Why did the Trinity ask people to kill their friends and brothers?

[ArmyMatt]

actually I only have one final point and then I will pax out. talking to you about this kinda stuff is like trying to explain the color orange to a guy born blind who is skeptical that light exists. until you experience Christ, and come to know Him, you won't understand. this is why our faith is folly and scandal to them that don't believe, but for those of us who are being saved it is the power of God.

it's like this. if you saw me in a bar and every time you saw me I ordered an ale, you could logically come to the conclusion that ale is my favorite drink. say you saw it enough that you became convinced that it was my favorite drink. but, my favorite drink is a Guinness. say you come across a friend of mine who knows me, and knows that my favorite drink is Guinness. say for some reason you two start a debate about my drink of choice, and say, sure enough I come in the bar while you two are arguing and order an ale. the only way that you will come to know the truth of why I order my drinks is to come and ask me, to come to know me. that would be the only way that you would come to know that the reason that I always order ale at this bar is because a buddy of mine that died liked ale, we hung out at this bar, and this is my personal salute to him. aside from doing that, you could be very convinced, and totally wrong, that ale is my favorite.

the moral of the story is that if you want a real answer, go to God.

 

[Blonde]

Kosmo, you're not very fun to play with.
I said it was a principle of war, not the only one. It is called colonizing, not ethnic cleansing; though colonizing sometimes has to do with ethnic cleansing. (Your own straw man?)

It would be good if you laid out your premise clearly for us if you really want a true debate. Otherwise we are left to assume your position from what you say and you seem unsatisfied with our assumptions.

Is it your position that God is not loving and merciful? Or is it something more?
Please be clear, then we can get on with it.

 

[Kosmofilo]

@ArmyMatt, let me replace the word "God" by "Baal" in this excerpt of your penultimate post:

Look, if you want to debate that's fine, but the problem is that Baal is Someone to be experienced, and until you have that experience, you simply will not understand. Period.

It sounds like a laughable rule, doesn't it? Well, it's the same rule you used against me. There can be no fair debate that way and that's why I'll be ignoring posts from people who say such things from now on. I'll focus on the proposed subject: the Triune God's behaviour towards people.

As a side note, I really appreciated your compliment. It's good to know that I'm being too rational. I wouldn't like to be seem as a irrational being while talking about murdered children.

----

@icxn
In spite of your irony, I liked your last reply. It was much more intense than ArmyMatt's posts.

However, there's a problem in your conclusion that God is clearly good now just because your life seems to be good. Think about His skills - omniscience, love, and the power to do anything. Nothing happens if the Father, the Ressurrected Son, and the Holy Spirit didn't allow it to happen in first place. You need to see his reactions both in the past and now.

Note: please focus on the problem that I'm going to mention. Don't mistake child abuse and tooth ache. If you don't know a lot about it, I strongly suggest you to read some stories on a victim support site before thinking about this difficult, serious subject.

So, what do you observe from His behavior (lack of concern) towards children that are molested daily? Is this compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

Before replying, don't forget that this same God supposely used to be around everytime to make sure that things were like he thought they should be, as you saw in my posts about the OT.

So, again, is for example violently murdering children for just calling a man bald (2 Kings 2:23-24) and then letting men to rape children up to this day compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

The Bible mentions many covenants, contracts with God, not only two. God has made covenants with a lot of men and promised them a good life. "After the flood", "after you kill all enemies", "after you cruise the sea", "after you build a temple", "after the Messiah comes to the world", "after Jesus comes back" etc.

What if the prophets of Israel were wrong or lied, just like the prophets of other religions? The other things were done and the "promised land" wasn't any heaven at all. Now your "prophet organization" (the church) wants you to believe that that perfect life previously preached by the same deity only will begin after you die(?!). Don't forget that Jesus also promised that he would give anything to the faithful people that asked honestly - the Gospels mention it a few times, not just once. His message was not only about something after your death, but also about getting things in this world through honest prayer.

The chosen faithful have done everything God asked, yet millions of children still starve and are raped everyday. As the last covenant now depends on God alone, he can easily not fulfil the "eternal life giveaway" commitment, just like he's failed to listen to the prayers of molested children (another commitment - ask and you shall receive).

Do you believe that the Trinity had a good reason not to fix at least these things up to this day too? It means that Jesus broke his promise or was wrong about praying to God the Father to ask him to stop evil and provide food. Since Jesus is part of this omniscient God too and is never wrong, he broke a promise, and your life is based on another promise of this same God that is unlikely to be fulfilled.

 

[ArmyMatt]

@ArmyMatt, let me replace the word "God" by "Baal" in this excerpt of your penultimate post:

Look, if you want to debate that's fine, but the problem is that Baal is Someone to be experienced, and until you have that experience, you simply will not understand. Period.

It sounds like a laughable rule, doesn't it? Well, it's the same rule you used against me. There can be no fair debate that way and that's why I'll be ignoring posts from people who say such things from now on. I'll focus on the proposed subject: the Triune God's behaviour towards people.

no that's not laughable, that's how you come to know any personal being, whether you are talking about God, the Theotokos, or even Baal or Satan. you come to know them personally through experience.

The chosen faithful have done everything God asked, yet millions of children still starve and are raped everyday. As the last covenant now depends on God alone, he can easily not fulfil the "eternal life giveaway" commitment, just like he's failed to listen to the prayers of molested children (another commitment - ask and you shall receive).

Do you believe that the Trinity had a good reason not to fix at least these things up to this day too? It means that Jesus broke his promise or was wrong about praying to God the Father to ask him to stop evil and provide food. Since Jesus is part of this omniscient God too and is never wrong, he broke a promise, and your life is based on another promise of this same God that is unlikely to be fulfilled.

to quote Fr George Calciu of blessed memory: Jesus did not come to undo suffering, but rather to fill it with His presence. I think also that we have been going about this the wrong way. we are not sola scriptura Protestants, who only argue from the Scriptures alone, so you can't just sling Bible verses at us as if that will throw us off our guard.

It's good to know that I'm being too rational. I wouldn't like to be seem as a irrational being while talking about murdered children.

sarcasm aside, I will pull another quote, this one from CS Lewis. he said that if God were small enough for our minds, He wouldn't be large enough for our needs.

see, somehow you still think that all of these things are the worst things out there. God can allow someone to die because that very thing could be that person's ticket to heaven. you need to understand that physical death and physical pain are not the worst things. the worse thing for us is the death of the soul. so God can use suffering and pain and even death to save someone. so yes, God can use the rapists and the murderers and every other bad kind of guy out there to bring about repentance to those being attacked. God allows evil in this world, because He will not override our freedom, and we chose evil over good all the time.

 

[icxn]

@icxn
In spite of your irony, I liked your last reply. It was much more intense than ArmyMatt's posts.

However, there's a problem in your conclusion that God is clearly good now just because your life seems to be good. Think about His skills - omniscience, love, and the power to do anything. Nothing happens if the Father, the Ressurrected Son, and the Holy Spirit didn't allow it to happen in first place. You need to see his reactions both in the past and now.

Note: please focus on the problem that I'm going to mention. Don't mistake child abuse and tooth ache. If you don't know a lot about it, I strongly suggest you to read some stories on a victim support site before thinking about this difficult, serious subject.

So, what do you observe from His behavior (lack of concern) towards children that are molested daily? Is this compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

Before replying, don't forget that this same God supposely used to be around everytime to make sure that things were like he thought they should be, as you saw in my posts about the OT.

So, again, is for example violently murdering children for just calling a man bald (2 Kings 2:23-24) and then letting men to rape children up to this day compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

Indeed it is. If He were to immediately punish everyone that sinned then few, if anybody, would be saved. But as it is He gives them (the criminals) time to repent so as not to perish eternally. As for the victims, He is going to recompense them for what they suffered in the age to come, so I do not see the problem. Another good that comes from no being immediately involved, is that compassionate people - like yourself - have a chance to prove their virtue by helping these children and thus increasing their heavenly rewards.

The Bible mentions many covenants, contracts with God, not only two. God has made covenants with a lot of men and promised them a good life. "After the flood", "after you kill all enemies", "after you cruise the sea", "after you build a temple", "after the Messiah comes to the world", "after Jesus comes back" etc.

What if the prophets of Israel were wrong or lied, just like the prophets of other religions? The other things were done and the "promised land" wasn't any heaven at all. Now your "prophet organization" (the church) wants you to believe that that perfect life previously preached by the same deity only will begin after you die(?!). Don't forget that Jesus also promised that he would give anything to the faithful people that asked honestly - the Gospels mention it a few times, not just once. His message was not only about something after your death, but also about getting things in this world through honest prayer.

If they lied there's nothing to lose. If they did not and we ignore it much harm can result. The old cliche.

As for answering my prayers I have no complaint, He did many times.

The chosen faithful have done everything God asked, yet millions of children still starve and are raped everyday

. As the last covenant now depends on God alone, he can easily not fulfil the "eternal life giveaway" commitment, just like he's failed to listen to the prayers of molested children (another commitment - ask and you shall receive).

Do you believe that the Trinity had a good reason not to fix at least these things up to this day too? It means that Jesus broke his promise or was wrong about praying to God the Father to ask him to stop evil and provide food. Since Jesus is part of this omniscient God too and is never wrong, he broke a promise, and your life is based on another promise of this same God that is unlikely to be fulfilled.

Yes, The Trinity had a good reason and I 've already provided a "scenario" that allows for this.

No it doesn't mean that God broke His promise. It just means He hasn't fulfilled it yet.

 

[Norbert L]

As a side note, I really appreciated your compliment. It's good to know that I'm being too rational. I wouldn't like to be seem as a irrational being while talking about murdered children.

----

However, there's a problem in your conclusion that God is clearly good now just because your life seems to be good. Think about His skills - omniscience, love, and the power to do anything. Nothing happens if the Father, the Ressurrected Son, and the Holy Spirit didn't allow it to happen in first place. You need to see his reactions both in the past and now.

It would be rational to presume that God does not change, "For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Mal 3:6) and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb 13:8)

Note: please focus on the problem that I'm going to mention. Don't mistake child abuse and tooth ache. If you don't know a lot about it, I strongly suggest you to read some stories on a victim support site before thinking about this difficult, serious subject.

So, what do you observe from His behavior (lack of concern) towards children that are molested daily? Is this compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

Before replying, don't forget that this same God supposely used to be around everytime to make sure that things were like he thought they should be, as you saw in my posts about the OT.

How rational is it even today, to blame the crime on someone else rather than the perpertrator? An adult who violently abuses children and it's God who is guilty? Also as your example shows, that somehow because He executes righteous judgment on children that are guilty of mocking the Lord's anointed. " for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?" (1 Sa 26:9) That makes them innocent while God is guilty?

So, again, is for example violently murdering children for just calling a man bald (2 Kings 2:23-24) and then letting men to rape children up to this day compatible with a loving, omniscient, all-powerful Triune God?

Indeed if it were up to some people, they would haul God before court and establish their righteousness above His. A man’s knowledge of love is greater than the love of his Creator.

"Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified? Have you an arm like God? Or can you thunder with a voice like His? Then adorn yourself with majesty and splendor, And array yourself with glory and beauty. Disperse the rage of your wrath; Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him. Look on everyone who is proud, and bring him low; Tread down the wicked in their place. Hide them in the dust together, Bind their faces in hidden darkness. Then I will also confess to you That your own right hand can save you." (Job 40:8:14)

The Bible mentions many covenants, contracts with God, not only two. God has made covenants with a lot of men and promised them a good life. "After the flood", "after you kill all enemies", "after you cruise the sea", "after you build a temple", "after the Messiah comes to the world", "after Jesus comes back" etc.

What if the prophets of Israel were wrong or lied, just like the prophets of other religions? The other things were done and the "promised land" wasn't any heaven at all. Now your "prophet organization" (the church) wants you to believe that that perfect life previously preached by the same deity only will begin after you die(?!). Don't forget that Jesus also promised that he would give anything to the faithful people that asked honestly - the Gospels mention it a few times, not just once. His message was not only about something after your death, but also about getting things in this world through honest prayer.

What about the prophets of Israel? What if misunderstanding, wrongly interpreting them and the rest of the scriptures, what would that create?

"But the word of the Lord was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught." (Is 28:13)

Misunderstanding and wrongfully putting the word together is a road that leads to death! And it's not as if today Christianity is immune to having false teachers. "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you..." (2 Pe 2:1)

The chosen faithful have done everything God asked, yet millions of children still starve and are raped everyday. As the last covenant now depends on God alone, he can easily not fulfil the "eternal life giveaway" commitment, just like he's failed to listen to the prayers of molested children (another commitment - ask and you shall receive).

The chosen faithful have done everything God asked???

"Where do wars and fights come from among you {the chosen faithful}? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." (Jms 4:1-3)

As Peter also wrote, "Now 'If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?'" (1 Pe 4:18)

Now somehow again as is evidenced the righteous seem to have problems of their own, yet still somehow their prayers are also to be held responsible for molested children. How rational is that?

Do you believe that the Trinity had a good reason not to fix at least these things up to this day too? It means that Jesus broke his promise or was wrong about praying to God the Father to ask him to stop evil and provide food. Since Jesus is part of this omniscient God too and is never wrong, he broke a promise, and your life is based on another promise of this same God that is unlikely to be fulfilled.

Just because God's timetable and motives don't match up with a man's mistaken ideas about Him, what mere men concider a proper timetable and what they concider righteous motives, does not mean God is unrighteous or powerless to offer salvation when He chooses to. "let God be true but every man a liar." (Ro 3:4)

Look at what happenned to Saul.

"Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest" (Ac 9:1)

Paul did not know the Lord and also misunderstood the love of God the OT scriptures reveal too.

"And he said, 'Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'" (v. 5)

It could be said that Paul initially received the wrong letters, but the letters given afterwards from the High Priest Jesus Christ are here now to clarify 'why the Lord commanded people to kill their friends and brothers'.



"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief...This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life." (1 Tim 1:12-13,15-16)

So what about those friends and brothers that were killed, who failed to enter into the promised land? "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (Heb 13:9) How is Paul’s “pattern” speak of God’s love for those already dead in unbelief?

What about them, "those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?" (He 3:17) Is it possible that "they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Ro 11:23) What about all men including the Egyptians that He slew, how will they "know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the children of Israel from among them." (Ex 7:5)

Does He not call them His people too? "Blessed is Egypt My people..." (Is 19:25) How does "To Him who struck Egypt in their firstborn" How does "His mercy endures forever" (Ps 136:10)? Where is His mercy even though in righteousness God takes their lives?

As one letter mentions, "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (Ro 11:32) And what pattern, what righteous intervention for all those who were not struck down in the same pattern as Paul’s on the road to Damascus? “whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” (2 Cor 4:4)

"Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it," says the LORD.' "

 

[Lukaris]

If the OP is still looking at this thread, I thought I would mention another Biblical verse often referred to as the command to kill a witch and I had posted this elsewhere in TAW (can't remember precise). Anyway, the reason I mention this is that the verse is so short and an explanation of it in Biblical times is more complex which makes me think that it is sometimes hard to explain certain scriptures although I am not implying that there is contradiction in the Bible. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18, KJV). In the writings of the 1st c. A.D. Pharisee Josephus he refers to Moses as saying,"Let no one of the Israelites keep any poison that may cause death, or any other harm; but if he be caught with it, let him be put to death, and suffer the very same mischief that he would have brought upon them for whom the poison was prepared." (Josephus, Antiquities, 4:8:34 per 1736 translation of William Whitson). Witson comments, "What we render a "witch" according to our modern notions (18th century here) of witchcraft, Exodus 18:22, Philo and Josephus understood of a poisoner, or one who attempted , by secret & unlawful drugs or philtra to take away the senses of the lives of men." I mention this verse in contrast to the first scripture in your original post and could not even find mention of it by Josephus although it is scripture, of course, in both the Septuagint & Masoretic texts and yet Josephus is an overall excellent ancient source to study the Torah. The fact that God did not order King Saul to kill wizards etc. since Saul only exiled them and was not rebuked until he secretly consulted the witch of Endor to conjur Samuel from the dead was where he received condemnation. Surely the general inquiry of the OP is worthy & deserving explanation but such cannot always easily be given. OTH, non Christians should not be in such a rush to self righteous vexation as to how could Christians worship such a "cruel" God as when the evidence of God is revealed in His only begotten Son Jesus Christ from whom all human understanding of love derives?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Kosmofilo,

I'm an Orthodox Christian and I myself have had (and to some extent still do) questions regarding these verses describing violence and genocide in the Old testament. These are issues of deep important and deserve good answers which unfortunately I'm probably unable to give because I'm still trying to figure them out myself.

One thing I've been told that has helped me understand them a little better is the early Jewish view of divine will. The Jews did not make a distinction between the active will of God and the permissive will of God as we do now. If something took place it was "because God willed it". If the Israelite army was successful in doing something (even putting children to the sword) they would say "God willed it" and would portray such an action as having been ordered by God personally.

I've also read allegorical interpretations of certain scriptures of that nature (particularly the one about "dashing infants against stones") and it is possible some of them are spiritual allegories given in the form of historical events. The infants being symbolic of impure thoughts, the stone being symbolic of (i think) prayer (or something of that nature..).

Anyways, thats all the "help" (if it is in fact helpful) I can give because I still struggle with a lot of these verses myself.

 

[Protoevangel]

I've also read allegorical interpretations of certain scriptures of that nature (particularly the one about "dashing infants against stones") and it is possible some of them are spiritual allegories given in the form of historical events. The infants being symbolic of impure thoughts, the stone being symbolic of (i think) prayer (or something of that nature..).

Anyways, thats all the "help" (if it is in fact helpful) I can give because I still struggle with a lot of these verses myself.

The allegorical interpretation of Scripture is good and important, it is the "why" of Scripture. But rarely does the allegorical reject the historical interpretation. The historic interpretation being the lower, baser truth; simply reporting what happened, and the allegorical interpretation being the higher truth; how the events benefit our salvation.

The Scripture you are referencing is Psalm 136 (137) "By the rivers of Babylon", "Wretched daughter of Babylon! blessed shall he be who shall reward thee as thou hast rewarded us. Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock.". The psalm is part of Kathisma 19, read during Friday Orthros most of the year, and sung especially solemnly at three other Orthros services just prior to Lent. It is not a historical passage in itself, but it references a very real historical time in the life of Israel. Alexander Schmemann said of it, that "It is the Psalm of exile. It was sung by the Jews in their Babylonian captivity as they thought of their holy city of Jerusalem." Having never been the victims of exile, slavery, rape, and brutality, it is easy for usto think that this is a horrendous thing for the Holy Spirit to inspire Jeremias to write. I think we do a great disservice to God and to the truth when we dismiss it's historical significance simply because it is "messy".

On the other hand, you are absolutely right... The real importance of the psalm is not in the "literal" or "historical" understanding. It is in what it means to us through Christ, and explained to us by the Holy Fathers of the Church. In "The Faith We Hold" by Archbishop Paul of Finland, he says of the passage, "The little ones of Babylon symbolize just those involuntary sinful thoughts and images which come to our minds as described above. They must be destroyed the moment they are born, and dashed against the rock. And this rock is Jesus Christ." I seem to remember reading early Fathers of the Church making similar commentary. Father Thomas Hopko speaks about the psalm in his podcast "Speaking the Truth in Love", here.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Protoevangel,

Thank you for you wonderful post. I notice that I have read intreprations of the "dashing the infants" statement in the manner you describe but not once have I read any of the Fathers teach that it would have been in fact a good thing to dash literal infants against stones.

 

[Protoevangel]

Protoevangel,

Thank you for you wonderful post. I notice that I have read intreprations of the "dashing the infants" statement in the manner you describe but not once have I read any of the Fathers teach that it would have been in fact a good thing to dash literal infants against stones.

Indeed. You would never hear me say that either. You will never hear me say anything like "it would have been in fact a good thing to dash literal infants against stones." or "it is good to kill everyone in a city, men, women and children" or "it is good to kill off everyone in the world except a chosen few". But it is clear that these things did happen. It is also clear that these acts, some done by God, and some at His command, were... necessary.

When I feel I need to explain these things away, to satisfy my own sensibilities, I look to Job 38-42.

Why would it be so rare for a Church Father to comment on the historicity of such a passage? Why would they want to? First of all, it is uncomfortable, and more importantly, it is not the most important thing to be learned from the passage. Anybody can see the literal... Even those who are not Christians, but the real truths, revealed by the Holy Spirit and revealing Christ is what the Fathers tended to focus on. It is one thing to focus on the higher truth contained in the passages, but it is another thing entirely to actively deny that the words had any historical significance to the people who wrote them and sang them and lived them.

 

[Protoevangel]

Christos Anesti, my brother,

I was about to email my spiritual father, and thought about this thread. I came back to it to see if I should get his input on the subject. When I reread my posts, I realized my words could be interpreted as arguing against you or accusing you of "explain[ing] these things away" and "dismiss[ing] it's historical significance".

If that was how you saw my words, then please understand that this was not my intention. You mentioned the allegorical interpretation, but your post did not explicitly deny the historicity of the passage you mentioned. You even mentioned God's active will vs His permissive will in your post, after all. My warning was more of a general warning...

It is simply because we are in a public multifaith forum, that I thought it was important to mention what I did. In fundamentalism, they can focus so much on the literal, and they miss out on the deeper truths. In liberalism, they can ignore the literal so much that anything that they take away from the Scriptures is mere fable. Orthodoxy does not follow either of these paths, as I am sure you already know full well. I was just pointing out that the historicity of Scripture does not need to be rejected for the allegorical truth to be embraced wholly.

I am sorry if I came across as being accusatory. That was not at all my intent.

 

[Barky]

Kosmo,

Your concerns are something we all have to struggle with at one time or another. It seems you expect us to not know about these verses, though, which is typically not a true assumption. Basically, my response to these answers is this: God does what He wills. To ask us to answer for God's will is to ask us to be God, which is impossible and downright silly. Like ArmyMatt has been trying to tell you, We are able to accept these things with peace because we have an experience of God. We know of His love, if only in a very small way, most of us (me especially) are not saints. We can't argue with you about this, we can't give an account of God's will, we can merely speculate. We also can look at the interpretation of the Fathers to help us out, but in the end, you must wrestle with this. May God grant you wisdom, and the fruits of your struggling.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I am sorry if I came across as being accusatory. That was not at all my intent.

No, not at all. I enjoyed reading both your posts. I'm far from an authority on such matters and if someone disagreed or appeared to disagree I wouldn't take it that hard anyway.

 

[Killtheflesh777]

. the Orthodox answer is that God is loving, so we see everything that God does in that light.

..armymatt, your responses are well placed thankyou.
Let me just say this to add..If we truly knew the mind of God, and knew how and why He wills as He does..He would not be God..What human mind can begin to comprehend? it is hard enough to dwell on the incarnation of The Son, The beauty of life eternal and so on...but we do know one thing, That The Holy Trinity loves us and does everything out of great love for our souls.
( remember the Psalm 'They knowledge is too great for me! I cannot attain unto it...')

 

[ProtectionofMotherofGod]

Indeed. You would never hear me say that either. You will never hear me say anything like "it would have been in fact a good thing to dash literal infants against stones." or "it is good to kill everyone in a city, men, women and children" or "it is good to kill off everyone in the world except a chosen few". But it is clear that these things did happen. It is also clear that these acts, some done by God, and some at His command, were... necessary.

When I feel I need to explain these things away, to satisfy my own sensibilities, I look to Job 38-42.

Why would it be so rare for a Church Father to comment on the historicity of such a passage? Why would they want to? First of all, it is uncomfortable, and more importantly, it is not the most important thing to be learned from the passage. Anybody can see the literal... Even those who are not Christians, but the real truths, revealed by the Holy Spirit and revealing Christ is what the Fathers tended to focus on. It is one thing to focus on the higher truth contained in the passages, but it is another thing entirely to actively deny that the words had any historical significance to the people who wrote them and sang them and lived them.

I realize that this is a very old post (please forgive) but my priest gave a different interpretation of this Psalm. This description is similar to his interpretation.

I'm under 50 posts, so I can't post the link. Here is a clue where the following was found. logismoitouaaron st dorotheus of gaza on dash thine Logismoi: St Dorotheus of Gaza on 'Dash Thine Infants Against the Rock

Psalm 136:9
Blessed is he who shall get the upper hand
and dash your infants against the rock

Some believe that this Psalm refers to dashing the logismoi against Christ.

From St Dorotheus:
But let us search out the meaning of this saying in detail. ‘Babylon’ means confusion. For Babel has the same meaning as Shechem (Gen 12:6). ‘Daughter of Babylon’ means enmity [or the enemy]. First the soul is put to confusion and so it produces sin; but he calls sin miserable, because sin (and I have spoken of this elsewhere) has no existence or substance of its own but is brought into existence through our own carelessness; and again through our correction it is destroyed and loses its existence. Therefore, he says, as though a holy man were speaking to sin, ‘Blessed is he who pays back to you what we have received.’ Let us learn what we have given, what we have received, and what we should desire to give back again. We have given our desire and we received back sin. This text calls ‘happy’ the man who gives back this evil and by this ‘giving back’ he means no longer doing it. Then he adds, ‘Happy the man who takes your little ones and dashes them against a rock’—as if he would say: Happy the man who seized the things generated from you, ‘the enemy’, i.e. the evil thoughts [logismoi], not giving them a chance to grow strong in him and constrain him to evil deeds, but immediately, while they are still in their infancy, before they are fed and grow strong against him, flings them down on the rock, which is Christ. In other words he utterly destroys them by taking refuge in Christ. (pp. 174-5)

 

[Protoevangel]

I read the blog post (Logismoi: St Dorotheus of Gaza on 'Dash Thine Infants Against the Rock'). This is not a "different interpretation". He gave "the interpretation". What St. Dorotheus says here is exactly true. This is the Allegorical, Spiritual meaning of the Psalm. Never did I deny this.

My only point was that the Psalm also had a literal meaning when it was written. Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed. The people had been exiled, raped, murdered, etc. It was an extremely traumatic experience, and the people were in anguish and lamented their situation. This Psalm was the natural outpouring of that anguish.

"Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!" is the type. "Dashing the logismoi against Christ" is the antitype.

Or do we suggest that because "'Babylon' means confusion", that there was not a real country called Babylon?

-- That was my point. You do right to focus on the Spiritual meaning. But the OP was from a nonChristian. I don't think it's fair to expect nonChristians to understand what the Holy Spirit has revealed.

 

[ProtectionofMotherofGod]

Forgive me if I have unintentionally offended you. My last post was not posted to insult you. I only wanted to share the interpretation from St Dorotheus.

 

[Protoevangel]

Forgive me if I have unintentionally offended you. My last post was not posted to insult you. I only wanted to share the interpretation from St Dorotheus.

No offense at all. You were fine.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I was just reading the Philocalia of Origen today that was put together by Sts Basil and Gregory Nazianzus. I think it relates well to our discussion here.

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp. 1-237. English translation