by jimwalton » Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:26 pm
Maybe I can just lay it out for you. Maybe that would be the best way to deal with your questions, and then we can go from there.
Saul was rejected by God as king in 1037 BC, 14 yrs after his crowning. This Amalekite incident happened in 1023, another in a string of failures and disobediences for him. The point of the story is not the "genocide" of the Amalekites (which, by the way, didn't happen. The Amalekites were a people group for another 1000 yrs.), but rather the failure of Saul as God's representative on the throne. His disobedience caused his dethroning (and also it was not caused by aggression or revolt on the part of David).
The Amalekites were a people group spread over a large geographic area, mostly as nomadic people, not concentrated in the cities. It simply both impractical and impossible to have wiped out the entire population. It's like saying today, "Let's wipe out ISIS!" We don't even know where they all are. It wasn't intended to be a genocidal effort. The cities were military bases; they were the targets here.
God commands that the Amalekites be punished for their attacks on Israel through the centuries (Ex. 17.8-16; Dt. 25.17-19). Samuel reminds Saul that he is king by God's appointment, not by popular vote. He has to prosecute YHWH's case. The military action isn't for political gain, ethnic cleansing, or land grabbing, but for their sins against Israel. (Israel wasn't aggressing against them at the time of their attack; the Israelites were just passing through their territory. They attacked Israel without provocation.)
Saul was to attack them and "herem" them. This verb has traditionally been translated as "totally destroy," but that has been found to be false. It means "to liberate the land from normal human use," i.e., make it sacred to God—ineligible for human use. Sometimes this was done by clearing the land, sometimes by destruction of things, sometimes by dedication. While it can mean destruction, it doesn't necessarily mean that. In this context it means that if the king is killed and their military outposts are destroyed, if the altars are removed and their idols destroyed, the Amalekites will lose their cultural identity and no longer be a people group, let alone a military threat. So there's no genocide going on here.
The "put everything to death" warfare rhetoric is their way of expressing "win a decisive victory." No one was hacking women and slaughtering babies. Again, mostly the ones who lived in the cities (i.e., fortresses) were soldiers and government officials.
So Saul musters an army in the Negev about 30 miles south of Hebron. The word "thousand" is the same word for "clan." It's unrealistic to think he mustered an army of 200,000 soldiers; it's more likely 200 divisions, and 10 divisions from Judah. He set an ambush in a single ravine near their governmental center (1 Sam. 15.5) from where the king and his court ruled. This was the target of the attack, because it is here they can best strip the Amalekites of their cultural identity. You can't genocide an entire population spread over thousands of square miles from a single ravine.
Saul attacked and won a decisive victory (15.7), as planned, chasing the losers in every direction. He captured the king and took him alive instead of killing him, but they slaughter of the politicians and military personnel in the city. By sparing the king, however, Saul has defeated the entire purpose of herem against a community, which was to destroy their identity as a people. Without killing the king, he may as well have done nothing at all. More severely, however, he has effectively declared independence from his boss, God, by honoring himself in place of the emperor (God) and by taking a vassal of his own (King Agag; see 15.32, where Agag expects to be subjugated rather than executed). This explains Samuel’s odd reference to divination and idols in v. 23.
That he won this victory in one night proves that it was not genocide. There is no way to chase down thousands of Bedouin spread from Sinai to Iraq in one night.
Saul thinks he's awesome (15.13). The land was conquered, spoils were taken, he erected a victory stele, and he prepared to sacrifice to the Lord. The animals, however, were not killed either.
God is once again displeased by Saul's disobedience and rebellion against him. His "regret" is that he can no longer count on Saul or use him to accomplish his purposes.
When Samuel arrives, he finds out Saul has erected a victory stela of his success. The erection of a stele was common, but that it was in Saul's own honor, rather than God's, is disconcerting.
Samuel hears the sheep. These sheep weren't supposed to be for sacrifice, nor were they to be taken as plunder for the benefit of the soldiers (typical warfare behavior—they got food from what they plundered). These animals in this city were supposed to have been killed. Saul made the mistake of thinking sacrifices were more important to God than obedience (15.22). (His mention of "the Lord YOUR God" [15.15] is telling.)
Saul's sins were multiple. He disobeyed, he set himself up as the center of order and wisdom, and he glorified himself.
Suffice it to say, there was no genocide (not the intent), no slaughter of children (warfare rhetoric), no hideous crimes.
With that as background (and the post is getting long), I can either answer your questions next time (just ask), or maybe this brings up new questions.