Language Studies

Difficult Sayings

Wipe out the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:17-18

"The Lord anointed you king over Israel. And he sent you on a mission, saying, Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out." (1 Samuel 15:17-18 on this question) of my response to a legitimate but nonetheless sceptical question raised in the Letters page of the London Times:

Old Testament's 'fundamentalism'
From Mr Steven Carr

Sir, Dr Jonathan Sacks (Register, August 14) writes that "the God of Abraham is a God of love, not war".

Joshua xi, 20 says:

For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

1 Samuel xv, 17-18 says:

The Lord anointed you king over Israel. And he sent you on a mission, saying, Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.

Is that really the work of a God of love?

Yours sincerely,
STEVEN CARR,
3 Bowness Avenue,
Prenton, Birkenhead CH43 0SD.
stevencarrwork at hotmail.com
August 14.

The Times, Letters to the Editor
August 18, 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1220935,00.html

We have already commented on the issue of "hardening" and so here we will ask why God apparently sanctions the genocide of the Amalekites and whether this can be reconciled as a work of a God of love. Earlier in the Samuel passage before us we read:

" ² Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way (Exodus 17:8,14; Numbers 24:20; Deuteronomy 25:17—19) when he came up from Egypt. ³ Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

The commanded destruction is absolute down to not only the innocent child but also the cattle and pet sheep. The Hebrew verb used for "utterly destroy" is חָרַם châram (Strong's #2763). It occurs 51 times, 7 of which are in this chapter. It means to "put under a ban", to "utterly exclude or devote", in both a negative and possibly a negative sense. Indeed a derivative of the similar Arabic root is harem, a group of separated women devoted to their lord and master. Its first use is in Exodus 22:20, "He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed", indicating that idolatrous sacrificial worship, with the Amalekites even of children, was the root cause of such a destructive ban. Once something or someone has been devoted to God particularly with a view to destruction they could not be bought or ransomed back (Leviticus 27:28-29). The idea of putting a people under a ban or a curse is not inconsistent with a God of love but a legitimate reaction to idolatry.

Specifically, with respect to Amalek, we should remember the way in which the nation ambushed Israel and targeted her like a dog biting at the heels. This culminated in the famous battle at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8—13) in which Aaron and Hur supported Mose's arms and Israel prevailed. After this God promised to utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek (Exodus 17:14) and commanded Israel to carry this out:

" ¹⁷Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, ¹⁸ how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. ¹⁹ Therefore it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget." (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

Just as the Flood was a cleansing of the Earth, so the total destruction of certain peoples was a less universal surgical cleansing of just the cancerous human tissue. This may sound harsh and unloving but if it really were life and death surgery would you rather the surgeon removed a limb or a breast and you lived, or would you prefer the cancer to spread and consume your whole person? Jesus said that it was better to enter into life less a limb or organ than to retain your whole body but go to hell (Matthew 18:8).

As we have already pointed out in the earlier article on this subject the Amalekites were no saints. We already know that they attacked Israel during the wilderness years but later during the time of the judges they came against Israel's agricultural settlements and destroyed them including all the livestock (Judges 6:3). Also, along with some of the other Canaanite tribes, they may have practiced child sacrifice. To argue, though, that even the children deserved to die because of Original Sin is an ethical and theological minefield, particularly since Judaism did not believe in Original Sin as it later came to be cast by the Church Fathers. One Secular Web columnist at Internet Infidels writes the following concerning our passage:

"One of the most obscene consequences of the doctrine of original sin is its explanation of the death of infants, as offered, for example, in regard to the story of the Amalekite slaughter (1 Sam.15). Because of "original sin" infants not only deserve to die, but indeed God would be justified in killing them violently like any criminal guilty of a capital offense. Commitment to much of the New Testament and especially Paul's writings leads to the belief that fundamentally the human species is worthless, depraved, incompetent, infinitely guilty and deserving of ultimate condemnation. And more, that even an apparently innocent infant is likewise "guilty" and "selfish," deserving of punishment. But not just any punishment: violent execution, the death penalty for those who are too young to make any real choices at all let alone rational ones for which they could be held accountable." (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/kuchar2.html)

Many of the authors writing for this site are ex-Christians according to their FAQs (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.shtml#focus) but they raise, nonetheless, an important point.

God is indeed merciful, many times more than his tendency to justice and judgement. This is enshrined in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:5-6) in which we see that God extends mercy to a thousand generations but executes judgement down to the third of fourth generation of children of sinful idolatrous fathers. The children did not deserve to die. We need no recourse to Original Sin as a defence (the non-too clear semi-biblical origins of the so called doctrine of Original Sin will be another article). According to biblical law the Amalekite fathers brought about the judgement on their children by their continued idolatry and unprovoked aggression towards Israel.

In a longer article on this same subject the Christian-ThinkTank website says something similar:

"But aren't individuals supposed to be punished for their OWN misdeeds ONLY, and not the misdeeds of others? (Deut 24:16, 2 Kings 14:1) Absolutely, but we need to not make the assumption that the killing of the dependents was a punishment on them, as opposed to a consequence of the punishment on the fathers. Morally, there is a huge difference." (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html)

The Amalekite destruction was not unprovoked. They had committed sin against God in terms of idolatry and against Israel in terms of aggression and raiding. The effects upon the children were not individually deserved but corporately a consequence of the fathers and leaders' actions. We create our own moral dilemmas in the West by deifying the rights of the individual in a complex world of interconnected actions and relationships. God can and does think on the individual, even a humble sparrow (Matthew 10:29), yet he also contends with cities and nations. Again in the time of Noah's Flood, God looked on the whole planet and there was none righteous save Noah - and again there were young children included in that global genocide.

Certainly, one cannot blame Israel for being over zealous in attacking the Amalekites. Saul gave the Kenites due warning to get out of their midst because of the kindness they had shown Israel (1 Samuel 15:6). Furthermore, he spared the best of the livestock and the life of king Agag. His misplaced mercy and apparent desire to serve God by devoting or dedicating these sacrifices to God himself cost him his throne. The whole point of 1 Samuel 15 is that God desired obedience rather than sacrifice (v22), whether pagan child sacrifice or well-intentioned believing sacrifice, Israel was simply carrying out God's judgement, not her own vendetta against Amalek. It is right for us to question and defend our faith for the sake of our own belief and as an apologetic case in support of true religion, but ultimately we will get to a point where we can question our Maker no further and then all that remains is trust and obedience.

Copyright Statement
'Difficult Sayings' Copyright 2025© KJ Went. 'Difficult Sayings' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each article, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html  2) 'Difficult Sayings' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.

Meet the Author

KJ Went has taught biblical Hebrew, hermeneutics and Jewish background to early Christianity. The "Biblical Hebrew made easy" course can be found at www.biblicalhebrew.com.

Why not consider Greek, Aramaic, Biblical or Modern Hebrew online, it's easier than you think.

BMSoftware, founded by KJ, offer a wide range of biblical, Hebrew, Greek and multilingual software for theological use.