Thanks @Johann and @Bruce_Leiter
What I said to them was:
The main key to understanding this question is chronology.
To understand God’s command, we must first grasp who the Amalekites were and why they incurred such severe judgement. The Amalekites were not innocent victims but a nomadic tribe descended from Esau known for their unprovoked aggression against Israel during the Exodus. In Exodus 17:8-16, they attacked the Israelites at Rephidim, targeting the weak, weary and stragglers, those least able to defend themselves. This was not mere warfare but a cowardly assault on God’s chosen people who were en route to the Promised Land as part of His covenant promise to Abraham. God declared perpetual enmity:
“I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:14), and Moses prophesied that “the Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation” (v. 16)
This hostility persisted. The Amalekites allied with other enemies of Israel, as in Judges 3:13, 6:3-5, and embodied opposition to God’s redemptive purposes. By the time of 1 Samuel 15, around 400 years after the initial attack, God had given them ample time for repentance, centuries of long-suffering patience, as seen in His dealings with other nations like the Canaanites. The Amalekites’ culture was steeped in idolatry, violence and moral corruption, including practices like Child Sacrifice, common among the Canaanite-related groups (Leviticus 18:21). Their destruction was not arbitrary but a culmination of divine judgment on a people who had hardened their hearts against God and His people
1st Part
The Concept of Herem: Divine Warfare as Theodicy and Holy Consecration
Herem transcends modern notions of genocide; it is a theophanic act where God, as Divine Warrior, consecrates enemies to Himself in judgment as in Deut 7:2 and Joshua 6:17-21. This motif permeates Scripture: YHWH fights for Israel, not for territorial gain but to eradicate idolatry and sin’s contagion. Theodicy- the justification of God’s goodness amid evil- frames this:
Sin’s cosmic scope demands decisive action. God, omniscient and immutable, sees sin’s intergenerational ripple (Exodus 34:7), yet His forbearance (Romans 2:4) precedes wrath.
Now patristic voices Like St. Augustine, viewed such wars as allegorical for spiritual battles against vice (eg, City of God 15.4), while Aquinas defended them via natural law: *
God’s sovereignty over life renders His commands inherently just (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.94 reference).*
Modern theologians echo this, portraying herem as “a focused attack upon sinful and idolatrous religion” rather than ethnic hatred.
This challenges our perceptions: Our finite justice pales against God’s, who alone weighs hearts.
God’s Justice and Mercy: A Dialectic Culminating in Christ
Reconciling wrath with love demands seeing God’s attributes as harmonious. “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (Jam 2:13), yet holiness demands sin’s penalty. OT judgements like Flood or Sodom mirror Amalek that is corporate reckonings where mercy spares remnants. For Amalek, justice punishes centuries of savagery, while mercy shields Israel, the conduit for global salvation.
Typologically, Amalek represents the “flesh” that must be crucified, as Orgien and later interpreters allegorised. This points to Christ, the ultimate Divine Warrior who conquers evil non-violently through the cross, absorbing wrath to extend mercy. Thus, 1 Samuel 15 unveils love’s cost:
God hates sin precisely because it harms His image-bearers
Why Order the Death of Infants Incapable of Repentance?**
Lemme be clear, Infants are imprinted with natural law, created in God’s image, possess latent rationality and free will which are potentials for moral agency, not yet actualised. Why then their inclusion? This is the main question.**
- I don’t agree withthe Original sin doctrine, so those who say its inherited from Adam etc etc, what the Scripture says matters. We don’t “inherit” the sin but rather suffer its consequences.
- Merciful Prevention and Eternal Destiny:
Growing in Amalekite culture would likely corrupt them, perpetuating evil. God, foreknowing outcomes, intervenes mercifully, transitioning them to glory before moral accountability.
Evangelical consensus holds that infants dying young are elect, saved by Christ’s atonement. Theologian Albert Mohler argues Scripture implies all such infants are among the redeemed, grounded in God’s electing grace. This echoes Spurgeon:
”Infants are saved by the merits of Jesus, without works or faith”
3. Sovereignty and Imago Dei:
God owns life, and infants’ imago Dei dignifies them.
Free will’s potential remains untainted by volitional sin, yet death’s sting affects all. Unlike fleeing adults, infants’ helplessness highlights mercy:
Their souls, unhardened, RECIEVE GRACE - Theodical Resolution:
In DCT, God’s command is just; theodicy adds that suffering serves redemptive ends. Infants’ death breaks evil’s cycle, ensuring salvation rather than potential damnation.
Peace
Sam