Your Little Ones against the Rock - Willem-Jan de Wit

This article has been published as: Willem J. de Wit. “‘Your Little Ones against the Rock!’: Modern and Ancient Interpretations of Psalm 137:9.” In Christian Faith and Violence 2, edited by Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, Studies in Reformed Theology 11, 296– 307. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005. It has been put online at http://willemjdewit.com with permission of the publisher.

Your Little Ones against the Rock! Modern and Ancient Interpretations of Psalm 137:9 Willem-Jan de Wit

1 INTRODUCTION Remember, o LORD, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem how they said, ‘Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation!’ O daughter Babylon, you devastator, happy the one who pays you back what you have done to us! happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! Psalm 137:7-91 Psalm 137:9 is a call for brute murder of little children. When I was preparing this essay, I quoted this verse in a talk with a non-Christian person. She reacted: ‘We always hear about the call for Jihad in the Koran. But now I understand that such things are in the Bible as well!’ This reaction illustrates two points: on the one hand, a call for vengeance such as Psalm 137:9 is easily associated with a concept like Jihad, here obviously understood as ‘holy war against the unbelievers’. On the other hand, the popular view of Christianity (unlike that of Islam) is that it is a peaceful religion and that it does not offer a legitimization for the use of violence. Thus, there seems to be a major inconsistency between the essence of Christianity and particular Bible verses such as Psalm 137:9. 1

Translation based on New Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible.

2

W.J. DE WIT

This inconsistency is not only sensed by secularized Western Europeans like the person I talked with, but also and especially by Christians themselves. This even goes so far that, in 1970, the pope excluded Psalm 137:7-9, together with some other psalms and psalm verses, from the four-weekly recital of the Psalter in the Liturgy of Hours. The relevant Apostolic Constitution explains: ‘In this new arrangement of the psalms some few of the psalms and verses which are somewhat harsh in tone have been omitted, especially because of the difficulties that were foreseen from their use in vernacular celebration.’2 Before one agrees with such a drastic step,3 it is worth considering whether it is possible to interpret Psalm 137:9 in such a way that it makes sense to keep it in a Psalter for liturgical usage. In this essay, I offer an anthology of interpretations that have been proposed through the ages. The overview starts with modern commentaries, but then turns to rabbinic and early Church interpretations and gradually comes back to our age. As a conclusion, I offer my own interpretation.

2 MODERN INTERPRETATIONS The poet says: happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! All4 modern commentators feel unhappy and seem to imply that the poet should rather not have said this. They express their uneasiness basically in two ways. On the one hand, they try to show that the poet’s words are actually less harsh than they seem to be prima facie. On the other hand, they maximize the historical distance between the poet and the modern reader, so that the psalmist is 2

See: Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution, Promulgation, The Divine Office (November 1, 1970), sec. 4, in: Christian Prayer. The Liturgy of the Hours, Boston 1976, 15, quoted from: William L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years. Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, Minneapolis, MN 1993, 304. Holladay cynically adds: ‘In other words, parts of the Psalms that did not seem offensive to reciters who only half understood them in Latin are now to be omitted when the reciters hear what they really mean in their own language’, although he essentially agrees with the papal decision, for he states that ‘in Christian worship we are occasionally justified in omitting certain sequences in the Psalms’ (313). 3 Is it more drastic, however, than the wide-spread reformed practice of simply not singing such a verse although it is in the metrical Psalter? 4 I.e. all modern commentators that are mentioned in the following footnotes, who, I hope, have written a representative part of all modern (scholarly) commentaries there are.

YOUR LITTLE ONES AGAINST THE ROCK!

3

allowed to have spoken in this way in his 5 days but we cannot repeat his words in our days. As for the first, it is suggested that the verse should be understood figuratively – rocks are scarce in Babylonia. 6 Another suggestion is that ‘children’ may have been used in the sense of ‘inhabitants of the city’, who can be responsible adults.7 An additional view is that the children were at least considered as tomorrow’s soldiers. 8 Other opinions stress that the verse is not an expression of blind hate: it is rather a prayer that the ruthless conqueror might now himself taste the bitterness of defeat and helplessness that Israelites experienced when their babes were killed,9 or it is even an appeal to the LORD’s power over history – is the LORD God or will the superpowers triumph? 10 As for the second, the accent on the historical distance between the poet and the modern reader, commentators agree that killing children was a common practice in ancient warfare. 11 One explains that the principle of blood revenge, transmitted as a duty to offspring, made it necessary to exterminate all males in order to prevent future vengeance.12 More important, commentators can say that the poet, or the Israelites in general, had yet to learn something. For example, 5

Since most authors of Biblical texts were males, we assume that the poet of Psalm 137 was a man as well, although joy because of the punishment of enemies is also found in texts attributed to females (Miriam’s chorus, Exo. 15:21; Debora’s song, Jdg. 5:31). 6 See A.A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Volume 2. Psalms 73-150, New Century Bible, London 1972, 900. Is Klaus Seybold, Die Psalmen, Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/15, Tübingen 1996, 511 reacting to this view when he remarks: ‘Steine dazu gibt es überall’? 7 See De Bijbel. Uit de grondtekst vertaald. Willibrordvertaling. Geheel herziene uitgave 1995, ’s-Hertogenbosch 19992, note to Psa. 137:8-9. The problem of this suggestion is that the Hebrew does not use the common word for ‘children’, but a more specific one that literally means ‘sucklings’ and which is never used for inhabitants as such. 8 See again Willibrordvertaling 19992, note to Psa. 137:8-9. 9 See Anderson, Psalms, 900 and also Seybold, Psalmen, 511. 10 See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen. 2. Teilband. Psalmen 60-150, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XV/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 19785, 1086, who refers to Rev. 18:20: the joy over God’s judgement against Babylon. See also J.W. Rogerson and J.W. McKay, Psalms 101-150, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge etc. 1977, 150. 11 See Anderson, Psalms, 900; Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of the Psalms II, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh 1909, 486; Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III. 101-150, The Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY 1970, 273; Kraus, Psalmen, 1086; Rogerson and McKay, Psalms, 151 and Seybold, Psalmen, 511. They refer to the following passages: 2Ki. 8,12, Isa. 13:16, Hos. 10:14, 13:16 [14:1], Nah. 3:10. 12 See Briggs and Briggs, Psalms, 486.

4

W.J. DE WIT

‘they had yet to learn that God’s ways are not man’s ways, and that suffering love can reconcile former enemies.’13 Or, the psalmist is ‘typical of that man in every age who is godly and devoted to things of God, yet who – theologically speaking – lives in B.C.’14 What these comments suggest is that our real distance to the text is not lain in the fact that our warfare has become so much more civilized, but in the fact that Jesus Christ has come and taught us a new way to look at our enemies.15 We will return to this point in our conclusion. For this moment, it suffices to remark that modern commentaries are far from saying ‘amen’ to Psalm 137:9, which, in fact, would be a rather natural response to the final verse of a psalm.

3 JEWISH INTERPRETATIONS Although the emphasis of this essay is on Christian interpretations of Psalm 137:9, it is worth mentioning some Jewish interpretations. A striking feature of them is that they do not express such uneasiness with the text as modern commentators do. One traditional Jewish commentary only remarks: ‘The Psalmist tells Babylon that she will suffer in the same measure she caused Israel to suffer. Thus, her suffering will be, in a sense, self-inflicted. The conqueror of Babylon will hate her and torment her cruelly, exactly as she hated and tormented Israel.’16 Rabbi David Kimhi notes the extreme cruelty, but immediately adds: ‘just as they were cruel to Israel. Similarly the prophet Isaiah says: I will stir up the Medes against them and (in the next verse) he says: their bows will slaughter the young men, and they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb.’17

13

Rogerson and McKay, Psalms, 150f. J. Bright, cited by: Anderson, Psalms, 901. 15 See also Kraus, Psalmen, 1086, who remarks that the Christian congregation cannot agree with the tenor of vss. 7-9 but with reservations and considerations. 16 Avrohom Chaim Feuer (in collaboration with Nosson Scherman), Tehillim. A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources 5, Brooklyn, NY 1983 on Psa 137:9. 17 Joshua Baker and Ernest W. Nichelson (edd.), The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms CXX-CL, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 22, Cambridge 1973, 83 (the presentation of the text is slightly altered). The quotations are from Isa. 13:17 and 13:18. Kimhi (AD 1160-1235) lived in the Provence (France) and was a defender of his older contemporary Maimonides. 14


5

Particularly interesting is a midrash on Psalm 138:1, the verse that directly follows on Psalm 137:9. For a good understanding, it should be remarked that the midrash considers verses 8 and 9 to be directed against Edom like verse 7; daughter Babylon in verse 8 is understood as: Babylon’s daughter-in-evil.18 Psalm 138:1 reads: I will give Thee thanks with my whole heart. The Midrash relates: ‘The children of Israel say: When shall we offer praise? When God requites the wicked for their dealing, as it is said As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee; thy dealing shall return upon thine own head.19 What was Edom’s dealing? Edom dashed the little ones of Israel against the rock. For this reason it is said, O Edom, Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. In that hour the children of Israel will give thanks with all their heart to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said I will give Thee thanks with my whole heart. Thus you learn that as long as the wicked are in the world, they enslave the children of Israel and oppress them, so that the children of Israel cannot take breath to thank God with all their heart. But when the wicked wither away, then I will give Thee thanks with my whole heart.’20 This is a real ‘amen’ to Psalm 137:9: let the wicked perish, so that the LORD can be praised!21

4 EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS When we turn to the Early Church, we come again to new lines of interpretations. From the wealth of expositions on the psalms that have survived,22 two are discussed here.

18

See William G. Braude (tr.), The Midrash on Psalms II, Yale Judaica Series XIII, New Haven 1959, 339 cf. 298. 19 Oba vs. 15. The prophecy of Obadiah is directed against Edom. 20 Braude, Psalms, 340. 21 Another midrash stresses that it is God Himself who will dash the little ones against the rock and that He only repays for what one has really done, unlike ‘the way of the world that if a man do no more than strike the son of an eparch, or the son of a king, the man’s head will be cut off, or he will be burnt alive, or he will be crucified. But the Holy One, blessed be He, does not repay thus’ (Braude, Psalms, 299). 22 See Thorne Wittstuck, The Book of Psalms. An Annotated Bibliography I, Books of the Bible 5, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1413, New York / London 1994, 31-56 for editions, translations and secondary literature.

6

W.J. DE WIT

The first is the Commentary on the Psalms by Theodoret of Cyrus (393-466), a representative of the Antiochene school of exegesis. His comment on Psalm 138:8,9 reads: ‘Blessed is the one who gives you your just deserts for the treatment you meted out to us. What is the meaning of this? Blessed is the one who will take up and dash your infants against the rock (v. 9). In other words, since they for their part treated their infants cruelly, the inspired author prophesied the like punishment for them. Consequently Cyrus is declared blessed for punishing them and freeing these [i.e., the Jews], not because he was reared on sincere piety but because he accorded the pious people liberty and gave directions for the building of the divine Temple. God receives few fruits and provides generous rewards – hence his hailing the widow’s two coins.’23 This is a remarkable passage. Although Theodoret sees the cruelty of killing children, it is not problematic for him if it is done for the sake of equal retribution. And when he is puzzled about the fact that someone who kills children for the sake of punishment is called blessed, his point is not that it seems to be a bad rather than a good deed, but that the deed seems to be too insignificant to be a reason to call someone blessed: hence the comparison with the widow who did a good but seemingly very insignificant deed by giving two coins and who is nevertheless praised by Jesus.24 The other patristic commentary we discuss here is a homily by Jerome (348-420). His interpretation differs much from Theodoret’s, but similar interpretations are found for example in Augustine’s and Cassiodorus’ expositions on the psalm. 25 Jerome says: ‘Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock! The little ones are evil thoughts. I saw a woman for instance; I was filled with desire for her. If I do not at once cut off that sinful desire and take hold of it, as it were, by the foot and dash it against a rock until sensual passion 23

Robert C. Hill (tr.), Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Psalms. Psalms 73-150, The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation 102, Washington, DC 2001, 324f. For the Greek text, see Patrologia Graeca LXXX (1864) 1929. 24 See Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4. In his lectures on the Psalter (1513-1516), Martin Luther faces the same problem as Theodoret did but solves it differently: since it seems not appropriate to call the idolatrous Medes (who devastated Babylon) blessed, Psalm 137:9 is better explained mystically and morally (see Weimarer Ausgabe 4 (1886) 430). 25 See Corpus Christianorum Series Latina XL (1956) 1977f and XCVIII (1958) 1235f.


7

abates, it will be too late afterwards when the smoldering fire has burst into flame. Happy the man who puts the knife instantly to sinful passion and smashes it against a rock!’ 26 If we follow such an allegorical interpretation, it is not so difficult to say ‘amen’ to Psalm 137:9 (although the struggle with sinful thoughts can be hard and, at the same time, we may not always agree with Jerome which desires are sinful and which are not). To be clear, there is no indication in the homily that Jerome offers an allegorical interpretation because he found a literal interpretation of this verse too harsh: the whole psalm is allegorized without further explanation. 27 There is one phrase in Jerome’s commentary on this verse that we have not quoted so far. It may aggravate the feeling of estrangement that allegorical interpretations can cause, but it can also offer an important hermeneutical key to the psalm. The phrase is this: ‘Now the Rock is Christ.’ As such, the idea that Old Testament stones and rocks refer to Christ is not new. Jerome verbally repeats 1 Corinthians 10:4, where Paul identifies the water-giving rock in the desert with Christ. Moreover, in the concluding paragraph of his homily on Psalm 133 (134), Jerome identifies the stone that Jacob used as a pillow, the stone that was rejected by the builders but that became the cornerstone and the stone that Samuel called Ebenezer all with Christ.28 The striking point in the comment on Psalm 137:9, however, is that Christ is also a rock against which little ones should be smashed. This is a dangerous thought. It easily legitimates the use of violence in Jesus’ name and for Christ’s sake. Of course, Jerome does not take the little ones literally, but the step from spiritual enemies to physical enemies is sometimes small. Nevertheless, dangerous thoughts are often not far from the truth. In our conclusion, we have to go back to the thought that the rock is Christ.

5 REFORMED INTERPRETATIONS 26

Marie Liguori Ewald (tr.), The Homilies of Saint Jerome. Volume I (1-59 On the Psalms), The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation 48, Washington, DC 1964, 359f (the presentation of the text is slightly altered). For the Latin text, see Corpus Christianorum Series Latina LXXVIII (1958) 298. 27 In other homilies, St. Jerome can also pay attention to the literal meaning of the text or defend his allegorical reading. See e.g. the two preceding homilies. In general, however, his homilies display ‘an all too patent penchant for allegory’ (Ewald, Homilies of Saint Jerome, xix). 28 Cf. Gen. 28:11, Psa. 118:22, 1Sa. 7:12.

8

W.J. DE WIT

We silently pass now more than a millennium of Church history and come to reformed interpretations of Psalm 137:9, starting with John Calvin. In his commentary on this verse, he writes about the psalm’s poet: ‘It may seem to savor of cruelty, that he should wish the tender and innocent infants to be dashed and mangled upon the stones, but he does not speak under the impulse of personal feeling, and only employs words which God had himself authorized, so that this is but the declaration of a just judgment, as when our Lord says, With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.’29 The marginal notes to the Dutch Statenvertaling of the Bible (1637) explain Psalm 137:9 as follows: blessed is the one who will execute God’s severe judgments on you because of your horrible crimes.30 The well-known commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714) writes among others: ‘The pious Jews in Babylon (…) here please themselves with the prospect of the ruin of her impenitent implacable enemies; but this not from a spirit of revenge, but from a holy zeal for the glory of God and the honour of his kingdom. (…) Far be it from us to avenge ourselves, if ever it should be in our power, but we will leave it to him who has said, Vengeance is mine. (…) None escape if these little ones perish. Those are the seed of another generation; so that, if they be cut off, the ruin will be not only total, as Jerusalem's was, but final. (…) Happy shall those be that do it; for they are fulfilling God's counsels. (…) The fall of the New-Testament Babylon will be the triumph of all the saints.’31 29

John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 5, Grand Rapids, MI 2000 on Psa. 137:8f. URL: http://www.ccel.org, visited June 26, 2003. Calvin quotes Mat. 7:2; he also refers to Isa. 13:16. For the Latin text, see Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia XXXII, Corpus reformatorum LX (1887) 371f. The phrase ‘and only employs words which God had himself authorized’ is a somewhat free rendering of the Latin: sed verba petit ex ore Dei, which literally means: but takes the words from God’s mouth. 30 See Bijbel …met nieuwe bijgevoegde verklaringen … 2, Houten 1980, note 30 to Psa. 137. 31 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI 2000, on Psa 137:7-9. URL: http://www.ccel.org, visited June 26, 2003. In the abridged edition of Henry’s commentary, all eschatological overtones in the explanation of this psalm are left out. This does not only flatten the interpretation, but it also makes a statement like ‘None escape if these little ones perish (…) if they be cut off, the ruin will be not only


9

Despite differences, there is a striking similarity between these three interpretations: if Psalm 137:9 were a merely human call for vengeance, it would be unacceptable, but, since it is an expression of or a reference to the will of God, it is acceptable. Among modern commentaries we observed the tendency to use a theological argument against the text: through Jesus Christ we know that it is God’s will that we even love our enemies. These reformed commentaries use a theological argument the other way round: they ‘save’ the text by stressing that it expresses God’s will.

6 LITURGICAL INTERPRETATIONS We are coming towards the end of the survey of interpretations. My starting point was the question whether it is possible to interpret Psalm 137:9 in such a way that it makes sense to keep it in a Psalter for liturgical usage. Already several times, I posed the question whether interpretations make one say ‘amen’ to the psalm. Now we turn to the question of liturgical usage, that is, of singing and praying the psalm, more explicitly. Matthew Henry gives a practical and careful suggestion how to sing the psalm: ‘In singing this psalm we must be much affected with the concernments of the church, especially that part of it that is in affliction, laying the sorrows of God's people near our hearts, comforting ourselves in the prospect of the deliverance of the church and the ruin of its enemies, in due time, but carefully avoiding all personal animosities, and not mixing the leaven of malice with our sacrifices.’32 There is an important lesson in this statement: even if we personally do not feel like the psalmist, we should sing the psalm so that we can remember those Christians who live under oppression. However, Henry does not make clear exactly how we should sing about the little ones that are to be smashed against the rock. The rather famous hymn ‘By Babel’s streams we sat and wept’, with the very legato tune by W.B. Bradbury, does not help us much total, as Jerusalem’s was, but final’ harsher than it is intended in the original. See Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, New One Volume Edition, Grand Rapids, MI 1961, 722f. 32 Henry, Commentary , introduction to Psa 137.

10

W.J. DE WIT

further. The sixth and last stanza is based on verses 7 and 8, not on verse 9 of Psalm 137: Remember, Lord, the dreadful day Of Zion’s cruel overthrow; How happy he who shall repay The bitter hatred of her foe.33 Metrical Psalters such as the various versions of the Geneva Psalter and the Scottish Psalter may offer rather faithful renderings of Psalm 137:9, but here the question should be raised whether these renderings are really intended to be sung or are only included for the sake of the completeness of the Psalter. In any case, although I belong to a tradition in which the Geneva Psalter is used intensively, I cannot remember that I ever sung a stanza based on Psalm 137:9. Things are different in traditions in which all psalms are sung or read in a regular order. Unless some passages are excluded as in the mentioned Liturgy of Hours, Psalm 137:9 is frequently sung in these traditions and, even more strikingly, the verse is immediately followed by the Gloria Patris. One cannot but expect that this fact has led to reflection. And indeed, an arresting interpretation of the Gloria Patris to Psalm 137 exists, with which we conclude this section: ‘Glory be to the FATHER, unto Whom is said, Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom; glory be to the SON, the Rock against which the children of Babylon are dashed; glory be to the HOLY GHOST, Who is the blessedness wherewith he is blessed who dasheth the children of Babylon against the Rock. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.’34

33

Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church (1934) hymn 301. If the hymn originally had a seventh stanza, this has in any case been omitted in this hymnal (and in others as well). 34 John Mason Neale and Richard Frederick Littledale, A Commentary on the Psalms from Primitive and Mediaeval Writers IV, London 1883 [reprint: New York, NY 1976], 307. For clearness’ sake, this commentary understands the ‘children of Babylon’ as ‘the first motions of evil thoughts’.


11

7 CONCLUSION Having seen all these interpretations of Psalm 137:9, the question rises: how can or should we understand this verse? Let us consider the following: (1) If we never experienced brute violence ourselves, we still live ‘before’ the psalmist and should not too easily say that he should not have spoken this way. (Imagine the parents that loose a child in a road accident caused by a drunkard – should we forbid them that they utter the wish that the drunkard may himself experience what it means to loose a child?) (2) If we experience brute violence and tragedy, the psalm verse can be an articulation of our deepest feelings. Being a canonical text at the same time, it can be a bridge between experienced reality and the reality of God. For this reason, the verse should not be removed from Psalters or be explained allegorically beforehand. (3) The external, physical enemy has its counterpart in the internal, psychical enemy. When physical enemies are not in view for us, we can be right in understanding the enemies in the psalms as depressive or sinful thoughts. (4) We should not ignore that we live AD. A Christian actualizing interpretation of the psalm verse will always have a Christological element. The Christian amen to the psalm cannot be the same as the Jewish amen. (5) A Christian interpretation of the psalm does not imply that we give up the idea of the punishment of evil. Eschatological punishment is a common notion in the dominical tradition. Joy over the fall of Babylon is a New Testament given (Revelation 18). If so, Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies should not be abused to get rid of Psalm 137. (6) Christ can be brought in (or should we rather say: can be found?) in Psalm 137:9 in four ways. (a) He is the one who can pray the verse uprightly without sinful ulterior motives – we can only pray it uprightly if it is Christ in us who is praying. (b) He is the blessed one by excellence – we should leave the dashing of little ones against the rock to him. (c) He is the one who has been smashed against the rock himself. (d) He is the rock against which the children of the enemy are to be dashed. However, the identification of the rock with Christ can only be done through 1 Corinthians 10, in which passage the rock is a

12

W.J. DE WIT

fountain of life. Ultimately, ‘Your Little Ones against the Rock!’ does not mean: let them be smashed to death, but to Life. 35 (7) Thus, there is no compelling reason to exclude Psalm 137:9 from liturgy. On the contrary, it is to be prayed: Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.

35

To some extent, this interpretation is built on Luther, Weimarer Ausgabe 4, 430: ‘Mystice autem beatus est etiam predicator Euangelii, qui parvulos (i. e. infirma mundi, qui parvuli sunt malitia, non fortes et rebelles in sensu suo, sed suadibiles et credibiles,) tenet (scilicet ne crescent exemplis aliorum) et allidit (humiliatur ad Christum per fidem ei applicando) tuos (scil. o synagoga et munde). Et sic retribuitur tibi vastitas bona pro vastitate mala, quam fecisti nos.’