2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Genocide again. I feel like this is a topic we have batted this way and that. To be honest I am feeling apathetic toward these verses today. I am not passionate about defending God’s action, as articulated through Samuel. Nor am I gobsmacked that the charge is to kill the Amalekites. Today I read it as a historical account. It happened…and the answer to “why” is even given in this passage. This is a simple account to tit-for-tat. The Amalekites waylaid Israel when they were coming out of Egypt; therefore, revenge is appropriate. Simple as that. As I read this, I see the eye for an eye ethic being played out. I would no longer condone this kind of action given my understanding of ethics as progressing, but in a time of tribalism, nationalism, and conquest, this seems to fit. The god of one nation is claiming to be with that nation as they go out to destroy another nation, as well as the other nation’s god, which is implied.
What is really grinding my gears is that these two verses are a distraction from the large story. To be honest, I don’t think focussing on such a small section of the Bible is the best. Although I think exegesis is great, looking at the intricacies is important, but for the majority of people this is not the best way to go about reading the Bible. I would propose that theme is better for the general populace. This is because theme is much more difficult to manipulate. Exegesis when done by those who are incompetent of such tough work, leads to a biblical understanding based on proof texting and isolated band-aid answers/understandings.
So genocide aside, I think the purpose of these two verses is to move the plot of the book along. They are plot more than they are meant to tell of theocratic genocide. To miss this and focus in on the genocide demeans the great tale of the book. 1 Samuel tells of a rise and fall of a leader. A great and timeless classic. Beginning with a gift of life and ending with Saul taking his life, the tale tells of the character changes of a leader, eventually cumulating in his downfall. I find the book to be chiastic in structure (although less compellingly chiastic than 2 Samuel). Chapters 15 and 16 are the rough center of the chiasm. The character of Saul has changed from humility and meekness to pride, this lead to the climax of God stating “I am grieved that I have made Saul King” v.10. I cannot help but thinking this is more important, more central, and more relevant to our lives than some theocratic genocide of ancient history. I also wonder whether the grieving of God is more than the personal character of Saul, but also his actions and direction of the nation. If so, this grieving might also include the leading of the nation into a frenzy of revenge that led God to condone and even commission genocide. By situating these verses in this tale, we find that Saul had become so corrupt he could not even do genocide right (if you can say that anyone can do genocide right).
In summary, I hope that our dwelling on the tough parts of the Bible, such as verses intending to move plot forward, do not distract from bigger discussions of theme. If we dwell on the minute, we necessarily need to put the pieces back into a bigger picture or be at risk of missing the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment