About Psalm 137

[pancreasman]

Settled. Next thread.

[Kelp(p)]

Tell that to the Midianite boys Moses ordered killed AFTER they'd been seized. I'd argue the kinder thing would've been to raise them, not strangle them (or however they were dispatched).

Same principle. Here's a very good article on that. http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

To summarize, they would not have been able to raise them. They were not a big enough population to effectively raise the boys (you need a lot of manpower to take in a bunch of male war captives right after a costly battle, the expectation is that even male slaves would rebel at the first sign of being able to get away with it. Moses would have had to blind them or break one of their legs or something). Again, quick death now, or slow death out in the desert.

Even taking in the prepubescent girls would have been difficult for the families involved that had to raise them until marrying them off at puberty. At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

[Cow Poke]

At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

I had five younger sisters, I had to sleep with one eye open!

[Cerealman]

I had five younger sisters, I had to sleep with one eye open!

My cousins used to paint my nails.
In a thread I mentioned before, I am(was) a very pretty lady.

[whag]

Same principle. Here's a very good article on that. http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

It's not a good article. It's a mishmash of painful rationalizations, most of which amount to "the parents were so evil, the kids needed to die." And any article that randomly bolds phrases throughout is immediately suspect, IMO.

To summarize, they would not have been able to raise them.

A lack of resources is a silly excuse for a culture whose God provided for them when they lacked.

The thing I always found odd about the article is that the author lacks the courage of his conviction at the end, eventually planting the seed in the reader's mind that the little boys were spared. If they weren't, the heck's the point of citing Philo?

7. The remaining people were the non-combat age boys (sub-12?). Philo asserted that the Israelites actually spared the little boys, although the Hebrew text doesn’t provide much support for this (Moses 1.57):

“And they led away a perfectly incalculable number of prisoners, of whom they chose to slay all the full-grown men and women, the men because they had set the example of wicked counsels and actions, and the women because they had beguiled the youth of the Hebrews, becoming the causes to them of incontinence and impiety, and at the last of death; but they pardoned all the young male children and all the virgins, their tender age procuring them forgiveness.

Either the absorption of babies was possible within the culture or it wasn't. I say it would've been relatively easy and especially humane to take in a small amount of boys, and so does Philo.

According to the text, though, the number of these boys present at this scene would have been very minimal. According to 31.9, they had already killed “every male (kal zkr—not the normal word for adult male, or ‘man’)”. This would mean that the reference in verse 17 to kill kal zkr (‘every male’) “among the children” would likely be a reference to any boys who had somehow ‘hidden’ or been unnoticed among the group of captive children. Given the general statement of verse 9, this would imply that this would have likely been a very small number of boys left.

So much for "they were not a big enough population to effectively raise the boys." The use of the word "effectively" is suspect here, as that's up to one's interpretation.

the expectation is that even male slaves would rebel at the first sign of being able to get away with it. Moses would have had to blind them or break one of their legs or something). Again, quick death now, or slow death out in the desert.

That's absurd. Cultures adapt. Cultures led by the one true God, even moreso.

Even taking in the prepubescent girls would have been difficult for the families involved that had to raise them until marrying them off at puberty. At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

This is a great argument not to let ANY war-time baby survivors live, lest they slit your throat later. Raising boys without that bent would be a doddle in a culture overseen and provided for by the one true God of infinite mercy.

[MaxVel]

Raising boys without that bent would be a doddle in a culture overseen and provided for by the one true God of infinite mercy.

God doesn't exist because He won't wave His magic fairy wand and make every problem go away right now! And it NEVER rains gumdrops and jellybeans. Such a big meanie can't possibly exist.

[whag]

God doesn't exist because He won't wave His magic fairy wand and make every problem go away right now! And it NEVER rains gumdrops and jellybeans. Such a big meanie can't possibly exist.

Absorbing a few innocent boys into a culture wouldn't require a constant rain of resources. Some cultures, the Mexicans, for example, crowd whole families into one-bedroom apartments to accommodate kids and infirm parents.

[KingsGambit]

Absorbing a few innocent boys into a culture wouldn't require a constant rain of resources. Some cultures, the Mexicans, for example, crowd whole families into one-bedroom apartments to accommodate kids and infirm parents.

And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.

[shunyadragon]

And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.

Native American cultures pretty much universally adopted captured women, children and infants into their families, regardless of lean times or bountiful times.

[JohnnyP]

So you think that in the future, every nation on earth will become a monarchy with a male head...

Kings meaning world leaders.

...so popular and powerful that the people actually care what his religion is?

I don't see where those verses say anything about that, it's more about everyone having no choice but to acknowledge the reality of God. Which hasn't happened yet.

[JohnnyP]

We're getting WAY off the topic....

Psalm 137 is about Jews in captivity. being mocked by their captors to "play the songs of Zion".
In frustration, they cry out to God for retribution.
They want payback.

It is NOT about God blessing baby killers.

I still wouldn't rule out some dual fulfillments.

In Psalms 137 there's a theme of being exiled and not wanting to sing, in Revelation exile is over forever and the righteous sing:

Source: KJV

Psalms 137:1-6 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Revelation 15:2-3 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

© Copyright Original Source

Edom is often considered to be Rome in Scripture:

Source: Gill's Exposition of Psalms 137:7

Psalms 137:7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

Many Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra observes, interpret this of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

Finally we can see some indications in Isaiah that children of Babylon are dashed against stones in similar conditions described in the Olivet Discourse:

Source: KJV

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

© Copyright Original Source

So once again, if dual fulfillments are in play -- we know for sure there are dual "Babylons" according to Revelation -- then it makes sense that the final one has to do in some way with Jesus. As I said with agreement by Jordan, he would be the Stone that either destroys those it falls on, or breaks those who fall on it. Like Paul dashed and broken against the goad/prod that was Jesus:

Source: KJV

Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

© Copyright Original Source

[whag]

And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.

A limited good society governed by God wouldn't strangle war orphans (or however they were finally slaughtered).

There's an incident in Numbers, I believe, where God complains about the Jews and entertains the idea of killing the whole tribe but appears to change His mind after Moses explains why it wouldn't be a good idea. There are two interpretations of this: 1. Moses actually changes God's mind. 2. God is testing Moses to "talk Him out of it." I see no reason why this shouldn't be a similar test. Can you imagine God getting angry if Moses objected to the systematic slaughter of war orphans? I can't.

[Cow Poke]

I still wouldn't rule out some dual fulfillments.

Of course you wouldn't.

[JohnnyP]

Of course you wouldn't.

Gill's Exposition also raises the possibility as I cited. Jewish Sages have long identified references to Edom as being of Rome, and see dual fulfillments with First and Second Temple destructions. It would be rather odd to see nothing about the Roman Siege mentioned in the Tanach, don't you think?

Source: Gill's Exposition of Psalms 137:7

Psalms 137:7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

Many Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra observes, interpret this of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Gill's Exposition also raises the possibility as I cited...

OK, perhaps you are unaware of what you are doing. Rather than read the text, and allow the context to tell you what's going on, you come up with a possible scenario, and scour then internet for somebody who agrees with you.

It's not "correct" simply because you can find other people with a similar belief.