Why would one be happy smashing Babylonian babies against rocks?

[IndyEllis]

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. ~ Psalms 137:8-9

 

[TexasKitKat]

This scripture seems to be the cry of one who lives under the Old Testament concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The Babylonians utterly destroyed Jerusalem, no doubt smashing babies on the rocks, among many other torturous, evil deeds. The psalmist is crying out in his pain that God would repay the Babylonians in the same way.

Christ has shown us a better way. We are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

 

[HypnoToad]

First, it's not really happy that babies are being killed, it's happy that justice is being delivered.

Second, the word translated as "infants" really just means "children" without specifying age - it can be grown children, not just babies. Someone who is 30 is still the "child" of his parents.

 

[HypnoToad]

First, Ciaphas, the only non-Christian who can post in this thread is the original poster (read the rules of this area), so I will answer this one, but further posts by you in this thread I will ignore.

Second, this is not about walking up to unsuspecting innocent people and just killing them, this is about God's punishment against wickedness.

 

[eolculnamo2]

7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Psalms 137:8-9

I think you need to look at these verses in context.
I don't know much about the history of Babylonia. I haven't studied to deeply into the old testament, but it sounds to me like Babylonia made an attack on some other nation and now the other nation is coming back to get revenge. Back in those days, it wasn't uncommmon to kill everyone, even infants. Their hate would make it joyful to kill the infants because of what that nation did to them before.

 

[£amb]

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. ~ Psalms 137:8-9

The one thing about reading passages in the OT is understanding what was going on at that time. Israel was taken captive with their children by the Babylonians in several different invasions. God is pronouncing judgment upon Babylon for its great sin in showing no mercy when it destroyed Jerusalem and led the Jews captive. God is stating that Babylon will be dealt in the same manner that she treated Israel (according to prophecy). The day was coming when an enemy will rejoice in its triumph over Babylon, and will be happy in the Slaughter. It was the Medes and Persians that conquered Babylon. She was completely overtaken and ruined by these empires. And just as the Babylonians rejoiced in destroying Jerusalem and Israel, God says its conquerors will rejoice in destroying her, including her innocent infants.
God is stating what the future will be for Babylon.. This was a fulfillment of Isaiah 13:15-16: Everyone who is found will be thrust through, and everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.”

 

[Secundulus]

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. ~ Psalms 137:8-9

It is a metaphor.

Also, the Jews never invaded nor conquered Babylon so the verse could not have been talking about them. The Persians, under Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. The Psalm was simply recording what the Persians did and attributing it to divine justice.

 

[calidog]

Psa 137:9 -
Happy shall he be that taketh ... - Margin, as in Hebrew, rock. This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isa_13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it." Compare 2Ki_8:12; Nah_3:10; Hos_13:16. See also Homer, II xxii. 63,373, following It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now.
It should be added, however, that there is much - very much - that is practiced in war by "civilized" nations still, which it is equally impossible to reconcile with any just notions of morality or humanity, and which in coming ages, and when people shall come to view things aright, will seem to the people of those times to be not less monstrous, strange, and barbarous. In regard to this passage, we are not necessarily to suppose that the author of the psalm approved of this, or desired it, or prayed for it. He looked forward to the fulfillment of a prediction; he saw that a just and terrible judgment would certainly come upon Babylon; he expressed that in the common language of the times, and states the manner in which it would occur; he described the feelings - the gratification - of those who would execute the divine purpose in the overthrow of Babylon; he referred to the estimate in which the conqueror would be held by people, and the glory of the achievement as giving him fame among people.
It must be admitted that the feelings of the author of the psalm appear to accord with this; that he considers it proper that the city should be destroyed; and that he regards its overthrow as a righteous judgment, and as a thing to be desired in the divine administration. It is true that he might approve of such an overthrow, and see it to be right - he might describe the feelings of those by whom it would be done, their joy, their exultation, and even their barbarity, without himself approving of their barbarity, or sympathizing with their feelings, or partaking of their spirit; but still it cannot in fairness be denied that there is an apparent approval of the act here referred to, which savors more of imprecation than forgiveness, and which is apparently prompted more by the spirit of revenge than by a desire of just punishment. On this subject, however, see the General Introduction, Section 6 (4); and the notes at Psa_109:10. A correct record may be made, whether of facts or of feelings, without any design of expressing either approbation or disapprobation on the part of the historian, the prophet, or the poet.

Commentary by Barnes

 

[IndyEllis]

OK, so now what's the deal with all this talk of "moral absolutes" then?

 

[£amb]

OK, so now what's the deal with all this talk of "moral absolutes" then?

Huh ....I must of missed that part of the conversation...

 

[IndyEllis]

First, it's not really happy that babies are being killed, it's happy that justice is being delivered.

Second, the word translated as "infants" really just means "children" without specifying age - it can be grown children, not just babies. Someone who is 30 is still the "child" of his parents.

Sorry, we were talking about Babylonian "infants" and how they might have been older than babies and how somehow killing them for what someone else had done was some how just.

 

[Criada]

This appears to be a prophetic statement rather than an instruction!
There is no sense of moral judgement, merely a statement of fact.
God is certainly not telling people to murder infants - nor was it the Israelites who fullfilled this prophecy.

 

[IndyEllis]

This appears to be a prophetic statement rather than an instruction!
There is no sense of moral judgement, merely a statement of fact.
God is certainly not telling people to murder infants - nor was it the Israelites who fullfilled this prophecy.

For an omnipotent, omniscient God, what's the difference between the two?

Why Jesus said "you will deny me three times," wasn't Peter just being obedient?

 

[Criada]

Really - do you want to get into the whole free-will/predestination thing?
Because you know the answers...

 

[heron]

The way that Strong presents the definitions, it could possibly be translated in a much calmer manner:

who takes and disperses/scatters (the) child(ren) between/within the rocks/crags... almost like seeing the children leave out of disloyalty.


who seizes [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] grasp, take hold, seize, take possession[/FONT]

and dashes

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] to shatter, break, dash
   [*] to scatter, disperse, overspread, be scattered[/FONT][/FONT]

your little ones
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]child, boy[/FONT]

Against

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] to, toward, unto (of motion)
   [*] into (limit is actually entered)
   1. in among
   [*] toward (of direction, not necessarily physical motion)
   [*] against (motion or direction of a hostile character)
   [*] in addition to, to
   [*] concerning, in regard to, in reference to, on account of
   [*] according to (rule or standard)
   [*] at, by, against (of one's presence)
   [*] in between, in within, to within, unto (idea of motion to)[/FONT]

the rock.

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] crag, cliff, rock
   1. crag, cliff
   2. as stronghold of Jehovah, of security (fig.)
   [/FONT]

The word used for repays means:

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] to be in a covenant of peace, be at peace
   1. (Qal)
      1. to be at peace
      2. peaceful one (participle)
   2. (Pual) one in covenant of peace (participle)
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to make peace with
      2. to cause to be at peace
   4. (Hophal) to live in peace
   [*] to be complete, be sound
   1. (Qal)
      1. to be complete, be finished, be ended
      2. to be sound, be uninjured
   2. (Piel)
      1. to complete, finish
      2. to make safe
      3. to make whole or good, restore, make compensation
      4. to make good, pay
      5. to requite, recompense, reward
   3. (Pual)
      1. to be performed
      2. to be repaid, be requited
   4. (Hiphil)
      1. to complete, perform
      2. to make an end of
   [/FONT]

recompense


repaid

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] to deal fully with, recompense
   1. (Qal)
      1. to deal out to, do to
      2. to deal bountifully with
      3. to recompense, repay, requite
   [*] (Qal) to wean a child (Niphal) to be weaned
   [*] (Qal) to ripen, bear ripe (almonds)
   There is very little vengeance in these word definitions.
   
   [/FONT]