SEEK 16 – Child Death
Question: Does an aborted child, or stillbirth or one who dies young go to heaven?
Bible Reading: 2 Samuel 12:1-25
Text: “But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me”. (2 Samuel 12:23)
I can only imagine the pain of someone who has carried a child for nine months – only for that child to be born dead. In my work as a pastor, it was a situation I came across several times. And is there anything more heartrending than the little white coffin bearing the body of an 18-month girl who died in her cot? What about those who, having had an abortion, later realise that it was their child who was killed, and wonder what happened to her? Many parents have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage – where all the joy of expectant motherhood and fatherhood, turns to sorrow and loss?
I know of one man who talks about his six children. He only has three living, but his wife had three miscarriages. ‘I will meet them in heaven’. Is he right?
What about those who die in infancy? Are they saved? There were (are) those who believed that if a child died without being baptised it would go to Hell. Some Catholics believed that an unbaptised child would go to a place called Limbo. But there is no scriptural warrant for such a place – nor indeed for purgatory. As to children going to Hell – I don’t believe that that is what the Bible teaches.
The bible says that the dead are judged according to what they have done (Revelation 20:12). Obviously, babies in the womb, or in early infancy have done nothing. But what about original sin? By that we mean the sinful nature which all human beings have inherited from Adam. Could we not be judged for that? Christ tells us that we are to let the little children come to him, and not to hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Matthew 19:13-15). I believe that when Christ died on the cross, he also covered the sin of these little ones who die in infancy.
That is why in our reading King David weeps, fasts and prays as he longs for his new-born child to be restored to health. But when the child dies, instead of continuing like this – as his servants feared – he got up and stated that now he knew he would go to him, not the other way round. This is a clear indication of a belief that he would meet his child in the afterlife.
None of this is to say that we should not mourn the death of a child. It is a deep loss – one that cuts into the deepest recesses of our hearts. But there is healing. I would also argue that without God none of this sorrow and pain can make any sense. I think of the young atheist couple whose child died. The local minister was astonished to see the mother in church the following Sunday. ‘Lovely to see you but why are you here?” “IF there is no God, then none of this makes sense”. Sometimes pain drives us to God, rather than away from him.
Or I think of the farmer’s wife whose two children were killed in a barn fire. A cruel ‘friend’ mocked ‘where is your God now?’. “He is on the throne, as he always is”.
The Christian writer and bible teacher, Nancy Guthrie, whose book I highly recommend, went through her own experience of such a deep loss – with the death of two of her children. She talks about how her belief in the goodness and sovereignty of God are a great source of comfort and strength.
“But because I believe God’s plans for me are better than what I could plan for myself, rather than run away from the path he has set before me, I want to run toward it. I don’t want to try to change God’s mind—his thoughts are perfect. I want to think his thoughts. I don’t want to change God’s timing—his timing is perfect. I want the grace to accept his timing. I don’t want to change God’s plan—his plan is perfect. I want to embrace his plan and see how he is glorified through it. I want to submit.” Nancy Guthrie
The book of Job is a great insight into the depths of suffering that human beings can go through. But at the end all our hope is in the knowledge that ‘I know my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.” (Job 19:25-27). The resurrection is our hope.
Consider: How would you comfort and help someone who has experienced the loss of a child?
Further Reading: Holding On to Hope: A Pathway through Suffering to the Heart of God – Nancy Guthrie
Prayer: Lord Jesus, you wept at the grave of Lazarus, because you were furious at the pain of death. We praise your name that you came to defeat death. O Lord, grant your comfort to those who have experienced the loss of their precious little ones. We pray that you would save and keep all those who die so young. You are our merciful Saviour. Amen.
A sensitive subject. I had a brother stillborn two years after I was born, so it’s not an academic discussion for me. That said, I’m not so sure it’s clear that David believed he would meet his child in the afterlife. All that can be said for sure is that the child would not return to life but David, like his child, would go to the grave.
Hi David, appreciate ‘Ask’ is intended for a younger audience and not theologically heavy.
The elephant in the room on this topic that is not addressed above is the doctrine of original sin. If you hold to a view that
1) all are sinful at conception as inherited sin from Adam
2) salvation is only by expression of belief in Christ and repentance before you die
then your view expressed above wont work.
Your point from Revelation may hold for an aborted or still born child, but what about a 2 year old… or 5 year old… or 10 year old?
Reference to David in 2 Sam 12 is not relevant as the OT had no firm concept of the afterlife. David was acknowledging he too will go to his son in death. The texts makes clear that David’s ‘recovery’ was not due to any view of the afterlife, but the realisation that he could no longer beg for the child’s life (vs 23).
The view of the afterlife was progressively revealed throughout scripture and certainly not a view held by David. It cant be used as an argument to answer this question.
I have no hesitation in saying God would ever do anything but ‘restore’ and hold these little ones in Christ, but your theological reasoning in the article simply does not work.
Thanks but points 1 and 2 just don’t work in contradicting the answer. Its a rather simplistic view of salvation. God is perfectly able to save those who are unable to have saving faith. Some have argued – as I would – that each child who has not reached the stage of capacity is included in Christs death and thus are saved.
The OT DID have a firm concept of the afterlife – no one who reads Job or the Psalms could think otherwise. You do not know that David had no view of the afterlife. He believed that God would not abandon him to the realm of the dead but would fill him with eternal pleasures…(Psalm 16)….and that he would dwell in God’s house forever. It’s important not to read into the Scriptures what is not there – nor leave out what is there.
Thanks David, I agree that points 1&2 were totally simplistic for the purposes of a blog comment.
Your response does still not actually address the elephant on the room of original sin.
If willing, can you unpack how your would argue a child/ lack of capacity is included in Christs death.
I totally agree God can (and will) save all through Christ, but would be interested in how you do this while holding to a view of original sin and ultimate separation/hell.
As for OT, I’d encourage you to do some more thinking and reading in this space. There is no clear view on the afterlife in the OT (apart from Daniel). I will just simply quote from the ‘Heaven’ reference in New Dictionary Of Bibilcal Theology that has DA Carson, G. Goldworth, B Rosner and TD Alexander as editors- solidly evangelical ‘ The OT has no clear concept of future unimpaired communion with God and perfect harmony with others, though it occasionally glimpses some undefined form of positive afterlife’.
You’d be hard pressed to find a OT scholar who would agree that David had belief in the afterlife. But don’t take my word for it, have a chat to your host of good contacts in your space.
Original sin is not the elephant in the room. It is quite easy to accept that because the dead are judged according to what they have done (Rev 20:12) then those who have not been able to do anything are not included in that judgement – and Christ’s death on the cross pays for their original sin.
God will not save all (ie. every single individual) through Christ. Some do go to Hell – to say otherwise would be to make Christ a liar. I presume you mean that all who are saved are saved through Christ?
The teaching on the afterlife is not as clear or detailed as in the NT – but it is there…You had said it wasn’t. I already mentioned David and Job.
I don’t need a bible dictionary to tell me what the Bible says! (Incidentally I don’t believe that Don Carson thinks that the OT did not have a concept of life after death- judgement, heaven and hell etc)…I have the commentary of the Bible itself. Hebrews 11 tells us that the OT saints were ‘longing for a better country – a heavenly one’.
And I have no need to ‘chat to people in my contact list’…I just look at what David says himself – and I believe him. I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever!
Hey David
So much to interact with… but I suspect your time better spent elsewhere. So will respond and totally understand if you want to move onto other things as this is a broader discussion that could not be resolved via a blog interaction.
Sticking to the main focus of the article, as a Bible expositor, being faithful to the text, you should not be using 2 Samuel 12 as text to support your argument about child death and heaven.
The text has nothing to do with the afterlife.
While you dont need a Bible dictionary to tell you what the Bible says, I know you are someone who values theological education and Bible scholarship. Your core reference is always the Bible, however we are helped by faithful scholars who know the original languages and help us see the meaning of the text. This helps us preach and teach the text, not what we want the text to say!
You may have had the opportunity to meet John Woodhouse while in Sydney. He has written one of the definitive commentaries on 1&2 Samuel. If you have a chance, please speak to him (or you may well have his commentary) anyway.
While these lectures do not address 2 Samuel 12 (because it has nothing to do with the afterlife), the 2016 Annual Moore College Lectures do cover Death and the Life Hereafter. I cant remember if it’s the Heaven or Hell lecture, but Paul Williamson does cover Ps 16 and points out that this Psalm is not about the afterlife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwsYHGXuh0&list=PLQ20r982e5fAOFsLtNnaecZtadUyMpTpN&index=6
Finally- Jesus is no liar and we should not make him into one by putting words into his mouth!
Jesus never speak of Hell. Not once!
He speaks of Gehenna and Hades.
Hell is a translation and interpretation. The word Hell is far more pagan in etymology than Christian. So it’s a really bad translation.
Faithful bible teachers need to go back to the Old Testament to understand what is Gehenna (Valley of Hinnom) is and how its used in the OT. We can then move to how Jesus uses it and do the proper exegesis.
To say it means judgment is undeniable, to make it into ‘Hell’ with all its baggage and pagan roots is just plain wrong and unfaithful to scripture.
On a completely different note, if you have not already heard it, can I commend your old friend Justin Brierley’s new Podcast.
It’s excellent and will bring you back to your old debating days with Dawkins etc.
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-surprising-rebirth-of-belief-in-god/id1713150343
I am only up to the third episodes, but it’s done well and very worth a listen.
I clearly disagree with you about the above, but love your show and greatly value the work you do.
God Bless
Brendan
I note how you avoid Hebrews and Job….and I note how you change the subject – nice trick!
And despite your repetition of your point I am quite happy to use 2 Samuel 12 as a text to support the view that David expected to see his child in the afterlife….its a fairly sensible reading – given that David expected to dwell in God’s house forever……
And yes I know the biblical languages having studied – and continuing to use both biblical Hebrew and Greek .
Even Moore scholars can get things wrong! When David says he is expecting eternal pleasures at God’s right hand, I tend to think that he means eternal pleasures.
AS for your diversion into Hell and Gehenna (and your avoidance of the question as to whether you think everyone will be saved) – again I don’t really care about the word games – and whether you use hell or gehenna – but there is no doubt that Jesus spoke about ‘the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’…call it Hell or Gehenna – no amount of ‘lets avoid plain meaning of what Jesus says’ scholarship can take away from the enormity of what he is saying. Speaking of being ‘wrong and unfaithful to Scripture’.
I love Justin’s podcast. And appreciate your appreciation of the show!
Keep up the challenges…
David
Ah, the joys of blogs! Must have been a misunderstanding… I was not diverting about Hell. I was responding to the sentence in your reply. ‘Some do go to Hell – to say otherwise would be to make Christ a liar.’
I thought you were replying to me about Hell and opening up the topic. I was responding by saying Jesus does not use the word Hell. To say Jesus uses the word Hell is wrong. It’s putting words in Jesus mouth. It’s Gehenna, not Hell. Just look at the Greek! To use the word Hell is to interpret and Translate it. It’s a place name like Jerusalem, Sodom, Golgotha etc. We should use the place name, not the translation/ interpretation.
So, sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought I was linking directly to your earlier response, not creating a diversion.
You go to Matthew 25 ‘eternal fire’… which does not mention Gehenna, Hades etc. Not now, but when you next get to preaching/teaching on Matthew and this whole section, please consider where in the this section of Matthew (Chpt 21-25) does Jesus move from ‘this generation’ to future eschatology? If you are going to rely on ‘The Son of Man’ reference, you might want to look back to Daniel 7 and recognise that the Son of Man is an upwards to heaven not down to earth. Matthew 25 31-46 is part of a large section of teaching focussed on this generation. I cannot see where it moves to eschatological end times. Also note that the Greek ‘Aion’ is ‘of an age’ not eternal. To move it from this generational to eschatological judgment is not fair to the original meaning of the text (and this is a big topic- hence I dont think its good to get into the details now, but maybe next time your preaching on Matthew. I have spent a lot of hours looking at it and written a paper on it which I can share if interested.)
In answer to the other question I stand with Jesus, Paul, the early church, Gregory of Nyssa and a whole host of others as a Bible loving, evangelical who believes that as in Adam ALL died, in Christ ALL will be made alive. God will in the end restore all things and win- there will ultimately not be a place where Christ loses billions of Gods creation to be tortured forever. Eternal conscious torment is exegetically unconvincing, theologically unacceptable and philosophically abhorrent… (so yes, even Moore college does get it wrong! :).
Your right, for the sake of brevity, I did not refer to Hebrews or Job.
Your point on Hebrews is good one and worthy of reflection. I dont know of any OT commentary or scholarship that holds to Job having a view of the afterlife. At this stage I will defer to the OT experts. As with the word ‘Hell’, there was a strong tendency to translate Hebrew/Greek words to fit a specific theology. Hence Sheol in the King James is translated as Hell. While most English translations have now corrected this, there are still translations that take Hebrew words as references to the afterlife when they are not. If you can find me an evangelical OT scholar (and not just a Moore College one) who supports your view of David words in Samuel 12 as reflecting an understanding of eternal reunion, then happy to reconsider! If not, I would caution your use of that passage for said purposes.
I will respond again if needed, but totally understand if you want to cease this thread!
It seems that you are desperate to avoid the plain meaning of what Jesus says and what the church has believed from the beginning. If you can’t see what Matthew 25 has to do with the day of judgement and eternity then I can’t help you – no matter how many papers you have written!
Your universalism – is contrary to the Scriptures and to what all the church fathers – except Origen – taught. Gregory of Nyssa is interesting….it is possible to quote mine him and declare he was a universalist – but having read him I don’t find that to be the general expression of his writings – like this gentleman! https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/07/29/gregory-of-nyssa-is-not-a-universalist-an-introduction/
The fact that you don’t know of any OT commentary or scholarship that holds to Job having a view of the afterlife doesn’t mean that there are not any! You seem somewhat selective in your reading….. I know of very few who will argue that ‘after my flesh has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God’ and ‘I know that my Redeemer lives and in the end he will stand on the earth’ who think that that has nothing to say about the afterlife. Andersen, Ash, Good, Lee, Spence are amongst the many who see this as a reference to a future bodily resurrection.
I think you are in danger of having a theology and reading back into Scripture what is not there, in order to justify that theology. You will always find scholars who can support your position – there have always been scholars who deny Hell, eternity, judgement, the divinity of Christ, heaven etc….and manage to come up with ‘scholarly’ esoteric interpretations….
Your reading of commentators on 2 Samuel seems somewhat selective as well. Spence in his commentary on 2 Samuel argues explictly that David expected to see his child again – or as Joyce Baldwin puts it in her commentary “David looked forward to being reunited with his child”. The idea that David was comforted by believing that his child was dead and had gone to oblivion, and the same was going to happen to him is less realisitic and logical than that he believed he would see his child again….
Thanks David
I maybe have caused us to fall into my scholar vs your scholar!
Christian Universalism in the early church fathers was significant. Thats a well recognised fact. Let me demonstrate by quoting from Augustine.
He writes in the City of God
I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sins. (Book XXI.Chapter 17)
He calls them Christians. He does not regard them as a heretics and notes it’s an amicable controversy. Clearly, ultimate restoration was a well recognised view of the early church and widely accepted beyond just Origen. There is a boatload of material on this and Gregory of Nysa’s universalism. While I acknowledge a boatload of material could be a boatload of rubbish- let me just share an exert from the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12/encyc12/Page_96.html
This is over 100 years old. You may well know more about it than I do. Philip Schaff translated heaps of the early church fathers and wrote extensively on church history (8 volumes according to Wikipedia). I remember borrowing some of his church history books and early Church Father translations from our church library when I was writing an essay on Gnosticism. So he would know his early church history and the early church fathers. According to this exert, of the 6 major ‘schools’ of theology in the early church, 4 were universalist. This also clearly acknowledge Gregory as a universalist. So you are wrong to say that universalism was contrary to the early church/church fathers.
I argue for the restoration of all things entirely from scripture, it is not contrary to scripture. I find the view of Eternal Conscious Torment to be exegetically unconvincing, theologically unacceptable and philosophically abhorrent. I am very much an evangelical who believes in the authority of scripture. I just believe that scripture teaches that ultimately, all things will be reconciled through Christ.
For Matthew 25: 31-46- as stated earlier, it must be read in context. Your ‘plain meaning’ claim is based around your own theological bias. As suggested last reply, next time you’re preaching/teaching on Matthew- remove your own theological glasses and read Matthew 21-25 as a unified section, as it was meant to the original audience. Multiple times Jesus is clear that he is speaking to ‘this generation’. His parables are specific critiques of the Pharisees, Sadducee’s and Jews of the time who were rejecting him to their immense peril. The signs of the end of the age are specific to ‘this generation’ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Matthew 25:31-46 is connect to this teaching section.
My question is- what logic compels you to jump from an obvious generational judgment to an eschatological one? It makes no exegetical sense to have Jesus spend this whole teaching section with a generational judgement in focus, only to suddenly jump to the end times! Your imposing an end times judgement onto the scripture. I was always taught that ‘A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext’.
To say vs 31 and the Son of Man is the end times ‘jump’ does not work. ‘The Son of Man’ is a reference to Daniel 7:13 and the Son of Man’s ‘with the clouds of the heavens’ to the throne room of the Ancient of Days. The Son of Man is going up to Heaven, not down to earth. This is not a 2nd coming reference.
I would just throw back to you, that you’re in danger of the very error you accuse me of. You’re taking your theology and reading it back into scripture.You also place yourself in theological hot water by making ones entry to eternity entirely placed on good works and not on the work of Christ. Thats the ‘plain’ reading vs 31-46 if you read it under end times judgment framework.
I am sure we can go back and forth on this for a while. I am happy to do that, but also quite happy to leave it to your own future study and exegesis.
I am still struggling with your reading of 2 Sam 12. There is no comfort for David. Comfort is not on the radar for him. He makes a factual statement about how he too will die. His son will not return to him. The comfort he brings to Bathsheba in the following verse is entirely physical. He went to her not with assurances of the afterlife, but with physical intimacy that resulted in the conception of Solomon. This chapter has nothing to do with the afterlife.
I have not done much work on Job and the afterlife, so wont comment on that for now. I will consider your comments when I do.
It funny… I sit here completely convinced that your reading your own theology into this text. Whenever you get around to reading this, you will be thinking the exact same of me.However, at least it would seem we are wrestling with the text and hopefully being open to the challenges.
I will certainly be thinking and reflecting on your reference to Hebrews 11 and what the saints were waiting for.
God Bless
1) Augustine (of all people) was not a universalist. And his acknowledgement is not of people who are universalists but people who are conditional annhilationists. He does not name any of the church fathers he would have known as universalists, other than Origen.
2) Universalism was contrary to the early church fathers – Apart from Origen I know of no Church fathers who were – although I grant it is possible that Gregory of Nyssa was. But as Paul Helm says “The trouble with these claims that we have been examining, vague and insubstantial as they appear, is that once they get into print that fact alone provides credibility to the view, at least to some minds. But printer’s ink is no substitute for evidence. Another reminder of the importance of primary sources, and the danger that what may count as ‘scholarship’ may in fact be nothing other than the retailing of opinions that no-one ever takes the trouble to check.” -https://credomag.com/2012/05/were-the-church-fathers-universalists/ I have read all the primary sources and am struggling to recall any universalism (all will be saved). The Nestorians sometimes came close.
3) I am reading Matthew 25 as a unified section. It is clear that Christ is speaking about the day of judgement and a place of punishment. He is not suggesting that people from Jerusalem will go on a wee trip to the rubbish dumb of Gehenna. Your view that Jesus is only speaking about Jerusalem at that time is a bizarre reading – v.30-31. for example didn’t happen then! The second coming has not occurred! It’s an old heresy that we are even warned about in the NT!
4) I am not reading my theology into the text. If I was I would have a very different theology and a very different bible. I take my theology from the Scriptures – even when personally I am disturbed by it and don’t like it.
5) I have NEVER advocated or said that our entry to eternity is based on our good works. Precisely the opposite. But I do believe that someone cannot be a Christian and not exhibit good works. You are twisting my words the way you twist Scripture.