Does Acts 2:39 support the idea of infant baptism? Text and Immediate Context “For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off — as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:39) The verse follows Peter’s imperative: “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.” (v. 38). Both sentences form one thought unit delivered on the day of Pentecost. Literary Context 1. Repentance (μετανοήσατε) + baptism (βαπτισθήτω) are second-person aorist imperatives directed to conscious hearers (v. 38). 2. The gift of the Spirit (v. 38) equals “the promise” (v. 39), repeating Luke 24:49. 3. Verse 40 continues, “Be saved from this corrupt generation,” again appealing to moral agency. Infants are never addressed. The Flow of Salvation in Acts Consistently: preaching → belief/repentance → baptism → reception of the Spirit (Acts 2:41; 8:12-17; 10:44-48; 16:31-34; 18:8; 19:4-6). No narrative describes baptism preceding personal faith. Covenantal Echoes and Their Limits “Yes, the wording ‘you and your children’ recalls covenant formulas (Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 6:2).” However: • In Genesis 17 circumcision was a mandated sign; Acts 15 rules circumcision non-binding, so continuity of physical infant sign is not assumed. • The New Covenant sign is internal (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:10). Acts 2 identifies it as the Spirit, bestowed on those called. • Peter deliberately adds “all who are far off,” moving past ethnic lineage to divine election. Paedobaptist Appeal Explained Advocates reason: 1. The promise includes children; therefore baptize them as covenant heirs. 2. Household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16) plausibly involved infants. 3. Early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.4) speak of “infants being reborn to God.” Credobaptist Response 1. Inclusion in promise ≠ qualification for sign; v. 38 predicates baptism on repentance. 2. “Children” (τέκνα) is often idiomatic for descendants (Exodus 20:5; Luke 1:17). Peter addresses Jews whose “children” were present or future, capable of one day repenting. 3. Household texts explicitly pair baptism with belief (Acts 16:31-34; 18:8). Luke never claims infants were in those homes. 4. Earliest extra-biblical teaching manual, Didache 7 (c. 50-70 AD), instructs candidates to “fast” before baptism — a capacity infants lack. 5. Tertullian (On Baptism 18, c. 200 AD) discourages infant baptism, calling for delay until personal profession, indicating the practice was disputed rather than apostolic consensus. 6. Archaeological epitaphs of 1st-2nd-century believers regularly record baptism ages from teens upward; infant baptismal inscriptions surge only in late 3rd century. Theological Considerations • Salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism symbolizes union with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4), experiences requiring cognitive trust (Colossians 2:12). • Regeneration is inseparable from divine calling (Acts 2:39; John 6:44). The text stresses God’s effectual summons, not parental faith. • Spiritual gifts, including the Spirit Himself, are never granted in Acts apart from belief. Patristic Corroboration in Detail • Hermas, Shepherd Mandate 4.3 (mid-2nd c.): baptism follows recognition of sin. • Justin Martyr, Apology 61 (c. 150 AD): candidates “choose to be born again,” entering water “in the name of God.” • Origen (Homily on Luke 14:5) endorses infant baptism but cites “tradition from the apostles” rather than Scripture, confirming textual silence. Archaeological and Documentary Evidence • Rome’s Catacomb of St. Callixtus inscriptions (2nd c.) note baptism ages (e.g., “Emerentiana, baptized at 14”) with no infant references. • No 1st-century baptismal fonts sized for sprinkling infants; extant basins accommodate immersion of youths/adults (Jerusalem’s Bethany baptistery, c. 50 AD). Counter-Questions to Infant-Baptism Appeal 1. Where does Acts 2 command baptism apart from repentance? 2. If “children” necessitates baptism, why does the same phrase in Joel 2:28 require prophetic speech, which infants cannot perform? 3. Why does Acts uniformly postpone baptism until after hearing and believing? Synthesis of the Passage Acts 2:39 affirms: • Universality: Promise transcends generation and geography. • Conditionality: Recipients are “as many as the Lord … will call.” • Sequence: Calling → repentance → baptism → Spirit. Therefore, the verse extends hope to future generations but does not institute a rite for the unrepentant. Conclusion Acts 2:39, in its Greek syntax, immediate and canonical context, and earliest reception, offers no warrant for infant baptism. The verse champions the reach of God’s saving promise while retaining repentance and divine calling as prerequisites for baptism, thereby aligning with believer’s baptism rather than paedobaptism. |
    |