For the promise is unto unbelievers and their children, Acts 2:39

[Hilasmos]

Just a quick question, I couldn't find an answer to this in the baptism threads I was searching. What is the best response to the charge that this verse cannot be used in the sense that it is by Paedos. Since these Jews were not believers, but rather needed to repent in order to enter the new covenant community, it does not follow that this is an example of the to "you (believers) and your seed" principle.

John G. Reisinger states it this way:

Peter is speaking to unbelievers and not to Christian parents. He is telling convicted sinners how to be saved, not giving believing parents the assurance that their children are "in the covenant." The "you" in the phrase "the promise is unto you" are unbelievers asking what they must do to be saved. In the very next verse (40), Peter exhorts these unsaved people to "save yourselves from this untoward generation." How can an exhortation to lost sinners to trust Christ be turned into a promise to Christian parents that their children are in a special covenantal relationship with God?

Gary Crampton basically reherses this same argument in his new book From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism. In a footnote, based on the fact that these are unbelievers, he alludes to a possible parallel for the "you and your children" phraseology by referencing Matt. 27:25:

It is very conceivable that when Peter says that "the promise is to you [the Jews] and children" (Acts 2:39), that he is referring back to Matthew 27:25 where we read that the Jews, in crying out for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, called down a curse upon themselves and their children: "His [Christ's] blood be on us and on our children."...Peter is telling the Jews that God is still ready to forgive those who crucified His Son and their children if they will repent and turn to Christ in faith.

Thank you

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would answer something like this:
1) The language (and the context) call for interpretation in alignment with the OT terminology that Peter is self-consciously borrowing or alluding to, perhaps most explicitly Gen.17:2,4,&7.

2) The reply assumes something about the gospel: namely that it is exclusively for people who need entrance into the kingdom. However, the gospel is not only for the entrance into the kingdom, but it is the "power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes," which is not a "moment" of salvation, but the whole thing from effectual calling to glorification.

Therefore,
3) Peter himself isn't making assumptions about the regenerate-state of everyone in his audience. No doubt, there are many there who are bold unbelievers, others who are misguided about the state of their souls; and others who are already genuine OT-believers, but also MUST reckon with their part in the guilt of mankind that put Jesus on the cross, and who MUST complete their faith by believing in the Christian gospel. How else will they get to their actual inheritance? In each case, they should all ask the question: Men and brethren, what must we do? (v37).

Note that the inquirers collectively refer to themselves and those who preach the law and the gospel to them as "brothers," a designation that Peter and the others do not repudiate as an unworthy association. Certainly the disciples' Christian theology would say nothing but that without said repentance and faith, that "brotherhood" could be nothing but outward. But the answer they give does not correct that view in any way; but in fact it answers in a way consistent with the view that they are speaking to the OT church. Wayward and profane, yes, and terribly guilty--a "generation" that is doomed (v40), but from whom a great host is bound to be saved and restored in Jesus before it is generally condemned.

4) If Peter is referring to a general truth (which goes back to Abraham), and a particular application of that truth (which we believe he is doing for a NT evangelistic occasion), then there is nothing awkward at all about us putting eternal verities together that belong together. In fact, Peter is preaching to parents of covenant children. It is only incidental that he gives believing parents the same kind of hope he gave to Abraham and other OT believers (actually better hope, since so much of the promise was now realized in Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit). But incidental though it be, it is no less true.

What parent, or desirous parent, being offered the gospel, would not rejoice to know that the gift named to him comes with the accompanying generosity of God to his offspring? It is a qualified promise, indeed, but we are not to focus on the qualification (faith) but on the promise itself. This, after all, is how God answered Abraham, who asked that Ishmael might live before God (Gen.17:18). There is enough "revelation" of the hidden things in the words pertaining to election: "as many as the Lord our God shall call." And beyond that, we do not inquire.

5) As for the Mt.27:25 reference, it could well be that those words were still "echoing" about Jerusalem, so to speak. But why did they reverberate so? Was it only because of a careless national malediction? Or wasn't it also because of the shuddering condemnation that those covenant-fathers-and-mothers had inflicted on their own children? To leave the (possible) immediate reference bare, and not relate those dread words to the whole OT, and especially to the passages (for example, the second and fifth commandments, the curses of Lev.26, Jer.3:24, etc.) that cry out for pity for the children of the faithless--that is restricted and paltry.

In such a case, it would be all the more fitting to reiterate the Abrahamic blessing. Imagine being a true (even a new) believer, who's son was among the foremost who executed the "Prince of Life." Would you not be glad to know that even such a one as he could be redeemed by faith, and not be a son of perdition?


To sum up, I do not think that the objections A) that this is "evangelism, or B) that this has reference to a single recent word of corporate malediction (which acc. to Ezk.18:20 is specious), either one or both--even when the basic thought is granted--therefore stand opposed to the uses the paedo-baptist makes of them.

 

[MW]

It is very conceivable that when Peter says that "the promise is to you [the Jews] and children" (Acts 2:39), that he is referring back to Matthew 27:25 where we read that the Jews, in crying out for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, called down a curse upon themselves and their children: "His [Christ's] blood be on us and on our children."...Peter is telling the Jews that God is still ready to forgive those who crucified His Son and their children if they will repent and turn to Christ in faith.

In the original reference the guilt of an innocent man's death would be accounted not only to the perpetrators of the action but also to their children. That Peter is alluding to this penal transaction in his Pentecost sermon only serves to buttress the claim that the promise being made to the parents applies to their children with some respect to their own repentance. Given the salvation-historical development in the book of Acts this is all the more apparent, where the promise is preached first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. In this light "you and your children" would address the Jews as those who are already "near" in distinction from the Gentiles who are "afar off." Alternatively, if it is accepted that the Gentiles were not yet in view in this part of the history, we might understand it of those Jews who continued to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem as distinct from the Jews of the Diaspora which had become religiously distanced over time. Either way, the "children" are undoubtedly the recipients of the promise precisely because they are children of those who are covenantally and religiously "near." This is supported by Peter's speech in the following chapter (3:25-26), where Jesus is said to be sent first to bless the children of the covenant which God made with their fathers. It is impossible, given this salvation historical development in the book of Acts, to suppose that "your children" refers to any one other than the children of the covenant. It is not possible to dissolve this federal relationship under the new covenant because the very process by which the new covenant was initially confirmed in salvation history assumes the validity of the federal relationship.

 

[Poimen]

Pentecost comes as a fulfillment of God's covenant promise through the prophet Joel (see Acts 2:16ff.). Since the promise was made to a people (Israel) and fulfilled amongst them, we cannot avoid the natural implication of Acts 2:39 which means that God's covenant is still made with a people (believers and their seed cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74).

Therefore we must not misunderstand the call to repentance and faith as signs that this new covenant is only for believers, any more than the OT prophets call to the same was indicative of a covenant which excluded promises for the coming generations of Israel. In fact, didn't Joel himself just address Israel in that fashion (Joel 2:1-17, including infants! vs. 16) and then continues to speak to the body about what God will do when He pours out His Spirit on that day (Joel 2:18-32)?

 

[Hilasmos]

Thank you very much Reverends Bruce, Matthew, and Daniel. All three posts were helpful, I will use the single line from Rev. Matthew's as a spring board:

Either way, the "children" are undoubtedly the recipients of the promise precisely because they are children of those who are covenantally and religiously "near."

If I follow this rightly, and to summarize, the baptist mistake (as argued in my OP) is that they assume the Jews in question need to somehow enter the covenant by repentance/baptism. However, as the context stipluates, these are the very people that the covenant was made with to begin with.

Peter refers to them as brethren and the "house of Israel" (2:36) and explicitly "sons of...the covenant" (3:25). I also find 3:26 helpful:

For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

1. God only blesses and saves within a covenantal framework
2. God is stated to purpose blessings and repentence through Christ to the "you"
3. This "you" were the unbelievers that condemned the Servant at the time God was purposing the very blessing to them.
4. This "you" is descriptive of the "you" that the promise is made with in 2:39

Thus, the Baptist fails to make the distinction between Peter's view of being under the covenant stipluations/promises and temporary unbelief.

Therefore, Peter's statement to the Jews (already pricked of heart), that the promise is to "you and your children" is based upon the fact that he views them as the Jews that the covenant was first even promised to. And, one might reason, if they were to finally reject this command of Peter they would be apostatizing from the very covenant they already belonged to by rejecting its promised fulfillment, and at that point would be cut off (Acts 3:23).

Assuming the above is close to what you are stating. How do I handle the "all who are afar off?" By stating that the promise that is for covenant memembers is also for those who join the covenant through the calling of God? In otherwords, the first group is under the stipulations of the covenant by their unique place as God's covenant people already (this cannot be said of the second group, so on what grounds is the promise for them?); the second group needs to be called into the covenant administration and then it can be said the promise is for them.

Almost the reverse? Meaning, the promise isn't really "for all who are far off," [otherwise it would be for non-covenant members, which is contradictory]. Rather, it is for those whom the Lord calls (who happened to formerly be outside of the covenant stipluations -- far off), and once brought under the covenant stipulations, they can lay claim to the promise. Not sure if that makes sense, but thanks for all the help.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A few thoughts.

1. It is important to note (as has been noted) that what is announced is a Promise.
2. The Promise has in reference the pouring out of the Spirit - a promise made to God's covenant people.
3. As Rev. Winzer notes, there are those "near" the Covenant (the circumcised and their children) as well as those afar off (Gentiles). {It should be noted that being "near" does not mean that all who are near possess what the Covenant promises but they are heirs to Promises and all the means of grace that are means to convert them.}

Baptism would then have signified and sealed that Promise to those that received it. It marked out for them, in a New and complete manner, the culmination of the Promise made to Abraham. In the ingathering of the Gentiles the fullness of that Promise to Abraham to bless all the nations would be seen in those who are "afar off". Solidarity is not lost or destroyed in this paradigm but it is the fullness thereof of a Promise made to a person already "near" the Covenant (and his children) as well as all those whom the Lord would ingather.