The Death of a child (1)
God made us mortal, that is, subject to biological death so in that sense death is "natural". My guess is that since God gave Adam and Eve full and free invitation to eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) that they were eating of "the tree of life" and it counteracted their mortality. It makes no sense to me that they would eat of all the others trees in the garden except the one that sustained life; so I'm assuming they ate of it. Would you not eat of it if God freely offered it?
From the moment they were cut off from the tree the death process was on its way to the inevitable end God had appointed. Even if all we had to say about it was that it was "natural", it would still be true that death was ordained by God since that's how he made us—mortal, subject to death. Death in that sense is not unnatural for it's how God made us; subject to death. God did not make us subject to death because we had sinned before he made us. It was after he had created us mortal that we chose to sin against him.
But it's clear that death is more than "natural". Whatever else is true about it, when it came as the judgement of God—and it did at some point—it was more than "natural"—it now had the notion of "penalty" and it carried with it the testimony that the human relationship with God had been distorted in some way. In light of the biblical witness, death continues to bear witness to this very day of that distortion of humanity's relationship with God.
At the very beginning, death as penalty and judgement would only have meant something to Adam and Eve. That aspect of death would not have related to any of their infant children should they have died. God doesn't punish the innocent! Nevertheless, since Adam and Eve closed the door to all their descendants to the tree of life, whatever God thought of infants, they died because of something Adam and Eve did; they died because they were part of Adam's family and because God had made them mortal.
I'm presuming that this is what Paul had in mind when he said that in Adam all died (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). It wasn't that humans were inherently immortal before Adam sinned and as a consequence they became mortal; that's not true. As the Bible tells it, God cut off the mortal humans from the tree of life in response to Adam's rebellion. It didn't matter after that if a human could have been sinless—he was mortal and without something to counteract that mortality he died!
Setting aside for the moment questions generated by Romans 5:19 where Paul says by one man's disobedience all were made sinners, let me make the point again that God does not punish the innocent! We might do that and at times, God forgive us, we do that at times but God forbids it.
This means that when an infant dies it is no punishment from God! The infant certainly dies because it is not able to stay alive; it is mortal—subject to death. But in addition to that, like the rest of us the child was cut off from the source that offset human mortality. Unless we believe that an infant is actually and really guilty the idea that its death is punishment is intolerable! Since it's obvious that infants have committed no personal wrongs the only way to justify their being punished is to say that they truly did sin in Adam's sin. It won't do to say that God holds them guilty though he knows they're not really guilty. Simply saying he would do that sounds like a slander against the Holy Father! With the theological "realists" of the Reformed camp we'd be compelled to say that these infants actually sinned in Adam's sin (though Augustine and Calvin admitted they didn't know how that could be). They feel obliged to say that, don't you see, for it's "the soulthat sins" that shall die for sin (see Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16). To credit to infants (or anyone else) what we know they didn't do would be heinous to us though we are great sinners; what would it be but the profoundest moral chaos for the Holy Father to hold them guilty of what he knows they aren't guilty of?
To get away with the claim that the death of an infant is punishment for its sin (committed in Adam) you have to do what Calvin and Augustine did—say it must be true because God wouldn't otherwise punish the child.
Nevertheless, it is true than in Adam even infants die! Why is that? Well, part of the answer I've suggested above—they were cut off from a source that counteracted human mortality; but there's more to it than that. These innocent infants are caught up in God's purpose to fulfil his creation commitment to the human family.
Amos 4:6-11 tells us of famines and droughts and pestilence that God sent to bring apostate Israel back home to him that he might forgive and bless them. The judgements were chastisement for sin committed; in this case the hardships wouldn't have existed if Israel had not gone off after other gods. Babies born during these droughts and famines suffered and they suffered under the judgements God poured out to redeem the apostates but the babies were the innocent suffering along with the guilty. Let me repeat: the drought the child suffered from existed because of sin and the child shared the hurt and death that the drought brought but God wasn't punishing the child. The child died but it wasn't the same death the impenitent apostate died. [What difference does it make if the child still dies? It makes all the difference in the world. The children of an imprisoned embezzler are left without a father but they aren't punished for what their father did.]
The infant in Amos' day died from a famine that God deliberately sent in response to Israelite sin. The existence of the judgement had nothing to do with the infants! It had all to do with sinning Israelites; it had all to do with the guilty! But the instrument of God's judgement (the famine and such) takes the lives of the innocent children (and the devoted servants of God in Israel) who die in the punishment of Israel.
God will not spare even the innocent (see Romans 8:32).
The death of all the children, the death of a single child is the damning evidence of our guilt and a witness to God's relentless pursuit of humanity to redeem it. We need not worry—such children are in good hands.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment