First of all, we should note again that the psalmist's maledictions are never merely personal. The psalmist in 137 is bemoaning the injustices committed against Israel by Edom and Babylon. The historical context is most likely the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC, during which time the Edomites availed themselves of Judah's weakened condition and further violated its citizens - their distant cousins. The prophecy of Obadiah is directed against Edom for this particularly heinous atrocity and callous aggression (cf. Jer.49:7-22; Isa.34:5-17). You'll note the similarlity between these prophetic declarations and the psalmist's prayer. Obadiah, for instance, declares, "As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head." The Psalmist in 137, now in reference to Babylon (cf. Hab.2:4-20; Jer.50-51; Isa.13; 21:1-10; 47), writes, "happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us," v.8. If in this the psalmist is accussed of sin, let it be acknowledged that it is because he celebrates the justice of God in His righteous judgment against the cruel destroyer. And v.9, of course, must be read in its immediate context. It is applying and particularizing the principle articulated v.8. As they have dashed our children to the ground, so let the avenger (who, as it turns out, will be the Medo-Persians) dash their infants!
It was a common, grisly practice in ancient warfare (see 2Ki.8:12; Hos.10:14; 13:16; Nah.3:10; Lk.19:44). Sadly, it is not unknown in modern times either; during WWII at Bromberg, it was observed that the S.S. would "take the Jewish children by their feet and break their heads by striking them against the wall..."
In fact, it is prophesied by Isaiah that such fate would fall upon the Babylonians themselves, who committed such violence:
Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.As they have done to others, so it will be done to them. And again, it would appear that the psalmist in 137 is celebrating or anticipating God's coming justice against the Babylonians - gruesome as it is! This makes us uncomfortable. Can we really celebrate such brutal justice? But here we might recall (again) that heaven itself calls the church to similarly celebrate the terrible retribution that falls against "Babylon the Great," the violent oppressor of the saints, in Revelation 18:1-19:3. Justice will have been thereby established on the earth.
Justice here does not necessarily pertain to the question of the relative guilt or innocence of the infants. In Scripture it is assumed that infants are not morally culpable agents (e.g., Isa.7:16). Rather, this judgment is conceived as coming against the Babylonian aggressors. We might note that God has destroyed the life of infants elsewhere in judgment directed against the parents, most famously in the case of David (2Sam.12:13-15). We might also note the death of the firstborn in Egypt by God's mysterious agent, "the Destroyer," as judgment against Pharaoh's obstinance.
Of course, as Scripture makes clear, the sons are not imputed with their father's guilt, nor vice versa (Ez.18:20). So the children are not considered guilty for their father's atrocities. However, the scriptures also say: "[God] does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." In other words, there are divinely instituted consequences for sins which affect generations (though God here sets limits on their impact, by His mercy, whereas His grace abounds to thousands of generations). My sin and its detrimental impact cannot be neatly confined to my own life. So, the infant in David's case is not held as culpable for his father's sins, but he is to some extent punished for them. More directly, David is punished through his child's illness and death.
Even so, it is asked, how is this fair? Here we must go back to the biblical framework for human history: creation and fall. The wages of sin is death, and so all die because, in Adam, "all sinned," even those who did not sin by actually breaking the commandment (Rom.5:12-14). Throughout the course of our lives, our actual transgressions bear witness against us concerning our damnable condition. But we are under curse from the moment we're conceived. As David wrote, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me," Ps.51:5. It is the tragic reality of "Adam's helpless race." And as a result, "in Adam, all die," (1Co.15:22). The judgment that befell us in our forefather was death - a death graciously prolonged in the case of many, allowing some of us an entire life-time in God's patience and grace. Nevertheless the whole human race is on death row. No one gets out of here alive. Moreover, none of us can demand that we are given first breath upon birth - not to mention God's continual care for us within the womb (e.g., Ps.139:13-14). We live by mercy alone, and we will die by justice.
All this to say that it is not unjust for God to bring the infant's life to an end, according to his purposes in judgment and providence, any more so than bringing the octogenarian's life to an end in a tragic car accident.
Lastly, we must be careful to maintain the distinctions Scripture maintains. If it is in fact just that the evil that I have perpetrated against others be exacted against me (in one form or another), it is not necessarily just for someone to enact it. When the Medes came against Babylon, and dashed their infants' heads against the ground, though they unwittingly carried out God's judgment against the Babylonians, they themselves acted wickedly - just as the Babylonian's and Assyrian's violence against the infants of Israel and Judah were, in and of themselves, unjust, and yet the vehicle of God's just judgment against His own people (e.g., Hos.13:16). Once again, the cross stands as the ultimate illustration of this principle. Jesus' unjust condemnation and crucifixion - for which those agents who were responsible are held culpable by God - was in fact the foreordained means (e.g, Ac.2:23; 4:27-28) of God's righteous accomplishment of His saving purposes (Ro.3:25-26).
Moreover, even if the retributive principle can be justly applied by the hands of men, it obviously does not follow that I am the one to enact it. Lex talionis was established not to justify revenge or excerbate violence through endless retaliation, but rather to delimit retribution in Israel's courts, and to undercut personal vengenence. God alone is the avenger in Scripture, and we look ultimately to him to establish justice for us.
In summary, we cannot read Psalm 137:9 as a justification for infanticide. But we would do well, in response to this psalm and others like it, to remember that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is always wrong to take human life without justifiable cause. But God has justifiable cause against us! And as the Judge, He sovereignly determines how justice will be executed. This ought to humble us, and yield repentance. Rather than assigning blame, or seeking (in vain) to unravel God's myterious providence, Jesus tells us in light of similar tragedies, "unless you repent, you too will all perish," (Lk.13:1-5).
9 comments:
Caught your blog in the midst of some extended reflection on Biblical imprecations.
You make a good case that you can't separate Psalm 137:9 from many other parts of the OT and NT that wish the punishment/destruction of enemies of Israel/the Church/God. I accept it; they all essentially amount to the same thing. The NT even intensifies it with the doctrine of hell.
Here's where we part company. Is X just merely because the Bible says it is? I think that's where you are coming from. You cite a large number of passages in which various acts of violence against evil human beings and their descendants either directly performed by God or providentially arranged by Him are called just. (I'm granting that the Biblical portrayals are accurate for the sake of argument.) Therefore, the wish to have Babylonian infants killed can be part of God's justice against Babylon. In other words, your clinching argument is "God says it is just and we have to trust that he is right because he's God." I know I'm simplifying the argument but I don't think I'm missing anything crucial to your point. Correct me if I'm wrong.
OK, so in this world the righteous should wish for the destruction of the infants of the Babylonian Empire and not be able to explain why it is just except that God says it is and they trust him. Would you say that justice is something we will only fully understand in the final judgment?
Or maybe not. My systematics and apologetics professors stressed that God is ultimately incomprensible and that anything we know about him is known in a limited, "analogous" way, so that at every point his character, will, purposes, etc. are ultimately beyond our comprehension. We will hit irresolvable tensions at every point, and these tensions will never be resolved because we will always be finite. Maybe we need further "revelation" to understand why it is just for infants to die as a consequence of the sins of their parents and God does not plan to reveal that to us, or at least not to those who are condemned. It's his prerogative, right?
I don't buy it. A God of infinite wisdom, power, love and justice can do better than that. Are you telling me that it is impossible for God to so order the world that sinful human beings can live together with a comprehensible idea of what is just and right? In fact, in my opinion he already has; for the most part people know what is right, we just don't do it. And we work hard to come up with excuses for ourselves. And we let our passions and prejudices darken the conscience and lie to ourselves and each other so that the basic truths about justice get buried under a crapload of social approval/disapproval.
But it doesn't take much to get most hard-hearted, blind, self-justifying liars to start backpedalling. (Not that I'm calling you any of those things :^} ) A little truth plainly stated can work wonders.
So here's a bit of it: you know that killing babies because their parents are criminals is itself a crime. It doesn't matter whether the Medes, I, an archangel or Jesus himself does it or tells you it's right to do it. It doesn't matter whether it's now, at the "eschaton" or in a billion years afterward. You know it even if the Bible asserts it's not true. Which means that the writer of Psalm 137:9 is advocating a criminal deed. Which means. if you are right about the consistency of Psalm 137 with other parts of the OT and NT, that many other Biblical authors, perhaps Jesus himself (although I doubt that), advocated criminal deeds. I accept that implication and try to live with it as a professing -- unorthodox -- Christian.
Maybe you think I'm arrogant for telling you what you know. That's fine with me. Let your conscience be your guide.
Hey Dean,
I think "the wish to have Babylonian infants killed" might be somewhat inaccurate. The desire is for Babylonian retribution in accordance to Lex Talionis ('as it has been done by them...'). But does this mean that the pslamist here is commending infanticide as morally justifiable? Not necessarily...
Scripture teaches that God will "be pleased" to punish an apostate Israel, bringing righteous retribution against the wicked (Dt.28:63). Yet Scripture also teaches that God does not take pleasure in the suffering and death of the wicked(Ez.18:23)! What does this mean? God is just, and He delights in justice. But He is not a sadist.
Likewise, the psalmist is not taking delight in the murder of Babylonian infants per se, but in the just retribution this action effects against the nation in the designs of God's providence. Perhaps you think the distinction too fine, yet it is significant and meaningful.
You'll note, the psalmist is not here calling Israel to holy war against Babylon (a political and military impossibility at the time). Rather, the psalmist leaves these matters in the hands of God (cf. Ps.137:7). Jesus follows suit, yet with a different response (for now the judgment befalls not Israel's enemies, but Israel herself):
"As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-- but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." Lk.19:41-44; see also 21:20-24; 23:27-31.
So the critical question is whether God is justified in killing infants, whether through disease, SIDS, starvation, or through (wicked)human agency. And the answer, as I've argued here, is "yes".
Are we? No. Does this necessitate that God functions with a different standard of morality? No. A judge, in executing the sanctions of law, can do justly that which I cannot. It is a matter of divine authority and sanction - a divine authority and sanction which I would point out is entirely consistent with moral righteousness.
Because the human race belongs to God, and we are all under the morbid shroud of Adam, we are all at His mercy. Fortunately, God is merciful. Yet none of us can demand that He preserves our lives or grants us a peaceful, painless death. In Adam, death is our destiny - whether at 2 months or 92 years.
In short, we cannot take human life without justifiable cause (e.g., self-defense in a life-threating situation). God can, however, because He already has a justifiable cause, and as our Maker and Judge, has every right to execute that judgment in accordance with His gracous and righteous purposes.
Dear James,
I see good and bad in your response. On the one hand, you bring original sin into the conversation, but is the psalmist thinking about that? On the other, by making a distinction between what God and we may do, you extend the application of the psalm toward gospel.
As you point out, the psalmist blesses the killer(s) of infants because they are paying back Babylon for what was done to Jews. Some points:
1. How is this lex talionis? Find me evidence that the Babylonians did this to Jewish infants. Nebuchadnezzar had Zedekiah's sons killed in his presence. By the law of lex talionis, Amel-Marduk should be killed. Or maybe there are undocumented cases of Babylonian soldiers doing this. Were they following orders? And what about the infants of Babylonians who were not there at alL or who didn't support Nebuchadnezzar's war policy? The psalmist is not interested in lex talionis except as a way of achieving solace in his grief. If he were concerned about legalities, he would be specific: "54 members of the Babylonian army murdered infants during the siege of Jerusalem. Let the children of all 54 be murdered in return."
2. The psalmist is not distinguishing between what God and humans are allowed to do. He blesses those who kill Babylonian infants. Is he referring to God, angels, or demons? I agree that he is not thinking of himself or his fellow exiles. More likely another invading army, ala Isaiah 13. By pronouncing a blessing on the human executioners, the psalmist is saying that what they are doing is a good thing; that's what Babylon deserves, and whoever does it gets his blessing.
3. The psalmist's wish, taken literally, was never fulfilled. That goes for Isaiah 13 too.
4. What about the Babylonian infants? WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID THEY DO TO THE JEWS? Many weren't even born yet. They did NOT deserve to be executed because of their ancestors' behavior, not by the Medes, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, a plague, a flood, or a legion of angels. They are NOT GUILTY of the exile of the Jews. But THAT's why the psalmist wants them to die. Original sin is irrelevant here. Taken literally, the psalmist is calling for something inherently unjust, period.
Who says we have to take the psalmist literally? Well, I do, at least in terms of respecting the original intent. But when it comes to deriving something useful for myself, that's another matter altogether. And I think we're together on this. I agree with you that the psalmist is focusing his call for "justice" on the Babylonians responsible for carrying out the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews. Execution of their infants is a punishment for them. Wipe every memory of them from the face of the earth.
Is there a way to do this without involving those who are NOT GUILTY of their crimes in their punishment? Yes. Rather than killing the infants, how about "stealing" them from their parents? Wipe out the Babylonian murderers by having their children call them murderers to their faces, refuse to carry on their traditions and make every effort to raise the grandchildren to consider their grandparents' actions shameful and accursed. Convert the kids, and you punish the parents. Not only that, but this kind of punishment might lead to the parents' conversion. That extinguishes the evil but in the end harms nobody.
As you are probably aware, some commentators on this psalm have argued that efforts to convert the children of sinners is an application of the psalmist's blessing. I think your care to distinguish between what God and we are justified in doing tends in this direction. After all, if we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to carry out vengeance, what are we supposed to do with evil people? Ah, "overcome evil with good." I would spend a lot of time working on accomplishing this and not much trying to explain away the ruthlessness of the psalmist's language taken in its normal sense. And I'll bet that's just what you do, like most other Christians.
Dean,
The point of introducing original sin is not an exegetical point but a theological response - a theodicy - to explain God's righteousness in regard to infant death, whether inflicted by disease or the hands of men. In other words, in a fallen world (under the divine curse of death), there is nothing 'un-kosher' about God ordaining the deaths of infants...or anyone else. Death is what is due us. To quote Augustine, Adam's offspring, comprehended in toto, is "a mass of perdition."
Lex talionis is most certainly applicable here. It is evident that this grisly practice utilized in ancient warfare, by Babylon in particular. This is also reflected in the prophetic writings regarding Babylon, some of which I quoted in this post.
Lex talionis isn't necessarily a mathematically precise formula. It is a principle: as you have done to Israel (e.g., smashing infants), may it be done to you. See again the principle loosely but truly applied in Rev.19 (where Babylon apparently receives back "double").
You write, "The psalmist is not distinguishing between what God and humans are allowed to do. He blesses those who kill Babylonian infants...More likely another invading army, ala Isaiah 13. By pronouncing a blessing on the human executioners, the psalmist is saying that what they are doing is a good thing; that's what Babylon deserves, and whoever does it gets his blessing."
Yes, of course. In so far as they enacted God's justice, they are "blessed," even while they are cursed for their undue violence and wicked intentions. The "blessedness" declares the justice of their actions, even if their motives and excesses attract God's judgment. This is certainly controversial (and gave Habakkuk no small trouble when he found out that the righteous God would justly judge Israel through Babylon, and yet God would then punish Babylon for their excesses in violence and empire-building): how can God use evil to establish justice? But such a concurrence of divine action and human wickedness stands front and center in the cross of Christ.
"3. The psalmist's wish, taken literally, was never fulfilled. That goes for Isaiah 13 too."
Says who? The Medes were known for their brutality in this regard, and there is little evidence to argue that such didn't happen. Indeed, its nearly impossible to prove that it didn't or couldn't have happened.
Lastly you ask about the Babylonian infants...again, my original post deals with that question so I don't see a need to rehash that here.
Dear James,
In regard to the psalmist's blessing on the humans who smash Babylonian infants against the rocks, you say, "Yes, of course. In so far as they enacted God's justice, they are 'blessed,' even while they are cursed for their undue violence and wicked intentions. The 'blessedness' declares the justice of their actions, even if their motives and excesses attract God's judgment." Undue violence? Excesses?
Yes, I understand that it was common for the prophets to portray violent conquest and the accompanying sufferings of the civilian population as God's judgment. And given how extreme and apparently arbitrary that violence, they stress how angry God is with Israel, how greatly taxed his patience by their stubbornness. They are so bad (collectively) that the worst a heathen army can dish out is less than they deserve.
And I get that the heathen army is not at all motivated by that same zeal for God's glory or justice or whatever else of God's the the prophets are so sure needs to be defended by these means. I'll leave loving one's neighbor entirely out of the discussion, just to keep things simple. The heathen, being enlisted to do God's strange work, end up being worse than the Israelites because they kill, maim, rape, and ravage for pleasure, revenge, patriotism -- anything but God's glory.
But I don't get this: How do you disembowel pregnant women, rape young girls, burn houses down with the inhabitants inside, hang people alive from the walls of the city and torture them, or whatever other monstrosities you want to pull from ancient sources -- out of a due sense for God's glory?
If, out of a due sense for God's glory, the heathen army wouldn't do these things, what would they do? No rape, just disembowelment? No torture, just execution? No burning, just burying people in the rubble? Or, would they do all the same things, but sing a Te Deum afterwards? Or are all your distinctions between the just judgment of God and the unjust executors of it a backhanded assertion there is no way for anyone but God himself to carry out his vengeance without making oneself liable to his vengeance in turn?
Of course, you could adopt a modified version of my last point: there is no way for a sinful human being to carry out God's vengeance without making oneself liable to his vengeance in turn. Let's say, for argument's sake, that God sent angels to execute the judgment. How would it be different?
Regarding my assertion that Psalm 137:9 and Isaiah 13, taken literally, never happened, you say, "Says who? The Medes were known for their brutality in this regard, and there is little evidence to argue that such didn't happen. Indeed, its nearly impossible to prove that it didn't or couldn't have happened." True enough, we don't have much physical or documentary evidence for this period of Babylonian history. You are welcome to take what little there is and fit Psalm 137:9 and Isaiah 13 into it. The suppression of the Babylonian rebellion in 482/1 (?) could be in the ballpark. It just strikes me as odd that the return from exile as an historical fulfillment of prophecy gets considerable mention in OT texts but the only part of the predictions against Babylon that gets mentioned as an historical fulfillment is the transfer of imperial authority to Persia. There are numerous ways to try to resolve this. What do you think of this one? The history of Babylon in the Persian period as remembered by the Jews and others did not correspond to the predictions of the prophets (Isaiah 13, Jeremiah 51, Psalm 137:9 taken as an implied prediction) in detail. This leads to reinterpretation of the prophetic texts, eg. Babylon > Rome > ungodly city destroyed at the end of days. Or, children dashed against rocks > Babylonian civilization comes to an end > descendants of Babylon converted to Christianity.
Hey Dean,
You write, "But I don't get this: How do you disembowel pregnant women, rape young girls, burn houses down with the inhabitants inside, hang people alive from the walls of the city and torture them, or whatever other monstrosities you want to pull from ancient sources -- out of a due sense for God's glory?"
Obviously, you don't. Nevertheless, these actions, evil in themselves and done with evil intent, accomplish the justice of God. Again, the mysterious concurrence of human wickedness and divine righteousness at the cross comes to mind. How does one murder an innocent man to the glory of God? You don't! Nevertheless, the evil actions glorified God - not as the actions of those who performed them in and of themselves - but as the action of God in "crushing" the Son (cf. Is.53:10).
Regarding angels, God did send an angel to execute children in that last night in Egypt. The angel presumable acted in righteousness, obeying God, which demonstrates my earlier point that infanticide, so to speak, when carried out by the divine hand (i.e., via angelic agency), is just, in light of original sin and the divine curse upon creation.
Dear James,
I appreciate very much that you are maintaining your stand against granting humans the right to commit atrocities in God's name.
It is also clear that you want to maintain a view of God's relation to the world such that
1. God is free to arrange things so that atrocities take place,
2. the people who are victims of the atrocities deserve what they are getting (or something like it), and
3. God is justified in condemning human beings for carrying out the atrocities he arranged for, assuming that their motives and/or actions fall short of his standards for such cases.
To say the least, I have a lot of problems with this set of positions. There is just not time or room here to deal with them. I hope to do so on my own blog at some point.
I think there is a crucial difference between the divine/human interaction in the case of Jesus's crucifixion. Who suffers ultimate loss there? Surely the cases in which children are abducted, tortured, sexually abused, given the choice to kill a friend or family member or be killed, upon the murder of the friend or family member turned into soldiers and killed in combat are not analagous at all to the crucifixion. By the way, this example is actually a conflation of some specifics given to me by a seminary student from Uganda who lived in a community terrorized by the Lord's Army. If you haven't already, please read P. W. Singer's Children at War.
We haven't discussed port-mortem judgment much. I can't help but wonder what kind of post-mortem future is implied in these views. Specifically, what happens to the murdered friend or family member? What happens to the child soldier? What happens to the Charles Taylors and Joseph Konys? And why?
You may not feel free to answer these questions. Have you not answered the other specific questions I've asked because you don't feel the Bible gives enough guidance and you don't want to speculate? If so, I understand that completely.
This will be my last comment. I suspect that the entire effort to correct Lewis's take on the imprecatory psalms is meant to defend not God but a specific view of the authority of the Bible.
Dean,
I look forward to reading your comments on your blog. And to answer your final comment, I am attempting to defend the Bible, as God's Word, and not necessarily a particular view of it. If it is, as Lewis elswhere defends rather cogently, the Word of God, then it speaks always with moral authority, veracity and power.
Dean writes, "I think there is a crucial difference between the divine/human interaction in the case of Jesus's crucifixion. Who suffers ultimate loss there?"
God and man. Namely, Jesus.
"Surely the cases in which children are abducted, tortured, sexually abused, given the choice to kill a friend or family member or be killed, upon the murder of the friend or family member turned into soldiers and killed in combat are not analagous at all to the crucifixion"
Surely you overstate your case. There are many analogies. Jesus was brutalized, beaten, spat upon, mocked, whipped and then nailed to a wooden cross in order to painfully, and slowly suffocate to death as his lungs filled with fluid.
I would say there is much analogy here. However, Jesus did act in obedience to God in suffering these crimes against him - he suffered willingly. This is different then the child who is molested or manipulated by threat of death to kill friends or family. However, I'm not sure that this puts Jesus in any "better" position. He willingly suffered similar threats - kill or be killed, in which Jesus chose to be killed - and similar violence against his body and person. But he suffered them really and truly nonetheless. And he did so for our redemption. It is this which makes Jesus' sufferings the most remarkable. He suffered human wickedness and violence voluntarily in order to judge the evil perpetrated, and redeem the men who enact it.
Post a Comment