paulrobertson
From St Silas, Glasgow
Psalm 137 is a tricky one. I've been looking at it a bit in an OT theology class. Thought it might generate some talking points.
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Why is it the Bible?
Would you ever use it? If not, why not?
Given it *is* in the Bible what can we learn from it about how we view anger and worship?
Hi Colin,
Thanks for your thoughts. I've got a few ideas of the answers to my questions but would love to hear other people's takes on it. It's fair to say it's not commonly sung (except by Boney M...) and nothing being written now comes close to that kind of expression of anger and resentment. I'm just wondering, if we really believe God's whole world is inspired, why we're happy to sing Psalm 23 but not Psalm 137.
Not sure you premise (a) is right. The people of Israel did continue to worship God while in Babylon, but in a way that couldn't involve temple worship. It's possible that synagogue worship began around then. And the irony of the psalm is that it is a song about not singing (but like "when he music fades"...) so presumably used in the worship life of the exiled community.
I'd argue you're maybe placing too much of a distinction between OT and NT morality and forms of worship. As I mentioned above, we're happy to sing psalm 23, 24, or 51. Are only some of them for now? Which ones? Should we not sing the Psalms of ascent now, because there's no temple to ascend to? And even if you're right that the psalmist is just looking for "an eye for an eye", do we really believe that the Israelites thought that "you bashed our children when you captured Jerusalem, so blessed is he who does the same to yours" was morally right or being obedient to God's law?
If you're interested in this then maybe you would be interested in an article by Mike Pilavachi or maybe it was Tim Hughes... I'll have to go look for it about songs of lament and their place in worship now.
OK here is one by Tim...
www.timhughesmusic.com/devo/WhenTheTearsFall.doc
and Mike Pilavachi's is here... took some digging cos the main link on the web site is misdirecting to a different article but here it is...
http://www.soulsurvivor.com/uk/imag/archive/october2010/momentum.html
Paul,
Fair point about temple worship, and even if my point (a) is valid then it's not a major aspect of the psalm anyway.
The main thrust of that section of the psalm, I reckon, is the cruelty of the captors when they told the captives to sing a song that celebrates Jerusalem right at the point where they are actually weeping over the fate of the place. The response of the captives suggests that they didn't want to defile the songs (which were presumably sacred) by celebrating Jerusalem when it was in enemy hands. Basically the songs weren't appropriate for the time, place or circumstances.
Regarding the line about smashing Babylonian infants against the rocks, I think that this is the anguished cry of a broken heart but that doesn't make it either morally right or obedient to God's law, and I've no reason to think that the writer thought it was either of those. Even the most serene and holy Christian of today will occasionally have angry thoughts that are unworthy of a child of God; the writer of psalm 137 is no different.
As for the question about whether or not this is a psalm for today, I think it can be but it is a very specific psalm. Perhaps the better question is 'is this a psalm for my circumstances'. Mike Pilavachi's article makes good points, but we are not God's people in exile - we just haven't made it home yet. I think it's right to lament our sin and situation - the Vineyard Canada song 'Yet I will praise' is one of my favourites - but I'd be more likely to use psalm 13 or psalm 55 as a basis for this, rather than psalm 137.
New Song
Forum Latest
I'm absolutely not an expert in this stuff, so treat the following with a healthy degree of doubt!
Deuteronomy 12 talks about having one fixed place of worship, presumably (by the time of the psalm) in Jerusalem. The Babylonians have captured Jerusalem and, having taken captives back to Babylon, I see the 'Sing us one of the songs of Zion' line as a kind of taunting abuse, since the geographical focus of worship is now in enemy hands.
So rather than (a) go against God's instructions on the fixed place of worship, and (b) give the captors the satisfaction, they choose to hang their harps on the trees (possibly breaking the strings in the process, to make them unplayable?) For me, there are similarities to Daniel refusing to eat the same food as Darius' court - "Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine". So far as I can see the circumstances are the same; both Daniel and the writer of psalm 137 were taken following the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, so perhaps the similarity is not unusual, and the detail found in the early chapters of Daniel might offer some insight into the mindset of the writer of the psalm.
I reckon one of the main things to take from the passage, at least in a worship context, is the contrast between then and now. They worship in the temple (because that's God's dwelling place among the people) whereas we can worship whenever and wherever we choose because, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, God's dwelling place is now with us rather than related to a place or a structure.
As for the anger aspect, the writer seems to be hoping for the 'eye for an eye' form of justice. Again, there are useful contrasts to be drawn between old and new testaments.
Hope this makes sense.