Now
go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not
spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox
and sheep, camel and donkey.
(1 Samuel 15:3)
As
we consider critics' claims that the Bible is immoral, one of the
most cited examples comes from 1 Samuel where God commands King Saul
to destroy the city of Amalek along with everyone and everything in
it. Critics typically use words like “genocide,” “atrocity,”
and “infanticide” to describe the account. It's a clever use of
loaded words to make God seem capricious.
Critics
usually quote verse 3 out of context. 1 Samuel 15:2 says, “Thus
says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to
Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming
up from Egypt.”
Critics don't include verse 2 because they intentionally want to
omit God's motive for His command to Saul. Israel's encounters with
Amalek began back in Exodus 17. After their flight from Egypt and
during their wandering in the desert, the Jews were a nearly helpless
people. They had no city, no walls, and no forts. They had to rely
upon God daily for food and water. Deuteronomy 25:17-18 described it
this way,
Remember
what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt,
how
he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at
your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God.
At
one point, while they were camped at Rephidim, the Amalekites came
and attacked them. Moses told Joshua to lead armed men to resist the
Amalekites and God gave the Jews the victory after a hard fought
battle. Afterward, God made a promise to Moses:
Then
the LORD said to Moses, “Write this in a book as a memorial and
recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of
Amalek from under heaven.” Moses built an altar and named it, The
LORD is My Banner; and he said, “The LORD has sworn; the LORD will
have war against Amalek from generation to generation.”
(Exodus 17:14-16)
God
could have rained fire down on Amalek just as He had done with Sodom
and Gomorrah, but it was many generations later, after the Jews
settled in the Promised Land and Saul had become the king, that God
fulfilled His promise.
So
God's command to destroy the Amalekites wasn't arbitrary but rather
was His judgment on that city for their crimes against Israel.
Critics call the event “genocide” because that sounds more
effective to their cause than calling it “justice.” Here's
something that might put this into perspective: we need to consider
the attitudes of Americans right after 9/11. Do you remember the
calls that we should bomb Afghanistan and the Taliban back into the
stone age? Were we interested in genocide or justice?
Of
course, some people aren't satisfied with this explanation. Some
have asked, “Why would God command the babies to be killed?”
There are a couple of other points we need to keep in mind.
First,
we have to remember that not only did all the people of Amalek die
but Saul also died. Every one of Saul's soldiers died too. Every
Jew in Israel died. Every prophet mentioned in the Old Testament has
died. The Bible says that it is appointed unto a man to die and then
he is judged (Hebrews 9:27). Some die old; some die young; some die
violently; some die quietly. The mortality rate among people is
100%. Death has reigned since the Curse and just like it came to the
Amalekites, it will also come to all of us. To say that God was
cruel in His treatment of Amalek is to deny that God judges all of
humanity fairly.
There
is still another point we must consider, a point which relates to God
as our Creator. Read this passage from Jeremiah:
Then
[Jeremiah] went down to the potter’s house, and there he was,
making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was
making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it
into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then
the word of the Lord came to [Jeremiah] saying, “Can I not,
O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the
Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in
My hand, O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah
18:3-6)
No
one can credibly deny that the vessel a potter makes belongs to the
potter. If the potter doesn't like how the vessel turns out, it is
his right to scrap it and start over. In this haunting passage, we
are reminded that we are created by God and so are subject to His
will.
Words
like “genocide” and “atrocity” are misleading
characterizations of God. The Bible gives us a complete picture of
Him. He is not a tyrant who smites innocents on a whim. He is not a
pacifist who will shower grace on vile, unrepentant sinners. He is
Holy and Just. We all face the same fate – a grave. We all have
the same opportunity – eternal life through Jesus. I will have to
stand before God and give an account for my sins; my only plea will
be the shed blood of His Son. Critics are welcome to tell God He's
not being fair.
No one can credibly deny that the vessel a potter makes belongs to the potter.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we may differ on what one ought to regard as "credible," but quite a few science fiction stories have argued (credibly, in the opinion of many readers) that, e.g. a sentient robot or genetically-engineered intelligent organism ought not be the property of its maker. People are not pots; they have interests and hopes and minds that pots do not.
On the other hand, God is often supposed to be ontologically superior to us in a respect that, e.g. Dr. Soong is not superior to Data. But what is the point of asserting that God is "just" or "righteous" towards His chattels? If by definition anything He does to the beings he owns is good, then assuring us that He will deal righteously with us or deal out justice tells us virtually nothing.
The Bible gives us a complete picture of Him.
Or, the Bible gives us multiple conflicting pictures of Him, reflecting an evolving view of God by the successive generations of biblical writers; the Bible is the record of a millenium-long argument about the nature of God, and reflects several disparate viewpoints.
God could have rained fire down on Amalek just as He had done with Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was many generations later, after the Jews settled in the Promised Land and Saul had become the king, that God fulfilled His promise.
That was three hundred years after the event being punished. Every Amalekite in the generation that incurred God's wrath, and every great-great grandchild of every such Amalekite, would be dead already. It would be like Austria bombing Sweden, today, over what Gustavus Adolphus did in the Thirty Years' War. God was, according to this story, literally commanding the Israelites to do what in Deuteronomy He forbade them from doing: punishing distant descendants for the sins of their ancestors.
Trust me, none of the critics of God's command in 1 Samuel 15 are worried that bringing up God's reasons would weaken their case.
Some have asked, “Why would God command the babies to be killed?” ... To say that God was cruel in His treatment of Amalek is to deny that God judges all of humanity fairly.
If there is no difference between commanding the wholesale slaughter of people and allowing them to die naturally, then [a] God had already carried out His promised vengeance centuries before, and was still carrying it out, and had no need to tell Saul to do anything, and [b] it's not entirely clear why the Mosaic law contains commands against murder, since everyone ends up dead anyway. You would never concede that abortion is justified inasmuch as many pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway, and in any case the unborn child will die someday, somehow, anyway. Why should you expect me to concede that commanding infanticide is good, on exactly the same grounds?
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteYou said, “People are not pots; they have interests and hopes and minds that pots do not.”
Of course people do but I'm not sure how that changes anything. Do the pots belong to the potter or not? You've made no argument about why God has no claim on us even though He created us.
You said, “what is the point of asserting that God is "just" or "righteous" towards His chattels? If by definition anything He does to the beings he owns is good, then assuring us that He will deal righteously with us or deal out justice tells us virtually nothing.”
I worry for atheists. You and I will both stand before Him in judgment. I believe He will treat me just as He promised. I will receive grace I don't deserve because I have believed in His Son for salvation. Do you not worry that God will also deal with you just as He promised?
You said, “Trust me, none of the critics of God's command in 1 Samuel 15 are worried that bringing up God's reasons would weaken their case.”
“None”? Surely some do. Why do they so frequently omit the entire quote? Note that I didn't say, “all” but I know that some do.
You said, “If there is no difference between commanding the wholesale slaughter of people and allowing them to die naturally, then [a] God had already carried out His promised vengeance centuries before, and was still carrying it out, and had no need to tell Saul to do anything,”
Not quite. His promise was to obliterate the memory of Amalek. If the Amalekites continued living, generation after generation until today, then God would not have fulfilled His promise.
You said, “[b] it's not entirely clear why the Mosaic law contains commands against murder, since everyone ends up dead anyway.”
Yes it is. God is the Author of life and only He can appoint when we should die. I heard this analogy:
Suppose I created intelligent robots – let's say they're not as aware as Data or Lar just to keep this simple. In spite of your objections, these robots belong to me. I could destroy one of them if I wanted. However, if one robot malfunctioned and began destroying other robots, my wrath would be against the one malfunctioned. Even though I have the right to destroy any robot, the stray robot doesn't have that same right. I would assert the same argument in response to your analogy of abortion.
Steven J, the bottom line is this. You might think God is unfair but your opinion is worth nothing. Such a belief does not mean the Bible isn't true, it doesn't mean there is no God, and it doesn't mean He won't treat your unbelief just as He promised. God is terrible and frightening. He is also loving and merciful. Rejecting Him because of the things you find terrible also means you reject His love and mercy. I'm not sure what you think that accomplishes.
I'm praying for you. God bless!!
RKBentley
You've made no argument about why God has no claim on us even though He created us.
ReplyDeleteI thought I had. Of course, you've made no argument about why God does have a claim on us just because He made our ancestors. I offer you one moral intuition against another; I argue that it makes a difference whether your creation has any interests or thoughts of its own. A pot doesn't care what use it is put to, or whether it is altered or destroyed. A human does.
Do you not worry that God will also deal with you just as He promised?
Should you not ask, do I not worry that God will deal with me as you believe He has promised? I note that Paul says nothing about Hell. Moses says nothing about any sort of life after death, much less punishment after death. Even Jesus, who is recorded as speaking about Hell, spoke indifferently about a fire that is never quenched and about body and soul alike being destroyed in Hell. I see neither the consistency nor the clarity in biblical teachings about the afterlife that you do, nor is it as obvious to me that the Bible, in fact, contains promises from God as opposed to promises made by men in His name.
Not quite. His promise was to obliterate the memory of Amalek.
Where will you find the Hattusa (the Hittites of Anatolia, as opposed to the Hatti -- the Hittites of Canaan) today? When was the last time anyone heard of an Elamite, or an Olmec? Lots of ethnic groups and nations have been as thoroughly obliterated as the Amalekites, and Saul didn't have to kill any of them without mercy.
God is the Author of life and only He can appoint when we should die.
Okay, so we're back to arbitrary and absolute power; whatever God does is right because God does it, and we know this is true because people tell us that God said so. You set your fallible human reason against mine. You decide that one set of scriptures, out of many, is the word of God. You decide that one interpretation, out of many, is right. And you declare my opinion worthless because it disagrees with yours, which you identify with God's.