UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in thename of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the giftof the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and toall that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts2:38–39).

Pedobaptist Interpretation

This verse has oftenbeen used by pedobaptists (those who believe in infant baptism) to show thatthe Abrahamic covenant is still in force for believers and their children, andthat therefore both believers and their children should be baptised. Peter waspreaching to the Jews who had gathered for Pentecost (Acts 2:5). The Jews nodoubt understood that the promise of the covenant was not only for them but fortheir children as well. They were, after all, specifically instructed tocircumcise their children:

AndI will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee intheir generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and tothy seed after thee.… This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me andyou 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 manyas the Lord our God shall call,”—into the church, and the breaking down of themiddle wall between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:11–17), God instituted baptism asa replacement for circumcision as the symbol of covenant membership. Now, at Pentecost,the Jews understood that the covenant remains, but those who would receiveJesus Christ as their Messiah were required to be baptised. That day, about3,000 “souls” (Greek: psuchê) were baptised and added into thechurch (Acts 2:41). It is very likely that these 3,000 souls included women andchildren, 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 ofthe men.

Now, since all Gentile believers are also children of Abraham (Gal 3:29) andare grafted into the same olive tree as the Jews, their children are to bebaptised.

Calvin’s comment on Acts 2:39 is typical of the Reformers and will be readilyagreed by all pedobaptists, though some may suggest that Calvin could havemisinterpreted the Anabaptist’s understanding of the verse:

We must note these three degrees, that the promise wasfirst made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it isalso to be imparted to the Gentiles. We know the reason why the Jews arepreferred before other people; for they are, as it were, the first begotten inGod’s family, yea, they were then separated from other people by a singularprivilege. Therefore Peter observeth a good order, when he giveth the Jews thepre-eminence. Whereas he adjoineth their children unto them, it dependeth uponthe words of the promise: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed afterthee, (Genesis 17:7,) where God doth reckon the children with the fathers inthe grace of adoption.

This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of theAnabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of thefaithful, to be baptised, as if they were not members of the Church. They espya starting hole in the allegorical sense, and they expound it thus, that bychildren are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this grossimpudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thusbecause God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare thatthe right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God madehis covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed ofAbraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in thesame covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God ofyour seed.

Baptist or Anti-Pedobaptist Retort

Inrecent days, however, there has arisen anti-pedobaptist or Baptist theologianswho have attempted to dispute this view of Acts 2:39, and have succeeded inchanging the minds of some members in pedobaptist churches. Thus David Kingdon,one of the most respected Baptist polemists, argues against the pedobaptistposition:

In the first place, the promise of the Spirit includesthe pledge that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your youngmen shall see visions” (Acts 2:17), which hardly applies to infants. In thesecond place, the promise of verse 39 turns upon the phrase “even as many asthe Lord our God shall call.” Paedobaptists commonly distinguish between thechildren mentioned, regarding them as covenant children, and those who are afaroff, i.e., born “out of covenant.”

This latter group alone must, they claim, be called to repentance and faith inorder to be baptised. But if one thing is clear it is this; the last phrase ofthe verse, concerning God’s call, governs all the preceding phrases. Thepromise is not only to those who respond on the day of Pentecost, but also totheir descendants (children) and to those who are either outside the circle ofJudaism or are beyond the confines of the land of Israel to as many of thesegroups as God will call. What that call involves is plain to see, the inwardwork of the Spirit (“they were pricked in their heart” v. 37), and the responseto that call (“what shall we do?” v. 37) after which one is baptised into thename of him who is freely offered in the gospel. Plainly the mention ofchildren in this context provides no warrant whatsoever for infant baptism(David Kingdon,Children of Abraham [Sussex: Carey PublicationsLtd., n.d.], 88–89).

It is amazing how Kingdon could dismiss the pedobaptist interpretation of thisimportant passage without any substantive exegesis. But it is no doubtpersuasive for anyone who either has tried to understand the pedobaptist viewand failed, or has already closed their minds to pedobaptism. Therefore inresponding to such a passage, the pedobaptist takes a risk that his argumentswill be dismissed even before it is considered. For it could be dismissedsimply on account: “It is obvious and clear that this verse does not speakabout infant baptism!” The fact that it is not so clear to one who eitherunderstands the pedobaptist position, or one who practices pedobaptism, buthave not thoroughly studied the issue, does not matter. It has been presentedclearly that it does not give any warrant whatsoever for infant baptism, andthat is enough! “If the counter-arguments are so difficult to understand surelythey must be wrong!” But, could it be difficult to understand because ofpreconceptions in the mind?

In general, Kingdon’s and other Baptists’ objection to the pedobaptistinterpretation has two prongs. The first is that the phrase “as many as theLord our God shall call” must apply to all three groups of people mentioned byPeter. Thus only the children who are effectually called (“as many as the Lordour God shall call”) are given the promise of the Spirit. And since childrencan only be effectually called when they have come to an age at which they canexercise 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 isnot 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 wouldlike to point out that when we look at the structure of the sentence, it is notso certain that the phrase “as many as the Lord our God shall call” applies toall three groups of people mentioned by Peter. In fact, if anything, thestructure of the sentence suggests otherwise. Second, I would like to show thatgrammatically and semantically, the adjectival phrase cannot be applied to thefirst two groups. Third, I would like to show that it is an over-simplificationto say that the promise is only a promise of the Holy Spirit and has nothing todo with the Abrahamic covenant.

Sentence Structure

TheGreek of verse 39 with interlinear translation is as follows:

The word kai isthe 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 ofpeople mentioned. Kingdon asserts that the adjectival phrase “even as many asthe Lord our God shall call” qualify all three groups. This is, however, not socertain in the Greek.

You see, the Greek kai used in this way does often makeseach of the conjunctive phrase separate and distinct, so that adjectivesqualifying any of the phrases do not get distributed. Thus, the qualifyingphrase “Jews and proselytes” in Acts 2:10 only applies to “the strangers inRome” rather than all the 12 groups of people mentioned prior to Rome. Thisinterpretation 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 werevoices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such aswas not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.”The Greek with interlinear word translation is:

Inthis verse, there are three conjunctive kai (ignore the firstas it is not used conjunctively), and four terms: lightnings, voices, thundersand earthquake. There is also an adjectival phrase: “such as was not since menwere upon the earth….” We can hardly miss the fact that this adjectival phrasemodifies the earthquake only.

Similarly, most of those who argue that “as many as the Lord our God shallcall” in Acts 2:39 modifies all three terms, will not hesitate to point outthat the adjective “spiritual” in Ephesians 5:19a refers only to songs, and notto psalms and hymns. This is because the three terms are separated by a kai:

This is despite the factthat a good case can be made to show that ‘psalms,’ ‘hymns’ and ‘songs’ wereregarded 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 allthree terms.

Strangely however, when it comes to Acts 2:39, these who insist that theadjective ‘spiritual’ applies only to ‘songs,’ will maintain that “as many asthe Lord our God shall call” applies to all three groups of people mentioned.

Grammar and Semantics

Thesecond reason why the adjectival qualifier “even as many as the Lord our Godshall call” qualifies only “all that are afar off,” and not to “you” and “toyour 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 andCarlton L. Winbery define the subjunctive mood thus:

The subjunctive expresses action or a state of beingwhich is objectively possible. It is a mood of moderate contingency. It is themood of probability. It is used for doubtful assertions. By the nature of thecase the subjunctive deals with the future. As a result it is closely relatedto the future indicative, and in some instances a future is used where we mightexpect a subjunctive. The future, however, indicates what will take place, thesubjunctive may take place (Syntax of New Testament Greek [UniversityPress of America, Inc, 1979], 118).

In other words, in the case of Acts 2:39, if the adjectival qualifier isapplied to any of the three groups of persons, it makes the calling of thepersons in the group, a future probability. Now, while it may sound right thatthe promise is only to the children that the Lord shall call, it will not bevery meaningful for the Apostle Peter to tell the listeners whom he was goingto 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 tobaptise them? Kingdon, himself, points out that those who were hearing Peter’smessage were effectually called (see above), though in reality effectualcalling can never be ascertained infallibly by human observation. In any case,from a grammatical standpoint, to have the adjectival qualifier applied to thefirst group (the immediate hearers of Peter) would contradict what Kingdonwould 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 wouldessentially be saying, “Repent and be baptised everyone of you who are alreadyeffectually called… the promise is for you if the Lord mighteffectually call you”! I believe, it is not difficult to see the improbabilitythat this is what Peter meant. Kingdon may argue that the statement is notwrong since the substance of the promise will eventually only be received bythose whom God does effectually call. This is indeed true, but a qualifier tothe promise in such a manner would hardly be meaningful nor serve to persuadehis hearers. Remember that Acts 2:39 is part of Peter’s sermon which was beingheard. If Peter’s statement was made in a theological treatise, such as inRomans, we might have some reason to think that Kingdon could be right (despiteit being unusual grammatically), but here the statement is sermonic and immediatelydirected 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 begrouped together with “you” as the present recipient of the promise. “As manyas the Lord our God shall call” qualifies the phrase “all that areafar off.” The promise could not possibly be to “all that are afaroff,” and therefore it is right to qualify the phrase.

The Baptist reader may argue: “But what about the children? These are notalready effectually called: How could the promise of the Holy Spirit be untothem? 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, Ibelieve, will be answered in the next point.

The Promise

Asmentioned earlier, the third anti-pedobaptist argument is founded on the factthat the promise that Peter referred to is really a new or standalone promiseof the Holy Spirit, which can only be made to the elect or to anyone who iscapable of understanding and believing the Gospel. We believe this is not thecase. 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 theein their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and tothy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). The fact is, the promise of the Holy Spirit isthe promise of the Abrahamic covenant.

The first indication of this fact is found in Acts 3:25, where Peter explainsthat it was already predicted in the Abrahamic covenant that the “kindreds ofthe earth be blessed” through Christ:

Yeare the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with ourfathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of theearth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent himto bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities (Acts3:25–26).

But the most conclusive evidence that the promise of the Holy Spirit referredby Peter was a promise in the context of the Abrahamic covenant is made by theApostle Paul in Galatians 3:14—“That the blessing of Abraham might come on theGentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spiritthrough faith.”

It is no doubt, because the promise of the Holy Spirit is really the Abrahamicpromise, that Peter included the children in the promise. Peter’s hearers wouldhave 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 ofthe 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 wouldrepresent the remnant or the olive tree that remained after the unbelievingbranches were broken off. But we know that ultimately only the elect willreceive the promise of the Holy Spirit. Would Peter then be accurate in sayingthat the promise to all his hearers (without qualifying, “as many as the Lordshall call)? Certainly! Remember that they had the sign and seal of thecovenant, namely circumcision. As long as they had the sign and seal of thecovenant and they had not denied Christ, they were to be regarded as God’schildren. Peter had the divine warrant to tell all of them that the promise wasunto them. In the same way, today, though a minister of the Gospel may not telleveryone without exception that God loves them, he has the warrant to tell thebaptised members of the church (adult and children) that God loves them. Thefact that Peter or other ministers of the Gospel may ultimately be wrongconcerning the individual does not really matter. They do not know the heart ofthe individual and cannot judge the heart of the individual, and so they are toregard the individual according to the seal of the righteousness of faith,namely circumcision or baptism that is applied to them. That is, as long asthey have the seal of the covenant, it may be said to them that God’s favour isupon 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 whichare the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but thechildren of the promise are counted for the seed”? No, Paul was referring totheactual application of the promise, for which only the elect willreceive. 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 ofbelievers ought to be treated as covenant children alike. Just as Peter toldhis hearers that the promise is for all of them, though there was no way forhim to ascertain that all of them were elect, so in the same way, it was properfor Peter to say that the promise was unto their children too.

Conclusion

Based on the discussionabove, we have little doubt that the pedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:39 iscorrect. 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 covenantpeople of God. Today, all Christians,—Gentiles and Jews,—constitute thecovenant people of God (cf. Gal 3:16). The promise of salvation is still untous and to our seed: we are not worst off than the Jews, so that we cannot thinkof 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 promisewill be applied to our children, and so we treat our children as covenantchildren, and we baptise our children in the same hope and confidence that thefaithful believers in the Old Testament had when they circumcised theirchildren.

—JJ Lim