FightingWords

Religion,Violence, andthe
Interpretation ofSacred Texts
Edited by
John Renard
Q3
UNI VERSITY OF CALIFORN IA PRESS
Berkeley Los Angeles London
!
.
l
Uni versityofCaliforniaPress.oneofthemos tdistinguished university
pressesintheUni tedStat es.enr ichesli ves aroundtheworldbyadvanc-
ingscholarshipinthehumanities.socia lsciences.and naturalsci ences.
ItsactivitiesaresupportedbytheUCPressFoundationand by philan-
thropi ccontributions fromindividualsandinstitutions. Formoreinfor-
mation.visitwww.ucpress.edu.
UniversityofCaliforniaPress
Berkeleyand LosAngeles. Californi a
UniversityofCalifornia Press. Ltd.
London.England
2012byTheRegent softheUniversityo fCalifornia
Libra r yofCongressCataloging-in-Publication Data
Fightingwords:religion.viol ence.and theinterpretationofsacred texts
/ e d i L ~ d byJohnRenard.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographicalrderencesandindex.
[SBN 978-0-520-25831-0 (clot h :alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-5 20-27419-8
(pbk. :alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-520-95408-3(ebook)
I. Violence-Reli giousaspects. 2. Sacred books- Histor yand
criticism. 3 Religions-Relations. 1. Renard.John.1944-
BL65.V55F64 2012
201.76332- dc23 2012029403
Man ufacturedinthe UnitedStatesofAmerica
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 J 2
10 8 6 4
Inkeepingwitha commitmentto supportenvironmentallyresponsible
andsustainable printingpracti ces.UCPress hasprintedthis bookon
50-poundEnterpr i"_,, a30%post-consume r- waste.recycled.deinked
fiber thatis processed chlorine-free. It is aci d-freeandmeetsallANSI/
NISO (z 39.48) requirements.
Prefa ce
l. Exegesl
John Re
2. ABrie
[nterpr
Reblvell
Annihi
3
BernhaJ
Vlolen(
4
Leo D.l
Flnhas
ofReli!
5
Michael
6. TheBa
Irnagir
Todd It
Justitia
7
Jamsi1e
8. TheFa
andth
Laurie
Words
9
(Dhari
Pashau
Glossar), ~
COl1tribut
Index
~ e l z v h
~ v ArieJ,
hUmin
'm:n.p.,
Years of
3
Annihilate Amalek!
Christian Perspectives on 1 Samuel15
BernhardA. Asen
In theAcademyAward winningmovie Patton, starringGeorgeC. Scott,anim-
portantscenefinds General Pattonfrustratedby badweather. He summonsthe
Third Armydivision chaplainandrequests a"weatherprayer." Patton: "I wanta
prayer, aweatherprayer."Chaplain:"A weatherprayer,sir?" Patton:"Yes, let'ssee
if you can'tgetGodworkingwith us."Chaplain:"Gonnatakeathickrugforthat
kindof praying."Patton:"Idon'tcareifittakesaflyingcarpet."Chaplain:"Idon't
knowhowthiswill be received,general.Prayingfor goodweathersowe cankill
ourfellowman."Patton:"I assureyou,becauseof myrelationswiththeAlmighty
ifyou writeagoodprayer,we'llhavegoodweather.AndIexpectthatprayerwithin
an hour." Chaplain: "Yes, Sir."l
In the nextscene Pattonwalks inthe blowingsnow, accompaniedby aseries
ofbackgroundimages:violentexplosionsandflamethrowersspewingfire. As he
strolls,battlehelmetunderarm,he reads aloudthechaplain'sprayer:"Almighty
and mostmerciful Fatherwe humblybeseech Thee ofThygreatgoodness to re-
strain this immoderateweatherwithwhich we've had to contend. Grant us fair
weatherfor battle. Graciouslyhearkento us as soldiers who call uponThee that
armedwithThypowerwemayadvancefromvictorytovictoryandcrush theop-
pressionandwickednessof ourenemiesandestablishThyjusticeamongmenand
nations. Amen."2 After the weatherclears ,Pattonsays to his aide: "Cod, get me
thatchapl ain. He's ingoodwiththeLordandIwanttodecoratehim. "
'These"fightingwords"for helpinbattlecanbefoundthroughouthumanhis-
toryand raisetheage-oldquestionoftherelationshipbetweenGodandviolence
inhumanexperience.Thefollowingessaydiscussesoneincidentinthatvasthis-
tory that also involved a chaplain and a military commander. In 1 Samuel 15,
55
57
56 BERNHARD A. ASE N
Samuel, a priest, prophet, and judge confronts Saul, Israel's first king, who is pre.
paring for war against the Amalekites. Samuel instructs Saul to attack Amalek
and "utterly destroy [herem} all that they have ... [and tol not spare them, but kill
both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (I Samuel
15:3). Saul 's army defeated the Amalekites but "Saul and the people spared [King]
Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the cattle and of the fatlings, and the lambs,
and all that was valuable, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised
and worthless they utterly destroyed" (1 Samuel 15:
8
-9). Samuel subsequently
confronts Saul, charging him with disobedience for not fully carrying out Yah-
weh's command. He stresses the importance of obedience (1 Samuel 15:22) and
says, "Because you [Saul] have rejected the word of Yahweh, he has also rejected
you from being king" (1 Samuel 15:23). After Samuel has "hewed Agag in pieces
before Yahweh in Gilgal" (I Samuel 15:33), he and Saul part company, never to see
each other again. The incident concludes with the words: ."And Yahweh was sorry
that he had made Saul king over Israel" (1 Samuel 15:35).
This Amalek narrative is only one of many so-called texts of terror in the He.
brew Bible (cf., e.g., Psalm 83A; Isaiah 19:1-10; Exodus IT S-16, Joshua 8:24- 5).
2
Raymund Schwager estimates that the Old Testament contains "over six hundred
passages that explicitly talk about nations, kings, or individuals attacking, destroy-
ing and killing others."3 How are we to understand such texts? Can we ignore
them? Can we simply write them off as "typically Old Testament"? Sometimes
Christians confine themselves to the New Testament and say that the texts of the
Hebrew Bible have been "abrogated" by the New Testament. But do not Christians
claim that the Old Testament is also the charter of their faith? Furthermore, such
texts of terror also Occur in the New Testament. Is not the Parable of the Pounds
that Jesus tells also in the Christian Bible? "But as for these enemies of mine who
did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and slaughter them in
my presence" (Luke 19:
2
7). And what about Acts 5:1-11 or Revelation 14?4
Many attempts have been made in recent years to come to terms with the issue
of God and violence in human culture and the Bible. One thinks, for example, of
the work of Rene Girard, Hector Avalos, and Mark Juergensmeyer, and in biblical
studies the work of Susan Niditch, Terence Fretheim, Philip Stern, and others.s
These attempts have been admirable. However, Jonathan Klawans contends that
"extravagant theorizing on the origins of religious violence will rarely stand up to
scrutiny, for scrutiny after all requires evidence, and grandiose theorizing about
such origins, by its nature, reaches beyond what the evidence can soundly sup-
port."" Klawans's advice is to "focus instead on ways in which religion in general
(and for our purposes biblical scriptures and beliefs in particular) serve to accentu-
ate, exaggerate and otherwise bring about acts of human violence in specifi c docu-
mented historical contexts. This mode of analysis begins \vith clear (and meaning-
ANNIH II. AT1' A MAl. EK
ful) definitions. It proceeds to work wit b historical data, and considers context. It
then comes to grips with the religiOUS and social dynamics in play, attending
to the "ariables that lead to the manifestation of scripturally-justified biblical
violence."1
Here I will follow the general contours of Klawans's advice and (1) consider
1SaJTluel15 in the context of the rise of kingship and the establish ment of state-
hood in Israel; (2) explore the biblical concept of"utter destruction" or the "ban"
(which is subsumed under the general idea of "holy war") in 1 Samuel 15 and its
trajectory into the latter prophets, Rabbinic literature, and the LXX; and (3)
with some comments on violence in the New Test ament and how
Christians might understand and come to terms with the specific text of terror
that is 1 Samuel 15
1 SAMUEL 15: CO: TEXT
1he Book of 1 Samuel highlights L'.'.-0 major events in Isr ael's history: (1) the estab-
lishment of the monarchy (chs. 8-12), and (2) preparing the way for David's rise
to power (chs. 16-31).s Furthermore, 1 Samuel also establishes the principle that
Israel's king is to be subject "to the prophet through whom God conveys his word.
In other words, the obedience to the word of God is the necessary condition for a
king acceptable to the God of Israel. "9
David Jobling calls 1 Samuel 12 through 2 Samuel 7 the "Book of the Everlast-
ing [i.e., unconditional] Covenant."1O The covenant operative up to 1 Samuel 13 ,
however, is conditional. First Samuel 12:25 concludes: "But ifyou still do wickedly
you sball be swept away, both you and your king." First Samuel 13 begins the "ever-
lasting covenant" with the house of David, which is central "to the Israelite con-
sciousness (and, through the theology ofJesus as Messiah, the Christian conscious-
ncss)."lI It ends with 2 Samuel 7 and the succession narrative, with the promise
that David 's "throne shall he established forever" (2 Samuel 7:16). This promise is
denied to Saul from the beginning ofhis kingship in two episodes, 1 Samuel 13:8-15
and 1 Samuel 15, both involving cultic offenses where Samuel confronts Saul.
According to David Tsumura, since "Well hausen's Prolegomena (1878), there
has been a general tendency to view these passages [13:8-15; 15:1-34] as doublets,
that is two versions of the same' incident '':12 they report Saul's offense at Gilgal,
emphasize obedience to Yahweh, and "are similar in structure."13 The basic differ-
ence between the two episodes is that Saul's transgreSSion in 1 Samuel 13 is not as
"explicit as we might like."14 Did Saul usurp Samuel's role as priest, or ,,'as his
fai lure that he did not wait long enough for Samuel to arrive? It appears that Saul
Usurped priestly authority by making offerings that Samuel, the chaplain, was to
have made. In the transition from the institution of judgeship to prophecy, and
58 BERN HARD A. ASEN
from the institution of judgeship to kingship,15 clear boundaries needed to be
established among the institutions of leadership. General Patton could very well
have written that weather prayer himself, but he did not. He followed military
protocol and, so it appears, Saul should have done so regarding the sacrifices in 1
Samuell3
The precise nature of Saul's transgression in 1 Samuel 13 has been the subject
of considerable discussion. According to Klein, "Sacrifices were normally offered
before a holy war (1 Samuel 7:9), and God's permission was frequently sought (cf.
Judges 20:23, 27; 1 Samuel T9; 14:8-10; 14:37; 23:2, 4, 9-12; 28:6; 307-8; 2 Samuel
S:19, 23)."16 Samuel, of course, was initially opposed to kingship (1 Samuel 8:6). His
opposition had been "tempered by a new system in which the charismatic savior's
(or judge's) responsibilities were assigned to the king (in leading the troops) and
to the prophet (who had to communicate to the king Yahweh's authorization for
war)." !7 Another view is that Saul was in effect combining the roles of priest and
king. In any event, Saul's "foolishness" (1 Samuel]3:13) may not have been that he
actually offered the sacrifices but that he failed to acknowledge Samuel's "higher
role as the divine messenger and to listen to the word of God."IS
In] Samuel IS, on the other hand, Saul's transgression is very clear and explicit.
He fails to be obedient down to the last detail in instituting the herem and an-
nihilating the Amalekites. Consequently, Saul is rejected as king. Now, it is true
that when Samuel confronts Saul in IS:14 about the bleating sheep and lowing
cattle, Saul does say, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people
spared the best of the sheep and the cattle, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God but
the rest we have utterly destroyed" (IS:IS). The problem is that to sacrifice and to
carry out the ban were not one and the same thing. Sacrifice usually implied that
some of the meat was set aside for human consumption. The command was to
devote everything to God. If, in fact, Saul believes he had carried out the ban to
its fullest extent, why does he say they have brought and we have utterly destroyed,
instead of J?
DEFINING THE WORD HEREAI
Because the root hrm has a broad range of semantic meanings, there is no single
generally accepted scholarly definition of the term. According to Brekelmans, the
noun herem occurs twenty-nine times in the Old Testament. TI1e root hrm "referred
originally to that which is forbidden either because it is accursed and should be
destroyed (res exsecranda) or because it is very holy (res sacrosancta}."19 Philip
Stern's discussion of the philological background of the root hrm emphasizes that
hrm denotes a separation between "that which is God's and that which is human
matched by a corresponding physical action or course ofaction making and mark-
ing the separation."2o The herem, then, is a "consecration through destruction (to
.... NNIIlILATE AYIALEK 59
a deity) of a designated enemy, with some or all of the spoils of victory set apart
to the deity by destruction, not subject to the usual division among the army."21
Susan Niditch succinctly defines the herem simply as "God's portion."22
Saul's transgression in ] Samuel IS is his failure to give the most valuable
portion of the booty from the attack on the Amalekites to God. As Niditch puts
it, "To mix humans, the highest of God's breath ing creations, with sickly or less
valuable animals is to break the whole concept of the ban as sacrifice."23 Fur-
thermore, sparing King Agag from the destruction meant that the most prized
part of the booty was not off ned to God, which was contrary to the whole idea
of the ban.
THE HEREM AS SACRIFICE
Leviticus 27:
2
8 states that "every devoted thing is most holy to Yahweh. " Here, as
well as in Leviticus 2T21, the words qodesh (holy) and herem (devoted to destruc-
tion) are juxtaposed. In these instances the herem is not an object or person that
has been destroyed, but something devoted and sacri ficed for the benefit of God
or the priests. 21 While Stern thinks that these Levitical references are later; "do-
mesticated" uses of the term herem, Niditch believes the lateness of these texts
"proves only that the sacrificial nuance of the ban is alive and well in late biblical
works."25
Consider, for example, the interesting "honey incident" just before our text in
1 Samuel 15. In 1 Samuel 14: 24, we read that Saul "committed a very rash act on
that day. He had laid an oath on the troops, saying, 'Cursed be anyone who eats
food before it is evening and I have been avenged on my enemies.' So none of the
troop tasted food" (v. 24), except, that is, for Saul's son Jonathan who ate some
honey (14:
2
7-
2
9). Some of Saul's troops slaughtered the sheep, oxen, and calves
taken from Michmash and "ate them with the blood" (14:3
2
). Saul, hearing what
his troops had done, hastily built an altar where the animals were slaughtered and
their blood sacrificially burned.
When Saul decided to attack the Philistines once again, he this time "inquired
of God" (14:37), unlike in 1 Samuell3; but he received no answer, perhaps implying
God's anger because ofthe previous violations of Saul's oath on the part ofJonathan
and some of the troops. Attempting to find out how the situation had unraveled,
Saul swore that even ifhis own son Jonathan were responsible, that person would
die. The lot was cast and pointed to Jonathan and Saul. Saul ordered the lot to be
cast once more and this time it fell to Jonathan, who readily admitted he had eaten
Some honey and was prepared to die (14:44). Fortunately, the people "ransomed
Jonathan, and he did not die" (14A5). The point ofthis narrative is that vows made
to God are clearly a matter of" do or die." What is set apart, holy, devoted to God
must be wholly regarded as such.
61
60 BERNHAHD A. ASEN
DIVINE PARTICIPATION IN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEREM
Pattonsaid tohisdivisionchaplain,"Let'sseeifyoucan' tgetGod workingwith
us." In Israel's concept ofholywar, the"sanctionandactive participationofthe
nationalgod"wasapresuppositionforwar
26
We aretoldthatwhenSaul"sawany
strongorvaliantwarrior,he tookhimintohis service" (I Samuel14:52). In fact,
however,thenumberofwarriorswas irrelevantbecause"nothing[could] hinder
Yahwehfromsavingbymanyorbyfew" (1 Samuel14:6). Thewarriorsdonotwar
alone. When Saul gives his eldest daughter, Merab, to be David's wife, he tells
David,"onlybevaliantfor meandfight Yahweh'sbattles" (I Samuel18:17).
Indeed, Exodus 15:3 states, "Yahweh is a warrior; Yahweh is his name. "27 In
oneoftheoldestknown fragments ofHebrewpoetryintheOldTestament,the
so-calledSongofMiriam (Exodus 15:1-18), Yahweh is theone who "triumphed
gloriously"andthrew"horseandriderintothesea" (v. I). ForIsrael,moreoften
thannot,itwasYahwehwhoconductedwar.DuringIsrael'sjourneytoSinaiafter
theExodusfromEgypt,theywereattackedbytheAmalekitesatRephidim(Exo-
dus 17). The Hebrewpeopleprevailednotbecauseoftheir militaryprowess but
becauseofYahweh'spowerandbecause Yahwehwould"havewarwith Amalek
fromgenerationtogeneration"(Exodus ITI6).
Before the rise ofthe monarchy, the Hebrew Bible tends to avoid the idea of
humanbeingsconductingwarwiththesupportofthedeityandinsteadseesGod
himselfinchargeofwar
28
Forexample,inJoshua10 it wasYahwehwho"threw"
the Amorites "into a panic" andYahweh who "chased"themand "threwdown
huge stones from heaven upon them" (vv. 10-11). It was Yahweh who "gave the
Amoritesoverto the Israelites" (v. 12). Indeed,Joshuaeven enlistedthesunand
themoon(v. 12) untilvictorywas won. Similarly,intheSongofDeborah(Judges
5), the"starsfoughtfromheaven...againstSisera"(v. 20) and"thetorrentKishon
swept them away" (v. 21). There are also numerous instances where "Yahweh's
spirit"(ruach) comesto therescue(cf. Judges 6:34, for Gideon; 14:6, for Samson)
orwheretheenemyis routedbecausetheenemyis frightenedbyIsrael'sGod(cf.
Judges7:22; 1Samuelno;14:15).
It is the transition to the monarchywhen the people demand to have a king
who will "gobefore us andfight ourbattles" (1 Samuel8:20). However, neverin
Israel's history does Yahweh appear to be a mere spectator or figurehead with
regardtonationalpoliticsormilitaryaffairs.Intheideologyof kingship,itis clear
thatit is notthekingbutYahweh whoisthesubjectofwarandvictory.It is God
whostrikestheking'senemies"onthecheek"andbreaks"theteethof thewicked"
(Psalm3:7), andGod"whositsintheheavensandlaughs"(Psalm2:4) andbreaks
thenations"witharodofiron"anddashesthem"inpieceslikeapotter'svessel"
(v. 9).
A NN IIiILATJ; AMAl. E K
In additiontodivineleadershipandsanction,a"holywar" also requiredthe
supportof religiOUSofficials .IntheprotocolsofholywaroutlinedinDeuteronomy
20 the instruction is given, "Before you engage in battle, the priest shall come
forwardandspeaktothetroopS,andshallsaytothem:' Hear,0 Israel!Todayyou
aredrawingneartodobattleagainstyourenemi es.Donotloseheart,orbeafraid,
orpanic,orbeindreadofthem;for itis YahwehyourGodwhogoes withyou,to
fight for youagainstyourenemies,togiveyouvictory'''(vv. 3-4)
Adesireto"getGodworkingwithus" wasnotconfinedtoIsrael.TheMesha
Stone,datingfromtheninthcentur yB.C..,speaksabouthowKingMeshaliber-
atedhislandandpeoplefrom thesovereigntyofIsrael'skings with thehelpof
thegodChemosh ,29 Theston'e reportshowMeshaviciouslycarriedout"ethnic
cleansing" ofIsraelite settlements: "Now the men ofGad had always dwelt in
thelandof Ataroth,andthekingofIsraelhasbuiltAtarothforthem:butIfought
against the town and took it and slew all the people ofthe to\\'n as satiation
[intoxication] for ChemoshandMoab. And Ibroughtbackfrom thereArel [or
Oriel],itschieftain,dragginghimbeforeChemoshinKeriotl,andIsettledthere
men ofSharon and men ofMaharith."'oWhile the conceptofthe "ban" does
not appearhere, it seemstobe implied. The inhabitantswere eradicatedcom-
pletelyfor thesake ofChemosh,andall ofthe remainingmaterial possessions
(houses,land,householdgoods),thankstoChemosh,fell intothehandsofthe
Moabites. The text continues:"And Chemosh said to me ,' Go,takeNebofrom
Israel!' So I went by night and fought againstit from the breakofdawn until
noon,takingandslayingall ,seventhousandmen,boys,women,girlsandmaid-
servants, forI had devoted them to destruction [herem] for (the god) Ashtar-
Chemosh. And Itookfrom there the [...] ofYahweh,draggingthembefore
Chemosh. And the kingofIsraelhadbuiltJahaz,andhe dwelt there while he
was fightingagainslme, butChemoshdrovehimoutbeforeme."31 Here,again,
the extermination of the population is mentioned. But in this instance, the
women also are includedandtheword ban (herem) is used (the sameword as
in Hebrew). Everythingis dedicatedtothegod Chemosh,whosetaskit was to
32
give landandto guidepeopleintimes ofwar
InaddiliontotheMeshaStone,therearefurtherparallelstogenOCidalactions
33
amongtheHittitesandinsomeancientGreekandRomanliterature TheMesha
Stone, however, is clearly the "closest parallel to the biblical command against
Amalek."34The difference is that the contextofthe Mcsha Stoneis set withina
dream and,unlikethebiblicalinjunction,itis notcommandedbyagod.
Did Israel, then, like its neighbors, actually practice this kind ofholy war?
Can1Samuel15 beconSidered,perKlawans'sadviceabove,aspecificdocumented
historicalcontextof holywar?Thesearedifficultquestionstoanswerdefinitively
becauseofthe paucity ofthedata.The BookofDeuteronomyprovides us with
onlyahandfuloftexts concerningthe conductofthe herem inIsrael. Deuter
63
62 BER N IlAHD A. ASEN
onomy7:
1
- 2 unequivocallystatesthatwhen Yahweh bringsthepeopleintothe
land,hewillclearaway"manynations,"includingthe"Hittites,theGirgashites,
theAmorites,theCanaanites,thePeri zzites,theHivites,andtheJebusites,"and
whenhedoes,thesenationsaretobe"utterlydestroyed."NotalIwars,however,
resulted intheherem. Deuteronomy20 seesatleastthreepossibleoutcomesof
war: (I) Ifacityacceptstermsofpeaceandsurrender,alI thepeopleinit"shall
serve you at forced labor"(v. 10). (2) Ifthe termsofpeace arerejected and the
people continue to fight, the cityis besieged and alI the males are put "tothe
sword" (v. 13), but the "women, the children,li vestock, and everythingelse in
the town, all its spoil" (v. 14) is takenas plunder. (3) However, the cities ofthe
"peoplethatYahweh yourGodis givingyou as aninheritance" (v. 16) areto be
"annihilated"[herem} ...sothattheymaynotteachyoutodoalltheabhorrent
things that theydo (v. 18). Iheonlyexception to annihilation is the trees that
producefood (vv. 19-20).
Deuteronomy21:10-
1
4mentionsthatmarriagetocapturedwomenis possible,
butif, aftera time, thehusband is not"satisfied withher" (v. 14), heis tosether
free andnotseII herlikeaslave. Apparently, themilitarycampswhereIsraelwas
biIIetedwereconsideredsacredspace.Deuteronomy23:9-
1
4speaksaboutguard.ing
against"anyimpropriety"(v. 9), includingnocturnalemissionsandthedisposal
ofbodily excrement (vv. 10-12), because "Yahweh your God travels along with
yourcamp"(v. 14). Furthermore,a newlymarriedman"shaIInotgooutwiththe
armyorbechargedwithanyrelatedduty. Heshallbefreeathomeoneyear,tobe
happywiththewife whomhehasmarried "(24:5).
WhetherornotIsraelactuallyimplementedthebanisalsoacontroversialissue.
AccordingtoMosheWeinfeld, thebanin Deuteronomyis a "utopian program,"
aKulturkampf againstthegodsoftheCanaanitesandthe"abhorrentthingsthat
theydo for theirgods, and [by which] you thus sin against Yahweh your God"
(Deuteronomy20:18)35Inherstudyofwarideologyin theHebrewBible,Susan
Niditchmaintainsthat"thebaninitsferocitycannotsimplyberejectedas alater
'accretionoranuntruereflectionoftherealreligionof Israe!."36AndC. Brekelmans
concludesthat"onecannotprovethattheherem wasapermanentelementof the
holy war. It was apparentlypromised and executed only in particularcrises in
ordertoassureGod'said (cf. Numbers2J:2ff.; Judges1:17)."37
Animportant related matteris thedating ofI Samuel 15. McCarterassigns 1
Samuel15 toamiddle,thoughstillpre-Deuternomistic,propheticstrand, 3R while
Sternthinks I Samuel15 goes "backto theearliestpartoftheSamueltraditions,
certainlynolater thanthe ninth centuryB.C."39 Zevit claims that the "literary
sourcesconveyingthestory(I Samuel IS] dateto theninth-eighthcentury(Exo-
dus),andtheseventh(Deuteronomy,1Samuel),whilethenarrativesconcernevents
thatoccurred,accordingtothehistoriographictradition,inthetwelfth,eleventh,
and tenthcenturiesBCE."4Q Otherscholarsconsider1Samuel15 to be thebegin-
ANNIHILATE A:\1ALEK
ning ofa hypothetical source called the Histor yof David's Rise (HDR), which
attempts to explainSaul's rejection and David's subsequentrise.
41
Accordingto
Klein,because theHDRis a hypotheticaldocument"whose exactlimits cannot
be determined,thepurposeorintendedaudienceofthedocumentmaynever be
determined to everyone'ssatisfaction"42 Inthe end, thereis no certaindatethat
can be aSSigned to 1Samuel 15. Its composition could have happened anytime
from the reign ofJosiah(640- 609 B.C.E.) to thepostexilicera(550 B.C.E.) 43
Is 1Samuel15, then, a specific documented historical text? It is difficult to say
with certaint y,butsurelythenarratorof!Samuel15 presentsitas historical.The
banwasconsideredtobe"God'sportion,"Handinvolved"rootingoutthecancer-
ousand contagious 'other,' thatwhichis uncleanbecause ofsin."45 Saul was as-
signed the taskofrootingouttheAmalekites andgiving Godhis required "por-
tion";buthefailedandthuswasrejectedasking, andthe"spi r it"(ruach) ofYHI"IH
departedfromSaul,andanevilspiritfr omGodbegantormentinghim(1 Samuel
16:14). Onewonderswhether inthosemomentswhenDavidwasplayingthelyre
to dlspelthatevilspiritfrom Saul(1 Samuel16:23), Saulmayhavethought,Why?
WhydidGodbringSaulsofaronlytocasthimoff?
AccordingtoWalterDietrich and ChristianLink, theremayhave been three
possibl ereasons
A6
I. The biblical narratorhadtocometotermswitha basicdatumofthebegin-
ningofthemonarchywherethesovereigntyofSaul, theBenjaminite,and
hisfamil yhadtobetransferredto theJudean, David,andhis successors.
Suchtransferenceofsovereigntywasnottypicalofthemonarchicalsystem,
andthebiblicalhistoriographersdidnothaveanadequateexplanationfor
it. Theywerecertain,however,thalGodwasinvolved in thisfundamental
change.Saul's rise, then, couldnotgo counterto God 'swill; hehadto blaze
thetrailtomakewayforDavid.
2. Accordingtothebiblicalaccount,Godwasforced to initiateandallowthe
monarchy, andhadnotfreelyagreedto itorfreelyinstitutedit. BeforeSaul
everenteredthescene,itwas "alItheelders"whocametoSamuelandin-
sistedthathe"appointfor us ,then,akingtogovernus, likeothernations"
(ISamuel8:5; cf. 8:19-20). Samuelconsideredthe request"evil" (ra'); God
himselfperceivedit asa dethronement. Godwouldnotorcouldnotprevent
fsraelfrom doingsomethingsodangerousandwrongheaded.Consequently,
GodevenhelpedthepeoplebyprovidinginSaula suitablecandidatefor
kingship(1 Samue!9:1-1O, 16). Indeed, Godhad"chosen"Saulto beking
(1 Samuel10:24), butit wasachosennessjoinedto specificexpectations:Saul
was tofulfill hisresponsibilitiesandentrusthimselftoSamuel's leadership.
Instead,hebegantomakedecisions solelyonhisownandthosedecisions
becameincreasinglycatastrophic.Asecondreason,then,why God rejected
65
64 BERNHARD A. ASEN
SaulaskingwasthatGodwanted thebest forIsrael,andSaul was notthe
bestIsrael had.
3. AnomnipotentandomniscientGodshould haveknownwhomhewas
choosingtobeking,andwhetherthatpersonwascapableofperforming
thetask. TheSaulnarrativeshowsthat"i n thissensetheGodofthebible
is notomniscientandomnipotent.Hewillormustallowhumanbeings
andrelationshipstodevelopinunexpectedandevennegati ve directions."47
Saulwasnot,essentially, an evilperson. Hadhe followed protocoland
strictlyadheredtotherulesofthegame,hemighthavebeenaneffective
ruler.When thatdidnothappen,Godintervenedto protectIsraelfrom
ruination.WasSaul,then,avictimofthefa ilureofdivineforesight? No.
"Rather,Saulwasanadmonitoryexampleofthefreedomofhuman beings
(whoareentrustedwithenormouspower)toactfaithlesslytowardGodand
theirfellows, andfor thefreedomofGodtocountersuchfait hlessness. "48
Dealing with Amalek would now be left to a "neighbor" ofSaul 's, a "better
man"(1 SamuellS:28),namedDavid. As theBookof1Samuelnearstheend,the
Amalekites reappearinchapter30, but thi s time it is not Saul \-vho has to deal
with them, butDavid. Had Saul carried outthe herem against the Amalekites
backinchapt erIS, thissecondbattlewouldnotbenecessary. Aschapter30opens,
the Amalekites have successfully raided, burned, and looted Ziklag, and have
carried offDavid's two wives, Ahinoamand Abigail (v. S). Before pursuingthe
raiders, however, David, indirectcontrast to Saul ,seeks "strengthinthe Lord
hisGod"byconsultingwiththepriest,Abiathar. Permissionisgrantedtopursue
the raiders (v. 8) and David eventuallyrecovers everythingthe Amalekiteshad
taken,includinghistwowives (v. 18). Intheprocessofattacking,"four hundred
young [Amalekite) men"mountcamelsand getaway (v. 17) .Consequently,not
evenDavi dcompletelyannihilatestheAmalekites.Atleas tfourhundredofthem
livetofightanotherday.
ThefateoftheAmalekitesafterDavid'stimeismentionedbrieflyin1Chronicles
4A2- 43, where we are informed that "five hundred men ofthe Simeonites ...
dest royed the remnant of tbe Amalekites that had escaped." According to 1
Chronicles 4:41,this incident occurred "in the days ofHezekiah," which would
havebeen sometimeintheeighthcenturyB.C.E.
Theveryfirst verse of2Samuel begins:"After the death ofSaul, when David
hadreturnedfromdefeatingtheAmalekites,DavidremainedtwodaysinZiklag."
Duringthistime,ayoungmancameandreportedthedeathsofSaulandJonathan
to David (cf. 1Samuel31). The young man confesses to having killed Saul, and
twicetell sDavidthatheisanAmalekite (vv. 7,13). Finally, David has theyoung
man killed,not because he was anAmalekite,but because he "ki lled Yahweh's
anointed" (v. IS). Accordingto Feldman, Pseudo-Philo 6S-4 identifies theyoung
ANN IHILATE AMA L F..K
nlessenger as "EdabLl:; ,the sonofAgag, the king ofthe Amalekites whomSaul
had spared,thusstressingthelesson thatSaulhad to pay forhi sfailureto carry
d
. d"49
outthe Ivwecornman .
WHO WERE THE AMALEKITLS?
Whywas itsoimportantthatthe Amalekitesbedest royed? Whyweretheysuch
abated andintractableenemy' Genesis36providesagenealogyofEsau's descen-
dants. Accordi ngto Genesis36:11, 12and1Chronicles 1:3
6
,Amalck was bornto
Tim ,the concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son. While not mentionedby name in
na
any extrabiblicalsource,they wereprobablynomadsand,as theBible describes
t h ~ J I 1 Israel 's mostdespisedenemy..The Amalekiteswere notconsidered partof
the Canaani le population, butwere probablya westernbranch ofthe Edomites
(Genesis 36:12; Psalm837-8) active somewhere in theNegev (cf. Genesis 147;1
Samuel 27:
8
). 50 Starting at Genesis 14:S,thestoryis told howinthe"fourteenth
yearChedorlaomerandthek. ingswhowerewithhimcameand subdued...all
tbecountryoftheAmalekites."SI WhileNumbers13:29 recordsthattheylived in
"thelandof theNegeb,"theirnomadictravels,accordingto1 Samuel lS:7,extended
"fromHavilahasfarasShur,whichiseastof Egypt ."Whattheirpreciserelation-
shipwas to theIsraelitesandwhytheyweresodespisedis difficulttodetermine.
FirstSamuellS:2saystheyweretobepunished"forwhattheydidinopposingthe
Israelites when [they) came up outofEgypt." Exact lywhat they did, however,is
nevermentioned.Deuteronomy2S: 17-19impliesthattheAmalekitesattackedthe
Israelites whenthey were "faintand wear)',andstruckdownall who lagged be-
hind." Zion)'Zevit translatesDeuteronomy2S:18 as "and he 'untailed'inyou all
stumblersbehindyou," implyingthattheAmalekitesattacked"stragglersbehind
themaingroupfromtherear."S2
The Amalekite king, Agag, is mentioned seven times in 1SamueilS Aking
namedAgagalsoappearsinBalaam'soracleinNumbers247Inthatsameoracle,
Anl alek is mentionedtwicein v. 20, but, accordingto Feldman,Balaam'soracle
is "apparentlydeliberatelyambiguousastowhoseresponsibilityit is toeliminate
theAmalekites."53 ThewordAgagite alsoappearsas aGentilicnamefor Haman,
thehatedenemyof theJewsintheBookof Esther(p,10;8:3, S; 9:
2
4). :;4 Intheonly
other reference to Amalek, Exodus ITS-13 says that he "came and fought with
IsraelatRephidim"(v. 8),butdoesnotcallhimaking.Thisisthewell -knownepi-
sode whereAaronandHurheld upMoses'swearyhands"untilthesunset. And
JoshuadefeatedAmalekandhispeoplewiththesword" (vv. 12-13)
Finally, 2Samuel8Aindicatesthat"YahwehgavevictorytoDavid'vvhereverhe
went."Amalekislistedin2Samuel8:12asoneofthenationsthatDavid"subdued"
(v. 11),andafterthedaysofSaulandDavid,as mentionedabove, theAmalekites
were"nolongernamedasseriousopponents."55
67
66 BERNHARD A. ASEN
THE AMALEKIT ES A ND HERENI I N THE PROPHETS,
RABBINIC LITERATURE, AND THE LXX
Whiletheconceptof theherem andthethreatof theAmalekitesplayimportant
roles inthestories ofSaul's declineandDavid'srise, theydonotfigure promi-
nentlyintherestof theHebrewBible. Israel'sprophetsusethewordherem very
sparinglyintheiroracles,anddonotmentionAmalekatall. Onemightwonder,
forexample,whyAmalekis notatthetopofAmos'slistinhisoraclesagainstthe
nations (1:1-2:8). Stern is no doubt correct when he says: "It would be futile to
speculateasto whythe earlierprophets, suchas Amos, Hosea, andIsaiah, did
notchoosetoemploytheherem aspartoftheirformidablerhetoricalarsenals."s6
Andwheretheprophetsdousethewordherem, theytendtouseitinafigurative,
metaphoricalsense
S7
In Isaiah 34:
2
,5(which has not been clearlydatedto the exilic orpostexilic
period),thepoetwrites:"ForYahwehisenragedagainstallthenationsandfurious
againstall theirhordes; he has doomedthem, hasgiventhemoverfor slaughter
[herem). ...Whenmyswordhas drunkits fill intheheavens, 10, it will descend
upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed to judgment [herem}." Here the
deuteronomicconceptoftheherem extendstoallnations. The loss of identityin
theexilicandpostexilicerabecomesalmostdelusional,58 andtheideaoftheherem
isreinstitutedinitsharshestforminordertodenounceallformsofnon-Yahwistic,
nonorthodoxthinkinginthesharpestterms."Onecan,perhapsmust,bestartled
bysuchuncompromisingharshness.However,oneshouldnotoverlookthatwhat
mightbepresenthereisabloody, painfulself-critique."59
InMalachi3:24(EnglishRSV: 4:6) andZechariah14:11, thewordherem is used
as ametonymforwarandwrath.Malachiendswiththewords: "Hewillturnthe
hearts ofparentstotheirchildrenandthehearts ofchildrentotheirparents,so
thatIwill notcomeandstrikethelandwithabanofutterdestruction [herem}."
The landwas Yahweh's andaccesstothelanddependedon"familyharmony, "60
and ifsuch harmonywas not achieved, "Yahweh would smite the land herem,
meaningthathewouldremovethelandfromthehumanspherebyforce, forthe
worldordercouldnotbeachievedbyYHWH'swordalone."61 Zechariah14:1Ithen
states: "Andit [Jerusalem] shall beinhabited,for neveragainshallit be doomed
todestruction[herem}; Jerusalemshallabideinsecurity."
Later, inRabbinicliterature,thedemandtoeradicatetheAmalekites stillap-
plied. However,accordingto Feldman,therabbis "leftconsiderablelatitudeas to
whentheeradicationoftheAmalekiteswillbecarriedOUt.','62Thetendencyamong
therabbiswastoplacethefinal eliminationoftheAmalekitesnotinhistorybut
attheendof time.
Inone ofthe Dead Sea Scroll fragments, 4Q252, Col IV, we read: "It was he
whomSaulsl[ew],ashesaidthroughMosesinrespectof thelastdays,'Iwillerase
Af'NII-lILATE AMALEK
thememor yofAmaleqfromundertheheavens.'"63 Thescrollfragmenthereis no
doubt commenting onDeuteronomy 25:19: "Therefore when Yahweh your God
has givenyou restfrom allyourenemies onever yhand,inthelandthatYa hweh
vourGodisgivingyou asaninheritancetopossess,youshallblotouttheremem-
branceof Amalekfromunderheaven;donotforget."However,thescrollfragment
substitutes"inrespectof thelastdays"for"whenYahwehyourGod t i ~ givenyou
restfromallyourenemiesoneveryhand."HThis appearstobe inharmonywith
the Rabbinicideat hat Amalek'sfinal destruction will nothappeninhistorybut
at theeschaton.
It is mostinterestingthat whentheLXX deals with Old Testament passages
thatspeakofYahweh as awarriorGod,thetranslatorsdrasticallyalterthetexts.
For example, Exodus 15:3, "Yahwehis a manofwar," becomes "the Lord brings
warstonothing"intheLXX;and Isaiah 42:13, "Yah'Aehgoesforthlikeasoldier,
likeawarriorhe stirsuphiswrat h," reads, "theLordcrusheswar." Accordingto
William Klassen, "apparently influential members ofthe Jewish community
soughttominimizethebellicosedepictionsofYahweh."65 IAlhyorwhatcircum-
stancespromptedsuchachangeis unknown.Yahwehis describedasagodofwar,
and iJhehasthepowerto wagewar, healsohasthepowertodestroyit.
CHRI STI AN MODES OF PLJ'LECTION 0 1\ THE BIBLICAL RECORD
At the beginni ng ofthis essay, I noted that Christians cannot simply evade or
ignoretextsofterrorlike1Samuel15, becausetheOldTestamentisalsothecharter
ofthe Christianfaith. Nonetheless,those ofus who walkdailyintoa classroom
orfaceaSundaymorn.ingBibleclassknowthechallengeof tryingtoanswerques-
tionsabGul "thatOldTestamentGod"whois notonlyinvolvedinbutcommands
violenceandthetotaldestr uct ionofentirepeoplesandnations.AccordingtoRay-
mundSchwager,"Nootherhumanactivit )' orexperienceis mentionedas often,be
ittheworldof workortrade,of familyandsexuality,orthatof knowledgeandthe
experienceof nature.Forthebiblicalauthors,themostimpressiveanddistressing
experienceseemstohavebeenthathumanbeingswarwithandkilloneanother."66
Inhis"ConcludingReflectionsonReligionandViolence:Conflict,Subversion
andSacrifice,"StephenMariniwrites,"Ourstudentsalwaysaskwhyreligionseems
to be such a cause ofviolence, when it proclaims universal values ofpeace and
harmony. ...Fromaculturalandhistoricalperspective,it is certainlydifficultto
denythatreligionis indeeda majorsourceofhumanviolence."67
How, then, do we deal with it all, makesome sense ofthesenseless violence?
Do wesuppressit,avoidit,explainitaway?Attemptingtospiritualize,historically
adjust, idealize, view as metaphor, or reduce to "God's mysterious ways" such
toughtextsis dishonest
68
Somehowwe havetocometotermswithit. How,then,
might Christianscometotermswiththe"fightingwords"thatare1Samuell5?
69
68 BERNllARD A. ASEN
First, one needs to remember that 1 Samuel 15 is situated in the context of es-
tablishing a national identity. At such a time, it is not impossible to imagine invok_
ing God's help. It is also easy to invoke God's help when that national identity is
shattered and lost, as it was in the exilic and postexilic era. According to Psalm
72, Israel's kings were responsible not only for the military protection and defense
of God's people, but also for establishing justice in the land. The psalmist pro-
claims: "Give the king your justice, 0 God, and righteousness to a king's son. May
he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the
mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he
defend the cause of the poor people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the
oppressor" (vv. 1-4). And in Third Isaiah's hopeful description of the coming of
God, the redeemer and transformer of Zion, we are told that "Peace" will be ap-
pointed the overseer and "Righteousness" the taskmaster: "Violence shall no more
be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall
call your walls Salvation and your gates Praise" (60:17-18). As Fretheim puts it,
"Such a resolute divine opposition to human violence is important to remember
in reflecting upon divine violence. In sum: if there were no human violence, there
would be no divine violence."69
Second, one might cite a more contemporary example: the terror of Auschwitz.
In this regard, Dietrich and Link provide the following scenario.
7o
What ifa legion
of well-trained Allied soldiers- or a legion of angels-had gathered together the
torturers and murderers of the Nazi concentration camps and invoked Deuter-
onomy 20:13, 16: "You shall put all its males to the sword .... You must not let
anything that breathes remain alive." How might the victims of the Shoah have
reacted to that? Might they not also have affirmed and shouted the words of Psalm
58:11: "People will say, 'Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a
God who judges on earth?'"
Vie know that no avenging soldiers-or angels-appeared at Auschwit z or any
of the other death camps. By the time the Allies did arrive to liberate the con.cen-
tration camps it was too late. Violence had taken its course-but on the other side.
71
Third, while the idea of the herem is not present per se in the New Testament,
it would be incorrect to claim that the New Testament does not have a concept of
divinely sanctioned war. According to Sigmund Mowinckel, there is mention in
Rabbinic literature of a Messiah ben joseph, who will defeat Gog at the end oftime?2
This "War-Messiah" was thought by some to be even more warlike than the ex-
pected Davidic messiah.
Furthermore, as Terence Fretheim states, "The New Testament especially, with
its talk about hell, even envisions an eternal violence, in which God is very much
involved (e.g., Matthew 13:36-50; Revelation 14:9-11)."73 Christians should not
overlook that the Book of Revelation contains considerable violence. In Revelation
19, for example, the rider on the white horse, the Lamb (Jesus Christ), initiates the
ANl'I f rllLAT E AM ALEK
final, decisive battle against evil. The rider is described as "clothed in a robe dipped
in blood .... [with] the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, wh ite and pure, ...
following him on white horses" (W13-14) This imagery is very reminiscent of
Isaiah 63, where Yahweh's robes are red with the blood of the Edomites (the de-
scendants of Esau) , ),\.hose "juice splattered" on Yahweh's garments and "stained
all his robes" (v. 3). The "armies of heaven" (Revelation 19:
1
4) recall numeroUS Old
Testament texts that extol the deeds of Yahweh of hosts (literally, Yahweh of the
armies) and speak of hi s wrath (cL e.g, Isaiah 9:
1
9; 10:23; 13:4, 13; 31:4). However,
according to Wilfrid Harrington, "In all of this Christians endure- they do not
take violent action against the worshipers of the beast. The message of Revelation
is, in its apocalyptic dress, the message of jesus. There must be a response to in-
justice, to oppression. That courageous response which may and can demand the
ultimate saaifice, is always non-violent."74
Fourth, and most important, however, is thatthe Old Testament shadow of vio-
lence and brutality follows Jesus himself from the beginning to the end of his
earthly life, which finds its denouement in a passion story?5 It is the story of a vio-
lent death, which, yes, happens with God's permission. jesus is crucified between
two criminals (Luke 2B3). However, long before this final act of violence, the
gospels narrate jesus's entire life under that shadow of violence. His life began
with the flight into Egypt, where the infant jesus narrowly escaped Herod's geno-
cide in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:13-15), and the connection is made wit h the Exodus
from Egypt, which certainly would have recalled the death of the firstborn in the
tenth and final plague (Exodus 11:4-8; 12:29-30).
Then, at the midpoint of jesus's earthly career, a voice from heaven reminiscent
of another foundational event in the Old Testament called out. The words "This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17) surely would have
called to mind Abraham's son, Isaac, who also is described as "your son, your only
son Isaac, whom you love," and who was to be offered "as a burnt offering" (Genesis
22:2). The passion history records an event where God permits what, at the last
moment, God did not permit in the Abrahamllsaac story. God, as Paul says, citing
Genesis 22:16, "did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all ofus."76
In Mark 14 (cf. Matthew 26; john 18), after jesus finished praying in the garden
of Gethsemane, judas arrived with a crowd of people who were carrying swords
and clubs. Jesus was betrayed and arrested, and then "one of those who stood near
[John 18:10 identi fie s this person as Peter] drew his sword and struck the slave of
the high priest, cutting off his ear" (v. 47). In Matthew's account of this incident,
Jesus does say, "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at
once send more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures
be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?" (Matthew 26:53-54).
The violence continues when jesus is spat upon, blindfolded, struck, and beaten
(Mark 14:65). A crown of thorns is placed on his head and he is struck with a reed
7
1
70 llERNHARD A. ASEN
(Mark15:18).Amurderer, Barabbas, is chosento be setfree insteadofJesus ,who
haddonenoevil (Mark15:6-15).
Inthefinalsceneofthegospelpassionaccount,Christiscrucifiedbetweentwo
cr iminalsandalloftheviolenthistoryofthepastis castinanewlight.According
to Luke, oneoftheconvicts crucifiedwithJesus says, "Andweindeedhavebeen
condemnedjustly,forwe aregettingwhatwe deservefor ourdeeds,butthis man
has done nothing wrong" (23:41). This, bythe way, may havebeen how the Old
Testamentwritersthoughtaboutthecondemnationof theAmalekites.Theywere
receivingjustpunishmentfor theiroppression ofthe Hebrew people. However,
fortheNewTestamentwitnesses,Jesus'scrucifixionwas notjust,aDd evenPilate
could find no faultin him (Luke 24A, 14; John18:38; 19A, 6). Inthe crucifixion,
Godhimselfsteppedintotheworld's violentweb andputhisdivinityontheline.
Christ ians confessthat God became human in the form ofhis onlyson, Jesus,
whenthegoodofhiscreatureswas threatenedbyviolence.
Christiansdonothaveeasyanswersorquickremediestotheproblemsofwar
andviolence. God'shistorywithhis peoplehas notyetreachedits goal. There is
sti ll suffering, death, and tears. And,sad to say, there is always anotherAmalek
outthere thatsomeonewantsto annihilat e. Nations,like individuals, have long
memoriesandtheybeargrudges.Ontheonehand,itisunderstandablethatIsrael
would want to retaliate. Afterall, whenthepeoplewereleavingEgypt,theAma-
lekitesattackedfromtherear,terrori zingthe"faintandweary," thosewholagged
behind (Deuteronomy25:J7-18). Such violence against the mostvulnerable and
helpless ofthe refugees could not go unpunished. As the story is told, it would
havetowaituntilalatertime,butt herewouldberetaliation.Christiansandothers
continueto identify their nemeses as Amalekites.You mightGooglethe words
"moderndayAmalekites"sometime.Ifound21,700results,associatingeverybody
fromAhmadinejadtoZionists,fromAI-QaedatothePalestinians,aswell asevery
evil fromthesinsof the"flesh"andspirituallethargytogayandlesbianlifestyles,
withtheancientcohortsofAmalek.SuchsearchingforAmalekonlycompounds
theviolenceanddeepensthebitterness.Allfait htraditionscall upontheircom-
munitiesto rejectviolenceandto ceaselooki ngfor Amalek.Chri stianscertainly
are summonednotonlyto rej ectviolence butto"letthesamemind"be inthem
thatwas inChri stJesus, "whoemptied himself,tookon theform ofaslave, and
becameobedienttodeath-evendeathonacross"(Philippians 2:6-8).
In the verylast scene ofthe movie Patton, Patton (George C. Scott) recalls the
traditionof Romanconquerorswhorodeinatriumphalchariotwhileaslavestood
behindtheconquerorholdingagoldencrownandwhisperinginhisearawarning
thatall glory is jleeting.77
Saul'sglory was indeed fleeting. As Jobli ng puts it, "ifthe Bible has a figure
ANNI H IL AT E AiVIA l.EK
comparable to the tragic heroes ofGreekdrama thatfigure is KingSaul."78 He
mayhave "killedhisthousands," butDavidkilled his "tenthousands" (1 Samuel
18:;)andineverysensebecamethe"engine ofIsrael's imagination."79 Intheend,
there isnogloryinviolence. None. It was notSaul'sglory, orDavid's, thatmat-
tered,butYahweh's. Centurieslater,anotherBenjaminitenamedSaul,"alsoknown
aspaul"(Acts13:9),himselfnostrangertoviolenceandpersecution(cf. Galatians
1:13,23;Philippians3:6; 1Corinthians15:9; Acts8: 1) ,woulddrawattentiontothat
glorywhenhe spoke totheChristiansinRome:
Do notrepayanyoneevil for evil, buttakethought for whatisnobleinthesightof
all.If itispossible,sofarasitdependsonyou,livepeaceablywithall. Beloved,never
avengeyourselves,butleave roomforthewrathofGod;foritiswritten,"Vengeance
is mine,Iwillrepay, says theLord," [ef. Proverbs20:22;24:291.No;"ifyourenemies
arehungry,feedthem;iftheyarethirsty,gi ve themsomethingtodrink;forbydoing
lhis you will heap burningcoalson theirheads." Do not beovercomebyevil ,but
overcomeevilwithgood.(Romans12: 17- 21)
NOTES
l. IV\'! w.scr i pt- 0 - rama.comImovie-scripts /p/ patton-script-transcript -george-scott.ht mI.
1. SeeMsgr.JamesH. 0' :-',,, ;II, "TheTrueStoryofThePattonPrayer," wIVw.pattonhq.com/prayer
.hun!.
3 RaymundSchwager, Must There Be Scapegoats? \ 'iolen ce cl11 d Redemption in the Bible, trans.
:Via r;aL.Assad(SanFrancisco:Harper& Row,1987), 47 AllBiblicalcitationsarefromHarperCollins
StudyBible,NewRevi sedStandardVersionWiththeApocryphalandDeuterocanonicalBooks(New
York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1993)
4. Foradiscussionofreligi OUS violence andsomeNewTestamenttexts,seeDavid Frankfurt er,
"The LegacyofSectarian Rage: \. engea nce Fantasies in theNewTes tament ," in Religion and Vio-
ICilce: Hie Biblical He ri tage; Proceedings of a Conference Held at \\'ellesley Coll clie and Boston
Universit y, Fe bruary 19-20, 2006, ed. Da\'id A. Bernat and Jonat han Kl awa ns(Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2007),114- 18; A.Y.Coll ins, The Combat IHyth in the Book of Revelation (Missoul a:
Scholars Press,1976); id em,Cri5is and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: West-
minsterPress,1984);TremperLongman Ill,"TheDivineWar ri or:TheNewTestamentUseofanOld
TeslamenlMotif," Westminste r Th ealogicaiJoumnl 44 (1982): 290-307;RobertG.Hammerton-Kelly,
Sacred Violence: Paul's Hermeneutic of the Cross (Min neapolis: Fortress, 1992). For books, articles,
andessaysonva riousaspectsofreligionandemotioninreligiOUStraditions,seeJoh nCorrigan,ed.,
Religion ul/d Emo ti on: Approaches al ld blterp retati ons (NewYork: Oxfo rd University Press, 2004);
John Cor rigan,EricCr ump,and JohnKloos, Emotio n and Religicm: A Critical Assessment and An-
ilOlated Bibl iograp hy (Westport,Co nnecticut,2000) Forageneraldiscussionofhumanand divine
angerintheOldTes tament,seeBr uceEdwardBaloian,Anger in th e Old Testamen i (NewYork: Peter
Lang,l992).
5. ReneGirard,Violence and the Sacred (Ba ltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniyersi t yPress,1977); idem,
Things JTidden Since rile FoundllI lOn of the World, trans.StephenBaunnand:v[ichaelMetteer(Sta n-
ford: StanfordUniversityPress,1987);idem,The Scapegoat, trans.YvonneFreccero(Balt imore:Johns
Hopki ns University Press, 1986); Hector Ava los, Fighti ng \.'Itords: The Origins of Religious Violence
(Amherst: Prometheus, 2005); MarkJuergensmeyer,Terror in the idind of God: The Global Rise of
'"