In reading the NT the careful exegete should make at least FIVE OBSERVATIONS pertaining to the children of believers.
First of all, according to the NT, the children of at least one believing parent are HOLY. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul is explaining the implications of the gospel for marriage. In verses 12-16, he considers the problem of marriages in which only one spouse is a believer. Under such circumstances, Paul encourages the believing spouse to remain married to the unbeliever, and in verse 14 he explains his rationale. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In other words, the faith of the believing spouse makes (notice the use of the verb in Greek) the unbelieving spouse holy, and because of the faith of at least one believing spouse, the children of that marriage are holy (notice the use of the noun in Greek). Paul’s expectation is that the unbelieving spouse will be influenced by the faith of the believing spouse, but Paul’s assertion is that the status of the children of at least one believing parent is presently holy. In order to accomplish this, Paul uses the noun “holy” of the child and the verb “make holy” of the parent or spouse. The verb speaks of the effect of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. However, the noun speaks of the effect of the faith of the parent on the status of the child. Furthermore, this is why it would be inappropriate to say that Paul says the same thing of the unbelieving spouse that he says of the child. In terms of the unbelieving spouse, Paul speaks of the influence of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. In terms of the children, however, Paul speaks of their present status by virtue of the faith of one of their parents. They are holy. Of course, the fact that the children are “holy” does not necessarily mean that they are “born again” or “saved” or “justified” in any of the ways in which we ordinarily use those terms. It simply means that they are “set apart.” But in what sense are the children of at least one believing parent “set apart”? It would seem that the children of believers are “set apart” in the sense that they are set apart from the world and made members of God’s covenant people. Calvin’s citation of the second half of Romans 11:16 seems helpful in this regard: “…if the root is holy, so are the branches” (See Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:14). This is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as well (See also, Ezra 9:2).
Second, the children of covenant members are RECIPIENTS OF THE SAME PROMISE that God makes to their parents, who are adult covenant members. After preaching a powerful sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded a response from his Jewish audience. He says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39). By remembering that Peter is addressing a Jewish audience (cf. 2:5, 37) and that the Jewish people are covenant members, it is incredibly significant that Peter offers the promise of the Spirit (cf. 1:4; 2:33) to them (the Jews) and their children. In other words, speaking from the perspective of the children, the children of covenant members are recipients of the same promise that their parents receive as members of the covenant people. If it is objected that this promise is only valid for Jews, not Gentiles, then the objector would do well to consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11-13. Paul says, “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:11-13). In other words, it would be appropriate to assert that in Acts 2:39 Peter could have said, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off (Gentiles), everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself [and their children],” but he does not say this because (A) he is addressing a Jewish audience and because (B) the truth that the promise made to the Jews comes also to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ is developed only later in the NT. So then, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude from Acts 2:39 that the children of covenant members are the recipients of the same promise as their parents. And this is not even to mention the obvious reference to the Abrahamic covenant and the continuity of that covenant with the new covenant.
Third, the children of covenant members were BAPTIZED WHEN THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED. It is well known that both Acts and 1 Corinthians contain several examples of household baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16). However, what is not as well known is the fact that in several cases the author only records the faith of the head of the household. This is true of both Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-34). Please note that the point is not that these households necessarily included infants, which we should not assume, or even that the children in the household were baptized without faith; the point is, however, that for some reason Luke considered the faith of the head of the household (Lydia, the Philippian jailer) as a sufficient rationale for baptizing the whole household. The skilled theologian needs to provide a reason why Luke thought this was sufficient.At this point, it should seem sufficiently clear that the understanding of Acts 2:39, which has already been discussed above, provides that rationale. At the very least, baptism is an outward sign of God’s promise to baptize his people in the Holy Spirit. According to Luke, the children of believers were baptized along with their parents precisely because God makes the exact same promise to them. This does not mean that the children have no responsibility to believe that promise. In point of fact, in order to benefit from the promise, they must believe. However, on the positive side, it does mean that God does not need their faith before he makes his promise. God gives his promise based on the covenant, not the faith of individual covenant members. Therefore, God’s covenantal promise is the basis of their faith, not the other way around. As Luther correctly asserts, “Faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith;” and he says, “True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith” (Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition, Edited by T. Lull, pp. 249, 253). Moreover, since God’s promise is an extension of the covenant, he makes the same promise to all covenant members. Therefore, since children are members of the covenant (1 Corinthians 7:14) and recipients of the promise made to their parents (Acts 2:39), they were baptized along with their parents.
Fourth, children are addressed as MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. When Paul writes to “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus,” he later includes children among the people he addresses. For example, in Ephesians 6:1, he says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Now, it should be quite obvious that since he writes to saints in Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and since he addresses children in this text, he certainly assumes that these children are saints and even believers. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they were not included as members of the Christian church, even as they are mentioned here as serving in that capacity.
Fifth and finally, children, even infants, are INCLUDED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Consider Luke 18:15-17. In verse 15, people are brining infants (Greek: ta brephe) to Jesus for his blessing. However, the disciples try to prevent them from doing so. Jesus corrected his disciples and said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (v.16). It was probably surprising to the disciples that the reason Jesus permits the children to come to him is because the kingdom of God belongs to such as them. Jesus neither says to such like them nor does he mean it. He means that the kingdom of God belongs not only to those who are childlike, but he also means that it belongs to children. Hence, it is appropriate to say that children, even infants (cf. v.15), are included in the kingdom of God. Jesus probably means children in general, not necessarily every child without distinction. However, at the very least, it would include the children of his covenant people.
So then, in conclusion, according to the NT, the children of believers are holy, recipients of God’s promise, baptized along with their believing parents, addressed as Christians, and included in the kingdom of God. These observations are astonishing, and they do not even include the additional observations that could be made about the continuity of the new covenant with the previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), which all included children. Thus, the NT leads us to believe that the covenantal status of the children of believers is equal to the covenantal status of their parents.
First of all, according to the NT, the children of at least one believing parent are HOLY. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul is explaining the implications of the gospel for marriage. In verses 12-16, he considers the problem of marriages in which only one spouse is a believer. Under such circumstances, Paul encourages the believing spouse to remain married to the unbeliever, and in verse 14 he explains his rationale. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In other words, the faith of the believing spouse makes (notice the use of the verb in Greek) the unbelieving spouse holy, and because of the faith of at least one believing spouse, the children of that marriage are holy (notice the use of the noun in Greek). Paul’s expectation is that the unbelieving spouse will be influenced by the faith of the believing spouse, but Paul’s assertion is that the status of the children of at least one believing parent is presently holy. In order to accomplish this, Paul uses the noun “holy” of the child and the verb “make holy” of the parent or spouse. The verb speaks of the effect of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. However, the noun speaks of the effect of the faith of the parent on the status of the child. Furthermore, this is why it would be inappropriate to say that Paul says the same thing of the unbelieving spouse that he says of the child. In terms of the unbelieving spouse, Paul speaks of the influence of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. In terms of the children, however, Paul speaks of their present status by virtue of the faith of one of their parents. They are holy. Of course, the fact that the children are “holy” does not necessarily mean that they are “born again” or “saved” or “justified” in any of the ways in which we ordinarily use those terms. It simply means that they are “set apart.” But in what sense are the children of at least one believing parent “set apart”? It would seem that the children of believers are “set apart” in the sense that they are set apart from the world and made members of God’s covenant people. Calvin’s citation of the second half of Romans 11:16 seems helpful in this regard: “…if the root is holy, so are the branches” (See Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:14). This is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as well (See also, Ezra 9:2).
Second, the children of covenant members are RECIPIENTS OF THE SAME PROMISE that God makes to their parents, who are adult covenant members. After preaching a powerful sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded a response from his Jewish audience. He says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39). By remembering that Peter is addressing a Jewish audience (cf. 2:5, 37) and that the Jewish people are covenant members, it is incredibly significant that Peter offers the promise of the Spirit (cf. 1:4; 2:33) to them (the Jews) and their children. In other words, speaking from the perspective of the children, the children of covenant members are recipients of the same promise that their parents receive as members of the covenant people. If it is objected that this promise is only valid for Jews, not Gentiles, then the objector would do well to consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11-13. Paul says, “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:11-13). In other words, it would be appropriate to assert that in Acts 2:39 Peter could have said, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off (Gentiles), everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself [and their children],” but he does not say this because (A) he is addressing a Jewish audience and because (B) the truth that the promise made to the Jews comes also to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ is developed only later in the NT. So then, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude from Acts 2:39 that the children of covenant members are the recipients of the same promise as their parents. And this is not even to mention the obvious reference to the Abrahamic covenant and the continuity of that covenant with the new covenant.
Third, the children of covenant members were BAPTIZED WHEN THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED. It is well known that both Acts and 1 Corinthians contain several examples of household baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16). However, what is not as well known is the fact that in several cases the author only records the faith of the head of the household. This is true of both Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-34). Please note that the point is not that these households necessarily included infants, which we should not assume, or even that the children in the household were baptized without faith; the point is, however, that for some reason Luke considered the faith of the head of the household (Lydia, the Philippian jailer) as a sufficient rationale for baptizing the whole household. The skilled theologian needs to provide a reason why Luke thought this was sufficient.At this point, it should seem sufficiently clear that the understanding of Acts 2:39, which has already been discussed above, provides that rationale. At the very least, baptism is an outward sign of God’s promise to baptize his people in the Holy Spirit. According to Luke, the children of believers were baptized along with their parents precisely because God makes the exact same promise to them. This does not mean that the children have no responsibility to believe that promise. In point of fact, in order to benefit from the promise, they must believe. However, on the positive side, it does mean that God does not need their faith before he makes his promise. God gives his promise based on the covenant, not the faith of individual covenant members. Therefore, God’s covenantal promise is the basis of their faith, not the other way around. As Luther correctly asserts, “Faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith;” and he says, “True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith” (Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition, Edited by T. Lull, pp. 249, 253). Moreover, since God’s promise is an extension of the covenant, he makes the same promise to all covenant members. Therefore, since children are members of the covenant (1 Corinthians 7:14) and recipients of the promise made to their parents (Acts 2:39), they were baptized along with their parents.
Fourth, children are addressed as MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. When Paul writes to “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus,” he later includes children among the people he addresses. For example, in Ephesians 6:1, he says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Now, it should be quite obvious that since he writes to saints in Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and since he addresses children in this text, he certainly assumes that these children are saints and even believers. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they were not included as members of the Christian church, even as they are mentioned here as serving in that capacity.
Fifth and finally, children, even infants, are INCLUDED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Consider Luke 18:15-17. In verse 15, people are brining infants (Greek: ta brephe) to Jesus for his blessing. However, the disciples try to prevent them from doing so. Jesus corrected his disciples and said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (v.16). It was probably surprising to the disciples that the reason Jesus permits the children to come to him is because the kingdom of God belongs to such as them. Jesus neither says to such like them nor does he mean it. He means that the kingdom of God belongs not only to those who are childlike, but he also means that it belongs to children. Hence, it is appropriate to say that children, even infants (cf. v.15), are included in the kingdom of God. Jesus probably means children in general, not necessarily every child without distinction. However, at the very least, it would include the children of his covenant people.
So then, in conclusion, according to the NT, the children of believers are holy, recipients of God’s promise, baptized along with their believing parents, addressed as Christians, and included in the kingdom of God. These observations are astonishing, and they do not even include the additional observations that could be made about the continuity of the new covenant with the previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), which all included children. Thus, the NT leads us to believe that the covenantal status of the children of believers is equal to the covenantal status of their parents.
1 comment:
Amen. The NT definitely continues the family solidarity principle of the OT. Scripture unfolds like a flower when you recognize that each successive covenant does not annul previous covenants made by God but are expansions of them. Good post.
Post a Comment