Inspired-Writing.com

IT IS THE CHILDREN'S BAPTISM SO ACCORDING TO THE LAW BIBLICAL
HOW HE OF ADULTS?

The categorical answer to this question is: YES. Of course, that the adults' baptism is obviously Biblical. For what, in what to the respecta, we do not have to prove anything. The same does not happen with the infantile baptism or of children. But, which is not so obvious, does not mean that it is not probable. It is very common in our days to do DNA tests to demonstrate the parenthood of creatures, which, on having been born, do not bring a stamp in the forehead with the name of the father, but a scientific examination can demonstrate to whom his parenthood corresponds.

The same happens with the infantile baptism; the only thing, that in this case we cannot be in charge to him to do a DNA. The test here is that to be Biblical. And this leads us immediately to establishing like authority, the only base of faith and obedience of the Christian: The Sacred Writing. Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify, that we understand, that the God's Word comprises both the Ancient one and the New Testament. And that both testaments constitute a historical and progressive revelation, and therefore, a unit without errors or contradictions, since “the whole Writing is inspired by God” (2 Timoteo 3:16).

The next thing to facilitate the discussion of this topic is to clear the way of some prejudices or erroneous ideas:

The infantes' baptism is not realized for believing that the faith of his parents is going to take the place of the one that does not have the infante, and is going to save it. In other words, it is not claimed that he child will be safe for the faith of his parents. The faith has to be, and it is always personal.

We do not baptize our children because we presume that they are safe.

We do not baptize our children for a simple ecclesiastic tradition, denominacional or familiar.

We do not baptize our children so that they are regenerated or to wash the spot of the original sin.

We do not baptize children, if none of his parents is Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. At least, one of them it has to be.

Then: why do we baptize them?

Here the fact is that there begins the test of the spiritual DNA. Specifically, we can begin with the God's Agreement with Abraham. I detailed them we find in Genesis 12, 15, 17 and 22.

Genesis 12:2-3 - “I will Do of you a big nation, and will bless you; I will make your name famous, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and maldeciré to those who curse you; by means of you all the families of the ground will be blessed!” This promise based exclusively on the God's grace, and not in no work it humanizes, it is the heart of the Agreement Abrahámico.

Genesis 15 - Here we find the update of this agreement of grace. God promises him a son and a descent Abraham like the stars of the sky. Which, Abraham believed God although his wife Sara was sterile and up to this moment they could no have had children. In other words, Abraham believed God against all experience and human prognosis.“ His faith, there was told he by justice” (“and the Gentleman admitted him how I joust”). For which work? For none. Only for trusting in the God's word and his power to fulfill it. This is the announcement of the gospel anticipated according to Gálatas 3:6-9 of justification and blessing to the nations by means of the faith. Therefore Abraham turns, in advance, into the father of all the Jewish and kind believers. – “Therefore, know that Abraham's progeny is that that they live for the faith. In effect, the Writing, having foreseen that God would justify for the faith to the nations, announced in advance the gospel to Abraham: "By means of you there will be bendecidas all the nations.” So those who live for the faith are bless you together with Abraham, the man of faith.”

Immediately, God "cuts" an agreement with Abraham. To the custom of the epoch, God orders him to cut a few animals for the half, separating two parts, so that the creditors were walking along the way invoking the judgment on which it was breaking his commitment. Only the presence of God symbolized in a smoky burner and burning torch they happened between the carved up animals. The agreement was of grace, by means of the faith, not for works. There was nothing that Abraham could do, that was not to trust in the word and the power of God.

Genesis 17 - Although God had promised to Abraham descent, and by means of this one to bless to all the nations, this would come like part of a historical process across a nation, the people of Israel (the visible church of the Ancient Testament). At the age of ninety-nine God confirmed his agreement with Abraham and his descent, and how sign of the agreement, it arranged the circumcision of all his house in this moment, and of every male who was born in his descent successively. God, would be his God, and they would be the people of the promise. Every son male of the members of the family of the agreement (the visible church of the Ancient Testament) should be circumcised to the eighth day. Obviously, all the children of the God's people were considered and included like participants of the promise marking them with the God's stamp, the circumcision, from his early infancy. Were the children believing? Had they done faith profession? Were they all remaining in the agreement on having come to adults? No, not and Not. But, the same way, they should be circumcised because it was the God's order be able to be told how, otherwise, they were excluded his village from the blessing, which of for himself, already it was a curse (Genesis 17:9-14).

Genesis 22 – Already in the chapter 21:12, God had made clear to Abraham that the son of the promise pactual was Isaac, not Ismael: "Your descent will be established by means of Isaac.” And after proving Abraham's faith with regard to the son of the promise, God "swears" for himself to bless and to multiply his descent (vers.15-17 and Hebrews 6:13). This blessing would reach to all the nations by means of the descent or Abraham's seed that is Christ (Genesis 22:12-18; 12:2-3 and Gálatas 3:16).

Abraham's real descent (Gálatas 3:7-9)

“Therefore, know that Abraham's progeny is that that they live for the faith. In effect, the Writing, having foreseen that God would justify for the faith to the nations, announced in advance the gospel to Abraham: "By means of you there will be bendecidas all the nations.” So those who live for the faith are bless you together with Abraham, the man of faith.”

For the faith in whom? Not for the faith in Abraham but for the same Abraham's faith, that is to say, for the faith that there had Abraham in whom God would bless to the nations by means of Jesus Christ - “in your seed (“ descent”)..., that is Christ”-Gálatas 3:16. “If they were Abraham's children they would do the same that he did. Your Abraham, the father, was glad on having thought that it would see my day; and it saw it and it was glad”-Juan 8:39,56.

In Jesus Christ, Abraham's seed, and by means of him the promise is fulfilled, and we receive “the Holy Spirit of the promise” that is the stamp or marks of the property of God in the believer.: “Did they get the Holy Spirit for the works that demands the law, or for the faith with which they accepted the message (of Christ)?”-Gálatas 3:2. “In him also you, when they heard the message of the truth, the gospel (of Christ) that brought to them the salvation, and they believed it, they were marked by the stamp that is the engaged Holy Spirit. This one guarantees our heredity until there comes the final redemption of the people acquired by God, for praise of his glory.”-Efesios 1:13-14.

The Law did not invalidate the Promise

“What I mean is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul the agreement that God had ratified previously; of having been like that, the promise would stay without effect. If the heredity is based on the law, already it is not based on the promise; but God granted it free to Abraham by means of a promise.”-Gálatas 3:17-18

What was the intention of the law? – Gálatas 3:19

“It was added because of the disobediences until there should come the descent to which the promise was done”.

Will the Law be against the God's promises?-Gálatas 3:21-24

“By no means! If God had promulgated a law capable of giving life, then yes that the justice would base on the law. Pero la Escritura declares that everybody is a prisoner of the sin, so that by means of the faith in Jesus Christ the engaged thing grants them to itself A QUE CREEN. Before this faith came, the law had us imprisoned, locked up until the faith was revealing us to itself. So the law came to be our guide entrusted to lead us to Christ, so that we were justified by the faith. But now when the faith has come we are already not subject to the guide.”

The validity and continuity of the agreement in the New Testament

“ In effect, the promise is for you, for his children and for all the foreigners, that is to say, for all those whom the Gentleman our God wants to call.” – Facts 2:39

“ In effect, from Samuel all the prophets have announced these days. You, then, are heirs of the prophets and of the agreement that God established with our ancestors on having said to Abraham: "All the peoples of the world will be bless you by means of your descent.” – facts 3:24-25

FULFILLMENT, CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION AND MARKS OF THE AGREEMENT.

We have already seen that the New Agreement is not so new. It is the same that God did to Abraham in the Ancient Testament, but in the New Testament fulfilled in Christ. Also, there is a change of administration; now the new manager is Christ by means of the law Holy Spirit. And, also, there is a change of marks or sacraments – “Also, in him they were circumcised, not for human hand but with the circumcision that consists of undressing the sin body. Christ carried this circumcision out. You received it on having been buried by him in the baptism” – Colosenses 2:11-12.

The circumcision already has no sense because it corresponds to Christ's anticipation. The baptism turns into the new stamp that it replaces to the circumcision in the visible God church. “All of you they are God's children by means of the faith in Christ Jesus, because all those who have been baptized in Christ have armed themselves of Christ.”-Gálatas 3:26. The baptism in Christ corresponds to our spiritual reality and to the exterior ensign of our union and Christ's revetment.

And by means of the union or incorporation, symbolized by the baptism, we happen to Christ to be part of the real descent of Abraham, and hence, heirs of the same promise and blessing. We are only one and the same God's people (in Christ), called Israel in the Ancient Testament, and the Church in the New Testament, without importing race, sex, not social status. – “There is Already neither Jew, nor Greek, slave does not even free, either man or woman, but all of you they are the only one in Christ in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, there are the descent of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”-Gálatas 3:28-29.

What proves this as for the infantile baptism?

Very much. It is not such an obvious part. It is the examination that is imposed to prove the case. Because without this examination it is not possible to come to the correct conclusions. What are these correct conclusions to prove the infantile baptism?

That the whole Bible is the God's Word.

That the Bible is a historical, progressive and coherent revelation about the salvation plan.

That God has revealed our salvation in the context and terms of an agreement.

That this salvation agreement is for grace from beginning to end.

That is essentially only one and the same grace agreement with continuity in both testaments.

That in Christ is fulfilled and this agreement has his plenitude.

That the children were included from the beginning like heirs of the promise.

That the circumcision was a mark that God ordered to put in Abraham, all his descent and all his house like sign of inclusion in the agreement.

That the one who was not taking the mark of the circumcision was not part of the people, it would not even take part of the promise.

That the church of the New Testament and the God's people of the Ancient Testament are only one and the same God's people for the faith in Christ.

Then: Why to exclude the children of the New Agreement? Is there any order in the New Testament that excludes them? If the circumcision stopped being the sign from Jesus Christ from now on: what sign or sacrament did his place take? If it is the baptism, then: why do not we baptize our children following the pattern of the circumcision? If you believe that it is the “children's presentation” the one that took his place: can you out of any doubt prove it with the Bible? What relation does the presentation have with the agreement? And if the presentation took the place of the circumcision: why, then, do we demand the baptism as believers from the same ones who earlier were presented members of the church did them? Or the fact is that there are two signs of the agreement: the presentation for the children and the baptism for the believers? It is not that contradictory with the Biblical education that admits only two sacraments: the Baptism and the Dinner of the Gentleman?

When Pedro preaches in Whitsunday this message to the Jews: "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for pardon of his sins... and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, of course that was appealing to the adult Jews. But, when he adds: "In effect, the promise is for you, for his children, and for all the foreigners... to who the Gentleman our God wants to call.” Did not they understand perfectly the content pactual of this call? The promise done to Abraham was personal, but also extensive to all his family and to all the nations in Christ. Would it be strange that a Jew was understanding with this message that his children were included in the promise, and that the baptism was the sign of the agreement? Inside the three baptized thousand: do you think that there was no child? Rare what would be that these Jews who had come from all parts of the empire to celebrate the national Whitsunday holiday in Jerusalem, they all were adult and had left his children at home! And if they brought them: do you believe, that with this enclosing call of the children, they were going to leave them without baptizing?

Very well, this does not end here; there is still more. But, I am afraid that if you had to answer honest and bíblicamente these questions, it would have serious difficulties to defend his position in favor of the baptism of believing adults only. The Biblical analogy between the circumcision and the baptism does not allow it. The unit and continuity of the agreement does not allow it. The healthy and necessary consequences of the Biblical interpretation do not allow it. If the children were a part of the church of the Ancient Testament: why are not they it going to be now of that of the New Testament? Only the violation of this beginning of healthy Biblical interpretation, it does that the infantes' baptism is not so according to the law Biblical like that of adults and believers.

There is some case

of infantile baptism

in the New Testament?

With all honesty, explicitly, there is none. So that if a test of this nature is demanded, there is nothing more to do with the witness. But, but... the case is that if we apply the same logic to those who are opposed to the infantile baptism, the true thing is that they cannot prove the opposite. Because to do it they would have to make sure categorically and out of any doubt, that in the baptism massive and familiar that they register in the New Testament, there was no only one child. And it would be the height to dare to make sure that in none of these hearths there were small children. Especially, if it is considered that the "oikos" concept or house could spread even the slaves and his children.

In this sense, if we put both presuppositions in the scales, the reality, the custom, the culture and Biblical analogy, for good and necessary consequences he will incline in favor of the infantile baptism.

Put it yourself in the scales

The first case: The three thousand of the day of Whitsunday

For this celebration there met in Jerusalem multitudes of Jews and proselytes proceeding from all parts of the Roman Empire. Between which there had to be women and children, although they are not mentioned explicitly. Pedro preaches a message of content “prophetic - pactual” that culminates with his fulfillment in Christ, whom the nation had crucified. But, God the Father in fulfillment of his word pawned to the Son, resuscitated it and exalted. And now, on behalf of the Father and the Son, the engaged Holy Spirit (pactualmente) is sent from the sky.

Consequently, Pedro calls the repentance and the baptism (of Christ), not to the circumcision, and he emphasizes: "In effect, the promise is for you, for his children and for all the foreigners, and for all those to who the Gentleman our God wants to call.” - facts 2:39. Put in the mentality of a Jew, who knew perfectly well the concept and practice of the circumcision, and judge if inside this three thousand baptized ones it was possible to have baptized some child. Neither is an explicit allusion to women in this baptism. Moreover, Pedro spoke to the "males" or “brothers“, and nevertheless, we do not protest that between those three thousand there were women. To what side does one incline the scales: in favor or against the inclusion of the children in the baptism and his integration together with his parents to the membership of the visible church?

The second case: It fights in Filipos

“While he was listening, the Gentleman opened the heart to him so that he was answering to Pablo's message. When it was baptized by his family...” – Facts 16:14-15. Wonder you, if in the family of this Jewish woman there was no child. Or were not the children a part of his family? But, moreover. In the house or familiar coverage (oikos) of a business woman and with an outstanding social status: should not there have been servants and his children? The most probable thing is that yes. Were they included in the baptism or not? The scales incline towards yes.

Third case: The Prison guard of Filipos

In the same chapter 16 of the Facts, we find the asked prison guard: "Gentlemen: what do I have to do to be safe?” - (vers.30) To what Pablo and Silas answer him: "He believes in Mister Jesus; this way you and your family they will be safe” - (vers.31). And after having exhibited the word to him and to all the rest that were in his house, “he and all his family were baptized” (vers.33).

Were there children between “all his family”? The text does not say it explicitly. We suppose that yes. Perhaps you think that there is not like proving it. Perfect. The same it is me who says: prove the opposite to me?

The fourth case: The Estéfanas family – 1 Corinthian 1:16

Pablo, with notable indignation because the Corinthian ones had extracted of context the baptism, and had given him more protrusion who it had baptized that to the baptism itself, he reminds with scorn to some that he had baptized. Inside them he remembers: "also I baptized the Estéfanas family.”

Is it that neither perhaps in this family were children? With all honesty, I believe that it is more logical and probable to think that yes. Only the prejudice, (not neither the logic, nor the “good and necessary consequences”) it can make us come to the conclusion that in none of these families there were children. And if they were: were they excluded from the baptism? If you believe that yes, with all honesty: can it prove it? In the last analysis, “what is equal, is not an advantage”. Do not sing victory! I, for my part I see the scales inclining in favor of the inclusion of the children in the family of the agreement.

Have not you realized that in the New Testament relatives predominate more over the baptism (oikos) and massive, that the individuals? Why will it be?

Point and new paragraph: How can a child become holy? (1 Corinthian 7:14)

“Because not believing husband has been sanctified by the union with his wife, and not believing wife has been sanctified by the union with his believing husband. If this way it was not, his children would be impure, while, in fact, they are holy.”

This is a Biblical passage difficult to explain of any form that should not be inside a language and context of the God's agreement with Abraham. In the Ancient Testament a child was "purified" by the circumcision. The cut of the prepuce of some form was symbolizing his separation of the dirtiness or of the body of the sinful one to be joined to God and to his promise (“I will be his God and they will be my people”).

It is interesting to notice, that Pablo is speaking to believing and baptized adult Christians, not for circumcision; and nevertheless: how is explained that for the only one of the parents who was believing, his children were considering to be holy, separated, objects of a different position before God or the Church, which those of not believers? Be which be the interpretation, here there is a coverage pactual for the believers' children. And if it is: why to deny to them the baptism that him corresponds to the children of a believing marriage, or of one of the parents who is believing?

It is the Presentation

what corresponds

to the believers' children?

A clarification word seems opportune and prudent to us about the “presentation or dedication of children”, that it is the practice of the churches that are opposed to the infantile baptism or of the small children of the believers. Let's begin for wondering: Why to do it? On what Biblical and interpretive base, of analogy or of good and necessary consequences? Are we leaving that the Bible is the best interpreter of himself?

1. On the base of Jesus's presentation in the temple?

Very well, since let's see if we can. Let's read, first, Lucas 2:21-24, Exodus 13:2,12 and Numbers 3:13. What becomes detached from there clearly is the following thing:

• One notice that the first thing that they did with the child Jesus was to lead it to being circumcised to the eighth day. This age the physical inclusion mark in the promise and the agreement as visible people of God.
• The presentation of a Jewish mother in the temple, inclusive the mother of our Gentleman, was obeying the ceremonial law of purification (quarantine). After 7 days of normal purification, the mother had to hope 33 more days if it was male and 66 if she was a female before contacting a sacred place. This was a part of a ceremony of the Law of Cradle.
• The presentation of a child in the temple was an act that was corresponding only to the first-born son, who, of course, had to be a male. Neither the successive males who were born, nor the daughters were presented.
• It was an act of redemption and dedication of the first-born ones, instead of the death of the first-born Egyptians during the liberating Easter of the people of Israel. As God passed for high to the first-born Jews, claimed them for him, which should be rescued according to the gift indicated by the Law.
• In fulfillment of the claims of the Law, God sent his first-born and only-begotten Son to expire with all justice in our place.

Once compliment this claim of the God's justice in Christ, rests to repeat something that belongs already to the ceremonial shades of the past.

If the base or Biblical interpretation that use those who favor the children's presentation is this one, it turns out to be absurd and legalistic. The children's presentation of no form has to do with a sacrament, sign and sign of the Agreement of Grace or Abrahámico or of the New Agreement, as you want to call it, although in practice of the modern anabautistas it is almost a third Christian sacrament.

Why still do the reformed baptists present his children instead of baptizing them? It is a magnificent question, which only answer, inevitably, will involve the inconsistency in the application of the theology of the agreement. They are "reformed" but they do not stop being baptists.

Now, well, what another justification would stay for the children's presentation instead of baptizing them.

2. What children were presented to Jesus so that it was imposing the hands on them? - (Mateo 19:13-15)

The Gentleman was so generous that it re-lit his disciples for hindering the spontaneity of the mothers who impressed by Jesus's reputation were making way for themselves so that Jesus was touching them. And Jesus did more, blessed them. And it is a beautiful knowledge that the blessing of the Gentleman spreads also the children, to the children of his people. Which far from excluding them from the promise, them does her part. But, from there, to that this is equivalent to the circumcision or that has taken his place, instead of the baptism, it is to stretch too much the God's Word.

The shepherd Robert R. Booth, ex-Baptist, sums up the arguments that led it to accepting and practising the infantile baptism like that, in his book Children of the Promise:

The Theology Pactual, in contrast to the Dispensacionalista, provides the frame or correct context to interpret The Sacred Writing.

The Continuity of the Agreement of Grace demonstrates that there is the same and alone form of salvation in both Testaments.

The Continuity of the God's People in both Testaments, Abraham's real children are the believers of all the times.

The Continuity of the signs or signs of the Agreement, in which the baptism of the New Testament takes the place of the circumcision of the Ancient Testament.

The Continuity of the familiar inclusion in the agreement redentivo.

But, if important it is the baptism of our children, more important this is still what we do with them and for them after the baptism. Because, as the circumcision if it is not endorsed in the experience for what it means, the circumcision comes to be an uncircumcision. That in case of the family it christens, is worse than the uncircumcision because, which can do the good thing and does not do it, his omission is told him like sin.

In the Family of the Agreement, the mutual responsibilities towards God and between his members they are very serious and amounts.

THE STIPULATED FOR GOD FOR THE FAMILY OF THE AGREEMENT

Genesis 18:19

Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 20-25 /

THE VOTES THAT THE FAMILY OF THE AGREEMENT DOES

At the moment of the baptism of our children, these votes take him the believing parents, or the father or the believing mother:

-Do they dedicate you now unreservedly anyone his child to God, and promise, depending humbly in his divine grace, which you will make quite possible for showing him an example of piety, that you will pray with him and for him, and will teach them the doctrine of our holy faith, and that you will try for all the means established by God to raise it in the nutrition and reprimand of the Gentleman? -

The shepherd John P. Sartelle says that his father who also was a shepherd had the habit of asking in front of the gathering the parents who were bringing to baptize his seconds and other successive children, if they had fulfilled his votes done with the first one.

THE WAY OF LIVING OF THE FAMILY PACTUAL - through Efesios 5:21-6:4

The shepherd John P. Sartelle dedicates his book what the Christian parents must know about the infantile baptism to his parents who also were a pastoral family, with these textual words: "To Dr. Y Mrs. Preston Sartelle, father, who lived what it is written in front of his children what is written on these pages.”

Unfortunately, many Christian hearths live without demonstrating a fundamental difference with any other not believers hearth. When does the church meet in miniature that is your family to pray together, to read together the Sacred Writing and to teach it to our children. Are we doing every member of the family of the Agreement the part that corresponds to us like husband, wife, parents and children under the same roof?

Can we say that God is glorified in our hearth and that an ambience lives in him of enjoying him forever? In what way are we marking the life of our children in the hearth, of an indelible form for the rest of his lives? If we do not do it now, when they go out of the hearth, it will have been done to us late.

“I am not writing these lessons, only to teach to Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutherans and Methodists what they are supposed to believe. I am writing about this because the only thing that will save America is hearths pactuales where the children are raised in a pious form.”-John Sartelle

A child is formed and developed in the belly of his mother for nine months until it is ready to live out of him. The family pactual is the only one that it can form and develop the Christian character before they leave the empty nest to us.

Finally, I want to close this space with the textual words of a defender of the infantile baptism like one so according to the law Biblical like that of adult believers.

“All these factors support the conclusion that the baptism is in the New Testament a sign of the agreement. Even if he does not turn out to be been said explicitly in the Writing that the baptism is the sign of the agreement in the New Testament, the whole previous evidence must be taken into consideration by the brothers Bautistas. Unless they produce convincing arguments that the previous thing is mistaken, then it is established like Escritural, that as well as the children were receiving the circumcision in the Ancient Testament, now the children of the agreement must receive the baptism, the sign of the agreement in the New Testament.”

And what do we say

of the baptisms of

Juan the Baptist and Jesus?

Some persons, well deliberate and piously, have argued in favor of the adults' baptism only, using like models the implanted one by Juan the Baptist, and for the same Mister Jesus Christ at the age of 30. They find there a good foundation to support only the adults' baptism.

First of all, we answer, that Juan's baptism corresponds neither to the agreement of grace nor to the Christian baptism. Juan's baptism was for repentance and preparation of the arrival of the Messiah. We cannot hope that the children should do line for this baptism.

But: why does present before himself Jesus to be baptized by Juan? Was not Jesus the Messiah and was it free of sin? What sins did Mister Jesus Christ can in Juan's baptism?

There are two explanations:

That “the God's lamb that removes the sin of the world”, like representative of the fallen humanity, it appeared instead of the sinners. There can be something really in this, but Juan's denial to baptize it must make us reflect in some another more harmonious explanation.

That when Christ insists Juan who was necessary will baptize it “to expire with all justice”-Mateo 3:15, Juan gains access because it understood that Christ was referring to expiring with the requisite of beginning and priestly or Messianic consecration. In other words, to the beginning of his department. The priestly service was beginning (in some cases) 30 years with a baptismal rite for spraying – “Cradle took little oil of the anointing and of the blood of the altar, and sprayed Aarón and his children, together with his garbs.”-Levítico 8:30

“Jesus was baptized because He had to expire with the legal requisites to enter the priesthood. He was a priest according to the order of Milquisedec (Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 5:8-10; 6:20). The priests offered sacrifices to God in favor of the people. Jesus came to be the sacrifice for our sins (1 Pedro 2:24; 2 Corinthian ones 5:21) in your roll as priest.

To be dedicated like priest, The tuvo that:

To be washed by water (Levítico 8:6; Exodus 29:4; Mateo 3:16).

To be ungido with oil (Levítico 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Mateo 3:16).

Both things were fulfilled in Jesus's baptism.

Additionally, He had to fulfill his 30 years (N. 4:3)

It is not necessary to lose of sight that Christ did not belong to a natural priestly order. It did not belong to the tribe of Leví but of the Judá. They had never initiated or dedicated it in the Temple, it nor could have officiated in this Temple. What an irony! But, we know that he was on all of them, He is a Priest forever according to the Order of Melquisedec.

And God had warned Juan, “on who you should see lowering the Holy Spirit, this is He”. And likewise it happened. The Holy Spirit came on him as in the shape of Pigeon, and the Father credited it from the sky saying: "East is my Dear Son, hear him.”

Nevertheless, not Juan's baptism in general, not that of Christ in particular, they prove nothing as for the Christian baptism specially. Much less, in favor not against that of adults or that of infantes. In any case, it would fix the age of 30 years for the baptism and the entry to a priestly order of which we know that Christ has not even successors I do not even replace. And both conclusions are absurd.