Happy to Dash Little Ones Against Stones

[Knotical]

Well, I am going to say something very unpopular. It seems my lot. The OP is supposed to have shock value that God would command the death of infants. That might have shock value if we see infants as those cute little bundles of joy and assume that they are without sin, and innocent. Well, part of that is true. They are adorable bundles of joy that we all love, but they are not innocent, or without guilt or sin. This is why God is just to both kill infants himself, or to command the death of infants.
Joshua 724 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the mantle, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them up unto the valley of Achor.
The text in Psalm quoted in the OP reminds me of Gods commands in Joshua. Achan took the silver, and then not only himself, but his children were slaughtered. We might assume that his children were all adults. One the other hand, other texts such as in 1 Samuel where God commands King Saul to wipe out an entire race of people, and then Saul is judged for not slaying their King, Agag. Were there no infants among that race?

God himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorah. There is no record he spared the infants. Did God destroy infants with the flood of Noah? I do not know how many times the scripture makes it clear that God, in his sovereignty, judges infants. His reason might be found in another Psalm, Psalm 51.

Psalm 515 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Lets just think about this.... Had God killed King David in his infancy, and had his head smashed against a rock, would God would have still be just? What if God judged David for his sins at birth? Would God be just? David himself admits to his own guilt in infancy in the very verse above. David was conceived as a guilty sinner. He was born as an iniquitous infant. David would have totally understood Psalm 137:8-9, knowing we are guilty from conception. We come forth in Adam, and are guilty of Adams sin from conception onward. Its called original sin in Christian theology. We are guilty as a race. All human kind is under the guilt of sin, including infants. If God kills anyone from the smallest infant, to the greatest man, it is always justice. If God spares anyone from the smallest infant to the greatest man, it is by his loving mercy that he does so.

To be horrified at God killing an infant, is nothing more than a denial of the sinfulness of the entire human race. I pose a question with you readers. Do infants ever die? Does not one person ever die until he reaches the so called "age of accountability?" How can that be? Read Romans 5:12...
Romans 512 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
The "one man" mentioned in this passage is Adam. Adam was the federal head of the human race. When God created Adam in the flesh, Adams flesh had no sin in it. At the fall, sin enters human flesh. As Psalm 51 alludes to, this sin is also in the flesh of infants. When Adam was in the garden, God warned him that sin brings death.

Why can God judge infants and be a just and holy God? I have liked what John Piper once said... "I not only do bad things, I am bad... and so are you." Infants cannot do bad things, they are too limited in their understanding and abilities. God does not judge them for what they do, but for what they are. They are in Adam, they are sinners.

Not popular, yes, also biblically sound. Good point mondar .

 

[Deborah13]

Indeed they did join the pagans. Perhaps it would have been better stated if I said: would a child of God in good standing have done such a thing? As they were following Baal....burning their children in worship of Molech...were they still worshipping God?

I agree, they were out of fellowship with God. They had turned their back on Him.
In the Psalm 137, I see a people in pain and angry. Should they have been able to look back to their disobedience earlier that was the real cause of them going into captivity to Babylon to start with? That what had happened to them was the consequences of their sin? But we see in this Psalm, they were lamenting, wanting to return to Zion.
I believe this is a step in the direction to repentance.
What I'm trying to say is that man, even children of God, do not always respond they way they should. So desiring for a time that someone else should suffer with the same thing they brought on you, is not uncommon. To actually contemplate, plan, and carry out that plan is something else.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I, of course, respectfully disagree. What I have written is what the Scriptures show me...not the other way around.

Well, latterrain, it's been interesting discussing with you.
I won't be posting any further in this thread. I can see it taking a different turn.
Blessings

 

[Sinthesis]

The plain meaning given the context is that Babylon would be judged just as Judah was judged. This was fulfilled by the Medes and Persians; a brutal gentile nation that no doubt took glee in the war atrocities they visited upon Babylon during its conquest. Live by the sword...

If this isn't deep enough then by all means get all symbolicy with the verses and uncover a different hidden meaning. It's not difficult, I do it all the time. Yet don't discount the plain meaning.

 

[chessman]

The OP is supposed to have shock value that God would command the death of infants. That might have shock value if we see infants as those cute little bundles of joy and assume that they are without sin, and innocent.

It also means more to an atheist or even a Christian thinking a little like an atheist, than it does to a Christian thinking about an afterlife. Why just assume killing an infant is the end all to end all things? Also, why assume all infants wind up to Hell via their “original sins” or the sins of their parents? (though I’m not denying they do deserve that judgment, without Mercy that is) Also, why assume their infant death is not better than they would have received by their so called parents given to melting their infants? Could God actually know better?

What if God judged David for his sins at birth? Would God be just? David himself admits to his own guilt in infancy in the very verse above. David was conceived as a guilty sinner. He was born as an iniquitous infant. David would have totally understood Psalm 137:8-9, knowing we are guilty from conception. We come forth in Adam, and are guilty of Adams sin from conception onward. Its called original sin in Christian theology. We are guilty as a race. All human kind is under the guilt of sin, including infants. If God kills anyone from the smallest infant, to the greatest man, it is always justice. If God spares anyone from the smallest infant to the greatest man, it is by his loving mercy that he does so…. They are in Adam, they are sinners.

I agree with all that.

We are guilty as a race. All human kind is under the guilt of sin, including infants. … Do infants ever die? Does not one person ever die until he reaches the so called "age of accountability?" How can that be? Read Romans 5:12...
Romans 512 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
The "one man" mentioned in this passage is Adam. Adam was the federal head of the human race. When God created Adam in the flesh, Adams flesh had no sin in it. At the fall, sin enters human flesh. As Psalm 51 alludes to, this sin is also in the flesh of infants. When Adam was in the garden, God warned him that sin brings death….

Once again, I agree with all that. But you know what coming next right? Disagreement…(only slightly, I think).

To be horrified at God killing an infant, is nothing more than a denial of the sinfulness of the entire human race.

I’d say that there is actually more denial going on here than just that denial. It’s often the denial that God doesn’t have further plans (more beneficial plans/destiny) for these infants than they would have received otherwise. Yep, that’s not very popular posting either, but that’s my understanding of Scriptures. Anyone reading is welcome to point out evidence that what’s to follow here is integesis thought on my part, but here goes.

God does not judge them for what they do, but for what they are. They are in Adam, they are sinners.

Yes, I’m not even disagreeing with that statement. But the implication seems to be more than just their physical death.

Some people will say their death means they go to Hell for eternity in torment. Via “decision” to “allow” Jesus into their hearts and all that.

Some people will say their death means they might go to Hell, or they might go to Heaven depending on God’s Election of them or NOT, and all that stuff.

Some people just say the Bible is silent on their destiny or maybe point out what David said about him seeing his son later in Heaven. But then they say, it’s only David saying that so we really don’t know. The Bible is silent otherwise. I think that’s wrong.

I say there’s Biblical evidence they ALL (all these infants) go to heaven. Here’s why. And yes I know, that there’s high potential of integesis here. That’s why I’m asking for arguments for why what I’m about to say doesn’t make good exegetical sense. I don’t want to keep believing it, if I’m taking this one passage out of its context, broad context that is. Because it probably is not within its very narrow context. But still, what does it teach us about God’s further plans?

Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”​

Humm, forgiving people for the reason stated, that “they know now what they do”? Sounds pretty infant like to me.

Yes, I know that the grammar of the Greek specifies that Jesus was specifically talking about the soldiers that; … cast lots to divide his garments. So the narrow context of this passage is about them. And yes, I know it doesn’t say all infants go to Heaven.

I get that, though most people that I meet are not even aware that Jesus’ words are tied grammatically to these specific soldiers in the Greek because it doesn’t translate over to the English necessarily that way. But my point is that one of God’s principles/attributes for forgiveness is stated for us Biblically here. Unless of course this type of forgiveness was only specially given to these soldiers and not for others that similarly “know not what they do”.

Note, they did need forgiveness (as do all infants). I’m NOT denying that Biblical truth.

Note also that all adults (at least those not severely mentally handicapped or something) do NOT fit into this category.

But I am saying that we have a little more than David’s assumption that he’d see his infant son in Heaven to go on.

Also, remember this is Jesus gasping for air and in pain with every breath. To speak was painful, to say the least. I believe in what’s been a great ad ancient observation that one of Jesus’ other “sayings on the cross”, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” to be Jesus obviously pointing us back to the WHOLE Psalm 22 for this reason and others. That is, Jesus meant for us to understand a little more from his “sayings on the cross” than He simply had compassion on these two/three soldiers or the narrow context of the one above. I mean, come on. Is that all this saying is supposed to prove. That Jesus felt sorry for these soldiers? I’ve considered that and don’t mind saying “hogwash”. We already know Jesus has compassion for people. I mean, after all, He’s there on the cross suffering for us and we have His entire life story for that compassion demo. Did He really just need to say “forgive them for they know not what they do” simply to further drive home his compassionate nature? If that’s all it’s meant for, if you think about it, why did He even need to say that?

The pointing back to Psalm 22 was a whole lot deeper than most people realize. So are the rest of his “sayings”. But what about this one? What theology do we get from this one? Is that all that it teaches, Jesus had compassion for two/three Roman soldiers living around 33 A.D. in Jerusalem cause he used them to fulfill prophecy? I don’t buy it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Ryan]

Well, I am going to say something very unpopular. It seems my lot. The OP is supposed to have shock value that God would command the death of infants. That might have shock value if we see infants as those cute little bundles of joy and assume that they are without sin, and innocent. Well, part of that is true. They are adorable bundles of joy that we all love, but they are not innocent, or without guilt or sin. This is why God is just to both kill infants himself, or to command the death of infants.
Joshua 724 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the mantle, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them up unto the valley of Achor.
The text in Psalm quoted in the OP reminds me of Gods commands in Joshua. Achan took the silver, and then not only himself, but his children were slaughtered. We might assume that his children were all adults. One the other hand, other texts such as in 1 Samuel where God commands King Saul to wipe out an entire race of people, and then Saul is judged for not slaying their King, Agag. Were there no infants among that race?

God himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorah. There is no record he spared the infants. Did God destroy infants with the flood of Noah? I do not know how many times the scripture makes it clear that God, in his sovereignty, judges infants. His reason might be found in another Psalm, Psalm 51.

Psalm 515 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Lets just think about this.... Had God killed King David in his infancy, and had his head smashed against a rock, would God would have still be just? What if God judged David for his sins at birth? Would God be just? David himself admits to his own guilt in infancy in the very verse above. David was conceived as a guilty sinner. He was born as an iniquitous infant. David would have totally understood Psalm 137:8-9, knowing we are guilty from conception. We come forth in Adam, and are guilty of Adams sin from conception onward. Its called original sin in Christian theology. We are guilty as a race. All human kind is under the guilt of sin, including infants. If God kills anyone from the smallest infant, to the greatest man, it is always justice. If God spares anyone from the smallest infant to the greatest man, it is by his loving mercy that he does so.

To be horrified at God killing an infant, is nothing more than a denial of the sinfulness of the entire human race. I pose a question with you readers. Do infants ever die? Does not one person ever die until he reaches the so called "age of accountability?" How can that be? Read Romans 5:12...
Romans 512 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
The "one man" mentioned in this passage is Adam. Adam was the federal head of the human race. When God created Adam in the flesh, Adams flesh had no sin in it. At the fall, sin enters human flesh. As Psalm 51 alludes to, this sin is also in the flesh of infants. When Adam was in the garden, God warned him that sin brings death.

Why can God judge infants and be a just and holy God? I have liked what John Piper once said... "I not only do bad things, I am bad... and so are you." Infants cannot do bad things, they are too limited in their understanding and abilities. God does not judge them for what they do, but for what they are. They are in Adam, they are sinners.

Good analysis and thoughts. As much as the Father is full of mercy and grace, he still has a justice system which must be honored. If there was only grace, sin would abound. If there was only justice, who would survive? His law demands both, but only he can judge with equal weights and measures.

Leviticus 24 19 If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Deuteronomy 19 21 Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

Psalm 137 is asking justice to be served on the principle of an eye for an eye.

8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you, With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
It was prophecied the Sons of Israel's children would be

2 Kings 8:9-13
9 So Hazael went to meet him and took a gift in his hand, even every kind of good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ loads; and he came and stood before him and said, “Your son Ben-hadad king of Aram has sent me to you, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’” 10 Then Elisha said to him, “Go, say to him, ‘You will surely recover,’ but the Lord has shown me that he will certainly die.” 11 He fixed his gaze steadily on him until he was ashamed, and the man of God wept. 12 Hazael said, “Why does my lord weep?” Then he answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up.” 13 Then Hazael said, “But what is your servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?” And Elisha answered, “The Lord has shown me that you will be king over Aram.”

Hosea 10:13-15
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 You have plowed wickedness, you have reaped injustice,
You have eaten the fruit of lies.
Because you have trusted in your way, in your numerous warriors,
14 Therefore a tumult will arise among your people,
And all your fortresses will be destroyed,
As Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel on the day of battle,
When mothers were dashed in pieces with their children.15 Thus it will be done to you at Bethel because of your great wickedness.
At dawn the king of Israel will be completely cut off.

Nahum 3:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10 Yet she became an exile,
She went into captivity;
Also her small children were dashed to piecesAt the head of every street;
They cast lots for her honorable men,
And all her great men were bound with fetters.

Psalm 137
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little onesAgainst the rock.

Isaiah 13:15-22
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through,
And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
16 Their little ones also will be dashed to piecesBefore their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them,
Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
18 And their bows will mow down the young men,
They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb,
Nor will their eye pity children.

Isaiah prophecied what Babylon did to others, so would they reap what they sowed so to speak.

Jeremiah 51:24
“But I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea for all their evil that they have done in Zion before your eyes,” declares the Lord.

 

[jasoncran]

ok. with the mentioning achai. that was done to the children as they know he was guilty and didn't tell Joshua. imho. though god did offer both the flood victims and the Egyptians a chance to save others. if we are take a figurative few of that then why bother with the cross? jesus didn't do any thing illegal and pilate found him innocent. he also said that no power was over him save that God gave the romans the power to kill him. so per isiah God slew his son.