Jeremias draws attention to the use of what he calls "the kôluein formula" in reference to baptism in a number of non-canonical writings. ^{Baptism in the NT, SCM 1950, p 72).}   While the argument here, by itself, is tenuous it remains a possibility that the early Christians in their approach to baptism were influenced by the words of Jesus on the occasion recorded in Mark 10 and that they made a connection between Jesus' action with respect to little children and the practice of baptism generally.

The question is often asked, "How can we baptise children who are not able to express their own personal faith in Jesus Christ?" That is to put the emphasis in the wrong place. The more relevant question is this, "How can we refuse baptism for those children whom Christ has indicated are in his kingdom.?" Or, "How can we refuse baptism for those children who are within God's covenant?" ^{The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism , The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p 49 (Church of Scotland's Special Commission, study document).}

1. for you and your children (Acts 3.39)

After Peter had preached his sermon on the Day of Pentecost those listening cried out in great anguish, "What shall we do?" Peter's response is relevant to our discussion and is given here in full (vv 38f): "Repent and be baptised, 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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."

1. Questions

That the promise is "for you and for your children" raises a number of questions. (a) Are the children referred to the actual children of those adults whom Peter is addressing, i.e. to you and to the children already yours? (b) Or does the word 'children' refer to future generations? (c) If it refers to future generations, does it refer exclusively to adults of future generations or does it include children of future generations? (d) If it refers to orat least includes children (whether current or future) are the children only those capable of making responsible choices or may the children be infants?

2. Preliminary observations

The following observations are worthy of consideration.

(1) There is evidence that the early Christians lived in expectation of an early return of Christ, a return which would bring the present age to an end.T hey expected it in their life-time. It was an expectation that was particularly strong in the earliest days. ^{1 & 2 Thessalonians, Nelson, p 99). Guthrie concurs, "as Paul grew older he would realise that the possibility of his being alive at the parousia was diminishing" (p 810).} That being the case there is at least a question as to whether a promise for "future generations" would have had much meaning for them. The Study Document of the Church of Scotland puts this rather more firmly, "If the Early Church held widely the expectation of an early Parousia ending the present age…, the only descendants to whom this promise would appear to be relevant would be those who were actually children on the Day of Pentecost." ^{The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism (convener, T F Torrance), St Andrew's Press1958, p 48.}

(2) It is difficult to imagine that parents listening to Peter would not assume the inclusion of their children. ^{Baptism, Cross Publishing 1973, pp 12-18: "…let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking…First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realise that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4.1-3 makes this abundantly clear… Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realise that the Covenant made with Abraham is immutable, that is, unchangeable. Hebrews6.13-18 is very definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable, and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation." Romans 4.13 tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham,and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfilment of that promise (cf. Galatians 3,7,8,13,14,25)…The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances –the Passover and Circumcision. 1 Corinthians 5.7,8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians2.11,12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision. These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer's child, so also the sign ofhis faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?"} Why should they not assume their inclusion? No restriction is indicated. Most commentators, in whatever way they interpret 'children', are agreed that the reference to those "far off" is to those living away from Palestine, i.e. it has to do with geography rather than time.  In other words for the people listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost it had to do with the present and the immediate future. It is at least reasonable to assume that the same was true with respect to "your children".

(3) No distinction is made between children who are and who are not capable of an intelligent and genuine repentance. If it is argued that the context of Peter's response requires such a distinction, e.g. the command to repent, surely that is to beg the question, namely, "Are children included with their parents in the covenant which God has established?"

(4) In Jerusalem, for the celebration of Pentecost, and listening to Peter's sermon were God-fearing Jews from all over "the Graeco-Roman world situated round the Mediterranean basin, indeed (from) every nation in which there were Jews" ^{The Message of Acts, IVP1990, p 63.} (Acts 2.5-11). These God fearing Jews included proselytes (v 11). While we cannot be sure when proselyte baptism began ^{Jewish Proselyte Baptisms ,under "The Origins of Water Baptism.} we do know that the children (including infants) of those converting to Judaism were baptised along with their parents. If baptism into Judaism included children would proselytes have expected less when baptised into Christ? ^{A Case for Infant Baptism , Grove Books1973, p 21.}

1. Context

To answer the questions raised above we must turn not only to the immediate context of Peter's response but to the context of the covenant established by God with Abraham in Gen 17.7 and confirmed by Moses in Deut 10.10-13: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and your descendants after you…to be your God and the God of your descendants."  As Calvin observes, commenting on Acts 2.39,"The addition of their children derives from the word of promise (found in Gen 17.7)." It would be difficult to improve on John Murray's succinct statement with respect to the significance and relevance of the Abrahamic covenant for our understanding of Acts 2.39:

  "We are not in a position to appreciate the significance of this (that the promise is to the children as well as to the parents) unless we bear in mind the covenant relationship established by God and clearly revealed in the Old Testament. It is in the light of Gen 17.7…that this word of Peter is to be understood. It is this principle, institution, or arrangement alone that gives meaning to Peter's appeal… What does this imply? It demonstrates that Peter, in the illumination and the power of the Spirit of Pentecost, recognised that there was no suspension or abrogation of that divine administration whereby children are embraced with their parents in God's covenant promise. It is simply this and nothing less that Acts 2.39 evinces… Nothing could advertise more conspicuously and conclusively that this principle of God's gracious government, by which children along with their parents are the possessors of God's covenant promise, is fully operative in the New Testament as well as in the Old than this simple fact that on the occasion of Pentecost Peter took up the refrain of the old covenant and said, 'The promise is to you and to your children.' It is the certification of the Holy Spirit to us that this method of the administration of the covenant of grace is not suspended. It is because there is such evidence of the perpetual operation of this gracious principle in the administration of God's covenant that we baptise infants. It is for that reason alone that we continue to baptise them. It is the divine institution, not, indeed, commended by human wisdom and not palatable to those who are influenced by the dictates of human wisdom, yet commended by the wisdom of God. It is the seal to us of His marvellous goodness that He is not only a God to His people but also to their (children)…" ^{Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 68.}

1. Household Baptisms (oikos is translated by both 'household' and 'family')

1. General considerations

When we read through the Acts of the Apostles we discover that whole households received baptism. It is true that the number of reported instances of household baptisms is not large.  There are two for certain, those of Lydia and the Philippian jailer (16.14f; 34), and the possibility of Cornelius (10.44ff).In addition there is the certain instance of Stephan as recorded in 1 Cor1.16.The following observations are worthy of note.

(1) The number of actual instances of Christian baptism recorded throughout the New Testament is itself small. There are eleven in total.  It is significant that in three out of the eleven there is an explicit reference to the baptism of households and, as G Bromiley points out, there is no reason to believe that these three were exceptional. ^{Children of Promise , Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p 6.} Three out of eleven is more significant when we take into account that in two of the eleven baptisms personal circumstances ruled out the possibility of household baptisms, i.e. those of the Ethiopian eunuch travelling alone on official business and of Saul at the home of Ananias after he had been led there blind by his fellow persecutors. In the remaining instances there is nothing to rule out the baptism of families.

(2) There are references in the New Testament where the household or family clearly includes children, e.g. 1 Tim 3.4-5,12; 5.4).^{The Message of Acts, IVP 1990, p 263.}

(3) It is useful to bear in mind that oikos is used much more frequently in the New Testament in its literal and original sense of 'a house'. The fact that it is also used in a metaphorical and derivative sense of the people who live in the house has some relevance to our theme. When we are told that Lydia "and the members of her household" were baptised and that the jailer" and all his family" (literally, all his) were baptised, it is unnatural to exclude children on the basis that they were not of an age to exercise personal faith. That is especially so in the cases of both Lydia and the Philippian jailer where there is no indication that members of the household, apart from the head of the household, exercised personal faith. It is much more likely that children would be included as they were in Jewish families under the Old Covenant.

(4) To claim, a priori, that there would necessarily be no children present in the families baptised, either of the head of the house or of servants is a claim too far. It does not reflect the reality of family life among the people in that part of the world at that time and, more particularly, the reality of family life among the people of a covenanting God. It can neither be proven nor justified. On the contrary, as the Church of Scotland's Special Commission states, "It is in accordance with Biblical usage to speak of households as including children (Gen 17.12ff; Exodus 12.16-27; 1 Samuel1.21ff; John4.53)…" ^{The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, a study document issued by the Special Commission on Baptism of the Church of Scotland (Convener, Prof TF Torrance), The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p46.}  The same Report further observes, "they would be most unusual households for the Levant if none of their members had young children. "^{Op. cit.   p46.}

While we cannot prove conclusively that there were infants in the households referred to above, we concur with the conclusion of J Murray: "Every consideration would point to the conclusion that household baptism was a frequent occurrence in the practice of the church in the apostolic days. If so, it would be practically impossible to believe that in none of these households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable to believe so. The infants in the households belonged to the households and would be baptised. Presumption is, therefore, of the strongest kind, even though we do not have an overt and proven instance of infant baptism". ^{Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 65f).}

The response of those who hold to a contrary position is, very often, to take each instance of a household baptism and seek to prove that children were not baptised. Such is to attempt the impossible. Moreover, the approach is wrong. We begin not with the examples of household baptism in the Book of Acts but with the inclusion of children within the covenant .As C Buchanan points out, "The occurrence of household baptisms is exactly what we would have expected from our survey of both the antecedents of Christian baptism and the New Testament theological matters. And, sure enough, herethey are – we ought to feel like the astronomers who discovered Neptune first of all by plotting it from the statistics of its 'pull' on Uranus, and secondly by turning their telescope to the part of the sky the calculations indicated. The two fitted – the object they found could not but be the new planet. So with us – the case is strong even before we look for the actual phenomenon, it is vastly increased when we find it where we would calculate it should be." ^{A Case for Infant Baptism ,Grove Books 1973, p 20.}

1. Particular instances

A closer though brief look at each of the household baptisms will be useful in that each of the accounts has something to tell us that is relevant to our study.

(1) The case of Lydia  and her household (ho oikos autos); Acts 16.14-15. A significant emphasis in this account is that of God's initiative with respect to Lydia's conversion. As I H Marshall has it, "Her conversion is attributed to the fact that the Lord opened her heart… Lukeunderlines that conversion is due to the action of God who opens hearts…This view of things is exactly the same as we find in Paul who says that people do not believe because their minds have been darkened by the god of this world(2 Cor 4.4), but that they are converted when the gospel comes to them…inpower and in the Holy Spirit… (1 Thes 1.6)." ^{The Acts of the Apostles,  IVP 1980, p 267.}   Interestingly there is no pre-requisite for a confession of faith. The factthat Lydia was subsequently regarded as a believer does not negate this point.We are simply told that after the Lord opened her heart "she and themembers of her household were baptised" following which she invited Paul and his companions to stay with her at her own house. The fact that she was the head of the house does not mean that she had not married and that she did not have children. She may well have been a widow and a mother, or even a grandmother with children and grandchildren.^{The Acts of the Apostles  IVP 1980, p 268; G W Bromiley, Children of Promise, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p 7; FF Bruce, The Book of Acts, Marshall, Morgan and Scott 1968, p 331; C Buchanan, A Case for Infant Baptism, Grove Books 1973, p 20.}

(2) The case of the Philippian jailer and 'all his' (hoi autou); Acts 16.31-34.In this account the jailer is directed to believe in the Lord Jesus, the consequence of which would be that he and his household (all his) will be saved.  Immediately after the wounds of Paul and Silas had been bathed the jailer and his family were baptised. There seems to be little time here for every member of the jailer's household to be personally evangelised or counselled or instructed. According to the NIV Luke's account concludes with the statement that the jailer "was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God– he and his whole family." In fact the NIV is misleading because, as Jeremias and others have pointed out, the text does not lend itself to that translation. ^{Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries  (tran. David Cairns), SCM 1960, pp 22f.} That every single member of the jailer's household personally believed is an assumption. Longenecker has to say, " To judge by their actions, the jailer and his family believed in Christ…" ^{The Expositor's Bible Commentary  Vol 9 John-Acts, (Ed. FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1981, p 465.} (italics added). A better translation is that of the RSV, "the jailer rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God." The verbs translated "rejoiced" and "believed" are both in the singular. We may concur with Francis Schaeffer when he writes, "No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well." ^{Baptism , Cross Publishing 1973, p 19.}

(3) The case of Cornelius; Acts 10.44-48. Again the emphasis here is on God's initiative 44): "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." Moreover, as with Lydia there is no pre-requisite of faith. It is not faith that enables grace but rather grace that enables faith. Even faith is a gift of God's grace otherwise salvation would be "of works" and those exercising it would be able to boast (Eph 2.8). Baptism is primarily the sign of God's intervening and saving grace, not of our personal faith. As Bromiley observes,  "What calls for attention is the endowment with the Holy Spirit. This, of course, would bring faith into it but plainlydid not lie within the range of human possibilities, whether infant or adult. It was miraculous in character – a mighty act of God."^{Children of Promise , Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans),p 6.}  Although there is no mention of Cornelius' household in the Acts10 narrative John Stott clearly regards this as the first " household ^{baptism" The Message of Acts , IVP 1990, p 263. He describes the baptism of Lydia as the 'second household baptism". In a footnote he lists Acts 10.33as the first.} and not without reason. When Peter subsequently explained his actions to the church in Jerusalem he related how an angel had appeared to Cornelius declaring that he and all his house would be saved through Peter's message (Acts 11.14). The Baptist theologian Kurt Aland in his response to Jeremias' Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries and opposing the baptism of children wrote: "If Acts 11.14 speaks of the salvation of the oikos, this salvation, so far as the slaves belonging to the house or children are included, is understood indirectly; the conversion of Cornelius will have the effect of making theirs to follow, or even embraces theirs: the 'house' is saved when the head of the house is saved". ^{Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, SCM 1961, p 91. In a footnote land acknowledges the same pattern as applying to the conversion of the Philippian Jailer.} If the salvation of Cornelius in some sense "embraces" the salvation of his household, and if in some sense "the 'house' is saved' when the head of the house is saved" why should the household not be baptised? Is this not exactly the position which pertained under the Old Testament covenant and which is "filled out" in the New Testament covenant?

1. Household baptisms – in conclusion

Throughout our consideration of infant baptism our approach has been that it is impossible to prove conclusively from the New Testament either that children were baptised or that they were not baptised in the New Testament era. It certainly cannot be decided solely from a consideration of household baptisms. In any case that is not the correct starting place. We have stated previously the necessity of taking into account the evidence of the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments; the importance of circumstantial evidence; the meaning and significance of baptism; that the case for the baptism of children is of a cumulative nature; and that the evidence has to be presented as a consistent whole. Before commencing our study of household baptisms we considered the Old Testament background, the idea of covenant and of family solidarity, the teaching of Jesus, and the significant connection made by Peter on the Day of Pentecost between the promise of the old covenant and the fulfilment of the new. We have taken issue with the excessive individualism that has developed in this part of the world and with the failure to give sufficient weight to the all-pervading, all-prevailing reality of solidarity in the ancient world. In this respect we agree with Michael Green when he says, "We have become so infatuated with individualism that we find this hard to appreciate… The solidarity of the family in baptism, as in all else, is the decisive factor." ^{Baptism, Hodder and Stoughton 1987, p 70.}   It is in the light of all this that we should have expected the baptism of entire households and that the baptism of these households would have included the baptism of children. Adults brought from darkness to light, whose hearts the Lord opened, on whom the Spirit of Christ descended, would have taken it for granted that their children would be included and would have been nonplussed by their exclusion. So should we! In fact what we ought to have anticipated is what we find in the household baptisms in the Book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians1. Moreover there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that our anticipation was false or that the children of disciples should not be baptised.  

Other Sections of the Report an be reached by clicking on the following Chapter headings:

Institution of Baptism

Origins of Water Baptism

The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence

The Baptism of Children: Extra-Biblical Evidence

The Proper Subjects for Baptism 

The Mode of Baptism 

The Way Forward