Infant Baptism and New Testament Texts
The Purpose of this Paper
I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong and convincing when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I take the more “baptistic” approach of looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of Scripture, just to demonstrate that every method of approach, properly done, still leads to the same truth. In this paper, I do not start with the Abrahamic Covenant, and I do not start with circumcision in Genesis 17. Rather, I simply focus on a number of New Testament texts which explicitly teach about baptism. Let’s see where this approach leads us.
New Testament Baptism – An Old Testament Doctrine?
When trying to determine a proper Biblical view of baptism, many people flip over to the Gospels and start with John the Baptist. But this is a big mistake! Starting with John the Baptist to understand baptism is like trying to understand a movie by watching the last 30 minutes of it. Some of what you watch may be understandable, but most of it probably will make no sense at all until you first hit the “rewind” button and watch the first hour and a half. You can’t comprehend the message of a book by only reading the last 3 chapters. Neither can you comprehend Biblical baptism by ignoring the Old Testament.
“But baptism is only found in the New Testament, isn’t it?
No. There are several New Testament passages which point to specific Old Testament events, and explicitly call them “baptisms”. So even if we try to start with the New Testament to study baptism, it just proceeds to point us back to the Old Testament. The apostle Peter said that Noah’s flood was a type of baptism. The apostle Paul said that the Israelites were actually baptized during the exodus from Egypt. The apostle John and the author of Hebrews each recognized that the ceremonial purifications of the Old Testament were baptisms. The idea of “baptism” was not remotely new to the New Testament church. There had already been many baptisms in Israel’s history and practice, and so we must seek to understand these baptisms first, if we truly wish to understand the significance of baptism in the New Testament.
“But aren’t these Old Testament ‘baptisms’ irrelevant to the church today?”
No. The New Testament doctrine of baptism was solidly built upon its historical background which was already established in the Old Testament. And to remove all doubt of this, the apostles Peter and Paul explicitly told us that the Old Testament accounts of baptism are parallel to baptism in the New Testament.
The apostle Peter talked about Noah’s flood, and then specifically tells us that New Testament baptism “corresponds to this”:
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3:20-22)
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul explicitly says that the Israelites were “baptized”. He also mentions a number of other things that the Israelites experienced. Then he goes on to say that these things he wrote down “occurred as examples” for us:
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. . . . Now these things occurred as examples . . . . (1 Corinthians 10:1-6)
Also, we need to keep in mind that Hebrews 9, John 3, and Colossians 2 each discuss baptism, and each point us back to various Old Testament passages as well.
We do need to carefully consider the baptisms of John the Baptist, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and water baptism in the New Testament. But these are the last baptisms we need to consider, not the first. Please join me as we take a look at various Old Testament baptisms. Then, and only then, we will see how the Biblical doctrine of baptism made its way into the New Testament.
Baptism – A Passage from Darkness to Light
In The Beginning
Before the word “baptism” is ever used in Scripture, we see darkness and light introduced, separated by the Holy Spirit and water:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)
Notice the pattern:
1) Darkness
2) The Holy Spirit & water
3) Light
In the beginning there was darkness, followed by light. And in between the two, we see the Spirit of God hovering over water. This is a pattern we see recapitulated throughout the rest of Scripture. Of course, I am not saying that a baptism occurred in Genesis chapter 1. Rather, I am suggesting that later in Scripture, baptism continuously points back to creation. Every time a baptism occurs in Scripture, the same pattern emerges:
The Great Flood
The earliest explicit reference to baptism in Scripture is Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. Consider the pattern:
1) Spiritual darkness (the world is covered in evil)
2) Water (the flood . . . also called "baptism")
3) Spiritual light (the new world begins with 8 people in covenant with God)
The Exodus
Now consider the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, which is also explicitly called "baptism" in 1 Corinthians 10:2. Notice the pattern:
1) Bondage in Egypt (this is what I am calling their "darkness")
2) Crossing the Red Sea (water baptism)
3) Freedom from Egypt (this is what I am calling their "light")
Cermonial Purifications in the Old Testament
Now consider the various OT ceremonial purifications which Hebrews 9 calls "baptisms". The pattern holds true:
1) Ceremonial uncleanness - can't approach God (spiritual darkness)
2) Ceremonial purification - (baptisms by blood, water, or both)
3) Ceremonial cleanness - can approach God (spiritual light)
John the Baptist
Then, in the book of John, we see a recapitulation of the first few verses in Genesis:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:1-5)
The world was lying in spiritual darkness, but the Light was coming! And that Light is Jesus. But who would point the way to the Light? The next two verses answer this question:
"There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe." (John 1:6-7)
And what was John's ministry? It was a ministry of baptism, of course. The world was in spiritual darkness, and John the Baptist came as a voice crying in the wilderness, baptizing people, and pointing them to the Light. Thus, the pattern is still alive:
1) The world is in spiritual darkness.
2) John baptizes with water --- John points toward the "Light"
3) The "Light of the world" comes.
Spirit Baptism
But Jesus Himself had a far greater baptism to give: the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism toward which all other baptisms point. What happens in Spirit baptism? The heart is cleansed from sin and is regenerated. Note the pattern:
1) A soul is in spiritual darkness.
2) Jesus baptizes him/her with the Holy Spirit.
3) The soul is now in spiritual light.
Water Baptism
And what about water baptism in the New Testament? On the external level, it works the same way:
1) A person is outside the visible church (apparent spiritual darkness).
2) The person is baptized in water.
3) He/She is now inside the visible church (apparent spiritual light).
Notice the very close parallels between water baptism and Spirit baptism. Water baptism brings one from darkness to light, externally. Spirit baptism brings one from darkness to light, internally. Both are passages from darkness to light, but one is with water, while the other is with the Holy Spirit. One is the sign, while the other is the thing signified.
So, to come full circle, I do not think it is any mere coincidence that we see the "Spirit of God hovering over the waters" in between the "darkness" of Genesis 1:2 and the "light" of Genesis 1:3.
Baptism marks the passage from darkness to light, from death to life, from being an outcast to being in God's presence, from being "formless and empty" (Gen. 1:2) to being "very good" (Gen. 1:31).
Baptism points back to the passage from darkness to light in creation. It is a sign of cleansing from sin and of regeneration (i.e. "new creation") by the Holy Spirit.
Now, let’s look in more detail at each baptism in Scripture:
Noah’s Flood – The First Baptism
The earliest explicit reference to baptism in Scripture is Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. The apostle Peter talked about Noah’s flood, and then specifically tells us that New Testament baptism “corresponds to this”:
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3:20-22)
Now, if New Testament baptism “corresponds” to what happened with Noah and his family, then we need to turn back to Genesis 6-9 to see just what happened. Peter is telling us that this is the first place in Scripture where we can learn about baptism.
First, God tells us that everyone on earth was wicked:
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
But then God points out someone special:
“But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. . . . Noah was a righteous man . . . Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:8-9)
Note that the only one said to be “righteous” was Noah. Scripture does not say this about those in Noah’s family.
Then, God said:
“I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under Heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” (Genesis 6:17-18)
So, on the basis of Noah’s righteousness, God saved Noah and his family. Scripture does not say that God found 8 righteous people, who all just happened to be in the same family. Rather, the Bible says that one man walked with God, and therefore his entire household entered the ark and was saved. --- And in 1 Peter 3:20-21, the apostle Peter tells us that New Testament baptism looks like this.
At this point, there are some who will probably try to see some way around what has been demonstrated from the Scriptures. For example, someone might say, “Maybe every member of Noah’s family was regenerate.” But I am merely emphasizing what Scripture emphasizes. Is it theoretically possible that all 6 of Noah's kids were regenerate? I suppose so. But God didn't seem to figure it was important to tell us this. He easily could have written, "Noah's family was righteous, blameless among the people of the time, and they walked with God". But God chose a very different emphasis. God said, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." We aren't told about the other 7 people because their righteousness/unrighteousness before God is apparently unimportant in this context. God only cares to tell us that He found Noah righteous, one man.
In this same vein of thinking, notice carefully the very specific wording used in Genesis 7:1 --- "The Lord then said to Noah , 'Go into the ark, you and your whole family <everyone>, because I have found you <singular> righteous in this generation."
God tells us that He saved Noah and his family, because He found Noah to be righteous.
Also look at Genesis 6:22 and 7:5 --- "Noah did everything just as God commanded Him", and "Noah did all that the Lord commanded him."
We are told explicitly, twice, that Noah was obedient to everything the Lord commanded. But these statements are not made about Noah's family. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were disobedient, either . . . it just means that their obedience was not important enough for God to share with us. We are told in Genesis 7:7 and 7:13 that all 8 of them went into the ark to escape the flood, but that is a far cry from saying that all 8 people were obedient to everything that the Lord commanded. In fact, for all we know, some of Noah's family may have heckled him just as badly as the surrounding people, up until the day the flood started. After all, they didn't all enter the ark until the very day the water started pouring out of the sky (cf. Gen. 7:7). So, we just do not know either way . . . we cannot say whether Noah's family was a obedient bunch, a disobedient bunch, or a mixture of both.
However, once we get to Genesis 9, the spiritual states of Noah's children become more clear. Ham is wicked, dishonoring his father, and his son Canaan is thrice-cursed. Shem and Japheth are good, honoring their father, and are both blessed.
So if we are to make any conclusions from the text at all, we have good reason to assume that the 8 entered the ark as a mixed bunch . . . some regenerate, and at least one unregenerate.
Genesis 6:8 - Who found favor in God's eyes, Noah himself, or all 8 of his family?
Answer: only Noah is mentioned.
Genesis 6:9 - Who was righteous, blameless, and walked with God?
Answer: only Noah is mentioned here
And yet, God obviously doesn't mind mentioning Noah's sons . . . in fact, He mentions them by name in the very next verse, Genesis 6:10. But significantly, God says nothing about their righteousness, like He had said in verse 9 about Noah. (Rather, God states that which is especially important about the 3 of them: that they are the sons of Noah.)
So far in Genesis 6, only Noah is said to have found favor with the Lord, and only Noah is said to walk with God.
Genesis 6:18 - Because of Noah's righteousness, who will be saved? Answer: Noah and his family
Genesis 6:22 - Who obeyed God's command, Noah, or the whole family of 8? Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.
Genesis 7:1 - Who did God send into the ark? Answer: Noah and his whole family
Genesis 7:5 - Who was obedient to God? Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.
Was every member of Noah's family regenerate? Answer: Apparently not, according to Genesis 9:22-27
Nevertheless, did God bless all three sons of Noah? Yes, God blessed Noah, and all three of his sons. (Genesis 9:1)
So, here is how this all may be summed up:
1) Noah alone is said to walk with God.
2) Noah alone is said to be obedient.
3) Noah's entire family receives a type of baptism (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).
4) God blesses Noah, and God blesses all 3 of his sons, too.
5) Nevertheless, Ham proves to be wicked, and is thrice-cursed.
A man walks with God.
That man and his family are baptized.
All family members receive blessings.
Nevertheless, not all are necessarily regenerate.
The Baptism of the Israelites
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul explicitly says that the Israelites were “baptized”. He also mentions a number of other things that the Israelites experienced. Then he goes on to say that these things he wrote down “occurred as examples” for us:
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. . . . Now these things occurred as examples . . . . (1 Corinthians 10:1-6)
It has been estimated that over 2 million Israelites crossed the Red Sea in the Exodus. And based on certain actions soon afterwards, we can be safely assured that not all 2 million people were regenerate. (Read about Korah’s rebellion against Moses, for example.) So there is no doubt that both the regenerate and the unregenerate were baptized, according to this passage of Scripture. In fact, this great crowd of Israelites contained many children (cf. Exodus 12:37), no doubt including thousands of infants. Thus, 1 Corinthians 10:2 is an explicit New Testament reference to infant baptism. And 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 10:11 say that this list of things happened to Israel as examples for us!
Why did God save the Israelites from Egypt? Was it because they were greater than other nations, holier, or more deserving of God’s mercy? Certainly not. Rather, God had mercy on them because they were the descendants of His covenant people who had walked with Him:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them. (Exodus 2:23-25)
So, here is how this all may be (very briefly) summed up, regarding the exodus of the Israelites:
1) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally Moses, walked with God.
2) The entire family (the nation of Israel) is saved from Egypt, and in this exodus they are baptized.
3) Every Israelite partook of Christ in some sense (1 Corinthians 10:6)
4) Nevertheless, not every Israelite was regenerate.
A man walks with God.
That man and his family are baptized.
All family members receive blessings.
Nevertheless, not all are necessarily regenerate.
There is an additional point that should be made regarding the baptism of the Israelites in Exodus 14. If we pay close attention to the broad context of this redemptive-historical event, a very interesting thing emerges: a powerful link between baptism and circumcision.
God had commanded circumcision over 400 years earlier, in Genesis 17. And circumcision did not pass away until well over 1000 years later, after the coming of Christ. So circumcision was still in effect during this period of time. Just shortly before the exodus, God made it clear that He took circumcision very seriously. In fact, in Exodus 4:24, God almost put someone to death for failing to obey God’s circumcision command! And yet, after the 2,000,000 Israelites are baptized in the cloud and in the sea, they go 40 years without circumcision (cf. Joshua 5:5), and God never complains at all! He judged the Israelites for many sins, and even refused to let Moses cross into the Promised Land because of a single sin he had committed. But we never see a repetition of Exodus 4:24. Before the baptism of the Israelites, God was ready to put someone to death for failure to circumcise. But after the baptism of the Israelites, no circumcision was necessary for 40 years. (It is also interesting to note that there is no Passover for these 40 years, either. 1 Corinthians 10 seems to present the picture that the manna and water in the desert temporarily took the place of the Passover sacrament, and was a precursor to the bread and wine of the New Testament Lord’s Supper. But I digress.)
By the way:
Just as a sidenote, it is interesting to make a brief observation regarding the Biblical mode of baptism at this point. Peter said that Noah received a type of baptism. And Paul said that 2 million Israelites were baptized. But none of these people were immersed in water! Rather, it was the enemies of God that were immersed in both cases. In Genesis 7:23, we see that all the wicked men on earth were immersed: drowned in the judgment of God. And in Exodus 14:28, we see that all the Egyptians behind the Israelites were likewise immersed: drowned in the judgment of God. --- But did God’s people who were baptized get wet at all? Yes! Psalm 77:17 reveals to us that God rained upon the Israelites at the time of the Red-Sea-crossing baptism. God was sprinkling water upon them! And while we don’t have anything so explicit concerning Noah and his family, there is at least a possibility revealed in Genesis 7:7. There, we find that Noah and his family didn’t enter the ark until the day it started raining. Is it possible that God sprinkled water on them too, as part of their “baptism” before entering the ark? We cannot say for sure. But the possibility cannot be denied. In any case, it is quite clear what happened to the two million Israelites in the exodus. God sprinkled His covenant people in their baptisms. But the immersion of their enemies was the very judgment of God. Which message are we sending by the mode of baptism we choose today?
OT Ceremonial Purification Baptisms
Hebrews 9 discusses Old Testament worship in the earthly tabernacle. And as a part of this discussion, Hebrews 9:10 mentions “various washings” that were an important part of the Old Testament system. But, interestingly enough, the Greek word for “washings” here is “baptismos”, which simply means “baptisms”, and is used elsewhere in the New Testament as well. In fact, Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible reflects this fact in English:
. . . only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon [them]. (Hebrews 9:10)
Thus, we have yet another New Testament passage discussing baptism, which points us back to the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews is telling us that the Old Testament cleansing/purification ceremonies were called “baptisms”.
A close reading of John 3:22-26 likewise reveals the correspondence of baptisms and Jewish purification rituals.
For this current article, there is one particular Old Testament purification ceremony to which I want to give particular focus:
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall then continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled.
‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.
‘When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Then he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.
‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” (Leviticus 12)
Note that the time of purification (i.e. baptism) is doubled when a woman gives birth to a girl, compared to when she gives birth to a boy. With a boy, the primary time of purification is 7 days, and then there are 33 additional days of cleansing. But with a girl, the primary time of purification is 14 days, and then there are 66 additional days of cleansing. Why the difference?
Some people have suggested that God was a misogynist, and just considered little girls to be twice as unclean as little boys. But this suggestion fits neither the character of our God, nor the collective evidence of the Scriptures. As Gallant has aptly noted:
This cannot be the case; the cleansing rites for men with discharges and those for women are strongly parallel (see Lev. 15.13-14, 28-30; the most significant difference is the additional requirement for the man to wash his clothes and bathe).
Rather, there is another explanation for the difference that fits the evidence much better. Gallant continues:
It is better to suppose that the difference in the period of uncleanness is connected to the other difference mentioned in Leviticus 12: namely, that the male is circumcised. It is precisely after seven days, when the infant male is circumcised on the eighth day, that the mother's primary uncleanness comes to an end; in the case of the female, the mother's primary uncleanness continues for another seven days.
(Source: http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/ec ... aptism.htm)
Thus, a woman had to participate in a purification (baptism) ritual for a total of 80 days when she gave birth to a little girl. But when she gave birth to a little boy, he was circumcised, and because of this circumcision, the mom only had to participate in the purification (baptism) for a total of 40 days.
There is a parallel to be seen here:
When the two million Israelites were baptized, God allowed them to go 40 years without circumcision.
Similarly, when an Israelite woman’s son was circumcised, God allowed her to reduce her purification (baptism) time by 40 days.
Thus, we can hardly say that Colossians 2:11-12 is the only direct Biblical link made between baptism and circumcision. On the contrary, Israelites in the early church very likely already had a firm link in mind between circumcision and baptism, long before Paul even wrote the book of Colossians.
Circumcision & Baptism
In Deuteronomy 30:6, God promised to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites, as well as the hearts of their descendants. “Heart circumcision” is a synonym for “regeneration”. Just as the flesh was cut away in the outward sign of flesh-circumcision, so the sinful carnal nature is cut away when the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart of a person. In short, physical circumcision is the sign, and heart circumcision (regeneration) is the thing signified. Nevertheless, physical circumcision was applied to infants.
Similarly, water baptism is a sign, and the washing of regeneration is the thing signified (cf. Titus 3:5, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, etc.). Thus, if water baptism signifies the same thing signified by circumcision, then should not the subjects be the same? If Old Testament infants received the sign of regeneration, then should not New Testament infants also receive the sign of regeneration?
Of course, a pivotal text often used to show the link between circumcision and baptism is Colossians 2:11-12, the text of which follows:
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Much debate has centered around this text. Some have suggested that Paul made a direct connection here between physical circumcision and water baptism. And understandably, Baptists have vehemently disagreed. After all, the circumcision mentioned here is a “circumcision made without hands”, and is a reference to heart circumcision, rather than flesh circumcision.
Some Baptists (such as John Piper), have suggested here that Paul is drawing a parallel between heart circumcision and water baptism. But this suggestion does not help the Baptist position, because physical circumcision was already a sign of heart circumcision (regeneration) in the Old Testament, as a look at Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4 and numerous other texts will show. So, if heart circumcision is linked to water baptism just as much as it is linked to physical circumcision, then the paedobaptist argument has been supported, and it stands to reason that the subjects of water baptism should be the same as the subjects of circumcision.
But I think Colossians 2:11-12 can be approached a little more simply. Paul is simply drawing a tight connection between OT heart-circumcision and NT spirit-baptism. When people are Spirit-baptized, they are heart-circumcised.
In short, Col. 2:11-12 says that OT heart-circumcision prefigured NT spirit-baptism.
I think that some people get mixed-up whenever they try to use Colossians 2:11-12 to make an immediate and direct connection between OT physical circumcision and NT physical water baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 does make a powerful case for paedobaptism, but only if it is used correctly. Contrary to some arguments that have been suggested regarding this passage, I would argue as follows:
Ø We know that OT physical circumcision was an outward picture of heart-circumcision.
Ø We know that NT water baptism is an outward picture of Spirit-baptism.
Ø In Colossians 2:11-12, the apostle Paul draws a tight connection between heart-circumcision and Spirit-baptism. All believers who receive one, necessarily receive the other as well.
Ø Therefore, since the spiritual reality behind water baptism is inextricably linked to the spiritual reality behind circumcision, it only makes sense to also draw a parallel between these two outward signs, also.
In short, if the spiritual realities are parallel, then the physical signs should also be parallel.
I think this makes a much stronger case for paedobaptism than the "physical circumcision = water baptism" argument sometimes used in this passage. If the spiritual realities go hand-in-hand, then how much more should the outward signs do the same!
Summary
As we have seen above, the New Testament itself points us back to numerous Old Testament passages, in order to teach us about baptism. The apostle Peter said that Noah’s flood was a type of baptism. The apostle Paul said that the Israelites were actually baptized during the exodus from Egypt. The apostle John and the author of Hebrews each recognized that the ceremonial purifications of the Old Testament were baptisms. The idea of “baptism” was not remotely new to the New Testament church. There had already been many baptisms in Israel’s history and practice, and so we must seek to understand these baptisms first, if we truly wish to understand the significance of baptism in the New Testament.
In the New Testament, the apostle Peter points back to Genesis 6-9. Noah was righteous, so Noah and his family received a type of baptism. And in 1 Peter 3:20-22, he tells us that New Testament baptism “corresponds to this”.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul points back to Exodus 14-15. God remembered the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Righteous Moses now led these people. And God baptized all two million of them, infants and all. Before the baptism, God strictly required circumcision. But after the baptism, God allowed all the Israelites to go 40 years without circumcision.
In the New Testament, the author to the Hebrews points back to numerous Old Testament ceremonial cleansings and purifications, and calls these “baptisms”. The apostle John also draws a link between OT purifications and NT baptism. One of these OT purifications is found in Leviticus 12, in which purification (baptism) was performed when babies were newly born. The birth of a girl necessitated 80 total days of purification (baptism). But the birth of a boy, due to his circumcision, reduced the length of baptismal purification by 40 days.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul draws an explicit link between heart circumcision and baptism. It matters not whether we view the baptism in Colossians 2:11-12 as water baptism, Spirit baptism, or both. If water baptism is in view, then Paul is merely saying that water baptism points to heart circumcision, just like physical circumcision pointed to heart circumcision; thus we would expect each ordinance to apply to the same subjects (namely: infants). But if Spirit baptism is in view, then Paul is simply saying that heart circumcision corresponds to Spirit baptism. And if the realities themselves are parallel, then it follows that the physical administration of the signs should also be parallel. Either way, infant baptism is affirmed.
And of course, we also see John’s baptism in the New Testament, we see baptism by the Holy Spirit, and we see water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Many people only focus on these baptisms. But in this article, we have already covered much Biblical ground concerning baptism, which is logically prior to determining what happened in New Testament water baptism. And with all of this information in mind, we need to ask some questions:
v Is it logical to assume that the institution of New Testament water baptism completely ignored all of the Old Testament precursors?
v Does it make sense to assume that Peter affirmed baptisms only for individuals, rather than for entire family households, in light of his explicit statements in 1 Peter 3?
v Should we think that Paul believed in baptism for adults and older-children only, even though he uses the word “baptized” to describe what happened to even Israelite infants, and then said that these things happened as “examples” for us?
v It is sensible to assume that there is no link between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12, especially in light of the other Biblical evidence linking the two rites?
I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more “baptistic” approach of just looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of Scripture, just to demonstrate that every method of approach, properly done, still leads us to the same truth. These are some of the truths which have been demonstrated by this method:
Ø Even when we look in the New Testament for baptism, we find many passages that point us back to the Old Testament.
Ø We cannot say that the Old Testament types of baptism are irrelevant to the church, because the apostles Peter and Paul specifically tell us that they are relevant.
Ø Colossians 2:11-12 is not the only passage of Scripture which links circumcision and baptism. The Israelite exodus and the Leviticus 12 purification ceremony each point us to the same truth, as well. (Not to mention the obvious fact that physical circumcision pointed to heart circumcision, which is just another term for “regeneration”.)
Furthermore, close looks at the Noahic and Israelite baptisms reveal a covenantal, federal headship approach to baptism, rather than an individualistic approach. And the multiple links between circumcision and baptism further solidify this covenantal tie. So, even though this project began simply by observing numerous explicit New Testament references to baptism, we end up at the same place where many other baptismal articles begin: with the covenant.
I will not go into any detail concerning Covenant Theology at this point. Many other authors, far better than I, have already done this. But since a Biblical study of New Testament baptism has led us to the doctrine of covenantal headship, I will close with one of my favorite quotes concerning the membership of believers’ children in the church:
The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
-B.B. Warfield
Amen!
--- Article by Joseph M. Gleason - Semptember, 2005
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/
