Quote:
Were these children sick? If not, then what would have been the purpose of Christ touching / laying his hands on them.
Absolutely some of them were sick, dear LQ (peace to you!). Surely, our dear Lord would heal sick children quicker, if not sooner, than adults. Even we, imperfect as we are, tend to have (way) more compassion for a sick child (than for a sick adult). More importantly, they had faith in him - THEY knew who he was... and LOVED him... even if the "adults" did not.
If we stop and think about it, we have numerous examples were young children were called and used by JAH. Moses, as an infant, hidden so as to later lead Israel out of Egypt. Samuel, age 3-5. The 3 Hebrew boys. John the Baptist, called before he ever left his mother's womb. Jeremiah... David... Surely, Abel hadn't waiting until he was some particular age to begin serving JAH "acceptably," but did from the start.
Unfortunately, most LOSE their "childhood" in trying so hard be "grown." They lose their faith, their joy, their peacefulness, their mildness, their goodness, their patience/long-suffering, their self-control... their love. All to be "grown." True, we have to grow up, mature... but to what end? For most, to the end of rejecting God (and Christ, so same thing)... as soon as something "goes wrong" in their life/spirit.
When my son was young, he spent several weeks in the hospital for an illness and so I got to see several children hospitalized for one reason or another. NONE... bemoaned their situation. At least, not where I could see or hear them. ALL... accepted their situation. Their parents/guardians, etc., though?
While we may hear a child ask, "Why did God give me this (illness)?" or "Why did God let this happen to me?"... it's ONLY because some "adult" TOLD them "God" did it! If they were told the truth (that (1) we have an Adversary who "tests" us AND our parents; and (2) the flesh contains sickness in it and so truly is of no use at all, but it's the SPIRIT that gives life), they would never even think to ask such questions.
Even so, even though they do ask... yet, they almost always never blame God, but simply accept their lot. Adults, though? OMGoodness... we complain (if not scream outright) at the slightest scratch, itch, sniffle, pain, twerk, spasm, pill or shot to take, antiseptic to put on, etc. - LOLOL!
Bottom line is that the MOST Holy calls children, too, dear brother, even "infants". Many. As faith, not age, is the requirement.
1 Samuel 2:11, 12, 17-21; 2 Chronicles 3:16 As for (infant) baptism, the WTBTS is wrong on that issue, as they are on most issues. First, "infant baptism" is not actually that. Rather, it is a symbolic "giving" of one's child to God (similar to what Hannah did with Samuel), while (1) setting the child's name (in some instances) and also taking a vow from others ("godparent") to raise that child in the way you would, should something happen to you. Literally promising you that they they would teach your child what you would have taught them, had you lived. There is NOTHING wrong with that, nothing at ALL. I personally, would entrust my children to ANY of you here, were they young enough to need such, because I know you would do YOUR best to ensure they received what you (believe) I would have given them, from a spiritual viewpoint. At the very least, I KNOW you would (try to) talk them out of joining a religion but to follow Christ alone instead.
Where folks go wrong... is the "pomp" and ritual around it. Truly, all that's needed is for one to say, "Yes, I will do that for you." Christ himself entrusted the care of his own mother to another (Lazarus, along with Mary and Martha).
That the "ritual" involves sprinkling water on the forehead is also wrong and unnecessary, but it is to symbolize the child being "baptized" so that the parent feels they are "covered" and in union with Christ. What they miss is that the child is in union with Christ by means of the parent(s) unity, if such exists. So, no water needed.
However, that the "sprinkling" is meant...
by the parent who
does the sprinkling, such parent himself/herself
having holy spirit... it just a symbolization of granting the child "water of life"... or holy spirit. Maybe as an "added protection" in case something does happen to the parent(s).
But there is no law "against" giving one's child to service to God... or asking others to care for the child in the case of demise. It's just unnecessary to do it before an audience (the "godparent(s)" yes should mean yes - there should be no need for additional witnesses; unfortunately, we live in a world and time where "yes" doesn't always mean yes, though, but even so, if the one's yes did NOT mean yes... then I wouldn't want them having authority over my child in my absence anyway. Because they'd probably do their OWN thing, there).
But my point is that there is no "age" appropriate time to dedicate one's child to God. Many did it even before the child was conceived, let alone born, as a "gift" to the MOST Holy. Given that He gave His Son as a gift to US... it might be the least we can do. Abraham certainly thought so. Keep in mind, "sending them to Bethel" is NOT dedicating them to God - it is dedicating them to serve
false prophets and
false christs under the guise of "serving" God.
Today, we would simply go to the Father, through the Son, make our dedication, then (1) do and say ALL that the Master directs us to do/say with regard to... and TO... such child; and (2) get out of his (Christ's) way. Because the child would no longer belong to US... but be a sacrifice dedicated to God, through Christ.
As always, peace to you all... and to your dear households!
Your servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,
Shel