To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy to the Children of God

by Douglas Wilson

One of the problems in the entire debate over baptism has been the natural mistake of deriving the doctrine of the covenant from our doctrine of baptism, instead of beginning with the doctrine of the covenant, and then proceeding to discuss baptism. Many Christians have come to baptistic conclusions because they simply took a Bible and a concordance, and then looked up every incident of baptism in the New Testament. This is objectionable, not because they studied the passages concerned with baptism, but because they did not look up all the passages that addressed parents, children, generations, descendants, promises, covenants, circumcision, Gentiles, Jews, olive trees, and countless other important areas. In other words, the subject is bigger than it looks.

To be explicit, all teaching that grace is somehow imparted to an infant ex opere operato (automatically, by some kind of ecclesiastical magic) is rejected here as sub-Christian (indeed, as will be seen, it is sub-Jewish), and detrimental to a faithful preaching of the gospel. Water baptism does not regenerate, it does not save, and it does not cleanse.

If anyone at that time had seriously maintained this meant the children of believers were now to be excluded unless they came into the covenant on their own as a separate individual, this would have been, in the first century, an incomprehensible doctrine.

And as the history of the church revealed in Acts shows, their central debate was over whether or not the Gentiles had to include their children in the New Covenant by means of circumcision—their debate was not whether the Jewish Christians had to start excluding their children.

The New Testament recognizes that children of believers are holy ones or saints. We are taught that children of at least one believing parent are holy ones. This does not guarantee that each child is personally holy, but rather teaches that they are federally holy, or, put another way, covenantally holy. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).

In a biblical paedobaptist church, if a baptized child grows up and refuses to profess his faith in the Lord Jesus, that child must be removed from the church. Why? Because it is gross sin for the elders of a church to tolerate members who are known to be in rebellion against God.

Circumcision began with the promise, to use Paul’s terms, and not with the law. It is part of the promise to Abraham, and was not instituted at Sinai. As Paul teaches us, the promise was first, and then came the law. This does not mean the law was a detour from the promise; rather it was the next step in the development and fulfillment of the promise. And as the New Testament makes so clear, the law serves the promise, and not the other way around.

under the Levitical administration the people of God lived in servitude—and it was a yoke that was impossible for them to bear (Acts 15:10). The people of God under the New Covenant are free—they have come into their promised inheritance. Although we have not received it fully (not having seen the redemption of the body), we have received enough of it to be free.

The baptistic assumption is that the covenants are unlike in this respect. Some Old Covenant members were regenerate, some were not. All New Covenant members are regenerate. The paedobaptist assumption is that the covenants are alike in this respect. Some Old Covenant members were regenerate, some were not. Some New Covenant members are regenerate, some are not. The paedobaptist holds that the difference between the covenants is that the promises in the New are much better—meaning that the ratio of believer to unbeliever will drastically change.

The Gentiles were threatened with removal from the same tree the unbelieving Jews had been in. But if this were the tree of salvation, then the elect can lose their salvation—which cannot be defended biblically. And if this is the tree of the covenant, then the point stands.

Confronted with the gross and unbelieving history of the Jews, the baptist must say the Old Testament record of the disobedience of the Jews does not apply to our situation, and that to compare them is to compare apples and oranges. But this means he must therefore explain why the New Testament draws parallels where the baptist draws contrasts.

Abraham’s righteousness was not his own personal faith; his righteousness was Christ, whom he appropriated by faith. Thus, the seal of circumcision was not a seal given as a personal testimony. The seal was God’s seal of the promised and coming Christ, in whom Abraham believed. The meaning of Abraham’s circumcision was not, “Abraham got saved.” Rather, it was, “Salvation will come to the world!” It is true that Abraham was personally saved, and that he was saved by faith. But he was saved because he believed in the objective promise—that is, in the coming Christ.

But God commanded Abraham to circumcise both Isaac and Ishmael, i.e., to place the same sign and seal on them. What did their circumcision signify? Obviously, the same thing—it was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (and Abraham’s seed). Now was it also a seal of their righteousness which they had by faith? Depending upon whether we are considering Isaac or Ishamael, the answer is yes and no. We see the same with Jacob and Esau. It was, on both of them, a seal of the coming Christ, the coming Righteousness. The meaning of the sign and seal remained the same. But Jacob personally came to this righteousness of faith and Esau did not. Thus Esau bore the seal of “the righteousness of another” hypocritically. The Jews who persecuted the Christ were following in Esau’s footsteps. They thought circumcision was a sign and seal of their own righteousness. But it was not—it was a sign of a covenant made with sinners, and a seal of a Righteousness found in Another. The seal of circumcision was a seal of “the Lord our Righteousness.”

Further, he was never the father of those who never believed, whether or not they had been physically circumcised.

This means that the blessedness promised to Abraham came upon those circumcised in infancy, who later believed. Abraham was their father. And if they were circumcised in infancy but did not come to faith, he was not their father, and they were not true Jews. Moreover, Abraham was the father of all who believed, both Jew and Gentile. He bore in his body, as did every circumcised Jew after him, the seal of the coming Christ. This Christ was the Righteousness of uncircumcised and circumcised both. The blessing of Abraham did not come upon the believing circumcised only.

How then does circumcision relate to baptism? Just as circumcision was a sign and seal of the Christ who was to come, so baptism is a sign and seal of the Christ who came. Circumcision looked forward in history, and Christian baptism looks back in history, but they both testify to the same Christ, the same Lord of the Covenant. Neither circumcision nor baptism primarily testifies concerning the inward state of the individual who bears the sign and seal; they testify of Christ.

As Paul makes clear, this heart circumcision is not done with hands. This not only rules out physical circumcision, it rules out water baptism as well, both of which are performed by human hands. This is something deeper; it is a work of God in the heart. This heart circumcision is not accomplished by the external performance of any physical rite or ceremony, under any covenant.

It is important to reiterate that water baptism is not a picture of the believer’s own personal death, burial and resurrection. It is a sign of the believer’s union with and in the death, burial, and resurrection of Another.

This means we have established two things thus far concerning circumcision and baptism. Both of the external signs refer unambiguously to the Righteousness of Another, and the internal realties which keep the testimony from hypocrisy are brought about by the Spirit of God.

We have seen that true circumcision is inward—it is circumcision of the heart. When faithfully understood by believing Jews, physical circumcision was a sign and seal of the Christ, who alone could provide salvation. When the sign was distorted by unbelief, the signification of circumcision remained, but it remained as the Song of Moses did—as a testimony against the one who bore the sign and seal in hypocrisy. We have also seen there is a true baptism which is identified with the true circumcision. That to which physical circumcision pointed was accomplished for Gentiles in Christ, and their baptism in water pointed to the same Savior.

there is a clear connection between the baptism of the Spirit and baptism with water. This means that water baptism and physical circumcision are a sign of the same Christ, who brings the same salvation to all who believe on Him. Water baptism corresponds with heart circumcision, and physical circumcision corresponds with spiritual baptism. The external signs are therefore theologically equivalent signs—they point to the same Christ. Thus, by way of summary, we can say that water baptism is related to Christ in three basic ways. First, it is connected to the circumcision of the heart. Second, it refers to the union of the believer with his Lord. This union includes identification with His righteousness, and with His death, burial and resurrection. Third, it is clearly related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Physical circumcision has the same relationship in all three respects, and was nonetheless administered to infants. There is therefore no compelling reason why Christians should not baptize the infants of believing parents as well.

Because one of the most striking features of the New Covenant is the inclusion of Gentiles on a large scale, it is important to note that the promises of God to parents do not change as a result of this new state of affairs. Nor does the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises in Christ alter or change the duties of believing parents with regard to the rearing of their offspring. In short, in all eras, God commands parents to bring children up with Him as their God, and He promises that such a faithful upbringing will not be futile. And Scripture is consistently clear that the duties of godly parenthood are not altered if the parents are Gentile.

But because of the faithfulness of men like Peter and Paul at the Jerusalem council, the Christian church (still overwhelmingly Jewish) began to accept uncircumcised Gentiles into their midst. These Gentiles were accepted into the visible church of the New Israel on the grounds of their baptism—a water baptism which could not be denied them because God had clearly baptized them with the Holy Spirit. Paul insisted on this truth with the Galatians, who were being troubled by some Jews for whom this water baptism was insufficient.

These Gentiles were sons of God through faith in Christ. Anyone who was baptized into Christ had put on Christ. Because of this, there was no longer a meaningful religious distinction between ethnic Jew and ethnic Greek. If someone is baptized into Christ, he belongs to Christ. If he belongs to Christ, a former stone-worshiping pagan is now a son of Abraham, and an heir according to the promise given to Abraham—whether or not he was circumcised. His baptism was covenantally sufficient. As Paul states here, water baptism included the Gentiles in the visible community of the New Israel, created by the New Covenant with Israel and the house of Judah.

Now the Bible tells us that believing Jews continued to circumcise their sons, while graciously not insisting that the Gentiles start circumcising their sons. The debate in the early church was not whether the Jews should stop circumcising their sons; it was whether the Gentiles had to start. The decision of the Jerusalem council was not that individual Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. If circumcision had been required of them, it would have obligated them to live as Jews under the Mosaic law—which included the circumcision of all subsequent generations. Circumcision was not being waived for individual Gentiles; circumcision was being waived for Gentiles and their seed. So the Christian church did not insist that Gentiles circumcise their infants—not because they were infants, but because they were Gentile infants.

So believing Jews continued to practice circumcision, which placed their sons into membership in a visible assembly of Christian saints—the Christian synagogue. But the Jews were also to be baptized. We know this because the New Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, had one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). When Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, he told them that they needed to repent and be baptized, because the promise was for them and their children (Acts 2:39). So the believing Gentiles had baptism, while the believing Jews had circumcision and baptism. Circumcision was retained by the Jews, prohibited to the Gentiles as a spiritual requirement, and baptism was commanded of them both. Incidentally, we can see clearly in retrospect that baptism, being required of both Jew and Gentile, was intended by Christ to be the lasting sign of initiation into the church.

This period of time between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem was the time when a great transition from circumcision to baptism was being accomplished. During this period, Gentiles were being included into fellowship with the believing Jews, but Jewish infants were not being excluded. Those outside the Christian church were pagans and false Jews—Jews who apostatized from the covenant by rejecting Christ. We know that within the church were believing Gentiles and believing Jews, as well as the infants of believing Jews. The infants of believing Jews were given the sign of circumcision, which, even though it was an ordinance that was fading away, still had profound spiritual and covenantal significance. This obviously brings us to the interesting and pertinent question of the baptism of Jewish infants. The first thing we must show is that circumcision and baptism have the same theological and doctrinal import.

Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised (his was a case of believer’s circumcision). Because he was subsequently circumcised, he was therefore equipped to be the father of two groups of people—those who shared his faith without ever having been circumcised at all (Gentiles), and those who came to share his faith after their circumcision as infants (believing Jews). The fact that Abraham was justified by faith without circumcision meant that any man could be justified apart from circumcision. This was therefore an encouragement to Gentiles. The fact that Abraham was then given circumcision as a sign and seal of his faith-righteousness meant that this was its proper signification, and faithful Christian Jews were required to regard it as a sign, in their bodies, of the justification of Christ, appropriated by faith in the gospel.

Obviously, this brings us next to the question of Gentile infants. Circumcision was prohibited for such—not because they were infants, but because they were Gentiles. So would the children of such believing Gentiles need to wait until they made a personal profession of faith, and then receive baptism? To do this would establish and maintain a practice that the New Testament very strongly prohibits—a sharp class division between Jews and Gentiles within the church. A situation would immediately develop where children of Jews would grow up as members of the church (because they had been circumcised and baptized), while the children of Gentiles were excluded (because they had not been baptized). This would maintain the Judaizing pressure on Gentile fathers to submit to circumcision—so that their sons could be circumcised too, in order to be included in the covenant. But this line of thought was not necessary because Gentiles were accepted on the strength of their baptism. So would baptism be offered to the children of Gentiles? Of course. Jew and Gentile alike were required and expected to live in harmony within the church, all bearing the same mark or badge—that of Christian. The middle wall of partition had come down. But because circumcision was prohibited to Gentiles as Gentiles, circumcision could not be their common mark of unity. If Jews did not take the mark of baptism, then that could not be the sign of unity either. Therefore believing Jews were baptized. Confirming...

Of course this doctrine of the saints’ preservation and perseverance is precious to believers. But the doctrine does not teach it is impossible for a professing believer to fall away. Many have done so, and will continue to do so. We know from Scripture that when this happens it is a matter of an unregenerate person revealing his true condition. At the point of apostasy, it is clear that he was never a disciple indeed.

There really are people who really are removed from the Vine. They are described in Scripture as branches which bear no fruit. The Bible teaches that these are people who are connected to Christ (they have to be connected to Him in order to be removed from him), who nevertheless have no saving interest in Him. If they were regenerate, they would bear fruit. They are not regenerate, but they are attached to the Vine.

As Christ teaches us the nature of abiding, we see that He is not contrasting abiding with not abiding. The contrast is rather between abiding temporarily and abiding permanently. In this fallen world, apostasy, church discipline, fruitlessness, rebuke, and scandal are to be expected. The house of Christ still has slaves and sons, and we should not be surprised when the differences between them become manifest.

There is a difference between being elect, and being a covenant member. The elect cannot be removed from God’s sovereign decree; professing Christians can be removed from among God’s people, and they frequently are. When they are removed, their unregenerate status is revealed. They are not regenerate, and never were. But they were really in the covenant, a fact that now applies to them to their sorrow.

Paul is arguing that the nature of the tree has not been changed by the transition from the Levitical administration to the New Covenant. The Root is still Christ. The tree is still Israel—not the nation of Israel, but rather the person of Israel, the Lord Jesus. Christ is our Israel, and Christ is our only Israel. If we abide in Him permanently, we will bear fruit that remains. If we do not abide in Him permanently, we will be removed and burned.

We can point with amazement at the covenant people of God at the time of Christ. They murdered their own Messiah. Does this make God’s faithfulness come to nothing? Certainly not. Christendom has more than once been full of baptized infidels. Does this make God a liar? Certainly not. Paul then comes to a remarkable statement. Every last professing believer in the world could be lying, and doing so through the teeth, and God would still be true, the root would still be firm, the tree would still be Christ, and the earth will one day be full of fruit. God’s promise to Abraham was not dependent upon the cooperation of man. And we are not supposed to believe it because we see it; we are to believe it because God says it.

Three important truths emerge from this passage. Uncircumcised believing Abraham is thereby the father of uncircumcised believing Gentiles. Believing Abraham, circumcised after justification, is thereby the father of believing Jews, circumcised before justification. Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith. That righteousness was not his own personal faith, it was Christ. Circumcision was his seal that Christ, his righteousness, would in fact come. So when Abraham took this seal in his body, he was thus marked as the father of all believers in Christ—Jew and Gentile both. This is important to note because Abraham’s circumcision was not his personal testimony of his own personal faith. It was God’s testimony, sealing his righteousness—which must not be identified with his faith.

The way we baptize by immersion (lowering into the water) and the way we bury (lowering into the ground) do appear similar. This similarity, however, disappears when we remember that Jesus was buried through being enclosed in a small room with a door.

This covenant with Abraham, confirmed to him in Christ, was a covenant which by its very nature could not be annulled (Gal. 3:17). We can see how God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham; it is by the blood of this everlasting covenant that we as Christians are saved (Heb. 13:20). The covenant made with Abraham is still in force today; this glorious covenant made with Abraham millennia ago is nothing other than the new covenant.

Abraham’s physical descendants were required by this to follow in the footsteps of their covenant father, Abraham. This they did, but in two divergent ways (Rom. 9:6–7, 13). Some of them simply mimicked Abraham’s external actions, showing themselves really to be nothing more than children of the devil (John 8:39, 44). They, boasting in their physical lineage from Abraham alone, gathered themselves into assemblies that were actually synagogues of Satan (Rev. 2:9; John 8:39, 44). But others, children of the promise, imitated Abraham’s faith, showing themselves to be his true and faithful offspring (Rom. 4:12). The Bible teaches that only those Jews who are of faith are true heirs of the gracious promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:7). A true Jew was the man who was circumcised in his heart (Rom. 2:28–29).

Circumcision was the sign of the promise, i.e., it was the sign of the gospel. When the law of Moses came, hundreds of years after Abraham, it came in partial fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (Exod. 2:24–25). It was a temporary administration of shadows, ceremonies, and types, all designed, when rightly understood, to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Abraham had been shown the blueprints of a great house, and he believed that God would in fact build it (Gal. 3:6, 8).

We know that nothing can separate a man from God’s election to salvation (Rom. 8:29–30). So they were not removed from God’s saving decree; they were removed from His covenant (Rom. 11:7).

Gentiles were now being grafted into the covenanted olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). These Gentiles were grafted in alongside believing Jews who had been there, in that same tree, since infancy. While leaving the substance of the covenant itself untouched (we must remember it was an everlasting covenant), our sovereign Lord determined that He would alter the external sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Before, that sign had been circumcision. Christ now declared that the means of sealing the nations promised to Abraham (Rom. 4:13) was to be accomplished through baptism (Matt. 28:19).

We can see throughout the New Testament the controversy caused by the inclusion of believing but uncircumcised Gentiles (Gal. 2:11–12). Where is the controversy caused by the exclusion of the circumcised infants of believing Jews? There is no such controversy. But is it reasonable to suppose that those who so loudly objected to the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles would somehow not object at all to the exclusion of their own circumcised children?