She stands alone, like the palace and fortress of the king. She is the symbol of his reign over his people. The pride of his eye, the love of his life. Regal and noble she stands, a fitting home for royalty. She is a fortress, a place of refuge for the people she is charged to protect. When the enemy attacks they flee to her for safety. Into her arms they fall, her warm embrace reassuring them that no harm will come to them.

She stands alone, like a bastion daring its enemies to lay siege. Age is a merciless foe, showing no quarter and taking no prisoners. The battles over the decades have taken their toll, the signs of war covering her exterior walls. The external beauty that captured her lover’s eye has borne the full brunt of Age’s onslaught. But the beauty of her person, her strength, caring, compassion, kindness, wisdom, and resiliency still remain unscathed by Age’s devastation.

She stands alone, on the brink, the edge of the Abyss. Should she just give in and, like the last of the ruins of the mighty castles, collapse into the abyss? No! she declares. There is still too much to see, to witness, to experience with her old eyes. Her steadfast determination, her uncompromising desire to move forward and never surrender rise up within her once more. Her strength is renewed. Once more she dares her familiar foe to come and do battle, to try and deny her what is hers.

But, she stands alone uncertain of her future. She knows she is at the end. Her time is fast approaching. She looks to those she loves most for comfort and peace. But there she finds more turmoil. Her safe harbor is raging against her. There is not place of solace, no comfort. There is no place to put in to port. Where is her comfort? Where is her Barnabas in these last days?

She stands alone, seeing her joy just out of reach; obstructed and held back by those who cling so tight to her that she cannot move. Her joy is there and she fight for it to no avail. But she does fight. She engages those who should be her vanguard to her delight. She is forced to make war against the ones who should be her Barnabas. Oh how truly evil a foe Age is! Nothing lies beyond the reach of its ugly tentacles.

But she stands not alone. A scarred hand takes hers in the desperate struggle. His grasp is comforting and full of rest. It is the grasp of One who has fought the old foe head on, and claimed victory. He takes her hand in His and stand by her side, her one and only Ally in the war. Her cares all melt away as her Eternal Friend joins the fray. He goes to war with her, for her. Against Him Age is without hope, reminded of its own defeat at His hands. Disarmed the foe stands, helpless to fight back against her Ally.

Hand-in-hand, they stand together. Where others have failed by disguising their own quest for their own comfort and peace and happiness as concern for her happiness and well-being, He leads her to something greater than she was striving for. He leads her to the green pastures and still waters; to a table he has prepared for her, the greatest of all feasts to be enjoyed with her vanquished archnemesis looking on in its own demise. And in His house she finishes out her days, unending days free of Age and in the presence of pure, undefiled joy and delight of which she could not have imagined nor could describe if she were to try.

Now by amoral, the prof defined for the class as those who are either unwilling or unable to make a moral/ethical decision. For those that are unwilling to make the ethical decision (i.e. a person not deciding if abortion is the right of the woman or is wrong) they are still held morally responsible for any and all decisions because they had the capacity to make the decision, they just chose not to. For those who are unable, we separated them into two categories: those who die never having that capacity and those who had the capacity and lost it in some way, i.e. drug use leading to burnout. We were, and I am, concerned with those who die in infancy–thus never developing that capacity to make moral decisions–and those who are born so mentally incapacitated that they will never have that capacity–born in a vegetative state. So in the rest of the post, when I say amoral, I am referring to this specific group: those who are born without the capacity to make moral decisions or those who die before they develop that capacity, namely infants.

So, here is the question. Do the amoral (as I have defined in the preceding paragraph), go to heaven when they die? That is the question that I want to wrestle with in this post. Please keep in mind that I am only wrestling with this question and should not be taken to dogmatically or be my definitive position.

I want to begin by affirming my Reformed theological position. First God is the Creator and total sovereign of this universe. History is the unfolding and working out of his sovereign decrees. God owes nothing to any part of his creation in any way. All of creation owes its very existence to God’s sustaining hand. Every human being who has ever lived owes every breath each human took/breathed to God. Second, even though humanity was created to be God’s image here on earth–and thus function as God’s representative here on earth–humanity, in Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden, has fallen into sin and thus has distorted and corrupted the imagio dei with in humanity. Therefore, under Adam’s representative headship, all of humanity is condemned to death. Because of this distortion or corruption in humanity, those who are in Adam’s race and under his headship have utilized the imagio dei for their own self-seeking purposes and suppress the truth about God, denying him. Salvation occurs through the justifying-life-giving union with the resurrected crucified Jesus Messiah. That union only takes place through the faith granted to humans whom the Father draws and has given to Jesus. This granting and drawing and giving is rooted and grounded in the Father’s decree and not in something foreseen in the human. It is free and unconditioned, both in terms of what must be done to get it and in that God is not made to give it to someone by a force outside of himself.

That means God’s mercy and grace are not given as a reward for faith or some deed that one of his fallen creatures performed. As God says, “I will mercy whom I will mercy and I will compassion whom I will compassion” (Both the Hebrew, LXX, and Paul’s quotation of Exodus 33:19 use verbal forms of “mercy” and “compassion”). And therefore I must first say that because the Scripture does not explicitly deal with this topic, namely whether or not the amoral are allowed into heaven when they cannot understand who they are as sinners both personally and corporately as well as who Christ is and what he has done to redeem and save them. And so I must first and foremost say that God will save those whom he has decided to save. But does that help the grieving family? I think of a dear friend and brother in Christ. His son was born so severely incapacitated mentally that he will never have that capacity to make moral decisions. Would I be able to tell my friend this if his son died? Would that help? I think of a family that used to attend my home church in KC who lost their first-born baby last spring. Mom and baby were so sick that for eight days they did not see each other and mom only got to hold the baby once, the day the baby died. Would saying to them, “God will save from sin who he will save,” help their grieving?

I hesitate to immediately rush to say, “God is a good and merciful God who saves.” Nowhere does God ever declare he is a universalist when it comes to people being allowed into heaven. All men, by virtue of their union to Adam, are sinners and deserving of God’s wrath. And furthermore, has saying that been thought through or a rush for comfort? I want to make sure that IF I were to say that it is because I feel God has made that as clear as possible from his revelation in Scripture.

There is a text in Deuteronomy 1:39 that does shed some light on this situation. The NET reads, “Also, your infants [ESV: "little ones"], who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.” Moses is recounting Israel’s sin in Numbers 14 where Israel refuses to go into the land of Canaan after the twelve spies give their report, ten saying that Israel will die if they try to go in and two saying that Yahweh will give them the land. As in Numbers 14:31, Yahweh is said to affirm that Israel’s children will be allowed into Canaan but their parents will die in the wilderness for their unbelief. But note how Moses characterizes them, “who as yet do not know good from bad.” These infants or little ones fit into the category of amoral, they are unable to make a moral decision. Yahweh has promised to let them into the promised land.

As the book of Hebrews makes so painfully clear, the promised land was a shadow or picture or type of the greater reality of the eternal kingdom of God promised in the new creation that will be realized fully at the end of this present age. Does it then stand to reason that Yahweh would allow those “who as yet do not know good from bad,” infants who die and those born mentally incapacitated to the point that they cannot make moral decisions, into the kingdom of heaven? The principle in Deuteronomy 1:39 seems to allow for such to enter the kingdom. Take also into account that Jesus bids us to allow children to come to him unimpeded. While I do believe that means that parents aren’t make children wait to come to Christ and bow the knee in loving adoration until they are “old enough.” But does that mean Jesus will bring even those children who die in infancy and those whose minds never develop into moral decision-making minds into the kingdom as well? There is nothing in the Gospels to dispel that. And furthermore, in the context of Exodus 33:19, Yahweh grounds mercy and compassion as well as his covenant faithfulness as part of his character (cf. Exodus 34:5-7). It seems to reason that this is quite possible that God would welcome into the eternal kingdom little infants and the mentally incapacitated. Jesus’ miracles point to a restoration of this current fallen world to is Edenic state. Mental incapacitation being reversed would be part of that. Thus allowing those into the kingdom with that amoral capacity showing them to be restored would greatly show redemption fully encompassing all of creation.

Some people would like to cite 2 Samuel 12:23 (NET), “But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back? I will go to him, but he cannot return to me!” David’s child from his adulterous and murderous relationship with Bathsheeba has just passed away as a punishment from Yahweh for David’s sinful actions regarding Bathsheeba. His servants noted that while the baby was alive and dying, David pleaded for his life to the point that David deprived his own body of nourishment and proper care to show his care for the child and repentance to Yahweh. When the baby died, David got up and bathed and ate. The phrase that people point to for the child going to heaven is, “I will go to him, but he cannot return to me!” They say that it means that David believes that when he dies he shall see the baby in heaven. I think that is far too great of a leap when the more natural reading of the text seems to indicate that if David went to the baby it would not come back to life. It does not seem to be talking about some sort of after-life experience.

Now there are some objections to my reading of Deuteronomy 1:39. First that comes to my mind is that the children in that text were children in the covenant. It would have to mean that only the amoral from Christian families could make it into heaven. The problem with that, and again the problem I have with this whole question, is that this makes entrance into the kingdom of heaven conditioned upon parentage. But in Romans 9:11-12 Paul says that Jacob received the family blessing over Esau because of God’s merciful call and choice of Jacob, not because of birth order or because of Esau’s parents being somehow better than Jacob’s; they were the same people. Thus in Romans 9:14-16 Paul conditions entrance into the kingdom of God and being chosen by God purely upon God’s mercy and grace. That was how Israel was created and that is how God’s kingdom is created now.

But am I conditioning their entrance into heaven upon them being incapable of making moral decisions, being amoral. I don’t think so because I am saying that God has included them in his elect for the same reasons that he included any other Christian. He has chosen to do so. I am conditioning their inclusion into the elect upon God’s sovereign decree. As stated above, I do believe that saving those who have died without the mental capacity and bringing them into the kingdom shows that God is redeeming all of creation from the effects of Adam’s sin.

This where I have arrived at in my thinking. Those whom I have defined as amoral in this post (infants and the mentally incapacitated from birth) will get into heaven. But not because I just want God to be merciful to make me feel better. This is the conclusion that I arrive at when I think upon what the Scripture teaches and apply it to this question. Disagree, agree. I do not care which the reader does but please do so because one has wrestled with this issue, not because the reader disagrees with my Calvinism or hasn’t thought through the issue.

Henry Reed Imler

3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. [Psalm 127:3-5 ESV]

It is my prayer that they will be like the parents in Deuteronomy 6 who teach their children to walk in the law of the Lord and that they will be the parents that Paul talks about in Ephesians 6:4, resting upon the Spirit to train up their children in the dicipline and intruction of the Lord.

Before I get to these observations I want to make some opening statements. A lot of what I have to say in this series came after long and hard thinking during my mornings at UPS. But by that I mean how I want to put it down in writing, not my beliefs on these issues. My convictions have come after much meditation and study. They haven’t been carelessly formed. I must express my thanks to my fellow blogger at MassTheology for his series on Egalitarianism for getting me to challenge the traditions that were passed on to me and develop my own understanding of the roles of men and women in the church, specifically family. Also, I am going to ask some questions of Egalitarians but I am in no way demanding they answer these questions. Rather I am asking and am open to any and all answers. If an egalitarian feels compelled then comment, but do not feel forced to answer. This is just me putting my thoughts down for all to read. That said let me get to Ephesians 5:15-33.

One last opening remark. In part one of this brief series, I in no way was intimating that I was even dating anyone. I am as much a definitional bachelor as one can be. The next closest thing I could even begin to count as a date is the present I am going to give my little sister for her birthday next month. That is how single I am. No girls in my line of sight, and most definitely no children in the near (or far distant at present rate) future.

Ephesians 5:15-6:9 is one long treatise on Christian relationships within the body of Christ. It begins with the individual (5:15-18) and then moves into relationships in general (5:19-21) and then into the family (5:22-6:4) and ending with slaves and masters (6:5-9). The primary concern is how the Christian walks in this life, something seen since Ephesians 4:1. Here in 5:15ff Paul calls attention to a three-fold dichotomy by a series of imperatives: wise/unwise, foolish/understanding, drunk with wine/filled with the Spirit. In 5:19-21, Paul utilizes a series of participles to further explain the final imperative in Ephesians 5:18 and being filled by the Spirit: speak, sing, make music, always give thanks, and submit to each other. The way this works out is that Paul says that one who walks in the Spirit does what is spoken of in Ephesians 5:19-21. That’s what a Spirit-filled person does.

The preacher in me stops here to make an application. In order to properly relate to a person, especially those in the body of Christ, one must be filled with the Spirit. The Spirit plays a vital role in relationships. Take away the Spirit and the relationship sours at best, is lost at worst. Therefore we must take care to diligently seek the Spirit every day. Our ability to relate to our brothers and sisters in Christ depends upon it, whether they are family by faith or by blood. I would say that our ability to relate to those outside of the faith and the gospel is dependent upon this. We need the Spirit.

Now we come to Ephesians 5:22-33 where Paul speaks on the roles of husbands and wives. He begins with wives. If one were to look in the Greek s/he would see that there is no verb for 5:22 as it reads literally, “Wives to your own husbands as to the Lord.” We need a verb. When one looks at their English translations they see that the verb “submit” is placed there. Why? I think that the answer is found in 5:23-24 where Paul shows how the wife parallels the church, the husband parallels Christ, and that the marriage relationship mirrors Christ’s relationship with the church. Thus the verb that Paul uses there is what is used. Also 5:22 creates a nice parallel and even inclusio with 5:22 and 24. Thus submission is how a wife relates to her husband. The question is what does this look like? What does it mean for a wife to submit to her husband? Does this mean the same as 5:22? I want to come back to this.

What I find interesting is that for the wife, Paul reasserts the verb “submit” but not for the husband. The verb changes from “submit” to “love.” This is not undoing 5:21 but rather is informing and explaining. He then explains that as Christ loved the church a husband should and must love his wife. Verses 5:26-33 is Paul further explaining this “love” between Christ/husband and church/wife.

Please do not miss that both roles are utterly dependent upon the Spirit for Paul. In the case of the wife, the same verb that is found in 5:21 is found in 5:24. And as I stated earlier, “submit” in 5:21 is further explaining what it means to walk in the Spirit. Thus as the church submits to Christ by the Spirit, so too the wife submits to her husband by the Spirit. Love, as the husband is commanded to have, is also only from the Spirit. Note first Ephesians 1:13-15. Paul says there that the Ephesians have received the Holy Spirit as a down payment on their eternal inheritance (1:11) and they have received that Spirit by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul then tells the Ephesians that they as a church are most noted for their love for the saints, the same word for love as in 5:25 (although in Ephesians 1:15 it is a noun and in 5:25 it is a verb). To be a Christian husband or wife one must first be walking in the Spirit. There is also Galatians 5:16-23. Paul commands us to walk in the Spirit in 5:16. The first fruit of the Spirit mentioned by Paul is love (again same word as in Ephesians 1:15; 5:25-33).

I think so many young people in the church today miss this extremely important point. This can in large part be due to the fact that the connection to walking in the Spirit. Before they should worry about who they should date/court (whatever you call it), they need to be concerned with being filled by the Spirit of God. Once that is in place, Jesus will bring along the person who should be married.

In Ephesians 5:25-27 Christ is seen as one seeking the sanctification of the church, cleansing her by the washing of the water by the word. There is a spiritual element to the love of the husband for his bride. He is to seek her purity and sanctity, to see her without blemish and stain and wrinkle. In 5:28-33 Paul speaks of the “one flesh” understanding of marriage, as originally conceived in Genesis 2:24. The husband loves his wife as his own body that he cares for and provides for. The wife, in the marriage relationship/covenant(?), has become one flesh, one body, with the husband. He must now love her like he loves his own body that he is careful to feed and care for.

Now let me take a crack at the meaning of “submission” in Ephesians 5 having looked at what a man and woman are to do in the marriage covenant. A wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and she is to fear (ἵνα φοβῆται taken as an imperative; cf 5:33) her husband as she fears Christ (5:21). But look at what the husband does. He dies to himself and his dreams, prerogatives. He lays down the life he would have lived and now lives for her. He seeks to lead her to spiritual purity and holiness. He provides for her as he would himself, Paul mentions food specifically. There is a spiritual and physical dynamic (that would include sexual) to it. Paul says that a wife must submit to and revere such love. She is called to die to herself and embrace such love and sacrifice. She no longer lives for herself but now seeks the love that her husband offers. I am almost forced to ask why a woman would resist a Christian man who is walking in the Spirit and offers to her the love that mirrors Christ’s love for the church. Why fight that? Why resist?

Now I come back to what I mentioned in part 1 and the role of the father. If the father has been a godly father, he has been the husband that Paul speaks of in 5:25-33. He would know what to look for. he would know what questions to ask a young man seeking his daughter’s hand in marriage. The daughter wouldn’t know like a father who has been the husband would. He could see better what a young man living a life full of the Spirit than the young woman could. It is absolutely important that the father be in centrally involved in the engagement “process.” That is why I would want the father of whomever I would marry to want to give me to his daughter. That he has deemed me as one who is walking in the Spirit.

I know I have probably made some readers of this blog cringe. But I just cannot see Ephesians 5 differently. From what I have read, I remain unconvinced. If this makes me “patriarchal” and a Complementarian, then I guess I am.

What is even more weird was that about a month ago, I thought through how I would propose to a girl that the Lord had led me to wed. Right now Jesus has not seen fit for me to even be in a courting relationship so I don’t know why I was thinking about this. Honestly, some days I’d like to skip the whole wedding and engagement and go straight to being a daddy. Lightsaber fights and comic books with the boys and/or tea parties and shopping with my little girls–I’d even play dolls or watch some rediculous TV that I don’t have to watch as a brother. I actually look forward to that some days. But last month it was how to propose. Not going to spill the beans on that because I wouldn’t want the archives to come back and bite me.

But what I loved most about the plan that I had was the role of the girl’s father in the proposal. He was pivotal in how I would propose. The symbolism is very powerful, and it is a shame that the Western culture today finds it folly. Essentially, without giving anything away, the father would give me to his daughter. I would be his last gift to his daughter (okay there might be the wedding but isn’t this just the start of a giving that culminates at the wedding?). Here is a man, in the father, who loves his daughter in a way that cannot be put into words. She is infinitely precious to him. And the best thing he could do for her is to find her a husband that loves her like he does. He wants to make sure that she is joined to someone who will protect her, support her, love her like Jesus loved his bride the church (Ephesians 5:25). This father would (hopefully) see that this young man loves his daughter like he does, like this father loves his own bride. I want my proposal to show that, to illustrate that. I want the father to tell his daughter that he is certain that this man that is asking for her hand does indeed love her. Daddy wants and expects only the best for his little girl.

In fact, this is how I would approach my own daughter (Lord willing). There wouldn’t be a day that goes by where she wouldn’t know that I love her. She would know and understand that she is my little treasure, my joy. I am her protector and defender. I know what is best for her and will see to it that she gets it, even if it might hurt. I will be a fun dad and also a dad that will break to heal and restore. My daughter will understand that. From the first day until I give her away, I will make sure that she knows this in her bones. That little girl will trust me because I will show that as her father I am trustworthy. Therefore I will not settle for her to just marry anyone. Nope. The man who “thinks” he wants to marry her better show me that he loves her like I do, like I love my wife. If he fails to do so, he cannot have her. I will not stand for it. He must be her protector, physically and mentally and emotionally and spiritually. He must find his delight in her, not in the hopes of sex. He had also see my daughter as the beautiful woman that God has made her and that her mother (again Lord willing) and I will raise her to be. If not, that boy is–for that is what he is–is gone.

I will go so far to protect her that no punk freshman boy will be her first date. No sir. It will be this little angel’s father (me Lord willing) that will take her out on her first date. And she will know what it is like for a man/boy to treat her with respect on a date. She will know what it is like to have fun and be honored as a woman, the crown jewel of creation. She will have a high bar set for these “boys” to meet, a nice test that will be very difficult to pass. Failure will not be tolerated. I can’t wait.

This desire to take my future bride in a way that communicates that her father really does believe and is confident that I will love that woman with all of me, that I will protect her and honor her and be responsible for her before an almighty God, come from my Complementarian beliefs. Some might call this “patriarchy” and even out of touch with today’s norms in Western society. But with divorce rates sky high, single parent families all over the place, millions of babies murdered as a result of Roe v. Wade, I don’t think the current methods work. They only lead to broken homes and people left with major holes in their hearts from a child that isn’t there, from a spouse that isn’t there. I WILL NOT allow my daughter to fall victim to society’s self-destruction. I won’t stand for it. If I am “patriarchal” then I wear it like a badge. I wear it with pride. If I am patriarchal, then I guess I am and so be it.