What Happens to Babies when They Die?

What happens to babies when they die? Or to young children? What happens to adults born with the mind of a child, or those who from birth had severe brain damage or defects when they die? Perhaps no question cuts quite to the center of all of our lives. I don’t think there is a person alive today whose life has not been directly affected by the death of a child, or a young relative, or the miscarriage if a friend. How deep is the grief and sorrow borne by countless parents over children taken from them before, during or after pregnancy. Often that grief is accompanied with anger, depression and even a sense of guilt. But above all, there is the anxiety - where are they now?

This is obviously not a topic to be dealt with lightly or casually. It’s something that many carry around as the burden of their hearts. It’s quite true that the Bible does not have a chapter on ‘where babies go when they die’. However, there is enough implicit and explicit teaching on the topic to enable us to gather the evidence, make educated and informed guesses, and also admit our ignorance where we must.

A huge amount of the human population dies in the state of infancy or mental incapacity. Infant mortality has always been high, historically. As AIDS takes its toll in Africa, that rate is increasing. A booklet on abortion printed in the early nineties stated that by then, the amount of unborn killed in the 20th century exceeded the dead in all of the 20th century wars put together by a huge amount.

These billions of souls are either populating hell at an incredible rate, populating heaven at an incredible rate, or being split between the two destinations. It seems to me that this is not something that God is going to say nothing about. Five truths from Scripture can help us navigate these difficult waters.

1) Babies inherit a sinful nature.

 Our first stop is to ask how does God view babies and infants? Does God consider them morally innocent? 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- (Rom. 5:12)

This is one of the most important verses in the Bible for teaching that the whole human race is infected by Adam’s sin. When Adam sinned, the whole human race to be born sinned in Adam. How? Two views on original sin exist:

1) The representative view. This is known as federal headship. Adam took on a federal role as the representative of the entire human race, yet unborn. His actions represented our actions

2) The seminal view. This is known as natural headship. The entire race was in Adam and part of Adam at that moment, so that what he did, the entire race did as a group.

There are good arguments for both positions. Either way, the Bible teaches us that when Adam sinned, he did what we would have done, what every human would have done. Indeed, not only did he do what we would have done, but we did it in him. Every human being conceived is as guilty as Adam and Eve. This means that every baby conceived falls into this category.

One of the ways we know this is because babies die. The wages of sin is death. So if babies are without any sin or guilt, why do they die? Being human does not require that we die. The human race was not meant to die. Each human would have lived with conditional immortality had Adam and Eve not sinned.

David knew that humans are born in sin when he wrote in Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”

If you doubt this, then ask yourself why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. One reason was obviously so He would be Son of God and Son of man, but another was that He would not come under the guilt that comes to all those conceived and born in the natural way. The presence of the miraculous conception meant Christ did not fall under the guilt of Adam's race. So from birth, Christ was holy and sinless by nature.

Consider also that it is not long before we see that children indeed have a nature inclined towards sin. They do not have to be taught how to lie, disobey, be selfish, be violent. Their sinful tendencies have to be curbed and dealt with, showing that they have a nature disposed to sin.

So then that leads us to the next question – where do they go? It would seem, if that was all the information the Bible gave us, that we would say babies go to hell. But we find something different as we search the Scriptures.

2) The destiny of some infants that die seems to be Heaven.

 In 2 Samuel 12, David is confronted by Nathan over his sin with Bathsheba. He is told his child by Bathsheba will die. David begins to pray and fast, begging God to spare the child to the point where his servants are extremely worried about him. The child does die. The servants are afraid to break the news to David, but their whispering gives them away. David asks them and they tell him:the child is dead. David gets up, cleans himself, eats and freshens up. The servants are confused, expecting his state to have gone from bad to worse. Here is David’s explanation  “And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (2 Sam 12:22-23)  David says – I’m can’t bring him back, but I am going to see him.

And in light of this, he is comforted.

Could this merely mean that David would join him in death, a stoic acceptance that the child could not be brought back? Perhaps, but why then did David seem at peace and comforted? Would you be comforted at the thought that you will also die and join your child in death (even if he has gone to Hell)? Hardly. No, it seems David was expecting to see this child in heaven. Remember, David himself expected to go to heaven when he died: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.” (Ps 23: 6)

Significantly, compare David's reaction when his rebellious adult son Absalom was killed. David was inconsolable, and imperilled his own reign with his public grief. Why the comfort with the baby son and the mourning for the adult son? Understandably David had more affection for a son he knew than for one he didn't.  But it is not unlikely that David realised that Absalom was not a believer and had ended up in a place of torment for eternity.

Other Scriptures also paint the death of infant as an entrance into rest, not retribution.

• “Why died I not from the womb?... For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest” (Job 3:11, 13). Job is cursing the day he was born, and says, if I were like the unborn, I would now be at rest. Job describes the state of one who died in the womb the same way New Testament believers who have died are described: at rest (1 Cor 15:20; 1 Thes 4:13-15). If Job thought they were in Hell, this would hardly be appropriate.

• “Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other” (Ecclesiastes 6:5). Solomon is likewise declaring the futility of life, and says similar words to Job’s:the unborn have much rest.

3) The book of Revelation gives  circumstantial evidence that the unborn are in Heaven.

• And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:9-10)

 There are tribes and nations that have never heard the Gospel, but according to Revelation 5:9, there will still be representatives from those tribes and nations in heaven praising Christ. Every tongue and tribe will be represented  in Heaven. Some of these tribes and languages are long extinct, and some did not hear of Israel's God, nor of the Gospel. How will there be people from those tribes and languages in Heaven?

It seems the most likely answer is that some of them died in their infancy or childhood or without the ability to understand. The mentally-normal adults in those tribes had reached an age of moral understanding, and were guilty of what Romans 1 speaks of:

• …who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom. 1:18-19). But the infants were innocent of this. Very possibly, the amount who die this way may mean that Heaven will be far more populated than Hell, to the triumph of God’s grace and mercy over judgement.

4) While not calling babies innocent, the Bible regards them as innocent of rejecting God's light.

 Scripture is silent on the notion of infants going to hell. Since every reference to a child dying or being stillborn refers to their state being better, or good, we can reason that all babies and infants that die go straight into the presence of God. Obviously they do not appear there as babies, they appear as perfected people, as they would have been at their best here on Earth.

How is this theologically possible? We either have a contradiction in the Bible or we must find an explanation. We are told all humans inherit a sinful nature and are therefore guilty before God and worthy of judgement. Ephesians 2:3 calls us the children of wrath by nature. But if this is possible. we find all children dying going to heaven. What happens in between? How is this possible?

If we believe in the sovereign grace of God in salvation, we know that all salvation is miraculous. God saves us not because of ourselves, but in spite of ourselves. Ephesians 2:1-9 is clear that God saved us when we were dead to God, walking in disobedience and hostile to God. Romans 5:8 makes this clear as well. God then is perfectly free to save any sinner, because no sinner is more meritorious than any other. All are equally guilty.

At this point, some introduce the notion of elect and non-elect. Only elect babies are saved by sovereign grace, the rest perish. Now it is true that God can pass over whomever  He wishes and remain perfectly just. Everyone saved is entirely an act of free grace. But I think we would do well to remember that what God punishes is not merely original sin, but man's wilful rebellion. Notice Christ's words:

 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.  "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (Jn. 3:17-21)

God punishes sin, but particularly the sin of wilful unbelief and rebellion. We must then ask if such is true of babies, according to Scripture. The answer lies in something we might call moral responsibility. God knows when a human has come to a point of understanding good and evil, and therefore is able to accept or reject the truth.

'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. (Deu 1:39)

Notice the words He uses to describe the children “which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil”. He is not saying they are sinless. He is saying they were not accountable for the actions of rebellious Israel. They didn’t understand it all. They were not rebels, as they had not come to the age of understanding. God says “These ones will enter the land.”

There are other verses which indicate God knows before a certain age children are not morally culpable the way older children and adults are.

• For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isa 7:16)

• And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (Jon 4:11)

It can differ from child to child, some come to this knowledge earlier, some later. But there is a point, and only God knows when it is, when they now know good from evil, and have become morally culpable before God. If God allows them life to that age, then God is allowing them to reach that point where their guilt is upon their own head.

5) Christ's atonement is what provides infant salvation.

One theory of Romans 5 may provide more light on this matter.

Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:18-19)

The issue in verse 18 is the word all. Usually, we equivocate on its meaning saying that in the first clause, all means all mankind, but in the second clause all must mean some, that is, all the elect, which means some of mankind. Since we are not universalists, we don't believe Paul can mean all men, without exception, are justified. Nevertheless, it is an awkward reading of the text, to say that all means all, and then all means some.

One suggested solution is that in these verses, Paul is not dealing with personal guilt, but with Adamic guilt. Romans 5 is explaining how Adamic guilt has come to all. If this link between verse 12 and verse 18 holds,  then Paul may be saying this: Adamic guilt came to all men, but Christ's cross-work has justified all men of their Adamic guilt. No one can claim the unfairness of being condemned for original sin, because Christ has actually atoned for the original sin of all men, which has already been applied.

What then is left? Personal guilt. From the earliest age, we begin to accrue personal guilt, acting out the sinful nature we have. We may be acquitted from the guilt of the sin nature, but we are still very much slaves to its power. When we are born from above, the cross-work of Christ is specifically applied to our personal guilt – past, present, and future. Only the elect have this applied to them, and so only the elect are saved. The unregenerate accrue more and more personal guilt, which is never cleansed.

But what would this mean for the unborn, babies, infants or even the mentally handicapped? Unable to accrue personal guilt to themselves, with their original sin atoned for, they are not guilty of rejecting the sacrifice of Christ. The point is, God applies the full saving work of Christ to them, without the aspect of the human responsibility of repentance and faith that is applicable to people who are no longer ‘innocent’ they way they are.

Even if you don't accept this understanding of Romans 5, there is still little theological argument against the idea that God may choose to apply the cross-work of Christ to every infant that dies. Sovereignty is sovereignty. Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace through faith. The payment for our salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross, not by us with our decision. Faith doesn’t save, grace does – grace is received through faith. And if God has paid for their salvation, is it not His prerogative to spend it on whoever He wants?

We know that no child or infant or unborn baby dies by accident. Therefore it is God’s will that they die. And it seems that God sovereignly applies the death of Jesus Christ to every human whom He chooses to allow to die before that age of understanding, or even as adults who lack that understanding. That is to say, the proof of their election is their death before they can accrue the personal guilt of unbelief.

To imagine babies simply being non-elect is to imagine human souls who wake up in the Lake of Fire, under the tormentuous displeasure of God, whose first conscious thought is finding themselves facing retribution. It is to imagine billions of souls whose corporate guilt in Adam finds them forever the enemy of their Creator, enduring the unendurable, experiencing fiery pain forever from a God they did not, at least individually or consciously, reject. To stomach this vision of eternity, you have to resort to a kind of voluntarism[1] that says,“what God decides is necessarily good. If God wishes to pass over billions of unborn souls to the glory of His sovereignty, this is a good thing”.

If our limited sense of justice revolts at the idea of punishing someone who has not rejected God, we should do two things. Firstly, we accept our own sense of justice is limited, and we allow that if such is indeed the eternal situation, we know that the Judge of the Earth will do right, we will understand the wisdom of this with glorified eyes. Second, we look for Scripture's clear affirmation that God will do what seems unthinkable to us now. If we do not find this, and find clues in the opposite direction, I think we are well within Scriptural bounds to look for universal mercy on the unborn, babies, infants and the mentally handicapped. So thought John Calvin (in a letter to Knox), Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul. I'm glad to plant my flag among them.

Consider Christ's attitude towards children:

• "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. (Matt. 18:14)

• Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them. (Mk. 10:13-16)

It is futile to baptise babies  in hopes of getting their sins paid for. Only grace can save a human, not works. Scripture is clear that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents, but the flip side is that children will not supposedly inherit the righteousness of their parents either. An unborn child of a Hitler is as “innocent” of rejecting God's grace as an unborn child of an apostle Peter, yet both are sinners by nature and require God’s sovereign grace. You cannot inherit salvation, you can only inherit a sinful nature.

An elect baby is certainly not a baptised baby, or a baby born into a believing home. Election is “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:13)

Does this mean every child is automatically saved? No. We are not saying that all babies are automatically regenerated and children of God, because that would mean the whole human race would go to heaven. If our interpretation of Romans 5 is correct, the whole race is absolved of Adamic guilt, but all are still under condemnation for personal guilt, specifically for rejecting and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. If God allows a human to live to the age of understanding, it is clear He has not done this special act of regeneration for them, otherwise they would have died and would have been in Heaven. Instead, God now expects people who live to that age to make the decision to repent and believe, or to reject Christ’s authority.

I had a cousin who was born with profound brain damage. He lived to around 23, but could never speak, or really live without the supervision you would give a baby. I fully expect to see Darryl in heaven, covered by God’s grace, a perfectly Christlike saint, set apart for God by His sovereign grace. The day he died I believe he awoke to an understanding he’d never had, to the goodness of his Creator’s face. He’ll praise God forever, for redeeming him, even when he was a sinner, with literally, no hope at all. Likewise with the two children my wife and I never saw, and lost in the womb. Heaven will be Heaven not only for re-uniting with saints we knew, but for the introductions to the children we never knew.

[1]Voluntarism places ethics not in the nature of God, but in the will of God. That is, if God made murder good, then murder would be good. But this is morally and ethically absurd. Murder is evil because God's nature knows it to be so. We need not glorify the absolute sovereignty of God by boldly declaring a kind of arbitrariness to that sovereignty.

David de Bruyn