Thread: Kerygmania: What do we do with the cursing psalms? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000719
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
This is inspired by Psyduck's thread and this from Barny.
What on earth do you do with a Psalm like 137 ? Except, of course, sing the opening words in Boney M fashion (there's just not enough tie-dye in music anymore, don't you agree?)
But seriously, its particularly the last verse, the curse, that is troubling. I don't have in front of me the references for the other cursing Psalms and I don't remember which ones they are ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
, but if someone else can provide the info that would be great.
Getting back to Psalm 137, I am not happy to just pretend it doesn't exist. FWIW, the way I treat the song is as the Psalmist expressing and releasing anger to God. He/she was in such agony of grief and anger that he/she really did want to murder the children of his/her oppressors. And it is entirely appropriate to feel anger of this kind - feelings are morally neutral. It is best to release this kind of anger to God, just let it go, rather than acting on it. God can take it, and is not shocked by it.
That's just my humble view, what do others think?
[ 30. October 2009, 12:14: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Well, first of all, it helps to dispense with the idea that they were dropped from the mind of God directly into the heads of the Psalmists, who passively transferred them to text. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think they serve a purpose for us in demonstrating what it looks like to "get real" before God...to be completely transparent and to communicate exactly what we're thinking and feeling to God, even if it's stuff like wishing we could pulverize our enemies' children against the rocks. God doesn't want our pious personas -- God wants all of us.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I agree with Dark Knight and LutheranChik that the honesty shown in verses like this is good. If we don't admit our extreme negative feelings, God can't help us transform them.
C. S. Lewis has suggested another use for these verses. They show us what extreme injustice does to people. We need to remember that when we are tempted to treat others unfairly.
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
It helps if we think of Babylon, not as a real place with actual people, but simply as evil incarnate. It is often dealt with this way in Scripture.
It is not just big evils that need to be gotten rid of, but even small ones.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I find it helpful to let the cursing psalms remind me of the sometimes very thin line between religious zeal and destructive fanaticism.
We see it all around us (in all religions but especially Christianity and Islam) - what starts as religious zeal and healthy passion for one's cause flips into deadly self-righteous hatred for "the enemy".
Psalm 137 is a wonderful example of this, because of the beautiful, yearning section at the opening. But after such poignant words, we suddenly switch to violent bitterness of a kind that could never represent God's will. I do not think that there is any legitimate way of interpreting these verses in an approving way. Surely we have to say "this is not God's way. This is what happens when we let our passion and pain overcome the light of Christ within us."
In addition, psalms like 137 help me to remember that the religious zealots who have tumbled into such violence are not usually complete monsters. They have a passion for their God which (properly directed and controlled) could be valuable and world-changing. They do not spend all their time pursuing a hate-filled agenda - there are times when they will seem quite normal and prefectly reasonable.
================================================
All this applies to other parts of the Bible than the Psalms. The daily lectionary reading this morning was from Ezra 10 - all about how Ezra led those who had returned from exile to renounce their non-Jewish wives. I couldn't help feeling that what I was reading was all about "racial purity" and misdirected religious zealotry, rather than being a reflection of the loving, saving God. Was it really God's will that so many wives (and their children) were just rejected? And what did these poor women think about the God in whose name this was done?
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It helps if we think of Babylon, not as a real place with actual people, but simply as evil incarnate. It is often dealt with this way in Scripture.
It is not just big evils that need to be gotten rid of, but even small ones.
Go, Freddy!
I think the term "Edomites" can also used metaphorically to depict "evil ones". The sin that is within us begets more sin within us. Those "children" (and their "parents") must be destroyed so that we can return to spiritual Jerusalem from our spiritual captivity in Babylon.
Well, maybe.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It helps if we think of Babylon, not as a real place with actual people, but simply as evil incarnate. It is often dealt with this way in Scripture.
It is not just big evils that need to be gotten rid of, but even small ones.
Go, Freddy!
I think the term "Edomites" can also used metaphorically to depict "evil ones". The sin that is within us begets more sin within us. Those "children" (and their "parents") must be destroyed so that we can return to spiritual Jerusalem from our spiritual captivity in Babylon.
Well, maybe.
I think it is helpful that Edomites and Babylonians, not to mention Philistines and the inhabitants of Sodom, no longer exist. They can be metaphorically demonized to our hearts' content.
I think that we all know that this is the way that ancient, and modern, peoples have traditionally talked about their mortal enemies. They are seemingly unaware of the Christian edict that we are to love our enemies.
To my mind, therefore, it works to move all of this up a level, and have "Babylon" not be a real place but a fictional representative of evil itself.
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
I think that there are a couple of things to take into consideration with this Psalm (and the imprecatory psalms in general).- The psalmist is praying for justice - that the evil that Babylon has executed on others is visited upon Babylon. The things that the psalmist is calling for are the evils that Babylon was guilty of.
- In verses 8-9 The psalmist may well be assuming that "the one" who visits this justice is God himself.
- The psalmist has personified the city as a mother - and the little ones would be the citizens of the city, not necessarily the actual children. (Compare Is 47 & Lam 1)
In terms of what do we do with them - then we can look at how the NT understands who the enemies of God's people are and how we should respond. It would seem to maintain the same attitude, but refocus who the true enemies are - not flesh and blood, but the spiritual forces of Sin, Suffering & Death.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
C. S. Lewis has suggested another use for these verses. They show us what extreme injustice does to people. We need to remember that when we are tempted to treat others unfairly.
Moo
That's very good. I had a feeling that Lewis had said something about this but couldn't recall it.
The notion sort of links with this, literally, bitter-sweet-bitter passage. An extraordinary outpouring of bitterness, hope, trust and desire for retribution which says a lot about the physical, emotional and spiritual state of the exile or outcast. I guess it "unpacks" stuff like the stinky verse in Psalm 137, to our advantage.
(For those who spot times, I'm up very early following a delicious but OTT Chinese takeaway meal with friends. A very self-inflicted affliction.)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I couldn't get that link to work Barnabas.
Love these ideas shipmates. Just shows how much diversity and richness there is in the various traditions and approaches to Biblical interpretation.
I will say Anselm, I didn't buy your point 3 all that much. Yes, Babylon is personified, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to associate "little ones" with subjects especially. In the Lamentations passage you have cited, some different peoples are mentioned - the priests, the virgins. So it seems the writer could have used a more generic term, such as "children" or "subjects" here.
I think this is basically a shocking image of children being brutally killed, reflecting deep rage at injustice, as you said. Very troubling to encounter the shadow side of humanity in such a confronting manner. I love the fact that the compilers of the canon had the balls to leave it in.
[ 17. November 2005, 05:42: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Dark Knight
I linked to Lamentations Chapter 3 (the whole chapter) - its working for me. I should have said so in the link.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I will cite the comments of Augustin Arndt, SJ, on Psalm 136(137):9 from the 1911 Biblia Sacra (my translation from German):
"Compare Isaiah 13:16 et sqq.; Nahum 3:10. Thus Babylon is destroyed forever. It is the zeal for God which inspires the poet to such hard words. - Taken in the mystical sense, the psalm is the sighing of the pious, who still suffer from the temptation of desires, for the heavenly Sion."
What is "mystically" smashed to pieces here then are all those little temptations - ever ready to grown into full-blown sins - which we cannot seem to get rid of in this world. Only then is evil finally conquered.
[ 17. November 2005, 06:27: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It would seem to maintain the same attitude, but refocus who the true enemies are - not flesh and blood, but the spiritual forces of Sin, Suffering & Death.
Even this seems wrong to me, as it is the attitude itself which is at fault - not whether it is directed at physical people or has been spiritualised.
It is one thing to say that such hatred is a natural, human reaction and to be honest enough to admit that you feel it. But it is quite something else to say that such attitudes are desirable or good.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
With Oscar. It's what I mean about scripture sometimes giving an example not to follow. Rationalising seems to me to be wrong and counter-productive. Moo's pointing to the individual and community suffering as a generator of attitudes seems to me to be a better, more understanding, way of assessing the text.
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It would seem to maintain the same attitude, but refocus who the true enemies are - not flesh and blood, but the spiritual forces of Sin, Suffering & Death.
Even this seems wrong to me, as it is the attitude itself which is at fault - not whether it is directed at physical people or has been spiritualised.
It is one thing to say that such hatred is a natural, human reaction and to be honest enough to admit that you feel it. But it is quite something else to say that such attitudes are desirable or good.
Are you saying it isn't right to "hate" evil?
Many of the Bible writers seem to have no problems with hating evil... quote:
Psalm 97:10
O you who love the Lord, hate evil!
quote:
Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.
quote:
Isaiah 61:8
For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong
quote:
Amos 5:15
Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying it isn't right to "hate" evil?
Many of the Bible writers seem to have no problems with hating evil...
Very nice quotes!
Another example might be Psyduck' thread title "This is in the Bible - but it stinks! IMHO..." ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
It falls right into the pattern of using hyperbole to express strong opposition to injustice. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Posted by Anselm:
Are you saying it isn't right to "hate" evil?
Now I am not following. Are you saying that the feelings expressed in the last verse of Ps 137 are moral ? A good thing?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying it isn't right to "hate" evil?
Many of the Bible writers seem to have no problems with hating evil...
Yes I am!
First of all, this thread (and the sister one on bits of the bible that stink) are all about how literally do we take the bible writers. Do we say "they use the word hate, so that's OK" or "they spoke from their pespective in ways that we - living in the light of Christ - would be better off avoiding". This isn't about downplaying the severity of sin or the purity of God's holiness - it is about what language is suitable. For the language we use affects how we behave. When we use the language of hatred, we are (I believe) more likely to give in to the actions of hatred.
Secondly, I have an increasing distrust of such statements as "I hate sin" because too often in the past hatred of sin tumbles into hatred for the one who sins. Hatred of sin has a grave danger of becoming self-rightous and judgemental. I guess I feel that hatred is never a good response for anything.
Let me give a personal example. I am passionate about injustice and oppression. When I see it, I yearn to help overturn it. But I can't say that I "hate" it. I feel that passion to change what is wrong should lead to positive emotions and attitudes - to increase desire for what is good and pure. To allow hatred to take a hold seems to me to be giving in to the ways of darkness and negativity.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Oscar, let's try Dictionary.com's definitions for hate (minus "hatred", which seems too much of a synonym to explain anything IMHO):
1. Oscar has "intense animosity or dislike" for injustice and oppression.
2. Injustice and oppression is "an object of detestation" to Oscar.
Any problems with that? If not, why can your "passion" not be called "hate"?
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Posted by Anselm:
Are you saying it isn't right to "hate" evil?
Now I am not following. Are you saying that the feelings expressed in the last verse of Ps 137 are moral ? A good thing?
Well, the OP asked, What do we do with psalms like this. For me, there are two staged to this process.
I first try to understand what the psalm (or any other passage) meant to the original author and hearers.
Second, I seek to apply what that is saying to us now, given the different stage of salvation history that I may be in from the original audience. For OT passages in particular, this requires "drawing" the passage through the continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Testament.
The psalmist is crying out for justice and salvation. The language is poetically graphic - he calls for his arm to lose it's skill (to play the harp?) and his tongue to stick to the roof of his mouth if Jerusalem isn't his highest joy, he personifies Babylon as a woman with her citizens being her children and prays that what Babylon did to Jerusalem she would herself receive - these all reflect the deep emotion of the psalmist's cry. But I don't think there is anything wrong with the desire for justice and salvation. The problems arise with the actions we choose to satisfy these desires.
When we take the second step to applying this psalm to us then we encounter the way that the new covenant continues (and transforms) the facets of the OT religion such as Jerusalem and the enemies of the covenant, as well as the NT ethics of how we are to respond to evil in this world.
Jesus is the New Jerusalem, and Satan, Sin and are the enemies that besiege us, and which are defeated in the ministry of Jesus.
I believe that we are called to hate the evil desires in our own heart and to pray that they would be destroyed completely. I believe that we are called to hate the evil and injustices of this world and to rage against them with the same self sacrificial love that Jesus showed, praying that the God of loving justice would regenerate this fractured world.[/sermonising]
Apologies for raving on, but if you will now turn your in your song books to hymn 324, "Jesus loves me this I know"
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Now I am not following. Are you saying that the feelings expressed in the last verse of Ps 137 are moral ? A good thing?
What are you going to do if he says yes?
Back to the verse - it says that the people who were going to trash Babylon would be happy. I'm betting they were: they got to loot the wealthiest city in the world, acquire an empire, slaves etc. It's accurate. And it warns oppressors that when the tables are turned, their misery will be incredibly pleasurable for those who inflict it.
It would serve oppressors right if they were left to get their just desserts; is that why you're complaining? Because they were warned of the fate they were creating for themselves?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Jesus is the New Jerusalem, and Satan, Sin and are the enemies that besiege us, and which are defeated in the ministry of Jesus.
I believe that we are called to hate the evil desires in our own heart and to pray that they would be destroyed completely.
Very nice sermon.
To my mind this is the only way of looking at these Psalms that makes any sense.
Sure the Pslamist was raving with a desire to annihilate the enemy. But he was oppressed and suffering. It is understandable.
But the Christian knows not to hate the enemy. So Anselm's solution is the obvious choice.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Now I am not following. Are you saying that the feelings expressed in the last verse of Ps 137 are moral ? A good thing?
What are you going to do if he says yes?
Back to the verse - it says that the people who were going to trash Babylon would be happy. I'm betting they were: they got to loot the wealthiest city in the world, acquire an empire, slaves etc. It's accurate. And it warns oppressors that when the tables are turned, their misery will be incredibly pleasurable for those who inflict it.
It would serve oppressors right if they were left to get their just desserts; is that why you're complaining? Because they were warned of the fate they were creating for themselves?
I think people are complaining about the dashing children against rocks bit. Is that just desserts?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Now I am not following. Are you saying that the feelings expressed in the last verse of Ps 137 are moral ? A good thing?
What are you going to do if he says yes?
Declare a jihad on his arse, of course.
Sorry, that was lame. I can't find my copy of "Snappy answers to stupid questions" right this minute. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
For my answer to the rest of your post, see what Karl said.
quote:
Posted by Anselm:
The psalmist is crying out for justice and salvation.
Not IMO. The psalmist is crying out for revenge .
As to the injustice of what is happening, while I don't personally disagree with you, I think the OT is unequivocal that the Babylonian captivity is God's just punishment of the Hebrews for idolatry and disobedience. If you want to argue that the brutality of the Babylonians in capturing and exiling the Hebrew peoples was an injustice, you have my blessing. Is that what you're doing?
quote:
Posted by Anselm:
I believe that we are called to hate the evil desires in our own heart and to pray that they would be destroyed completely. I believe that we are called to hate the evil and injustices of this world and to rage against them with the same self sacrificial love that Jesus showed, praying that the God of loving justice would regenerate this fractured world
We clearly live in very different theological worlds, as I can't find terribly much in this that I agree with. But that's a Purg thread (possibly)...
What I will say here is that this seems to me to be a huge hermeneutical leap from the original passage. Don't get me wrong, I do see the process you followed to get there. I don't see the justification, even granted the process, in going from "smashing babys heads against rocks" to hating and destroying evil desires. It seems a bit contrived to me.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I just re-read my post, and I really am an idiot. I didn't read the section I quoted from Anselm correctly. Such that, this is what I disagree with:
quote:
I believe that we are called to hate the evil desires in our own heart and to pray that they would be destroyed completely
To this part:
quote:
I believe that we are called to hate the evil and injustices of this world and to rage against them with the same self sacrificial love that Jesus showed, praying that the God of loving justice would regenerate this fractured world
I say two things:
First: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Second: Still have no idea how you got this from Psalm 137.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Dark Night,
The second, I think, is just that Babylon stands for all the injustice and evil in the world. So we want to stamp it out.
The part about "self sacrificial love that Jesus showed, praying that the God of loving justice would regenerate this fractured world" isn't in the Psalm, but is just about how Jesus "dashed" evil on the rocks.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
It may well be a dark night where you are posting from Freddie, but if you're indoors you can always hit the light switch ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As I said, I understand the process, it just strikes me as an enormous leap of logic to get to Anselm's interpretation. It seems to spiritualize or allegorise the original text in a way others may be comfortable with, but I am not. And I think others have shown that there are other ways of interpreting the text not requiring such a allegorised process. Not that it isn't valid, mind you - of course it is. I'm not objecting, just commenting.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
It may well be a dark night where you are posting from Freddie, but if you're indoors you can always hit the light switch
Apologies!
Too much wine and turkey I'd say. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As I said, I understand the process, it just strikes me as an enormous leap of logic to get to Anselm's interpretation.
That's fine. Maybe so.
I just thought that it is not much of a stretch, since "Babylon" is so widely recognized as a symbol of evil. As in "Babylon by Bus" and "Hollywood Babylon" - which I expect the Psalmist would have listened to or read.
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As I said, I understand the process, it just strikes me as an enormous leap of logic to get to Anselm's interpretation. It seems to spiritualize or allegorise the original text in a way others may be comfortable with, but I am not.
The logic is really asking the question, 'How do the New Testament writers apply these sorts of passages?'
And so, passages such as Ephesians 6 and perhaps Revelation 18 come to mind.
Of course this whole exercise is closely linked to the question of how the NT writers understood what the role and purpose of Israel was in God's plan of salvation.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As to the injustice of what is happening, while I don't personally disagree with you, I think the OT is unequivocal that the Babylonian captivity is God's just punishment of the Hebrews for idolatry and disobedience. If you want to argue that the brutality of the Babylonians in capturing and exiling the Hebrew peoples was an injustice, you have my blessing. Is that what you're doing?
Isn't that the whole point of Habakkuk?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Maybe, Custard, but what then is the point of the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel?
Babylon does deserve, corporately, judgement for its unjust treatment of the Exiles. It is not a Christian viewpoint that this is achieved by dashing babies against rocks. That is punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. It is cruel, unusual and unjust punishment. And that is why the verse sticks in my craw (and Dark Knight's as well, I guess).
A mirror argument can be posed in considering the judgement on Israel, but that is another matter. (My shorthand view of that is that the whole series of kings who "did evil in the sight of the Lord" authorised rottenness in the heart of the Northern and SOuthern Kingdoms, with results as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire.)
[ 26. November 2005, 08:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe, Custard, but what then is the point of the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel?
And of Habakkuk 1. That's why I mentioned it. The book is a dialogue between God and Habakkuk that goes something like this (except they put it much better):
[Hab] God, why don't you judge the wicked?
[God] I'm going to, and I'm going to use the Babylonians to do it
[Hab] The Babylonians? But they're really evil! How can that be fair?
[God] Oh, don't worry, I'll judge them too later
[Hab] I'm not entirely sure I get this, but it's really cool that you know exactly what you're doing, so I'll praise you anyway.
quote:
Babylon does deserve, corporately, judgement for its unjust treatment of the Exiles. It is not a Christian viewpoint that this is achieved by dashing babies against rocks.
In context, that isn't the judgement for their treatment of the exiles, but for their treatment of those they killed rather than exiling, specifically children...
The verse does assume a lot more corporate responsibility and corporate guilt than we in our individualistic society are used to or than we necessarily want to admit to.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The sins of the fathers being visited on the children? Corporate guilt? Hmm. How about this from Ezekiel 18?
The ethical issue is straightforward. All of us may suffer because of corporate misbehaviour, bad government. But we are accountable for what we do, not what our fathers, forefathers or fellow "tribesmen" have done. "The soul who sins is the one who will die". The babies don't deserve to die, no matter how great the corporate guilt.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
But it doesn't say the "dashing children against the rocks" is judgement on the children but on Babylon. It is hard to think of any punishment that could cause more pain and anguish than to see your children dashed against the rocks.
Nor does it say that this actually happens as judgement on Babylon; it is clearly one Jew, who has seen some pretty horrible atrocities done to his people by Babylon, saying that whatever horrible things happen to Babylon, they thoroughly deserve it, and the judgement that will eventually come upon them will be part of God's purposes.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Custard
Thanks for your posts. You've really made me think about the issues of corporate and individual guilt, corporate and individual responsibility, human and Divine judgement. Currently, I'm uneasy with what you say and sense some link between the idea of Divine judgement on countries and the rationalisations of jihadists. I need a little time to think this stuff through and will probably post again - I may start a separate thread.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
May I try to anticipate the jihadist question?
I think the jihadists are wrong because it is incredibly arrogant to say that God has told me to destroy such-and-such unless you are absolutely 100% certain that he has.
Most of the times that a nation is used to execute God's judgement, that nation itself is judged for what it did. The obvious exception is Israel and Canaan, which from an evangelical perspective does raise questions about jihad.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I think the jihadists are wrong because it is incredibly arrogant to say that God has told me to destroy such-and-such unless you are absolutely 100% certain that he has.
Thanks for that. I guess it does illuminate my concern very well. Although it seems likely that there are cynical manipulators in the current terrorist movement, I get the distinct impression that the suicide bombers are indeed 100% certain that God has decreed their actions as just and in accordance with his Divine judgement. My perspective is that they are misled by a certain type of perverse theology. One which elevates a particular religious cause and its adherents and demonises the different.
The idea that God does judge guilt corporately can indeed be found in both OT and NT. Here is a NT example from Matthew 11. But if we are to be true to the balance between corporate and individual guilt - and corporate and individual judgement, ISTM that we must consider Matthew 25 v 32.
"All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate the people one from another".
Final judgement by God is seen as an individual matter. We may live in nations, in cities, in "ethnae", where all sorts of good and bad things are done, and these may have corpoate consequences for our societies. Those nations, those cities, may fail and fall. But the notion that God's judgement on those societies involves treating people "en masse" rather than individually is not consistent with either OT (e.g. Ezekiel 18) or NT (Matthew 25). And that is the theological error. I think we should be very careful in the use of terms like corporate guilt and corporate judgment. Judgmentalism over groups is one of the reasons for the mess and unrest in the world.
Which leads neatly back to Psalm 137 vs 8-9.
"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."
The Psalmist makes exactly the mistake I am seeing. The dashing of the babies against the rocks is not God's repayment for the evil the Israelites have suffered. God claims vengeance as a Divine prerogative precisely because human beings not only cannot be trusted with it, but it destroys them inside. C S Lewis is right. These verses illustrate only too well the bitterness born in the human heart as a result of exile, captivity and injustice. As do the suicide bombers. We need to test our understanding to ensure that we do not give aid and comfort to such perverse, self-destructive thoughts.
Love of enemies and forgiveness of those who have treated us unjustly and cruelly are not easy examples to follow. But they are key ways to follow Jesus - and they lead us away from the destructive paths of vengeance.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
May I try to anticipate the jihadist question?
I think the jihadists are wrong because it is incredibly arrogant to say that God has told me to destroy such-and-such unless you are absolutely 100% certain that he has.
Most of the times that a nation is used to execute God's judgement, that nation itself is judged for what it did. The obvious exception is Israel and Canaan, which from an evangelical perspective does raise questions about jihad.
So you would agree that in the case of Israel and Canaan, it would be "incredibly arrogant" for the Israelites to believe that they had heard from God that they were to wipe out the Canaanites?
Because I would. Self justifying history written by the victors clearly has a very long tradition.
Barny, why do you think the Psalmist is making a mistake in expressing these sentiments? He/she was clearly in no position to be able to carry out the horrible actions they were describing. I think he/she was expressing deep anguish, terrible wrath and pain, and really needed to express it, rather than act on it. If he/she had acted on these sentiments, then certainly I agree a wrong has taken place.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
So you would agree that in the case of Israel and Canaan, it would be "incredibly arrogant" for the Israelites to believe that they had heard from God that they were to wipe out the Canaanites?
I think that that kind of action would need pretty huge evidence to support it. Like, say, God appearing in a pillar of fire and cloud, for example. Maybe if you couple that with being led through the desert for 40 years, having food appear for you every day and a leader whose face visibly shines when he comes out from meeting God.
Having a leader who was so clearly on that kind of wavelength with God and who told me to, I think I'd know.
Oh yes, and to be extra sure, I'd want some kind of miracle on entering Canaan - say the river to part or something, and I'd want it to be clear at the first victory that God was still wanting us to do the killing by making it obvious he was fighting against the city too.
That would probably be enough evidence.
Some pope / mullah telling me my sins would be forgiven, or that I'd get to spend eternity with twelve raisins would not be enough evidence.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Custard
In my tradition, and maybe in yours, we talk of a "root of bitterness". It is a often a necessary part of the healing of bitterness that it be expressed to be seen for what it is. And that is fine. Indeed, that is a part of the C S Lewis take. The expression is understandable. The thought is better "out" than "in".
Unfortunately it is a community song, in a community song book. The lament ends with a bitter thought of retribution - perpetuated and inculcated into the minds of the next generation. And so bitterness can be passed on. The Psalmist does not just have a responsibility to himself, but to all those who follow and sing his song.
And the vendettas continue. Have a look at some of the posts in the Purg thread "Dont offend religions" and the Hell thread "Martin". The heart's cry for justice so easily degenerates into the blood's cry for vengeance. This degeneration is not good for us.
<typo>
[ 29. November 2005, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
It looks like you've posted on the wrong thread Custard. I think what you're looking for is to be found here.
If you do post there I can tell you what I actually think of your sarcasm.
I gather you think that all you need to enter a country and slaughter all its inhabitants is a number of miracles, or at least people saying miracles happened, and then someone pulling the old "God told me so" line.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Custard and Dark Knight; a hostly request to be a little more erm careful, please.
Pyx_e, Kerygmania Host
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think people are complaining about the dashing children against rocks bit. Is that just desserts?
Not for the children - but then, they're never going to read it, are they?
Barring coming down in a pillar of smoke, even God has to work with what's available. He has a people who have been oppressed and are understandably bitter. Sure, he could have the psalmist say anything (assuming that the psalmist was inspired), but for it to be worth the effort the psalm needs to be something that will be continously used. So, a psalm which lets the victims vent (ensuring a rapid spread), acts as a warning to future oppressors *and* (if it travels fast enough) gives the current oppressors a warning of the future they are creating for themselves...that's a pretty impressive effort.
Objecting to people dashing children on the rocks - all good. Objecting to people gloating over this - also good. But why object to God using that gloating to attempt to prevent it happening in the first place?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
But why object to God using that gloating to attempt to prevent it happening in the first place?
I've thought for quite a bit before posting this reply, because I don't want to provoke a "Dead Horse" tangent in a very interesting thread. From my POV whitelaughter's question is a very reasonable one - but it is not a viewpoint that finds much acceptance amongst conservative evangelicals. It involves moral criticism of the biblical author; we say "he gloats". We stand in judgement over him - and thereby the text. The Conevo asks, not unreasonably from his POV "What is the limit to this mode of interpretation?".
And that is the significance of the cursing Psalms, the jihadist OT histories (particularly the attributions of commands to God) etc etc. Many of us find this stuff to be morally repugnant, because it stands in sharp contrast to "Sermon on the Mount" ethics, and the teaching and example of Jesus. Using the traditional weighing of scripture with scripture, many of us weigh this stuff in the balance, not of our own presuppositions, but Jesus' words, and we find them wanting. They stand as warnings, not examples.
In the process, however, from the POV of others, we do violence to our acceptance of God's Word. "If Jesus' recorded words are the touchstone, what is your basis for believing them to be an inspired and correct account" they question. And that provokes another huge issue (Living Word versus Written Word). It is not a little point which whitelaughter's question raises, but a very big one indeed.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think that God may have allowed the babies bit to stand precisely in order to provoke the kind of discussion we're having now. The Bible is not a safe book in the sense that we can happily turn our toddlers loose on it, knowing they'll find nothing shocking in it, and everything mentioned or described will be morally upright--or clearly condemned, if not. It looks like we're supposed to use our brains. As we are now.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It looks like we're supposed to use our brains. As we are now.
From Robert Graves' "A Man for All Seasons", spoken by Sir Thomas More.
"We must serve the Lord wittily, in the tangle of our minds"
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Oooh, my fave!
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
In addition, psalms like 137 help me to remember that the religious zealots who have tumbled into such violence are not usually complete monsters. They have a passion for their God which (properly directed and controlled) could be valuable and world-changing. They do not spend all their time pursuing a hate-filled agenda - there are times when they will seem quite normal and prefectly reasonable.
=======================
All this applies to other parts of the Bible than the Psalms. The daily lectionary reading this morning was from Ezra 10 - all about how Ezra led those who had returned from exile to renounce their non-Jewish wives. I couldn't help feeling that what I was reading was all about "racial purity" and misdirected religious zealotry, rather than being a reflection of the loving, saving God. Was it really God's will that so many wives (and their children) were just rejected? And what did these poor women think about the God in whose name this was done?
I haven't read through the whole thread yet (sorry!) - but Ps 137, imho (of course!), shifts in verses 7 & 8 from being a straightforward "this is what happened and this is how I'm feeling" psalm into metaphor - "Daughter of Babylon" is not a crown princess of Babylon but rather the personification of Babylon itself, and thus the children are not *human* children but rather the product of the 'Evil Empire' itself - the fruits, so to speak - the cruelty and injustice, etc.
As for Ezra, this is the one instance in scripture where God does direct divorce. He spends lots of times warning the Israelites not to be involved with foreign women because they will be a snare to them (consider Numbers 25), He measures "Jewishness" by the woman (if your mother is Jewish, so are you - but if just your father is Jewish, you need to convert to be a "proper Jew") - so the identity of the people group is linked to Jewish men marrying Jewish women (again, consider Solomon, wisest of all men, whose heart was lead astray by his foreign wives). So at this singular moment it's critical that God protect the identity of Israel as they return, a mere remnant, from the 70 year exile in Babylon. Clearly more men returned and lots of women said, "hey, my family and all my friends are here in Persia - why would I go back to Judea?!" - and the vast majority of them didn't. So, if these people that God has chosen to be His teaching example to the nations (and chosen to be the bloodline of Christ) are to continue to exist as an identifiable group, they need to stop blurring the lines right now.
I believe God looked after those wives and children (just as He provided for Ishmael, even though he was not the "son of the promise" but the "son of the flesh") - but, at this particular moment, there was a bigger issue at stake.
[edit to fix scroll lock]
[ 05. December 2005, 08:10: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hmmn
LynnMagdalenCollege, your post reminds me of a quotation from Ursula K le Guinn's excellent SF story "The Left Hand of Darkness". Its along these lines.
quote:
Emissary to a strange planet
"My mission transcends normal boundaries of friendship and relationships"
Native
"If so, it is an immoral mission"
I know that's a controversial view - and some will say it goes against a saying of Jesus. I don't swallow it wholesale myself. But there is something very strange to me about a mission whose aim includes restoring broken relationships with God being seen as transcending unbroken relationships with people, to the extent of seeing their breaking as good. That feels like "the end justifies the means". Few things cause more alienation than the sense that one has become a victim of such "holier than thou" behaviour.
The principle of separation for the sake of restoring the kingdom is in any case reversed by Paul's guidelines in 1 Cor 7, in which he observes that converts who are already married should remain in the marriage they are in. It is most interesting that he did not recommend a continuation of the Ezra-Nehemiah route even though it seems he could have justified such a route by reference to the OT. Breaking up those families seems, in principle, to have been a misguided and cruel act.
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
sorry, Psalm 137 verses 8 & 9 above, not 7 & 8.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With Oscar. It's what I mean about scripture sometimes giving an example not to follow.
I often wish the Bible "editorialized" a little more - came right out and said, "and that was BAD!"
quote:
posted by Custard:
But it doesn't say the "dashing children against the rocks" is judgement on the children but on Babylon. It is hard to think of any punishment that could cause more pain and anguish than to see your children dashed against the rocks.
Again, looking at "Daughter of Babylon" as metaphor for either a) Babylon the evil but real empire or b) Babylon the label attached to all occultic and greedy world empires and systems of evil. In either case, "children" are the future - without children, a city dies, a people group dies - and smashing the heads of the children of Babylon against a rock means that Babylon (be it a or b) will have no future.
Yes, it is graphic horrible imagery - but a point is being made here, whether simply by the psalmist or by God via the psalmist.
I'm surprised nobody's complained about Psalm 109 yet... that's the one I have the most difficulty with, personally, because I get sucked in to it; I relate to it (verses 1-5 describe my emotional response to the surprise ending of my marriage), and then it goes all ugly on me. And I don't want to go to that place of cursing my ex-husband or his toxic and adulterous friends. I went so far as to draw a diagonal line through the offending verses so that I wouldn't engage in them. But I'm not sure that's a solution, either... So I'm able to reconcile 137 to my own satisfaction, but what about 109? eep!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
LynnMagdalenCollege
Crossposting sometimes tells its own story. I am very sorry that you have had to go through that. Psalm 109 does indeed show the same retributional tendencies - but I agree about the "much closer to home" implications. It stands in sharp contrast with Sermon on the Mount principles again. I quite like your idea of certain scriptures carrying a "health warning" - but I really liked Lamb Chopped's post. If our brains indicate a health warning, we should thank God for our brains.
[ 05. December 2005, 08:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
quote:
Barnabas62 said:
That feels like "the end justifies the means". Few things cause more alienation than the sense that one has become a victim of such "holier than thou" behaviour.
I'm not sure that it isn't (end justifying the means), as uncomfortable as that makes us. I mean, consider Job - what was the whole point of THAT trauma?! God sics Satan on Job in the first place ("consider my servant Job...") - yikes! But at the end of the day, God IS holier than us and He can make that call. I do not see that call as being inconsistent with His very large, very loving, and very far beyond human character - but YMMV.
Oh, "The Left Hand of Darkness"! My favorite LeGuin - haven't read it in years; I should probably indulge again... (so many books, so little time!).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But it doesn't say the "dashing children against the rocks" is judgement on the children but on Babylon. It is hard to think of any punishment that could cause more pain and anguish than to see your children dashed against the rocks.
That it would be bad for the parents doesn't resolve the problem that the people who are being dashed on rocks are the innocent children. My God, do you think it would be right for someone to kill the Backslideret to punish me? Death would come on swift wings to anyone who tried that.
quote:
Nor does it say that this actually happens as judgement on Babylon; it is clearly one Jew, who has seen some pretty horrible atrocities done to his people by Babylon, saying that whatever horrible things happen to Babylon, they thoroughly deserve it, and the judgement that will eventually come upon them will be part of God's purposes.
I don't give a shit about Babylon in this context. I worry about the effect of talking about dashing infants on rocks as a positive thing, as this psalm does. If I were God, it most certainly wouldn't have made it into a psalm everyone to read.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I haven't read through the whole thread yet (sorry!) - but Ps 137, imho (of course!), shifts in verses 7 & 8 from being a straightforward "this is what happened and this is how I'm feeling" psalm into metaphor - "Daughter of Babylon" is not a crown princess of Babylon but rather the personification of Babylon itself, and thus the children are not *human* children but rather the product of the 'Evil Empire' itself - the fruits, so to speak - the cruelty and injustice, etc.
Firstly LMC thanks for opening up the conversation to another Psalm. I will get to that in a moment.
Secondly, while your interpretation might lend itself to application, I don't believe it can be justified exegetically. I don't see any reason for assuming that at verse 8 the Psalm shifts into metaphor. I think the most straightforward reading is that the Psalmist is addressing the mothers of Babylon, and really talking about dashing real infants against real rocks. I don't see the point in softening it, or the justificaiton for spiritualising it.
Except when it comes to application, of course, because as Karl has said this being in the Bible probably causes a lot of problems for those of a hard core fundie persuasion.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Except it doesn't seem to. It's amazing how it's justified. I find Custard's response interesting. It seems to imply that as long as you're doing it to punish the parents, it's perfectly acceptable to kill children as a punishment.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except it doesn't seem to. It's amazing how it's justified. I find Custard's response interesting. It seems to imply that as long as you're doing it to punish the parents, it's perfectly acceptable to kill children as a punishment.
KLB
It isn't amazing, it's perfectly reasonable from a particular POV. Inerrancy is a controlling principle and sits over all other understandings, including ethical understandings. But that is a Dead Horse.
Those of us (like me and I think you) who know that way of looking at things but found we could not live under it, seem to inerrantists to go on divers and diverse journeys afterwards. In an odd way, our diversity encourages inerrantists to "hang on".
In private conversations, I tend to find that many folks see the ethical dilemmas which the cursing verses in the Psalms produce - and don't like them. But they aren't prepared to "sell" the inerrant principle because of what they don't like. Ultimately, conceding that one does not understand why "that" is "there" is preferable (from that POV) to conceding that it shows an erroneous ethic, or history, etc.
My concern about these rationalisations is that they can work their way into personal understanding. Folks may move towards the belief that human beings are justified, with the approval of God,in behaving as though "the end does justify the means". However, in my experience of innerantists, this is by no means inevitable or even very usual. The vast majority of inerrantists I've known have been gentle, kind and loving people. They often seem much nicer to me than the picture of God which they believe in.
Karl, if you'd like to continue this we could move it to the Dead Horse if you like.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Um (carefully attempting to step around the rotting equine), I AM an inerrantist, and that doesn't force me to approve of the sentiment expressed in this verse (re killing babies). Believing in inerrancy doesn't mean approving of everything someone voices in the Scriptures. Nor does it mean taking everything dead literally and ignoring hyperbole, sarcasm and irony, etc.
In this case, I take inerrancy to mean that this verse is a true record of the feelings of the psalmist--not necessarily of God. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
That's all. And how can poetry be errant or inerrant, anyway?
But thanks for the nice things you said about some of us inerrantists.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In private conversations, I tend to find that many folks see the ethical dilemmas which the cursing verses in the Psalms produce - and don't like them. But they aren't prepared to "sell" the inerrant principle because of what they don't like. Ultimately, conceding that one does not understand why "that" is "there" is preferable (from that POV) to conceding that it shows an erroneous ethic, or history, etc.
I think that Christians have known from the beginning that killing children was not the way to go.
Yet up until recently people did not question that psalms, and other scriptures, like this one, belong in the Bible. They are consistent, in a superficial way, with the idea that the bad guys get what they deserve.
Inerrantism is not the only alternative to thinking that these verses don't belong.
Saying that we not understand why "that" is "there" is not the only alternative to thinking that God can do what He wants and that the recipients deserve what they get.
The alternative that I prefer is to accept that good and loving actions can be symbolized by actions that are actually wicked and hateful. Like slaughtering the enemy until not one remains. These wicked and hateful actions can be symbolically attributed to God even if the truth is that they did not originate in Him, and that actually opposes them.
The account can be seen as something endorsed by God as a metaphor that was easily understood by ancient and simple peoples, who saw nothing more than that God was on their side.
The cursing psalms are just a few of a large number of biblical examples of God apparently doing the kind of angry, hurtful and vengeful things that He repudiates in the New Testament.
Many examples of this kind of thing are undeniably metaphoric, such as Jesus' parable about ejecting a man from heaven who did not have a wedding garment. No one thinks that this is really the basis for anyone's ejection.
To my mind it is less problematic to accept that the Old Testament describes wicked times, and imperfect people - and that God used the events of that time to teach something better and prepare for His Advent - than to reject them.
The epistemological consequences of rejecting Scripture are more difficult to deal with than the relatively simple interpretation of the many biblical instances of God, or Israel, or the writer of this Psalm, acting or speaking vengefully or cruelly.
We need to get beyond the simplistic errant/inerrant dichotomy. It sets up a straw man that few have ever accepted.
[ 06. December 2005, 13:58: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Do I hear the clip clop of a ghostly gee gee? I hope not.
Pyx_e Kerygmania Host
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Guys, I think this is worth a canter on the Dead Horse, simply because Lamb Chapped and Freddy's posts show a degree of freedom of interpretation of scripture with IME I don't find in inerrantists in the UK (or in classic books on the subject e.g Barrs "Fundamentalism"). So I'm off there and will post a connection and opener. Feel free .....
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Correction. Should have said " ... which IME ...".
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
but but but... does that answer the question? HOW do you guys read 109? (*whimper*)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
My wife tells me that she has every sympathy and understanding for betrayed wives who cut off the sleeves and legs from articles of clothing belonging to their treacherous husbands. Its a sort of well-deserved symbolic "Bobbitisation". Anger at betrayal is justified and needs expression rather than immediate containment. That I think is what you can see happening in Psalm 109. I read Psalm 109 as written by the Psalmist as one going through this process, but not through it. The problem for us is that it is half the story, not the whole story, of the journey of coping with betrayal.
At some stage (and I guess the wisdom is always in the timing) there comes this inner awareness that the anger is degenerating into bitterness, and is poisoning us. Despite this, the need for closure continues so that we can move on, despite the unresolved issues of justice or retribution. This happened to me through a betrayal at work, which made me very ill and about which I was angry and bitter for almost 2 years. But at some stage, the most profound NT truths about love of enemies, forgiveness, and not repaying evil with evil, begin to awaken in the mind again and become possible. We may begin to see them as real closure for us, not just hollow words.
So I think it is better to see Psalm 109 as an illuminating part, but only a part, of the journey towards personal closure and moving on. I think you know where to look in the NT and in yourself for the rest of the journey. IME the journey cannot be forced or pushed - it has its own pace depending on the degree of betrayal and where we were in our own journeys when the betrayal happened.
Looking at my own experience (over 20 years old now), it became a powerful change-agent in my own understanding of many things. At the time, it was just horrible, and I often found my own reactions overwhelming and horribly confusing.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
but but but... does that answer the question? HOW do you guys read 109? (*whimper*)
Psalm 109:
quote:
Psalm 109 (NKJV) 1 Do not keep silent,
O God of my praise!
2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful
Have opened against me;
They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,
And fought against me without a cause.
4 In return for my love they are my accusers,
But I give myself to prayer.
5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good,
And hatred for my love.
6 Set a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser[a] stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few,
And let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg;
Let them seek their bread[b] also from their desolate places.
11 Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him,
Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off,
And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,
And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be continually before the LORD,
That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;
16 Because he did not remember to show mercy,
But persecuted the poor and needy man,
That he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him;
As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
So let it enter his body like water,
And like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him,
And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.
20 Let this be the LORD’s reward to my accusers,
And to those who speak evil against my person.
21 But You, O GOD the Lord,
Deal with me for Your name’s sake;
Because Your mercy is good, deliver me.
22 For I am poor and needy,
And my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens;
I am shaken off like a locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting,
And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness.
25 I also have become a reproach to them;
When they look at me, they shake their heads.
26 Help me, O LORD my God!
Oh, save me according to Your mercy,
27 That they may know that this is Your hand—
That You, LORD, have done it!
28 Let them curse, but You bless;
When they arise, let them be ashamed,
But let Your servant rejoice.
29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame,
And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle.
30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth;
Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude.
31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor,
To save him from those who condemn him.
Here is how my tradition interprets this:
quote:
Psalm 109 - A Psalm about the unhappy state of the church.
Verses 1-6 It repudiated the Lord, and considered Him vile, and hated Him.
Verses 7-12 The church with those who reject Him will come to an end, and there will be others in their place, who will be received, and a church established with them.
13-20 The church will not contiue with their posterity, because they are in falsities of evil, and because they reject the Lord.
21-25 A prayer to the Father for help, because the Son is not accepted, is considered vile, and as nothing.
26-29 They will not succeed in evil.
30-31 Song in praise of the Father, because He gives help.
I don't know if this helps, but this is how I see the message of this Psalm. So it has nothing to do with revenge, but is merely a statement that the evil will not succeed in the long run.
The Psalmist himself, of course, would have known nothing of this. He was expressing the desire for revenge that was normal to him. But the Lord was using him to give a message.
I think that most Christians have basically understood this Psalm this way from the beginning. No one is really trying to make people's children into vagabonds.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Freddy
Is this a Swedenborgian inerrant interpretation? This is why I ask.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Freddy
Is this a Swedenborgian inerrant interpretation? This is why I ask.
Yes. But the link is broken, so I'm not sure what thread you mean.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The link is working OK for me, Freddy. I linked to the second post on page 1 of the Biblical Inerrancy thread (which I reviewed prior to posting there). My POV is that your interpretation is actually a very interesting and creative allegory. I only asked the question in case your understanding had moved on since that (by now) quite old post.
(LMC's issues of interpretation seemed to relate to the Psalmist's very human POV - which tends to be my normal way of looking at scripture.)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The link is working OK for me, Freddy. I linked to the second post on page 1 of the Biblical Inerrancy thread (which I reviewed prior to posting there). My POV is that your interpretation is actually a very interesting and creative allegory. I only asked the question in case your understanding had moved on since that (by now) quite old post.
I never realized that that thread was one I had ever posted on. That was in 2002. The horse lived until page 7 and then died. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Then it lay rotting until 2004, when someone exhumed it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It is embarassing to read my old, mistaken opinions and realize that I haven't progressed an inch since then.
[ 07. December 2005, 18:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Pposted by Freddy:
I don't know if this helps, but this is how I see the message of this Psalm. So it has nothing to do with revenge, but is merely a statement that the evil will not succeed in the long run.
The Psalmist himself, of course, would have known nothing of this. He was expressing the desire for revenge that was normal to him. But the Lord was using him to give a message.
This I find very interesting. You seem to be saying that the meaning of Psalm 109 is completely different from what the original author intended. In fact, a meaning that the Psalmist could not possibly have intended, seeing there was no church when ths Psalm was composed. This almost sounds like reader response post modern criticism to me, though clearly it isn't.
I can't agree, being a disciple of the historical critical method. To me, the primary meaning of the Psalm must be what the original author intended, as far as this can be deduced. In this case, the original author couldn't possibly have had the church in mind. Having said that, however, I do tend to play very fast and loose with the servant songs in Isaiah, but I maintain that the original author of those songs was not thinking specifically of Jesus (how could he/she?), but perhaps was thinkning in messianic terms.
Specifically talking about Psalm 109, I think I am in agreement with B62. The Psalmist perhaps finds the experience of writing very cathartic, just getting the whole of it out on paper. Perhaps this helps him or her to cope with their feelings. And as they are statements of feelings, they are above judgement. Feelings are morally neutral - they are neither good nor evil. The action we take as a result of feelings carry moral value.
I'm glad Psalms like this were written. I hope that the Psalmist was helped by the process of writing, and didn't try and take action for revenge. What would be the alternative? Supression? Should she/he jsut have kept the whole mess of feelings inside, trying to "mortify the flesh" or whatever? I am a firm believer that owning our feelings as part of us is the path to freedom, not trying to supress them or call them sinful and shameful.
I believed for a long time that the way of Christ was to "kill" the parts of me that were sinful, but I now believe that we need to embrace the "shadow" (to use Jungian language) as part of ourselves, realising that the more we try to kill or supress it the stronger we make it. To recognise it is to difuse it.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight
To me, the primary meaning of the Psalm must be what the original author intended, as far as this can be deduced.
I agree that the author's intentions are the primary meaning, but I think it is profitable to meditate on other possible meanings.
I do this, not only with Bible passages, but with other things I hear and read. Sometimes I hear someone say something which is banal in one sense and very profound in another. Even if I'm certain that the banal sense was the one intended, I still can profit by thinking of the profound meaning.
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
This I find very interesting. You seem to be saying that the meaning of Psalm 109 is completely different from what the original author intended. In fact, a meaning that the Psalmist could not possibly have intended, seeing there was no church when ths Psalm was composed.
Yes. Not completely different, though. Just a level above. And frequently the meaning is exactly the same as the literal meaning - so that the meaning can be seen by having a comprehensive understanding of the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can't agree, being a disciple of the historical critical method. To me, the primary meaning of the Psalm must be what the original author intended, as far as this can be deduced. In this case, the original author couldn't possibly have had the church in mind.
Isn't this in conflict with the idea that God is the author of Scripture? Why would God be concerned about the trivial and temporal things that are reported throughout much of the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Having said that, however, I do tend to play very fast and loose with the servant songs in Isaiah, but I maintain that the original author of those songs was not thinking specifically of Jesus (how could he/she?), but perhaps was thinkning in messianic terms.
I agree that this kind of things points to divine authorship and a message that could not have been clearly understood by the writer.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I believed for a long time that the way of Christ was to "kill" the parts of me that were sinful, but I now believe that we need to embrace the "shadow" (to use Jungian language) as part of ourselves, realising that the more we try to kill or supress it the stronger we make it. To recognise it is to difuse it.
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
Yes, Barnabas62, that's ultimately where I wound up - but *even now* I find it challenging to read the cursing portions and must be careful not to slip into sinful attitudes (just as I have to be careful not to slip into lust when watching certain films with specific actors - at least when I'm *alone* and more susceptible to such inclinations ).
I've come to believe THIS is part of why God calls David "a man after My own heart" - because he brought the whole of who he was: good, bad, ugly, broken, exultant, etc. to the Lord.
Freddy, that's *wild* - I would have never thought of reading Psalm 109 as an allegory for the church in the world!!! wow!
Dark Knight, I guess "embrace" sounds too much to me like "approve of." I think there are things in me which I cannot kill (you cannot crucify yourself - at a certain point, you require a person outside yourself to wield the hammer - ugh) and which Christ will either kill or redeem (wood hay and stubble, or gold and jewels). But yes, I can't do *anything* with it until I recognize it's there and take it humbly before Jesus. And there was a time when 109 specifically was 'way too triggering for me - this is instructive for me to read how others process it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Freddy, that's *wild* - I would have never thought of reading Psalm 109 as an allegory for the church in the world!!! wow!
Yet it is a very common Christian theme that God came into the world and was rejected by His own, or by "the church." Isaiah 53 comes to mind: "He is despised and rejected by men."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
A friend of mine on the lower east side in Manhattan saw a young boy in the window of a tenement building across the street, shouting excitedly to his friends on the pavement below. He was leaning against a "safety" grate in the window. Sadly, the absentee slumlords had done nothing to maintain the building and the fixings which attached the grate to the window had rusted away. He plunged several stories to his death, crumpled in a pool of blood.
Later that day my friend tells of how he was praying the daily office which, that contained Ps. 137. He said that he knew he could not love that dead child and his friends and family unless he also seethed with anger against his murderers, and against a whole system that put saving a few cents on repairs ahead of the lives of the beautiful children of God. He needed to bring that hatred and rage honestly and openly before God.
There is a chapter in Ellen's F. D. Maurice anthology entitled, somewhat startlingly, "Hate necessary to love," in which Maurice makes the point that in his "enlightened" age (and ours), we like to think of ourselves as superior to the psalmist in that we don't have these "un-Christian" feelings. Actually, he argues, we are inferior to the psalmist. We don't have them only because we don't love deeply enough for them to arise.
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
I suspect hate is necessary to love, but our warm fuzzy sentimental view of love objects... this post makes me think of Psalm 139:21-22 "Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies." That's hard.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
But anger and hatred are not the same thing. I can seethe with anger at such a Landlord without hating him, in the sense of wanting to see him suffer for it.
I have always understood that the Christian ideal is to feel anger, but not to allow it to turn to hatred.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Such a distinction might be made in the cold light of the day but not, I suspect, at the time of anger.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is this advice in Ephesians 4. No one says it is easy to do.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
All the more reason to rejoice that the psalmist is honest about his feelings.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
If I've missed it on the thread, I apologize, but I wonder:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?
In this, do we distinguish between the generally "mad-at-God" psalms and the "bash the babies on rocks" verses?
(Off to refresh my memory with particular psalms, after which I'll come back to say some more on what I think... after doing some IRL work first.)
[ 13. December 2005, 18:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?
We read this (Ps 137) one in our Psalter.
Amazingly, I've never heard anyone complain.
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is this advice in Ephesians 4. No one says it is easy to do.
Barnabas, do you understand that to mean that all hatred is sin? I thoroughly agree with the passage - I just reconcile it with the "perfect hatred" passage as both being possible, although incredibly difficult! (I could walk a tightrope in ballet shoes while playing a tuba, in theory... in reality, it will NEVER happen!).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Certainly I have always held, and always had taught, that hatred of a person is always wrong, because it disaligns us from God, who hates no-one.
I do therefore see the "I hate..." bits in the psalms as part of an imperfect revelation. Our standard has to be Jesus' - "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do", said of people currently nailing Him up.
This assumes that we're working to the same definition of hate - a state where we would gain pleasure out of seeing the object of our hatred suffer.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think Karl has put his finger on the real issue; the notion of taking pleasure in someone else's suffering is wrong. But I think that is human vengeance. I see a dueller saying "I DEMAND satisfaction". I think it is the innate demands of hate which are very dangerous. The language strikes me as very slippery, holding both good and bad stuff in it, and I'm thinking it through. I keep coming up with the idea of sublimation, but need to work a bit harder than I've currently got the time for in coming up with a cogent answer to LMC's very good question. More later.
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
I don't relate to the notion of taking pleasure in someone else's suffering. I'm not trying to make myself out as "holier than thou" (HECK NO!!!) but, for whatever reasons, it's not a natural place for me to go. I remember sitting in a counseling office with my 2nd husband, seeing him break down and say, "I love you, I didn't mean it, I was just angry and I wanted to hurt you--" totally threw me - I just can't make sense of that behavior.
So it may well have to do with our definition of "hate"... hmmm. Yes, I do look forward to the fruits of more pondering (world enough, and time!)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Here are some by no means fully-integrated thoughts, which may provoke some further dialogue. The thread may become purgatorial as a result, but let's see where it goes.
I think my starting point is the idea of triggers and the fight/flight syndrome. We see an adult slapping a child repeatedly in the face. To be triggered is inevitable - what is triggered may very well be anger, an owerpowering desire to respond in some way. Plus adrenaline, charging us up for fight/flight. The response is automatic. The anger over the adult's behaviour is justified. But there may also be inhibitions against taking immediate action. Considerative mechanisms take over, controlling the instinctive expression of the triggered anger.
Now consider this is a repeated experience - like the abuse of the exile. You are triggered every time, but you are also aware of your own impotence to do anything against the oppressor. So your anger over the action becomes wedded to the perpetrator. Some day .......
It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold. Don't get mad. Get even.
I think when we consider the relationship between anger, hatred and revenge, there are probably very complex processes of triggering, considering, suppressing and judging going on. Some of these are likely to lead to the augmentation of anger into hatred, and to the hatred becoming wedded to a desire to "get even".
What seems to me to be important is to recognise that that the jounrey from anger to revenge via hatred is not inevitable. We need to develop some wisdom and self knowledge to avoid being in some way "dragged down" to the level of behaviour which has triggered the anger.
With these thoughts in mind, it is very interesting to see the juxtapostion in the Lords Prayer of the following thoughts.
"Lead us not into temptation (alt; do not bring us to the test)"
BUT
"Deliver us from evil."
These triggered reactions are a test. Detestation is certainly not wrong in itself, indeed it seems to me that anger can be a perfectly proper response.
Thrown into the pot, for others to consider, is the notion of the "higher centres" of brain function which exercise some measure of control over primitive brain responses, and the equally provocative Romans 7 idea of the divided self (the evil that I would not, that I do etc).
Can hatred be righteous? Well, here is a context which should give all of us food for thought.
"God says", according to Amos.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
The thread may become purgatorial as a result, but let's see where it goes.
Guideline 1 suggests :
quote:
1. Biblical based opening posts only – this board is for discussing the Bible. Discussions and arguments should arise from biblical study. Such threads may progress into theological debate as long as they remain biblically grounded. General theological debate is carried out in Purgatory.
I do not see your post as purgatorial. I see it as part of a healthy discussion based on a biblical OP and grounded in the bible. Kerygmania needs to let its self go a little bit and move beyond some of its fromer constraints. Cracking post, keep it up please.
Pyx_e Kerygmania Host.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I would draw a strong distinction between hatred of persons and hatred of things, actions, attitudes or whatever. St Augustine had a well known saying on that, which has become devalued through constant use.
What we often see in these sorts of passages, and often in ourselves, is a crossing over from hating what people do to the people themselves. I think it is that crossing over that we are enjoined not to do. It also seems to me that the Lord's Prayer tells us why:
Forgive us our sins
As we forgive those who sin against us
Easy? Probably not. But Jesus did seem to think it was terribly important, what with the parable of the unforgiving servant, and His talk of us being treat with the same measure that we treat others, in forgiveness as much as anything.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Karl
I think you are right and have said something similar in a previous post. What I'm trying to get my head around are the sorts of processes by which "hatred of the sin" moves into "hatred of the sinner" and "desire for vengeance".
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?
We read this (Ps 137) one in our Psalter.
Amazingly, I've never heard anyone complain.
Or even ask a question?
In the ECUSA Sunday lectionary, I don't think the bashing-heads and killing-enemies verses are included at all -- or if they are, at St. Z we always exclude them.
In the Daily lectionary, which includes provision for reading the entire psalter, there are also alternatives for avoiding the bashing-heads and killing enemies verses and a few entire psalms. At St. Z when we used to have regular evening prayer, the cursing verses were included or not on a haphazard basis depending on the choice of the person leading the service. (Usually a lay person, and I'm not sure how much training we had in thinking through including them or not.)
I don't reflexively think "of course they should never be read in public worship" -- I think we are at danger of cleansing too much the bible if we don't grapple with what's really in it. But I would also want to be cautious -- I'd want to either have a chance to talk about the verses in the sermon, or have a small enough congregation that I knew well enough to be confident that they wouldn't go away thinking the verses mean that God tells us to bash children's heads on rocks.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do we read the cursing psalms aloud in church? Should we?
We read this (Ps 137) one in our Psalter.
Amazingly, I've never heard anyone complain.
Or even ask a question?.....
I'd want to either have a chance to talk about the verses in the sermon, or have a small enough congregation that I knew well enough to be confident that they wouldn't go away thinking the verses mean that God tells us to bash children's heads on rocks.
I think that people in the congregation mostly get that this isn't really about cursing anyone or bashing anyone's head. They regularly hear things such as the following:
quote:
"Jehovah God or the Lord never curses anyone, is never angry with anyone, never leads anyone into temptation, and never punishes, let alone curses anybody. It is the devil's crew who do such things. Such things cannot possibly come from the fountain of mercy, peace, and goodness. The reason why here (in God's curse on the serpent in Genesis 3) and elsewhere in the Word it is said that Jehovah God not only turns His face away, is angry, punishes, and tempts, but also slays and even curses, is that people may believe that the Lord rules over and disposes every single thing in the whole world, including evil itself, punishments, and temptations. And after people have grasped this very general concept, they may then learn in what ways He rules and disposes, and how He converts into good the evil inherent in punishment and the evil inherent in temptation. In teaching and learning the Word very general concepts have to come first; and therefore the sense of the letter is full of such general concepts." Arcana Coelestia 245
To my mind, this helps quite a bit. It provides a logic for these harsh things being there, and a way of understanding them that affirms their divine authorship without justifying what they literally say.
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't reflexively think "of course they should never be read in public worship" -- I think we are at danger of cleansing too much the bible if we don't grapple with what's really in it. But I would also want to be cautious -- I'd want to either have a chance to talk about the verses in the sermon, or have a small enough congregation that I knew well enough to be confident that they wouldn't go away thinking the verses mean that God tells us to bash children's heads on rocks.
It is a rather delicate line to walk, isn't it? I've never heard Ezekiel 23 read in church, either (a very graphic chapter, imho).
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back and respond to some of these posts.
quote:
Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?
Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.
However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.
In relation to these Psalms, my understanding is this: rather than stewing on these deep feelings of anger and hatred, either forcing them deeper inside to boil and simmer away or exploding outward into anger, physical violence or homicide, the Psalmist acts to get those feelings and thoughts out, away from him/her, to where they can do no damage to him/herself or anyone else. If this is what is going on, this should be celebrated. It is not a cause for saying there is a deep problem here with the Psalmist which is "sinful" and needs to be killed.
Forgive me if I bypass your comments on inspiration etc., as Godfather Pyx_e might well leave a horse's head in my bed if I go down that path ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Lyn:
quote:
Dark Knight, I guess "embrace" sounds too much to me like "approve of." I think there are things in me which I cannot kill (you cannot crucify yourself - at a certain point, you require a person outside yourself to wield the hammer - ugh) and which Christ will either kill or redeem (wood hay and stubble, or gold and jewels).
I hope my response to Freddy clarifies my view. I realise the metaphors you have chosen are biblical ones (wood hay and stubble etc) I am just not sure what to make of them anymore. I remain convinced that crucifixion- either self or by someone else (please understand I am speaking metaphorically, as in crucifying parts of yourself or someone else that are "sinful") is not the path to wholeness.
leo: Great story, I think a very powerful and practical exegesis of the Psalm's meaning. Thank you so much for telling that story
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back and respond to some of these posts.
quote:
Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?
Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.
However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.
Very nice thoughts. I relate completely. So I agree that "diffuse" is a better way to think of it.
It is terrible to think of God wishing to "kill" a part of us. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with any of us. It is more an issue of what we allow to influence us.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
[QB]
quote:
Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?
Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.
However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.
This is very well put. The recognition that there is something wrong with our behaviour, but it does not take away the crucial "made in the image of God"-ness. The latter is also our inheritance.
I think it has been said that Christianity takes, simultaneously, both a high view and a low view of human nature. I doubt whether my experience is unique in finding, within the body of the church, some people with both an unecessarily low opinion of themselves (the "worm" factor) and others with an irrationally high opinion of themselves (the "self-proclaimed" factor). Personal blindness is common to all.
In my tradition, conversion is a recognition that we cannot, on our own, move away from this propensity to sin. We need Christ as Saviour. This is very easily, and in my mind very dangerously, construed as "there is something very wrong with all of us", rather than "there is something very wrong with sinfulness".
The crux of the matter is the simultaneous acceptance of personal responsibility, the acknowledgement of being in ignorance or denial, and the willingness to seek and accept transforming help. (This is all an uncomfortable reminder of Charles Kennedy's currently desperate situation).
I said it earlier, and I agree with Dark Knight's view, that the cursing Psalmist is better expressing the bitterness to get it "out there". I still reckon that the text of Psalm 137 shows personal ignorance, within the Psalmist, of the damaging effects of his own bitterness. At the time of writing, he was an "unfinished work". It is just hard for some people, coming from a sola scriptura or inerrancy position, to accept that you can say that sort of thing about biblical texts without somehow betraying a belief in authority and inspiration. My own understanding comes from a serious commitment to the authority and inspiration of scripture. This makes me think long and hard about what these things can mean and how they can illuminate life today.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Freddy quoth quote:
It is terrible to think of God wishing to "kill" a part of us. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with any of us. It is more an issue of what we allow to influence us.
Which is something like what I was saying about Jesus and the fig tree.
P
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
My daily reading today included Psalm 137 so I paid special attention, keeping this thread in mind, and the way I read it today is that the psalmist is crying out so much from his own pain and loss - his children having been dashed against the rocks by the Babylonians and now he is suffering so, and yet being asked to sing and entertain his captors and, out of that pain and desire to be avenged, he says, "it would be a blessing to be the person dishing out the deserved recompense against these brutal Babylonians!"
I didn't get the sense that God was advocating that emotional response - but it's real, it's human, and God doesn't shrink away from it and say, "Eeeeuuw! I can't like you anymore!" (thank heavens for that). I'll be back soon and read the posts I've missed...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
{bump}
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Bump!
Posted by Lori (# 9456) on
:
I know nothing, so this is very much my unknowledgeable thoughts only.
But when I read about, 'Happy is he who dashes babies' heads against the rocks,' I think well at least this writer knew exactly what he was really praying for when he wanted evil to be destroyed. That, in this instance, it would mean even killing the young ones.
Seems to me it is all to easy to pray, 'Oh Lord, stop this evil/injustice/immorality,' or, 'Please God, show them the error of their ways,' without ever thinking through how this could or would be accomplished. Even right down to the neighbourhood level. If Mr. Drug Taker down the road gets off drugs, how will Mrs. Drug Taker relate to him now? What will happen to her? What will happen to their children? What if he only gets off drugs once he is arrested? What happens to the wife and children then? What if they lose their house? What if she cannot cope? What if the children end up in care? 'Happy are they who render children parentless...'?????
I take the end of Psalm 137 as 'Think about what you are praying for......'
Because achieving the objective ain't always pretty.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lori:
I know nothing, so this is very much my unknowledgeable thoughts only.
But when I read about, 'Happy is he who dashes babies' heads against the rocks,' I think well at least this writer knew exactly what he was really praying for when he wanted evil to be destroyed. That, in this instance, it would mean even killing the young ones.
But that's a contradiction. Killing babies is itself a monstrous evil, so evil would not be destroyed but perpetuated.
quote:
Seems to me it is all to easy to pray, 'Oh Lord, stop this evil/injustice/immorality,' or, 'Please God, show them the error of their ways,' without ever thinking through how this could or would be accomplished. Even right down to the neighbourhood level. If Mr. Drug Taker down the road gets off drugs, how will Mrs. Drug Taker relate to him now? What will happen to her? What will happen to their children? What if he only gets off drugs once he is arrested? What happens to the wife and children then? What if they lose their house? What if she cannot cope? What if the children end up in care? 'Happy are they who render children parentless...'?????
I take the end of Psalm 137 as 'Think about what you are praying for......'
Because achieving the objective ain't always pretty.
But there's no point in achieving it if it involves doing more evil.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
All this highlights an interesting issue: What is the Christian rationale for interpreting texts?
This thread grew out of another, where Barnabas62 put his finger on an important question:-
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...there is a really important general issue of Biblical Interpretation here. Here's the deep issue.
Is it possible to hold to the principle that scripture is authoritative and inspired (that's not the same as inerrant) and yet be open to the possibility that some stuff in the Bible stinks!
My personal answer to that is "yes". There are plenty of "stinky bits" in the OT for example, whose only real value today can be that they serve as an example of how not to think and behave.
Reference was made then to the Psalm 137:9 text (dashing babies against rocks). I’d like to push B62’s question further and explore another answer. Much of the debate on the two threads is based, it seems to me, on two unstated assumptions:
1] 'We are Christians; we have a loving code to live by; we find un-loving texts in the Bible; therefore, although they are biblical, they are somehow not Christian.'
2] 'This is God's Word; therefore God is trying to speak to me through this text.'
When the Christian reader aligns these two assumptions, it is with a real desire to find a relevant significance that takes the text seriously, yet does so in accordance with the perceived rule that any such significance must be loving (or at least in harmony with the New Testament’s teaching on love).
I sense something almost schizophrenic when we approach the ‘stinky’ texts this way. We do not want to jettison them because they are in God’s Word, yet we cannot accept them at face value because they are not ‘Christian.’ The result? An attempt to find an alternative reading method that we do not utilise anywhere else in the Bible.
It’s somewhat similar to the way many Christians cope with injustice in their lives: they cannot blame God (who is loving), yet they have a burning sense of injustice – anger even – and it has to be offloaded somewhere; enter the Devil stage left to take the brunt of our fury in prayer. That way we are not blaming the human who was the direct cause of the injustice (we can still love the sinner), but are able to storm hells’ gates (the very definition of sin). I am well aware that some Christians enter a state of hatred when they pray in this fashion.
Now, I accept the existence of a devil and powers behind the throne. If I had to label myself (I ‘hate’ labels; they’re so unjust!), I’d opt for ‘evangelical charismatic’, so I cope well with the biblical teaching in this area. However, I would like to offer an alternative way to interpreting the Bible, especially those ‘inconvenient’ texts in the Old Testament, which allows us to ‘read’ in a normative fashion across the Scriptures.
I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I see absolutely nothing wrong (or un-Christian) with the likes of Psalm 137:9. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the author of that text – imagine the anguish that accompanies him in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem, know that he has grown up with a view of God that involves characteristics like ‘justice’, covenant faithfulness, the goodness of creation, humans in the image of God and so on – then recognise that we have a God-given in-built sense of justice and injustice, and then see that we cannot divorce the acts associated with human rebellion (sin) from the rebel himself or herself. If God is faithful to his creation, he will be somewhat annoyed when people mar it in any way. The approach taken by the Psalmist is as one of God’s people who reflects the indignation God feels for those who rebel and damage his creation and especially any of his ‘images.’
I don’t sense much in the way of “love the sinner, hate the sin” in the Bible. It reminds me a bit of the issue of gun ownership in the USA and that slogan, “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Divorcing the weapon from the user is only half the truth, of course; in reality it’s people with guns who kill people. Both objects need dealing with. So with sin: it’s not just sin that mars, it’s the sinner who sins that mars creation. Both need tackling and we cannot be schizophrenic in our approach.
And so with interpretation. Christians are the people of God, just as the authors of the difficult texts were. God is the same God then as now. If an author in the 6th century BC had a passionate sense of injustice and if God superintended the writing and collection of Scripture to include that passion, then should we not be able to feel the same now when we sense injustice? Should not we be expected to speak out against the perpetrators of injustice or even to rant at God when things go wrong? Should we refrain from divorcing the angst from the love in the Bible?
I realise that I have left plenty of hostages to fortune here and I don’t doubt that people will say, “Ah, but what about this text...” Happy to debate! Essentially, however, at root I see the problem lies with our definition of that terribly shallow but broad word “love” in English.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Here is a post I made on the other thread about Psalm 137.
Moo
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
From a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back and respond to some of these posts.
quote:
Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?
Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.
However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.
Thanks for clarifying; this is a place where we really disagree about our fundamental nature: I think there IS something inherently wrong with every human being and that it needs to be killed, to be "crucified with Christ." To me, "diffuse" indicates watering down and spreading out, which seems exactly wrong to me - but perhaps DarkKnight meant something more like "vent," you know, get rid of the head of steam before the whole thing blows?
quote:
In relation to these Psalms, my understanding is this: rather than stewing on these deep feelings of anger and hatred, either forcing them deeper inside to boil and simmer away or exploding outward into anger, physical violence or homicide, the Psalmist acts to get those feelings and thoughts out, away from him/her, to where they can do no damage to him/herself or anyone else...<snip>...
I hope my response to Freddy clarifies my view. I realise the metaphors you have chosen are biblical ones (wood hay and stubble etc) I am just not sure what to make of them anymore. I remain convinced that crucifixion- either self or by someone else (please understand I am speaking metaphorically, as in crucifying parts of yourself or someone else that are "sinful") is not the path to wholeness.
As I said, thanks for clarifying; we stand in pretty much opposite positions: I believe it's the only path to wholeness for a Christian.
Barnabas, clearly I'm not speaking of any part of us which falls under the description of "made in the image of God" but the sin nature, that Jer. 17:9 part - "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" I remember being so offended when I first read that scripture: what do you mean, my heart is lovely!
A few weeks ago we were translating the beginning of Psalm 137 in my Hebrew class, so I took the opportunity to ask the rabbi about this later portion; he was very straightforward: these are people brutally taken in captivity, they've seen parents, children, leaders mercilessly slaughtered by their enemy and they're expressing a very human desire to see their enemy "get theirs." And yes, it resonates with the uncomfortable justice of God.
Nigel, I don't assume that all scripture needs to be read in the kindly light of the love of Christ; I think God really puts some hard stuff out there and we are invited to wrestle with it. God spends a lot of time teaching me about tension, that it's not all one way or the other, that He encompasses the whole universe.
quote:
It’s somewhat similar to the way many Christians cope with injustice in their lives: they cannot blame God (who is loving), yet they have a burning sense of injustice – anger even – and it has to be offloaded somewhere; enter the Devil stage left to take the brunt of our fury in prayer. That way we are not blaming the human who was the direct cause of the injustice (we can still love the sinner), but are able to storm hells’ gates (the very definition of sin). I am well aware that some Christians enter a state of hatred when they pray in this fashion.
This is very personal territory for me, how to reconcile God (more than allowing but actually directing something which ultimately lead to waste, destruction, injustice. In that particular instance, I believe God did direct the initial decisions and then I didn't do a particularly good job with follow-through. This is common throughout scripture: we start in obedience and then stumble (which resonates with Judges, imho).
quote:
I don’t sense much in the way of “love the sinner, hate the sin” in the Bible. It reminds me a bit of the issue of gun ownership in the USA and that slogan, “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Divorcing the weapon from the user is only half the truth, of course; in reality it’s people with guns who kill people. Both objects need dealing with. So with sin: it’s not just sin that mars, it’s the sinner who sins that mars creation. Both need tackling and we cannot be schizophrenic in our approach.
I think John 8, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, is the model of that attitude: yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned but He is very aware of the games being played in the background (e.g., where is the man? No one commit adultery alone--) and He is not willing to be falsely engaged. Throw in the fact that Judea no longer had the right to exercise capital punishment independent of Rome (which explains Pontius Pilate's presence during Holy Week) and He would be in a whole other kind of trouble if He jumped up and said, "You're right! Let's stone her!"
The church has become really bad at saying, "Go and sin no more," while we emphasize the "Neither will I condemn you" portion of the scripture. I thoroughly agree with your assessment of our struggle to rightly comprehend the word "love."
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Nigel - I don't get it. How can wanting to murder innocent babies "resonate with the justice of God"? Perhaps I'm terminally stupid, but anyone who thinks they are seeing their enemies "getting their own" by murdering their children has totally lost it. If I ever found myself thinking that I'd know that my soul had died.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned
No. People do not, as far as I can see, deserve to be painfully executed for adultery. That's also monstrous.
Yes, I know Deuteronomy says they do. I have to conclude, because I can't conclude any other way, that on this point Deuteronomy is wrong. It does pain me to say this, because even in my backsliding days the idea that this is in some sense the "word of God" remains, but what else can I do? My conscience cannot let me say "oh, I must be wrong and this is just"; it simply isn't, any more than twenty years in prison for nicking a pen would be.
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on
:
Adultery is there in the ‘Thou shalt not section of the Ten Commandments just two away (if that’s of any significance whatsoever) from ‘Thou shalt not kill/murder’. Now some of us believe/have at times believed that the death penalty is appropriate for murder (or maybe limited to some types of killing, like mass murder/ child murder). I know that you consistently disagree with this penalty (I have changed my mind on it at least twice). You are perhaps being more consistent than some Christians who would say ‘yes’ to execution of a murderer but ‘no’ to doing the same to an adulterer, despite the Biblical (OT) basis for both to be punished by death.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
To be fair, death penalty advocates will point to the Noachian covenant on that one as well. I don't necessarily think therefore that they're inconsistent, despite still disagreeing with them.
Largely I'm informed by a visceral negative reaction to killing people. I struggle to see that as a bad thing, although plenty of people have hinted in the past that it is.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nigel - I don't get it. How can wanting to murder innocent babies "resonate with the justice of God"? Perhaps I'm terminally stupid, but anyone who thinks they are seeing their enemies "getting their own" by murdering their children has totally lost it. If I ever found myself thinking that I'd know that my soul had died.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...even in my backsliding days the idea that this is in some sense the "word of God" remains, but what else can I do? My conscience cannot let me say "oh, I must be wrong and this is just"; it simply isn't, any more than twenty years in prison for nicking a pen would be.
Karl,
There are two aspects to this that I think are relevant and might be helpful:
1] Interpretations that rely on literalistic readings of Scripture; and
2] Interpretations of God’s justice.
I avoided using the word ‘literal’ reading above because it is possible to read the entire Bible literally, in the sense that this is what the author literally intended. Literalistic readings are the ones that read without taking into account that the author ‘literally’ intended his work at a particular point to be understood figuratively, rhetorically, etc. It is a ‘literal’ reading that I argue in favour of.
I agree with you Karl that a desire to destroy babies is not apparently in accord with God’s justice, and on [1] above perhaps Ps. 137:9 is not the best example to use for my case because the language there is pretty rhetorical and I am not aware of any Christian who would read it as an ordnance to commit infanticide against one’s enemies. Nearer the mark, perhaps, is the type of language reading associated with the likes of Fred Phelps (God hates sin; God says being gay is a sin; therefore God hates gays – and the language of hate is therefore appropriate for Christians to use).
As the OP relates to the cursing Psalms, though, I’ll stick with Ps. 137 here and see if I can apply my reasoning – we’ll need to assume for the sake of the argument that there are Christians who would read verse 9 literalistically. I’ll skip over the obvious historical allusions to warfare practices at the time, because I don’t think you are concerned about that (I’m assuming it’s a given that these practices were not uncommon). The issue is whether this text can be used in a Christian sense. If it can’t, then I understand the problem you face: do we ignore it as being an historical irrelevance (in which case we jettison the idea that the Bible in its fullness is a mode for God’s guidance); or do we jettison the text itself (in which case we call into question the canonical process). If we aim to find a Christian meaning in the text, do we spiritualise it (e.g., ‘this is a picture of Christ vs the Devil’...); do we take it as an example of how not to behave; or do we read some other way?
Obviously I’m gunning for the ‘some other way’. I want to take seriously the fact that we feel injustice building up in us when something unfair happens. This is a human trait and allied to it is the emotion of anger. I would say that these are, in fact, reflections of God’s image – yes, even the anger. It needs dealing with in some way. Consequently, when I read verse 9, I am putting myself on the one hand in the shoes of the human author who felt that injustice and anger and, on the other hand, seeing that this is a reflection of how God feels when faced with anything that mars his creation. All of this forms part of the concept of God’s justice. He has to act against evil because he cannot stand by and watch his creation suffering. For me, this is the essence of a ‘loving’ God. Not to be angry is to shrug one’s shoulders, baton down any feelings of injustice and let evil has its way.
Now, how does this pan out in relation to human beings? You’ll have seen that I am not really convinced about the “hate the sin, love the sinner” approach, because I think the Bible emphasises the need for sinners to be dealt with – there has to be a repentance and a new path to follow, as well as a naming and shaming of the sin itself. Desiring to bash babies on the rocks – paying back what they deserve (as Lamentations 3:64 puts it) – is only one part of the bible that expresses this. The other part is that which holds open the offer of repentance, should the perpetrator admit that s/he was in the wrong and is willing to ‘sin no more.’
It was precisely because I wanted to read the bible with a consistent methodology throughout, while taking seriously the need to read texts in accordance with their genre, that I have come to this point. Not sure that I am expressing things well enough, though.
Nigel
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is my problem here, Nigel, that quote:
Desiring to bash babies on the rocks
is absolutely NOT quote:
paying back what they deserve
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?
[ 11. May 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[missed edit window]
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that.
Karl, reading through the thread, I notice that you have made this point repeatedly. I agree with you completely.
Earlier, you said that you ascribe these kinds of statements to imperfect revelation. That is, that God could not possibly have intended or authored these things. Again, I agree with you.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.
I agree that killing babies in revenge for the actions of their adult relatives is monstrous. However people in Biblical times (not just the Jews) did not see it that way.
The legal code of some country (Babylonia?) specified that if a man killed someone else's daughter, his own daughter should be killed.
This is not the way we see it nowadays, and I think all efforts to reconcile it with modern thinking are doomed to failure.
Moo
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is my problem here, Nigel, that quote:
Desiring to bash babies on the rocks
is absolutely NOT quote:
paying back what they deserve
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.
Yes, this particular Psalm was always going to be a bad example because I know of no-one who reads across in a literalistic fashion from verse 9 to a Christian lifestyle guide (well, I don’t) in a sort of, “Dash Babies Against Rocks” => “Go Thou And Do Likewise” fashion. The rhetoric in the passage (vv8-9) makes clear that if anyone does the act it is not the author; rather the focus is on the lucky soldiers who will eventually deal with Babylon on a like-for-like basis.
So there is no command here for God’s people to commit infanticide in certain circumstances. What it does support, though, as I see it, is God’s people feeling able to approach God with their desires, however black they may seem – when they are based on feelings of injustice. It also, I sense, allows for proclamation in the community generally. This is one of the attributes of the Psalms as a whole, I think. More generally, as I said earlier, the texts reflect the justice of God in the sense that injustice needs dealing with. Again, that is not saying that verse 9 is specifically (literalistically) advocating reparation along the lines of a baby for a baby.
I agree that if I was to express on a whim a desire to knock off a few babies, I would attract the attention of several “support” services in the community (or at least, I should...). If, however, I had suffered an injustice – perhaps seen my family slaughtered in a genocide campaign – then the emotions that rise should and can be taken to God and to the community. There’s an element of the prophetic in Psalm 137:9 similar to that in the prophetic texts themselves, it’s just that in practice I think the kind of rhetorical speaking we see in verse 8 and 9 is alien to British modes of language use. Much more common in some other cultures; I think the Bible language is closer to the ‘other’ than the ‘us’ in this regard.
Your take on this, I assume, is that it is never now right for Christians to express the kind of desire we find in verse 9. Actually, I agree; but my take focuses on the use of language in Psalm 137, how we can deal with it and how it might reflect something of God in the process. It's more about how we read the Bible than anything else.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.
But I've often said if I were God I'd have done things differently.
[reply to Moo]
[ 11. May 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.
I have come to like the fact that the Bible is so full of bad human tendencies. That means there's hope for me. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Moo
Posted by pooka (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that.
I think that is a reflection of someone with a desire for vengeance based on imperfect human nature fueled by pain and Grief (PTSD?) and the cultural context at the time, which is different from justice. I have observed that people often don't think that justice meted out is good enough for the perpetrator, they want vengeance because they want compensation for the pain they have suffered as well. FWIW, I think that God wants us to be honest about how we feel but what we DO is another matter. From what I understand, 'Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' is not about God sactioning vengeance with gladness, but it is saying, 'if you have to exact vengeance, make sure you don't do more than what was done to you.' Precisely to stop the kind of things that might be done when a victim was fuelled with pain and grief that the psalmist was expressing and to stop any escalation when people are seeing red.
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
I think that psalm is a very human work. It's not God writing it, it's a person screaming at God saying "Look at those assholes! Look what they did to me!" It's a very human response to extreme oppression, and as such I think it has space.
Also, it might be safer to put those sorts of things into words than to bottle them up and save them for future actions. Singing about it might be a form of release to prevent one from actually doing the act described.
The earlier verses also speak of a very strong attachment to God. If you could detach that feeling from the natural Freudian hatred of outsiders, I think it could very powerful stuff.
I visited a class on the psalms that talked about finding uses for the darker ones. I think the gist was that when a person is in deep grief or despair, it's good to understand that there is space for that in religion. The need for revenge is a natural reaction, and while it's not ideal, it's not something you can really stop. Justified anger is a very real thing. But once you acknowledge it, you have to figure out what to do with it. That's the difference, I think, between Jesus and the psalmist. Jesus took it all to the cross and let it die with him. But getting there can be hard, and not all of us are so gifted.
Again, I think it might be better to let such feelings vent themselves in word and song than to cling to them internally or try to suppress them as if they weren't there.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I agree that killing babies in revenge for the actions of their adult relatives is monstrous. However people in Biblical times (not just the Jews) did not see it that way.
I agree with this, and I think that this is what makes the bridge between Karl's point - that God could not possibly favor these things - and the fact that they are in the book supposedly authored by God. There is a huge contradiction there.
It is not easily resolved.
As I have said above, I resolve it by supposing that God used these ancient people's values, however mistaken they may have been, and worked with them to make His points. In this way He guided them gradually away from their former ideas.
At the same time - and this is the real key, I think - He only allowed things to happen and to be written that could symbolize true justice, even if the thing itself was actually unjust. So talking about killing babies, while actually barbaric, could symbolize the desire to eliminate even small sins. Similarly, wiping out whole populations, while heinous in the highest degree, could symbolize the destruction of wickedness. Similarly, practices like animal sacrifice and circumcision, having no true connection to godliness, could be seen as extremely central to their worship. They could symbolize godliness without actually being godliness. This is how ancient religion often worked all over the world.
This then justifies the biblical account without justifying the people or the practice. People fairly easily read these things as metaphors, and benefit from them, even while knowing that the literal images are horrible. People who would recoil in disgust from actually sacrificing an animal have no trouble accepting the idea that "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (Psalm 51:17).
The terrible images of the cursing Psalms all work this way, and I think that people have usually been able to transcend them and grasp the message behind them.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Well, this thread has certainly been useful to demonstrate some hermeneutical issues. Still hanging in the air behind it all is the need to define such words as 'love', 'hate' and 'justice', because I suspect here - as often in our readings of Scripture - one’s view of God will affect one’s method of interpretation, just as much as vice-versa.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Still hanging in the air behind it all is the need to define such words as 'love', 'hate' and 'justice', because I suspect here - as often in our readings of Scripture - one’s view of God will affect one’s method of interpretation, just as much as vice-versa.
I agree that this is really the main issue, and that it needs to be resolved before any particular Scripture can be interpreted satisfactorily.
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned
No. People do not, as far as I can see, deserve to be painfully executed for adultery. That's also monstrous.
I think this is one of the hard places of scripture, and part of the evidence that the Bible didn't originate with men (i.e., humanity - but at that point would definitely be male) and hasn't been heavily edited by men: while men might stone a woman for adultery, they wouldn't stone both of them.
I see this as part of the great arc of scripture: God first has to show us the problem. We're very happy living before the flood: eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage. Everything's fine, what's the problem? We don't understand what righteousness is and, if we don't know what righteousness looks like, we won't know how filthy our robes are and how desperate our condition.
God chooses a man (Abraham) and turns a family into a people (Israel in Egypt), takes them out of captivity through an amazing time of dependence in the desert, and puts them into the land He purposed for them. He gives them extraordinary laws *in part* to differentiate them from the neighbors. He blesses them and disciplines them and blesses them again when they repent.
And His ultimate purpose is not to execute the rigors of The Law upon the Jews (and, by extension, humanity) but to show us our desperate need. His intention always is that He will take on flesh and walk among us and actually raise the bar (Matthew 5-6-7 is The Law Plus) - and then meet the requirements on our behalf.
There are two ways to heaven: perfection in every aspect of The Law -or- receiving the substitutionary blood of Jesus. God is both economic and extravagant: in His economy, it is better that a few should die in order that humanity understands the demands of the law so that humanity might be saved eternally.
At a certain point I realized that the death of our earthly bodies is not that big a deal to God: we're born into this life and every one of us will die, it's necessary. Of course it's big and scary to us, this life being all we know, but He knows better; it just looks big and scary from our perspective, not His. The challenge is to come into agreement with His perspective.
So I think God's heart truly is to save the woman, to say "Neither do I condemn you- go and sin no more," but to get there requires we learn The Law so that we can understand our need for grace.
NO idea if that makes any sense to anyone other than me. It's kind of like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (aside: the aunt of my priest's wife survived the bomb in Nagasaki; she was in the basement of the library-- lived a long life afterwards) - by compelling Japan to surrender the USA didn't have to destroy the entire country with the kind of bombing that Germany endured.
Alaric, God's requirement that a murderer be executed predates the Mosaic law (it's given to Noah in Genesis 9:6); the primary sin is against the image of God and the seconary offense is against the murder victim himself (!! - I know, we don't think that way). The Law was given to Moses for the nation of Israel and I don't know of it ever being applied to any other nation. As the church grew and gentiles came into the fellowship, the decision was that gentiles do not have to become observant Jews in order to accept Jesus as Savior. So I personally don't see any conflict in applying the pre-Mosaic death penalty for first degree murder and NOT applying the Levitical death penalty for adultery. But YMMV...
Karl, I think your visceral negative reaction against killing people is a very good thing. I would hope that you could overcome that reaction if you had the opportunity to save your wife and kids by killing the bad guys attacking them but chances are you will never need to overcome your visceral negative reaction.
There's some stuff I've grappled with at a rather bizarre level (having twice been overseas during airplane hijacking crises) and I actually thought through what I would do, if there was an attempt on my plane, flying home: I would look for the opportunity to flatten somebody, literally knock them down with my rather large body, and hope other brave people around me could take advantage of the upheaval. Happily I've never had to act on that decision but I hope I would be brave enough to actually do it. Ironically, I was on a plane diverted to Boston in 2005 and boarded by FBI and homeland security people carrying automatic weapons; they removed a man sitting in my row. I never saw any suspicious behavior but apparently he was traveling with a couple of people in a different class of service and there was some moving back and forth beyond that curtain, made crew & other passengers nervous.
quote:
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?
That's exactly why I don't support abortion; I find them quite equivalent. There's a way that this discussion makes me think of Alex Baldwin on Conan O'Brien's show where he goes ballistic and (parody? after the fact claim) advocates stoning a politician with whom he disagreed and stoning his wife and kids to death as well. If an actor, in a fit of pique over political issues, can go to that extreme place, why are we surprised that the genuinely tormented psalmist can go to that extreme place?
quote:
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.
I can understand that; I've often wished there were more editorial asides in the Bible: "And this was a bad thing--" yeah...
Nigel, I really appreciate your well-considered posts.
Mirrizin, yes, when a person is in deep grief or despair, it's good to understand that there is space for that in religion - King David, the murderer, the adulterer, was a man after God's own heart, I believe, because he brought the whole of who he was, himself, warts and all, and submitted it to God. I think this psalmist is doing the same thing.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Lynn MagdalenCollege.
quote:
Karl, I think your negative visceral reaction against killing people is a very good thing.
I bet Karl's really comforted to hear that.
quote:
I would hope that you could overcome that reaction if you had the opportunity to save your wife andkids by killing the bad guys attacking them but chances are you will never need to overcome your negative visceral reaction.
Did I get that right? You hope that Karl, in extremis could stifle his principles and become like his attackers (like you, perhaps?)
Fuck that for a game of soldiers.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I was just going to mention Psalm 109, and the late 50s--57, 58.
Like with the self-praising Psalms, what I do is usually mentally transfer the meaning to something else. The end of 137 to my sins, etc.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
Maybe I need to reread this whole thread start-finish, but I can't understand how it is possible to read a line like this (in the historical and theological context of the Exile):
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
and conclude that the intended message is any of the following:
"people in general will be happy if they dash babies against rocks"
"I'm going to go dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"It is God's will that I go dash some babies against some rocks"...
unless one has an ideological axe to grind against Jews/Christians under the conviction that we are a "violent religion", and anomalies like the Crusades are commissioned by passages like this...
Three points to note:
1) Babylon exiled Judah. Babylonian soldiers came in and dashed many, many Jewish babies against rocks as a matter of principle. Unless that point is accepted, then the passage will make no sense.
2) Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.
3) Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.
While it is clear that revenge against the Babylonians was the will of God, there is no indication that God had adopted the Persians as His special people, and as such, there is no indication that God approved of Persians dashing Babylonian babies against rocks.
Anytime you have any literary work that attempts to deal consistently with ideology and reality, you are going to have these kinds of "babies on rocks" consequences.
I would hope that people realize that we live in a real world where dead babies happen, and that they understand that in bringing up the subject, the Bible is offering dead babies as the problem, not the ultimate solution.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
...I can't understand how it is possible to read a line like this (in the historical and theological context of the Exile): "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" and conclude that the intended message is any of the following:
"people in general will be happy if they dash babies against rocks"
"I'm going to go dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"It is God's will that I go dash some babies against some rocks"...
I think the issue for some (most?) on this thread is that the very concept of violence of this sort is not something that should be found in a Christian reading of the bible - indeed people feel it's a shame that these verses were ever penned or retained in the Scriptures. I agree that none of the examples you give are valid interpretations of this passage, but I suspect some feel that there's a sneakiness in the way the writer expresses things: "I never advocated this action, Your Honour, I merely pointed out to the Babylonians that someone might take pleasure in doing so." It's rather reminiscent of the defence of some who advocate religious violence (jihad) without actually using direct words to say so.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.
It opens up another line of enquiry: would "an eye for an eye" have been interpreted to mean explicit and mirrored punishment along the 'pound of flesh' lines? Generally there seems to have been a variety of options in the Jewish law codes for restitution; sometimes monetary recompense for loss of life. So I suppose a jurist could approach the actions of Babylonian soldiers from a variety of angles, not simply a bash for every bash suffered.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.
We don't have records of it, true, but I wonder what approach would have been adopted by the Jewish soldiers during the cleansing of the promised land during the invasion? Didn't they kill Canaanite infants as well?
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I would hope that people realize that we live in a real world where dead babies happen, and that they understand that in bringing up the subject, the Bible is offering dead babies as the problem, not the ultimate solution.
Yes, I think this is the issue: it's what we do with the fact that the Bible deals with reality. Its writers were not afraid to expose humanity in the raw - actions, emotions, and all. So it's not a major problem for me that these verses are where they are, but I can see why it's a problem for others.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but to me:
quote:
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
Means exactly the same thing as :
quote:
""I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock""
As I say, may just be stupidity, but I really can't see the difference. Indeed, if it doesn't mean that, I'm totally at a loss as to what it does mean.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.
Justice for dashing a baby against rocks might be being yourself dashed against the rocks, but frankly I'm disgusted to the core by any suggestion that having one's own babies so dashed is justice. The babies in this are innocent parties and it is not justice to dash innocent parties against rocks.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.
We don't have records of it, true, but I wonder what approach would have been adopted by the Jewish soldiers during the cleansing of the promised land during the invasion? Didn't they kill Canaanite infants as well?
Yes they did kill them. However, there are fates that are worse than death. (I would gladly die rather than watch any of my children be tortured, for example.)
There is an important difference between a) "utterly destroying" (herem) a city of Canaanites and b) exiling those people into slavery. In one case, the people are quickly sent to death, but in the other, the pain and evil of war is bred into their hearts and those of their children.
I'm pretty sure that while it was God's will for his own people to be enslaved, it was never his command for Israel to enslave the inhabitants of the land (which ties into the failures in Joshua), and I think that's a distinction that loomed large in the minds of the Psalmists. There is a big difference between killing everyone in a city versus lining up a remnant of survivors and forcing them to watch as their babies are dashed against rocks. That kind of action goes beyond judgement into the territory of torment.
A big problem that we in the West have with concepts like this stems from our excellent health care and the expectation of long, healthy lives as a "right" rather than a privilege afforded by our extraordinary medical technology. When one and 90% of the people one knows are living comfortable lives into one's 70s, perspectives on the difference between death (which happened with expected regularity in the ancient world) and tortuous death (or tortuous life for that matter) can be blurred.
As a result, one might imagine that the quick destruction that Israel gave to the Canaanites is somehow morally and functionally equivalent to the tortuous exile inflicted by Assyria and Babylon. Whether or not one wants to equate these two morally is irrelevant to the task of exegesis, where the Psalmists would have certainly seen a huge difference.
(Unfortunately, discussions like this have immediate consequences on modern political discussions about capital punishment and more contemporary issues like our treatment of terrorists in the Iraq War conflict. I hope that people with differing views on modern issues relating to war, death, and torture can come to some consensus on what the Biblical writers would have believed within their historical context. I recognize that my "conservative Republican American perspective" affects my willingness to read a certain mindset into their heads, and I hope that those with dissenting views provide a proper balance...)
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but to me:
quote:
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
Means exactly the same thing as :
quote:
""I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock""
As I say, may just be stupidity, but I really can't see the difference. Indeed, if it doesn't mean that, I'm totally at a loss as to what it does mean.
It's the difference between "somebody is going to pay you back" and "I myself am going to take steps to pay you back".
The focus of the epithet is directed completely at the Babylonians and not at Israel or Persia. It effectively says, "Because you happily dashed our babies against the rocks, the same thing will eventually happen to you, because Israel's God does not allow injustice to go unpunished." (Of course, the means through which that will happen is left ambiguous, and the author does not command anyone to take that tortuous action upon themselves, but leaves it to Israel's God.)
Put another way, it's the difference between Jeremiah telling the king of Judah that the Temple would be destroyed vs. Jeremiah walking outside and attempting to destroy it himself. It's a prophetic announcement that Babylon's day of punishment is imminent and inevitable.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.
Justice for dashing a baby against rocks might be being yourself dashed against the rocks, but frankly I'm disgusted to the core by any suggestion that having one's own babies so dashed is justice. The babies in this are innocent parties and it is not justice to dash innocent parties against rocks.
And again, that ties into two other philosophical arguments about (a) whether there are fates worse than death (i.e. watching your child tortured to death), and (b) whether or not "justice" (while individualistic in principle) is "corporate" in practice.
Regarding (a), while the appropriate punishment for killing is to be killed, one who dashes babies against rocks in front of the parents has committed a separate crime that also requires punishment, for which the only appropriate balance comes from watching their own babies killed.
And on (b), while individualism is the foundation of western post-Enlightenment idealistic justice, in the real world sin is a corporate thing. No sin is truly "private", existing only in our heads. Every sin we commit affects those around us negatively in some way, and the Biblical language of the "sins" of families and clans and tribes and nations reflects that.
So if one approaches certain Biblical passages (like the Achan story, where entire families die from the sins of the head of household) from the perspective of western individualistic crime and punishment, God will appear cruel and unusual in his dealings with humanity.
However, whether or not crime and punishment are comprehendable on a purely individualistic level is an open question, to which the OT authors effectively say "no". (This is part of a more general process whereby the Biblical narrative itself challenges modern western readers to rethink notions of the nature of sin and individualism that they had assumed to be "common sense".)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You mean you think it is OK to inflict suffering on the innocent to punish the guilty?
You call it "western individualism" - I call it "justice", and I call punishing a group for the sins of one person both "unjust" and "fundamentally evil".
I guess I'm incapable of rethinking what seems to me to be common sense. If the OT writers thought that punishing people for the sins of others was just, they were WRONG! Simply wrong.
[ 26. June 2007, 15:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add - I can no more countenance this concept of "justice" than I can look at green grass and call it blue. It simply isn't.
Fortunately for Christianity (which I would have to reject if I were required to call green blue), Ezekiel seems to agree with me.
[ 26. June 2007, 15:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Sorry to triple post, but I'm just amazed that anyone could think this way, and it's knocking me for six.
Do you really mean that - suppose I (and I'm not the sort to do this by a long chalk) went and drowned someone's baby in front of them, it would be just for the police to come and drown my baby in front of me?
Does anyone actually think that?
I think I might be sick.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean you think it is OK to inflict suffering on the innocent to punish the guilty?
No, I'm saying that in the real world (concretely in the Biblical world), the status of "innocent or guilty" is not neatly contained by individuals, as if every man were an island.
There will always be some people who are "in charge" of other people, and as a consequence to their authority, the negative actions they take will adversely affect those whom they are supposed to protect.
This is true of parents and children or kings of Biblical nations, or in the case of the Achan story, Achan himself and his household.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You call it "western individualism" - I call it "justice", and I call punishing a group for the sins of one person both "unjust" and "fundamentally evil".
And from the modernist assertion comes the postmodern question:
Does your definition of justice and evil only exist within your own head, or do you have some basis by which others should adopt those individualistic definitions as well?
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I should add - I can no more countenance this concept of "justice" than I can look at green grass and call it blue. It simply isn't. Fortunately for Christianity (which I would have to reject if I were required to call green blue), Ezekiel seems to agree with me.
"Green" and "blue" have some basis in quantitative light frequencies and which cones in your retina are being stimulated when you "see" that color.
Is there any similar basis for the Enlightenment principle that the individual, not the collective body (family, tribe, nation), is the center of the ethical universe?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Sorry, it's just too fundamental. If a person can live personally blamelessly and yet "deserve" punishment because of what someone else has done, then where's the justice?
I'm not looking at this so much from a modern western viewpoint as the viewpoint of someone due to be punished for someone else's crime - wouldn't they find that unjust?
I am well aware that our sin affects others, but that is a very different thing from it making others guilty of what we did. If I murder someone, is my son really deserving of punishment as well? This is crazy!
Or take the Achan case. Achan sins - why should his servant die? What did the servant do wrong? What could the servant have done to have avoided this guilt?
I cannot believe that anyone is actually willing to contemplate this evil, evil, evil injustice. Sorry, I'm out of here before I burst.
Apart from one thing - would you think it just to kill my baby for something I did? Would you? This is where the rubber hits the road here. Do you really believe this yourself?
[ 26. June 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry to triple post, but I'm just amazed that anyone could think this way, and it's knocking me for six.
How had you interpreted accounts like the Achan story before now? Is its message a mystery?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you really mean that - suppose I went and drowned someone's baby in front of them, it would be just for the police to come and drown my baby in front of me?
There are two dimensions to that, (which dovetails with my earlier point on the difference between a) the Psalmist saying that something bad would happen to Babylon's babies, and b) the Psalmist actually instructing others to do something to Babylonian babies).
Those two dimensions are the perspective of the drowner and that of the police:
(a) From the drowner's perspective, he has gotten what he deserved, and the principle of an "eye for an eye" has been fulfilled (as far as he is concerned).
(b) But the police's perspective is more problematic, depending on their motivation for committing that act. Was it vigilante justice? Was it written in their local law that that was the appropriate punishment for that particular crime? (In Israel's case, we have a third option, namely "Was that particular punishment prescribed as a command from Israel's God?")
And herein we can see that "justice" cannot ultimately be an abstract principle, or else everyone has a different view of justice and chaos rules. Rather, justice at street level is ultimately defined in adherence to the law of the land.
So yes, if the local people had a law set in stone that the appropriate punishment for drowning someone's baby was to drown their baby, then yes, by DEFINITION that would be justice. If you have an abstract notion of justice that conflicts with the content of the law, one would hope that you would have enough persuasion in you to convince the masses to change the law, and if they disagree, you might need to reevaluate the source of your convicions.
Getting back to the Psalmist, it is one thing to state that God's justice would be served and that they would suffer as they made Israel suffer. However, since there was no divine command for Israel to dash Babylonian babies against rocks, the Psalmist dared not suggest that Israel be the one to carry that punishment out.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
So yes, if the local people had a law set in stone that the appropriate punishment for drowning someone's baby was to drown their baby, then yes, by DEFINITION that would be justice.
So why did we object to the Taliban? They had their laws, so whatever happened according to them by definition was justice.
No. Not for me.
But like I say, I'm out of here. This is too emotionally draining to carry on. As a liberal type I'm accused of having no moral absolutes. I do. And that this is evil is one of those absolutes. I just cannot see how one can objectively place killing innocent babies in the same category as "justice".
[ 26. June 2007, 20:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry, it's just too fundamental. If a person can live personally blamelessly and yet "deserve" punishment because of what someone else has done, then where's the justice?
And that is why our laws are centered around individualism in the way that they are - because our secular governments do not operate under the pretense that they can determine absolute guilt or innocence among all parties.
(And it goes without saying that Israel was different.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not looking at this so much from a modern western viewpoint as the viewpoint of someone due to be punished for someone else's crime - wouldn't they find that unjust?
It depends on their expectations for themselves and their leaders and everyone's collective responsibility.
I wouldn't pretend to imagine that people convicted in Islamic nations have the same sense of justice that I do, for example, to where they wouldn't see themselves as guilty (in some sense) for a crime that a family member committed.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I am well aware that our sin affects others, but that is a very different thing from it making others guilty of what we did. If I murder someone, is my son really deserving of punishment as well? This is crazy!
Or take the Achan case. Achan sins - why should his servant die? What did the servant do wrong? What could the servant have done to have avoided this guilt?
Put another way, 1939 international diplomacy fails and Hitler invades France, whereby several French children are killed. What could those children have done to avoid being killed?
That's the way that the real world operates. The mistakes of the leadership result in the suffering of the masses.
Rather than skirt the reality of the way the world is by burying the problem in abstract philosophical principles, the Bible actually takes on the problem of evil and defeats it.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that anyone is actually willing to contemplate this evil, evil, evil injustice. Sorry, I'm out of here before I burst.
You're leaving because you can't tolerate one poster's particular exegesis of the Achan story?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, I'm leaving because it's too much. What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.
I'm out. This is my last.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So why did we object to the Taliban? They had their laws, so whatever happened according to them by definition was justice.
This is an odd example that doesn't make sense.
Are you referring to the Afghanistan Taliban, who housed a terrorist cell that went outside their sovereign borders to plot and carry out an attack on the US?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No. Not for me. But like I say, I'm out of here. This is too emotionally draining to carry on. As a liberal type I'm accused of having no moral absolutes. I do. And that this is evil is one of those absolutes. I just cannot see how one can objectively place killing innocent babies in the same category as "justice".
Of course, the problematic word here is "objectively", which assumes that all babies are created equal, in which case there would be no need for any discussion on justice.
But the overarching question (for which liberalism has no answer) is how to properly deal with the problem of evil - an evil, in fact, that will eventually consume all people in death.
The liberal solution, ironically, has always been to skirt the significance (and even the existence) of evil. It is to "leave the forum", so to speak, and imagine that one can ignore the unignorable.
(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...
If I wasn't too tired, I'd call you to Hell for that bit of slander.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
I'm a bit short on time at the mo to get into this - will come back later in week. How about we all take a break and think about it some more?
A nice cup of refreshing tea and a scone...
Nigel
Posted by pooka (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)
Posted by pooka (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)
Care to justify this by being more specific?
(Sorry to double post. Flood protection got the better of me.)
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.
No, the point is that "dead French children happen". Given that, what is the proper punishment if the underlying principle is "eye for an eye"?
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...
If I wasn't too tired, I'd call you to Hell for that bit of slander.
No slander at all (since I wasn't necessarily addressing you), that's an assertion of the real consequences of the liberal worldview.
Another term for the above is "Bultmannian theology" - the emphasis on the sayings of the demythologized "Christ of faith" over and above the messy "Jesus of history".
Ultimately, when the principles of liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion, the only relevance that the aforementioned first-century Palestinian Jew could possibly have on today's church is as a teacher of timeless truths (hence the impetus behind the Jesus Seminar, whose goal was to "recover" the authentic sayings of Jesus).
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
No slander at all (since I wasn't necessarily addressing you), that's an assertion of the real consequences of the liberal worldview.
Another term for the above is "Bultmannian theology" - the emphasis on the sayings of the demythologized "Christ of faith" over and above the messy "Jesus of history".
Ultimately, when the principles of liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion, the only relevance that the aforementioned first-century Palestinian Jew could possibly have on today's church is as a teacher of timeless truths (hence the impetus behind the Jesus Seminar, whose goal was to "recover" the authentic sayings of Jesus).
Spot the contradiction here. Surely the 'liberal' (in the sense of 19th century liberal Protestantism) project was to attempt to recover the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith". Similar attempts by the Jesus Seminar seem inspired by the same impetus. Where you get the notion of a 'demythologised Christ of faith' from is beyond me.
{Fixed code}
[ 27. June 2007, 11:29: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.
No, the point is that "dead French children happen". Given that, what is the proper punishment if the underlying principle is "eye for an eye"?
It sure as hell isn't the killing of German children. That's just murder on top of murder.
If "eye for an eye" dictates the killing of innocent German children, then "eye for an eye" is fundamentally unjust and should be opposed.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Spot the contradiction here. Surely the 'liberal' (in the sense of 19th century liberal Protestantism) project was to attempt to recover the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith". Similar attempts by the Jesus Seminar seem inspired by the same impetus. Where you get the notion of a 'demythologised Christ of faith' from is beyond me.
Yes, but that 19th-century effort came to an end with Schweitzer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus". For the first half of the 20th century, there appeared to be no way to approach the historical Jesus without dealing with Schweitzer's unpleasant questions about an "apocalytic prophet" who wrongly predicted that the world would come to a shuddering end.
It is in that context that Bultmann went in the other direction (emphasizing sayings over history & demythologizing the gospels as form-critical statements about the early church) and this "New Quest" has formed the context of the sayings-based work of the Jesus Seminar.
So while the original liberal effort was to recover a "reasonable" historical figure living in an "unreasonable" setting of "superstitions", Schweitzer gave the theological left every reason to believe that the Jesus of history was just as unpleasant a subject as those OT writers who wrote of "miracles" and "Deuteronomistic theology" of a God who punishes his people when they break their Law.
To summarize, this "New Quest" still represents the sum of the consequences of consistently-applied 19th-century liberal ideology to the study of Jesus: The Jesus of the gospels defies rationality so completely that if one searches for a "rational" and "reasonable" kernel to the figure behind the gospels, one will end up throwing out the historical Jesus altogether in favor of a "sayings-based Christ of faith".
Of course, today we live in a "postmodern" age where the conservative and liberal labels of a former age do not apply neatly to the "Third Quest of the Historical Jesus" led by scholars such as NT Wright. It is within the approach of the Third Quest that scholars on the left and right can begin to approach a Jesus on the cross historically. (But my backsliding friend Karl has not demonstrated any interest in classical perspectives within this thread, except to suggest that those perspectives are morally inferior to his own contemporary western perspective, and as such he has much more in common with the Bultmannian perspective than that of Wright.)
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.
No, the point is that "dead French children happen". Given that, what is the proper punishment if the underlying principle is "eye for an eye"?
It sure as hell isn't the killing of German children. That's just murder on top of murder.
If "eye for an eye" dictates the killing of innocent German children, then "eye for an eye" is fundamentally unjust and should be opposed.
No, there's not anything wrong with "eye for an eye" as far as punishment goes. If the punishment fits the crime, there's nothing more balanced and just than "eye for an eye".
However, because the effects of crime never reduce down to individual actions and payments, but are corporate, "eye for an eye" always leads to never-ending cycles of vengeance.
(And that's where Jesus comes in, not as the patron saint for not punishing evildoers, but as the LORD who recognizes the insufficiency of the Law for bringing reconciliation and healing from evil, and in response gives the ultimate sacrifice for sin.)
But getting back to the OP about dashing babies against the rock - the task of understanding this passage within its context is different from the task of deciding what we do with it today (and I probably wasn't clear on that point earlier - I guess that's why Karl is so angry, perhaps he assumes that I'm advocating Achan-justice in our legal systems today?). There's nothing wrong with the Psalm passage within the literary themes and integrity of the OT, as long as one recognizes that the application for us Christians today comes from nailing that Psalm to the cross (which is not the same as just "throwing it out" as barbaric).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Whatever. Like I said, I'm out of this.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
It's a shame that you'll miss out on my exegesis of the apocryphal narrative of "Elisha Clubs the Baby Seals at Gilgal"...
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If "eye for an eye" dictates the killing of innocent German children, then "eye for an eye" is fundamentally unjust and should be opposed.
I think you're quite right about this. Matter of fact, "an eye for an eye" was itself a correction of an injustice: corporate guilt. Prior to the giving of this Law, an entire family, or village, could be punished for what one member of the family did. An "eye for an eye" was itself an attempt to do justice - to say that no punishment harsher than the crime should be meted out.
So you're absolutely right that injustice should be opposed; it's the Biblical point of view, matter of fact.
[ 27. June 2007, 18:37: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
Perhaps a verbal expression of fantasized revenge is safer than a physical act of real revenge?
Could this be the ancient equivalent to kids blowing off steam by shooting each other via video games?
Hmmm...
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Why not? Isn't that what clasical (and modern)tragedy, and films like The Passion of the Christ are all about?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
bump
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0