|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 1 Samuel 15:3... Kill both man and woman, child and infant...
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
Verse nominated by the famous rachel
"This is what the LORD Almighty says... '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 Samuel 15:3, in context)
The famous rachel comments: I have enormous difficulty reconciling the vengeful God of this verse, who sends his people out to slaughter an entire nation, including children and babies, with any possible notion of a "good" or "loving" God.
Hatless comments (on a similar verse, Joshua 6:21): It's the donkeys.
How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!
[ 03. August 2009, 20:07: Message edited by: Simon ]
Poll information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 55 user(s) have voted.
You can't view the results of this poll without voting.
| |
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
This is an example of the most basic "contradiction" in the Bible. You know, the kind of contradiction that doesn't exist according to those who favor "plain reading". quote:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says... '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 Samuel 15:3
Versus quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[g] let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers,[h] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
To make these two Biblical excerpts jive takes some serious weaseling. I'm sure such weaseling has been done numerous times. Maybe the point would be to slaughter Amalek, then pray for their souls (did the Hebrews believe in souls?) in Godly charity?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
A Hellion comments.
It's kind of obnoxious to use the Ship as analogy for the Bible, but there you are, Lyda... the Psalm is a Hellish cry for not just justice but vigaresh*. Jesus's words are a Purgatorial breakdown of why vengeance and 10-fold repayment don't work.
Having said that, I myself would not have a problem if that particular (biblical) thread were Oblivionated.
*Vengeance plus interest.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
A Hellion comments.
It's kind of obnoxious to use the Ship as analogy for the Bible, but there you are, Lyda... the Psalm is a Hellish cry for not just justice but vigaresh*. Jesus's words are a Purgatorial breakdown of why vengeance and 10-fold repayment don't work.
Having said that, I myself would not have a problem if that particular (biblical) thread were Oblivionated.
*Vengeance plus interest.
This is not the thread "Dash all your little ones against a rock!" I completely understand the matter of feelings expressed in the psalm. Poetry is a proper place to express feelings. I posted on that thread that I'm actually glad that wasn't cleaned up and out. Feeling anger and hatred is human, just not a nice part of being human.
To me, someone in Hebrew history ranting about their overwhelming anger and sadness at the horrors they endured is not a matter of Divine teaching contradicting Divine teaching even if scripture is God Breathed. God ordering a massacre of the enemy, then Christ teaching how to we are to treat our enemies entirely differently is such a contradiction, IMO.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
Yes, I'm with Lyda on this. It's one thing for a poet to give vent to his feelings of revenge (in Psalm 137), but something else for a political leader to give an order to the military for genocide in the name of God. If you believe that every time the Old Testament has that formula, "The Lord said", it really is God speaking and not just some manipulative leader claiming it, then there's a huge amount of explaining to do. It would be good to hear someone with a conservative viewpoint justifying "God's command" to destroy the people of Amalek.
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sorry got my verses confused.
{after re-reading properly) In which case, yeah, Lyda, you've got it. I tend to read it as a military leader telling his soldiers what he wants them to hear, but taking him at his word makes it a very dangerous verse.
[ 02. August 2009, 03:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
It would be good to hear someone with a conservative viewpoint justifying "God's command" to destroy the people of Amalek.
I don't know if I qualify as someone with a conservative viewpoint, but I do believe 1 Samuel 15 is part of revelation from and by God, so I'll pretend that I'm qualified to respond to your challenge.
I think any revelation from God, because of God's infinite nature, will always present only an approximate view of him. Also, I think any revelation he gives is adapted to the abilities and stage of development of the people to whom it is addressed at the time. I think we are ready to hold a view of God today that is much better at approximating a true view of him than the OT view, but neither our view nor the OT view is/was/can be complete or completely accurate.
I don't think God actually did anything like ordering the killing and destruction of anyone. But since the people living at that time had such trouble learning the most basic step of simple obedience to simple rules, he allowed them to believe that he rewarded the obedient and punished the disobedient. Because of the stage of development they were in as a society, and thus as generally as individuals, they needed to focus on learning basic obedience. Since fear was effective (although far from the ideal), he allowed them to see him in terms that were based on fear and reverence and he offered them a covenant that was based on reward and punishment. As part of this, he offered them a story that was written as though he himself gave the command for destruction of a people that were one of their bitterest enemies. He allowed them to believe this view of him because it was the best approximation that they were at all ready to accept. (If the view of people in the ANE presented in the OT stories are at all accurate, they had a lot of trouble handling even the simplest of instructions for any length of time.)
While I think that the simplistic view of God presented in 1 Samuel 15 is not accurate, I do think it was necessary as a first step in a long journey of development from less accurate views to more and more accurate views. It is also the kind of view we might start out with as young children when we need to learn simple obedience to the Ten Commandments. It is not the ideal, end-goal kind of view, but it can be useful and even unavoidable as a first step. In the end, no view that we can hold of God is anything more than an approximation of reality. The view presented in the stories of the OT is a first approximation. The view presented in the NT fills in the OT view with a better, more accurate approximation, but even so, it is still an approximation. And it doesn't invalidate the OT view, but rather builds on it and fills it in the same way our view of the world as adults is built on and fills in the view we had of it as a child.
Actually, I think it is a measure of God's mercy that he is willing to accept from us, if we absolutely insist on it, a view of him based on fear and external obedience as a substitute for one based on love and true devotion.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
It would be good to hear someone with a conservative viewpoint justifying "God's command" to destroy the people of Amalek.
Marcus Honeysett, a "conservative" Christian blogger, outlined a few thoughts on the subject on his blog, which I agree with: "What about the Amalekites?". It attracted some attention from atheists blogs, which (unfairly and misleadingly) declared that he was "defending genocide".
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I'm sorry but your level of conservatism won't do at all for this task, wehyatt. The moment you said, "While I think that the simplistic view of God presented in 1 Samuel 15 is not accurate...", you wandered into liberalville. Tch, tch. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
According to "plain readers" of the Bible, that is. I think you make quite a bit of sense.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
It attracted some attention from atheists blogs, which (unfairly and misleadingly) declared that he was "defending genocide".
If the complete destruction of an entire nation isn't genocide, what is? And if he's not defending it in that link, what is he doing?
Saying "oh, they were evil and had been for years" doesn't justify ordering their complete eradication to the last living thing. Especially as the Amekalites could presumably have said exactly the same thing about the Israelites...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841
|
Posted
That is indeed IMO a terrible and frightening verse. Those among us who are not wedded to inerrancy may chose to ask whether the genocide actually occurred, and may conclude that if it did it was retrospectively justified by the author of the book in question.
[tangent]I remember singing Verdi's setting of Psalm 137 in the Royal Albert Hall (in the original Welsh) , and thinking "If I were a Welsh-speaking Babylonian, I'd start running now"![/tangent]
--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!
Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Marcus Honeysett, a "conservative" Christian blogger, outlined a few thoughts on the subject on his blog, which I agree with: "What about the Amalekites?". It attracted some attention from atheists blogs, which (unfairly and misleadingly) declared that he was "defending genocide".
Thanks for the link. When I decided to nominate this verse, I spent a little time looking for commentarues on it, but I hadn't seen this one.
Unfortunately, Honeysett's comments only make me feel worse about this verse. Having been taught to see the Old Testament as presenting the patterns which will be fulfilled in the New Teastament, having read Honeysett's words, I now see this verse as prefiguring God's final judgement - and the sending of lots of people to Hell. If my heart cries out against the slaughter of the Amalekites, how much more should it loath the idea that a "loving" God will condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment.
This is the kind of stuff which means I can't be a conservative evangelical anymore. I've sat through numerous sermons which have blithely skipped over Biblical massacres and genocides. (I nearly nominated Esther 9:16 instead, but decided this one bothered me more). I just can't understand why these verses don't worry people. I've had a quick look at the results of the poll so far, and apparently about a third of those who have voted are not in any way worried by this verse. Why not, guys?
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I agree that this is one of the most difficult bits of the Bible.
Understanding the Amalekites a bit does help - they were the nation who had set themselves totally and irrevocably against God and Israel. Even as late as Esther, Haman (who seems to be descended from Agag, king of the Amalekites at the time of 1 Sam 15) is busy trying to exterminate all the Jews. No reason is given for his absolute hatred of them.
I agree, furthermore, that the commanded destruction of the Amalekites is a picture of the future destruction of all of those who set themselves irrevocably against God.
Hell as eternal conscious torment is possibly a medieval oversimplification. I discuss this here and here. And yes, rachel, I realise this is partly responding to a question you asked me about 15 years ago...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
And yes, rachel, I realise this is partly responding to a question you asked me about 15 years ago...
I know... and you to some extent seem to have found a new answer, whereas I'm aware I have returned to the same old questions. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Again, not a conservative here. Just making observations that I'm hoping might be helpful- because this is a difficult passage.
Always remember it functions as a story, and people die in stories. No-one gets upset when they do. If you see the Bible as CCTV, you will have more of a problem.
Killing was the modus operandi at the time. If you were a small people, fighting for survival, attempting to absorb or accommodate your enemies was a bad idea. When the chance came, they would wipe you out. Compare Exodus 1. Even thought the Israelites had come voluntarily, and had no grudge against the Egyptians, the latter were worried enough to order the slaughter of male babies.
Sometimes enemies can be fought by people in offices firing smart bombs at unmanned radar stations. Much of the time it has historically been Total War- destruction of the civilian power base as a military means. Commanders in the field have frequently decided that the civilians of the enemy power should be attacked in order to save the lives of their own fighting forces. In recent times we saw Dresden, Hiroshima, the bombing of the Ba'ath party headquarters.
Now the morality of each of these is debatable. But take that kind of military thinking, and transfer it to the kind of survival tribal warfare the Israelites were engaged in. Then completely destroying an implacable enemy makes a kind of military sense. Given the morality of the times. In a story. In a story. That's part of a bigger story...
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, your target has arrived. Conservative theologically--an inerrantist, actually. Bite me. (Seriously, I hope not)
I'm not going to pretend this verse or its like don't bother me. They do. Of course they do.
And I could trot out a whole lot of rationalizations / explanations / mitigations, but truly, it wouldn't make any difference to you. Or in the end, to me.
So what do I do with it?
Well, (deep breath), I trust God on it. (cop out! cop out! they snigger)
No, really. There are a few things that are just never going to be answered to my satisfaction on this earth, and this is one of them. It bothers me. It bothers me a whole lot.
But I know God (or rather, he knows me). I've always known him to be faithful and trustworthy and merciful and true. And so I trust that there IS an explanation for this verse, and a good one, even if I don't know what it is.
I hope some day I'll find out.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Again, not a conservative here. Just making observations that I'm hoping might be helpful- because this is a difficult passage.
Always remember it functions as a story, and people die in stories. No-one gets upset when they do. If you see the Bible as CCTV, you will have more of a problem.
Killing was the modus operandi at the time. If you were a small people, fighting for survival, attempting to absorb or accommodate your enemies was a bad idea. When the chance came, they would wipe you out. Compare Exodus 1. Even thought the Israelites had come voluntarily, and had no grudge against the Egyptians, the latter were worried enough to order the slaughter of male babies.
Sometimes enemies can be fought by people in offices firing smart bombs at unmanned radar stations. Much of the time it has historically been Total War- destruction of the civilian power base as a military means. Commanders in the field have frequently decided that the civilians of the enemy power should be attacked in order to save the lives of their own fighting forces. In recent times we saw Dresden, Hiroshima, the bombing of the Ba'ath party headquarters.
Now the morality of each of these is debatable. But take that kind of military thinking, and transfer it to the kind of survival tribal warfare the Israelites were engaged in. Then completely destroying an implacable enemy makes a kind of military sense. Given the morality of the times. In a story. In a story. That's part of a bigger story...
This is as close to a "justification" as I dare get. It's similar with the more frequent use of the death penalty in a culture where prisons just aren't possible (and what ones may exist probably have high mortality rates anyway). Fighting non-total war can mean total war later on.
Survival is a seriously ugly business sometimes. We're very lucky that we live with enough resources that sharing and live-and-let-live is comparatively easy (though we still struggle with it, and often achieve this state of being by exploiting people who can't reach us directly).
Though that still leaves the question: Why the livestock?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
...Though that still leaves the question: Why the livestock?
I can see two possible interpretations of that:
- You're not going to profit from this war, it's not "business as usual", no taking spoil
- It's all a sacrifice
But the counter-argument to the last is that neither camels nor donkeys were normally sacrificial animals.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm sure in this case the phrase would be "make a cherem of", aka "devote to the Lord" or "devote to destruction." It carries the idea of "nobody's going to use or profit from X again" and can be applied to good things and to unclean things as well. Not like the usual sacrifices, which had to be clean and perfect.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
Understanding the Amalekites a bit does help - they were the nation who had set themselves totally and irrevocably against God and Israel. Even as late as Esther, Haman (who seems to be descended from Agag, king of the Amalekites at the time of 1 Sam 15) is busy trying to exterminate all the Jews. No reason is given for his absolute hatred of them.
Hmmm.... I don't think I buy this. I'm not sure the Amalekites "set themselves totally and irrevocably against God and Israel" before Israel started trying to massacre them. After Israel attempted to wipe out the entire nation, it's perhaps unsurprising that the Amalekites didn't fancy worshipping their God. Also, if even the babies need killing, this seems to suggest that the Amalekites were born rotten in God's eyes, which since God allegedly created them, appears to be no fault of their own.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, your target has arrived. Conservative theologically--an inerrantist, actually. Bite me. (Seriously, I hope not)
I'm not going to pretend this verse or its like don't bother me. They do. Of course they do.
And I could trot out a whole lot of rationalizations / explanations / mitigations, but truly, it wouldn't make any difference to you. Or in the end, to me.
So what do I do with it?
Well, (deep breath), I trust God on it. (cop out! cop out! they snigger)
No, really. There are a few things that are just never going to be answered to my satisfaction on this earth, and this is one of them. It bothers me. It bothers me a whole lot.
But I know God (or rather, he knows me). I've always known him to be faithful and trustworthy and merciful and true. And so I trust that there IS an explanation for this verse, and a good one, even if I don't know what it is.
I hope some day I'll find out.
Don't worry - I won't bite you. I'm glad that the verse bothers you, though.
My problem with your approach is that the only way one can decide whether to trust someone - God in this case - is to learn about their character. If we take the Bible as a good source of information about God's character, then we pick up a very mixed picture of him. I certainly wouldn't want to place my trust in the deity in this verse.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
My problem with your approach is that the only way one can decide whether to trust someone - God in this case - is to learn about their character. If we take the Bible as a good source of information about God's character, then we pick up a very mixed picture of him. I certainly wouldn't want to place my trust in the deity in this verse.
So how do you learn about God's character then?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm sure in this case the phrase would be "make a cherem of", aka "devote to the Lord" or "devote to destruction." It carries the idea of "nobody's going to use or profit from X again" and can be applied to good things and to unclean things as well. Not like the usual sacrifices, which had to be clean and perfect.
Another possibly wacky idea I had this morning was that it would make it very clear that this war wasn't a "for-profit" operation, that Israel wasn't just fighting for spoils. The other evidence for this I can think of is the guy in Joshua who ruined the whole operation by making off with some golden trinket from the city of...Jericho, I think?
Again, it still doesn't make the Israelites (or God) look particularly nice by 21st century standards, but there's a moral logic to it. Wars over plunder, as the Roman Empire illustrated, never really end until the plunderer overextends himself or herself and collapses into anarchy. The cherem guarantees that war will be limited because, frankly, who wants to have to do that every single time they win a battle? Could these be William T Sherman ethics?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It was Achan, and yes, it was Jericho.
Rachel,
quote:
My problem with your approach is that the only way one can decide whether to trust someone - God in this case - is to learn about their character. If we take the Bible as a good source of information about God's character, then we pick up a very mixed picture of him. I certainly wouldn't want to place my trust in the deity in this verse.
True--and yet it's different when the deity in question gets up and comes alive off the page, so to speak. Then you're not dealing with just the troubling verse, but you've got the whole rest of the Bible, the experiences of other Christians ancient and modern, and your own interactions with him. Which gives you a much fuller and clearer picture of what he's really like than focusing on a single passage or even a few dozen of them. More data is always better.
The conclusions I've come to from all of this are that God is good, that he is holy (and cannot abide evil, loathes it with the passion of ten thousand burning suns), that he is equally passionate about people for some odd reason, and that it really, REALLY matters to him what we choose and think and do.
That a lot or maybe all of this springs from love, but not the sweet sickly kind--rather a fierce whole-hearted commitment kind of love that can be more tender and unfathomable than a mother with a sick baby but at other times more blazingly furious than your dad's after you've taken the car out without permission and smashed it all to hell (hospitalizing your little brother in the process). But for all that, you know that if you hold fast, weather the storm (and repent!) you will eventually be reconciled to him, because he does in fact love you--heck, he wouldn't be so angry with you if he didn't, and you hadn't endangered what he loves (you and the bro).
I feel like I ought to try to paint the other side, the much more comforting loving, merciful, etc. side, but frankly I don't think I could do it. That's even farther beyond my comprehension, and way beyond my writing. And that is what I'm left with in the end--that someone is passionately in love with me and with all of us, that he won't sit on his hands and let us all go to hell in a handbasket or any other device of our own choosing, and that if and when threats of punishment don't work (usually), he is willing to put his own life on the line to haul us out and bring us back to himself.
Under those circs I'm just not prepared to sit in judgment on his actions half-understood by me--better off trusting him. Otherwise it's like a bee analyzing Niagara Falls.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
LC, what was "loving" (to the Amalekites) about what was done to the Amalekites?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
LC, let me get this straight - are you saying, "I'm going to trust him about it"?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Because I don't have a theological need to make this text come out right, I treat it as an outrageous example of our sinful human natures, which even try to rationalize genocide by inventing a divine benediction upon it.
That said, I think that in itself is why this is a useful text for us today: It's a mirror that holds up to us our own dark, ugly, atavistic urge toward tribal aggression, something that still lurks just under the surface of even the most self-perceived sophisticated and cosmopolitan of us.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
That said, I think that in itself is why this is a useful text for us today: It's a mirror that holds up to us our own dark, ugly, atavistic urge toward tribal aggression, something that still lurks just under the surface of even the most self-perceived sophisticated and cosmopolitan of us.
This is one thought I often have. If the Bible didn't have some incredibly gory bits, given what I understand of ancient history, I'd be seriously questioning its accuracy. It also reminds us not to think too highly of ourselves. Like it or not, nearly every so-called "nation" in the earth has bits like this in its history. You can't build a nation without obliterating a few people, it seems.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Hopefully not too off topic:
1) Thanks for the pointer to the Keryg thread, which was great and I completely missed.
2) I wonder if a meta-justification for verses like this is to put a stumbling block in the way of literalists! It could be taken as a pointer to the real nature of the bible, as a number of people comment above. For that reason alone, I'm glad it's still there - so we can disagree with it.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
True--and yet it's different when the deity in question gets up and comes alive off the page, so to speak. Then you're not dealing with just the troubling verse, but you've got the whole rest of the Bible, the experiences of other Christians ancient and modern, and your own interactions with him. Which gives you a much fuller and clearer picture of what he's really like than focusing on a single passage or even a few dozen of them. More data is always better.
The conclusions I've come to from all of this are that God is good, that he is holy (and cannot abide evil, loathes it with the passion of ten thousand burning suns), that he is equally passionate about people for some odd reason, and that it really, REALLY matters to him what we choose and think and do.
Whilst I like the picture of God you paint here, it's not necessarily the picture I see from a broad but fairly literal reading of the Bible, and from the teaching I've had from evangelical churches down the years, based on their bible knowledge.
Whilst God's character as presented in the Bible is a bit too large a topic for this board, it's perhaps worth saying that the picture of God I often find in my mind these days, when discussing the Bible in a literalist way, is one of a spoilt toddler who has far too much power to do damage during the tantrums he has when he doesn't get his own way!
Unfortunately, verses like this are part of how that picture has formed in my mind. However, so are some much bigger topics - like penal substitionary atonement for example. However, PSA isn't easy to extract from one verse, whereas my Toddler God is pretty well represented by 1 Samuel 15:3 and other, similar bits of the old testament.
Johnny S asks how I am going to understand God's character without the Bible, and of course that's probably impossible. However, I'm forced to look for a different attitude to my interpretation of the Bible these days, otherwise I'm left with a God who I can't trust and don't want to worship.
Sorry - as may be obvious, I'm re-evaluating everything and have been for a while. Hence I've not been posting much, as all my thinking keeps coming back to these sorts of questions, and nobody wants to read my continual rehashing of these issues. Actually, I don't want to chop any verses out of the Bible - but some days I could live without the puzzles that verses like this cause me!
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I have to say, most of my thinking about the objectionable bits in the OT is informed by the Prophets, esp. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos. Somehow the picture I get of God from reading them is particularly clear, and gives me a sense of how he can be holy, good and yet intensely passionate about his people's evil actions. And yet remain intensely passionate about his love for them.
quote:
"How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim?
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath.
(Hosea 11:8-9
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
It's not 1 Sam 15:3 that I have the biggest problem with but verses 9 and 11:
quote:
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves [b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
Not only does God command the wholesale destruction he repents of making Saul king when he doesn't do as he was told. Though the fact Saul doesn't seem to have acted out of mercy but out of a desire to keep the best bits makes that slightly less hard to deal with; if God had got annoyed at Saul for being merciful, I'd've had really, really big problems, but is stands I'm still quite worried.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It's not 1 Sam 15:3 that I have the biggest problem with but verses 9 and 11:
quote:
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves [b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
Not only does God command the wholesale destruction he repents of making Saul king when he doesn't do as he was told. Though the fact Saul doesn't seem to have acted out of mercy but out of a desire to keep the best bits makes that slightly less hard to deal with; if God had got annoyed at Saul for being merciful, I'd've had really, really big problems, but is stands I'm still quite worried.
Carys
I've been thinking, for a while, about starting a thread about the OT attitude toward monarchy. Samuel warned them beforehand that kings were a bad idea, and God seemed very opposed, though He (and this particularly area makes God seem very male to me) relented and gave them what they wanted. Saul was clearly a disaster and David was a mixed bag of nuts, while the entire "Kingdom of Israel" project was a bit of a farce (and still seems to be).
How that changes any readings of Samuel or Judges, I'm not sure, but I guess it's relevant.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
archangel0753
Apprentice
# 14945
|
Posted
"I've been thinking, for a while, about starting a thread about the OT attitude toward monarchy."
Well isn't this the origin of some of the contradictory statements? There isn't just one; there are a number of attitudes towards monarchy in the OT.
One thinks that monarchy is a really bad idea: the other nations have kings, but Israel has the Lord their God. It comes out in Samuel, some of the psalms and the prophets. Another attitude is that monarchy as in David / Solomon is a great idea, but that it loses the plot after those two (with a couple of celebrated exceptions, plus some messianic / apocalyptic references). A third attitude is that monarchy per se is not only a great idea, but the monarch effectively becomes God's regent on earth (for example Psalm 72).
It's an ongoing debate in the OT without any resolution , even after the Exile.
Kevin
Posts: 13 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
It's an ongoing debate in the OT without any resolution , even after the Exile.
There's a really wonderful resolution that happens about 600 years after the Exile though....
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
One of my church leaders said that the wholesale slaughter thing showed 'the righteousness of God'. I didn't even want to get into a discussion about that - I felt sick.
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
One of my church leaders said that the wholesale slaughter thing showed 'the righteousness of God'. I didn't even want to get into a discussion about that - I felt sick.
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
My mother is an inerrantist, and here's how she explains this:
Israel is told to wipe out all the Amalekites because God, in God's mercy, knows that all they'll do is end up in hell anyway (needless to say, she believes in a literal, eternal hell of conscious torment and all that). Totally destroying them means no more will be born, thus ultimately reducing the population of hell.
I think she would say that the reason even the babies have to be killed is that (and I should note she would assume babies go to heaven) even if they grew up amongst the Israelites, they would likely be resentful of what happened to their families and culture of origin, and so would not worship the Israelite's God, and, yes, end up in hell - them and their future children.
So for her, it's a matter of God's justice (destroying evildoers) and God's mercy (preventing future evildoers from even being born).
And I also imagine she would agree with the whole bit about destroying the livestock and possessions because Israel shouldn't profit off of the war; but also, I'm pretty sure she would consider the possessions of such evildoers to be somehow tainted by their evil and thus potentially dangerous for the Israelites to keep. Obviously, that would apply less to camels than to idols. Killing the livestock would be part of the whole object lesson, and camels don't have souls, so who cares? She might also figure if they were so evil, who would want to keep their stuff? (Similar to the thought-experiment I've heard, Would you wear Hitler's sweater?)
(In my mother's defense, if she were to meet an Amalekite, she would offer him or her every hospitality.)
[ 06. August 2009, 23:57: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It is of course worth remembering that, being sinful ourselves, we don't have the faintest conception of what an awesome thing God's holiness actually is.
If I had even the foggiest idea about God's holiness, I rather suspect I'd feel a lot worse about my own sin and the ways I reject God. I don't know if I'd feel happier about the deaths of the Amalekites, but I'd feel a lot less inclined to argue that I didn't deserve the same.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
Well I f**king wouldn't!
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It is of course worth remembering that, being sinful ourselves, we don't have the faintest conception of what an awesome thing God's holiness actually is.
If I had even the foggiest idea about God's holiness, I rather suspect I'd feel a lot worse about my own sin and the ways I reject God. I don't know if I'd feel happier about the deaths of the Amalekites, but I'd feel a lot less inclined to argue that I didn't deserve the same.
I suspect that all depends on how one defines "holiness", "sin/sinfulness", and "deserve", but that may not be a can of worms to open on this particular thread.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This is as close to a "justification" as I dare get. It's similar with the more frequent use of the death penalty in a culture where prisons just aren't possible (and what ones may exist probably have high mortality rates anyway). Fighting non-total war can mean total war later on.
Survival is a seriously ugly business sometimes. We're very lucky that we live with enough resources that sharing and live-and-let-live is comparatively easy (though we still struggle with it, and often achieve this state of being by exploiting people who can't reach us directly).
Though that still leaves the question: Why the livestock?
As a military consideration, it is denying the enemy an economic base. No agriculture means the tribe won't grow, and would have to disperse.
But hang on a minute. Weren't they all supposed to be dead anyway?
In the OP, the mission was total genocide. According to 1 Samuel 15:10f, Saul's mistake was to spare the livestock (rather than failing in the massacre), and in vv8,20 the Amalekites destruction was confirmed. Yet not long after, David is raiding them in chapter 27; and in chapter 30, we meet an Amalekite raiding party which, after being slaughtered, still had 400 men left. Goodness knows what size their full army was, or what the Amalekite population was, but it had hardly been close to extinction.
Now it may be possible to remove the historical contradictions, but I suggest that trying to do so may not be the way forward. It's a story. In chapter 15, repeated in chapter 28, the problem was Saul's disobedience to God. In chapters 27 and 30, it is an account of the destruction of God's enemies.
As I faintly see it, the issue with the OP verse is not a question of how our all-loving Jesus could order the slaughter of sweet, innocent babies. It's a question of how these smaller stories fit into the big story.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
Maybe the Amalekite raiding party were away raiding when all the other Amalekites were slaughtered. Perhaps it was a full-time job being a raider. :-)
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
archangel0753
Apprentice
# 14945
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
[qb]
But hang on a minute. Weren't they all supposed to be dead anyway?
This is only a problem if you assume that any (or most) of this happened anyway. This kind of text is the written form of centuries of orally 'explaining how we got to be where we are today'.
For my money, these accounts are about the way the writers viewed their current situation (and how they accounted for it); they're not what we call 'history' today.
Kevin
Posts: 13 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bush baptist
Shipmate
# 12306
|
Posted
The text doesn't say that it's God's command anyway -- it says Samuel says it was God's command. Judges got things wrong, kings got things wrong, from time to time prophets get things wrong -- why assume that Samuel got everything right?
Posts: 1784 | From: drought-stricken land | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bush baptist:
The text doesn't say that it's God's command anyway -- it says Samuel says it was God's command. Judges got things wrong, kings got things wrong, from time to time prophets get things wrong -- why assume that Samuel got everything right?
IIRC, Samuel wasn't exactly a stellar character either. Part of the reason kings became popular was because the "Judges" system had become corrupt.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
