On the Suffering of Children

/

In December of 2004, tsunamis devastated many coastal nations of the Indian Ocean. In Sri Lanka alone, it is estimated that 30,000 people died, of which 10,000 were children. ‘‘‘I feel that I should have died with the kids,’ said Thanaranjani, whose 4-year-old daughter was snatched out of her arms by the waves.”[1] Why does a good and all-powerful God permit evil and suffering? The reality of suffering suggests to many that if God is all-powerful, He must not be good. Or if He is good, He must not be all-powerful. As Christians, we reject both options. The question becomes even more difficult and painful when children are contemplated, especially the very young. Beyond even that, there are occasions where it would at least seem that God Himself causes children to suffer. To many of us, this is the sharpest manifestation of the problem.[2] The purpose of this article is to identify a few certainties and clear away a few errors concerning the suffering of children.

Does God Hurt Children?

Does God hurt children? Set aside all the reasons He might have for doing so. Set aside His attitude in doing so. Just answer the basic, factual question. The simple (or perhaps simplistic) answer is “yes.”

God Sends Floods that Kill Children

Every year, hundreds of people, including children, die in floods and other “natural” disasters.[3] If God does not spare children now, we have no reason to believe He spared them from the Genesis flood. When God sent that flood, the only children brought into the ark were Noah’s own. Then as now, God killed children of all ages and pregnant women with their unborn children along with everyone else. God might have spared them, but He did not. “…I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made…” (Gen 7:4).[4] Such are the unvarnished facts. That is a hard saying, but we continue in the conviction that the truth about God is never contrary to His glory. Much harm has been caused by misguided attempts to save God’s honor from His word.[5]

God Killed All the Firstborn in Egypt

The final plague on Egypt was the divine destruction of all the firstborn of Egypt, beginning with the house of Pharaoh down to the lowliest slave. “…the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon… there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead” (Ex 12:29-30). As in the flood, we’ve no reason to believe this did not include small children.

God Commanded Israel to Kill Children

Through Moses, God commanded Israel to kill children, including infants: “…kill every male among the little ones…” (Num 31:17), and “…do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child…” (1 Sam 15:3).[6] And just as Lord Sabaoth used Israel to bring judgment on Canaan, He also used other nations to bring terrible judgment on Samaria. “Samaria is held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child ripped open” (Hos 13:16). The first part of the verse tells us that the second part of the verse is not a bare prediction. It is their sentence from the Judge.[7]

Why God Kills Children

God’s grand design encompasses whatsoever comes to pass and is therefore incalculably complex. His reasons must be commensurately complex. If His word highlights one reason, it does not preclude additional reasons. When commentators infer additional reasons beyond those explicitly stated in the Bible, they may be right. But we will focus on what is explicit or necessary.

Why God Commanded Death for Midianite Children

God’s prophet commanded, “…kill every male among the little ones…” (Num 31:17). The notes of the Faithlife Study Bible say, “As was common in the ancient Near East, male children were also slain to prevent future opposition or blood vengeance.”[8] This is frequently the reason inferred for God’s command. Likewise, James Smith says, “The young males were also to be executed lest when they reached maturity they would be especially vengeful toward Israel.”[9] Such inferences are possible, but no attempt was made to prove that they are necessary. They are not necessary. And though possible, they do not reflect the emphasis of Scripture.

For firmer footing, we look to the reasons explicitly given in the Bible to explain why God commanded the death of children. Destruction of children is usually presented as a judgment on societies, sometimes with special reference to leaders. Returning to Numbers 31:17, we see it is explained by Numbers 31:1. “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the children of Israel.” This vengeance has reference to the seduction of Israel by Moab and Midian described in Numbers 25 and the hiring of Balaam against Israel.

Why God Killed Children in the Flood

In the Genesis flood, God killed everyone outside the ark, including children of all ages. The reason was sin: Genesis 6:1-4 likely refers to despots. Genesis 6:5 points to “the wickedness of man” as the reason “the LORD was sorry that He had made man,” and results in the decision to “destroy man” (Gen 6:5-7). This general, societal evil is cited again a few verses later: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen 6:11-12).

Why God Killed All the Firstborn of Egypt

In Egypt, God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. At least four reasons are explicitly given for the plagues of Egypt described in Exodus: deliverance of Israel from Egyptian oppression (Ex 1:13; 3:8-9; 6:5-7; 18:8-10), the stubbornness of Pharaoh (Ex 13:15), God’s intent to make His name known by means of His wonders (Ex 11:19), and the idolatry of Egypt (Num 33:4). Note that Exodus 13:15 and 11:19 have special reference to the killing of the firstborn.

Why God Commanded Death for Canaanite Children

As a general rule, God commanded that Israel eradicate certain nations of Canaan. Even children were under the ban: “…let nothing that breathes remain alive” (Deut 20:16). At least two reasons are explicitly given: These people might teach Israel their evil ways (Deut 20:18). And, the Canaanites were exceedingly wicked (Lev 18:24-25).[10] It should be noticed that the first reason is hardly sufficient to explain the destruction of infants. An infant captured by Israel would have been Jewish. He could not have taught what he did not know. As in the previous cases, the destruction of the children was due to the sins of their societies. All these examples demonstrate God’s longsuffering and forbearance. “There had been a patient waiting from Abraham’s time ‘for the sin of the Amorites… [to reach] its full measure’” (Gen 15:16).[11]

Why God Kills Individual Children

The data examined so far relates to large numbers of children being killed in groups. When we examine individual deaths, the data is more limited.

Why God Killed David’s Son

“However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die” (2 Sam 12:14). The interpretation of this verse is difficult. Matthew Henry wrote, “Behold the sovereignty of God! The guilty parent lives, and the guiltless infant dies; but all souls are his, and he may, in what way he pleases, glorify himself in his creatures.”[12] Amen.

But, Henry is less convincing when he suggests this is a case in which God had visited “the sins of the fathers upon the children.”[13] That visitation is among those that hate God. David did not hate God, and he was repentant before the child died. But in Henry’s favor, David’s sins were profoundly (perhaps even uniquely) scandalous: adultery, murder, the treacherous note, by a king, a prophet, and one who is in other ways the most prominent type of the coming Messiah.

Believing parents who lose a child are understandably susceptible to survivors’ guilt and other forms of false guilt. It would be wrong to conclude that the death of a child must mean that God is punishing the parents, or that the child would be alive if only the parents had not sinned in this or that way. Such conclusions are understandable but unwarranted by the data. If that was God’s way, there should be more examples in Scripture. There were certainly many occasions. We should find such occurrences on every page. But, such are conspicuously absent. David is clearly an exception.

Why God Killed Jeroboam’s Son

Jeroboam is the other case where the death of a child is specifically related to the sins of the father.

Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel: “Because I exalted you from among the people, and made you ruler over My people Israel, and tore the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it to you; and yet you have not been as My servant David, who kept My commandments and who followed Me with all his heart, to do only what was right in My eyes; but you have done more evil than all who were before you, for you have gone and made for yourself other gods and molded images to provoke Me to anger, and have cast Me behind your back— therefore behold! I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male in Israel, bond and free; I will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as one takes away refuse until it is all gone.  The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field; for the Lord has spoken!” ’ Arise therefore, go to your own house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:7–13).

Unlike David’s son, this is an example of God’s visiting the children of those who hate Him. But like David, these are the scandalous sins of a King of Israel. The child was old enough that “something good toward the Lord God of Israel” was found in him. This contrast highlights the child’s death as a judgment on the father, not the son. Nevertheless, God killed a good child because of a wicked father. And it was just the beginning.[14] If there was something good in the child, this hints that this child was converted. If so, he suffered no lasting harm. We cannot say the same for his father.

Why God Killed the Widow’s Son

Now it happened after these things that the son of the woman who owned the house became sick. And his sickness was so serious that there was no breath left in him. So she said to Elijah, “What have I to do with you, O man of God? Have you come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to kill my son?” And he said to her, “Give me your son.” So he took him out of her arms and carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his own bed. Then he cried out to the Lord and said, “O Lord my God, have You also brought tragedy on the widow with whom I lodge, by killing her son?” And he stretched himself out on the child three times, and cried out to the Lord and said, “O Lord my God, I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.” Then the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived. And Elijah took the child and brought him down from the upper room into the house, and gave him to his mother. And Elijah said, “See, your son lives!” Then the woman said to Elijah, “Now by this I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is the truth” (1 Kings 17:17–24).

She was not necessarily correct, but the woman thought the death of her child might have been because of her sin. Given verse 24, it seems more likely that such was not the case.[15] This seems more like the death of Lazarus, which had to happen in order that God might raise him from the dead. It pleases God at times to bring trouble on the children of believers in order that He might answer their fervent prayers. Doubtless this also strengthens many graces, such as prayer, faith, fervency, gratitude, thanksgiving, praise, patience, compassion, sympathy, submission, humility, unity, spiritual mindedness, fellowship, and love.

Adam the First

Children suffer because of Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin is a special case, the most terrible of all in that regard. Calvinists are not alone in thinking so; Arminians agree. In the words of one prominent Arminian, “By the commission of sin, Adam corrupted himself and all his posterity and rendered them obnoxious to the wrath of God.”[16] We all inherit Adam’s nature and condemnation. Some will recoil so violently and reflexively against this doctrine that they will not be able or willing to fairly consider the biblical data. This doctrine is like a train tunnel. It looks so dark and horrifying that many will refuse to enter. But those who follow the tracks of Scripture emerge brightly on the other side.

Adam’s Nature Inherited

Concerning Adam’s nature, “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom5:19a). Adam’s sin “made” all of us sinners. Like David, we were “conceived” in iniquity (Psa 51:5). Even apart from Romans 5 (which we will return to), this is manifest. Given time and opportunity, all children add their own personal sin in wretched, willful abundance. As they mature, their sins also mature. It is an increasingly grievous thing to observe. Such universal uniformity of behavior manifests universal uniformity of nature, the corrupt nature inherited from Adam. No other explanation is adequate.

Adam’s Condemnation Inherited

In addition to inheriting Adam’s corrupt nature, we also inherit his condemnation. God commanded Adam, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). The description of that curse is expanded in Genesis 3:16-19. Childbirth and labor will be painful and difficult. And in verse 23 of the same chapter God casts Adam and Eve out of Eden. This manifold curse has manifestly been applied not only to Adam but to all his posterity. Children are born outside of Eden[17] and in this life they will never enter it. Children are cursed with difficulty in their labor. And children die. Why? Because of “one man’s disobedience.” Children suffer because of Adam’s sin. They did not personally eat the forbidden fruit, but they are swept up in Adam’s condemnation as though they had. By definition, that is the imputation of Adam’s sin.

The Opposite Inheritance in Jesus Christ

We return to Romans 5:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 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. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 5:12-21).

The imputation of Adam’s sin is not Paul’s conclusion; it is his presupposition. Christ’s death does not change the fact of my sin. So how can Christ’s death release me from punishment? How can any death other than my own satisfy divine justice? How can His righteousness be credited to my sinful account? Paul cites the imputation of Adam’s sin to explain the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Adam’s morality is imputed to those who are in Adam, resulting in their condemnation. Likewise, Christ’s morality (including His perfect obedience and substitutionary death and resurrection) is imputed to those who are in Christ, resulting in their justification. Without this principle of imputation, there could be no gospel. Without imputation, Christ’s death could not be “for” my sins, nor could I be counted righteous on His account. I would have to be personally righteous, or I would have to personally die. Without imputation, Christ could not do it for me. Thus, imputation is the very fulcrum of the gospel. If one could overthrow Paul’s premise (the imputation of Adam’s sin), one would simultaneously overthrow his conclusion (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness). If one could overthrow Adamic imputation, the gospel itself would be collateral damage. If Adam’s sin has not been imputed to you, then neither has Christ’s righteousness. You are still in your sins. If Adam’s sin cannot be imputed to you, then neither can Christ’s righteousness. You have no hope. But praise be to God, we do have righteousness in Christ! “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).

Dashing Children

Isaiah 13:16 foretells that the children of Babylon will be dashed to pieces. “Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.” This is the judgment of God.[18] Psalm 137:9 seems to refer to that passage in Isaiah: “Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!” These are hard sayings indeed.

Osgood’s Handling Adopted by Kaiser

Following Howard Osgood, Kaiser summarizes three points relative to Psalm 137.

First Point – New Testament Allusion

First, Jesus alludes to Psalm 137 in Luke 19:44.

Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, “Raze it, raze it, To its very foundation!” O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock (Psa 137:7-9)!

This refers to a city being razed to its very foundation, in other words, no stone left on another. And, the dashing of Babylon’s little ones was repayment in kind. Compare this to Jesus’ statement in Luke 19:44, that invaders would come “and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” In Luke 19:44, it is not just stones being leveled. In some sense children would also be leveled along with adults.

That allusion is interesting, but Kaiser’s larger point seems to be that Psalm 137:9 (and by extension Isaiah 13:16) does not literally indicate the destruction of small children. (This tendency will be seen in his next two points.) If so, it is unclear how this helps his case. The suffering in Jerusalem was extreme, and we cannot certainly know all that happened in those terrible days.

Second Point – Meaning of the Word

Second, the word translated “little ones” (עוֹלֵל) “does not specify age, but only the relationship that person bears to his parents. It may mean a very young infant as well as a grown up.”[19] As Kaiser indicates, the word does not limit the age at either end of the spectrum. In the absence of qualifiers, and given a large population, that would necessarily include small children and infants. In other words, he has made clear that the set includes older children, but he has not removed younger children from the set. The only potential qualifier is theological rather than exegetical or linguistic. But given the Genesis flood and other examples already examined, it is difficult to see why those passages include the destruction of small children, but this does not.

Third Point - Metaphorical

Third, Babylonia had no cliffs from which to throw people, so he argues the language of Jeremiah must be metaphorical. But the empire and hegemony of Babylon stretched beyond the plains and certainly did include cliffs, so Jeremiah could have also been literal even if unnecessarily limited to the territories of Babylon. Moreover, Isaiah 13:16 and Psalm 137:9 require no cliffs. Kaiser also points to Psalm 141:6 as being an example of rulers being metaphorical. Psalm 141:6 is a questionable example[20], but other passages are clearly metaphorical. There are also passages that are literal.[21] But even if we take it figuratively, it is not a meaningless figure. We understand that children are being brutally killed. Whatever the precise method, it was not death by painless lethal injection. The enemy was armed with swords, not syringes.

Babylon as Eschatological Type

Babylon is also an eschatological type. This does not resolve the tension. There had to be a very real judgment on Babylon else it could not serve as a type of the greater judgment to come. And even if that typology did mean that such horrible things were not literally done to the children of Babylon, that would only kick the can down the road. On the day of judgment, the bill must be paid with interest. The substance always exceeds the figure. So if the figure is children being dashed on the stones, then what must be the eschatological substance?

Perhaps one thing that Psalm 137:9 should remind us of is that the judgment of God is a good thing for which God will be deservedly praised, and in which His people will rejoice. But at present, this is difficult to harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

Conclusion

While societal sins (setting aside Adam’s special case) are the most common causes of children’s suffering, that is probably not a complete or satisfying answer. How can the suffering described and the happiness of Psalm 137:9 be consistent with the goodness of God? Some deny the goodness of God. Some deny His power. Others seek to piecemeal minimize the magnitude of the difficulty. At times, they almost give the impression that there is no such happiness or suffering. This study has shown the facts to be as starkly terrible and difficult as ever. It is the judgment paradox. In the absence of a better answer, we reaffirm what we know: that God is good, and loving, and just, and in control, even when we do not understand.


[2] I leave untouched the question of what to say as one looks into the red eyes of grieving parents but respectfully acknowledge the profundity of their pain with as much genuine sympathy as my limited experience enables. Among temporal evils, I can imagine none greater.

[4] All Scripture citations in this work are taken from The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982) unless otherwise noted.

[5] For example, many Arminians seek to save the honor of God by denying predestination.

[6] See also Deut 2:30-34.

[7] God’s title as “Lord of Hosts” reminds us that every army is under His command. Therefore, every invading army serves His sovereign will and accomplishes His purposes. They are not autonomous.

[8] John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Num 31:17.

[9] James E. Smith, The Pentateuch, 2nd ed., Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1993), 467.

[10] Note that God was not merely removing an obstacle. He was executing judgment after generations of longsuffering (Gen 15:16). He could have gently transplanted the Canaanites (or their children) elsewhere. That would have removed the obstacle but would not have satisfied divine justice. God will likewise “remove” the wicked on the Day of Judgment (Psa 37:10; Psa 52:5; Psa 69:25; Psa 103:16; Prov 10:30; Joel 2:20; Matt 5:5; Luke 17:36-37). Even if the parents might have fled and escaped, the children had no such option. The children had no choice but to stay with their parents. Like the Day of Judgment that it prefigures, this is a good and glorious but terrible and heart-breaking thing that I do not pretend to fully understand.

[11] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 267.

[13] Ibid., 456.

[14] One wonders what would have happened had the mother never set foot in the city. We might take “go to your own house” as a divine command. Or it might merely be permissive. If the later, then returning home indicated that she did not believe God. In a negative way, it evokes Matt 8:13 and John 4:53.

[15] A similar event happens with Elisha and the Shunamite woman’s child, but it is omitted from this paper because there is no divine commentary concerning God’s reasons. But again, it seems likely that this was to set up the miracle, especially given the relationship of Elisha and Elijah. It shows that Elisha was a prophet like Elijah.

[16] James Arminius, The Works of Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, vol. 2 (Auburn; Buffalo: Derby, and Miller; Derby, Orton and Mulligan, 1853), 390.

[17] At conception, children are already out of the garden and subject to disease, deformity, and death. This cannot be due to sins they have personally committed, because they have had no opportunity. Therefore, the fact that children are conceived outside the garden of Eden is especially strong evidence that they bear the condemnation of Adam’s sin.

[18] One might also speculate if it could simultaneously be mercy on those very children. It would have been better for Judas “if he had never been born” (Mark 14:21). If he had not been born, he could never have betrayed the Lamb of God and incurred so great a condemnation. Likewise, dashed children will not go on to accumulate greater guilt and condemnation. On the day of judgment, it will be better for them than for many.

[19] Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, 297.

[20] Supposedly it is metaphorical because Psa 141:6 says, “Their judges are overthrown by the sides of the cliff, and they hear my words, for they are sweet.” How can they hear His words if they have been thrown off a cliff? This interpretation reads in a sequence that is not necessary: they were cast over, and then they heard. But no violence is done to the text by reversing that order, especially if hearing and casting both occurred at the same hour and in close relation. The cause of their execution might well be spoken at the time of execution. Such would be manifestly appropriate. This would also have been a suitable irony – judges who once gave sentence before the execution of condemned men are now hearing God’s sentence against them before they themselves are executed.

[21] There are examples of such language being used literally and figuratively. Literally: In 2 Kings 8:12, Elisha foretells that Hazael will slay young men with the sword, dash children, and rip open pregnant women. 2 Chron 25:12 describes Israel casting prisoners off a cliff as a means of dashing them to death on the rocks below, indicating one means of doing so. Figuratively: Isa 13:18 would have better supported Kaiser’s point. It predicts the young men of Babylon being dashed by the bows of the enemy. This indicates a figurative expression – dashing as a description of utter destruction. It could even be argued on that basis that verse 16, being in the same context, was also figurative. Notable, but the subject verses do not seem to be likewise figurative, though such could be argued. Rather, it seems like a well-turned phrase with the figurative of verse 18 playing off the literal of verse 16. But at a minimum, verse 18 is certainly metaphorical. Jer 13:14 is probably another figurative example, where sons and fathers are dashed against each other. Likewise in Hos 10:14, mothers and children are dashed against each other.

/ /

Eric Sims