Household Baptisms, the “Oikos” Formula and Infant Baptism
In all honesty, this chapter that Malone writes against Jeremias is a waste of ink. The reason: he only deals with Jeremias first work and sides with Aland, rather than taking up Jeremias’ second work that refutes Aland. Since Malone has not done his homework here and is arguing without having all the facts, I will simply resort to a couple of points about household baptisms.
First, if Malone is right, and individualism replaces the “family”, then we ought not, in any capacity, to see covenant language surrounding baptism anywhere in the New Testament. This, though, is exactly what we find. He first mentioned Acts 2 and makes only one mention for it on page 130, and then treats it after the household baptisms on pages 137-141. The summary of his argument is that “those that are afar off” mean that Gentile believers, and others afar off, will be called into the covenant and regenerated. The children, or the promise to the children is still dependent on Malone’s view of “those who had received his word.” In other words, even though Peter was talking to cognitive Jewish adults, the idea applies to children that later, when they are not children anymore (? – adults later) will hear the word and believe too.
These men, from all over the land, were hearing the glory of God in their own language. They are Jews, scattered abroad because of exile, and since they have been captured and reprogrammed by the Roman oppression, they all have their own language from different areas. Remember, the people of Israel have been scattered all over. Here, together, we see the forming of God’s people being brought back into the fold. The text says, “Men of Israel…” Then Peter goes on, “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.'“ Prophetic passages can be tricky. We should turn to Joel to see what Joel actually says. Joel 2:28-32, “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.” What is different? Peter does not quote the last part of the verse 32. He leaves it off. Why? Let me ask another question first; who is this prophecy about? Gentiles? It says in Joel 2:27, in context, “Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.” This applies to Israel then. Peter is preaching to Jews. He quotes the fulfilled passage. Now might I ask, does this passage ring with covenant ideas or individualistic ideas? Are we talking about family here, or individual people? It says “sons and daughters.” Is there anything about menservants and the like? Yes – even menservants, maidservants, old men and young men. Sounds like everyone in the household is being covered here. Ok so far. Let’s see what else Peter says. He quotes David’s Psalm about Jesus when He is entombed. He will not see corruption. He did not see corruption. Jesus was raised from the dead. He directs this to whom? It says in Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” It is directed to Israel. Professor: Why should the house of Israel know this? I thought Peter, at this point, would at least have his theology straight and think that individuals should be addressed, not Israel. Baptists say that changes when Peter quotes verses 37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” See, Peter says they have to repent, and then be baptized! The covenant seems to change. It is now individual. But we should ask a few simple questions, “Do you think Abraham needed to believe in the promises as an adult?” Yes. “After he believed did he tell Isaac that he needed to believe as well?” Yes. Did he circumcise Isaac before or after he explained that? Before. Abraham believed. Isaac was circumcised and later believed. Adults pricked in this way, seeing they are already adults, should repent and be baptized. Then the verse, “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call,” is different than Baptists would say. But Joel is the one who helps us with understanding this. Is this covenantal language or not? It is, very much so. What is Peter saying here? He is including the believers, and their children in the covenant. The promise is actually for them. But wait! It also says “and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Does that mean “everyone” else who will be saved? How could Peter be talking covenantally? Baptists often think that at this point the Paedo-Baptist argument falls apart because those who “are far off” are also the unsaved Gentiles who will come into the fold later. But we ask, “Does Peter believe that the Gentiles are included in the Covenant at this point in time?” the answer is No. That will not happen until Acts 10. Read the verse that Joel quoted but Peter left out earlier. “For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.” Peter does actually quote this but later in his message. He leaves the phrase “whom the Lord calls” off until he “clinches” his argument with it about Jesus being raised from the dead. In other words, it looks as though he is “filling in the blanks” to Joel’s prophecy and adds a bit more commentary on what happened. He makes things more clear by doing this in his finely interlaced sermon. Then he says “as many as the Lord will call.” So Peter preaches to Jews and it is smothered in covenant language. Children are referenced, and “as many as the Lord calls” is referring to Jews. What Jews? Jews not present. Peter is preaching to the scattered people of God. God is calling the remnant back as Joel prophesied – His chosen people – people of the covenant. Yes, later, Gentiles are seen as those grafted in. Gentiles, according to Romans 11, are grafted into the same trunk that the Jewish branches were broken off. Malone, at this point, simply did not do his homework.
Back to the households, the issue here is not whether infants are in the households. Whichever way a person would argue is relevant upon one simple point – the term “households” is not an individualistic term. It is covenantal term. Malone is so taken up in thinking that he can argue infants out of the “oikos” formula, that he forgets the formula itself, the term itself, is family oriented. This denies, completely his thesis. Luke, the precise historian, is very precise with his wording. That is why there is a slight variation at to the Greek phrasing in the Jailer’s home as there is in Lydia’s home which demonstrates some important differences. Malone does not seek any of this out. His most strained exegesis is the Jailer’s house in which “he believes” the whole house believed, thought he text says that the jailer believed and the house rejoiced in his new faith, though they too were baptized. Ultimately, Malone rests on inductive reasoning for his conclusions and misses the covenant terminology of the family.
