About Psalm 137

[shunyadragon]

I don't think it's "stupid" to find this verse problematic --- I am not in any way "comforted" by it, but it was, in fact, a record of the reaction of Jews in exile, crying out to God.

Source: NewBibleCommentary

C. Imprecating Zion’s destroyers (137:7–9)

The last part of this psalm must be understood in the light of the great mourning of the Jews in exile. As an imprecation (cf. comments under “Theology of the Psalms” in the Introduction), it is a prayer for God to exact vengeance on their captors and those who aided them.
137:7. This is a plea for God to remember … the Edomites (cf. the psalmist’s remembering, v. 6) who had rejoiced while the city of Jerusalem was being destroyed and encouraged the destroyers (cf. Ezek. 25:12; Joel 3:19). So the psalmist wanted God to bring retribution on Edom.
137:8–9. The psalmist addressed his curse to Babylon directly. The Babylonians should note that the Lord would destroy them measure for measure, that is, their little ones would be dashed against the rocks (cf. Isa. 13:16) for the Babylonians apparently had done this to the Jerusalemites. This is perhaps the most painful imprecation in the Book of Psalms. To the exiled psalmist, those who had ravaged the Holy Land deserved no better. Great sadness and bitterness filled the hearts of the Israelites who were in captivity (cf. Lam. 1–2).


Ross, A. P. (1985). Psalms. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 890). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

© Copyright Original Source

It is not anything like God telling us to go kill babies.

The Psalms were most likely Canaanite texts based on the evidence and not written in Babylonian exile, or in reference to the exile. The texts of the Psalms are heavily polytheistic, Persia at the time of the exile was dominantly Monotheistic, and represent the early pre-Kingdom history of the Hebrews who had a close tribal association with the Canaanites and Philistines. Since the Hebrews did not have their own distinctive written language it inherited a large amount of their written scripture from earlier sources. It needs to be understood that much of the Tanakh was not written specifically by Hebrews, but evolved from older texts from different tribes and cultures of the Middle East before the Hebrews had a distinct written language.

Early references originating from older texts have reference to a violent inter tribal conflict and human sacrafice.

[Cow Poke]

That follows from rejecting parts of the Bible, so is already covered by what I said I learnt.

Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Thanks.

[KingsGambit]

Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Thanks.

I learnt something new today.

[Cow Poke]

I learnt something new today.

Somebody hand me a ball bat!

[Cerebrum123]

Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

Where did I ever claim the first?

Taking the Bible in it's context, and how it was intended to be understood by the authors[1] is one of the things I try to get as close to as I possibly can.

The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

Cruel action, seems to depend on the situation, like the Canaanites, or driving the money changers out of the Temple[2]. Cruel words, yes, even Jesus was quite harsh, even to those who were not enemies. He called Peter "Satan" after all.

1.Yes, I do include God as the "primary" author, but acknowledge that men were the ones holding the pens.
2. This is another incident in the Bible that is often attacked as "barbaric" as well.

[whag]

The Psalms were most likely Canaanite texts based on the evidence and not written in Babylonian exile, or in reference to the exile. The texts of the Psalms are heavily polytheistic, Persia at the time of the exile was dominantly Monotheistic, and represent the early pre-Kingdom history of the Hebrews who had a close tribal association with the Canaanites and Philistines. Since the Hebrews did not have their own distinctive written language it inherited a large amount of their written scripture from earlier sources. It needs to be understood that much of the Tanakh was not written specifically by Hebrews, but evolved from older texts from different tribes and cultures of the Middle East before the Hebrews had a distinct written language.

Early references originating from older texts have reference to a violent inter tribal conflict and human sacrafice.

That's what disturbs me about the apologias for this psalm. I don't consider plunging a knife into a baby (via the sacrificial practices you mentioned) or throwing an infant against a rock (per the psalm) an understandable "human" feeling, even if I had been oppressed by the parents of those babies.

I don't, for example, identify with extremist Muslims who want to get revenge on the west by killing civilians and children.

[The Pixie]

Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Looks like yet another unsupported claim by a professed Christian that I reject.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/wo...rnt-vs-learned

[KingsGambit]

That's what disturbs me about the apologias for this psalm. I don't consider plunging a knife into a baby (via the sacrificial practices you mentioned) or throwing an infant against a rock (per the psalm) an understandable "human" feeling, even if I had been oppressed by the parents of those babies.

I don't, for example, identify with extremist Muslims who want to get revenge on the west by killing civilians and children.

I think the best thing to keep in mind here is Adrift's quotation of John Goldingay in post 12. Much of the biblical language in apocalyptic, prophetic, and poetic books is picture language contributing to an overall impression and not intended to press literal details (note Goldingay's argument that the children may refer to Babylon as a whole and not literally to Babylonian children). Yes, it is disturbing... but that's the very point.

[whag]

I think the best thing to keep in mind here is Adrift's quotation of John Goldingay in post 12. Much of the biblical language in apocalyptic, prophetic, and poetic books is picture language contributing to an overall impression and not intended to press literal details (note Goldingay's argument that the children may refer to Babylon as a whole and not literally to Babylonian children). Yes, it is disturbing... but that's the very point.

I did see that and forgot to like it. It's really the only apologia that should be offered, not this claptrap about baby-smashing urges being an "understandable" emotion in war.

[Sparko]

So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?

[whag]

John Goldingay makes an interesting point about that passage in his commentary on Psalms,

This is the only apologia that works, IMO, since asking people to accept that baby-dashing/smashing is an understandable "human" emotion--even in war--is beyond the pale.

[whag]

So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?

The abortion card. Nice.

[Sparko]

This is the only apologia that works, IMO, since asking people to accept that baby-dashing/smashing is an understandable "human" emotion--even in war--is beyond the pale.

We do it everyday, in peacetime. Yet it is called "abortion" and "having control of a woman's own body" to make it more palatable.

[Sparko]

The abortion card. Nice.

Ignoring it. nice.

I agree that the psalm was more about asking God to revenge the deaths of their own people than actually condoning killing children for pleasure. But it seems strange to me that known liberals such as yourself and Pixie want to decry the inhumanity of killing children in war, but have no problem with women killing their own children by the thousands during peacetime for convenience.

[Cerebrum123]

The abortion card. Nice.

If anything, it's "The hypocrisy card".