Yesterday I shared some of the most challenging verses related to God in the Old Testament. I’ll repeat one of those passages here to keep it fresh in mind.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

That God is commanding the slaughter of an entire people, particularly its innocents and infants, is quite concerning. Many apologists have given reasons for why this this action is justified, or why the harshness is actually an act of mercy, or why the whole thing never actually happened. Here is a brief summary of some those arguments, each grouped into their category:

This Never Actually Happened)

1. God is exaggerating. If I say my team “murdered” the other team in last night’s game, I’m using the exact same sort of hyperbole. We never read a verse describing the actual slaying of children, it was only the enemy army that was killed.
2. This was the work of man, not God. Either corrupt leaders claimed to do this under God’s command, or translators misattributed these messages to God when it was really called for by man.

The Slaughter is Justified)

1. God has every right to take life, and to use whatever means He chooses, be it a flood, a meteorite, or the armies of His chosen nation.
2. The destruction of the evil is karmic. “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.” These nations were evil and had caused violence upon the innocent, and so they reaped the consequence of violence, even against their innocents.

The Harshness is an Act of Mercy)

1. From the eternal perspective, death is simply an awakening from a painful dream into glory.
2. When a nation becomes truly depraved, their own children suffer most. Some of these children were already being killed in pagan sacrifices, and those that lived were fixed on a path of corruption. Cutting this misery short was an act of mercy.

Looking over these, some of the arguments are compelling, and I think there is a decent chance that they are correct, but some of them I am far less persuaded by. Over the next few posts, I will address these points in a little more detail. In doing so, I will seek to give the critic his fair due, pointing out the flaws in the ones I find unconvincing and expressing any unease that still remains even after acknowledging the more credible arguments. I will not be irrational in my criticism, though, fairly noting every argument that does sway me towards being more convinced.