Should Psalms be used to support theological doctrine?

[mmksparbud]

Context wise, it is apparent that the psalmist is talking about children of the “daughter of Babylon”, not the children of Israel. The previous verse is addressed to the daughter of Babylon. The structure and subject of the sentence appears to be the same between verse 8 and 9.

Psa 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Psa 137:2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
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 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.


OOOpppppss!!True--Actually, it can be more accurately read as: The Israelites where lamenting how they were led captive, forced to sing for their captors, and it is saying that the daughter of Babylon will be destroyed and who does so will treat them as the Israelites had been treated--by dashing their little ones against the stones---as theirs had been.
Yes--context is everything, even when you think you're doing so---double check!

 

[All4Christ]

Psa 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Psa 137:2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
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 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.


OOOpppppss!!True--Actually, it can be more accurately read as: The Israelites where lamenting how they were led captive, forced to sing for their captors, and it is saying that the daughter of
Babylon will be destroyed and who does so will treat them as the Israelites had been treated--by dashing their little ones against the stones---as theirs had been.
Yes--context is everything, even when you think you're doing so---double check!

I agree with your interpretation, but I think there is one thing missing. The last part that can’t be ignored from context is the “Happy is he” or the “Blessed is he”.

The psalmist is also saying that whoever carries out the destruction of daughter of Babylon will be happy or blessed. It could also be understood as a “blessing”, though you could debate that. Either way, he’s not just saying that the daughter of Babylon will be destroyed.

 

[mmksparbud]

I agree with your interpretation, but I think there is one thing missing. The last part that can’t be ignored from context is the “Happy is he” or the “Blessed is he”.

The psalmist is also saying that whoever carries out the destruction of daughter of Babylon will be happy or blessed. It could also be understood as a “blessing”, though you could debate that. Either way, he’s not just saying that the daughter of Babylon will be destroyed.

Yup! Whoever carries out this dashing--is going to be happy doing it---ugh. However, one must take into consideration the pain of the women who had just seen their little ones killed and are wanting whoever takes revenge will do this happily--even blessed---that's how tortured their souls were over not just having been taken captive, but their children killed in front of them. The thought of forgiveness doesn't even cross their mind! Much like that father that tried to get his hands on that Dr. Nassar for what he did to his daughter. He did go down from asking for 5 minutes alone with him to 1 minute---it was only when he couldn't get the 1 minute he freaked. Vengeance is mine was not on his mind either!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Guess which OT Book Jesus quoted most often?
Which Old Testament Book Did Jesus Quote Most Often? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus

No argument from me on that one. But the question is who was the psalmest quoting?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

PSALMS, like TORAH, like the NEW TESTAMENT , is TRUTH.
No need to reconcile anything -
ALL YHVH'S WORD is TRUTH.

Men mess up all the time, of course.... so don't accept what any man says contrary to any Scripture.

Seek YHVH in all things , everything, every day, all the time, for His Kingdom, and for His Understanding, without which no one understands.

Agreed. And it is true that in Psalm 137:9, the psalmest wished he could bash Babylonian babies against stones. That's a fact. Psalms don't give us new revelation about God. It reveals what the psalmest (and the Hebrews believed). The psalms were prayers and hymns created as a result of the prophetic and historical scriptures. Thus, we can use psalms to affirm doctrine but not establish doctrine.

 

[Doug Melven]

Thus, we can use psalms to affirm doctrine but not establish doctrine.

Jesus used Psalms to establish doctrine.
Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Jesus quoted Psalm 8:2 to show that praising Him gives us strength.
8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength

The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 110:4 to show the nature of Jesus' Priesthood.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

If New Testament writers and Jesus used Psalms to establish doctrine, why can't we?
I would add a caveat to that though.
Be careful, especially with the imprecatory Psalms.
Any doctrine formed from the Old Testament needs to be verified by the New Testament.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have to wonder why "we" need to establish doctrine at all. If the Apostles or at least the ECFs didn't get around to it, what is it that we judge them to have missed or that we today know better?

That's pretty much a definition of Tradition, being that we are posting in Traditional Theology.

 

[gordonhooker]

Jesus used Psalms to establish doctrine.
Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Jesus quoted Psalm 8:2 to show that praising Him gives us strength.
8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength

The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 110:4 to show the nature of Jesus' Priesthood.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

If New Testament writers and Jesus used Psalms to establish doctrine, why can't we?
I would add a caveat to that though.
Be careful, especially with the imprecatory Psalms.
Any doctrine formed from the Old Testament needs to be verified by the New Testament.

Jesus would have quoted the Psalms because the Psalms were everyday prayer and song for the Jews - I don't see where you get Jesus was determining doctrine in your quote from Mt. 21:16. The author of Hebrews was pointing out that Jesus was not a Levitical priest - the reference being to King and Priest Melchizedek from Gen 14:17-20, again I don't see this as affirming the divinity of Christ.

 

[Doug Melven]

I don't see where you get Jesus was determining doctrine in your quote from Mt. 21:16.

If you compare the 2 passages you will see that Jesus was telling us how to get strength. That is something that we should be doing, therefore it is doctrine.

The author of Hebrews was pointing out that Jesus was not a Levitical priest - the reference being to King and Priest Melchizedek from Gen 14:17-20, again I don't see this as affirming the divinity of Christ.

The writer of Hebrews wasn't talking about Jesus' divinity, he was establishing Jesus' priesthood as that of the Order of Melchizedek. Another great doctrine.

 

[gordonhooker]

Yes, Jewish Scripture is about those who it was originally intended for, but it also has been revealed to us again through the person of Christ. I believe there are often multiple layers of meaning in Scripture. The most apparent meaning is the meaning for those it was originally intended for, but we still can benefit from it. Prescriptive Scripture in the OT, for example, needs to be understood in the light of Christ for us as Christians, rather than a straightforward command directly to us. Everything we do is understood in the light of Christ.

I am not sure what your point is in relation to my post...

The Jews look at Jewish scripture through a Jewish lens, and Christians look at Jewish scripture through a Christian lens, and that is the point I was making.

 

[gordonhooker]

If you compare the 2 passages you will see that Jesus was telling us how to get strength. That is something that we should be doing, therefore it is doctrine.

The writer of Hebrews wasn't talking about Jesus' divinity, he was establishing Jesus' priesthood as that of the Order of Melchizedek. Another great doctrine.

I don't agree with you on this so I will leave it with you.

 

[All4Christ]

The Jews look at Jewish scripture through a Jewish lens, and Christian look at Jewish scripture through a Christian lens, and that is the point I was making.

I agree with this.

 

[dzheremi]

There seems to be a rather anti-traditional bent to this kind of approach to the scriptures, I think. I'm sure I've posted the quote from Tertullian before regarding how disputes over doctrine cannot be settled by recourse to the scriptures in those matters over which anyone can argue from them (which includes basically every matter), and so instead must be settled by looking at the content of the faith itself to determine with whom the faith of the apostles lies. Say what you will about Tertullian (and it does indeed pay to be careful with him, given his eventual embrace of Montanism), but I would think that the Church's experience with a heretic such as Marcion well before Tertullian's own time (140s, whereas Tertullian himself was not born until c. 155), who taught his own corrupt doctrines by a quite literal mutilation of the scriptures, does in fact prove Tertullian correct on this point.

So I am at best ambivalent about this sort of question. When you read the Fathers -- whether they be of the Greco-Roman saints, or of those among the Syrians, or the Copts, etc. -- you will see the scriptures alluded to and expounded upon to great length, with many layers of meaning therein, but I am not aware that I've ever seen anything which says "because the Psalms say XYZ, therefore (doctrinal point)". This is, I would think, the difference between exegesis and eisegesis: our fathers and mothers such as St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Cyril, St. Gregory, Abba Macarius, Amma Syncletica, Amma Theodora, etc. read out of the scriptures (exegesis), whether by sayings and homilies as in the case of the desert monastics or in more formal epistles, and by that gave true guidance which enlightens all of us to properly appreciate the depth and aim of the Christian life. The opposite activity, eisegesis, involves taking an already-held point to be made and then fashioning the text around it, whereby "because it says XYZ in this scriptural quotation, therefore blahblahblahblah".

Maybe this is the adopted 'Alexandrian' in me, but we don't do that, or at least we're not supposed to. As the Egyptians taught me, "the letter kills" (eh...it sounds much better in Arabic!). Or to put it another way, the Bible is amenable to many different readings by virtue of the fact that it, like all religious texts, is not self-interpreting, but only some of those readings are in keeping with the faith once delivered to the saints. So our job as Christians when it comes to the Bible is not to open it and say "okay, what can I prove out of this?" or "How can I use this to crush my ideological opponent?", but instead "How is this understood within the context of my faith?" It's not a weapon -- it's a lamp along the narrow road, just as the Agpeya/Horologion, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the various homilies, hymns, commentaries, etc. also are.

So, for instance, I can say that as my own tradition is heavily shaped by monasticism (Christian monasticism having started in Egypt), we most commonly encounter the Psalms in the context of the Agpeya, our daily prayer book which was shaped by our fathers the monks starting around the fifth century AD. The majority of the prayers in it are from the Psalms, with the doxologies, opening and closing prayers of the hour, and other unique content providing the lens through which we are to understand the Psalms themselves, as well. "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 50/51) may have been written in a Jewish context in the time before the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we understand it as we pray (for instance) in the ninth hour "O, Who tasted death in the flesh in the ninth hour for our sake, we the sinners, put to death our carnal lusts, O Christ, our God, and deliver us. Let my supplication draw close before You, O Lord; according to Your word give me understanding. Let my petition come before Your presence; according to Your word revive me."

In other words, when we pray from the Psalms that the Lord may create in us a clean heart, we know the means by which all may be cleansed, revived, and made anew, and not just the means, but the actual Person too! So it is with the fulfillment of all things in Christ, not any less in the Psalms by virtue of their 'Jewishness' (as though our Lord was not Himself a Jew!) than in any other part of the Bible, including the entire OT. So we do not need to argue our way into such an understanding; this is already precisely how the Christian sees all things, by the light of He Who gives light to every man who comes into the world.

 

[com7fy8]

Psalms is different. It is the only book where the communication is solely from humanity towards God.

I think there is more to Psalms than this.

For example,

"Because Your lovingkindness is better than life,
.My lips shall praise You." (Psalms 63:3)

This is important to our theology, how we experience that God's love in us does us more good than all which is of this life. Theology has to do with God and His love, including how His love in us proves how good He is for us, compared with how we may be effected by all which is not God.

So, I would say this is very important, and not only about humans expressing to God, but how God in His love in a person has proven Himself to the person. And this scripture goes with Romans 5:5 which shows that we experience God's own love "in our hearts".

Also, there are portions of Psalms which are prophetic, about Jesus on this earth.

I have found numerous examples where people reference Psalms to justify their theological positions. However, because of the unique genre and purpose of Psalms, is it acceptable to do so? If so, how do we then reconcile Psalms like psalm 137:9?

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Psalm 137:9 NIV

As I have offered, Psalms is not limited to what you are saying.

Also, it is wise not to use one verse to represent all the rest of all we have in Psalms.

And when we read a scripture, it is wise not to right away come up with some problem about the scripture, but first get how God blesses you about it.

 

[com7fy8]

I have found numerous examples where people reference Psalms to justify their theological positions. However, because of the unique genre and purpose of Psalms, is it acceptable to do so? If so, how do we then reconcile Psalms like psalm 137:9?

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Psalm 137:9 NIV

There are people who use this scripture in order to deny that God exists, and to deny that the Bible is God's word. But Satan is not God's judge!! Nor are people who make up problems about His word, when in fact they do not believe in God, in the first place. So, do not be afraid of how ones use this scripture to accuse and criticize God. God does not need to be protected or rescued.

Our character can effect how we see things in God's word. The Bible can discern where we are at.

Considering all which the Bible says about God and reality and love, I can see this scripture means and confirms a number of things the Bible says.

This is directed against parents who are evil. And there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2) And we have scripture to indicate that humans are born in sin. So, these evil parents, I understand, could have spread their evil spirit, at conception, into their children. And therefore this scripture shows how unsafe even infants are, if they are not of the Holy Spirit and God's love.

But Jesus came and suffered and died like He did, so we may have forgiveness and eternal life in God's own love. Jesus died on the cross with hope for any evil person, at all. I consider that Jesus suffered and died like that, because He knows how horrible it is to live in sin and how awful hell is; He considered it worthwhile to suffer and die like that so we do not go to hell; He knows how bad hell is, and He suffered that much, partly in order to make sure we do not go there. But people try to outsmart God; this is not wise, after all Jesus has done and demonstrated.

So, there can be judgment if and how God knows it is necessary, but He prefers the Jesus way.

And so, we need to have compassion for ones not of God, and do all God has us do to help them to be turned "from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God" (in Acts 26:18).

This scripture about smashing kids shows that evil is a reality, and that God can use severe measures to fight it. But when humans take it on their own selves to kill people, for the sake of their self-righteous justice, they can face severe consequences. It is not for humans to take justice in their own hands, or to make themselves the judges of God.

"consider the goodness and severity of God" (in Romans 11:22)

If God does decide it fits with His overall plan and purpose, that children die, He will do the right thing with each of them after they die. And it can be better in the next existence . . . or much worse. And we can not get ready, ourselves, so the next existence will be good for us. So we need to now trust in Jesus for how He is able to prepare us. Suicide, then, and mercy-killing others is not going to help. We need to live and die in obedience to God and how He rules us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15, Isaiah 58:11.

Sunlight can be good for giving life, but also the same sunlight can be very severe to a worm on the sidewalk. There is life and wrath in the same sunshine. It depends on your nature, how you are effected by God But God is able to change your nature so you benefit from Him, in case you don't.

 

[Truth Lover]

All4Christ:
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary on Psalm 136:9 (Ps 137) agrees.
Dash thy little ones, &c. In the spiritual sense, we dash the littel ones of Babylon against the rock, when we mortify our passions, and stifle the first motions of them, by a speedy recourse to the rock, which is Christ. (Challoner) (St. Augustine) (St. Gregory) (Psalm l.) (Worthington) --- We do not read that Cyrus treated Babylon with this rigour; but such practices were then customary, (Osee xiv. 1.; Homer, Iliad xxii.) and Darius cruelly punished the revolted city. (Herodotus iii. 159.) (Calmet) --- God will reward those who execute his decrees (Haydock) against Babylon. (Worthington) --- The psalmist contrasts the felicity of the conqueror, with the misery of the citizens, without approving of his conduct. (Berthier)