biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I wonder why more paedobaptists don't go into more detail in Acts 2. They so often just seem to quote that the promise is to "your children", mention the idea of children's continuing covenantal inclusion, and then they skip off to some other text. But there are a lot of questions to be asked of this passage.
The credobaptists often try to make much of the phrase, "as many as the Lord shall call", assuming that the word "call" there is in reference to an effectual, soteriological call. But I disagree:
First of all, they miss the entire point of Peter quoting the end of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39. Peter starts quotation of the prophecy in Acts 2:17-21, and then *finishes* Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39, to create a sort of inclusio to wrap up the whole passage. So it is not proper to try to exegete the meaning of the word "call" in Acts 2:39, in isolation from understanding the meaning of the word "call" used in Joel's original prophecy.
The Hebrew word for "call" used in Joel 2:32 is "qara'", and is also used in Joel 1:14, 1:19, 2:15, and 3:9. In no case is it a reference to God's effectual, saving call. The word is used twice in Joel 2:32, and I don't think it is in reference to an effectual saving call there, either. It certainly isn't the first of the two times, and I think that making it an "effectual" call the second time in Joel 2:32 would be special pleading.
Also, we need to remember that Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. In Luke/Acts, the word "call" (Greek "proskaleomai") is used 16 times. And in all of the 16 times, Luke *never* uses that word in the sense of a soteriological "effectual call".
In short, I don't think the "many the Lord shall call" are the elect that God will effectually call. There is certainly some overlap there, and those called certainly include the elect. But I don't think we can fairly say that the word "call" is ever used in Luke/Acts as a technical term for soteriological effectual calling. So, if that's not what "call" means, then what does it mean?
In Joel 2:17, there is a direct covenantal reference to God's "people". I believe the reference is to God's covenantal people, and not to God's elect. Just look at all the OT references where God talks about the Israelites (both elect and non-elect) being His "people". How did they get to be God's people? By God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
When God "called" His people out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, with the same Hebrew word for "call"), both elect and non-elect people were called. After the first dispersion (to Babylon), God called His people back to Israel. And both elect and non-elect people were called. I think the same mindset is in Joel 2. God is talking about a covenantal calling, not a soteriological one. (Though of course, all of those savingly called are also covenantally called.) I don't think an "effectual call" based on election fits the context and main thrust of Joel 2. Thus, I don't think it had that meaning when Peter quoted it in Acts 2, either.
God called the remnant of Israel into covenant with Himself. But some of those in the covenant eventually apostatize (cf. Heb. 6 & 10).
Possible very-loose expanded paraphrase of the verse in Acts 2:
"God's covenantal promises, including blessings for covenant-keeping, and cursings for covenant-breaking, are for you Israelites here today, for your children, and for those Israelites who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call back into the covenant, according to the context of Joel's prophecy."
That's where my thoughts are at the moment, anyway.
If covenantal inclusion of infants is already strongly and explicitly taught in the OT, then we don't necessarily have to have a strong, explicit re-teaching of it in the NT. We just need to see clues to tell us whether children are still included, or not. If not, then we would expect strong, clear, explicit abrogation of OT covenantal infant inclusion. But if nothing has changed, we would just expect to see children included in a matter-of-fact way. And that is just what Peter does. He says the promise is for you, and your children. He doesn't explain himself in detail because he *doesn't have to*. The Israelites had already known for thousands of years that their children were included in their covenant with God. However, if Peter was trying to abrogate infant inclusion in any way at all, then we would expect a very clear statement to that effect (which he does not make), and we would also expect an angry reaction from the crowd (and there is none). If Peter had taken pains to explicitly tell them that their children were in the covenant too, I think their response would have been: "Duh!" <grin>
So, "and to your children" was enough. Peter didn't have to say any more.
Does the "call" in Acts 2 applies to "you", "your children", and to "those afar off", or does the "call" just applies to "those afar off"? --- I would argue that the "call", in *this* particular text, only applies to "those afar off". The reason I believe this is because the phrase "as many as the Lord shall call" is taken from the end of the prophecy Joel 2. This is where the "inclusio argument" seems important to me. I still recognize some "fuzzy logic overlap" here, but if forced to make strict categories, I think the "call" has to apply to the "far off" people, just as it is meant in Joel 2. Also, the "you" and the "your children" are already present in Peter's audience, so it is hard for me to see how the future-looking phrase "shall call" could apply to them. It is "those afar off" who God "shall call".
What about Peter's call to "repent/be baptized"? Does that mean that he expected all people to repent before baptism? --- Well, how did the OT Israelites understand the connection between repentance and circumcision? We knew that Abraham had faith *prior* to being circumcised. And his circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had" beforehand (Romans 4:11). As an adult, Abraham certainly had faith (and thus repentance) prior to receiving the covenant sign. However, as a result of Abraham's faith, his entire household came under the covenant, and the covenant sign was applied to all, whether or not they had faith yet. Isaac was circumcised at 8 days of age, signifying that he was *already* a covenant member. But I don't think Isaac had saving faith until years later. Now think about Gentiles who converted to Judaism. The same logic applied. The head of the household had to profess faith and repentance prior to circumcision. But at that point, his entire family was under the covenant, and his sons would be circumcised, regardless of personal faith. Like Isaac, infants were given the covenant sign prior to having saving faith. So, in light of these facts, how would Peter's audience have understood his message? When Peter said to "repent and be baptized", I think they would have understood it like they understood Abraham/Isaac, and like they understood proselyte conversions. They recognized that God was creating a "new Israel", if you will, and that baptism was the initiatory rite for the heads of households, and that the covenant sign would also be given to the children within the household. At least, that would be the natural assumption based on the religious background of Peter's audience. And what, if anything, did Peter say to make them think otherwise?
There are some more things to keep in mind regarding the Luke/Acts connection:
* Luke 1:15 reveals that the Holy Spirit can even be poured out on infants.
* Luke 18:15-16 says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants.
* In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.
* In Acts 16:31, Paul & Silas told the jailer that if *he* believed, then he would be saved, *and* his "house". The word "believed" in Acts 16:34 is singular, not plural, and most likely refers to the jailer himself, and not to his entire family. (But if a CB disagrees, then he needs to go all the way and also deal with the household of Zaccheus in Luke 19. Addressing Acts 16 without also addressing Luke 19 is special pleading, In my humble opinion. They just feel safe skipping it because baptism isn't mentioned.)
So, where in Luke/Acts does Luke ever seem to be concerned with telling us that God now deals with individuals, not families, and that children of professing believers are no longer automatically included in the covenant? If Luke is trying to do this, he's failing miserably, and he is even including a lot of texts that contradict that point.
Does anyone here have any deep exegetical thoughts about Acts 2 (or Joel 2), or about paedobaptism in Luke/Acts in general? I would like to learn more about Acts 2, and I am often disappointed with how quickly and superficially this passage is (usually) treated by both PBs and CBs.
In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason
The credobaptists often try to make much of the phrase, "as many as the Lord shall call", assuming that the word "call" there is in reference to an effectual, soteriological call. But I disagree:
First of all, they miss the entire point of Peter quoting the end of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39. Peter starts quotation of the prophecy in Acts 2:17-21, and then *finishes* Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39, to create a sort of inclusio to wrap up the whole passage. So it is not proper to try to exegete the meaning of the word "call" in Acts 2:39, in isolation from understanding the meaning of the word "call" used in Joel's original prophecy.
The Hebrew word for "call" used in Joel 2:32 is "qara'", and is also used in Joel 1:14, 1:19, 2:15, and 3:9. In no case is it a reference to God's effectual, saving call. The word is used twice in Joel 2:32, and I don't think it is in reference to an effectual saving call there, either. It certainly isn't the first of the two times, and I think that making it an "effectual" call the second time in Joel 2:32 would be special pleading.
Also, we need to remember that Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. In Luke/Acts, the word "call" (Greek "proskaleomai") is used 16 times. And in all of the 16 times, Luke *never* uses that word in the sense of a soteriological "effectual call".
In short, I don't think the "many the Lord shall call" are the elect that God will effectually call. There is certainly some overlap there, and those called certainly include the elect. But I don't think we can fairly say that the word "call" is ever used in Luke/Acts as a technical term for soteriological effectual calling. So, if that's not what "call" means, then what does it mean?
In Joel 2:17, there is a direct covenantal reference to God's "people". I believe the reference is to God's covenantal people, and not to God's elect. Just look at all the OT references where God talks about the Israelites (both elect and non-elect) being His "people". How did they get to be God's people? By God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
When God "called" His people out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, with the same Hebrew word for "call"), both elect and non-elect people were called. After the first dispersion (to Babylon), God called His people back to Israel. And both elect and non-elect people were called. I think the same mindset is in Joel 2. God is talking about a covenantal calling, not a soteriological one. (Though of course, all of those savingly called are also covenantally called.) I don't think an "effectual call" based on election fits the context and main thrust of Joel 2. Thus, I don't think it had that meaning when Peter quoted it in Acts 2, either.
God called the remnant of Israel into covenant with Himself. But some of those in the covenant eventually apostatize (cf. Heb. 6 & 10).
Possible very-loose expanded paraphrase of the verse in Acts 2:
"God's covenantal promises, including blessings for covenant-keeping, and cursings for covenant-breaking, are for you Israelites here today, for your children, and for those Israelites who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call back into the covenant, according to the context of Joel's prophecy."
That's where my thoughts are at the moment, anyway.
If covenantal inclusion of infants is already strongly and explicitly taught in the OT, then we don't necessarily have to have a strong, explicit re-teaching of it in the NT. We just need to see clues to tell us whether children are still included, or not. If not, then we would expect strong, clear, explicit abrogation of OT covenantal infant inclusion. But if nothing has changed, we would just expect to see children included in a matter-of-fact way. And that is just what Peter does. He says the promise is for you, and your children. He doesn't explain himself in detail because he *doesn't have to*. The Israelites had already known for thousands of years that their children were included in their covenant with God. However, if Peter was trying to abrogate infant inclusion in any way at all, then we would expect a very clear statement to that effect (which he does not make), and we would also expect an angry reaction from the crowd (and there is none). If Peter had taken pains to explicitly tell them that their children were in the covenant too, I think their response would have been: "Duh!" <grin>
So, "and to your children" was enough. Peter didn't have to say any more.
Does the "call" in Acts 2 applies to "you", "your children", and to "those afar off", or does the "call" just applies to "those afar off"? --- I would argue that the "call", in *this* particular text, only applies to "those afar off". The reason I believe this is because the phrase "as many as the Lord shall call" is taken from the end of the prophecy Joel 2. This is where the "inclusio argument" seems important to me. I still recognize some "fuzzy logic overlap" here, but if forced to make strict categories, I think the "call" has to apply to the "far off" people, just as it is meant in Joel 2. Also, the "you" and the "your children" are already present in Peter's audience, so it is hard for me to see how the future-looking phrase "shall call" could apply to them. It is "those afar off" who God "shall call".
What about Peter's call to "repent/be baptized"? Does that mean that he expected all people to repent before baptism? --- Well, how did the OT Israelites understand the connection between repentance and circumcision? We knew that Abraham had faith *prior* to being circumcised. And his circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had" beforehand (Romans 4:11). As an adult, Abraham certainly had faith (and thus repentance) prior to receiving the covenant sign. However, as a result of Abraham's faith, his entire household came under the covenant, and the covenant sign was applied to all, whether or not they had faith yet. Isaac was circumcised at 8 days of age, signifying that he was *already* a covenant member. But I don't think Isaac had saving faith until years later. Now think about Gentiles who converted to Judaism. The same logic applied. The head of the household had to profess faith and repentance prior to circumcision. But at that point, his entire family was under the covenant, and his sons would be circumcised, regardless of personal faith. Like Isaac, infants were given the covenant sign prior to having saving faith. So, in light of these facts, how would Peter's audience have understood his message? When Peter said to "repent and be baptized", I think they would have understood it like they understood Abraham/Isaac, and like they understood proselyte conversions. They recognized that God was creating a "new Israel", if you will, and that baptism was the initiatory rite for the heads of households, and that the covenant sign would also be given to the children within the household. At least, that would be the natural assumption based on the religious background of Peter's audience. And what, if anything, did Peter say to make them think otherwise?
There are some more things to keep in mind regarding the Luke/Acts connection:
* Luke 1:15 reveals that the Holy Spirit can even be poured out on infants.
* Luke 18:15-16 says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants.
* In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.
* In Acts 16:31, Paul & Silas told the jailer that if *he* believed, then he would be saved, *and* his "house". The word "believed" in Acts 16:34 is singular, not plural, and most likely refers to the jailer himself, and not to his entire family. (But if a CB disagrees, then he needs to go all the way and also deal with the household of Zaccheus in Luke 19. Addressing Acts 16 without also addressing Luke 19 is special pleading, In my humble opinion. They just feel safe skipping it because baptism isn't mentioned.)
So, where in Luke/Acts does Luke ever seem to be concerned with telling us that God now deals with individuals, not families, and that children of professing believers are no longer automatically included in the covenant? If Luke is trying to do this, he's failing miserably, and he is even including a lot of texts that contradict that point.
Does anyone here have any deep exegetical thoughts about Acts 2 (or Joel 2), or about paedobaptism in Luke/Acts in general? I would like to learn more about Acts 2, and I am often disappointed with how quickly and superficially this passage is (usually) treated by both PBs and CBs.
In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason
But I did think there was some usefullness in my original post. Just this week, I had a friend mention a quote from Fred Malone's dumb book, regarding the "call" in Acts 2. Malone claims it's an effectual call to the elect. I disagree. And I had to admit that I don't know of any PB authors who really deal in-depth with Acts 2. (Maybe I've just been reading the wrong books.)
