In a previous article, I suggested that the Bible very clearly teaches the ultimate condemnation of the unevangelized. All who have the mental capacity and developmental maturity to grasp concepts like right and wrong are held accountable for their sin by God, so, apart from trusting Jesus, they will not receive salvation. Though less than palatable, this is an unambiguous teaching of the Bible, so we should accept it as true.
But what about a second group of people—namely, those who die in infancy or early childhood and those who suffer from severe mental or developmental disabilities? These kinds of people not only won’t get a chance to hear and respond to the gospel; they don’t even understand concepts like right and wrong, or holiness and sin, in the first place! Are they similarly destined to experience God’s eternal wrath in hell? Or might their case be an exception to the rule of universal human condemnation?
On the level of theological dogmatism, we really can’t answer that question with absolute certainty because Scripture does not directly address it. We do know and confess, along with Abraham, that “the Judge of all the earth” will “do right” (Genesis 18:25). But beyond that, only God knows for sure how this thorny theological question will ultimately be answered.
However, on the level of theological speculation, I believe we can look for clues in the Bible that might point us in the direction of one answer or another and tentatively issue an opinion on the matter. When operating at this level, we must be careful to preface our remarks not with a booming “thus saith the Lord,” but, rather, with a more muted “here’s how it looks to me.” And, with that in mind, here’s how it looks to me: I think certain principles in the Bible suggest God will not condemn this exceptional class of people. I suspect, rather, that He will unilaterally save them, so they will find immediate repose in the loving arms of Jesus when they die.
Two arguments support this conclusion—one relatively weak, the other much stronger.
David’s Example
After his son’s death in 2 Samuel 12, King David said, “Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). Some think this verse indicates that David expected to be reunited with his departed child in the afterlife. Others disagree with this interpretation, insisting that David wouldn’t have had a well-developed understanding of life after death and that he probably was referring to joining his child in the grave.
So, greater knowledge and rejection of God receives greater judgment, while lesser knowledge and rejection yields lesser judgment (Luke 12:47–48)
In my opinion, there are some good reasons to think that David actually did have a reunion in the afterlife in mind here. Not only does David regard this expectation as a source of comfort in the midst of his bereavement, but also the theology of 1 and 2 Samuel (and, arguably, of David himself) seems to recognize the reality of continued personal existence beyond the grave (1 Samuel 28:11–20; Psalm 23:6). However, this is still a relatively weak argument because at most it proves only what David’s expectation was, not necessarily how things are. Hence, a better argument is needed. And I believe it can be found in the principle of proportionate judgment.
Proportionate Judgment
In Jesus’ teachings, we find the repeated theme that humans will receive divine judgment proportional to the amount of revelation they received and rejected. So, greater knowledge and rejection of God receives greater judgment, while lesser knowledge and rejection yields lesser judgment (Luke 12:47–48). On this principle, the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah will receive a lighter judgment than those of Chorazin and Bethsaida because Sodom and Gomorrah rejected relatively little revelation, while Chorazin and Bethsaida rejected the greater revelation of God incarnate (Matthew 11:21–24; cf. John 1:18).
So, rejecting little revelation yields little judgment, while rejecting much revelation yields much judgment. So far, so good. But what about those who never receive any revelation at all? Surely that is the case for those who die in infancy or early childhood, or those who never develop the cognitive ability to grasp the revelation of God in nature (or anywhere else). In those instances, this principle suggests that God refrains from judging them entirely (i.e., no revelation yields no judgment).
Jesus seems to recognize the theoretical possibility that absence of revelation could yield a state of guiltlessness.
It’s a plausible way of looking at the situation. When Jesus touched on the concept of spiritual blindness in John 9, the Pharisees bristled at the possibility that Jesus might be attributing spiritual blindness to them. Jesus responded to their indignation: “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains” (John 9:41). Jesus seems to recognize the theoretical possibility that absence of revelation could yield a state of guiltlessness.
A Loose End
The principle of proportionate judgment explains how God might be justified in choosing not to judge those who die in infancy or those who are severely disabled. However, this line of reasoning leaves a loose end: What about the problem of original sin? Wouldn’t these people still bear the stain of Adamic guilt and stand before God justly condemned due to their fallenness, with or without the understanding and rejection of any revelation?
It’s surely a loose end. I don’t have a definitive solution to offer. But here are a couple possibilities. First, God may simply choose to apply the cross-work of Jesus to their accounts unilaterally. No passage of Scripture affirmatively teaches this, but it seems like something an omnipotent God could do and would do.
Alternatively, as some theologians have held, the two different kinds of sin (original sin, which is inherited from Adam; and personal sins, which we commit ourselves) and the two different kinds of death (physical death and spiritual death) may be correlated so that physical death is the consequence for original sin, whereas spiritual death is the consequence for personal sins. In that case, infants and the severely disabled who die do indeed receive the normal judgment (physical death) for their original sin, but since they never had the opportunity to accrue actual sin-guilt for committing personal sins, the judgment of spiritual death need never be applied to them in the first place.
Photo Credit: Adobe Stock
About the Author
