The cumulative testimony of Scripture presents a consistent picture: infants and very young children who die are not condemned by God, but are received by Him. Scripture overwhelmingly points to the innocence and safety of infants before God.
Words For Sin: Just a quick overview, other articled can go over more information.
-
Sin (
/ ): - Literal Meaning: To miss the mark. This is the most common term for sin. In a military or athletic context, it described an archer who shot at a target but failed to hit it. In Judges 20:16, the Bible describes 700 slingers who could sling a stone at a hair and not "miss" (khata). It can be intentional or unintentional. It defines sin as a failure to meet God’s standard of perfection. Pauls say that everyone fails this (Romans 3:23)
-
Iniquity (Avon):
- Literal Meaning: To be bent, crooked, or perverted. This refers to "perversity" or a "twisting" of what is straight. When applied to the heart It refers to the the inner inclination that makes a person want to sin. This word often carries the weight of "guilt" and the long-term consequences that follow a distorted life. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity (
)..." (Psalm 51:5)
- Literal Meaning: To be bent, crooked, or perverted. This refers to "perversity" or a "twisting" of what is straight. When applied to the heart It refers to the the inner inclination that makes a person want to sin. This word often carries the weight of "guilt" and the long-term consequences that follow a distorted life. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity (
-
Transgression (
/ ): This is the act of stepping over a known boundary. - Literal Meaning: To cross a line or revolt. If "sin" is missing a target, "transgression" is crossing a clearly marked boundary. While you can "miss a target" (khata) by accident (bad aim), you cannot "revolt" (pesha) by accident. It is often associated with rebellion or a breach of trust in a relationship (like a treaty or a marriage). Just like Paul tells us "Where there is no law there is no transgression (
)." (Romans 4:15)
- Literal Meaning: To cross a line or revolt. If "sin" is missing a target, "transgression" is crossing a clearly marked boundary. While you can "miss a target" (khata) by accident (bad aim), you cannot "revolt" (pesha) by accident. It is often associated with rebellion or a breach of trust in a relationship (like a treaty or a marriage). Just like Paul tells us "Where there is no law there is no transgression (
Not all biblical “sin” language carries the same level of intent or accountability. Transgression, in particular, requires knowledge.
James reinforces this principle:
17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
Moral guilt in Scripture is consistently connected to awareness.
Knowledge and Moral Responsibility
In Deuteronomy 1:39, God distinguishes the children of Israel from the guilty adult generation:
39 ‘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.
God specifically identifies them as lacking “knowledge between good and evil.” Because of this, they are distinguished from the guilty generation that knowingly rebelled against God. The adults refused to enter the land in unbelief and rebellion, but the children are not charged with the parents’ guilt.
Moral Awareness Develops
Isaiah 7:15-16 describes a child (Immanuel) who must grow until he reaches a point where he "knows to refuse the evil and choose the good."
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” 18 And it shall come to pass in that day That the LORD will whistle for the fly That is in the farthest part of the rivers of Egypt, And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 They will come, and all of them will rest In the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks, And on all thorns and in all pastures.
Matthew 1:22 confirms this child is Jesus.
This creates a definitive timeline:
- Stage A: A period before the child knows how to choose good or refuse evil.
- Stage B: A period of developed moral discernment.
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
Luke 2:40 and Luke 2:52 corroborates this by stating Jesus "increased in wisdom." He didn't start with full moral discernment; He grew into it.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
The implications are enormous for understanding the condition of infants and young children before God. The Virgin Birth and Original Sin (OS) are irrelevant to this specific point. Whether or not Jesus inherited a "nature," the text says He lived through a real human stage where He did not yet know how to discern good from evil. Jesus truly entered the human condition. He passed through infancy and childhood exactly as we do. Moral awareness is presented as something that develops over time, not something present from birth.
He did not merely appear as a man, but passed through infancy, childhood, and development exactly as we do. If Jesus was 100% sinless, but also 100% "did not yet know" at some point (as Isaiah 7 says), we are left with only one logical conclusion. The state of infancy—the stage before moral discernment—cannot be a state of personal guilt or condemnation. The New Testament talks about how He made himself like us in this way.
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
The same idea is reinforced elsewhere:
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
This is why is perfectly reasonable for Jesus to tell us to be just like him.
15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.
God Was With Us
The early church believed this, Irenaeus is the most direct. He argued that Jesus was a real child who genuinely progressed. They would argue against those that thought Jesus appeared to be human.
"He [Christ] passed through every stage of life, restoring fellowship with God to all... He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age..."
"But if, not having been made flesh, He appeared as if He were flesh, then His work was not a true one. However, what He appeared to be, He actually was." _
Tertullian mocked the idea that Jesus was a "divine actor" just pretending to grow. He insisted that the "Sign" of the Virgin Birth was a real, developing human.
"And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true... I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones... a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt."
"Ponder these with me: A God who is born, a God who grows in wisdom, a God who obeyed his earthly parents... He sucked milk, cried and did what babies do, learned to walk and talk, grew in wisdom."
Clement focused on the "humanity" of Jesus's physical needs and development.
"For if God generated us of matter, He afterwards, by progress in life, regenerated us."
Gregory of Nazianzus eventually summed up thus with a single rule
"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half of Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."
Children as Innocent and Vulnerable
This Psalm sees children as a blessing, “the fruit of the womb.” Just as fruit begins as something small and hidden, growing quietly until it is revealed in its fullness, so also children develop in the womb until the time of birth. Children are not possessions or accidents, but rather gifts from the Lord. Just as fruit bears the likeness of the tree it comes from, children bear the likeness of their parents, and more deeply, the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Even hard to read texts like Hosea 9:11–16 says they are "precious ones of their womb"
3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.
The prophet Jonah’s story ends with God’s compassion for the people of Nineveh, including “120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals” (Jonah 4:11). Most interpreters understand this as referring to children too young to discern right from wrong. God singles them out as a reason for His mercy.
A Biblical Pattern
From the very beginning of the biblical narrative, the text distinguishes between human mortality, a fallen world, and personal moral guilt. What we do not see in the earliest chapters of Scripture is any clear statement that Adam and Eve’s guilt is automatically and directly imputed to every human from conception.
In Genesis 4:1–2, we first see the next generation of humanity:
1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”
When sin is addressed directly, it is to an older Cain.
5 but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6 So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” 8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.
Here, sin is described as something that confronts Cain in his own life and choices. Genesis 4:7, where God warns Cain: "Sin is crouching at the door; its desire (teshuqah) is for you, but you must master (mashal) it". Cain is warned about what he himself will do, the focus is on doing well or doing evil, and the consequences that follow.
The New Testament reinforces this idea. In Genesis 25, we are given the account of Jacob and Esau before their birth. Rebekah conceives, and the children struggle within her womb. She then inquires of the Lord, and God responds:
“Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels…”
This context is important because the prophecy is not merely about the individual infants alone, but about the future nations that would descend from them: Israel and Edom. God is declaring His covenantal purpose concerning which line would bear the covenant promises.
11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
Paul’s wording is deliberate and significant. He explicitly identifies the children as:
- “not yet being born,”
- and “not having done any good or evil.”
The point is that God’s covenantal choice of Jacob’s line over Esau’s line was made prior to any personal works performed by the children. This is especially important because some attempt to appeal to the later statement, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” as though it proves unborn children are already condemned before God. However, in context, both Genesis 25 and Romans 9 are discussing the historical roles of the nations descending from Jacob and Esau and God’s covenantal selection of Israel to carry the promise. The entire argument depends upon the children's condition being innocent.
Sinful From Youth
Scripture also consistently describes human corruption as something manifested from youth onward, not from conception as personal conscious guilt. Genesis 8:21 says:
21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
“the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.”
Similarly, Jeremiah 32:30 says Israel had “done evil before me from their youth,” and Jeremiah 3:25 says the people sinned “from our youth even unto this day.”
The Bible also consistently directs God’s wrath toward conscious evil-doers. Romans 1:18 says the wrath of God comes against “ungodliness and unrighteousness.” Ephesians 5:6 says wrath comes upon “the children of disobedience.” Revelation 14 describes wrath upon those who knowingly worship the beast. Psalm 78 connects God’s wrath to lust, unbelief, and sin.
This is especially important in Psalm 106:37–40, where Israel sacrificed their children to idols:
37 They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons, 38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood. 39 Thus they were defiled by their own works, And played the harlot by their own deeds. 40 Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, So that He abhorred His own inheritance.
The children sacrificed are explicitly called “innocent.”
Does The Bible Say Where They Go At Death?
The clearest narrative example of infant salvation is found in 2 Samuel 12:15–23. This passage details the death of King David's infant child.
15 Then Nathan departed to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 So the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the ground. But he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead. For they said, “Indeed, while the child was alive, we spoke to him, and he would not heed our voice. How can we tell him that the child is dead? He may do some harm!” 19 When David saw that his servants were whispering, David perceived that the child was dead. Therefore David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” And they said, “He is dead.” 20 So David arose from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house; and when he requested, they set food before him, and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But 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.”
Once the child passed away, he ceased fasting and weeping. Instead, he rose, ate, and worshipped the Lord. David then says that he will go to where his child is. David's actions show us that there is hope for little children who pass away. I don't think anyone would assert that David is envisioning Hellfire as where he will go to be with his deceased child. This seems to clearly be somewhere good. It's a positive place.
This same hope appears in the connection between Matthew 2:16–18 and Jeremiah 31:15–17. Herod murders the children of Bethlehem aged two years and under, and Matthew connects this to Jeremiah’s prophecy of Rachel weeping for her children.
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.”
We see lamenting and weeping over children who had perished. The Lord says to refrain from weeping and crying over the loss. Why? Because there's hope for the children in the end.
15 Thus says the LORD: “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.” 16 Thus says the LORD: “Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD, And they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 17 There is hope in your future, says the LORD, That your children shall come back to their own border.
Seeing that Matthew drew a connection between this passage and the death of children aged two and under, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this hope applies to the children who were slain by Herod. This gives us a general age range for innocence where doesn't view them as guilty, doomed, and damned in his sight.
Here we see Job lamenting his birth after he loses his property, children, and health.
11 “Why did I not die at birth? Why did I not perish when I came from the womb? 12 Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should nurse? 13 For now I would have lain still and been quiet, I would have been asleep; Then I would have been at rest 14 With kings and counselors of the earth, Who built ruins for themselves, 15 Or with princes who had gold, Who filled their houses with silver; 16 Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, Like infants who never saw light? 17 There the wicked cease from troubling, And there the weary are at rest. 18 There the prisoners rest together; They do not hear the voice of the oppressor. 19 The small and great are there, And the servant is free from his master.
Though poetic, the imagery is still significant. Job then goes on to articulate where infants go if they die in the womb. It's distinctively positive. There's no wicked, no troubles, there's rest, there's freedom, and more. Again, we see a positive framing of where deceased infants go.
Most importantly, Jesus Christ Himself speaks of little children in profoundly positive and salvific language. In Matthew 19, Jesus says:
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Likewise, in Mark:
13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 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. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
Jesus presents little children as the model of those who belong to the kingdom. He does not describe them as condemned, hateful in God’s sight, or objects of wrath. Instead, adults must become like children to enter the kingdom. The entire analogy collapses if little children are already guilty and damned before God.
- People are separated from God because of sin.
- So to be with God, sin has to be removed and a person has to be made right with Him.
- Jesus points to little children as an example of innocence and simple trust in receiving God’s kingdom.
- So entering God’s kingdom means coming back to that childlike state of innocence and trust, not relying on personal works or achievements.
- That innocence is not something we earn—it is received by trusting the Messiah completely for forgiveness and salvation.
Jesus doubles down several times
3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Paul echoes this perspective in 1 Corinthians 14:20 where children are used as the model for the absence of malice and evil intent.
20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
Jesus is so strongly passionate about this topic, that He says quite plainly, that it would be better to end your life then harm children, He gives threats of Hell fire for it!
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. 6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! 8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. 10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. 12 “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying?
Do not listen to any teacher that claims God condemns infants. From the beginning, God declares life “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and commands humanity to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
The First Command in Scripture is to have kids
From the beginning, God declared life "very good" (Genesis 1:31). He issued the first commandment: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28).
- Marriage is set apart as the God-ordained place where new life is formed.
- The marriage bed is holy (Hebrews 13:4).
- To assert that the fruit of a holy union—a newly formed life—is under active condemnation is to invert the moral logic of creation itself.
Even in the aftermath of the Fall, God did not abandon the "fruit of the womb." In Genesis 3:15, He promised that the "seed of the woman" would crush the serpent. God chose the process of human birth and childhood development as the vehicle for the world’s rescue. If birth and infancy were inherently states of guilt, the Messiah would have had to enter a state of "guilt" to save us.
Any teacher who claims God condemns those who cannot yet discern good from evil is ignoring the very path Jesus walked. It is a denial of the very nature of the Incarnation and the core of the Gospel.
Is this not the Gospel, that God is with us?
Jesus truly entered our condition, from the cradle to the cross, to prove that God is for us—at every stage.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”