The Know

Joseph Smith received a revelation sometime in 1830 when he was near Palmyra, in Wayne County, New York, that John Whitmer titled “Explanation of Scripture . . . given to Joseph the Seer” when he copied it into the Church’s Revelation Book 1.1 While not much is known about the context of this revelation (found in Doctrine and Covenants 74), the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers Project note that “there is some likelihood this document was produced during April [1830], when [Joseph Smith] was known to be in Wayne County. During that month, [Joseph Smith] began baptizing believers and organizing branches of the church in New York; he also dictated two revelations that gave directions regarding baptism [see Doctrine and Covenants 20:37, 71–74; 22:1–4]. Conversations with new and prospective converts may also have led to discussion about scriptural passages regarding infant baptism.”2 Moreover, the topic of infant baptism had been a long-standing point of dispute between the various Christian churches.

One of the passages in the New Testament that would have been highly relevant to that topic was 1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” This was used to argue that children of believers should not be excluded from the covenantal rite (now baptism), just as infant children were not excluded from circumcision under the Old Covenant, and that “now” children are holy because they had been baptized. Whatever the circumstances might have been that brought this issue to Joseph Smith’s attention, the revelation importantly clarified this New Testament passage for use in the newly restored Church. At the time of its official organization on April 6, 1830, the Church adopted the requirement that in order to be baptized, all people must be at least eight years of age, humble themselves, desire to be baptized, come with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness their willingness to take upon themselves the name of Christ and to serve Him to the end (Doctrine and Covenants 20:37).

However, according to the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 74, the Apostle Paul had written his statement in 1 Corinthians 7:14 at a time when there had arisen in Corinth “a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision,” particularly in the context of mixed-faith marriages. Specifically, “the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law, [however,] was fulfilled [by Jesus Christ]” (Doctrine and Covenants 74:3).

In the course of that contention, many new members of Paul’s congregation had given “heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy,” as Paul worried (Doctrine and Covenants 74:4). Thus, Paul gave his opinion that it would be better for believers not to marry unbelievers, “except the law of Moses should be done away among them, [so] that their children might remain without circumcision; and [so] that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for [that doctrine] was had among the Jews” (74:5–6). To the contrary, it was understood by the early Christian church that “little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ” (74:7).3

Indeed, most Christians in Joseph Smith’s day were familiar with the traditions that surrounded the question of infant baptism, and many Christian views existed concerning possible implications of what Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 7:14. Joseph’s new revelation, however, provided a clearer context in which to address the traditional debates.4

In that regard, Robert E. Parsons has noted that the “practice of baptizing infants emerged among Christians in the third century A.D. and was controversial for some time.”5 Some prominent defenders of that new practice “argued that baptism takes away the pollution of birth,” which was thought to have been caused most notably by contact with blood.6 That concern, of course, arose well after Paul had written his epistle and well after the Apostles of the early Church had died, so it was thus not the point that Paul was making in 1 Corinthians 7:14.

Rather, Paul’s emphasis on the holiness of infants appears to be related simply to the law of circumcision and its believed effects. Some traditions dating to Second Temple Judaism with which Paul could well have been familiar maintained that male children were born unclean but that circumcision removed that impurity and made them holy (female infants were considered clean from birth). Circumcision did not entail the same theological justifications that were later attributed to infant baptism in some Christian circles; however, from a Jewish perspective, it was nonetheless an important ordinance performed upon male children to help them be ritually clean.

One prominent rabbinic text called the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, for instance, states that when the Lord God Jehovah instituted the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, He said, “Until now thou hast not been perfect before Me; but circumcise the flesh of thy foreskin, and ‘walk before me, and be thou perfect.’ Moreover, the foreskin is a reproach . . . because the foreskin is more unclean than all unclean things. . . . For the foreskin is a blemish above all blemishes. Circumcise the flesh of thy foreskin and be perfect.”7 This text goes on to associate Abraham’s circumcision with the celebration of the Day of Atonement, when God forgave Israel’s sins, and to state, “He who separates himself from circumcision is like one separated from the Holy One, blessed be He.”8 While the text was compiled sometime in the eighth and ninth centuries AD, it is often said that these writings contain earlier traditions going back centuries.9

Some such teachings are still prominent in Jewish Yemenite traditions, especially in their poems and prayers recited during a circumcision. According to one prayer, circumcision was practiced to refine the child and prepare him to stand in God’s presence: “He who shall circumcise his flesh shall behold God, the presence of the Lofty One shall be bound on his head. . . . It is the will of the Living God to sanctify his friends so he adjured them [to keep] the choice commandment. / They are clean when they circumcise their flesh, as refined silver and the gleaming menorah.” Other Jewish prayers utilize language that recalls to the listener’s mind the Garden of Eden and the transgression of Adam and Eve. For example, one states, “On the day of circumcision, fulfilling his commandment, / The serpent and his filthiness departs.” Another similarly calls the foreskin “the snake’s filthiness that is removed.”10 By utilizing such language, these prayers appear to connect the rite of circumcision to overcoming the unclean state into which all males are born.

Fortunately, these traditions regarding the purifying effects of circumcision were not the only beliefs that dealt with the purity of children, as other Jewish people believed that all children were, by nature, innocent and undefiled by the world. For instance, Saul Lieberman has observed how various Yemenite midrashic teachings maintained that children lived in a state of innocence and purity between circumcision and puberty; other similar Jewish statements even drew on an early Christian document called the Epistle of Barnabas, which also held that very position regarding the purity of children.11 Interestingly, Barnabas was Paul’s first missionary companion (see Acts 13:1). Furthermore, those who believed that circumcision removed uncleanness did not necessarily believe that boys who died before they could be circumcised would in any way be punished for not having received that ordinance.

The Why

Fortunately, in the face of the incoherence of these theological assertions, the revelation given by Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 74 concisely states the underlying doctrine about the innocence of children, which was cherished by both the ancient and modern Church. As the revelation concisely explains, all “little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ” (74:7). Somewhat similarly, Paul expressed his view that the faith of the Christian spouse in Jesus Christ sanctified the non-member spouse and therefore sanctified also their infant child. But, more than that, Joseph Smith’s explanation expressly affirms that this sanctification of children comes directly through the Atonement of Christ.

Indeed, Joseph’s revelation here is consonant with the emphatic words of the prophet Mormon, who wrote, “Little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world” (Moroni 8:11–12). Moreover, as Mormon continued, anyone who says that “little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption” (Moroni 8:20). This doctrine is clearly followed in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

However, other religious traditions throughout time have maintained opposite theories. Even though some Jewish traditions did not go as far as some later Christian beliefs, asserting that children need to be cleansed from sin to be saved, they wrongly assume the unclean state of newly born and yet-uncircumcised male children. Such a view exposes the underlying problem Paul and other ancient Christians were trying to grapple with in the early days of the fledgling Christian movement.

As further questions arose, then, regarding circumcision and other Jewish practices in the minds of an increasingly culturally diverse church, Peter and his fellow Apostles needed to address such traditions.12 Paul, in particular had to correct traditions regarding the necessity of circumcision time and time again.13 While these ancient concerns about circumcision and infant baptism were apparently not discussed in upstate New York during the 1820s, scattered bits of ancient evidence in some strands of Jewish texts and practices match those very lines of resulting doctrinal instruction given in section 74 by the twenty-five-year-old prophet.

Understanding the historical backgrounds that stand behind these problematic practices and beliefs can add greater insight to the scriptures today. Taken in that context, Joseph Smith’s revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants help modern readers better understand Paul’s teachings, particularly why the Apostle brought in a point about children as he gave advice on the separate question that had arisen about the faithful maintenance of mixed-faith marriages. As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul was qualified and authorized to correct misapplied implications as well as to offer his guidance to his converts about how they might deal with that marriage question and its ramifications.

Ultimately, Doctrine and Covenants 74 helps modern readers and Latter-day Saints understand and appreciate the prophetic gifts of the young Joseph Smith. In this revelation, Joseph explicitly offered an entirely new context to 1 Corinthians 7:14, giving an answer that conforms particularly with the teachings of the Book of Mormon about the Atonement of Jesus Christ and testifies that infant baptism is inappropriate: “Little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean” (Doctrine and Covenants 74:7).

This KnoWhy gratefully incorporates insights from Allen Hansen.