It’s true. There is no verse in the New Testament that commands or records an infant baptism. This poses a problem for some Christians. Those who only look for explicit commands, or those whose theology is limited to the New Testament, will conclude that infant baptism is not biblical and therefore not very Christian.
When proponents of infant baptism (i.e. paedobaptists) defend their position, what biblical evidence do they most often appeal to? Circumcision. They say that baptism “replaces circumcision,” or that baptism is the “new circumcision,” or that circumcision has been “fulfilled in baptism.” This line of thinking is common within Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox camps. It can be found in Cyprian, Augustine, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and more.
As a paedobaptist myself, I agree that there are similarities between circumcision and baptism, but the common argumentation is far too simplistic. The strength of circumcision is that it shows that God is not opposed to imposing rituals upon infants and small children. That’s an important point, but whether God wants to impose baptism on infants is an entirely different question.
The opponents of infant baptism (i.e. credobaptists) rightly point out dissimilarities between circumcision and baptism, such as: (1) circumcision was only for Israelites, not all believers in Yahweh, and (2) circumcision was only for Israelite males, not Israelite females. I agree with the credobaptists that circumcision is not sufficient proof of infant baptism. There’s a much better case to be made.
The sufficient proof of infant baptism is baptism in the Old Testament. If there were baptisms in the old covenant, and if those baptisms included infants, we should expect the inclusion of infants to continue in the new covenant. We would not need an explicit command from the New Testament to baptize our children. Infant baptism would be the expectation and default conclusion. Indeed, the New Testament would have to explicitly forbid infant baptism if there was a change.
Many Christians start off assuming that baptism is unique to the New Testament, as if it was started by John the Baptizer in the first century. But the apostolic writers refute this assumption in their very letters. Peter says the flood was a “baptism” (baptisma) for Noah and his family (1 Peter 3:20-21). Paul says that the Israelites were “baptized” (baptizo) in the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:2). Hebrews 9:10 uses baptismos to refer to the ceremonial washings of the old covenant. This means that baptism existed in the Old Testament. That’s where our theology of baptism must begin. To say otherwise is to interpret scripture contrary to the apostles.
The Bible’s theology of baptism begins in Genesis 1, with a world of water from which everything else will be created and structured. On Day 2, God separated the water into two bodies, with waters above and waters below. This will become the symbolic paradigm for baptism. At the flood, Noah and his family were baptized by water from above (the rain). The wicked were submerged. At the Red Sea, the Israelites were baptized by water from above (Psalm 77:16-20). The wicked Egyptians were submerged. Submersion represents death and hell, sprinkling and pouring represents cleansing from heaven.
The priestly washings of the levitical system followed the same pattern. Numbers 8:6-7 explicitly requires “sprinkling” for the ordination of Levites. Other passages use the word for “washing,” but these washings were from the bronze laver at the door of the tabernacle (Exodus 29:4, 30:18). Exodus 38:8 tells us that the laver was made from mirrors, therefore it wasn’t suited for submerging grown adults in water. The historical consensus (from Jews and Christians alike) is that water was retrieved from the laver and applied onto the recipient. Exodus 30:20-21 says that the priests were to wash their hands and feet every time they went in and out of the tabernacle. They were to do this with water “from” the laver, further indicating that the water was retrieved and applied from above.
The washings for uncleanness were performed in similar fashion. Consider the specificity of Numbers 19:13 – “Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died and does not purify himself…he shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him.” Sprinkling or pouring is denoted in other places (Isaiah 44:3, 52:15, Ezekiel 36:25). Since Hebrews 9 refers to all of these as “baptisms,” we must accept that sprinkling and pouring are legitimate (and preferred) modes of baptism.
What hath any of this to do with infant baptism? First, we see that baptism predated circumcision. Noah’s baptism (Genesis 7) came long before Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17). It is not appropriate to speak of baptism “replacing” circumcision when baptism existed prior to, and alongside, circumcision for thousands of years. They were two distinct rituals for distinct purposes. It would be better to say that circumcision has simply ceased to be. Circumcision was fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ, as were all the other bloody rituals. In contrast, baptism continues on because it predated the law and goes back to creation.
Second, we see that infant baptisms were approved by God in the Old Testament. The Red Sea baptism included children. It was for all of God’s covenant people, not just adults. It included Israelite children, even those too young to understand what was happening. Likewise, the washings for uncleanness included children. Numbers 19 is the best example of this. Anyone in the tent of a dead body was considered unclean and was required to be sprinkled with water (Numbers 19:14, 18). No exceptions are given. It included anyone, of any age, at the deathbed of their loved one. Furthermore, if a child contracted uncleanness in any other way, the requirements for baptism would apply. The infant’s unawareness of his uncleanness, and his inability to confess, did not preclude a baptism.
This information should radically change how we approach the New Testament. In Matthew 3, baptism pops up out of nowhere. It is mentioned without any description of how it is to be performed. Why? Because it was a known ritual throughout Israel’s history. The writers expected their audience to know what baptism was and they expect us to know it, too. Baptism had always been a ritual of sprinkling or pouring, and it always included adults and children. There is no indication that these details changed in the new covenant.
Parents would have brought their children to be baptized by John. They stepped down into the waters below but were baptized with waters above, re-creating the imagery from Day 2. Jesus was baptized in the same way. At Pentecost, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a “pouring” (Acts 1:5, 2:17). Peter then commanded water baptism and said the promise was to “you, your children, and all who are afar off” (Acts 2:38-39). The Jewish mind would have understood this as none other than infant baptism by sprinkling or pouring.
Circumcision is not the strongest argument for infant baptism. In most cases, it is a distraction that leads to unnecessary confusion. The most effective defense of infant baptism is infant baptism. God commanded it in the old covenant and it continues in the new covenant. Take heed, parents. When Pharaoh’s army approaches, you don’t leave your children on the shore. You take them through the water with you.
Adam McIntosh is pastor of Saint David’s Church in Tomball, TX.