Acts 2:39 In Its Context (Part II): Case Studies In Paedobaptist Interpretations Of Acts 2:39

By Jamin Hübner

Jamin Hubner, B.A. Theology (Dordt College), MAR (Reformed Theological Seminary, pursuing), Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Black Hills, SD, is founder of RealApologetics.org and the author of several books.

Introduction

In the first part of this study, we examined the text of Acts 2:39 and drew a number of conclusions that were relevant to the paedobaptist/credobaptist debate. Some of the main points of that discussion include the following:

1. The primary meaning of “the promise” in Acts 2:39 is the promise of the Spirit (2:38, 33, 17-21), which is the Spirit.[1] There may (or may not) be specific allusions to the Abrahamic covenant and its mentioning of children. If there are allusions, the context is generally clear that they are not what Peter immediately has in mind.[2] His primary focus is on the New Covenant reality prophesied in Joel 2 that is specifically fulfilled in Acts 2:17-21: the Spirit’s outpouring on all of God’s repentant people.[3]

2. The “children” of 2:39:

a. Are perhaps a familiar category to the Jews (especially after Peter just cited Joel 2, with “sons and daughters”), but cannot be properly understood apart from the rest of the verse: “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Peter’s whole argument revolves around Joel 2 and the fulfillment of those promises in the church; he is asserting something unique about the New Covenant church as a fulfillment of the promise (“Spirit will be poured out on all flesh,” “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” “the promise is for…everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself,” etc.), not re-establishing or re-asserting an Old Testament feature (e.g. “covenant community” that includes children, etc.). 

b. Hence, the final result in verse 41 is that “those who received his word were baptized,” not “those who received his word and their children were baptized” or some other such variant. 

c. Infants are not being discussed since (a) the children being referred to are probably the “sons and daughters” prophesying (v. 11) or are at least contained in that group, (b) “children” (τέκνοι) and not “infants” (βρέφος) nor “infants/children” (νὴπιος) is used, (c) the imperatives (“repent and be baptized”) in verse 38 cannot be separated from verse 39. Thus, even if the “children” refers to infants, the whole context requires that their entrance into the fulfillment of the promise depends on whether or not they (not their parents) repent. And if they repent, they should be baptized. 

d. Thus, there is little (if any) basis to directly apply Acts 2:39 to infants for any reason.

3. Repentance is central to Peter’s thought even as he strongly grounds his arguments from the Old Testament (Acts 2:38, 3:17-20, 25-26). This is because Peter (in the aforementioned texts) is primarily talking about the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises in the New Covenant. In the New Covenant (in contrast with the Old, where spiritual qualifications were not required to enter) the required response (e.g. faith, repentance) is conferred on “all” those who are brought into it (see Jer. 31; Heb. 8).

a. Baptism (unlike circumcision[4]) is a sign of (actual, not potential) new life (Col. 2:12), forgiveness and cleansing from sin (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), and being identified with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:10-14). This is because those who are to be baptized have been regenerated (Heb. 8:11), forgiven (Heb. 8:12), and united to Christ. In other words, those who are to receive the sign of the New Covenant (baptism) are members of the New Covenant (believers). 

b. In Scripture, those who are “born of the flesh” (physical descendants of Abraham, “perishable seed” 1 Pet. 1:23) received the sign of circumcision, but those born “according to the Spirit” and born “through promise” (according to “imperishable seed” 1 Pet. 1:23; Gal. 4:23-31) now receive the New Covenant sign of baptism; the “children of the promise” in Galatians 4 are “like Isaac” and like the children of promise in Acts 2:38-39. They are all in the same group.

4. The promise of the Spirit (whether in Acts 2:39 or Gal. 3:14) cannot and should not be equated with the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 17 or simply the covenant of grace because (a) though related, they are two different concepts and (b) it is undeniable that Peter’s focus is the specific promise of the Spirit. As such, there is no need or grounds for inserting the specific patterns and features of the Abrahamic Covenant (or covenant of grace, if it is considered essentially the same) into Acts 2:37-41.

Having laid this vital, exegetical foundation, we are now in a better position to examine alternative interpretations of Acts 2:39. The short story is, the vast majority of the above exegetical conclusions are either ignored or rejected by Reformed paedobaptists past and present. All of the paedobaptist interpretations mentioned below assert that Acts 2:39 does little more than re-affirm a principle of the Old Testament, such as that the physical seed is being talked about because of “you and your children.” None of them see Acts 2:39 as having anything to do with the uniqueness/newness of the New Covenant, nor do they view Pentecost and the fulfillment of Joel 2 as relevant to interpreting the text. Combined with what appears to be loyalty to Calvin, there is, then, a repetitious pattern of errors in interpreting Acts 2:39 throughout history.

Acts 2:39 Out Of Its Context: Calvin, Owen, Turretin, WCF, Àbrakel, Bavinck, Buswell

John Calvin says[5] in 4.26.15 of the Battles’ translation of The Institutes:

Do you see how, after Christ’s resurrection also, he thinks that the promise of the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only allegorically but literally, for Abraham’s physical offspring? To the same point applies Peter’s announcement to the Jews (Acts 2:39) that the benefit of the gospel belongs to them and their offspring by right of the covenant; and in the following chapter he calls them “sons of the covenant” (Acts 3:25), that is, heirs.[6]

Notice that no distinction is made between the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2 and the covenant with Abraham in Acts 3. As far as Calvin is concerned, they are one and the same. This is an obvious error. They are two different speeches in two different contexts, and context demands that the “covenant” in 3:25 cannot simply be assumed to be the same as the “promise” in 2:39.

A quote from the rest of Acts 2:39 may have caused Calvin to reconsider his assertion: “The promise is for…everyone who the Lord our God calls to Himself.” Peter’s goal is not to restate an Old Testament principle and let the carnal seed of Abraham rest assured, but to show the fulfillment of these promises in the New Covenant and to urge the physical children of Abraham to repent like anyone else precisely because physical descent is not enough to be saved. Hence, we read that those “who received his word were baptized” (v. 41).

When looking at his commentaries, Calvin does not acknowledge that the promise in Acts 2:39 has anything to do with the specific promise of the Spirit, Acts 2:17-21, or Joel 2. Instead, he gives the “promise” several labels that begin to relate to the immediate context, but eventually ends up with something else. He first refers to the promise as “the grace of Christ,” then the broader “promise of God,” then “the covenant with the Jews, (Exodus 4:22),” and finally, at the end of his explanation of “for the promise pertaineth unto you,” he identifies this promise as “the words of the promise: I will by thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee, (Genesis 17:7).”

Why the great variety of terms? And why does Calvin begin with an exclusion of the immediate context (that the promise is the Holy Spirit) and end with something foreign to the immediate context (the covenant in Genesis 17)? It almost seems as if Calvin has some kind of goal in mind that causes his thought to quickly evolve in this direction.

The very next sentence of Calvin’s commentary may reveal this possible agenda:

This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy a starting hole in the allegorical sense, and they expound it thus, that by children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thus because God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare that the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of your seed.[7]

The first thing to point out is that Calvin’s initial words about the Anabaptists certainly do not apply to most of today’s Baptists. Reformed Baptists, for example, do believe that children of the faithful are to be baptized, but not because they are children of the faithful. Any child old enough to repent from sin and confess Christ as Lord should be baptized and recognized as being part of God’s church. That seems fairly consistent with the narrative and implications of Acts 2:37-41.

We already noted that Calvin equates the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2:39 (Joel 2) with the covenant of Abraham in Genesis 17 without making any distinctions between the two. And we observed why this is problematic in the first part of this work. The only thing left to observe is the fact that the phrase “everyone who the Lord our God calls to Himself” is entirely absent from his commentary. This is particularly troublesome since he normally does not exclude entire phrases like this. Nevertheless, Calvin does address the word “call’ from the last part of 2:39, but does so under his explanation of the phrase “for all who are far off”:

And to those which are afar off. The Gentiles are named in the last place, which were before strangers. For those which refer it unto those Jews which were exiled afar off, (and driven) into far countries, they are greatly deceived…And therefore he useth this word call, as if he should say: Like as God hath gathered you together into one peculiar people heretofore by his voice, so the same voice shall sound everywhere, that those which are afar off may come and join themselves unto you, when as they shall be called by a new proclamation.

It seems that the reason Calvin does not quote the rest of Acts 2:39 is because he collapses “for all who are far off” and “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” into the same idea (similar to how he collapses the “promise” of “the Spirit” in Acts 2:38-39 into the “I will be the God of your seed” of Genesis 17). Calvin does not mention “everyone” from 2:39, but only relates the “call” to “for those who are far off.” This is what pushes readers away from the fact that Peter is talking of God’s elect (“everyone the Lord God calls to Himself”) – whether they are Jews or Gentiles, children or adults.

We must move on to the Puritan scholar John Owen (1616-1683), who said:

This covenant was, that he would be “a God unto Abraham and to his seed”… The right unto the covenant, and interest in its promises, wherever it be, gives right unto the administration of its initial seal, that is, to baptism, as Peter expressly declares, Acts 2:38, 39. Wherefore, — The right of the infant seed of believers unto baptism, as the initial seal of the covenant, stands on the foundation of the faithfulness of Christ as the messenger of the covenant, and minister of God for the confirmation of the truth of his promises. In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing… that is, the covenant of God with Abraham, Genesis 17:7.[8]

Owen makes the same mistakes as Calvin: (1) equating the covenant in Genesis 17 with the promise in Acts 2:39 without any distinction, (2) ignoring the immediate context of the promised Spirit of the New Covenant, (3) not quoting Acts 2:39 in its entirety, (4) failing to recognize the significance of verse 41, etc. It is not clear how much impact Calvin had on Owen. But given the shear similarity of content, it would not be surprising if the impact was rather substantial – and this pattern will continue through church history.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) says in the 15th Topic of his classic work The Institutes of Elenctic Theology:

XIV. The reasons [for seminal faith in infants] are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be ‘the God of Abraham and of his seed’ (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made ‘with the fathers and their children’ (Acts 2:39). Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as “remission of sins” and “sanctification”) ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 31) and are communicated to them by God according to their state.[9]

Turretin, like Owen, makes most of the same mistakes as Calvin. He (1) equates the “promise” of the Spirit in Acts 2 with the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 without making any real distinction, (2) quotes Acts 2:39 in a way that fits his paedobaptist purposes, paraphrasing the text to read “with the fathers and their children” instead of “for you and for your children”),[10] and (3) assumes “children” are infants. And, of course, all of this is to assert that infants can have saving faith, albeit it “seminal” saving faith. But, clearly, none of these conclusions can be drawn from a consistent exegesis of Acts 2:39. The covenant of Genesis 17 is not the “promise,” the “children” are not “infants,” and so forth.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) references Acts 2:39 three times:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit [Acts 2:39], who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF, 10.3) 

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children [Acts 2:39]: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF, 25.2) 

Not only those that do actually profess faith in the obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized [Acts 2:39]. (WCF, 28.4)

While many of the above assertions are theologically sound, it should be clear that Acts 2:39 does not genuinely support any of them (regeneration of elect infants, visible/invisible church, baptism of believer’s children). The same is true for Acts 2:39 in the Synod of Dordt.[11]

Wilhelmus àBrakel (1635-1711) also cites Acts 2:39 in The Christian’s Reasonable Service:

An external covenant does not exist, for there is but one covenant between God and believers: the covenant of grace. The children of members of the covenant are therefore in the covenant.[12] In this respect the Lord calls them His children. “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto Me ... that thou hast slain My children” (Ezek 16:20-21). If they are in the covenant, they must also indeed receive the seal of the covenant. This is evident in Acts 2:38-39, where we read, “... be baptized every one of you ... for the promise is unto you, and to your children.[13]

Again, same set of assertions, same set of problems. Acts 2:39 is not quoted in its entirety, the immediate context and the vital connection with 2:17-21 is not acknowledged, etc.

The great Dutch dogmatician Herman Bavinck says in chapter 10 (“The Spirit’s Means of Grace”) of volume three of Reformed Dogmatics:

From the early introduction of infant baptism, the general acknowledgement it was accorded from the start and Origen’s witness – from these follows the possibility and even the probability that it already was an apostolic practice. Peter, moreover, says that the promise of the old covenant that God would be the God of believers and of their children passed into the dispensation of the New Testament (Acts 2:39). This, admittingly, first of all applies to the Jews, and Gentiles are not mentioned until Peter says: “And all who are far away.” But this does not alter the fact that the Jews who convert to Christ not only receive the promise of the covenants for themselves but also for their children. And the Gentiles who become believers share the same privileges and, according to the whole New Testament, are in no respect inferior to believers from the Jews.[14]

Like Calvin and Turretin, Acts 2:39 is not quoted in its entirety. Bavinck stops at “for those who are far off” and does not mention “everyone who the Lord our God calls to Himself.” Verse 41 and the practical fulfillment of this promise is also absent. And like Calvin, Owen, and Turretin, nothing is said about Acts 2:39 having anything to do with the promise of the Spirit as prophesied by Joel. Consequently, the vast majority of what comes prior to verse 39 in Acts 2 is neglected as having no interpretational relevance. Bavinck also abolishes any distinctions between the promise of Acts 2:39 and the Abrahamic Covenant by saying, “Peter…says that the promise of the old covenant that God would be the God of believers and of their children.” Finally, nothing is said about how Acts 2:39 is in any way connected with the introduction of New Covenant realities and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in it.[15] It is truly amazing how all of the essential features of the context of Acts 2:39 can be so easily set aside in arguments for infant baptism.

J. Oliver Buswell seems to recognize some of the tension that surrounds this verse. In an attempt to salvage paedobaptist defenses based on Acts 2:39, he provides his own argument, which demonstrates even clearer that the verse simply cannot deliver for paedobaptism arguments:

The words—“…be baptized…the promise is to you and to your children…” – would necessarily call to the mind of every instructed Jew the covenant of circumcision and the promises attached thereto. In the historical setting it would have been entirely superfluous to mention the fact that the children were included in the baptism. They are included explicitly in the scriptural “promise” to which Peter made an allusion. Note that my argument is not in the form, “Since Peter mentioned both baptism and children on the day of Pentecost, therefore the children were to be baptized!” The argument is, “Since Christians explicitly considered baptism as “Christian circumcision” and this is declared by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2:11, 12, and since Peter’s invitation on the day of Pentecost was based upon the promise given in connection with the covenant of circumcision, therefore the mention of children as recipients of the promise, would carry with it the implication that children were to be baptized.” Everything in the New Testament is for it, and there is not one whisper to the contrary.[16]

Clearly, this argument is fallacious.[17] According to Buswell, the argument for paedobaptism from Acts 2:39 rests on the assumption that New Testament replaces Old Testament circumcision (according to Col. 2:11-12). However, this assumption has been refuted time and again, more recently by Richard Barcellos and Martin Salter[18]; there is no baptism-circumcision parallel in Colossians 2:11-14, but rather, “spiritual circumcision [is] tied to union with Christ and baptism.”[19] The second assumption, that “Peter’s invitation on the day of Pentecost was based upon the promise given in connection with the covenant of circumcision,” has already been shown to be lacking adequate grounds. The “connection” between the “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) in Genesis 17 and the promise of the Spirit in Joel 2 is highly theological and limited—if extant at all. In the end, one is once again left wanting. (And, notice again that the last phrase of Acts 2:39 is mysteriously absent from the entire discussion.)[20]

Acts 2:39 Out Of Its Context: Beeke And Lanning

Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning provide an extensive essay on Acts 2:39 entitled “Unto You and Your Children” on pages 49-69 of The Covenantal Case For Infant Baptism. While I want to give much credit to such fine authors, it is clear that this particular essay lacks any real exegesis and is bent to support the authors’ assumptions.

The first direct assertion about Acts 2:39 is the following:

Several elements stand out in the words of Acts 2:39. First, it is clear that Peter uses the term the promise as rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace, which embodies the promise of salvation he calls upon his hearers to embrace (see Acts 2:21). This promise is the same as those made to Abraham, to David, to Israel, and even to the Gentiles. It includes the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins referred to in the previous verse (Acts 2:38).[21]

Notice that no argument is given that the promise is “rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace.” This is simply assumed. The same goes for the sentence “the promise is the same as those made to Abraham, to David, and to Israel, and even to the Gentiles.” The authors literally reduce (or expand, depending on how one looks at it) the entire thrust of “the promise” in Acts 2 to the substance of Genesis 17 on the basis of assertion alone—precisely as Calvin did over four centuries ago. This has been demonstrated to be a serious error.

Beeke and Lanning then say that the Abrahamic Covenant (which they fail to distinguish in any way from the covenant of grace)[22] “includes the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins referred to in the previous verse (2:38)” (emphasis mine).[23] This assertion introduces two errors, the first logical and the second exegetical. First, if “the promise” is just “rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace,” and is “the same as those made to Abraham, to David, to Israel,” then how can they in any way distinguish between two promises, one being “included” in another? Second, asserting that the “promise” in Acts 2:39 is not the promise of the Spirit in verse 2:38 but the covenant of grace which merely “includes” the promise of the Spirit is syntactically erroneous. The “Spirit” in ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου (“the Holy Spirit of promise”) in verse 33 is a genitive of apposition (“the promise, which is the Holy Spirit”[24]) just like δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (“the gift of the Holy Spirit”) in verse 38 is also a genitive of apposition (“the gift, which is the Spirit”). Furthermore, the “promise” in verse 39 is “the gift of the Spirit” in verse 38.[25] There is no third element, nor can verse 38 be disconnected from verse 39.

Therefore, for Beeke and Lanning’s interpretation to stand, they need to demonstrate that (1) the “promise of the Spirit” in verse 38 is (contra-Wallace, Robertson, Moulton, Young, etc.) not a genitive of apposition, and (2) that “the promise” in verse 39 is (contra-Beale, Carson, Peterson, Bock, Coxe, etc.) not “the gift of the Spirit” in verse 38. Both options are essentially impossible.

Nevertheless, Beeke and Lanning go on:

Peter reminds his listeners that they are “the children of the covenant which God made with our fathers” and that is why God has sent His Son Jesus to them first of all (Acts 3:25-26). Stephen recalls the promise, “which God had sworn to Abraham” (7:17). In the synagogue at Antioch, Paul informs hearers that God has raised “unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus,” and declares, “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent” (13:23, 36). In Acts 2, Peter proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is “Lord and Christ” (v. 36). That fulfills the promise made to David concerning “the fruit of his loins” (Ps. 132:11) and David’s own prophecies of Messiah’s resurrection (Ps. 16:8-11) and ascension into heaven (Ps. 110:1). The presentation is intensely covenantal, since the covenant with David and his seed is rooted in the covenant with Abraham and his seed. Peter’s words in Acts 2:39 are therefore a covenantal formulary. “Unto you, and to your children” simply restates “between me and thee and thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). These words assert the identity of the covenant of grace under all dispensations, and the continuity of the covenant pattern in which promises made to believers are extended to their children. As God has always done, so He will continue to do in these last days. “I am the LORD, I change not” (Mal. 3:6).[26]

It is clear that the context of Acts 2:39 is pushed into the background. The meaning of the text is determined not by exegesis, but by broad patterns of biblical theology, echoes and allusions, etc. “Intensely covenantal” language seems to trump all—especially the immediate context.

We have to remind ourselves that the multitude who heard Peter’s sermon on Pentecost was Jewish. It included Jews from Palestine, proselytes, and dispersed Jews from other parts of the Roman Empire and beyond. The Old Testament was all they had of the Holy Scriptures. As they listened to Peter preaching from those Scriptures (twelve of the twenty-two verses of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 contain quotations from the Old Testament), they could only have understood his words one way—as a reference to the promise in God’s covenant, and the fact that that promise extended not only to believers but to their children as well. To interpret Acts 2:39 in light of the New Testament Scriptures, which did not yet exist, as do many Baptists, is to engage in exegetical error and can only lead to a serious misrepresentation of the mind of the Spirit.[27]

Of course, by “the promise of God’s covenant,” Beeke and Lanning mean the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17. But why is nothing said about the fact that Acts 2:39 comes to readers in the context of prophetic fulfillment? Why is not acknowledged that none of the quotes in any of Acts 2 come from Genesis (or any book of the Pentateuch for that matter)? And why is nothing said about the fact that Peter’s audience would probably understand Acts 2:39 in terms of Joel 2 (the most relevant OT text in Peter’s speech) instead of Genesis 17—especially after they witnessed eye-opening events, so strange that they confused the Spirit with drunkenness? All of the essentials are missing.

The remark about “many Baptists” is baffling. Only one is cited (William Wilkinson), and even that citation does not support the authors’ point. Here is the full section of Wilkinson that Beeke and Lanning reference:

Here the promise – that is, the promise of the Holy Ghost- is said to be for the Israelites of Peter’s day, together with their “children,” and for as many besides these as may be “called.” The Greek word for “children” is one which has not the smallest reference to age, infant or adult, of the persons so designated. It simply means “posterity,” “descendants.” This is all that the word means; but if the word meant infants, as it does not, the only infants, as yet more it does not, still the sense of the passage would be that the Holy Spirit was promised, on a certain condition, to infants. There would be in it no possible allusion to the practice of infant baptism unless the allusion were to be found in the command, “Be baptized;” which command, in that case, being addressed in the second person to the subjects, would necessarily have to be obeyed by the subjects themselves or not to be obeyed at all. And then, as those same subjects also commanded beforehand in the same breath to “Repent,” it is to be supposed that obedience to the second command would be preceded by obedience to the first, whereby infant baptism referred to would be baptism of infant believers, and thus not in the least the same practice with infant baptism known to the ecclesiastical usage of today.[28]

How do any of these words invoke Beeke and Lanning’s particular objection? And how is the above quote of Wilkinson in anyway an interpretation of “Acts 2:39 in light of New Testament Scriptures, which did not yet exist”? What “New Testament Scriptures” are Beeke and Lanning referring to? Wilkinson certainly does not provide any other scriptural citations except for “be baptized” and “repent” from Acts 2:38. So, as far as the essay is concerned, the two-fold charge of “exegetical error” and “many Baptists” is without basis.

For several paragraphs, the authors continue to play the same drum-beat that the promise in Acts 2:39 is no different than the covenant of grace. Then they conclude:

Thus, in Acts 2:39, after Peter assures Jewish believers that the covenant promise and covenant pattern are still in effect, and that the covenant promise continues to be in force for their children, he boldly proclaims that the promise shall also be to all that are afar off—i.e., afar off from the covenant community and its divine covenant promises. Peter is affirming that God is no longer restraining His saving purposes to one nation in the New Testament era. The gospel is to all to whom it comes without exception or distinction from this time on. God’s saving purposes are to all nations, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39b), Peter says. Wherever the gospel is preached, sinners are welcome to enter into the covenant of God that He has purposed according to His immutable promise. We have no reason to conclude that when they do so the covenant now is only with the individuals of the first generation of converts.[29]

Beeke and Lanning’s particular covenant theology continues to force the text to mean something that it is not saying. As it was demonstrated in the first installment of this work, scholars agree that “those who are far off” means either (1) Gentiles, (2), the Jewish Diaspora, or (3) peoples of all kinds who are in geographically remote locations. But in an attempt to shore up additional support for their argument, Beeke and Lanning insist on their own unique interpretation: that Peter is primarily talking about the “covenant community.” This, of course, is a notoriously ambiguous couplet that saturates defenses of infant baptism (though does not saturate the NT).[30]

Baptists often dismiss this covenantal argument by harking back to verse 38, arguing that since Peter says “repent and be baptized,” baptism must always follow repentance. Since infants are not yet able to repent, they ought not be baptized. To such reasoning, we would posit three responses. First, the word “and” between “repent” and “be baptized” is a coordinate and not a causal conjunction. That is to say, though both things are true, there is not necessarily a causal connection between them. “Repent” and “be baptized” are two coordinate commands. Acts 2:38 does not require that we are to be baptized because we have repented, nor does it say that it is wrong to baptize someone who has not repented.[31]

The fact that και (“and”) is a coordinate and not a causal conjunction makes no difference. No one is suggesting that repentance is the cause of baptism. As it was demonstrated in the first part of this work that “repent” and “of you” are 2nd person plural while “be baptized” and “each of you” are singular; ὑμῶν matches μετανοήσατε in person and number. Hence, it is rendered “You all repent and each one of you (who repent) be baptized.” Thus, the conclusion that “it [does not] say that it is wrong to baptize someone who has not repented” is fallacious. The text is clear that the command to be baptized is for the ones repenting. There is no exegetical basis for breaking up the text into separate groups so that baptism is being commanded to one group and repentance for another. They go together.

Second, the causal conjunction, “for,” at the beginning of Acts 2:39 indicates that verse 38 is part of a larger thought which is concluded in verse 39. Attempting to understand repentance and baptism in verse 38, therefore, without examining verse 39 is refusing to listen to the whole text. “For” in verse 39 indicates that that verse is giving the reason why we are to repent and be baptized, namely, “for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off.” In other words, those who have received the promise of God of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are qualified to be baptized, and, Peter clearly says, that includes them and their children.[32]

There are many problems here. First, as we observed earlier, Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, and others have left off the last half of Acts 2:39. Beeke and Lanning follow suite and only quote the first half of the verse in this vital portion of their essay. To finish the verse and say “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself” would introduce an unwelcome concept to paedobaptist exposition of Acts 2:39—the concept of God’s elect, the spiritual seed.

Second, this paragraph is very difficult to understand since “that” in “that includes them and their children” has no clear referent. Are the authors referring to “that promise” or “that remission of sins” or “that gift of the Holy Spirit,” or several of these, or all of these as a concept, or the “those” who receive all of these things, or that baptism in “to be baptized”? The most probable referent is to the whole idea of “those who have received the promise of God of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So, Beeke and Lanning are saying “them and their children” are “those who have received the promise of God of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and therefore, “them and their children” are “qualified to be baptized.” But, this seems to reverse the order. Repentance and forgiveness of sins qualifies a person for baptism, not the other way around. And if the sins of the Jews and their children are not automatically forgiven by virtue of being “those who have received the promise of God,” what is the condition that is needed for forgiveness of sins? The first half of 2:38 answers this question – the half that the authors fail to mention at this point. They are attempting to isolate “forgiveness of sins” and “gift of the Holy Spirit” from “repent and be baptized.” This is simply impossible to do since (as the authors point out, ironically) the text explicitly connects the two halves with the conjunction “for” (εἰς). This repentance and/or baptism is “for the forgiveness [εἰς ἄφεσιν] of your sins.” If we are to follow the first of the two probable options Wallace proposes regarding εἰς in this text,[33] then it “should be repunctuated” to read “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.” The conclusion, then, is that there is no forgiveness of sins apart from repentance. This does not square with the authors’ interpretation.

The other option according to Wallace (“the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol”), asserts that “water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgement (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.”[34] This also does not fit with the authors’ interpretation since, as it was shown above, even if εἰς was referring to “be baptized” only, that does not disconnect “be baptized each one of you” from “the ones repenting.”

A final option is that of F. F. Bruce who says that εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (for the forgiveness of your sins) is “to be taken with metanoesate (repent) as well as with baptistheto (be baptized); cf. 3:19; 5:31; Luke 24:47.”[35] In other words, “for the forgiveness of your sins” has reference to both “be baptized” and “you all repent.” This also does not square with Beeke and Lanning’s assertion that children are somehow exempt from having to repent in order to be baptized.

So no matter how one puts it, Peter is not asserting in Acts 2 that one should be baptized apart from repentance. He is asserting quite the opposite! This is a fact of the text (and all of Scripture) that stands in contradiction to infant baptism and simply will not go away: repentance from sin is a precondition to baptism.

Third, an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is ipso facto an argument against infant salvation. If infants cannot be baptized because they are incapable of repentance and faith, then they cannot be saved for the same reason. The use of such verses as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to argue that repentance and faith are required for baptism also argues that repentance and faith are required for salvation, thereby a priori consigning all infants incapable of repentance and faith to perdition.

If one is to accurately represent the Baptist objection, the authors should say “infants should not be baptized because they do not and cannot repent and exercise saving faith.” If a two-week old baby repented and believed, surely she should be baptized.

Nevertheless, paedobaptists (e.g., WCF) and Confessional Reformed Baptists (LBCF) both agree that the ability to repent (at least the kind of repentance Peter is talking about in Acts 2:38-39) is not always necessary for “salvation.”[36] So the whole argument seems to be a rather moot point.

Beeke and Lanning continue:

God refuses baptism to impenitent sinners (Matt. 3:7-8) because, not granting them the grace, He will not grant them the sign. If therefore God denies the sign to infants of believers, it must be because He denies them the grace. All children of believers who die in their infancy, then, must be hopelessly lost—not that all must be lost who are not baptized, but all must be lost whom God does not want baptized. Yet most Baptists will admit that the New Testament, like the Old, indicates that small children—even infants (Luke 18:15-17)—are proper subjects of Christ’s kingdom (see Matt. 18:6, 19:13-15, 21:16; Luke 10:21).

This is a somewhat confusing paragraph since the argument is not one that challenges any major Baptist teaching. Yes, all children who die in their infancy are hopelessly lost outside the grace of God (We agree on the doctrine of original sin.). Yes, no one is baptized or saved who God does not want to save or have baptized (We agree on the doctrine of divine election.).

However, the assertion and following references about infants being “proper subjects of Christ’s kingdom” are troublesome. This is a very common attempt at gathering evidence for paedobaptism. A brief refutation is in order.

First, regarding Luke 18:15-17, Matthew 18:6 and 19:13-15, the children are not even said to be “in the kingdom,” let alone “in the covenant.” In his commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson concisely undercuts the paedobaptist interpretation of these texts:

Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them [a paedobaptist assertion], but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable.[37]

Second, if it is suggested that these children had faith, that undermines the very point paedobaptists are trying to demonstrate—namely, that those incapable of having saving faith should be considered in the covenant and thus be baptized.[38] Third, none of the parents of the children in these texts are identified as believers. They are not even mentioned. In short, then, it does not appear these three texts can amount to what the paedobaptist asserts they amount to.

The next text referenced is Matthew 21:16.[39] According to Beeke and Lanning this is a text that supports the assertion that infants “are proper subjects of Christ’s kingdom.” But, they are obviously asserting more than that. What they are really asserting is that children and infants are part of the church and so should be baptized and Matthew 21 demonstrates that infants are part of the church because they praise Jesus. But it is clear that the text is far from asserting this. All that really happens is children cry “Hosanna to the Son of David!” and this event is noted to be a fulfillment of prophecy (Psa. 8:2). Beyond that, the main thrust of the text is uncontroversial (to us, not to the original hearers): “If God can speak through babies, from the lesser to the greater, how much more through children. And if children, by the same logic, how much more ought the religious leaders to join in.”[40] Of course, even if these children are “in the covenant” in some way, that does not mean the children of believers are supposed to be baptized. The parents of these children are not mentioned. As far as the text and narrative is concerned, the children are praising Jesus regardless of the spiritual condition of their parents. So if these children are somehow supposed to be considered part of the church, then they are included in the church on the basis of something other than the faith of their parents. Further, if the argument is that infants have visible saving faith since they praise Jesus and are therefore part of the church, that does not remove the requirement for a visible saving faith of such infants today. Again, no matter how one looks at the text, it does not and cannot support the conclusions of the paedobaptist.

The final reference listed is Luke 10:21 (cf. Matt. 11:25-30).[41] It is puzzling why Beeke and Lanning would reference this verse in support of anything related to children, covenant theology, or baptism – for the “children” in this verse is referring to Jesus’ disciples! As the ESV Study Bible remarks, “to little children, that is, to the disciples, who have childlike faith themselves (v. 23).”[42] Nothing about biological age is even being asserted. The use of “children” in this text has to do with spiritual maturity and knowledge (see Calvin,[43] Morris,[44] etc.) It is a desperate attempt to cite this text to support paedobaptism.

Having examined every single reference provided on this matter, it is evident Beeke and Lanning are on their own when they say “most Baptists will admit that the New Testament, like the Old, indicates that small children—even infants (Luke 18:15-17)—are proper subjects of Christ’s kingdom (see Matt. 18:6, 19:13-15, 21:16; Luke 10:21).” None of these biblical references support their paedobaptist position.

After a brief historical sketch of the Reformers’ view on baptism, Beeke and Lanning then conclude the section by re-stating the classic paedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:39:

The promise which says, “I will be your God and you will be my people,” given to Abraham to embrace not just Abraham but his family, still stands; and it is still, in the words of Peter, “for you and for your children.” Children would therefore naturally be regarded as subjects of baptism just as they were of circumcision in the Old Testament.[45]

At this point in our discussion, it is abundantly clear what is wrong with this conclusion, and it need not to be revisited again.

The next section (“Fourth Context: Prophecy, or the Vision of the Prophet”) contains the quote of Joel 2:28-29. But, unfortunately, it is not exegeted either in its context or in the context of Acts 2:17-21.[46] To our dismay, it is virtually dismissed. Joel 2 is set side by side with other prophecies of similar content and tone, and then the following conclusion is offered:

These prophecies are anchored in the promises of the covenant, and confirm those promises “to a thousand generations” (Ps. 105:8). They also reinforce the covenantal pattern or form which the promise takes. At every point, “the promise is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39a).[47]

The entire weight of Joel 2 has obviously been missed. Joel presents the outpouring of the Spirit on “all flesh” and the fact that “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” as something different than the previous era. But the only thing that seems to matter to the authors is that Joel 2 mentions “your sons and daughters” and this supports the conclusion that “At every point, ‘the promise is unto you, and to your children.’” The “last days” of Joel 2, in the lens of Beeke, Lanning, and for all of the paedobaptist scholars observed in this essay, is really no different than the those days of the Old Covenant! Since Acts 2:39 sounds like Genesis 17 and other Old Testament texts, it cannot assert anything substantially new—even if that is the entire purpose of the text itself.[48] It is an ironic observation, indeed.

Our response to Acts 2:39 is to set the Christ of the covenant before our children, as He is revealed in the Scriptures, trusting that He will grant them faith and repentance by His Spirit. Nor does anything said above obviate the need for personal regeneration as the experiencing of the truth and power of the covenant promise. Covenant promise is no substitute for personal regeneration.[49]

Yet, for the paedobaptist, there is a sense in which the covenant promise is a substitute for personal repentance and baptism. If a parent is repentant, that is sufficient enough to baptize the child of that parent – at least before the child is old enough to repent himself (then baptism is withheld and the requirement for repentance is added).[50]

Parents who presume that their children are regenerate by virtue of the covenant may see no need to tell their children that they must be born again. William Young calls this view “hyper-covenantism,” because the relation of children to the covenant is exaggerated to the point that the covenant relation replaces the need for personal conversion.[51]

But, where was the need for personal conversion in Genesis 17? If the covenant of grace in Genesis 17 is where we turn to figure out who should be baptized, then we cannot help but remember that circumcision was given regardless of conversion. So, why require it now? If the response is “because the New Testament teaches the need for personal conversion,” then one ought to be consistent and say “the New Testament teaches the need for personal repentance before water baptism.” For that is precisely the teaching of the New Testament and the pattern of the Apostolic church.

Acts 2:39 Out of Its Context: J.V. Fesko

In a rather splendid and informative book, J. V. Fesko adds more recent comments to the discussion on Acts 2:39 in Word, Water, and Spirit:

Abraham was supposed to administer the sign of God’s covenant promise to his male offspring (Gen. 17:10). Peter echoes this command in his sermon at Pentecost...[quote of text]…To what promise does Peter refer? The promise is undoubtedly weighted on the whole of redemptive history: the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15); God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15; 17:1-14); and his promise to David (I Sam. 7:14). However, Peter also mentions the gift of the Holy Spirit, which invokes the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (2:28-29) and is certainly connected to the promise of the new covenant, which included the promise to children (Jer. 31:31; 32:39; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26-27; 37;14). Peter echoes Joel’s prophecy that God would pour out His Spirit on Israel’s sons and daughters, both young and old (Joel 2:28), but also His promise that He would be the God of Abraham and of his generations to come (cf. Gen. 9:9; 13:15; 17:7; Gal. 3:16, 29; Pss. 18:50; 89:34-37; 132:11-12).[52]

As we look at Fesko’s comments through the lens of church history, it is clear that there is nothing substantially new here, and old errors are repeated. Context is set aside. Genesis 17 is given primary importance. The promise of the Spirit, which has been the subject of Peter’s entire speech in Acts 2, is downplayed; it merely “echoes” Joel’s prophecy.

He goes on to say, “The inclusion of infants had been a practice of the covenant community for nearly 2,000 years…For there to have been a change in this covenantal practice without so much as a syllable of explanation would not have gone over well with first century Jews.”[53] Fesko is correct that it would not have gone over well – if the Jews were assuming that baptism was no different in purpose and participants than Old Covenant circumcision. But is there really adequate indication that they thought of one replacing the other? Did they even have a firm grasp on whether to circumcise in the New Covenant or not?

Everything we know about the early church suggests the contrary. The church was substantially confused and split over the subject of circumcision, which is why it led to the first church council (Acts 15). There is no shred of evidence that suggests that anyone in the Apostolic period understood baptism as replacing circumcision.[54] Furthermore, Fesko is assuming the non-newness of the New Covenant. This argument has already been adequately critiqued in previous publications of RBTR.[55]

Conclusion

We must be honest with Scripture, and honest with ourselves. If we gave an average Christian a Bible and five minutes to answer the question “what is the ‘promise’ in Acts 2:33?”, chances are, there would be no hesitation in answering with, “it is the promise of the Spirit, which is prophesied in Joel 2, and quoted earlier in Acts.” I believe that is the right answer, and that is the exegetical answer. Yet, for the paedobaptist, there is always hesitation with this kind of question. And there is hesitation when the same question is asked about “the promise” in verse 39. Why?

It is not because “the promise” is any less clear in its meaning in verses 33 and 39. It is because Acts 2:39 was supposed to be the “place” that “doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church” (Calvin). But since it clearly is not that place, and since paedobaptists after Calvin seem determined to continue using the text (much like Col. 2:11-12[56]) to support the practice, the basic rules of context and exegesis must be suspended until the essential features of paedobaptist covenant theology can be conveniently imported into the verse. That is what history shows, and it is, quite simply, a black-eye to historic Reformed theology. Alas, the historical interpretation of Acts 2:39 has been anything but sound in the Reformed faith. Therefore, let us turn the tide by letting the Word of God speak on its own terms, and be willing to test our traditions. Only then, are we truly practicing sola Scriptura. Amen and semper reformanda.

Notes

1. The Spirit in both ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος in v. 33 and δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος in v. 38 are genitives of apposition.
2. Peter’s direct citations of Gen. 15 and 17 in Acts 3 is an example of when Peter does have the Abrahamic promise “immediately in mind.”
3. We also observed how Peter has in other places used the most explicit Old Covenant language to describe New Covenant realities such as the church in 1 Pet. 2:9, or Paul, “we are the circumcision” in Phil. 3:3, etc.
4. See Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants” in Believer’s Baptism, Shawn Wright and Thomas Schreiner, eds. (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 158.
5. This is the only citation of Acts 2:39 in Calvin’s defense of paedobaptism in The Institutes.
6. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), 4.26.15.
7. John Calvin, Commentary on Acts. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.html (Accessed February 29, 2012).
8. John Owen, “Of Infant Baptism” in The Works of John Owen, vol. 16 (London: Johnston and Hunter, 1938), 261.
9. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 586.
10. The Latin reads: “XIV. Rationes cur ita statuamus sunt: 1. Quia promissio Foederis non minus ad Infantes, quam ad Adultos pertinet; siquidem Deus pollicetur se fore Deum Abrahami, et seminis ejus, Ge. xvii.7, et, Act. ii. 39, promissio dicitur facta Patribus et Liberis.” Dennison’s edition of Turretin’s Institutes (in English) unfortunately places “Patribus et Liberis” (“fathers and their children”) in quotation marks so that it looks like Turretin misquotes Acts 2:39, when in fact it is not a quotation but a paraphrase. Either way, this part of Turretin’s work shows how confidently he feels Acts 2:39 supports paedobaptism. 
11. “…the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14).” Article 17 of “The First Head of Doctrine,” cited in Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 638. Is Peter really suggesting that parents should not doubt the “election and salvation of their children”? Or is he saying in effect, “the work of the Spirit you are now witnessing can be yours – anyone’s, just repent of your sins and be baptized.”
12. As an aside, notice that àBrakel specifically distinguishes the covenant that children are in (one that has two parties: “God and believers”) from an external covenant – one that “does not exist.” This is generally the same as Bavinck’s position (see below). But this is the opposite of what many or most of today’s paedobaptists believe. They believe that children of believers are in the external covenant (in the “visible church”) and thus should be baptized. The reasons for holding this position are obvious: if àBrakel’s above assertion is true, then the covenant of grace is no longer comprised of the two parties, “God and believers.” Presumably, in àBrakel’s view, a non-elect person can be part of the covenant of grace (or New Covenant), and thus Christ would be the mediator on behalf of someone who rejects God. Though this view (that infants of believers are actually, not externally, in the covenant of grace) is not normative in today’s paedobaptist circles, it can be found in popular works by those who lean towards the Federal Vision. See the last segment of James R. White’s debate with Gregg Strawbridge (editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism), which can be found at aomin.org. For more information on this subject, especially on historic Reformed theology and who are true members of the covenant of grace, see Part I of Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptistic Perspective (Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2011).
13. Wilhelmus àBrakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, ed. Joel Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 509.
14. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 529.
15. In Our Reasonable Faith, Bavinck also cites Acts 2:39 in support of the following statement: “Therefore baptism is ministered not only to such adults as have been won for Christ through the work of missions, but to the children of believers also, for they together with their parents are included in the covenant of grace.” Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 542.
16. J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961), 2:263.
17. The only exception is when he says “[Children] are explicitly in the scriptural ‘promise’ to which Peter made an allusion.” This is true, although not in the sense Buswell means it. It is true that children are explicitly in the scriptural promise to which Peter made an allusion – that is, the “Sons and daughters” in the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2:17-21. But, as it has been demonstrated, the entirety of the Abrahamic Covenant cannot be wholesale equivocated with the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2:39. It muffles the climactic crescendo of Acts 2:39 and distorts the context of repentance and faith in vv. 38 and 41. Yet, that is what Buswell does.
18. See Richard C. Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12” in Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2:1 (2005): 3-23; Martin Salter. “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12” in Themelios 35.1 (2010): 15:-29.
19. Wellum, “The Relationship Between the Covenants,” 158.
20. With Robert Reymond, that finally changes. He mentions the connection of Acts 2:39 with Joel 2, and actually quotes Acts 2:39 in its entirety. This is refreshing to see! But unfortunately, Reymond evidently does not believe these things have any interpretational relevance, as he cites Murray and then ends the matter on short order. Neither ultimately exegete Acts 2:39 nor explain what the last half of Acts 2:39 might mean. See Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 941-42.
21. Joel Beeke and Ray B. Lanning, “Unto You, and to Your Children” in The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 55.
22. The Abrahamic Covenant should not be equated with the covenant of grace any more than the promise of Acts 2:39 should be equated to the covenant of grace or the Abrahamic Covenant. See Samuel Waldron. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005), 107: “None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the Confession describes as ‘the covenant of grace.’ Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall (note chapter 29).”
23. One clearly sees the problem in methodology. It is first assumed that Peter means “promise” precisely as a biblical-theological category. That is, Peter must be talking about the Abrahamic Covenant from the outset. Then, after that assumption has been stated, the immediate context is then consulted to contribute to its own interpretation. Thus, the meaning of Acts 2 is truncated, bottlenecked into the presupposed lens of the Abrahamic Covenant so that even if Peter were to assert something new or different, it could never be heard. Jewett’s words on this very text, written over two decades before Beeke and Lanning’s work, is worth quoting again. “The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace: An Appraisal of the Argument that as Infants were Once Circumcised, So They Should Now Be Baptized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 122.
24. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 99.
25. See exegetical summary of Acts 2:38-39 in the beginning of this essay.
26. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 56.
27. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 56-57.
28. William Cleaver Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle in its Application to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1881), 158-59.
29. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 59.
30. The phrase “covenant community” is found over 30 times in The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism. This is not to say “covenant community” is always a useless phrase. But that also does not mean it is helpful or necessary in discussions of infant baptism. Grudem’s assessment is particularly insightful: “The New Testament does not talk about ‘a covenant community’ made up of believers and their unbelieving children and relatives and servants who happen to live among them. (In fact, in the discussion of baptism, the phrase “covenant community” as used by paedobaptists often tends to function as a broad and vague term that blurs the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament on this matter. In the New Testament church, the only question that matters is whether one has saving faith and has been spiritually incorporated into the body of Christ, the true church. The only “covenant community” is the church, the fellowship of the redeemed.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 977.
31. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 60.
32. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 60.
33. These would be options 3 and 4 on pages 370-71 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. The first two (baptism refers only to physical or only to spiritual reality only) are less probable according to his analysis.
34. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 370-71.
35. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 98.
36. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (WCF, LBCF, 10.3).
37. D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 8:420.
38. “These passages [Matt. 18:1-10] have nothing to do with whether infants are in the covenant because this paidon [little child] responded to Jesus’ call, proskaleo, and believed in Him. This humble submission of a child to Christ as Lord was what He was trying to teach His disciples about entrance in the greatness in the kingdom.” Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founder’s Press, 2007), 141.
39. “But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘“Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?” And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there” (Matt. 21:15-17).
40. Craig Keener, The Intervarsity Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 503; “Yahweh is worthy of all praise and worship (thus the psalm), and now all the more because he has sent his Messiah (thus Matthew).” D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 70.
41. “In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.”
42. Wayne Grudem and J. I. Packer, eds. The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), Luke 10:21.
43. “I consider that Christ here includes all who are eminent for abilities and learning, without charging them with any fault; as, on the other hand, he does not represent it to be an excellence in any one that he is a little child. True, humble persons have Christ for their master, and the first lesson of faith is, Let no man presume on his wisdom.” Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 2, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.html.
44. “The Father has hid from the world’s great and wise ones and revealed to the lowliest, those who can be called babies. This does not mean that all the wise are lost and all the babies are saved; it means that the knowledge of God does not depend on human wisdom and education.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 292.
45. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 63.
46. For a helpful analysis on this issue, see chapter 11, “Children in Prophecy” in Alan Conner, Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual? (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2007).
47. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 64.
48. This obviously brings to mind the same phenomenon in paedobaptists reading of Hebrews 8. Even though the whole purpose of the chapter is to stress the newness of the New Covenant and the discontinuity between the Old and the New Covenant, that argument is turned upside down for the sake of defending infant baptism and a dogma of continuity wins the day. See James White’s series, “The Newness of the New Covenant” in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (July 2004 and January 2005).
49. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 67.
50. That is, indeed, an area of inconsistency for paedobaptism. For example, if the unbelieving father in an unbelieving family totaling four people (mother, father, one month-old son, 14 year-old daughter) was to become a Christian, the paedobaptist minister would only baptize the one month-old son, regardless if “the promise” or “covenant” was equally given to both the son and the daughter. The paedobaptist principle in that case is that baptism should be administered when a person cannot and does not repent (e.g., infant son) and should not be administered when a person can repent (e.g., teenage daughter). Yet, the Bible teaches the polar opposite: baptism should be administered when a person does repent and should not be administered to a person who cannot and does not repent.
51. Beeke and Lanning, Covenantal Case, 67.
52. J. V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 357.
53. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit, 358
54. See chapter 2 of Jeffrey D. Johnson. The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2010).
55. See James White’s series, “The Newness of the New Covenant” in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (July 2004 and January 2005).
56. Colossians 2:11-12 has been used since Zwingli (at least according to Fesko’s historical analysis, see Word, Water, and Spirit, 63, and all of Part I) to support paedobaptism via circumcision-baptism parallel. And, yet, it has become increasingly clear that this text simply does not say what Reformed paedobaptists have wanted it to say (see essays by Barcellos and Salter mentioned above). And just in passing, Fesko tries to salvage paedobaptist uses of the text, but really only manages to say that “it seems to be overly fine exegesis to eliminate the signs from the things signified. One should not have to choose between a reference to a rite or a work of the Spirit,” 241).