God is NOT a Moral Monster.

‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction allthat he has, and do not spare him; but put to death bothman and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3 LSB)

At first read this passage is troublesome – especially if taken at face value. There have been several ways various Christians have responded to this passage. I will briefly give a few examples and then my response.

Some have seen this as pure allegory – this was the view of the church father Origen. Others, like Adam Clarke held to a literal view and simply state “Nothing could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God.” And, likewise, there are those who have held that because of the Amalekites sexual practices, which included beastiality, that disease was so rampant that for the protection of everyone, all those affected needed to be exterminated. Personally, I don’t see how any of these views either fit the context of the passage, nor do I see extra biblical evidence to warrant such conclusions.

But I do think that Dr. Paul Copan (author of IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER) is correct in concluding that the passage uses hyperbolic language that the Hebrews would have understood as such. I will get to that in a moment. But first I do want to set the stage.

Context in understanding Scripture is everything – context within the text and context in history. I remember something my Old Testament professor once said that has stuck with me: “The Bible might be written FOR us, but it was not written TO us.” This means with every passage if we are to understand that passage correctly we have to regard what the original writer meant and how the original readers would have understood it.

Historically, the Amalekites hated the Israelites and sought to eliminate them any time they could. This is seen in scripture and other historical accounts. They were extremely cruel people who killed women and children, even their own, in their worship of Moloch where they offered human sacrifice including children. Archeologists have found alters to Moloch that included the remains of burnt children and young women cut in two. Because their god, Moloch, engaged in beastiality it was also the practice of the Amalekites (and Canaanites) to have sex with animals (which may be the reason God did not want captured animals of the Amalekites to be kept or offered as a sacrifice to Him). They also forced young boys and girls into temple prostitution in worship to Moloch. While these actions could warrant acts of war especially concerning adult warriors, we are still left with the question, “what about the innocent such as women and children?”

What does God elsewhere say about killing or sacrificing children? Leviticus 18:21 says, “And you shall not give any of your seed to pass them over to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am Yahweh” (LSB) and Deuteronomy 12:31 says, “You shall not do thus toward Yahweh your God, for every abominable act which Yahweh hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (LSB). So the Israelites of Samuel’s day knew what the Law of Moses had to say regarding this. Further, the context of 1 Samuel notes that Agag, the king of the Amalekites who Saul allowed to live, “As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women” (I will come back to this verse in a moment). As king, Agag was responsible for what his people did – and they offered child sacrifice and murdered women and children.

God told the Israelites, “Do not kill the innocent and righteous” (Exodus 23:7). One of the 10 Commandments is “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13). Yet here in 1 Samuel 15 we read, “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.’” (vs 3).

Dr. Copan is not the first to suggest that this is hyperbolic. German scholars Carl Keil and Franz Delitzsch in the 19th century noted that the Hebrew construction in the last clause of the sentence “is only an explanation and exemplification” of “utterly destroy” (וְהַֽחֲרַמְתֶּם֙ haram ‘eth). That is to say that in the Hebrew the last clause is only meant as an amplification of the first part of the sentence to smite the Amalekites. We might say in English, “really give them hell” which is not to be taken literally.

So, does the context warrant this view? I think it does. Look at verse 33 again, “As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.” Is this literal or hyperbolic? If Saul killed all the women then Agag’s mother would be dead the phrase “your mother (will) be childless among women” would be hyperbolic. And, if that is hyperbolic why would verse 3 be different? If, however, verse 33 is literal then Saul did not kill all the women and then verse 3 can be taken as hyperbolic. Likewise, we find in verse 7, “Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.” This is a very large area – more than could be conquered in a day if taken literally. The Hebrew reader would understand that what is being discussed is where the Amalekites dwelt and that the language is also hyperbolic.

In addition to the context of 1 Samuel 15 using hyperbolic language in verses 7 and 33 (as well as verse 3 which I will return to shortly) further reading in 1 Samuel establishes that the Amalekites were not “utterly destroyed”. In 1 Samuel 27:8 we read, “And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the AMALEKITES for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.” How could David and his men invaded the Amalekites if they were all killed? The same is true of 1 Samuel 30:1, “And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south . . .“ Apparently to “utterly destroy” means something else then how we view it and the language used in 1 Samuel 15 is to be understood in the context of the day – namely the language of war.

This was common place in the language of the ancient world. For example, in Gebel Barkal Stela of Thutmose III it reads, “The many troops (of) Mitanni were overthrown in the completion of the hour, quite gone, as if they had never come into being . . . “ (J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., p. 240, Princeton: Princeton University Press.) Likewise, Israel is mentioned in another Stela, “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not . . . “ (Ibid, p. 378). This is not literally true, but is the hyperbolic war language of that day. After all, Israel still exists. Pritchard continues and says about this text, “The statement that the ‘seed’ i.e. offspring, of Israel had been wiped out is a conventional boast of power at this period.” (Ibid).

Hebrew scholars Dr. John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton bring us back to 1 Samuel 15:3 and the Hebrew word “herem”. While almost all English translations render it as “utterly destroy” the Hebrew is more nuanced (which is why the Legacy Standard Bible reads “devote to destruction“. Walton and Walton write:

“[The word] Herem against communities is intended to destroy identity, not to kill people. We see this further in the case of the Amalekites, whose destruction is promised in the Pentateuch and carried out in 1 Samuel 15. That the target is the identity is specified in Exodus 17: 14 and Deuteronomy 25: 19 by the idiom “blot out [the name],” which is the same fate that awaits the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 17 (even after Israelite wives are found for some of the survivors). Therefore, . . . being blotted out cannot possibly mean having one’s genetic legacy die out. The same applies to a microidentity within Israel in Deuteronomy 25: 5-6: “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.” Here it is the family identity, not genetics, that is preserved, since of course levirate marriage does nothing to pass on the genes of the deceased. We should also note that Samuel in 1 Samuel 15 makes no attempt to kill the animals but only kills the king (1 Sam 15: 32). This is because the king is the embodiment and personification of the community identity, as also demonstrated by the promise in Deuteronomy 7: 24, where the names of the kings will be wiped out, and by the (talionic) proclamation of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15: 33 that “[ Agag’s] mother [will] be childless” (that is, Agag’s family line will end). Samuel thus carries out the intent of the ḥerem, not by killing every last ethnic Amalekite and all of their animals (which he does not do) but by terminating the final marker of Amalekite community identity. Thus the ḥerem in 1 Samuel 15 has nothing to do with offering the Amalekites as sacrifices to Yahweh, as some interpreters are inclined to propose; as with all ḥerem against communities, it has to do with destroying the identity (or failing to do so).” The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites by John H. Walton, J. Harvey Walton, p. 213-214. (Please note that in their book they have an entire chapter dedicated to the meaning of the Hebrew “herem” and that this is only a small quote regarding 1 Samuel 15).

The evidence here, in the Biblical texts and references as well as the meaning of the Hebrew word, and the ancient worldview is that 1 Samuel 15 has to do with language of war and expressed in a fashion that both the original writer and reader would have understood.