Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter  Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins
Okay, let's look at Luke 18 very carefully. Verse 15 states that infants were brought to Jesus in order that Jesus might touch them. What is this word "infants?" The Greek word is "brephe." Every lexicon I checked says that it means "infant," not even "small child." In fact, the word is often used of fetuses. So, I am not sure how you can say that we shouldn't assume that infants were present. That is what the word means. Infants were brought to Jesus. Therefore, infants were present.
Secondly, the words "of such" in verse 16 are a genitive possessive. Literally translated, the passage would read: "The kingdom of God is of these such." It is by no means exclusive of the infants brought to Him in verse 15, but inclusive, as has been pointed out on this thread. The kingdom of God is possessed by such as these. To say that this should be spiritualized to mean "the faith of such as these" does not help the credo position, since even that statement assumes that these little children have faith which is to be imitated! However, it is best not to import the meaning of Matthew 18:2-3 into this passage. They do not say the same thing.
|
I don't have a problem with the fact that infants were brought to Jesus for a blessing. I would have done the same thing as a parent. I did seek for God's blessing upon my children as babies through prayer on a constant basis. For their physical as well as their spiritual health.
I am not convinced that this bringing the infants of verse 15 is looking for a covenantal blessing though. Nor do I see it as a support for baptism in the fact that these children are already most likely already circumcised. I don't see these parents doing anything any different than I did in my beseeching the Lord to bless my kids when they were infants. I have also noticed that for some reason the Greek word changes to paidion when the Lord starts to teach concerning the Kingdom of God in verse 16.
Well, here is what I have to work with in these passages. The greek in verse 16 and 17 which I am more pointedly speaking on implies that the passage may in fact mean more than an infant. Quote:
G3813
παιδίον
paidion
Thayer Definition:
1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
1a) infants
1b) children, little ones
1c) an infant
1c1) of a (male) child just recently born
1d) of a more advanced child; of a mature child
1e) metaphorically children (like children) in intellect
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from dimin. of G3816
Citing in TDNT: 5:636, 759
Strongs...
G3813
παιδίον
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.
| So according to other references it can be other than an infant. I find it significant that the greek changes the word here and the action that these children are able to perform. Quote: |
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
| The word receive (dechomai) is closely associated with the same word little child (paidion). Recieving is something that this child is capable of doing is it not?
I do believe the Kingdom of God is for infants. And I do believe God even blesses those outside of the Covenant. This is a hard topic for me to understand because the Kingdom of God is not ambiguous about who the Kingdom of God is for. In fact the following passages (v.16, 17) spell that out. And to be more specific the Kingdom of God is for the Elect. The Covenant of Grace is only for the Elect. I don't think Jesus is saying that it is for every infant. I do believe that God can give a blessing that might not be eternal in nature. Maybe I am wrong. |
A couple of things here. The word in verse 15 is
not paidion. The word "paidion" can mean several different things. The word "brephe" cannot. the word "paidion" in verses 16-17 is limited in the context by the word "brephe" in verse 15. The paidions of verses 16-17
are the brephes of verse 15.
Secondly, the argument here from the paedo side is not that this is a baptism, or a form close to baptism. The argument here is that the children of believers belong to the kingdom of God, and as such, the sign of that very same kingdom also belongs to them. We can reasonably assume that the children of believers are not like the world's children. Therefore, they are to be given the sign of the administration of the kingdom of God. Again, why could Jesus say that the
kingdom belongs to such as these (I noticed that you did not respond to the genitive possessive argument), and then we turn around and say that the
sign of this kingdom is denied to them? If they can have the substance, then why not the sign?