Happy to Dash Little Ones Against Stones

[latterrain]

There are places where Christians must face atheists...actually that is what we are to do...however, one of their favorite darts to throw is "if God is so loving...why did He kill innocents?" My question is....is that what God was saying in the following passage?



Psalm 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

The rivers of Babylon...are the waters of confusion, deception, lies, deceit. Do we drink of that water or do we remember Zion and the pure river of water...truth, life, the words of the Lord?​

137:4 How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

How can we teach of God, of the Lord's song, in a land where few believe in Him? Where they disdain His Word, where they deny Father and Son are One, where they profess to be of God but....deny Him? How shall we sing when so few have ears to hear His sweet, sweet music?​

137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Those that remain of Babylon shall be destroyed! So they might not be destroyed, might hear Him, He "taketh and dasheth thy little ones against stones."

Does that mean God is happy to bash the heads of infants and children against the rocks?

No. He takes the children of Babylon out of confusion by scattering their confusion, dispersing it with stones/rocks. The key is to understand the meaning of stones/rocks.

Jesus Christ is THE ROCK and His elect are the rocks He sends to scatter confusion. Those are the stones/rocks that teach truth so the "little ones of Babylon" can be children of God.​

 

[Deborah13]

When I read these kinds of verses I have to read them in context and try to decided who is speaking, who are they speaking to, are they speaking of their past, their present, their future, etc.
I'm sure you do the same.
So I don't hear the Lord speaking here. I hear the children of Israel, captives in Babylon. In their bitterness, which I can understand, they want justice for what the Babylonians have done to them.

Then I seek out what wiser men than me, Bible scholars and men who know the history of the times and see what they say about it. Here is just one that I have regard for. I find him to be one who was not afraid to say what he really believed and search the scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit with an open mind. Even though some of his doctrine is different than mind, I respect his opinions.
http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps137.htm

I am not agree with you, but you do make one think outside the box. :nod

 

[Vaccine]

Well said Deborah. Charles Spurgeon was very wise indeed. When I see verses like that I cringe and hope I can find a verse in the NT where Jesus says "you have seen it written 'Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones' but I say to you ..." unfortunately, there is no such verse in the NT so we have to face it.
Latterrain makes a good point, the verse is about Jesus.
To me the psalms are not about giving directions to Gods people how to behave, they are the reflective, contemplative, thoughts of Gods people. That one is not pleasant, but in context it's an honest expression of a raw human emotion, revenge. I dont see that verse in any way, shape, or form advocating such actions. Revenge is up to God, who's love and mercy and grace is boundless. I think that psalm shows us Gods people can bring any thought to the Lord in prayer and he will not turn away from our filth. Instead, take it away and make us new.

 

[latterrain]

When I read these kinds of verses I have to read them in context and try to decided who is speaking, who are they speaking to, are they speaking of their past, their present, their future, etc.
I'm sure you do the same.
So I don't hear the Lord speaking here. I hear the children of Israel, captives in Babylon. In their bitterness, which I can understand, they want justice for what the Babylonians have done to them.

Would you want to literally dash your enemies "little ones" against literal stones and then sing to the Lord?

Then I seek out what wiser men than me, Bible scholars and men who know the history of the times and see what they say about it. Here is just one that I have regard for. I find him to be one who was not afraid to say what he really believed and search the scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit with an open mind. Even though some of his doctrine is different than mind, I respect his opinions.
http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps137.htm

I am not agree with you, but you do make one think outside the box. :nod

Thank you for your reply Deborah.

Concerning....past, present or future, God tells us that....

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.​

The literal events are our example of the future events we are to see spiritually.


Rather than seeking man's teaching I think we should seek the Holy Spirit. Is the input of good men to be discarded? No, but Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Spirit should always take the lead.


As Jesus is the Rock, the Stone of stumbling...He dwells in us and we are His precious stones that He uses to teach others.

 

[Knotical]

latterrain you really need to stop taking verses out of context them posing some forced question based on what you have "extracted" from the bible. If you want to do a bible study, then do a bible study and look at each verse in context. To do otherwise is folly.

 

[Deborah13]

Would you want to literally dash your enemies "little ones" against literal stones and then sing to the Lord?

You did not read Spurgeon's verse by verse. They were wanting to lament the destruction of their home, Jerusalem, their temple (the first one), and of their loved ones. While they were in tears the enemy wanted them to sing of these things to them (strange land) and to be happy while they did it.
Psa 137:3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
Psa 137:4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

When I hear of children being abused, sexually molested, etc. I am angry all over and until I pray I desire that those abusers be abused and then burn in hell forever!! I can understand how they must have felt.

Thank you for your reply Deborah.

Concerning....past, present or future, God tells us that....

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.​

The literal events are our example of the future events we are to see spiritually.

This was prophetic, in that when Babylon was destroyed, they received what they gave out. Spurgeon says, that historically it is written that the Babylonians ended up killing their own children in order to saved them from worse violence. I haven't checked it out, but I trust he didn't lie.

Rather than seeking man's teaching I think we should seek the Holy Spirit. Is the input of good men to be discarded? No, but Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Spirit should always take the lead.

I think this is a given, for any serious believer, isn't it? We seek truth.
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit will teach differently to one from another because of where they are in their walk. Or show them different things within the same scripture, in order to edify each other by what we are doing right now, sharing the Word. :nag

As Jesus is the Rock, the Stone of stumbling...He dwells in us and we are His precious stones that He uses to teach others.

 

[Knotical]

Rather than seeking man's teaching I think we should seek the Holy Spirit. Is the input of good men to be discarded? No, but Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Spirit should always take the lead.

This is always important, you should always check what a person writes in their commentary on a bible passage back against that bible passage, that way you are able to tell if they are forcing their own view on what they are reading (integesis), or are illuminating the intended meaning of a passage via the guidance of the Holy Spirit (exegesis).

 

[chessman]

... forcing their own view on what they are reading (integesis), or are illuminating the intended meaning of a passage via the guidance of the Holy Spirit (exegesis).

Cool, now I know what integesis is.
Eisegesis, only hip, right?

BY the way, if you ever think I am doing that, please, please let me know. I mean that. I assure you and everyone, it will not be intentional. I might very well push back a little, especially if no evidence is given. But if there's good evidence of my new vocabulary word (integesis), I'll correct it.

Also, is there a word that you know of for someone that has been shown Biblically time and time again that they are interpreting some Scripture wrongly, clearly out of context, yet they refuse to stop it? Integesishardhead?

 

[Knotical]

Cool, now I know what integesis is.
Eisegesis, only hip, right?

BY the way, if you ever think I am doing that, please, please let me know. I mean that. I assure you and everyone, it will not be intentional. I might very well push back a little, especially if no evidence is given. But if there's good evidence of my new vocabulary word (integesis), I'll correct it.

Also, is there a word that you know of for someone that has been shown Biblically time and time again that they are interpreting some Scripture wrongly, clearly out of context, yet they refuse to stop it? Integesishardhead?

The nickname for a certain Peanuts character comes to mind.

 

[Messenger]

The key is to understand the meaning of stones/rocks.
Jesus Christ is THE ROCK and His elect are the rocks He sends to scatter confusion. Those are the stones/rocks that teach truth so the "little ones of Babylon" can be children of God.​

I never really worked on this verse, but I agree you're on the right track here.

In the Bible:

Stone = something always ritually pure
Stones = children of God; stones in the Temple of God.
Precious Stones = elect of God (1 Cor. 3:12)

Rock = Christ (1 Cor. 10:4); refuge, place of safety

Little Ones or Little Children = the Elect Children of God

Hope this helps.

 

[latterrain]

You did not read Spurgeon's verse by verse. They were wanting to lament the destruction of their home, Jerusalem, their temple (the first one), and of their loved ones. While they were in tears the enemy wanted them to sing of these things to them (strange land) and to be happy while they did it.
Psa 137:3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
Psa 137:4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

When I hear of children being abused, sexually molested, etc. I am angry all over and until I pray I desire that those abusers be abused and then burn in hell forever!! I can understand how they must have felt.

I'm right there with ya! I am all for quick and certain execution for all such offenders. However, would you be "happy" to dash their little ones against stones? Of course not...neither would God's children.

This was prophetic, in that when Babylon was destroyed, they received what they gave out. Spurgeon says, that historically it is written that the Babylonians ended up killing their own children in order to saved them from worse violence. I haven't checked it out, but I trust he didn't lie.

The Babylonians were pagan. Passing their children through fire...literally! The point is, would a child of God do that? Would a child of God be happy to smash the heads of little children?

I think this is a given, for any serious believer, isn't it? We seek truth.
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit will teach differently to one from another because of where they are in their walk. Or show them different things within the same scripture, in order to edify each other by what we are doing right now, sharing the Word. :nag

True. My access to smiley faces has disappeared for some reason or I would offer one with a big smile.

 

[latterrain]

This is always important, you should always check what a person writes in their commentary on a bible passage back against that bible passage, that way you are able to tell if they are forcing their own view on what they are reading (integesis), or are illuminating the intended meaning of a passage via the guidance of the Holy Spirit (exegesis).

Good advice. However, does the Holy Spirit...who has just given understanding to the poster...also give it at that time to the reader, to the one comparing commentary against Scripture?

(For want of a better analogy) as peanut butter is delicious and wholesome to one....it causes an allergic reaction to another. What is exegesis to one is integesis to another.

 

[latterrain]

I never really worked on this verse, but I agree you're on the right track here.

In the Bible:

Stone = something always ritually pure
Stones = children of God; stones in the Temple of God.
Precious Stones = elect of God (1 Cor. 3:12)

Rock = Christ (1 Cor. 10:4); refuge, place of safety

Little Ones or Little Children = the Elect Children of God

Hope this helps.

Thank you Messenger....Blessings to one of His precious stones!

 

[Messenger]

It takes one to know one :yes
Blessings to you, too, latterrain

 

[Knotical]

Good advice. However, does the Holy Spirit...who has just given understanding to the poster...also give it at that time to the reader, to the one comparing commentary against Scripture?

(For want of a better analogy) as peanut butter is delicious and wholesome to one....it causes an allergic reaction to another. What is exegesis to one is integesis to another.

No, not at all. Integesis is integesis, and exegesis is exegesis.

As with everything else you have been posting about you are forcing your own views on something that has a predetermined meaning.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm right there with ya! I am all for quick and certain execution for all such offenders. However, would you be "happy" to dash their little ones against stones? Of course not...neither would God's children.

The Babylonians were pagan. Passing their children through fire...literally! The point is, would a child of God do that? Would a child of God be happy to smash the heads of little children?

Actually, I believe, they did do that to their own children....
Jer 32:32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer 32:33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.
Jer 32:34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jer 32:36 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;

True. My access to smiley faces has disappeared for some reason or I would offer one with a big smile.

 

[latterrain]

Actually, I believe, they did do that to their own children....
Jer 32:32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer 32:33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.
Jer 32:34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jer 32:36 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;

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?

 

[latterrain]

No, not at all. Integesis is integesis, and exegesis is exegesis.

As with everything else you have been posting about you are forcing your own views on something that has a predetermined meaning.

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.

 

[WIP]

Let's be careful about defining or declaring what others believe and keep it to the topic. It's one thing to say, "I think you are....," but an entirely different thing to say, "You are..."

Just want to keep things on the civil side.

Thank you.

 

[mondar]

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.