What is the eternal destiny of infants who die?
 |
| Gehazi attempts to awaken the son of the Sunammite woman with the staff of Elisha (2 Kings 4.29-31), engraving by Bernhard Rode before 1780. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Spurgeon explains the context of this verse: This good Shunammite was asked by Gehazi, whether it was well with herself. She was mourning over a lost child, and yet she said, “It is well;” she felt that the trial would surely be blessed. “Is it well with thy husband?” He was old and stricken in years, and was ripening for death, yet she said, “Yes, it is well.” Then came the question about her child, it was dead at home, and the enquiry would renew her griefs, “Is it well with the child?” Yet she said, “It is well,” perhaps so answering because she had a faith that soon it should be restored to her, and that its temporary absence was well; or rather because she was persuaded that whatever might have become of its spirit, it was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss—for that suspicion would have quite prevented her giving such answer—she said “Yes, the child is dead, but ‘it is well.’”
Why did the Shunammite woman answer the question as she did? The majority opinion in the commentaries is that she was being deceptive, in order to speak directly to Elisha. After all, she held him responsible for the child–it was his prophecy that gave the child life, and now his absence has ushered in his death. So she lied to Gehazi in order to get to Elisha. She concealed her son’s death from the boy’s father, she left for Elisha under false pretense, so deceiving Gehazi is likely enough.
Why deceive Gehazi? She gained nothing from that answer. And then, when she laid eyes on Elisha, obviously the dam broke, and she collapsed in anguish, grabbing his feet and weeping, barely able to speak. The narrative of the calculating and conniving mother doesn’t seem to fit.
Can we agree with Spurgeon about what the woman meant when she attested that her son was well. At the very least, it is as plausible of an explanation as crediting the the woman with deception.
In Spurgeon’s sermon, he went on to give the application, which is obvious:
"Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that “answer of a good conscience towards God;” nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, “well” eternally."
There are those who think the Bible’s teaching on infant salvation is not clear, or at least is confined to children of the covenant, whatever that means. But when added to the list of the other 26 passages, I think the case is insurmountable. Every single verse in the Bible that speaks to this issue, points to the fact that those who die at a young age simply lived their lives on the short road to glory.
