The Amalekites

[Pete_1]

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

I know this has been discussed many times before, but I thought I would bring it up again.

Recently I read an article that said this:

The Amalekites were an agressive nomadic tribe that frequentley attacked Israel.

The killing of Amalekite children was not a punishment for the childrens sins, but was as a direct result of the fathers sins:

If the fathers had been killed the children had to be killed also as they would otherwise die a slow and painfull death in the desert, due to the fact they would not be able to fend for themselves.

The Isrealites could not take in the women and children as they did not have the economic means.

**
BUT** does the church not teach that It is always wrong to kill a an innocent human being?

(The Catechism of the Catholic Church)
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

(emphasis added)

How is this reconciled?

 

[rwoehmke]

It just might be that in God’s judgement no Amalekite, man, woman, or child was innocent.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Another possible explanation I heard in a Catholic Bible study was that the Amalekites were a fierce and strong-willed people who, if they were to mix with the Israelites, would have completely converted them into Amalekites.

It is precisely because of the Amalekites’ strong (pagan) religious convictions (and the ever-wavering faith of the Israelites) that God chose to eradicate the Amalekites rather than lose Israel to them.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that the Israelites did not follow the order and at least one Amelekite survived. [There is a Jewish story that the Agag had relations with a maid during his captivity by Saul and left her pregnant.] His descendent was the ancestor of Haman who plotted the anihilation of the Jews in Esther.

During the early 20th century Russian rabbis warned their people fleeing the pogroms not to go to Germany because the Germans were descendents of the Amelekites, who still seek to anihilate the Jews. Subsequent events justified the caution.

 

[Roy5]

OLD TESTAMENT GENOCIDE

The Old Testament is full of atrocities committed by the early Hebrews as 'God' led them into the Promised Land. The Amalekites are only one example. But remember how Jericho was ordered to slay all the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai. And how often was there a massive slaughter of others.

 Check out Esther, for example, a story that supposedly is about a brave Queen. Re-read that book and, as I recall, 75,000 were butchered in revenge. And today Purim is celebrated joyously because of that killing!

  And we could go on. 

  This genocide stands in marked contrast to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount where he warned against killing or even fiery anger and told his followers to "love your enemies'.   

   The ancient Hebrews invaded and conquered ancient Israel by wholesale slaughter of those already living there. I find the whole story difficult to reconcile with Christianity. Frankly, much of the problem in the Holy Land today stems from those rabid Jews (not the majority) who would likely kill and/or expel the Palestinians in a moment if the world weren't watching. As it is, the Palestinians have been treated like dirt, thanks in large part because Israel has the total support - militarily, financially, diplomacy - of the USA. The seeds of hatred for the USA in that part of the world were sown by our unwise and unbalanced policy. We should and could have been genuinely sympathetic to both sides and a fair settlement could have been reached and 9/11 could have been avoided. ((I note that on tonight's news Israel announced additional settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Then they have the nerve to pose as victims who only want peace!)

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Note that the Israelites did not follow the order and at least one Amelekite survived. [There is a Jewish story that the Agag had relations with a maid during his captivity by Saul and left her pregnant.] His descendent was the ancestor of Haman who plotted the anihilation of the Jews in Esther.

During the early 20th century Russian rabbis warned their people fleeing the pogroms not to go to Germany because the Germans were descendents of the Amelekites, who still seek to anihilate the Jews. Subsequent events justified the caution.

Yes. All the more reason to have wiped them out in the first place.

 

[ryanoneil]

In those days they shall no longer say, “The fathers ate unripe grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” but through his own fault only shall anyone die: the teeth of him who eats the unripe grapes shall be set on edge. The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (Jeremiah 31:29-31)

The idea that children suffer for the sins of their parents in (Ezekiel 18:2) is not acceptable in the new covenant. Now we are personally responsibile for our own acts.

 

[Zooey]

For starters: as has been pointed out, this occurred in the OT, under Jewish law, not under the New Covenant.

Note that the Israelites did not follow the order and at least one Amelekite survived. [There is a Jewish story that the Agag had relations with a maid during his captivity by Saul and left her pregnant.] His descendent was the ancestor of Haman who plotted the anihilation of the Jews in Esther.

During the early 20th century Russian rabbis warned their people fleeing the pogroms not to go to Germany because the Germans were descendents of the Amelekites, who still seek to anihilate the Jews. Subsequent events justified the caution.

I have read this same thing!! Down through history, those who have desired to destroy the Jewish people, have been oftentimes, related to the line of the Amalekites. I remember reading at least 2 books by Jewish rabbis, who pointed this out…

Which, I repeat, does **not **mean that we should take what the OT tells the Jews to do, as being what Christians are to do, under the law of God’s grace.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Did God Command Genocide?
By: Msgr. Charles Pope

In the readings for Daily Mass this week we are reading from 1 Samuel 15 where Saul comes into disfavor with Samuel and God for refusing to fully obey the “Ban” imposed on the Amalekites by God through Samuel. What was the “Ban?” Most fundamentally it was an command that in taking a city or a nation that the Israelites were to destroy every man, woman and child and animal. No one was to be spared. Further, any wealth was to be given to the sacred treasury.

The Ban is one of the most disturbing aspects of the Old Testament, made even more disturbing by the fact that it is freqently God himself who seems to command it.

The practice is first seen in the Book of Deuteronomy where the Ban is commanded in certain places. As Moses and the Israelites journeyed through the Desert and came near the Promised Land they mercilessly destroyed many kingdoms. Sihon King the Amorites and all his cities and subjects were utterly destroyed and no one left alive. Next as Israel went out against Og the King of Bashan God said to Moses: “Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon” (Deut. 3:2) Systematically the troops of Israel destroyed every city in Bashan and killed every man woman and child.

And Moses left this command for Israel as they entered the Promised Land:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy (Deut 7:1-3).

Hence as Joshua led the people into the Promised Land they implemented the Ban beginning with Jericho:

Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.” When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6: 16-20)

In the passage above it is not clear that God commanded the Ban, but later in Joshua 8 the Lord affirms what happened to Jericho and commands the same be inflicted on the city of Ai : Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. (Jos 8:1-2). Joshua 10 then goes on to describe a whole series of Canaanite Cities that are also put under the Ban. No one is left alive. Though here there is no explicit command of God to do so that is recorded, they are clearly following the plan that Moses had set forth.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Continued article

blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide

Finally, in the readings for daily Mass we see the command given by God through Samuel that the Amalekites should be put under the Ban: This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ “ (1 Sam 15:1-3) But Saul does not fully comply, keeping some of the cattle for himself and his men. God therefore rejects him as King for his failure to keep the Ban wholly. (1 Sam 15:23).

The “Ban” is troubling and many explanations have been advanced to try and place its horrible dimensions in some sort of acceptable framework. Here are a few explanations:

[LIST=1]

*]God said no such thing – Some commentators hold that God did not really say any such thing to Israel. Rather they simply misrepresented God or put their evil practices into God’s mouth. The Catholic Study Bible says of God’s “command” to Saul: The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with God’s will. The footnote goes on to suggest that Samuel misrepresents God (Footnote on 1 Sam 15:3). The problem with such an approach is that it opens up a door that many want to walk through. Namely, whenever there is something we are troubled by or don’t like we just say, “God never said that.” The list of things God never said could grow quite long if this door is opened. Further, if God never said this to Saul how do we explain God later rejecting Saul for disobeying God. How can we disobey something God never said? Too many problems seem to issue from this approach IMHO.

*]They weren’t innocent – Some commentators agree that God would never say to kill the innocent and then argue that among these ancient peoples put under the ban there were no “innocent” people in these sinful city-states. Everyone participated in abominable sexual practices and strange idolatry to include even sacrificing their children to their gods. Well, OK even if we could argue that these ancient civilizations were thoroughly disreputable, it is hard to argue that little children and infants are not innocent. The position still does not answer why God ordered even infants killed.

*]God has authority - Some prefer simply to insist that God is the Lord of life and can never be accused of injustice in taking life. He decides who lives, who dies and when. He has every right to command the end of civilizations. It is no different than you or I pulling out hedges to plant roses. God ends eras, brings nations and empires to an end as he wills and we are not free to question why. Pure and simple God has authority to do this and owes us no explanations as to why he chooses one nation or people over another. Like surgeon he amputates when all hope of healing is gone. OK, it’s pretty hard to argue against God’s authority. It’s a kind of a Job-like answer. God answers Job’s questions with a rather long soliloquy on Job’s incapacity to admonish God or understand his ways. In the end, it still seems unsatisfying for it does not address why God seems to act so contrary to other commands he gives Israel to respect the resident alien, and not to murder (eg Ex 23:7; Ex 20:13).

*]Emphasize the reason – God gave the reason for the Ban in Deuteronomy 7:4: for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. Hence God commands this to keep the people pure. OK, but can the end of purity justify the means of genocide?

In the end, it would all we can say about these passages is that they exist and put a kind of a tall fence around them. I personally think God did in fact order the Ban for the reason stated in the objection to Number 1 above. Of all the approaches above I suppose the argument from authority carries most weight with me. But the command was only for a brief time in a very particular circumstance for a very particular reason. Sometimes the best we can do with Scripture is to accept the history it records. Scripture is a collection of books that ultimately build upon each other and progress toward a better goal. In an early and brutal time God commanded tough solutions. Once his Law established deeper roots in a brutal world God could insist that indiscriminate killing was no longer to be permitted. Later books and surely the New Testament would never support such a “solution” as the Ban.

We must be careful here. because to say that Scripture builds and progresses toward a more enlightened moral understanding does not mean we can indiscriminately reject every moral insight of the Old Testament. Much of the early legislation such as the Ten Commandments carries forward and is affirmed by later texts. Some OT moral requirements however are explicitly abrogated (such as when Jesus rendered all foods clean). Others simply disappear from sight and are never reaffirmed by later texts or the New Testament. Such is the case with the horrifying Ban and it is well that we leave it in the distant past. Beyond this we cannot say much more. The Ban is a fact recorded in early Scripture and we have to be sophisticated enough in our understanding of Scripture to simply accept that fact. But the same sophistication demands we properly understand the development of Doctrine which God himself directs in the pages of the same Scripture.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts and additions to this article

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KBeIObx9JSw

 

[Fidelis]

Thank you, Abysinnia, for providing that explanation from Msgr. Pope. *Catholic Answers *apologist Jimmy Akin also has a thoughtful take on this:

Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament

I recommended that people bookmark these two pages since this question comes up all the time.

 

[seeking_agape]

I do read the Old Testament spiritually, so why can’t we just posit that God is not necessarily, “Love”. He does love us, but it is not without strings attached. In the person of Jesus, He is as much revolutionary and severe judge of all mankind as he is the exemplar of love, hope, and charity. Jesus in the New, and Yahweh in the Old Testament is attributed with some fairly scary threats to those who deny Him. To say that God can be harsh in His judgment, or that He commands us to do difficult things, (I assume the vast majority of us would not be able to slaughter children by their sword or bare hands), is simply to acknowledge that we Christians have a demanding God who has high expectations of man, even while we are to approach Him with a child-like manner. We know life’s rewards require sacrifice and the ability to struggle against difficulties and challenges. Evil is in the world because God allows it. God has given us everything we need to live up to His commandments and we are obliged to fully use our talents to earn, every day, the gift of life and love He has granted us. These Old Testament writings are to show us what becomes of those who deny or oppose God, and what blessings we can enjoy when we abide by the Word.

I am perfectly at peace with this view of God.

 

[Lotharson]

I see the Bible as a human book about God.

lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/on-the-definition-and-meaningfulness-of-progressive-christianity/

I hope this helps!

Lovely greetings from Germany.
Liebe Grüsse aus Deutschland.

Lothars Sohn - Lothar’s son
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

 

[SighGuy]

First, ask yourself: is this necessarily literal? Remember that the Catholic Church doesn’t mandate when these books were written. My Catholic Study Bible suggests an answer of long after the events depicted. It even claims that Io and Jericho were long since abandoned or derelict communities by the time of the narratives of Joshua, not grand cities.

These stories are written at a low point in Jewish power and influence, while they were in the hands of their enemies. No doubt a tale of powerful days of yore when God was fighting for them was a simple and productive way of connecting with the people.

We have to ask ourselves why were the books written the way they were? And that answer is not to provide a consistent moral framework, but to create a message for the current generation reading them. Else, why does Ezra talk about marital exclusivity among the Jews, and Isaiah just the opposite? How will you rectify that? Well, clearly, at the time of Ezra the Jewish community needed marital exclusivity to persist when they returned to Jerusalem (or at least Ezra believed this).

So, does that mean these events of murder and genocide truly happened? I don’t know. Did Abraham ride around on camels before they were domesticated, as the Bible anachronistically insists?
tl;dr
The point is, that’s not the point. The point is, the story is of God’s love and devotion to Israel, and the importance of following His commandments and ordinances no matter what.

Second,
Don’t try to reason what God can and cannot do. What is right, and is not right. Murder isn’t evil, nor is stealing, or lying, or fornication. What’s evil is what God says is evil. What’s good is what God says is good. This is a result of objective morality requiring a creator. There is no good and evil outside of what God says, and when He changes his mind, who are you or I to argue? Did God tell Abraham to commit evil with a knife?

 

[The_Serpent]

This is the same God that ordered Abram to sacrifice his child, but stopped him before he did so. Perhaps the right way to understand this is God put all the Amalekites under the power of Israel, to do what they thought right. So many of them hypothetically could have been absorbed into the nation of Israel.