Thanks!

Sure. There were many sources. My first study is always the text itself, studying it linguistically and then inductively. Then I consult sources. For this particular text (1 Sam. 15):

• Leslie McFall, The Chronology of Saul and David, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53/5 (Sept 2010)
• John & Kim Walton, The Bible Story Handbook
• Joyce Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, 1 & 2 Samuel
• John Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest
• P. Kyle McCarter, The Anchor Bible Vol. 8, 1 Samuel
• John Walton, Victor Matthews, & Mark Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the Old Testament
• John Walton, Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Vol. 2
• Matthew Rowley, "The Epistemology of Sacralized Violence in the Exodus
  and Conquest," JETS 57/1 (March 2014)
• Paul Copan, Is God A Moral Monster?
• Os Guinness, The Dust of Death
• John Yoder, The Politics of Jesus
• Gerald Bray, God is Love
• Erez Ben-Yosef, "Biblical Archaeology’s Architectural Bias," Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2019
• John Walton, Covenant

These are the works that formed my notes for 1 Samuel 15.

> (I promise this is my last question!)

It's fine if we keep talking. I don't mind.

Thank you again for your detailed response. Were there any other sources besides the Bible that you used to come to this interpretation of this passage? (I promise this is my last question!)

Thanks again for entertaining my questions!

> From reading the passage I felt like Saul understood the command like you described it, to basically go and defeat them.

Right. One particular city (where the king lived; 1 Sam. 15.5). The point was not to kill them all, but to eliminate the core factor that held them together as a people group—their central government. By eliminating the king and decimating their main army, the Bedouin population would lose their identity as Amalekites and gradually just be absorbed into the countryside and other people groups. They would, in that sense, be "totally destroyed."

> But as you go through the chapter, he captures the king Agag and spares some of the cattle. Samuel hears from god that Saul did not follow his command. Samuel wakes up goes and finds Saul and is immediately angry when he hears the “bleating of sheep” and “lowing of cattle”. He also discovers that Agag was taken alive. .... etc. the stuff you wrote ... Samuel then goes on to kill Agag.

Correct.

> This story seems to just solidify that god meant what he said, and that it was not just an expression or rhetoric.

God wanted the king killed, the army defeated, and the animals killed. (The reason for the animals being killed was that they were not to be used for sacrifice to YHWH, which they easily might have been or could have been; nor were they to be taken as plunder for the benefit of the soldiers. They were to be killed so that no one could accuse the Israelites of attacking the Amalekites for personal gain.)

By sparing the king, Saul has defeated the entire purpose of the campaign, which was to destroy their identity as a people.

> God was demanding Saul’s obedience to his command. In the process of destroying the city I think it’s likely civilians were killed, including families and babies.

There's no reason to assume this. Saul set up an ambush in the ravine. There's no reason to assume that families and babies would be coming through the ravine with the army. Families and babies, if we presume there were some, would be left in the city for their own protection.

To add to the likelihood of this, the sheep and the cattle, flocks and herds would NOT have been in the city, either. They would have been out in the countryside. Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let many animals go, killed the weak ones, but kept the best animals (15.9) for himself and his men. That's what's going on here.

> I agree with you that Saul’s primary goal is not to kill babies, but I’m pretty sure if his army encountered any, they were killed as the lord commanded him.

There's no reason to think (1) they would have encountered any babies in the ravine or chasing down the road through the wilderness; (2) that coming across a baby they would kill it. 1 Sam. 15.5 shows us that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.

For an example, skim Deuteronomy 7. There God tells Israel that they should "defeat" and "utterly destroy" the Canaanites. And then He immediately goes to to say that after that they shouldn't intermarry with them or make treaties with them. Wait a minute! If they were "utterly destroyed," there would be no one to marry or make treaties with. "Utterly destroy" is just rhetoric, not literal. The ultimate issue there (Dt. 7.5) was to destroy their false religion, not to genocide the people. The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life. No one was killing babies.

Here also, the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). Saul's not killing them all, women and children included. Samuel is using the bravado warfare language and rhetoric of his day. The Amalekites were still around during King Hezekiah’s time 250 years later (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman (Esther 3.1) was a descendent of the Amalekites. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for nearly a millennium afterwards. God reminded his people not to let up in their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17), lest they destroy Israel. Unlike other Canaanites, the Amalekites couldn't just be assimilated into Israel.

The story of 1 Samuel 15 is really about Saul and his failure in his actions as king to represent God properly. His disobedience causes his deposing, and his rejection of the Lord causes the Lord’s rejection of him.

Thank you for taking the time to make this detailed response.

From reading the passage I felt like Saul understood the command like you described it, to basically go and defeat them.
But as you go through the chapter, he captures the king Agag and spares some of the cattle. Samuel hears from god that Saul did not follow his command. Samuel wakes up goes and finds Saul and is immediately angry when he hears the “bleating of sheep” and “lowing of cattle”. He also discovers that Agag was taken alive.

Saul tries to argue that he took the best livestock so he could offer them up to god, but Samuel rebukes him telling him he should of followed god’s command and that was more important than a sacrifice. Samuel then goes on to kill Agag.

This story seems to just solidify that god meant what he said, and that it was not just an expression or rhetoric. God was demanding Saul’s obedience to his command. In the process of destroying the city I think it’s likely civilians were killed, including families and babies. I don’t think it was just soldiers taking care of all that livestock for the amalekites.

I agree with you that Saul’s primary goal is not to kill babies, but I’m pretty sure if his army encountered any, they were killed as the lord commanded him.

> Sorry if this is a bit of whataboutism, I was just interested in the way you would interpret this entire story about Saul, Samuel and the Amalekites. I feel like this might be a better example than Abraham and Isaac.

That's fine. It's a fair question.

The "put everything to death" warfare rhetoric is their way of expressing "win a decisive victory." No one was hacking women and slaughtering babies. When one of our sports teams wants to simply crush the opposing team, they may say, "Let's kill 'em!" We all know no one is getting killed. It's our sports rhetoric for a decisive victory. In the ancient Near East, "Kill them all—men, women, children, and animals—was a way of saying "Let's win big today." No one was slaughtering children.

It's not a command to murder everyone. When their rhetoric included "infants and sucklings," that's figurative for how complete the victory would be. The Mernaptah Stele says "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not" (meaning the infants and sucklings were murdered). But that's not what happened. Israel was still around. Their children were not slaughtered. But their army was conquered. That was their warfare rhetoric in the ancient world.

Such language was somewhat common in the day.

• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
• Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)" and the "mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity)." Not true; just rhetoric.
• The "Bulletin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew "the entire force" of the Hittites, indeed "all the chiefs of all the countries," disregarding the "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff."
• Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel has utterly perished for always," which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
• The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped."

This was their cultural river. And when you look at the text, you can see they were familiar with the rhetoric and knew exactly what Samuel was instructing them to do. They set an ambush in a particular ravine (1 Sam. 15.5), and in one night (15.11-12) accomplished the task. They were attacking the city and military where the king was (15.8). From these actions, Saul understood that he had "totally destroyed" them (15.8). Saul claimed he had done what was asked (15.13).

They set an ambush in a ravine. This is not where or how you slaughter children, but instead how you trap an army. God isn't telling them to kill babies.

1 Samuel 15 1-3. Certainly seems like god is ordering the death of infants here.

Sorry if this is a bit of whataboutism, I was just interested in the way you would interpret this entire story about Saul, Samuel and the Amalekites. I feel like this might be a better example than Abraham and Isaac.

I am primarily just responding to your claim that god doesn’t tell people to kill babies. I am not making the claim that god hates babies based on this passage

God doesn't hate babies. God doesn't tell people to kill babies. Let's look at the Genesis 22 text more accurately. Here's how we know God is not demanding child sacrifice or asking Abraham to kill his son, and therefore we cannot sensibly draw the conclusion that "God hates babies."

1. Isaac was not a baby at the time.

2. Those who study Hebrew tell us that the Hebrew phrase of v. 1 is inverted for emphasis, and the effect is heightened by the definite article with Elohim. The idea is thus conveyed that this was no ordinary procedure (child sacrifice was ordinary), but that God had a particularly important objective in mind. (Speiser)

3. It specifically says it’s a test. The reason given for the command is only a "test." The most profound type of testing in stories is the test of the hero’s moral or spiritual integrity. There is no indication that children were regarded as chattel to be disposed of without compunction.

4. God’s demand that Abraham offer Isaac is unlike anything in the ancient world. Child sacrifices would have been carried out soon after birth (baby sacrifice) and would have been associated either with fertility rituals or foundation offerings to secure protection for the home. None of that is the case here, so this is not about child sacrifice.

5. The prohibition of child sacrifice in the Pentateuch demonstrates that it was sometimes practiced, but none of the potential ritual contexts are pertinent to Gn. 22. Human sacrifice may have been carried out in extreme circumstances, but there are no dire conditions here—no extremes. Undoubtedly in Gn. 22 Abraham would not have considered this command of God commonplace, and so this is not about Abraham killing babies or about God hating babies.

6. From Speiser: "The story is not about child sacrifice or God’s immorality. We can hardly go too far afield if we seek the significance of Abraham’s supreme trial in the very quest on which he was embarked. The involvement of Isaac tends to bear this out, since the sole heir to the spiritual heritage concerned cannot but focus attention on the future. The process that Abraham set in motion was not to be accomplished in a single generation. It sprang from a vision that would have to be tested and validated over an incalculable span of time, a vision that could be pursued only with single-mindedness of purpose and absolute faith—an ideal that could not be perpetuated unless one was ready to die for it, or had the strength to see it snuffed out. The object of the ordeal, then, was to discover how firm was the patriarch’s faith in the ultimate divine purpose. It was one thing to start out resolutely for the Promised Land, but it was a very different thing to maintain confidence in the promise when all appeared lost. The fact is that short of such unswerving faith, the biblical process could not have survived the many trials that lay ahead." In other words, the text isn't about killing babies.

7. Literarily, the setting is more spiritual than physical (though that doesn't mean it's not historical). The setting is about a spiritual state of soul. The journey is like a silent progress through the indeterminate and positively demands a symbolic interpretation. We quickly get the impression that the important thing is not the physical landscape but the spiritual landscape, and the physical journey actually marks the spiritual progress of Abraham toward an encounter with God. It's not about killing babies.

8. God’s covenant acknowledgement is apparent: “your son, your only son, whom you love…” The divine promise to Abraham can’t be fulfilled without Isaac. God doesn't expect Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham knows that.

9. God sent Abraham to the region of Moriah, which means “provision.” God provided for Abraham when he called him to a new land. God provided for Hagar when she was cast out. Even in the call to Moriah, God is promising salvation and deliverance. Abraham knew from the outset that he would not have to kill Isaac, but that a substitute would be provided (v. 5). The narrative context reveals repeated divine assurances and confirmations that Isaac as the child of promise and instrument of blessings to the nations. It is not about killing babies.

God tells people to kill babies because he hates babies

God told Abraham to kill his son.

More recently, a man in Texas was jailed for killing his wife and baby daughter on God's command.

https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/texas-man-said-god-told-him-to-kill-his-wife-baby

This happens so often that we need to ask, why does God hate babies so much? The most obvious conclusion would seem to be that God hates babies.