Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of Families
Martin: In order to have a proper historical "context" for our discussion of the attitude of Christ and the apostolic Church toward children, we should know something of the so-called proselyte baptism.
You probably know that proselytes were Gentile converts to Judaism, or to the religion of Israel. The Old Covenant was never exclusively national, limited to the descendants of Jacob. It was primarily a religious covenant, and people who accepted the religion of Israel became its fullfledged members. At the time of Christ, the Jews were missionary-minded in the extreme, particularly the Pharisees and scribes. They "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte," as Christ says. [1] Three things were required of those who became "proselytes of righteousness" or "perfect Israelites" in every respect: circumcision of men, baptism and the sacrifice of all, both men and women. The rabbinic literature deals so much with the proselyte baptism that a sizable book could be made if all the statements were gathered together. This baptism was used already before Christ, and during His public ministry it was practiced wherever Gentiles were converted to Judaism.
John: Some authorities say that the proselyte baptism did not exist among the Jews before the time of Christ, and others hold that the whole thing is uncertain. [2]
Martin: I know that's what you find in a large section of the baptistic literature. But you have perhaps some confidence in Doctor Strong, who was one of the leading Baptist theologians of the 19th century. He quotes the following passage from Alfred Edersheim's book Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: "We have positive testimony that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For, whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte, who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake, after baptism, of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as proving that at that the fifth time [previous to Christ] the baptism of proselytes was customary." [3] On the basis of this statement Doctor Strong holds that proselyte baptism was practiced at the time of Christ, and already before it.
John: That settles the matter. But what significance does this baptism have for the question of infants?
Martin: We shall soon see. The Gentile converts were, of course, adults. But if they had children and they wanted to take them with them into the covenant of God, they too were baptized. The Jews reasoned: Abraham was circumcised as an old man, Ishmael at the age of thirteen, and the infants at the age of eight days. The baptism of the proselytes was to follow the same pattern.
Gentiles abandoned the infants whom they did not want, and the Jews often took the foundlings into their care and baptized them. The boys were, naturally, also circumcised.
There was a tradition of the elders that a female proselyte was equal to native Jewish women in regard to marriage, if she had been baptized before she was three years and a day old. The rabbis explained: "If the profitableness of a thing is doubtful, it should not be done to a person who is not conscious of it. But it is permissible to do what is beneficial to a person who does not understand its value; and without his knowledge a person should not be harmed." Since baptism and acceptance into the covenant of God was beneficial, and leaving a child without it harmful, the rabbis declared infants had to be baptized.
In one respect proselyte baptism differed from circumcision: the proselytes' children who were born after their baptism were not baptized, because they were born "in holiness." [4]
Due to the strenuous missionary effort of the Jews, there were large numbers of proselytes both in Palestine and in the areas where the Jews lived in dispersion. Baptizing their families, parents with and their children, infants and older, was therefore a common thing at the time of the public ministry of Christ. The Jews believed that the Gentiles were washed in baptism from the uncleanness of paganism, and that they were born again and became new men, children of the Covenant, and members of God's people, servants of the only true God. When the John the Baptist called the Jews, too, to repent and be baptized, it must have seemed to them that they were placed on the same level with the Gentiles, and it was this that aroused the inquiry and criticism of the Sanhedrin, which sent messengers to John to ask him why he baptized. [5]
Now we have the necessary historical background for a proper understanding of the situation in which Christian baptism was instituted and first practiced. Families were taken into the covenant of God as units, parents with their infants and other children. Christ knew well the missionary practices of the Jews, and he criticized the Pharisees and scribes for making of their converts children of hell like themselves, [6] but he never criticized the baptism of infants. If he or the apostles had not approved it they certainly would have warned of it. Christ spoke of practically all the other errors and wrong practices of the Pharisees, but he never said a word about infant baptism. That cannot be merely accidental.
In this historical context we see in a new light the fact that the Apostolic Church also baptized whole families, like those of Cornelius, the Philippian jailer, and Stephanas in Corinth. [7] An unprejudiced mind would naturally suppose that the Church followed a practice similar to that customary among the Jews. The church "inherited" many things -- not only the Old Testament, but also many practices in its work and some features of organization -- from the Synagogue. We know from the Acts that the life and work of the Apostolic Church took place within the framework of the Synagogue for a long time after Pentecost. Even after Paul had to leave the Synagogue in Greece and separate Christians from it about two decades after the birth of the Church, in Jerusalem and numerous other places the Synagogue continued to be the external framework of the church. The Jewish Christians were very slow to realize all the implications of the New Covenant, and consequently continued to follow many of the Old Testament practices for a considerable length of time. A while ago we mentioned that they continued to use circumcision, although it was not in harmony with the plan and will of God. What could be more natural than that the early Christians, who continued to live within the framework of the Synagogue, following most of its practices, also followed its habit of baptizing infants of converted parents. I repeat, Christ and the Apostles never said a word against infant baptism, although it was commonly practiced by the Synagogue, and the Apostolic Church baptized families, just as the Synagogue did. Isn't it something entirely unnatural to think that Christ and the Apostolic Church would have rejected infant baptism, commonly used then, without saying a word on the matter? Isn't it much more reasonable to think that infant baptism is not mentioned because it was regarded as something so natural, so much a matter of course, that it did not need to be mentioned? When whole families were baptized, everybody understood that the church followed at this point the ways of the Synagogue.
John: I have never looked at the question of infant baptism and the baptism of families from that point of view. You cannot, however, prove the existence of infants in those families. There are certain things from which we can conclude that there could not be babes in them. Paul preached the Gospel to the Philippian jailer's family before they were baptized, and they listened to his preaching and believed in God. Then they rejoiced in their newfound hope. How could such a record be made of unconscious infants? Those who were baptized or those who heard the Word, believed it, and rejoiced. In the case of Cornelius' family the same holds true, and of the family of Stephanas we read that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. This could not have been spoken of baptized infants, but well describes the Christian activities of adult believers. [8]
Martin: Let us assume that you have attended a service held by your pastor in a home which is made up of the parents and several children, the smallest of them a few weeks old and the oldest in their teens. You relate the event to one of your friends. Would you say:
"Our pastor held a service in the home of brother Frank Smith, preaching the Word to the whole family. They believed the Word and rejoiced over their faith in God."
Or would you put your story into a form like this:
"Our pastor held a service in the home of brother Frank Smith, preaching the Word to them, except to the infants and small children, who, of course, could not understand it. They believed the Gospel and rejoiced over their faith in God, except the small children, who, of course, neither believed nor rejoiced."
John: I suppose the former way of telling about such an event is the common one, and I would use it unless I desired to be extremely cautious against the error of infant baptism.
Martin: Let us assume that a Baptist missionary comes from a certain district of India where he has opened a new mission field. He tells of a family which was first converted to Christianity and his members became active laborers in the Lord's vineyard, being particularly willing to help and serve other Christians. Would he, in your opinion, put his story into the following form:
"The Pandita family was the first fruit of my work in India except, of course, the little children, who did not understand and believe. They, namely the grown-up members of the family, dedicated themselves to the ministry of Christians there."
Or would he say:
"The Pandita family was the first fruit of my work in India, and its members dedicated themselves to the ministry of Christians there."
John: Don't make fun of me. The latter form is, of course, the usual and natural form.
Martin: You defenders of the baptistic view yourselves make things funny and unnatural, when you think that the New Testament writers should have used such unnatural and artificial forms of speech in telling of the conversion and baptism of families. I do not assert that we can prove the existence of infants in the families mentioned in the New Testament. I only wanted to show that the nonexistence of little babes in them cannot be proved from the way the New Testament writers tell of them. But, as I said, since the baptism of families, infants included, was customary in the Synagogue, which was the external framework of the life of the Apostolic Church in most places, it seems quite probable that the principles of the Synagogue were followed, since the contrary is never stated. All the circumstantial evidence seems, anyway, to point in the direction of the use of infant baptism in the Apostolic Church.
John: I cannot deny that. However, mere circumstantial evidence is not enough to establish a Christian doctrine or practice.
Martin: You're right in saying that circumstantial evidence is not enough. It is, however, significant. You know how such evidence is sometimes of decisive significance, even in a court of justice. But let's turn to the express teachings of the New Testament. We may start with the Gospel record of children who were brought to Jesus to be blessed by Him.
[1] Matt. 23:15.
[2] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), mentions such writers, p. 521. A. Wiberg declares in his book Are You Baptised? (originally published in Swedish, then in a Finnish translation, and possibly in other languages) that proselyte baptism was not used in the time of Christ. P. Lattu explains that the whole thing is uncertain in Rajankayntia kastekysymyksessa Raamatun ja Historian valossa (On the Problem of Baptism in the Light of the Bible and History), Helsinki, 1933, p. 30.
[3] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc.), II, p. 747. Strong, op. cit., p. 521.
[4] Edersheim, op. cit., pp. 746ff. Aapeli Saarisalo, Messiaskuningas (Messiah-King), (Porvoo, Finland, 1928), pp. 178ff. J.A. Maunu, Kuvauksia Jeesuksen ajan historiasta (Descriptions from the History of the Time of Jesus), (Porvoo-Helsinki, 1933), p. 250. Oscar Cullman, Baptism in the New Testament (Chicago, 1950), pp. 26, 62.
[5] John 1:25.
[6] Matt. 23:15.
[7] Acts 10:11; 16:33-34. I Cor. 1:16.
[8] Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), pp. 473-477.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]