Jesus and Children
John: That event cannot prove infant baptism, for none would have forbidden the parents from bringing their children to Jesus if He and His disciples had been in the habit of baptizing infants. [1] Besides, Christ did not baptize them. He only blessed them. We should do likewise.
Martin: Don't you think that the Lord's words show that His disciples held some erroneous views about children and their relation to Him?
John: Of course, they do, for the Lord rebuked them for their behavior. They did not do the right thing with regard to the children. The blessing of children should not be hindered.
Martin: Do you think that the disciples' error was due to the fact that Jesus was not in the habit of receiving children?
John: I stated a minute ago that none would have forbidden the parents from bringing their children to Jesus if He and His disciples had been in the habit of baptizing them. Maybe the reason was that Jesus had not been in the habit of receiving children.
Martin: Not at all. The narrative of Jesus and the children is in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew. In the previous chapter we are told that Jesus "called to Him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto thee, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven!" [2] Doesn't this passage show that, shortly before, Jesus had shown His love for children and set them as examples of a right attitude for entering into the kingdom of God?
John: You are right there. I haven't noticed that this event had taken place before the children were brought to Jesus.
Martin: The first disciples were slow in understanding the Lord's will with regard to little children. Don't you think, brother John, that the disciples of our times may have a similar tendency to misunderstand His ways and thus fail to do what He wills?
John: We all understand only in part. The danger of misunderstanding the Lord's will is always present with us as long as we live in this world of imperfection. But as it seems to me, the misunderstanding in the case of little children is with you. We follow the example of Jesus and bless them, and there can be no misunderstanding about that.
Martin: That question is to be decided by a study of the teaching of Christ, of course. But I have a question for you: In the teaching and practice of your church, is the time of baptism the decisive thing, or the state of the soul? In other words, is the decisive thing the age of the baptized person, or his faith?
John: The faith is, of course, the decisive thing, not the age.
Martin: Do you think that it is right to baptize believing children, or must they have reached a certain age?
John: I already said that the age is not decisive. The only limit is the ability to understand the Gospel and believe. We do baptize children who have a personal saving faith.
Martin: I have another question for you: How, or in what manner, do we receive the kingdom of God?
John: By faith, of course. The kingdom of God can be received by faith alone.
Martin: Do you, then, think that a person who receives the kingdom of God has a saving faith?
John: I do. Since the kingdom of God is received by faith, the person who receives it must be a believer. Since infants cannot believe, they cannot receive the kingdom of God.
Martin: Don't be too rash in your conclusions. Let's see what the text says. When the children were brought to Jesus He said of them, "Of such is the kingdom of God." Then He went on to say, "Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein." Don't you think that, according to these words, the little children received the kingdom of God?
John: I don't think so. The Lord did not say that the little children received the kingdom, He only said that grown-up people must become as little children, small and humble, in order to receive the kingdom of God.
Martin: Let's assume that we are in a shipwreck near the shore and I tell someone: Unless you swim as John does, you cannot get to shore. Or I say: Unless you read and write as John does, you will not be accepted by the school. Do you think that John can be set as an example in something that he is not able to do?
John: Of course not. I was inconsiderate in my argument. But I have another one. Christ says, "Of such is the kingdom of God." He does not say that they receive the kingdom of God, but that the kingdom is theirs, that is, they already have it.
Martin: Now you are still more thoughtless from your own point of view. A short time ago you said that a person who has received the kingdom of God is a believer. Now you say that the little children already have the kingdom of God. Thus you hold that they were believers. And you also said that believing children should be baptized.
John: But maybe the words of Christ do not imply that the children already were believers, or that they believed on that occasion. The words may simply mean that these children had a relationship to the kingdom of God. What the relationship is, is taught elsewhere, namely, that they are under the care of believing parents and of the Church.
Martin: Is that what you read in the text? I do not read in it that the children only were in a relationship to the kingdom. The Lord says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom as a little child." Little children do not have the kingdom just because they are little children, as some people think. Christ says expressly and emphatically, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." [3] The kingdom of God belongs to little children in the sense that they are acceptable to it and able to receive it when it is offered to them. They are welcome to Christ, as He says, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." When they come or are brought to Him, He gives them the kingdom, and they receive it. They do it in faith, for that is the only way in which God's kingdom can be received.
A short while ago you admitted that believing children can and should be baptized. Since these children were believing children, would it have been right to baptize them?
John: I admit that they could have been baptized. But why weren't they baptized?
Martin: You already have admitted that it was not because they were children. Neither was it because they were unbelievers. I think the reason was that Christian baptism in its actual sense had not been instituted as yet, neither did the Christian church in the full sense exist. True, John had been baptizing, but his baptism had not been a Christian baptism.
John: We believe that the baptism of John was essentially Christian baptism, although the full significance of it was not understood until after Jesus' death and resurrection. [4]
Martin: Do you, then, believe that the Christian baptism was actually instituted by John and not by Christ?
John: Not exactly that. But John's baptism was a baptism of faith in the coming Messiah, and it was a baptism of repentance for sin. The only difference between John's baptism and the baptism of our time is that John baptized upon profession of faith in the Savior yet to come whereas baptism is now administered upon profession of faith in the Savior who has actually and already come. [5]
Martin: True, John pointed to Jesus and exhorted people to go to Him and believe in Him. But the question is: Does the New Testament teach that it was John who instituted the Christian baptism, with Jesus continuing it, or was it Jesus who instituted baptism, with John preparing the way for Him and for the baptism He instituted?
John: I think it is more correct to say that it was Jesus who instituted Christian baptism, and that John prepared the way.
Martin: John was Jesus, forerunner, and his baptism was the forerunner's baptism, a preparatory baptism, not the actual Christian baptism. We see it from Acts, chapters eighteen and nineteen. Apollos was an eloquent man and taught the ways of the Lord, but he knew "only the baptism of John." [6] The word shows that there was another baptism, distinct from the baptism of John, namely, the Christian baptism. While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul met in Ephesus twelve disciples who had been baptized with the baptism of John, and who knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. They were given instruction in the relationship between John and Christ, and then they were baptized with the Christian baptism. Doesn't that show that the baptism of John was not the same as Christian baptism? It was not sufficient in the Christian Church, but people who had received only the baptism of John were baptized with a Christian baptism when they accepted Christianity.
John: We believe that the baptism of the twelve disciples in Ephesus was not a new baptism but the baptism for the first time of certain persons had been wrongly taught with regard to the nature of John the Baptist's doctrine, and so had ignorantly submitted to an outward rite which had in it no reference to Jesus Christ, and expressed no faith in Him as a Savior. This was not John's baptism, nor was it in any sense true baptism. For this reason Paul commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [7]
Martin: The twelve men whom Paul met in Ephesus were called disciples, a title used of Christians, and they associated with Christians. Your idea that the baptism they had received had had no reference to Christ has no basis in the text. The text tells only that they were ignorant of the Holy Spirit, not that they were ignorant of Jesus. Possibly they had lived at that time of Pentecost in a region which had not been in contact with the events in Jerusalem. [8]
John: Maybe you are right. But what significance does this thing bear to our problem?
Martin: One more thing before we return to the question of why Jesus did not have the children baptized. Jesus made disciples to Himself, at least in the early part of His public ministry, by baptizing them through the agency of His disciples, as we read in the third and fourth chapters of John. Although this baptism belongs to the preparatory phase of Christianity, it seems to have been valid in the Church, for we have no record of those who were thus baptized to have been rebaptized. It was a baptism given at the command of Jesus, and people became His disciples through it.
John: Why, then, didn't Jesus have the children baptized when they were brought to Him?
Martin: The probable reason was threefold: First, the people Jesus called to be His disciples were to be the witnesses of His teaching, miracles, suffering, death, and resurrection. Little children were not fit for such a task. Second, when the children were brought to Jesus the Christian Church in the full sense did not exist. Believing children need Christian homes and a Christian Church. Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem, probably east of Jordan, for the children were brought to him a short time before his arrival at Jericho. In that region he probably had very few disciples among the adult people. The Christian Church was necessary before children could be baptized, for although acceptable to the kingdom, they needed the care of older Christians. Third, since Jesus was on His last journey to Jerusalem, His suffering and death were only a few days away. We have no record of baptisms of that time. Even those who had been baptized before and were somewhat established in their discipleship could hardly cope with what happened in Jerusalem. Baptizing started again after the disciples had received the Holy Spirit, and the Christian Church in its full sense was born.
John: Your explanation sounds plausible.
Martin: The fact that the children who were brought to Jesus were not baptized is therefore no argument against the baptism of believing children. Do you admit that?
John: I do. But all this has nothing to do with infant baptism. The children who were brought to Jesus obviously were old enough to understand the words of the Lord and believe in Him. There is no objection to suffer them to come unto Him. The question in the case of infant baptism is the bringing of infants to baptism who are too young to come by themselves. There is no authority for such a thing. [9] We have no authority to call tiny infants believers.
Martin: We are now coming to a crucial point, the age of the children who were brought to Jesus. You assume that they were at least four to ten years old. But our assumptions are not enough here. We must have a definite text to base our opinion on. We have such a text in the eighteenth chapter, fifteenth verse of Luke: "And they brought unto him also their babes, that he should touch them." In the original Greek text the word brephos (plural brephe) is used here. This word has, according to Greek lexicons, only two meanings: an unborn fetus, and a newly born babe, an infant. Of course, only the second meaning is possible here. Of these babes, or little children, as they also are called, Jesus says, "Of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein."
Brother John, don't you see that your theory of the age of these little children is not based on the Biblical text?
John: I must admit that. I have never investigated this text that closely.
Martin: That's the very reason for many doctrinal errors; the Scripture text is not studied closely enough. A short time ago you agreed with me that the children who were brought to Jesus were believers, and that they could have been baptized if circumstances had permitted it. They were left without baptism because of some reasons of expediency, not because of principle.
John: Although I cannot find fault in your logic, I cannot believe that infants could have a saving faith. Faith comes by hearing. Infants cannot hear and understand the Gospel. It is against all sound reason, experience, and psychology to assume that infants can believe. Jesus did not say that these infants had faith. What He did say was that there comes a time when infants, no longer brephe, babes, believe, namely, when they have grown up and reached the age when faith is possible. Jesus did not even declare that the infants had received the kingdom of God.
Martin: Now you deny what you admitted before. Our text says that babes, brephe, were brought to Jesus. Later on they are called paidia, little children. You seem to think that the latter word refers to the later life of these babes. The text, however, contains no indication in that direction. The word receive is not in the future tense but in the aorist, which denotes a completed action at a definite point of time. I did not say that the infants had received the kingdom of God. The words of Christ show that they were able to receive it and did so when the kingdom was offered and given them. I am in complete agreement with you that the idea of infant faith is against all sound reason, experience, and psychology. My reason doesn't understand it at all and tends to be offended at such a thought. And as far as I'm acquainted with psychology, the idea of infant faith is foolishness in the light of psychology.
John: Why do you, then, defend such a view?
Martin: What do you think, brother John: If there is a conflict between human reason, experience, and psychology on the one hand, and the plain teaching of Christ on the other, which of them should we accept as truth, if we are Christians?
John: The teaching of Christ is, of course, above all human reason, experience, and psychology. We do not want to be rationalists, who exalt their own reason above the word of God.
Martin: We have here a case in which Christ teaches one thing, and human reason, experience, and psychology teach an opposite thing. Christ says that infants, brephe, are acceptable to the kingdom of God -- it is theirs. He also indicates that they receive it, since even grown-up people must receive it as infants. The reception can take place by faith only.
Human reason and psychology deny that infants can have faith. Jesus says that they can. You have to choose, brother John, whether you follow your own reason and human psychology or Christ. I want to believe what Christ says of infants, even though I cannot understand it. Since the Lord says that infants can receive the kingdom of God, it is obvious that they also can be baptized, as you, too, actually have admitted.
John: I cannot deny that you reason logically from the literal sense of the words of Christ. In any case, it is plain that the proper subjects of baptism are those who give credible evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, or, in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection. Those only are to be baptized who have previously repented and believed. The Church is bound to demand of the candidate reasonable proof of his repentance and faith. The believer's death and resurrection, set forth in baptism, implies, first, confession of sin and humiliation on account of it, as deserving death; second, declaration of Christ's death for sin, and of the believer's acceptance of Christ's substitutionary work; third, acknowledgement that the soul has become a partaker of Christ's life, and now lives only in and for Him. [10] How can the infants fulfill these prerequisites of baptism?
Martin: They certainly cannot, if such conscious repentance and faith, and such confession of faith with the mouth, are required as its prerequisites.
But I have a question for you. Did Christ ask the infants who were brought to Him: Have you humbled yourselves to acknowledge your sinfulness? Are you ready to accept My substitutionary work and atonement? Do you profess faith in My deity? Can you give a credible proof that you have repented, have been converted, and have entered into the communion of My death and resurrection?
John: It is foolish even to ask such a thing. How could Jesus have presented such questions to little babes?
Martin: Naturally He did not. But don't you see that He simply received them as they were brought to Him, declaring with an emphatic divine assurance "Verily," that they were able to receive the kingdom of God, and that even older people had to become like them? You admitted that they could have been baptized if the circumstances had permitted it. Doesn't the example of Christ show what are the prerequisites of baptism in the case of infants? No questions concerning their repentance and faith should be presented to them. They should simply be received, through baptism, into the kingdom of God, the Christian Church, as Jesus received the infants.
John: He did not, however, baptize them, but only bless them.
Martin: You return to that constantly repeated argument of those who oppose infant baptism. Have you forgotten how you already admitted that believing children can and should be baptized -- and that the children who were brought to Jesus were left unbaptized because of expedience, not due to any principle?
John: I have no arguments left on that score. But I have another argument against infant baptism ...
[1] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), 535.
[2] Matt. 18:2-6.
[3] John 3:6.
[4] Strong, op. cit., p. 521.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Acts 18:24-25.
[7] Strong, op. cit., p. 534.
[8] Dr. H.A. Ironside, though an antipedobaptist, writes in his booklet Baptism: What Saith the Scripture (3d ed., 1930), pp. 12f., 17, that the baptism of John "is quite distinct from Christian baptism." The testimony of John was but preparatory, and so was his baptism.
[9] William L. Pettingill, "The Evils of Infant Baptism," in The Voice, official organ of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, September, 1945, reprinted by Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., in The Bible Today (National Bible Institute, Shelton College, New York), and also in the booklet Both Sides of the Baptism Question, p. 2.
[10] Strong, op. cit., pp. 527ff. Similar statements in Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), pp. 213f.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]