Psalm 137 and its curse
The psalm ends with a blessing on those who dash Babylon’s infants against the rock—a text that has provoked spiritualized, prophetic, and historical readings across Jewish and Christian traditions.
The passage
Scripture · New Consensus Bible
Psalms 137:1-9
1By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, also we wept, when we remembered Zion. 2On the poplars in her midst, we hung our lyres. 3For there our captors asked us for words of a song, and our tormentors for joy, saying, "Sing us from a song of Zion!" 4How can we sing the song of the LORD on foreign soil? 5If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget! 6Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not raise Jerusalem above my highest joy. 7Remember, LORD, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem; who said, "Raze it! Raze it, down to her foundation!" 8Daughter of Babylon, the devastated one, happy is he who repays you your dealing that you dealt to us. 9Happy is he who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.Study Psalms 137 →
The question
What is a curse on infants doing in the Psalms?
Background
Historical background
Psalm 137 is a communal lament set by the rivers of Babylon, after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The psalm shifts from plural weeping (vv.1–4) to a singular oath of loyalty to Jerusalem (vv.5–6), then to an imprecation against Edom and Babylon (vv.7–9). The final verse, 'Happy is he who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock,' is the most contested line in the psalm.
The psalm is traditionally attributed to the exilic community, though historical-critical study often dates it to the early post-exilic period as a retrospective reflection. Key Hebrew terms include 'olalim' ('little ones' or infants), 'sela' ('rock' or crag), and the oath formula in v.5, whose original wording is uncertain. In the Septuagint (used by Eastern traditions), the psalm is numbered 136.
How the traditions read it
Each tradition’s interpretation
Catholic
Spiritualizes infants as nascent sins dashed against Christ the Rock.
The Catholic tradition, following Augustine, reads the rivers of Babylon as the transient flow of earthly life, beside which the soul weeps for the heavenly Jerusalem. Benedict of Nursia and John Cassian teach that the 'little ones' of Babylon are incipient sinful thoughts or temptations, and to dash them against the rock is to destroy them immediately upon conception by striking them against Christ, the Rock. This ascetical interpretation is nearly unanimous in Latin and Eastern Catholic spiritual writers, such as Hesychios of Sinai. The psalm is chanted in the Byzantine rite during the pre-Lenten Sundays, applying the exile to humanity's separation from Paradise.
Catholic views on other disputed passages →Eastern Orthodox
Reads infants as logismoi destroyed by watchfulness against Christ.
Eastern Orthodox reception, guided by patristic consensus, spiritualizes the brutal imagery of verses 8–9. Origen and Hesychius the Priest interpret Babylon as spiritual confusion and captivity to the passions; the 'little ones' are logismoi—nascent sinful thoughts or demonic suggestions. The rock is identified as Christ, and the blessing is a mandate for nepsis: the believer is blessed who cuts off sinful thoughts at their conception, dashing them against the Jesus Prayer and the name of Christ. Verses 1–4 are chanted at Matins on the three pre-Lenten Sundays, expressing corporate realization of spiritual exile.
Eastern Orthodox views on other disputed passages →Oriental Orthodox
Reads little ones as early evil thoughts dashed against Christ.
In this tradition, the harsh language is transfigured through Egyptian asceticism and Alexandrian typology. Babylon represents the soul's captivity to sin and demons; Zion and Jerusalem represent the kingdom of heaven. Athanasius of Alexandria reads the 'little ones' as the infant stages of sin—newly born evil thoughts or nascent temptations. The believer is blessed who seizes these initial thoughts and dashes them against the Rock, identified by Paul as Christ, destroying sin before it matures. The chapter is prominent in Lenten hymnody, especially the Coptic seasons of fasting.
Oriental Orthodox views on other disputed passages →Anglican / Episcopal
Tension: laments exile; modern rites omit or allegorize the curse.
Anglican reception holds a deep tension between the poignant lament (vv.1–6) and the violent imagery of the imprecations (vv.7–9). The 1662 Book of Common Prayer appoints the entire psalm for recitation, but modern revisions such as the 1979 Episcopal BCP and Common Worship omit the imprecatory verses, judging them incompatible with Christian worship. Anglo-Catholic commentators like Neale and Littledale allegorized the final verses, interpreting Babylon as the sinful world and the 'little ones' as the first stirrings of sin. Some evangelicals and traditionalists argue this omission diminishes the Psalter's honest witness to trauma.
Anglican views on other disputed passages →Lutheran
Spiritualizes infants as initial sinful stirrings to destroy immediately.
Lutheran reception uses the theology of the cross, law/gospel distinction, and Christological allegory. Luther read Babylon as the confusion of the world and the devil's domain, and Zion as the true Church and peace of the Gospel. He interpreted the 'little ones' of verse 9 as the primi motus—the initial stirrings of sinful thoughts and evil desires—which must be dashed immediately so they do not grow into destructive actions. The psalm is prayed as the lament of the pilgrim Church in exile, refusing to sing the Lord's song for the captors, understood as maintaining pure doctrine against secular demands.
Lutheran views on other disputed passages →Reformed / Presbyterian
Imprecations are prophetic divine justice, not personal vengeance.
Reformed theology reads the psalm redemptive-historically and covenantally; Zion is the Old Testament Church, Babylon the antithetical kingdom. Calvin argued the psalmist was inspired by the Holy Spirit to echo God's previously revealed prophetic judgments against Babylon, acting as a herald of divine retribution, not carnal hatred. Matthew Henry notes verses 5–6 model proper covenant affection, prizing the Church above personal joy. In exclusive psalmody traditions, the entire psalm is sung as a corporate, eschatological prayer for God to vindicate his covenant people.
Reformed views on other disputed passages →Baptist
Prophetic declaration of retributive justice upon Babylon.
Baptist reception emphasizes biblical authority and inspiration, accepting the entire psalm as inspired Scripture, including the imprecatory conclusion. Charles Spurgeon read verse 9 not as sanction for personal vengeance, but as prophetic declaration of strict retributive justice God would bring upon Babylon through human instruments, fulfilling prior prophecies like Isaiah. The tradition's gathered-church ecclesiology adopts the typology of Babylon as the fallen world system and Zion as the true church. The refusal to sing in verse 4 resonates with Baptist views on voluntary, non-compromised worship.
Baptist views on other disputed passages →Methodist / Wesleyan / Holiness
Wesley excised it; read as prophetic judgment or spiritual warfare.
Wesleyan-Holiness reception is shaped by the pursuit of Christian perfection and universal love, which makes the violent imprecation a theological challenge. John Wesley deliberately excised the violent portions of the Psalter from early Methodist liturgy, calling them 'highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation.' Wesley and later interpreters read verses 8–9 as prophetic decrees of historical judgment upon Babylon, not models of personal prayer. The tradition also draws on ascetic allegorization: the 'little ones' are spiritualized as nascent sins or early temptations to be dashed against the Rock.
Methodist views on other disputed passages →Anabaptist / Mennonite
Old Covenant vengeance superseded by Jesus; church as suffering exile.
Anabaptist two-kingdoms theology reads the first half of the psalm as a paradigm for the suffering church in a hostile world: Babylon is the coercive, violent world system, and Zion is the pure church of believers. Early leaders like Dirk Philips applied this to persecuted Anabaptists. For the imprecations, Pilgram Marpeck argued the Old Testament desire for physical vengeance is explicitly superseded by Jesus' commands in the Sermon on the Mount. Thus the desire to dash infants is viewed as a carnal reality of the old era, forbidden for Christians. The psalm guides communal discernment about nonconformity and faithful minority witness.
Anabaptist views on other disputed passages →Classical Trinitarian Pentecostal
Embraces raw trauma as authentic prayer; typological spiritual warfare.
Pentecostal reception values deep emotion, lament, and unrestrained cries to God, so scholars such as Lee Roy Martin argue that the raw, violent emotions of the imprecation are not sanitized but embraced as authentic prayer accommodated by the Holy Spirit. Typologically, Babylon is the fallen anti-God world system, Zion the presence of God; the inability to sing (v.4) warns against stifling the Spirit's joy when the church compromises with the world. In pastoral application, the psalm is used in spiritual warfare and personal holiness, with the imprecation often read symbolically or as the believer's battle against sin.
Pentecostal views on other disputed passages →Seventh-day Adventist
Prophetic doom of Babylon typifies end-time false religion.
Adventist theology reads the exile through the Great Controversy: Babylon typologically represents apostate religious systems that oppress God's remnant. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary notes the doom of the 'daughter of Babylon' predicts both historical overthrow of Neo-Babylon and prefigures the fall of eschatological Babylon. The imprecatory conclusion is usually read as a reflection of the era's brutal retributive customs and a poetic representation of the total eradication of oppressive systems, not an endorsement of literal violence against children. Ellen G. White applies the psalm pastorally, urging believers not to hang their harps on the willows but to sing songs of faith.
Adventist views on other disputed passages →Restorationist / Churches of Christ
Old Covenant expression; not model for Christians.
Restoration Movement hermeneutics strictly distinguishes the Old and New Covenants. Alexander Campbell established that the nationalistic warfare and physical vengeance of the Jewish dispensation were superseded by the spiritual nature of the Christian covenant. J.W. McGarvey argued the severe judgments were righteous within God's physical governance of nations at that time, aligning with divine prophetic justice. Later commentators like Coffman read verses 8–9 as inspired prophecy of Babylon's historical destruction, not a model for prayer. The psalm is applied to maintaining purity of worship in a secular world, using verses 1–4 as a metaphor for spiritual exile.
Restorationist views on other disputed passages →Latter-day Saint
Historical grief; Zion vs Babylon; not behavioral model.
Latter-day Saint reception reads the exile through the Zion/Babylon dichotomy in the Doctrine and Covenants: Zion represents the pure in heart and gathered covenant community; Babylon represents spiritual captivity and wickedness. Verses 1–4 are an archetype of holding sacred covenants in a fallen world; the refusal to sing is understood as protecting the sacred from the profane. The imprecatory verses are generally read as ancient expressions of historical grief rather than behavioral models, though the destruction of Babylon typifies the apocalyptic end of the wicked at the Second Coming. The psalm encourages building 'stakes of Zion' while living as covenant-keepers in modern society.
Latter-day Saint views on other disputed passages →Jehovah's Witnesses
Symbolic: Babylon the Great's offspring destroyed at Armageddon.
Jehovah's Witnesses read the psalm historically and prophetically, with attention to the divine name restored in their New World Translation. Historically, it confirms the exile and God's righteous judgment against literal Babylon and Edom. Prophetically, the 'Daughter of Babylon' is identified as a type for 'Babylon the Great,' the world empire of false religion; its fall prefigures the impending destruction of false religion. The violent imagery of dashing 'little ones' is understood strictly symbolically in The Watchtower: it prophesies the complete eradication of Babylon the Great's 'offspring'—her religious organizations, future prospects, and supporters—by Jehovah's heavenly executional forces at Armageddon, not human cruelty.
Jehovah’s Witness views on other disputed passages →Jewish
Galut liturgy; lex talionis plea for measure-for-measure justice.
Jewish tradition receives this psalm as the quintessential expression of Galut (exile). Rabbinic literature amplifies the exiles' resistance, and verses 5–6 form the halakhic foundation for Zecher l'Churban (remembrance of the destruction), mandating that every peak moment of joy be tempered by mourning for Jerusalem. Medieval exegetes like Ibn Ezra and Radak interpret the harsh imprecations strictly within the context of lex talionis—measure-for-measure justice—reflecting a plea that Babylon suffer what it inflicted. The psalm is recited before Grace After Meals on weekdays in many rites, while Psalm 126 is used on Shabbat, underlining the contrast between exile and redemption.
Jewish views on other disputed passages →Historical-critical scholarship
Raw communal lament; trauma and identity; not moral embarrassment.
Form criticism classifies Psalm 137 as a communal lament with elegy, oath, and curse. Gunkel noted its unique amalgamation; dating is debated, with many scholars placing it in the early post-exilic period as retrospective reflection. Recent scholarship uses trauma theory, sociology, and postcolonial frameworks to argue the psalm functioned as a vital tool for socioreligious identity formation among displaced people facing assimilation. Rather than viewing the violent imprecation as a moral or theological embarrassment, scholars emphasize its honest expression of rage and desire for justice from a devastated community. The inclusion of Edom reflects deep historical trauma regarding Edomite betrayal during Judah's collapse.
Scholarly views on other disputed passages →The text and its translation
Historical background
In verse 5 the Hebrew text reads 'if I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget.' The verb 'forget' is elliptical, and scholars such as Hans-Joachim Kraus argue the original likely contained a curse of physical paralysis or withering upon the right hand. The phrase 'little ones' (Hebrew 'olalim) can mean infants or small children; the 'rock' (Hebrew 'sela) has no textual variant that softens the severity of verse 9. The Septuagint numbering (Psalm 136) is used by Eastern Christian traditions, but the wording of the curse is essentially identical across ancient versions.
Common ground
AI explanation
Across the traditions surveyed, Psalm 137 is received as an inspired, canonical expression of exile, grief, and loyalty to Jerusalem. The opening verses are widely used in liturgy and devotion, both Jewish and Christian, to voice the pain of displacement and the refusal to forget. No tradition surveyed treats the final imprecation as a mandate for personal violence; instead it is read as prophecy, spiritualized as the battle against sin, assigned to the old covenant, or understood as raw human trauma brought honestly to God.
Why it matters
AI explanation
The dispute shapes public worship: some churches recite or sing the entire psalm, while others omit the imprecations. It affects pastoral care, especially for those who have suffered violence and need language for lament or assurance that vengeance belongs to God. It also touches ethics: how Christians relate to the state, to enemies, and to the Old Testament as Scripture. Finally, it concerns Jewish-Christian relations, since the psalm's use and interpretation have sometimes been entangled with anti-Jewish rhetoric, making accurate historical and theological care essential.
Questions people ask
AI explanation
Why does Psalm 137 end with a blessing on dashing infants against a rock?
Verse 9 is the most contested line in the psalm, a communal lament from the Babylonian exile that moves from weeping by the rivers to a plea for vengeance against Edom and Babylon. No tradition surveyed treats it as a mandate for personal violence; readers instead take it as prophecy of Babylon's downfall, as a spiritualised battle against sin, as an expression of the old covenant superseded by Jesus, or as raw trauma brought honestly to God.
How do the different Christian traditions interpret the 'little ones' of Babylon in Psalm 137:9?
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Lutheran writers spiritualise them as nascent sinful thoughts or temptations, dashed against Christ the Rock before they grow. Reformed, Baptist, Adventist, and Jehovah's Witness readers treat the verse as prophetic retribution against Babylon or a type of the end-time fall of false religion, while Anabaptist and Methodist traditions judge the old-covenant desire for vengeance superseded or unsuitable for Christian worship.
How does Jewish tradition read Psalm 137?
It is received as the quintessential psalm of Galut, the exile, and verses 5-6 underpin Zecher l'Churban, the remembrance of the destruction that tempers every occasion of joy. Medieval commentators such as Ibn Ezra and Radak read the closing imprecation within lex talionis, a plea for measure-for-measure justice on Babylon, and the psalm is recited before Grace After Meals on weekdays in many rites.
Do any churches leave Psalm 137's curse out of worship?
Yes. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer appoints the whole psalm, but modern revisions such as the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship omit the imprecatory verses, and John Wesley removed them from early Methodist liturgy as improper for a Christian congregation. Some evangelicals and traditionalists argue that omitting them diminishes the Psalter's honest witness to trauma.
Related disputed passages
- The command to destroy
The commands to devote entire peoples to destruction raise questions about divine violence, historical uniqueness, and spiritual application. How readers answer shapes their understanding of Scripture, war, and the Christian life.
- Slavery
Christians and Jews have argued for centuries over whether the Bible's slave laws and household codes endorse slavery or merely regulate it. The dispute shaped abolition, denominational splits, and still frames debates about biblical ethics today.
- Deuteronomy 22 and the violated woman
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 has been read as a strict penalty for rape and as a protection of the victim in a patriarchal society. The debate turns on what the law originally required and how its Hebrew terms should be translated today.
- The binding of Isaac
Why God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son and how Jewish, Christian, and academic traditions understand the test and its outcome.
Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from this project’s records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.