I struggle with the utter destruction commands given in the Old Testament.
Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Sa 15:2-3)
How do I respond that? How is God being just, merciful, fair, and loving in this command?
Bear with me here, but I think the answer may be simple. By thinking he is unjust in overseeing the death of women, children, and animals, I’ve assumed that justice comes through preservation of life. Statements like “How can you kill those people? That’s just wrong!” assume that what is best1 is for those people to live. That assumption deserves a challenge, though. God redeemed the world through his innocent son’s death. He gives us eternal life when we die to our sinful selves. He liberates us from our sinful flesh when we die. To sum it up, God has ways of making physical death benefit those who die and those who live…whether an innocent person (Jesus) dies or a guilty person (us) dies. When I think of it like that, it seems possible—rather, doubtless—that it is best (see the first footnote again) that those women, children, and animals die, despite the visceral repulsiveness of such a thing.
-
By “what is best”, I’m referring to what is best for God, for those who are killed, for those who survive, for those who lived, for those who would eventually live, etc. It’s what’s best for all creation and all reality. I must remember that God has infinite perception and thus surely gauges all past, present, and future factors when making a decision..especially a decision like this. ↩