The Passover and Household/Infant Baptism

By: Thomas F. Booher

I was late in coming to embrace covenant theology and household/covenantal/infant baptism (I did so in Bible college, despite growing up in a PCA church), but one motif in Scripture that strongly persuades me of the position is the Passover in Exodus 12. Note Matthew Henry's words on the meaning of the paschal lamb and the application of the blood.

"Now, without doubt, there was much of the gospel in this ordinance; it is often referred to in the New Testament, and, in it, to us is the gospel preached, and not to them only, who could not stedfastly look to the end of these things, Heb. 4:2 ; 2 Co. 3:13 .1. The paschal lamb was typical. Christ is our Passover, 1 Co. 5:7 . (1.) It was to be a lamb; and Christ is the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29 ), often in the Revelation called the Lamb, meek and innocent as a lamb, dumb before the shearers, before the butchers..."

"The sprinkling of the blood was typical. (1.) It was not enough that the blood of the lamb was shed, but it must be sprinkled, denoting the application of the merits of Christ’s death to our souls; we must receive the atonement, Rom. 5:11 . (2.) It was to be sprinkled with a bunch of hyssop (v. 22) dipped in the basin. The everlasting covenant, like the basin, in the conservatory of this blood, the benefits and privileges purchased by it are laid up for us there; faith is the bunch of hyssop by which we apply the promises to ourselves and the benefits of the blood of Christ laid up in them. (3.) It was to be sprinkled upon the door-posts, denoting the open profession we are to make of faith in Christ, and obedience to him, as those that are not ashamed to own our dependence upon him. The mark of the beast may be received on the forehead or in the right hand, but the seal of the Lamb is always in the forehead, Rev. 7:3 . There is a back-way to hell, but no back-way to heaven; no, the only way to this is a high-way, Isa. 35:8 . (4.) It was to be sprinkled upon the lintel and the sideposts, but not upon the threshold (v. 7), which cautions us to take heed of trampling under foot the blood of the covenant, Heb. 10:29 . It is precious blood, and must be precious to us. (5.) The blood, thus sprinkled, was a means of the preservation of the Israelites from the destroying angel, who had nothing to do where the blood was. If the blood of Christ be sprinkled upon our consciences, it will be our protection from the wrath of God, the curse of the law, and the damnation of hell, Rom. 8:1 .3."

Now if you recall, the blood of the lamb was put on the doorposts of the house, and the language of Scripture is that you were to take one lamb "for a household" (Ex. 12:3). The head of house would apply the blood (which typifies Christ's blood) for his whole family, and in this case particularly to spare the life of his firstborn son from the death angel, from the wrath of God coming in judgment. In effect, we have a foreshadowing of Christ's blood being shed for the household/family that has the head of house (or at least one believing parent, I Cor. 7:14) in/by faith applying the blood (the benefits of Christ's atoning work) on the doorposts, showing this whole family is spared from God's coming wrath, through the blood of Christ as He is received in faith. This is ultimately what the Israelites were trusting in, the coming sacrifice of Christ. Romans 6:3-4 shows us that those baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. We know that the sacrament of baptism, like all sacraments, is covenantally related to what it signifies (and to be clear, baptism is a sign of Christ's death/burial; it is not about our faith per se, just as circumcision was not about Abraham's faith so much as it is the righteousness which he had by faith, for by faith we receive Christ's righteousness). The Westminster Confession of Faith says this about the sacrament of Baptism: 

Chapter 28 - Of Baptism.

Section 1.) Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(1) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(2) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(3) of his ingrafting into Christ,(4) of regeneration,(5) of remission of sins,(6) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.(7) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(8)

(1) Mt 28:19 (2) 1Co 12:13 (3) Ro 4:11 with Col 2:11,12 (4) Gal 3:27; Ro 6:5 (5) Tit 3:5 (6) Mk 1:4 (7) Ro 6:3,4 (8) Mt 28:19,20

Notice that the WCF plainly states that the sacrament of baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, which includes one's "ingrafting into Christ," and that the WCF references Rom. 6:5 as one of its proof texts: "For if we have been united togehter in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection". Notice Rom. 4:11, which the WCF also lists here as a proof text, states that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had wile still uncircumcised." Clearly, circumcision was not merely or primarily about a Jewish ethnic identity marker. All males were circumcised, the infant boys at eight days of age, as well as male slaves, and any male adult who was not ethnically an Israelite but wanted to become a true Israelite/part of the people of God. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant of grace prior to Christ, and now that Christ has come, baptism is the sign of the covenant of grace. Why baptism and no longer circumcision? Because Christ's blood has been shed, so there is to be no more shedding of the blood of man (male circumcision requires the shedding of blood and is very painful; but Christ was circumcised for us on the cross) since Christ, the Last Man, has shed His own blood to wash away our uncircumcision/sin. 

The infant male children of Israel were circumcised because they were in the covenant, and WCF 28.4 notes that children of believers are also in the covenant and therefore are to be baptized, since baptism has now replaced circumcision as the sign of covenant inclusion in the covenant of grace. That circumcision and baptism are signs of the same covenant of grace is shown in Colossians 2:11-12, which the WCF uses as a proof text to indicate our "ingrafting into Christ": 

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 

So we see that physical circumcision points to the spiritual circumcision of putting off, by the circumcision of Christ on the cross, our sins. Any male child in the Old Testament who was not physically circumcised was considered unclean and not part of the people of God but rather a covenant breaker (Gen. 17:14). Of course, the NT is also clear that many who were physically circumcised were not spiritually/heart circumcised and perished in their sins. 

And despite what our baptist friends might wish, the same is true today -- many are physically baptized with water who are not spiritually baptized with the Holy Spirit, and thus they perish in their sins. Does this mean that physical circumcision is/was of no advantage to the Jew? On the contrary, Paul in Romans 3:1 says that circumcision was advantageous "much in every way" and chiefly because "to them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God." The question then is, do newborn children of believing parents, whom I Cor. 7:14 calls holy, have committed to them "the oracles of God?" The answer is yes! The Abrahamic promise, that God would be the father to Abraham and his children, is to all believing parents, because all believing parents are of Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29). So then, baptism is for our infant children as well, and is an advantage to them "much in every way" and chiefly because our children, like the Israelite children, have the oracles/words of God because they are part of God's covenant people/the Church and regularly hear the preaching of the Word and live in a home that is to be teaching them the Word of God.   

Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him as righteousness, and then had Abraham and all his male children circumcised at eight days of age. And remember that Abraham lived before the Israelites were really a "people group". It was his family that the promise was made to, and that Abraham would in time become the father of many nations! But those who did not have saving faith among the Israelites were cast off from the covenant and ultimately cast into hell as covenant breakers. If you read the Old Testament, you know sadly just how often this happened. We need above all not just the sign and seal of circumcision or baptism, but what it actually signifies -- the saving work of Christ Himself and our saving union with Him. 

In spiritual/heart circumcision, our sinful flesh/sinfulness is "cut off" from us as the male foreskin is cut off in physical circumcision, because Christ was cut off from God (and literally pierced in His body), spiritually suffering hell for us on the cross. So the cross is a circumcision of Christ, and yet, it is also a baptism of judgment (Lk. 12:50). So water baptism, as Scripture indicates, is a sign of dying in and burial with Christ. It is not a sign of your faith, but of what God has done in Christ to save you from your sins. We were "buried with" Christ in baptism. Baptism is a sign that we are judged through Christ and died "in Him" so that we may be raised to newness of life. 

Verse 13 notes that we were dead in our "trespasses and the uncircumcision" of our flesh, but in God's grace all our sin/lawbreaking/being uncircumcised is forgiven and "wiped out" by it being nailed to Christ on the cross (Col. 2:14). So in the Colossians 2 passage, baptism pictures our ingrafting into Christ by His/our burial in Him, whereas circumcision pictures our ingrafting into Christ through the cross in order to be made alive with Him and have forgiveness of our trespasses/breaking of God's law. Through Christ's atoning death we are no longer dead in our trespasses and "uncircumcision of your flesh" but rather are made alive with Christ. 

So to stress the point a bit further, in v. 12 we see that we are buried/dead with Christ in baptism, in order to be raised with Him through faith, as Christ was raised from the dead, and in v. 13 we are dead in our sins/uncircumcision/uncleanness of our wicked desires, yet have been made alive through the cross circumcision of Christ. You have to be spiritually circumcised and spiritually baptized/buried with Christ in order to be spiritually raised from the dead/born again/made alive. This text shows that the sacraments of circumcision and baptism both point to a dying/burial in Christ, in order to be raised to new life in/through Christ apart from sin. Circumcision here focuses on our being separated from sin/made holy in Christ, and baptism focuses on our being judged/punished and buried/dead in Christ in order to be raised to newness of life in Christ, and apart from sin. Circumcision and baptism are so intimately related to the work of Christ that it is difficult to distinguish them.       

Now apply all that to the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, during Passover we know that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, and so Communion has replaced the Passover as Baptism has replace circumcision. The reason, again, is largely due to the New Testament sacraments being bloodless now that Christ has shed His blood. So the Israelite father enslaved in Egypt, as head of the household applied the blood of Christ typically by taking the blood of the Passover lamb and smearing it on the doorposts, for the protection of his entire household, and especially his firstborn son in this case. 

Now imagine, could the firstborn male infant tell his father to apply the blood on the doorposts of the house? Of course not. Could the male infant child demand his father circumcise him to avoid being cut off from the covenant? Of course not. The child's life was completely in the hands of his father on both accounts, and both circumcision and the Passover had to do with covenant inclusion. In a similar fashion, parents carry great responsibility for the spiritual well-being and salvation of their children today. Applying the sign of the new covenant, baptism, to our covenant children is appropriate and, by way of implication, commanded in Scripture. We also must teach our children that the Passover meal is something we expect them to partake of as they come to faith in Christ. In doing this, it seems to me we are faithfully applying the blood of Christ, our Passover Lamb (I Cor. 5:7)  to our children. This is taking Christ's sacrifice and applying it on the doorposts of our house for our whole household, as it were, and trusting God to bless our children as we teach them diligently about Christ and their need to repent and believe this good news for their salvation. 

So the picture Old Testament Israel was getting is that Christ's blood saves, and covers, households, and that fathers/heads of houses were responsible for applying the blood to protect their family. Likewise, Christian parents today are obligated to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), and part of that nurture is giving them the sign of the covenant, baptism.

So some takeaways. Christ's blood covenantally covers entire households, even though some in that household may end up, sadly, as covenant breakers, trampling Jesus underfoot by regarding His blood by which they were covenantally sanctified "a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). Water baptism of our babies is a sign that either they will be judged and die in Christ so that they may be raised to newness of life, or they will be judged and die themselves in their own sins, as part of those who are spiritually uncircumcised, and be cast into hell. 

To be clear, this does not mean that a covenant breaker in the household/Church/covenant was ever born again by the Holy Spirit (if you could lose that then God could not say that He who began a good work in you will finish it, nor that true believers are born  again of imperishable seed, 1 Pet. 1:23), but it does mean that Christ's blood/atoning work really does have covenantal benefits/implications for whole households (even the covenant breakers) and not just individuals. All children of believers are in the covenant and really have salvific benefits/promises made to them (that must be received by faith), and their really is some sharing in the Holy Spirit that all in the household possesses (Heb. 6:4). Nobody is justified by being baptized with water. But, the believing household is, in some sense, covered by the blood of the Lamb, because the new covenant is the covenant that is in Christ's blood (Matt. 26:28). So there are new covenant blessings for children of believers, but not all of them will receive the saving blessings of the covenant due to unbelief, just like many Old Testament Israelites who had covenant blessings but forfeited them through unbelief. The reality is that some will reject Christ/the covenant, become covenant breakers, and only receive the curses of the new covenant (judgment/damnation/God's wrath in hell forever). 

Nevertheless, infant baptism, like physical circumcision in the Old Testament, is a blessing from God! God Himself views covenant children differently than non-covenant children. I don't think we should say that God views covenant children as necessarily forgiven of sins and regenerate just because they are baptized as babies, but Scripture does indicate that they have a special share and operation of the Spirit within them (Heb. 6:4) that non-covenant children would not have. So we shouldn't say that the blessings of the covenant are merely external, merely that the child is raised in a Christian home and has the benefit of hearing the gospel and attending church. The covenant child has all that, but has more than that. The baby also has covenantal operations of the Holy Spirit upon him/her, and the smile of God and blessing of Jesus (Lk. 18:15-16, and notice here Jesus takes infants and blesses them, and says the kingdom of God belongs to them), and can rightly claim God as Father and say that the blood of Jesus has covenantally covered him. He or she can pray to God with full confidence that God loves them and hears their prayers because He regards them and receives them as His children (again, just as Christ received even infants, Lk. 18:15-16).    

Another takeaway is that the faith of the parent is active and effective for their children. You had to have faith in the blood of the lamb, that it would protect your firstborn child, if you were an Israelite. Likewise, Christian parents today should have faith in the blood of the Lamb to protect all their children and pray and expect that the promises/blessings of salvation in the covenant will be realized in their own children as their children trust in Christ for salvation. We apply the blood of Christ to our houses today by preaching the gospel to our children, by teaching them that they are children of God, that Christ has died for them (for they are in the covenant, the covenant that is in His blood) and that they need to repent of their sins and trust in Christ daily. When they do so, they will then take part in the covenant meal of Communion, which is a sign of real saving communion with God and that they by faith are receiving the salvific blessings of Christ. 

When we bring our infant children for baptism, we are trusting in the blood of Christ that already covers them. We trust that, at some point in time, and I would argue sooner rather than later, Christ's atoning work (which has brought our children near to God) will be applied to our children salvifically and not just cover them covenantally, as we faithfully raise our children in the covenant. I like to think of this as having a hopeful covenant expectation that our children will be born again as we by faith raise our children in the fear and admonition of the LORD. Thus, what water baptism signifies and seals will be a means of grace, for in time what baptism signifies and seals will be realized in our children unto the salvation of their souls, as they lay hold of Christ in true faith and repentance! Our children will then be able to discern the Lord's sacrificial body/understand and receive by faith what Christ has done for them (I Cor. 11:29), qualifying them for full participation in the covenant meal, partaking of the Passover Lamb through the bread and wine. Note that in baptism one is completely passive and the water is only applied externally, whereas in the Lord's Supper, one is not completely passive but must take the bread and wine in hand and eat/drink it. Baptism is the sign of inclusion in the covenant, which a baby does nothing in order to be part of, whereas Communion emphasizes that living, ongoing spiritual union/relationship with Christ that is internal because you have been born again by the Spirit who dwells within you and received Christ by faith.  

One other very important note. This also means that parents have responsibility to keep covenant with God on behalf of their children, and that if children break the covenant in Christ's blood, the parents must recognize and own some responsibility and repent of their failures in raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (keeping in mind there is no perfect parent). This is why Titus 1:6 tells us that the children of those men who wish to be elders must be believers. I take that to literally mean that their children must be professing faith in Christ as soon as they are capable of repenting and believing the gospel, and that they are bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. The qualifications for elders, of course, are qualifications for all of us men. None of us are to be drunkards, or prone to outbursts of wrath, etc. So the qualification that one's children be faithful and not accused of dissipation or insubordination is something that all believers ought to be able to claim as a reality in their home, particularly the fathers who are the heads of the homes and families. 

I am a Calvinist, I believe in election, so how can I say that faithful covenant nurture can be used by God to bring salvation to covenant children? Because of God's covenant promises to us and to our children, and because of His covenant faithfulness. Because the blood of Christ covers our children, and they have a share in the Holy Spirit, a share which God is pleased to grow and will over time lead to our children responding positively to our training and nurturing, ultimately leading to regeneration, faith, and repentance. This isn't to deny that our children will be stubborn and sinful. They will not be perfect angels, far from it! But we should have confidence that, by God's covenant promises and saving grace, we will see, over time, Christ formed in them, and we should labor to that end as Paul labored to see Christ formed in the Galatians (Gal. 4:19).    

So I suppose I see Passover depicting for us both protection/entrance into the covenant (the blood on the doorposts of the house was applied by fathers in Israel, and today fathers can apply Christ's blood by rearing their children in the fear and admonition of the LORD, calling their children to repent and believe) and ultimately full participation/receiving the full blessings within the covenant (the eating of the Passover lamb by our children when the blood on the doorposts/persistent teaching/rearing of our children leads them to "ask more questions" about the meaning of this all and to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior personally). 

I differ with those who argue for infant communion, as if not allowing our babies to eat the bread and drink the wine is somehow a denial that they have any part in Christ and the Church or even the Lord's Supper whatsoever. Infants are physically unable to eat a lamb, and they are spiritually unable to feed upon Christ with discernment. I don't give my six month old lamb chops to eat, nor do I give him wine to drink, at home or for Communion. Nevertheless, the blood of the lamb really did cover the infant male firstborn Israelite children during Passover, even though they could not yet partake and eat the Passover lamb (obviously not all firstborn male Israelite children were infants at the time of Passover, but undoubtedly some were). Likewise, our infant children are still covered by the blood of Christ (covenantally) prior to coming to faith in Christ (and thus prior to their being spiritually mature/born again and able to eat of the bread and drink the wine with faithful discernment), and are sitting in the same room when the Church partakes of the Lord's Supper. We do not kick our infants out of Church, for the meal belongs to them as well, and they will partake of it not by mere observation but in full when they can do so in faith, for the meal is a spiritual meal. And when our covenant children do come to faith and lay hold of the covenant promises made to them, they are savingly and eternally covered by the blood of Christ, and then receive the blessings of the covenant with the eyes of faith, and are admitted to the Lord's table to eat of Christ's flesh and drink of His blood, until they dine with Him in glory at the wedding Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-9).