile, there is in this a dismantling of Jewish Zionistic pride.
Pastoral Application and Anecdote on Acts 2:39
And so one thing is clear from the text, whatever we may not conclude, I think this we conclude, it is that promise, promise of blessing, is a proper motive to plead with the unconverted to urge them to repentance. There are some places in which the threat of judgment is held out before the unconverted. They're threatened with the judgment to come if they refuse to turn. But here it is not the threat of judgment which forms the emphasis of Peter's appeal.
He appeals rather to the promise of receiving power to live a godly life, the promise of the coming and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so that the emphasis of the text is that we may not only, and we must not only, hold out before the unconverted the threat of judgment, but in the preaching of the gospel, we must also lay out before them the promise of the blessing of the Holy Spirit that comes to those who repent and believe. And any questions then about the meaning or significance of this text or any other comments that any of the elders would like to make upon it? Pastor Martin. I think just a very interesting anecdote for some of our people who probably didn't know why they were in the world of Christ. Pastor Nichols spent me 20 minutes. It seems so obvious. Who in the world would believe anything other than what is laid out so plain in the text?
But when a certain meaning is attached to the text early in our lives, and we always associate that meaning with the text, it's very hard to bend the line in another direction. And I can remember an occasion a few years ago when a group of reformed ministers were together, and the whole question of baptism was discussed from both standpoints. And a man who'd been a minister practicing putting water on the head of infants for over 30 years said that he went away from that discussion tremendously shaken in his convictions about infant baptism. But he said, however, I'm no longer shaken because whenever I've been shaken through the years, I always come back and rest upon Acts 2.39, the promise is to you and to your children. And I turned to him. He's a personal friend. And I addressed him by name and I said, brother, so-and-so, you can't be serious.
He said, I am serious. He said, whenever I've been shaken, this has been my incredible fortress and refuge, Acts 2.39. Now, what a confession from a godly, precious man of God who had no more fortress for the practice for 30 years than this flimsy fortress.
And I say that again, not to be unkind, but to, to demonstrate to some of our own people that the amount of time Pastor Nichols has taken with this text is warranted and that you need to convince people back that you understand why. So, don't judge our teacher as being imbalanced in the amount of time he gave to the text. And he didn't ask me to say that for him. I had no idea you were going to say that.
All right. Well, let's move on then. I think I would probably be unjustified if I took more time. So, let's, Mr. Clark, you, I said, go ahead. I don't know what this needs to be added, but I'll add it anyway.
It was in the context of the preaching of the gospel. That's true. But it was in the context of the preaching of the gospel to a particular group of people, particular kind of sinners, and those were Jewish sinners. People who said, we have Abraham to our father.
And Peter was not denying that they were not children of the stock of Abraham. And I believe it's for that reason that he adds the promises to you and to your children. The gospel was preached to the Jew first. Yes.
And to all that are far off, but he did not add, he did not add, concerning the Gentiles, and to their children.
It was to Jews, to you and to your children, and to all they that are far off, but he did not say, and to their children. True.
But since we're the Gentiles' children, I'm certainly glad that we're included. Because the same promise is made to us. That we, if we repent, and we believe, we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Though he did not explicitly articulate it on that occasion.
Examining 1 Corinthians 7:14 – 'Now They Are Holy'
Yeah, true. Well, let's turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
1 Corinthians chapter 7.
Now, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, we have another text which has often been employed in the service of infant baptism. And that is 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and verse 14.
Let me read verse 13 to catch the context. And the woman that has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the world, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.
Well, it is this statement, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, which has been used in this regard. Now, there is some difference of opinion among paedobaptists with respect to the precise significance of this holiness, I should say, as it pertains to the children. Godet, the French commentator, in his comments on 1 Corinthians 7.14, surveys the entire field of paedophiles of paedophiles, and it stretches from A to Z. There are some who believe that this means that the children have actually had the grace of God supernaturally infused into them by the Holy Spirit. They are holy. That is, they have been inwardly changed and morally renewed.
And that's over on one extreme. Then there is the other extreme, and this is, Godet mentions this, and also Jewett refers to this on page 130 of his book, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. And, of course, no good Orthodox, Reformed Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist would believe such a thing as this, but I mention it simply for completeness. It's the position held by some of the German higher critics, and it is that the statements of this passage make it abundantly clear that at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul did not believe in or practice infant baptism.
But, afterwards, he recognized that circumcision had been replaced by baptism when he wrote the letter to Colossians, and so he changed his position upon the subject and instituted it later. I think, simply to state that position is to refute it. So, I doubt that any of you or any of our Orthodox, Reformed Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed friends would believe such a thing. But, anyway, that is one of the positions that has been held upon the passage.
But the more common position among those with whom we would have the more contact, the position held by Bannerman in Historical Theology, Volume 2, page 149, and in Professor Murray, Christian Baptism, page 67 and 8.
Now, did I say Bannerman or Cunningham? I meant Cunningham, because I have Bannerman quoted here and I read the wrong one. I meant Cunningham, Historical Theology, Volume 2, page 149, and Bannerman, the Church of Christ, Volume 2, page 90. All right, that's what I meant to say.
Now, their position is this, that this holiness, is not an inward holiness, but that this holiness is what they call a federal holiness. A federal holiness or a covenant holiness which attaches to the child in virtue of its connection with the parent. And because the child has this covenant holiness, this federal holiness of identification with the parent, therefore the child, is part of the Church of Christ and part of the people of God and ought to be baptized.
Now, that's the position.
Refuting 1 Corinthians 7:14 – Parallel with Unbelieving Spouse
Now, the typical Baptist answer to this, and Alexander Carson gives this answer in his Baptism, its Modem Subjects, page 207 and 209. Jewett, page 121 or 122, to 137, but particularly page 126, gives this answer. And also Beasley Murray in Baptism in the New Testament, page 192 to 199. So what I'm about to say is nothing especially new, but the answer to that is simply this, that everything that can be said with respect to the federal holiness of the child in this passage can also be said and applies with equal exegetical force to the federal holiness of the child in this passage. of the unbelieving spouse.
You follow that? Everything that can be said with regard to the federal holiness of the child in this passage because of their connection with their believing parent applies with equal exegetical force to the unbelieving spouse. Let me put it on the board because that's maybe a little abstract. Here you have the believer.
Here you have the husband. Let's just say spouse so you know that it can include husband, husband, husband, husband. Husband or wife. And here you have the child.
You have the child connected to the believer. You have the spouse connected to the believer. Now the very same terminology, the very same language is used in both. Here you find holy, the adjective.
Here you find made holy.
Notice the text.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified. That's the verbal form of the adjective holy. It could be translated for the unbelieving husband is made holy. In the wife.
The perfect is used which means the unbelieving husband stands made holy. Stands in a position of having been made holy. That's what the language literally means. The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother.
Otherwise where your children unclean but now they are holy. In other words, an explicit parallel is established by the Apostle Paul between this holiness and this holiness.
Paul says if this were not true, this would not be true. Else, if this is not true, else your children would be unclean but now they are holy. Follow that? If this were not true, if the spouse were not holy, the conclusion would be the child is not holy.
If the unbelieving spouse has not been sanctified, then the child is not sanctified. Do you follow that? That's Paul's argument. He establishes a direct parallel so that everything you can say in virtue of the so-called federal holiness of the child applies with equal exegetical force to the federal holiness of the unconverted spouse.
So therefore, if this then applies that the federal holiness warrants church membership for the child, it warrants it for the spouse. And if it warrants baptism for the child, it warrants baptism for the spouse. Now that's the way that Baptists have argued. Now, Alexander Carson says that at least one poor paedo-Baptist made the mistake of admitting that that argument is true and that it is not true.
And was prepared to bring the unconverted spouse into church membership and baptize them. I won't mention the man's name, but Carson anyway really goes after that fellow.
And of course, that has not been the common interpretation of the passage. Well, if it doesn't mean, let me just quote to underscore this from Paul K. Jewett on page 126 of his book. Before we go on.
Okay.
He takes the various terms that are used with respect to the children and then tries to show that you could never apply those, this federal holiness idea to the spouse. But you must, because whatever it means for the children, it must mean the same thing for the spouse. The holy children are so far holy that they are in the fold, not aliens. They are in the church classification of believers.
And now he's quoting from different Paedo-Baptists. Theirs is a holiness, quote, that evinces the operation of the covenant. They are, quote, in the body of Christ by a kind of, quote, collective holiness. They enjoy the advantage of, quote, the baptismal solidarity of the family, end quote.
But then Jewett says, but all these luxuriant theological formulations drop from the discussion when the unbelieving spouse is concerned. He or she is consecrated, but not so far as to be in the fold. He or she is an alien. He or she is sanctified, but not in the church classification of believer.
He or she is an unbeliever. The covenant does not operate for him or her as it does for the child. Collective holiness that gathers in the child leaves him or her uncollected. And though she was in the family, before the child was, he or she has no part or lot in the baptismal solidarity of that family.
Paedobaptist Responses and Alternative Interpretations of 1 Corinthians 7:14
Now, the only one that I read who attempts to deal with this subject, someone I'm sure is asking, well, how did the Pado-Baptists reply to this? Well, if you read Professor Murray and some of the other ones in Christian baptism, he simply doesn't reply to this. He doesn't mention it at all. But the one who, the one that I read who attempts to deal with it is Godet in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.
And he attempts to say that this word here for being made holy means something different than what this means. But linguistically, exegetically, that simply is not true. It's just not true at all. As it comes from the same root word, the one is the verbal form, the other is the adjectival form.
Well, then what does it mean? If it doesn't refer to some kind of a a covenantal holiness, what does it refer to? Well, that's a very difficult question. And Baptists themselves, of course, are not agreed with respect to this question.
Alexander Carson and John Gill and Paul Jewett and no doubt others say that this refers to the fact that the child is legitimate. Otherwise, your child were unclean. That means otherwise your child were illegitimate, but now they are holy. That is, they are legitimate children.
Now, James Bannerman, of course, takes exception to this. He says that this position is, well, I don't think he uses the word ridiculous, but he uses strong language to indicate that it's totally untenable and unreasonable. And he has an argument, which I believe has great weight against the position or against this explanation. And Bannerman says that if this were true, then the result would be that all of the children of unbelievers would be illegitimate and not legitimate.
And I believe that Bannerman's correct. And so it can't, as far as I'm concerned, I cannot follow Jewett, Gill and Carson in their alternate explanation to what this means. However, there's another interpretation of it, which seems to me is far more suitable both to the context and to the general usage of these words. And this is given by J.L. Dagg in his Manual of Theology and Church Order.
And I believe I'll simply quote several sections from Dagg. If it be asked, what holiness could be predicated of these children or of the unbelieving husband and wife, which did not include church, the answer is at hand. The Jews accounted Gentiles unclean and thought it unlawful to enter their houses to keep company or eat with them or to touch them. They were untouchable.
The Jewish Christians retained this opinion as is manifest from Galatians 2.12 where they would not eat with the Gentiles and even Peter and Barnabas were carried away with this. According to this opinion, they with whom familiar intercourse was lawful were considered holy. All others were considered unclean.
The question had arisen among Corinthians, probably from the influence of Judaizing teachers, whether familiar intercourse with unbelievers is lawful. And then he goes on to say that the apostle dealt with this in chapter 5, that if you can't have ordinary relations with them you have to go out of the world. As the principle which he opposed had produced a doubt among the Corinthians whether it was lawful for Christians to live in familiar intercourse with unbelieving husbands or wives, Paul considers this case in the seventh chapter. And here's the crucial statement.
He decides that if this principle may disturb the domestic relations it will separate parent and child as well as husband and wife. Follow that? If this principle is allowed to decide domestic relations then it would separate parent and child as well as husband and wife. If familiar intercourse with the unconverted is unlawful in one case it is unlawful in the other too.
So, this is the argument of the apostle and it is precisely adapted to meet this difficulty. But this argument presupposes that the children like the unbelieving husband and wife were not members of the church. And the text therefore furnishes decisive proof that infant church membership was unknown in the time of the apostles. Now that last statement about decisive proof I think perhaps is a little too strong.
But on the other hand I believe that his explanation of the passage is correct.
And that what the apostle is saying because you notice that the word unclean is used and the word sanctified is used of food in 1 Timothy chapter 4 that meat is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. And the idea of uncleanness is that it is untouchable. It is unfit to be used or touched it is not suitable for contact.
And that's exactly the way the Jews regarded the Gentiles. And what these people were wondering is whether or not their unconverted husbands were unclean. That is whether they were unsuited for conjugal contact. And he's saying look if you use that principle to apply it to your unconverted spouse my friends it applies to your children too.
If this is the way you have to treat them you have to be consistent and apply the same principle to them. But no the unconverted is suitable for this conjugal contact. And your children are suitable for this parental contact even if they are the fruit of your lawful marriage with an unconverted spouse. And the whole point of the passage is not that the children would be illegitimate that's not what it implies but the point of the passage is that the children and the spouse are suitable for conjugal relations and that kind of contact.
And it means that the husband is not unfit for cohabitation that the children are not unfit for parenting and the point is that if Christians are tempted to desert their families and to say look I want no part of this I want a new life I can't go on and live the Christian life if I have to have contact with this unconverted man and with these children no. You don't desert your family simply because you are not you only embrace the gospel. That was the issue.
Examining Ephesians 6:1 – Children Obey Your Parents
They were questioning whether or not they should desert their unconverted relations because of their rejection of the gospel. And he says if you apply that principle to your husband you have no consistent way to avoid applying it to your children as well. So this is the holiness it is the suitability for contact defined by the relation in which that contact takes place. Well very briefly in one minute Ephesians chapter 6 verse 1 it is simply this statement children obey your parents and the Lord for this is right. Now this is used to say that children because they were addressed in this epistle were therefore regarded as members of the church.
Page 66 and 67 of Christian Baptism Professor Murray makes this point. However if this were the case then it would prove I believe that if you address children in a public statement and say to them obey your parents if that proves that they are members of the church then it would prove that they are members of our church because we do the very same thing in our public addresses.
Now the point is this I think the real this doesn't prove that children were members of the church first of all and secondly the children that were spoken to here were old enough to listen they were not suckling infants because he tells them to obey their parents. Another thing is this applies to all the children in the church he doesn't simply restrict this to those children who made an open profession of faith in Christ. Whatever child you are you are supposed to obey your parents.
Conclusion and Prayer
So what this would provide warrant for if it provides warrant for anything it would not provide warrant for regarding the children of Christians as members of the church but I think it would provide warrant for calling into question the whole practice of a children's church. The apostle Paul evidently regarded the children that they would be present when a letter suitable for public reading was read that the children would be present and he even took the time to say something addressed to them in that public ministry of the word of God. That's all that the passage proves and nothing more. Now then the Lord willing next week we must close our time is gone the Lord willing next week we'll consider some conclusions drawn from the biblical evidence. So let us pray. Our Father as we come into your holy presence we pray that you would give us the grace to take to heart the principles of these texts which are genuinely articulated in your holy word we pray that we would learn how to plead with sinners and how to appeal to them in the light of your gracious promises we pray that those who have had to bear with the grief of an unconverted spouse would learn to live with that in Christian grace and not be tempted to desert them and their families
we pray Lord that we would take thought for the children who hear the ministry of the word that we would be kept from the errors on the right hand and on the left we pray that your word would be sealed to our hearts and we ask these things all in Jesus name Amen
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
Passages Expounded
This verse is thoroughly expounded to demonstrate that the promise of the Spirit is conditional upon repentance and faith for all, not a covenant right for infants.
This verse is analyzed to show that the 'holiness' of children is a relational, not salvific, holiness, paralleled by the 'sanctification' of an unbelieving spouse, neither of which warrants baptism.
This verse is briefly discussed to argue that addressing children in an epistle does not prove their church membership but rather their presence in public worship.
Texts Expounded
Also Referenced
More from the archive
If this spoke to you, hear also…
-
-
-
-
Requirements #3: Discipleship Baptism Part 1
Matthew 28:16-20
layers Living Together in the Father's House
-
-