Does God command to do evil (1 Samuel 15:3)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
So I open this thread based on a request of @o_mlly. The discussion started in another thread: Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?. He claimed that God never command to do evil especially killing innocent. I found a verse in which God clearly asked to kill innocent:1 Samuel 15:3 " Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." He claimed that Bible is a theological book rather than historical. This brings three questions up: Do you (Catholics) agree with him? How do you recognize that the act of killing is wrong then? What do you learn from this verse if it is really historical?
 
Last edited:
So I open this thread based on a request of @o_mlly. The discussion started in another thread: Why should we need revelation if morality is objective? .
For the sake of accuracy, I did not request but suggested a new thread if you wished to pursue this topic.
God clearly asked to kill innocent:1 Samuel 15:3 …
There are dark passages such as the one cited above in the Bible. The exegesis varies but the article below suggests an interpretation that is reasonable.

 
Last edited:
So I open this thread based on a request of @o_mlly. The discussion started in another thread: Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?. He claimed that God never command to do evil especially killing innocent. I found a verse in which God clearly asked to kill innocent:1 Samuel 15:3 " Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." He claimed that Bible is a theological book rather than historical. This brings three questions up: Do you (Catholics) agree with him? How do you recognize that the act of killing is wrong then? What do you learn from this verse if it is really historical?
1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel said to Saul: “It was I the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt. 3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Haydock Commentary 1 Kings 15:
Ver. 3. Destroy, as a thing accursed. H.
— Child. The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children should be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children. Ch.
— The Israelites were now to execute God’s orders with blind obedience, as he cannot be guilty of injustice.
— Nor covet…his, is omitted in Heb. &c. C.
— Amalec is stricken when the flesh is chastised—He is destroyed when we repress evil thoughts. S. Greg. W.
 
Last edited:
For the sake of accuracy, I did not request but suggested a new thread if you wished to pursue this topic.
Thanks for the correction.
There are dark passages such as the one cited above in the Bible. The exegesis varies but the article below suggests an interpretation that is reasonable.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2009/05/04/why-did-god-command-evil-deeds/
I found the article not explanatory but contrary. It is clear from it that God of Mouses is different from Jesus.

Moreover, in our discussion in another thread you mentioned that this passage is not historical but theological. Could you please for sake of discussion answer the questions in OP?
 
The question is if the act of killing the innocent is objectively wrong or not? This was how my discussion with o_mlly proceeded in creating this thread.
 
It would appear that this Amalakite killing was an eye-for-an-eye type of thing because the Amalakites had done (or attempted) the same thing against the Israelites.

Eye-for-an-eye Justice was still in force until Jesus abolished it.
 
The merciless and indiscriminate genocide of people is in fact called for by God in a number of instances in the Old Testament. There is no reason to believe that it was allegorical, and it is plainly obvious to modern humans that it is inherently evil and wrong. I would offer that people have to apply some common sense to the things they chose to believe.
 
It would appear that this Amalakite killing was an eye-for-an-eye type of thing because the Amalakites had done (or attempted) the same thing against the Israelites.

Eye-for-an-eye Justice was still in force until Jesus abolished it.
It was not intended as a general practice for the people.

Haydock Commentary remarked that: “The Israelites were now to execute God’s orders with blind obedience, as he cannot be guilty of injustice.”
 
It was not intended as a general practice for the people.
That, too.
It’s wasnt license to “kill anybody who got in your way!”.
There was a series of events that led to it, and it was a very specific command in that time and place.
The fifth commandment still holds.

BTW, I generally accept the Bible at face value for these kinds of stories and don’t rush to the “it’s an allegory” defense.
The Bible was never intended to be an easy read.
 
It would appear that this Amalakite killing was an eye-for-an-eye type of thing because the Amalakites had done (or attempted) the same thing against the Israelites.

Eye-for-an-eye Justice was still in force until Jesus abolished it.
Did Jesus abolished eye-for-an-eye forever or it was just matter of time? The key question is whether morality is objective, circumstance independent?
 
I’m going to say my opinion as a non-theologian, and I’m open to correction because I don’t want to give scandal to anybody…

But my general understanding is that eye-for-an-eye, isn’t precisely “wrong” in our time, because it fulfills the principal of justice. However…
We who call ourselves Christian are meant to be like Christ, who has NOT demanded an eye-for-an-eye from us, but forgave our wrongdoing.
So we can do no less.
 
40.png
0Scarlett_nidiyilii:
It would appear that this Amalakite killing was an eye-for-an-eye type of thing because the Amalakites had done (or attempted) the same thing against the Israelites.

Eye-for-an-eye Justice was still in force until Jesus abolished it.
Did Jesus abolished eye-for-an-eye forever or it was just matter of time? The key question is whether morality is objective, circumstance independent?
Moral relativism (that there are no absolute moral truths) is false.
 
Moral relativism (that there are no absolute moral truths) is false.
Then how do you explain the conflict between eye-for-an-eye as a punishment and forgiveness? As you said moral relativism is wrong and that is not what God does.
 
I think that it is important to note that ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is never actually promoted as a personal spiritual norm, but rather one in judicial proceedings for compensation. It is the justice which is enacted by the judge, not a personal norm for conduct. Just so, it is reflected in justice. An evil action calls down divine consequences. This, however is triumphed by Mercy. Justice is the natural law of the physical realm. Mercy is the supernatural law of the spiritual realm. In Mt. 5: 38-42, Christ specifically tells the people not to be concerned with retaliation. Again this is repeated in James 4:11-12.

The fact that justice and punishment for actions belongs to God and God alone, proves that moral relativism is incorrect, as He holds the ultimate standard. The law of the physical realm is incurred automatically for an act committed in that physical realm. It is only in the soul’s recourse to the spiritual standard of mercy before the punishment is enacted that the soul is forgiven it’s trespasses. “There is but one lawgiver and one judge who is able to save or destroy…?” (James 4:12)
 
Last edited:
I think that it is important to note that ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is never actually promoted as a personal spiritual norm, but rather one in judicial proceedings for compensation. It is the justice which is enacted by the judge, not a personal norm for conduct. Just so, it is reflected in justice. An evil action calls down divine consequences. This, however is triumphed by Mercy. Justice is the natural law of the physical realm. Mercy is the supernatural law of the spiritual realm. In Mt. 5: 38-42, Christ specifically tells the people not to be concerned with retaliation. Again this is repeated in James 4:11-12.

The fact that justice and punishment for actions belongs to God and God alone, proves that moral relativism is incorrect, as He holds the ultimate standard. The law of the physical realm is incurred automatically for an act committed in that physical realm. It is only in the soul’s recourse to the spiritual standard of mercy before the punishment is enacted that the soul is forgiven it’s trespasses. “There is but one lawgiver and one judge who is able to save or destroy…?” (James 4:12)
Could you please comment on 1 Samuel 15:3, most importantly on killing children who are not involve in any crime made by their parents?
 
To our modern eyes, it looks like a reactionary slaughter. “We hate them. They hate us. They did evil to us, so we need to go kill them.” This is not the case. The command in 1 Samuel 15:3 was given specifically to prevent a certain situation from taking place.

In the Hebrew culture of the time, it was practice to absorb the possessions and inhabitants of a conquered land into the tribes of Israel, whether it be through marriage, fostering, or slavery. The verse immediately preceding chapter 15 says that Saul was in the habit of taking any able bodied man into his service. This would have included the conquered Amalekites after the battle.

This would have been extremely problematic, as they saw themselves as the true rulers of the Promised Land through their descent through Esau. They had forsaken the command of Isaac to follow Jacob and his descendants, thus forsaken the worship and priestly ministry passed from Isaac to Jacob down to his descendants and through the Aaronic priesthood instituted. Already we can see in the book of Judges the degradation of the worship of Israel through the intermarriage with Philistia. This is the reason for the ban of the Lord upon pertaining to the entirety of the Amelekite’s retinue. It is not for Israel to partake in.

Now. We also must put into context who the Lord is commanding Saul to kill. It is not the entirety of the Amelekite people. The leader of the Amelekites, Agag, invaded the Negev desert and took Havilah, the city of the Kenites, by force. This is why the Kenites were told by Saul that they would be spared if they turned away. It was not they that Saul was after, but the invader of their city.
 
Through this information, we find that the only people under the command to be killed are those who are a part of the invading army.

If that is so, then why were women, children and infants included?

Women - up until relatively modern times, packs of women followed armies. These women would support the army: cook, clean armor, provide sexual favors (prostitutes historically made up a significant number of these women). They, like the invaders, were hoping for a portion of the wealth attained during the invasion. Usually, these women were not wives, as they were usually left at their homes to take care of the homestead while their husband brought back the spoils of war. So, the women involved in the army would have been just a much a part of the invasion as the soldiers who fought.

Children - children fought during this time too. Mainly they were used for auxiliary tasks like providing arrows to archers and running messages, but they also fought from time to time. Common practice amongst the Israelites was to spare the children in battle if possible and absorb them into the army. We can see evidence of this with David working in Saul’s army with his three eldest brothers. In an invading army, we see a different situation than David’s. Saul’s army was nearby and thus, he joined the army to help defend his home. The children in the Amelekite army left their home specifically to be part of the invasion.

Infants - These would be the children, usually born out of wedlock, to the soldiers by means of the prostitutes following the army. To our modern eyes, they are innocent. To the Jews of the time, however, they were products of the invasion and defilement of the Promised Land. As such, they couldn’t be taken into the tribes of Israel, even as slaves. The infants resulting from the rape of the native Kenite women would not be included in the slaughter, as they would be considered Kenite, not Amelekite. Only the children resulting from the willful coupling of an Amelekite woman with an Amelekite soldier would be included.

That being said, we don’t even know if any infants were actually present to be killed. “…kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” This is a ritual phrase simply meaning “Kill everyone” and in this context, “kill everyone in the invading army”.

The hardest part for modern readers of the Old Testament is to immerse ourselves in the theological meaning of the time and see it in the light in which it was originally written. We cannot read into Scripture modern interpretation.

Hope this helps.
God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM
 
Last edited:
40.png
Vico:
Moral relativism (that there are no absolute moral truths) is false.
Then how do you explain the conflict between eye-for-an-eye as a punishment and forgiveness? As you said moral relativism is wrong and that is not what God does.
Mankind has two choices: obey God or not. God does not have such a choice to make. The absolute rule for man is to be charitable when freely choosing.

God disciplines mankind, for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. It seems painful at the time, yet later brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:5).
 
Last edited:
These passages would be difficult for anyone.
I’m fairly sure I heard Bishop Robert Barron say that the Early Church Father’s interpreted
this is how the Israelite interpreted putting the ‘ban’ on sin and those who influence to sin.
The only way I can comprehend this is that this was a fallible human’s
interpretation of God’s Will. Humanity’s relationship with God as opposed
to God’s relationship with humanity.
In Christ we can interpret One God, not two different ‘Gods’ that many people say
regarding the Old and New Testaments.
 
Last edited:
In the Hebrew culture of the time,
Stop right there. Wasn’t the Hebrew culture outlined by God himself. Wasn’t he the one who told them when to worship, when to rest, what to eat, what to wear, etc.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top