What do you think?
Rate this book
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries
Joachim Jeremias here makes his greatest contribution in a study of the early tradition of infant baptism. He offers exegesis of pertinent New Testament passages, and readers will be impressed with the extra-Biblical evidence he produces to support that there was virtually universal observance of the rite in the post-Apostolic generations. He states his purpose thus: to lay before the reader the historical material relating to the history of infant baptism in the first four centuries in as concrete and sober a manner as possible.
114 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
9 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
About the author
Joachim Jeremias
96 books24 followersJoachim Jeremias was a German Lutheran theologian, scholar of Near Eastern Studies, and professor of New Testament studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 6, 2018
Really good. To deny the apostolic practice of infant baptism would require one to explain how this practice came about. Jeremias summons a significant amount of evidence which shows that that the baptism of the infant children of Christian parents was indeed a very early practice and therefore likely apostolic. I found the "oikos formula" evidence especially convincing, though I admit it is indirect. As Jeremias states, given the OT precedent of the phrase, it seems incredibly strange to include the "he and and his house" formula if the intention of that phrase was "he and the members of his house old enough to profess faith verbally". Also, it is significant that no one opposed infant baptism on the grounds that such baptisms were illegitimate (i.e. not true baptisms). Tertullian's well-known argument in opposition to the practice was on the grounds of propriety, as Jeremias shows. No one until the time of the anabaptists during the Reformation would have argued that those baptized without a profession of faith were actually not baptized. This is be very odd if Paul and Peter were baptists!
It does seem that infant baptism was a practice in search of a theology in the early church until Augustine, but this shouldn't necessarily detract from the biblical veracity or historicity of the practice.
It does seem that infant baptism was a practice in search of a theology in the early church until Augustine, but this shouldn't necessarily detract from the biblical veracity or historicity of the practice.
May 29, 2025
Joachim Jeremias’ “Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries” is German scholarship at its finest. In the best way possible it clinical, critical, careful, and brutally honest in its hunt for historical clarity. Jeremias dives into the murky waters of early baptismal practice with the precision of a scholar and the heart of a pastor. He doesn’t try to force modern assumptions onto the early church but lets the voices of the church fathers speak on their own terms, even when things get messy, support the other side, or become unclear. Jeremias’ is not out to prove infant baptism as some later invention of church bureaucracy, but to show it as something deeply rooted in the life of the early church and flowing naturally out of the apostolic age.
This book felt like a gift, not just to the Reformed tradition, but to me personally. As I wrestle with the weight of baptism and prepare to bring an actual infant into the world, who will inevitably need baptizing. Jeremias gave me something solid to hold onto. His careful attention to language and context is a breath of fresh air in a world full of proof texting and theological hot takes. He’s not writing a YouTube takedown of some uniformed teenaged baptist, this is a work of careful love. (Also, if autocorrect changes “Jeremias” one more time, I might just throw my phone and be done with the review) He gives the paedobaptist confidence in historical truth and clarity and challenges the credobaptist to deal honestly with the church’s memory. You don’t have to agree with all his conclusions to appreciate how he gets there. And the way he gets there is from historical analysis just as much from theological analysis. This is the kind of book that reminds you why history matters and why the church needs to remember how to read it.
Jeremiah
This book felt like a gift, not just to the Reformed tradition, but to me personally. As I wrestle with the weight of baptism and prepare to bring an actual infant into the world, who will inevitably need baptizing. Jeremias gave me something solid to hold onto. His careful attention to language and context is a breath of fresh air in a world full of proof texting and theological hot takes. He’s not writing a YouTube takedown of some uniformed teenaged baptist, this is a work of careful love. (Also, if autocorrect changes “Jeremias” one more time, I might just throw my phone and be done with the review) He gives the paedobaptist confidence in historical truth and clarity and challenges the credobaptist to deal honestly with the church’s memory. You don’t have to agree with all his conclusions to appreciate how he gets there. And the way he gets there is from historical analysis just as much from theological analysis. This is the kind of book that reminds you why history matters and why the church needs to remember how to read it.
Jeremiah
January 27, 2020
This book is a bit of a challenge to read but is well worth it. Jeremias provides an incredibly detailed and yet concise analysis of early church history and the role that infant baptism played in the development of the church in the first four centuries. He begins by showing how early theologians interpreted the Scriptures to show the justification of infant baptism while at the same time linking themselves back to the apostolic age. What is often missed in an analysis of this theological doctrine, and the controversies that surround it, is that there is evidence showing throughout the church world that infant baptism was the accepted doctrine for several hundred years before any challenges arose and even those challenges were minor in scope. Jeremias points out the 2 most prominent disputes regarding infant baptism in the first four centuries. The first simply focused on whether the children of pagan converts should be baptized and the second thought maybe age 3 would be the best age to baptize the children so that they are have some memory of the ceremony. That was it during the early years of the church in regards to this supposed controversy. Jeremias dives deep in both archaeological evidence, primarily tombs, and the earliest manuscripts of what the theologians were writing at the time. The reading is difficult at the author assumes the reader knows Greek and Latin, something I don't have. So it is worth reading multiple times in order to see the great depth in such a little book.
April 9, 2014
Makes an excellent historical case for infant baptism. [See John Murray's "Christian Baptism" for an excellent biblical-theological case for the same.]
May 15, 2023
A pretty decisive case, at least it would appear. I know that Aland wrote a response to this, which in turn Jeremias responded to. But the historical case for credobaptism seems quite strained, especially in light of the fact that (1) the only substantive ante-Nicene evidence that exists on baptism supports paedobaptism or is ambiguous, and (2) despite some of the ambiguities, there is a near universal consensus on issues such as John 3:5 referring to baptismal regeneration. Besides, the credobaptist has to concede that much of apparently (though not accurately) "credobaptist" historical evidence arises from heterodox views of baptism, such as delaying baptism to that it can cover the worst sins of one's youth.
I found Jeremias' analysis of infants' headstones referring to them "Christians" (which is understood by nearly everyone has a reference to baptism) to be especially persuasive.
I found Jeremias' analysis of infants' headstones referring to them "Christians" (which is understood by nearly everyone has a reference to baptism) to be especially persuasive.
February 27, 2024
Jeremias gives a clear historical layout of the Church's practice of infant baptism. While the issue of whether or not baptism is to be applied to infants is one that remains to be contentious for our day there must be consideration of history.
While this work does not seek to give any theological reason for infant baptism, it does bear weight in the analysis of the topic. It most certainly puts the burden of proof (historically) upon those who would reject such a practice.
Certainly a worthy read when considering the topic.
While this work does not seek to give any theological reason for infant baptism, it does bear weight in the analysis of the topic. It most certainly puts the burden of proof (historically) upon those who would reject such a practice.
Certainly a worthy read when considering the topic.
May 11, 2025
Very helpful resource! Not a beginner read by any means, it’s a lot more dense than you would think for about 100 pages of reading. Joachim Jeremias (author) provided a lot of references and citations as well which was of great assistance. The author is very confident in his arguments, so he may seem to overstate the power of a couple points, but overall I was convinced throughout.
This is one book of three that you should read. There’s a response book from Kurt Aland trying to counter points of Joachim, and Joachim responded in another book in response to Kurt.
This is one book of three that you should read. There’s a response book from Kurt Aland trying to counter points of Joachim, and Joachim responded in another book in response to Kurt.
June 26, 2022
I have always heard of some interesting stories regarding the early church fathers in regards to infant baptism but I wasn’t entirely sure what the views were of those that held to an infant baptism battle. The author does well in this short book by demonstrating different types of evidence of whether infant baptism was practiced in the first four centuries and if so, why did they baptize infants within those eras. It was a fun and informative read. I have a better understanding of some of the biggest early church father's views of infant baptism.
January 25, 2025
Jeremias shows clearly and concisely that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church in the first four centuries. The two most striking pieces of evidence from this book were from Origen and Augustine. Origen, who travelled all over the known world, said infant baptism was the universal practice of the church at his time and was handed down from the apostles. Augustine said he’d never even heard of a Christian who didn’t baptize their infants.
June 28, 2021
The author quickly and clearly guides you through a mountain of evidence (about half of every page is helpful footnotes). This is a short and easy to read book that introduces and makes available a great depth of historical facts.
I think the best description I saw below was, "detailed and concise."
I think the best description I saw below was, "detailed and concise."
October 30, 2017
Covered a good bit of ground in very short order. A knowledge of Latin and Greek make for easier reading of the middle chapters. Lots of great footnotes for further study.
December 9, 2017
Strong content and argument.
October 13, 2018
A to-the-point and helpful survey.
September 3, 2022
Top notch scholarship.
June 22, 2015
There is evidence that for 1500 years, from the Resurrection to the Protestant Reformation, the church practiced infant baptism.
It’s not uncommon for modern Christians to believe that infant baptism is an artifact of the Roman Catholic Church; done away with when the Anabaptists of the 1600’s discovered the real meaning of the New Testament and did away with all the corruptions of the Roman Catholics. Christianity, however, wasn’t legalized by Rome until the fourth century and the Roman church didn’t usurp authority over the whole church until the fifth century. That leaves four centuries of pre-Roman Catholic Church that practiced infant baptism.
What happened in those four centuries is the focus of Joachim’s book. While there is no direct example of infants being baptized in the New Testament there is a great deal of evidence that it was happening.
Joachim Jeremias’ book is a scholarly work originally published in 1960. It is not intended to be a cleverly worded narrative of ancient history and theology. It is a dry read, not unlike a technical document in an obscure class on an esoteric topic. Not only is it a translation from German to English it still includes Greek and Latin phrases that in many cases remain untranslated. The author expects you to discern the translation from the text and, thankfully, Joachim is thorough in his descriptions making this a relatively straightforward endeavor.
What Joachim does exceptionally well is take you through a process of getting the reader into the right mindset and put the argument in historical, societal and theological context. To that end, the evidences are presented in four chapters in chronological order. What I have here should be considered highlights of a larger case, or the things that stood out to me on one reading, and not complete arguments in themselves.
Joachim starts with the culture of the early believers. In the ancient east they did not think in individualistic terms like we do today in the modern west. The beginning of Christianity took place in a culture where one person could bring shame, or honor, to the entire family. We see this played out in Acts 16 where Lydia (presumably the head of the household) believed and the entire household was baptized. Again the Philippian Jailer believed and was baptized, along with his entire family.
This gives added meaning to a passage like 1 Corinthians 7:14 where Paul says the children are made holy even by one believing parent. Children of believing parents were considered part of the church and therefore eligible for baptism. In Acts 21:21 we learn that Paul was instructing Jewish believers not to circumcise their children, but Paul also considered baptism the Christian circumcision (Col 2:11). Since children were circumcised under the Old Covenant, it is probable that Jewish believers would have interpreted baptism as including children in the New Covenant. This is also supported by Mark 10:13-16 when Jesus declared that the children should not be forbidden to come to him.
Moving forward in history to Tertullian, a theologian in the late 100’s and early 200’s, we have the first known dispute against infant baptism. In between the New Testament and Tertullian, Joachim offers several tomb stone inscriptions and writings about children who died in infancy and toddlerhood and are described as believers. Given the 1000’s of years of Jews circumcising infants, the lack of argument against baptizing children and the description of infants as believers, Tertullian’s argument isn’t against a new practice, but rather an established practice.
In the fourth century Augustine is known to have written that no heretic renounced the baptism of infants showing that infant baptism was not started by heretics, but rather corrupted by them. As Joachim writes, “In 388 Chrysostom in Constantinople in the Homily to Neophytes lauds the batismatis largitates and draws therefrom the conclusion ‘Therefore we baptize little children also, although they have no sin’” (italics are the author’s).
Joachim finishes with a note from Augustine, who may have been the last theologian before the usurpation of Rome. Augustine, writing against the heretical Pelagians, wrote that, “[They] would have reason to fear that men would spit in their faces and women would throw their sandals at their heads if they dared to say of infantes, ‘Let them not be baptized’.” A drastic reaction perhaps, but still showing that infant baptism was an established practiced in the early church.
If you’re interested in the history of baptism, Joachim’s work is a must read as it is an historical investigation and not necessarily a theological one. As I said, I’m summing in a page what Joachim expounded on in 100 pages with replete footnotes. Whether you agree with infant baptism or not, Joachim’s work is not a show piece for the faithful, but rather an in depth and well documented study that infant baptism was a regular practice in the church starting with the Apostles.
It’s not uncommon for modern Christians to believe that infant baptism is an artifact of the Roman Catholic Church; done away with when the Anabaptists of the 1600’s discovered the real meaning of the New Testament and did away with all the corruptions of the Roman Catholics. Christianity, however, wasn’t legalized by Rome until the fourth century and the Roman church didn’t usurp authority over the whole church until the fifth century. That leaves four centuries of pre-Roman Catholic Church that practiced infant baptism.
What happened in those four centuries is the focus of Joachim’s book. While there is no direct example of infants being baptized in the New Testament there is a great deal of evidence that it was happening.
Joachim Jeremias’ book is a scholarly work originally published in 1960. It is not intended to be a cleverly worded narrative of ancient history and theology. It is a dry read, not unlike a technical document in an obscure class on an esoteric topic. Not only is it a translation from German to English it still includes Greek and Latin phrases that in many cases remain untranslated. The author expects you to discern the translation from the text and, thankfully, Joachim is thorough in his descriptions making this a relatively straightforward endeavor.
What Joachim does exceptionally well is take you through a process of getting the reader into the right mindset and put the argument in historical, societal and theological context. To that end, the evidences are presented in four chapters in chronological order. What I have here should be considered highlights of a larger case, or the things that stood out to me on one reading, and not complete arguments in themselves.
Joachim starts with the culture of the early believers. In the ancient east they did not think in individualistic terms like we do today in the modern west. The beginning of Christianity took place in a culture where one person could bring shame, or honor, to the entire family. We see this played out in Acts 16 where Lydia (presumably the head of the household) believed and the entire household was baptized. Again the Philippian Jailer believed and was baptized, along with his entire family.
This gives added meaning to a passage like 1 Corinthians 7:14 where Paul says the children are made holy even by one believing parent. Children of believing parents were considered part of the church and therefore eligible for baptism. In Acts 21:21 we learn that Paul was instructing Jewish believers not to circumcise their children, but Paul also considered baptism the Christian circumcision (Col 2:11). Since children were circumcised under the Old Covenant, it is probable that Jewish believers would have interpreted baptism as including children in the New Covenant. This is also supported by Mark 10:13-16 when Jesus declared that the children should not be forbidden to come to him.
Moving forward in history to Tertullian, a theologian in the late 100’s and early 200’s, we have the first known dispute against infant baptism. In between the New Testament and Tertullian, Joachim offers several tomb stone inscriptions and writings about children who died in infancy and toddlerhood and are described as believers. Given the 1000’s of years of Jews circumcising infants, the lack of argument against baptizing children and the description of infants as believers, Tertullian’s argument isn’t against a new practice, but rather an established practice.
In the fourth century Augustine is known to have written that no heretic renounced the baptism of infants showing that infant baptism was not started by heretics, but rather corrupted by them. As Joachim writes, “In 388 Chrysostom in Constantinople in the Homily to Neophytes lauds the batismatis largitates and draws therefrom the conclusion ‘Therefore we baptize little children also, although they have no sin’” (italics are the author’s).
Joachim finishes with a note from Augustine, who may have been the last theologian before the usurpation of Rome. Augustine, writing against the heretical Pelagians, wrote that, “[They] would have reason to fear that men would spit in their faces and women would throw their sandals at their heads if they dared to say of infantes, ‘Let them not be baptized’.” A drastic reaction perhaps, but still showing that infant baptism was an established practiced in the early church.
If you’re interested in the history of baptism, Joachim’s work is a must read as it is an historical investigation and not necessarily a theological one. As I said, I’m summing in a page what Joachim expounded on in 100 pages with replete footnotes. Whether you agree with infant baptism or not, Joachim’s work is not a show piece for the faithful, but rather an in depth and well documented study that infant baptism was a regular practice in the church starting with the Apostles.
Read
February 11, 2017A bit dry and assumes a lot
October 6, 2015
I read the actual English translation from the book that is a half century old. The author died a week before I was born but his voice has been carried in the words of the pages. I read Ferguson's lengthy book on baptism just prior to this and I felt this book hit upon some of the holes I Ferguson's book that I called into question. I would recommend this book to anybody to is going into seminary or whoever wants to learn more about baptism.
May 12, 2014
The background of Jewish proselyte baptism was wholly unknown to me. This plus general paternal family structure make a strong case for normative practice with infants and children in the early church, even aside from the 2nd century writings indicating its prevalence.
September 1, 2012
Great information but a bit heavy (and partially in Greek).
March 28, 2009
Very good.
July 2, 2015
Solid! Very helpful!
May 1, 2017
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries by Joachim Jeremias
Sunday, April 30, 2017
11:31 PM
I read this book after reading about it in the fine book Theological Foundations of the Family: The Domestic Church by Joseph C. Atkinson. Atkinson noted that Jeremias had changed his views on infant baptism in the course of his research on it in early Church history. Atkinson caused me to begin to rethink infant baptism. I find the arguments for it from Scriptures and Church history compelling. I was not looking for this and it is even, perhaps, consternating. It seems to me that modern individualism is projected backward onto the Scriptures but that when the passages about families being baptized are examined carefully in light of their cultural context, it seems highly likely that the baptisms included infants. This argument becomes even stronger with the substantial evidence from earliest history from the first four centuries that infant baptism was universally practices in the church at that time. By the end of the book, Jeremias has powerfully made his case by lucid, assiduous historical scholarship when he writes, "A thorough examination of all of the sources makes it quite clear that in this whole period of four centuries there were to be found only two theologians who advocated a postponement of baptism, bot of them, moreover, with reservations." Neither of the two theologians, Tertullian, and Gregory of Nazianzus, offer any theological justification for the postponement.
I am acquainted with Joachim Jeremias previously from reading his fine work on the Lord's prayer. He combines intense historical scholarship and lucid explanation.
I pray for the courage to follow out what I have learned and to apply what I should. Perhaps it would be a salient push back against modern individualism to have my sons baptized while they are still young but I am still hesitant because I do not understand the implications and it seems that this implies that I take from them the decision when they must make the faith their own. But Scripture and history seem to indicate this is the right practice. Group identity is baptized so to speak more so than the atomistic individuality of modernity. I pray for illumination and courage.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
11:31 PM
I read this book after reading about it in the fine book Theological Foundations of the Family: The Domestic Church by Joseph C. Atkinson. Atkinson noted that Jeremias had changed his views on infant baptism in the course of his research on it in early Church history. Atkinson caused me to begin to rethink infant baptism. I find the arguments for it from Scriptures and Church history compelling. I was not looking for this and it is even, perhaps, consternating. It seems to me that modern individualism is projected backward onto the Scriptures but that when the passages about families being baptized are examined carefully in light of their cultural context, it seems highly likely that the baptisms included infants. This argument becomes even stronger with the substantial evidence from earliest history from the first four centuries that infant baptism was universally practices in the church at that time. By the end of the book, Jeremias has powerfully made his case by lucid, assiduous historical scholarship when he writes, "A thorough examination of all of the sources makes it quite clear that in this whole period of four centuries there were to be found only two theologians who advocated a postponement of baptism, bot of them, moreover, with reservations." Neither of the two theologians, Tertullian, and Gregory of Nazianzus, offer any theological justification for the postponement.
I am acquainted with Joachim Jeremias previously from reading his fine work on the Lord's prayer. He combines intense historical scholarship and lucid explanation.
I pray for the courage to follow out what I have learned and to apply what I should. Perhaps it would be a salient push back against modern individualism to have my sons baptized while they are still young but I am still hesitant because I do not understand the implications and it seems that this implies that I take from them the decision when they must make the faith their own. But Scripture and history seem to indicate this is the right practice. Group identity is baptized so to speak more so than the atomistic individuality of modernity. I pray for illumination and courage.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews