Psalm 127:3: Sons or Children?

Psalm 127 is a wisdom psalm in which the psalmist wants to teach that all human efforts are in vain if they are lacking divine blessing. Only God can assure prosperity and blessing.

Psalm 127 can be divided into two sections. The first section (vv. 1-2) shows that only God gives success to human enterprise. The psalmist’s words speak of the futility of human efforts when these efforts are devoid of God’s blessings. An individual may build a house but he may not be sure that he will dwell in it. Deuteronomy 28:30 speaks of the curses that will come upon Israel when the people violate the demands of the covenant: “You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit” (cf. also Zephaniah 1:13).

A watchman watching over a city may sound the alarm at the approach of danger (Ezekiel 3:17) but he many not prevent the attack of an enemy.

In the second section (vv. 3-5), the psalmist says that sons are a blessing from God. For the Israelites, a family with many sons was one of the greatest demonstrations of divine favor: “And Obed-edom had [eight] sons . . . for God blessed him” (1 Chronicles 26:4-5).

People in Israel believed that all things came from God, especially sons, since they were seen as God’s gift, especially the sons of one’s youth, because they are strong and because they are the firstfruits of one’s strength (Genesis 49:3).

So, when the psalmist declared how blessed he was, he wrote:

“Sons are indeed a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them. He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3 -5).

The versions are not unanimous in translating 127:3. I checked twenty-eight English versions of 127:3 and the results are as follows: ten versions, including the NRSV and the NIV, have “sons.” Eighteen versions, including the ESV, and the TNIV have “children.” If these translations differ in their understanding of whether 127:3 should be translated “sons” or “children,” then, which translation is better?

In a recent post, Peter Kirk at Gentle Wisdom said that 127:3 should include both sons and daughters. Peter wrote:

I know these psalms well in NIV and have always semi-consciously understood them as meaning that sons are more of a blessing than daughters, at least in the mind of the psalmist. But is this what was intended?

Peter said that the Hebrew word banim “has a generic meaning, referring to daughters as well as sons.” Then, chastising the NIV and other translations by perpetuating the view that “sons are more of a blessing than daughters,” Peter wrote:

It seems to me that this is a case of the RSV (1952) and NIV (1978) translators (and, more surprisingly, those of NRSV (1989)) introducing and perpetuating an innovative rendering suggesting extremely damaging teaching, that sons are more of a blessing from God than daughters. This may be what is believed in some countries, e.g. China where, according to a 2004 report, nearly 20% more boys than girls are born because of selective abortion – a statistic which is becoming a threat to that country’s future prosperity. But this preference for sons was never taught in the Bible, at least not in Hebrew, and not in modern English until 1952.

It really is well past time for some of these misleading translations to be retired.

The question then becomes: Are the translations which use “sons” misleading the readers? Is the writer of Psalm 127:3 speaking about sons or is the writer speaking about daughters and sons?

It is true that the expression “the fruit of the womb” (Psalm 127:3) can include both sons and daughters, but this expression occurs in parallel with the word banim, “sons,” a word which occurs twice in the psalm (verses 3 and 4).

In the Old Testament, when the writer wants to speak of sons and daughters, he will use the expression בָּנים וּבָנֽוֹת (see Genesis 5:4; 11:1; 19:12; 31:28; 36:6). For instance, when the writer wants to say that Adam had many children, he wrote:

“The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:4). The writer did not say, “Adam had other banim.” Rather, he included both sons and daughters in his statement.

When the writer of Genesis wanted to say that all the children of Jacob went into Egypt with him, he wrote that Jacob came with “his sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters” (Genesis 46:7 NRSV).

A better example appears in Exodus 21:4, where all three words, “sons,” “daughters,” and “children” appear together, each being represented by a different Hebrew word: “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone” (Exodus 21:4). The writer here used banim for sons, banot for daughters, and yeledim for children.

The people of Israel lived in a patriarchal society in which a family with many sons was considered to be a great blessing from God, while the absence of sons was considered as one of the severest punishments from God a family could receive.

This is the reason that Rachel, unable to conceive, cried to Jacob: “Give me sons, or I will die!” (Genesis 30:1 HCSB). When Hanna, who was also unable to conceive, went to make a vow at the temple at Shiloh, her prayer was very specific: “Give to your servant a male child” (1 Samuel 1:8).

In ancient Israel, the life of a father had meaning only insofar as it was continued in the life of his son. A son kept the name of the father from being forgotten in Israel. Absolom said: “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance” (2 Samuel 18:18).

It is out of this cultural context that the psalmist declared that sons were a blessing from the Lord. Many sons could help a father when he was old, primarily when he was engaged against his adversaries or when he was litigating at the city gate.

The psalmist said: “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). But once the house was built and the family had been established, then the man of the house had the responsibility of protecting his family. And it is out of this cultural context that the reader must understand the words of the psalmist.

Sons are divine blessings because they help their father bring protection and security to their family. A family with many sons was a theme that reflected the reality of Israel’s culture. A large family with many sons was less vulnerable against hostile attacks. Thus, in a male-dominated society, sons were prized more than daughters.

The words of the psalmist reflect a warlike situation. Sons are “like arrows in the hand of a warrior.” Sons are like a weapon. They are able to protect and defend their father when he is getting old and in need of support. A father who has many sons will not be put to shame before his enemies. A father would not be able to prevail against his enemies were it not for the support of his many sons. He who has many sons has his quiver full.

Patrick D. Miller, in his book, Interpreting the Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 134, wrote:

“The psalm seems to have in view primarily sons and the father rather than parents and children in general. The contemporary community can and should interpret the psalm in a more inclusive way, recognizing the joy and the reward for both mothers and fathers in having both sons and daughters.”

However, when a contemporary community reads Psalm 127 and reads “children” rather than “sons,” they find themselves separated from the cultural reality that gave birth to this psalm. Readers today, who live in a gender-inclusive society, will not appreciate the reality of ancient Israelite society which prized the value of sons for utilitarian reasons.

If the writer of Psalm 127 were to read his psalm in some versions today and find the word “children,” he probably would say to the translator: “But this is not what I said.” And the translator probably would say: “I know, but I am not translating for your culture, but for mine.” And the despondent writer of Psalm 127 would say: “Yes, but this is not what I meant.”

The word “children” in Psalm 127:3 reflects a translation that does not take seriously the historical realities of the culture that gave birth to this beautiful psalm.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Children, Daughters, Psalm 127, Sons

The Mother of Seven

“The mother of seven will grow faint and breathe her last. She will die, ashamed and humiliated, while it is still daylight” (Jeremiah 15:9).

In ancient Israel, the symbolism of giving birth to seven children was used as a proverbial expression to describe a woman blessed with children or to refer to a family whose future in Israel was guaranteed because the family name would survive in the memory of the community through the sons. Two classic examples of “mother of seven” appear in the Old Testament.

When Hanna was delivered from her barrenness and gave birth to Samuel, she said: “The barren has borne seven” (1 Samuel 2:5). These words reflect Hannah’s joy in becoming a mother and the awareness that she had conceived a son because of God’s help.

The second example is found in Ruth 4:15. After Ruth married Boaz and gave birth to Obed, the women of Bethlehem paid her the highest compliment by telling Naomi that her daughter-in-law Ruth was better “than seven sons.” This recognition spoke highly of Ruth’s character since being a mother of seven sons was the highest accolade a woman in Israel could receive.

For a woman, to be a mother and to have sons was to be blessed by God. Psalm 113:9 says that the Lord should be praised because “He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children.”

On the other hand, women such as Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Samson’s mother were barren and unhappy. These women carried with them the sorrow of being unable to give children to their husbands and the opprobrium of their society for not being blessed by God.

In light of the positive sentiment that the proverbial expression of being a mother of seven carried in Israel, it is significant that Jeremiah used the same imagery to describe the enormous tragedy and the depth of sorrow that would come to Jerusalem as a result of the judgment that God was bringing upon the nation.

During the invasion of Jerusalem, so many husbands would be killed that the widows of Jerusalem would become “more numerous than the sand of the seas.” So many children would die that mothers would receive news that their sons were killed early in battle (Jeremiah 15:8).

According to Jeremiah, when the judgment arrives upon Jerusalem and a mother of seven hears the news of the death of her children, that mother will be filled with anguish, tormented by the terrible deaths of her children. Robbed of her children in the prime of their lives, the woman grows faint, breathes her last, and dies (Hebrew: “breathes out her life”), ashamed and humiliated because she has lost her seven sons (Jeremiah 15:9).

The imagery of a mother of seven losing her children is used to describe the anguish, pain, and sorrow that will fall upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The imagery, although painful, is a good illustration of the paroxysms of emotion evoked by the disaster that came upon Judah in 587 BCE.

There is no greater human sorrow than the one which comes to a home when a mother of many children dies in the prime of her life, leaving her children deprived of maternal love. This is the imagery Jeremiah uses to describe the plight of the people of Judah. Jeremiah, anticipating the coming judgment that the Lord will bring upon Judah, uses the imagery of a husband mourning the death of his wife and the mother of his many children.

Mother Jerusalem (2 Samuel 20:19) has lost her children and her judgment is a reversal of the promise God has made to the ancestors. The promise of life that God had made to Abraham, “I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the sand on the seashore,” now becomes the reality of death: “Their widows will be more numerous than the grains of sand on the seashore” (Jeremiah 15:8).

The promise of life once made to Abraham has become an illustration of what will happen to Jerusalem when the destroyer comes. The city that once was full of people will now become like a widow deprived of her children (Lamentations 1:1). The proverbial expression used to describe a woman blessed with God’s favor will now become the symbol of bereavement and death.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Children, Jerusalem, Judgment, Mothers, Widows

The Children of My Children

As you have noticed, I have not been blogging for more than one week now. My sabbatical work has demanded all my attention and my time. I have been away from my office doing research for my sabbatical project. My research and my pastoral work has severely limited my time and my ability to blog regularly. This will continue until the end of September, when I return to my regular duties at the seminary.

After Jacob came to Egypt, and before he died, he called Joseph to bless him and his children. When Joseph appeared before his father, Jacob said to Joseph: “I had no hope of seeing your face again, but God in his mercy has let me see you and your children” (Genesis 48:11).

I believe that a great joy for a father is when he is able to live long enough to see the children of his children. God has blessed me and my wife Donna with three wonderful sons. My older son JR has three daughters and I have posted the picture of two of his daughters here.

My middle son Chris, is the father of a beautiful daughter, Brianna. She is the joy of our house because she is at the age when everything she does is cute. The picture in this post is a photo of Chris and Brianna.

My younger son James is still single. If things continue the way they are at the present, James may be my last hope for a grandson. I love my granddaughters, but if one of my sons does not give me a son, then my name and the name of my family will not be remembered by future generations.

James, I am counting on you.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Children, Sons

Barack Obama Goes Old Testament

In a recent post, GOPMOM wrote that she believes Obama has gone Old Testament. Commenting on Obama’s statement that he did not want to see his daughter punished by having a baby, GOPMOM wrote:

When rational people discuss teen pregnancy and the irresponsible behavior that leads to teen pregnancies, we speak of consequences, not punishment. When we talk about babies, planned or unplanned, we call them blessings. I have never, in my life, heard anyone refer to a baby as a punishment. Some women feel that the process of giving birth is a punishment, but even they feel the baby is the gift.

It sounds to me like Obama has an issue with inopportune pregnancies. Could he possibly have an issue with his own existence? Is he at odds with himself? Is it possible that just a little bit of him resents his parents for the difficult path they chose for him? After all, we are constantly reminded that his success is akin to a miracle based on the obstacles placed in front him due to the circumstances of his birth. All of Obama’s personal struggles seem to stem from his parentage. Is this latest remark an example of how he truly feels about his life, that somehow he was a punishment? How Old Testament of him.

I doubt very much that Obama has gone Old Testament because his statement contradicts what the Old Testament says about children. The Old Testament has a very high view of children. As the Psalmist wrote: “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Barack Obama, Children, Pregnancy