Quotes About Smashing Babies Heads Against Rocks Bible
In my contend with atheist Dan Barker in 2009, Barker accused the God of the Bible of numerous egregious immoralities. One of these accusations centered on Psalm 137:nine. Barker stated:
In Psalm 137:ix, he [God] told united states that nosotros should exist happy to take the innocent babies and dash them against the stones. That'southward—even if that God did exist, I might not necessarily want to worship such a monster. I might enquire him to confess his sins to me. What a guy—what if I were to treat my kids like this?i
The accusation is that Psalm 137:9 is a prescriptive poesy that says that whoever dashes the heads of the babies against a rock volition be "happy." According to the skeptical estimation of this verse, information technology is to be understood in the same way every bit the Beatitudes are understood—as a blessing that will be the result of some stated actions. Allegedly, just as Jesus said "Blessed [or "happy" as some translations say] are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5), then Psalm 137:9 is saying that anyone who kills these babies volition be blessed with such happiness. There are several issues with the skeptic's charge against God in this Psalm.
Offset, nosotros need to look at the context of the poetry. Past ripping a verse out of its context, a person could force the Bible to say practically anything he wanted to make it say. Instead of misinterpreting passages out of context, it is the task of every honest person to attempt to sympathise all texts, including and especially those in the Bible, in the context of how the author intended them to be understood. Here is the Psalm in its entirety.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sabbatum downward, yea, nosotros wept when nosotros remembered Zion. We hung our harps upon the willows in the midst of it. For there those who carried us abroad captive asked of united states of america a vocal, and those who plundered us requested mirth, proverb, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign country? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my correct hand forget its skill! If I do not remember y'all, let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—if I do non exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy. Think, 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 i who repays yous every bit you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the stone!
The author of this Psalm is a captive in Babylon. The Babylonians (who caused and then much destruction in State of israel, killed so many of the Israelites, and held the author and other survivors captive) were demanding that the Israelites perform for them and sing songs about the dazzler of Zion. The writer was indignant that his captors would brand such a need in light of the horrible things that the Babylonians had done to the Israelites, and the fact that the Babylonians all the same held them captive. The writer then proceeds to explain that the Babylonians were not going to be in their elevated position as victors for long. Instead, these captors who were enervating mirth and songs from the Israelite captives were going to suffer a like fate to the one that they dealt out. According to the writer, at that place would be those coming who would, in essence, practise to the Babylonians what the Babylonians did to Israel, except the Babylonian penalization would be on an fifty-fifty greater scale. The nation that would destroy the Babylonians would repay the Babylonians for the evil they had done and would go so far as to dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones.
We get a glimpse of how this process works in Isaiah x. Isaiah explains that God would utilize the nation of Assyria to punish the Israelites. He says, "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, and confronting the people of My wrath…. Still he does not mean and so, nor does his centre think so, merely it is in his middle to destroy, and cut off non a few nations" (x:v-7). Fifty-fifty though God used Assyria as a tool to punish Israel, Assyria did not view its mission in light of God's justice, and Assyria cruelly and arrogantly abused its power. What, then, did God promise to practise to wicked Assyria? The text explains: "Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He volition say, 'I volition punish the fruit of the arrogant center of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks'" (10:12). Assyria'south wickedness would also exist punished.
This same scenario is seen in the Babylonian victory over State of israel. In Jeremiah 12, the prophet asked God, "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal and so treacherously?" (12:1). Jeremiah is perplexed well-nigh how God can use a wicked nation such every bit Babylon to punish the Israelites for wickedness, when it seems that the Babylonians are just every bit wicked or more sinful than the Israelites. God then explains: "Many rulers accept destroyed My vineyard [the nation of Judah—KB]…they have made it desolate…. The plunderers have come on all the desolate heights in the wilderness" (12:10-13). What does the Lord say would happen to those "plunderers" who destroyed Judah? "Thus says the Lord: 'Against all My evil neighbors who impact the inheritance which I have acquired My people Israel to inherit—behold, I will pluck them out of their land and pluck out the firm of Judah" (12:fourteen). Thus, God would have vengeance on the nations such as Babylon and Assyria considering of their sinful airs and cruelty against Israel.
In Jeremiah chapters fifty-51 nosotros see a detailed description of what would happen to wicked Babylon. The prophecy begins past stating: "The word that the Lord spoke against Babylon and confronting the land of the Chaldeans" (50:1). The Israelites would apologize of their sins (50:four-5) and beg the Lord to return them to Israel in a renewed covenant with God. God would so punish Babylon, as the prophet stated, "'For behold, I will raise and crusade to come upwardly against Babylon an assembly of keen nations from the north country, and they shall array themselves against her; from there she shall be captured. Their arrows shall exist like those of an skillful warrior; none shall return in vain. And Chaldea shall become plunder; all who plunder her shall be satisfied,' says the Lord" (l:eight-10). Jeremiah 51 continues to describe the destruction of Babylon at the hands of the Medes and Persians. The prophet explains, "The sound of a cry comes from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans, because the Lord is plundering Babylon and silencing her loud vocalization…. For the Lord is the God of recompense, He will surely repay" (51:56). And over again, "Repay her according to her work; according to all she has done, exercise to her; for she has been proud against the Lord, against the Holy Ane of Israel" (50:29).
Looking at Psalm 137 in context, then, we see the psalmist foreshadowing the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. Since that is the case, we tin can now sympathise some things about the statement fabricated in 137:nine. The start affair we can run across is that information technology is not a command given by God for anyone today to dash babies' heads confronting stones. It certainly is not proverb that Christians should dash babies heads against stones to exist happy. It tin can be interpreted equally a descriptive statement fabricated about the army that would destroy Babylon and cannot be assumed to be a prescriptive argument that gives a command from God.
Allow united states consider the departure, then, between a prescriptive argument and a descriptive 1. A prescriptive statement prescribes what God says should be washed in guild to obtain a sure result. For instance, Ephesians vi:2 says, "'Honour your begetter and female parent,' which is the get-go commandment with hope: 'that information technology may be well with you and you may alive long on the earth.'" Observe that "honor your father and mother" is a commandment from God of what should exist done, and the result would exist "that it may be well with you." A descriptive verse or thought, however, is one that describes a situation—non that God has commanded or ordained—just one that simply relates what is the example if something happens. For instance, in one Kings 21, we read about King Ahab attempting to buy a vineyard from Naboth. Naboth refused to sell the king the vineyard, and one Kings 21:4 says, "So Ahab went into his house sullen and displeased." This text is describing what Ahab felt, not what he should have felt or what was the necessary effect of the state of affairs. In truth, if he were doing what God wanted, he should have commended Naboth for not selling his family land, and he should have been pleased with Naboth'south obedience to God. Instead, the Bible describes his sullenness, just does not condone it in whatever manner.
When we utilise this idea of descriptive talk to Psalm 137:9, we tin understand that there is no way the skeptic can prove that dashing babies' heads against a rock was a commandment that God gave anyone, not even the Medes and Persians. The text is easily understood as one that just describes what was going to accept place. Furthermore, the text cannot be shown to be stating that those who practice such things "should" be happy considering of these actions. Every bit farther testify of this stardom between descriptive and prescriptive writing, consider the fact that, even though God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Judah (and the Assyrians to destroy northern State of israel), those two wicked nations had performed their deeds in a cruel, arrogant style that God did not approve or condone. Their wicked treatment of Israel brought virtually punishment from God. We can come across that God allowed Babylon to destroy Judah, but then punished the nation for the evil style the Babylonians went most it. In the aforementioned way, it would be wrong to assume that the Lord condoned the future actions of the Medes and Persians when they would dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones.
2d, if it would be wrong to assume that God condoned the deportment of the Medes and Persians, why does the text land, "Happy shall he be who repays you as yous have served us! Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones confronting the stone" (Psalm 137:9)? Another primary reason this text is oftentimes misused is due to a misunderstanding of the way the discussion "happy" is used. It is assumed that happiness is an ultimate good that all people are trying to achieve. In this context, yet, that is not how the word is used. Instead, it is used in a way that describes a fleeting feeling that has no lasting effects and is of no ultimate spiritual value. A parallel passage that sheds light on this word is found in Jeremiah 12:i, which we noticed earlier. Discover how Jeremiah used the give-and-take "happy." He asked God "Why does the style of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal and then treacherously?" Jeremiah recognizes that the "happy" people in this passage are wicked, treacherous, and unrighteous. He is wondering how such wicked people can be "happy." God then explains to the prophet that what he views every bit happiness is not ultimately a spiritual skillful, merely but a temporary state of affairs. In fact, God explains to Jeremiah that He will punish all those wicked treacherous people, but offer them a chance to repent. If they apologize, "and so they shall be established in the midst of my people" (12:xvi), thus offering them an opportunity at legitimate spiritual well-existence. If they refused to repent, however, God declared, "I volition utterly pluck up and destroy the nation" (12:17).
When we look at the way the Babylonian devastation of Israel is described, we see similar statements to Psalm 137:ix. In Jeremiah 50, the prophet tells the Babylonians they would exist destroyed, "Because you were glad, considering you rejoiced, you destroyers of My heritage" (fifty:xi). They were not glad in a righteous sense, or ane that had to exercise with whatsoever ultimate spiritual skilful, but in a sinful, fleeting sense. Over again, their "rejoicing" was non brought almost because they followed a commandment from God, but the very contrary. They cruelly and arrogantly destroyed God's people. This made them "glad" and they "rejoiced" in a manner that had naught to do with commendation from God, or with doing what God has said do in the way He said do it. In such a context, the Bible is non saying that wickedness leads to whatsoever type of ultimate good. On the contrary, such statements describe a fleeting feeling of emotional pleasance that tin can exist felt by any person, whether righteous or wicked, but which is not based on the rightness or wrongness of an activeness.
To illustrate, consider the depository financial institution robber who is "happy" that he was able to get abroad from the policeman without getting caught. Or recollect of the murderer who was "happy" he successfully cached his victim'southward trunk without being discovered. Or think of the college educatee who was "happy" it was Friday so he could go drunk with his friends. These scenarios show us that, even today, nosotros oftentimes apply the word "happy" in the same way that the Bible writers did. The New Testament gives u.s.a. some other clear utilize of such linguistic communication in James 4:9. There the author tells the sinful rich people to "Complaining and mourn and weep! Allow your laughter be turned to sorrow and your joy to gloom." The word "joy" is used in other places to draw real, spiritual contentment and happiness (James 1:2). It is used in James 4:9, even so, to describe a fleeting feeling that the sinful rich experienced equally a event of the misuse of their coin. James demanded that they reverse their wrong emotional country to a more authentic one of sorrow and gloom due to their sinful condition.
Determination
In Psalm 137:9, it cannot be assumed that the inspired writer was saying that God commanded anyone to dash the heads of children against a stone. The thought that the text only describes what the Medes and the Persians would practise in the future fits the context perfectly. The way the give-and-take "happy" is used throughout the Bible allows for the writer to be using it in Psalm 137:ix in a way that can describe a fleeting feeling that tin can be the result of evil actions. This feeling has nothing to do with a blessing or commendation from God. The way the skeptic pulls this passage from its context and misinterprets it says more about the skeptic's dishonesty when dealing with the biblical text than it does nearly God's morality.2
Endnotes
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: Nosotros are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
Reproduction Stipulations→
betancourtthereves.blogspot.com
Source: https://apologeticspress.org/psalm-1379dashing-babies-heads-against-a-stone-913/
Post a Comment for "Quotes About Smashing Babies Heads Against Rocks Bible"