Right, says Samuel, the Eternal has spoken. Saul, get yourself down to the city of the Amalekites and kill everybody. Why? Because we have a grudge that goes back generations. Show no mercy, not even to the kids and babies, Yahweh says exterminate! Capisce?
Welcome to 1 Samuel 15.
Now Saul is still new to the job, but he takes the initiative. Maybe I have to slaughter those poor sods, he thinks, but there are Kenites in that settlement too, and Moses' father-in-law was a Kenite...
So Saul surrounds the town and sends word out: Kenites may leave! One imagines that they hot-footed out of there quick smart.
Then there's the bloodbath. Men, women, little children. Dachau would have looked mild by comparison. Everyone dies in pools of their own blood and feces except the king, a gentlemen by the name of Agag. Saul's intentions toward Agag are unclear because interfering old Samuel arrives on the scene before we can find out. Remember, it's Samuel who has commanded this atrocity in Yahweh's name.
Saul sets up a victory stele to commemorate the glorious smite-fest, and greets the prophet (who arrives after the deed is done) with the words "I have carried out the command of Yahweh."
Samuel is a narrow, rigorous soul with monochrome vision. Saul interpreted his (or Yahweh's - same thing apparently) command, keeping Agag aside and reserving the best of the Amalekite herds to sacrifice to the Eternal. Not good enough, shrieks Samuel, who proceeds to throw one of his famously thunderous hissy-fits. Saul confesses his error like a naughty schoolboy, and begs the crusty old drama-queen to "worship the Eternal" alongside him so he will not be shamed in front of his men. Most modern translations imply that Samuel then relents and does so, but Hebrew scholar Robert Alter (The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel
) blows the whistle and explains that the thrust of the passage is that Samuel walked away in a huff leaving Saul to look like an idiot. Mercy and forgiveness (or even common courtesy) are beyond the scope of the seer's fanaticism.Check out verse 29: "the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he" (says Samuel) is not a mortal, that he should change his mind."
Which is pretty weird considering that he has indeed changed his mind according to both verse 11 and verse 35 in this same chapter!
But, as Alfred E. Neuman says, "what me worry?" Someone who should worry though is Agag, who emerges with either "mincing steps" (Alter) or "haltingly" (NRSV), depending on which translation you prefer. Either way, his highness is about to become mince.
"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal."
No quick and merciful death this. Agag is ritually butchered, dismembered, all - incredibly - to please Yahweh, by the very hand of Yahweh's franchise holder.
Some commentators go all gooey over the idea that Samuel was truly fond of Saul, and was heartbroken at his "rebellion" (Robert Cohn's article in the HarperCollins commentary speaks of Samuel's "abiding love for Saul.") Poppycock. Samuel was a vindictive power tripper par excellence who would make the late Ayatollah Khomeini (or possibly even David C. Pack) look like a fuzzy liberal.
But did it really happen? The story is gruesome, but so is Hansel and Gretel. Are we dealing with history here, or something else. And could this series turn into a twenty-first century version of Basil Wolverton's Bible Story? Well, clearly it's a no to the last question, but the others will be tackled next time!
12 comments:
I believe we are forgetting that the future still holds … Isaiah 66: 16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. ...
It appears it will be bloodier than any previous Holocaust.
pal said...
"I believe we are forgetting that the future still holds … Isaiah 66: 16"
Yes, he will come with his "chariots" (v.15). There will be those that "draw the bow" declaring his glory to people who have never heard of him (v.19). and then:
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts . . .
So the gentiles are gonna bring the Jews "for an offering" on the backs of animals to Jerusalem.
Isn't it about time to enter the 21st century? Even if a monstrous spook in the sky did exist, which it doesn't, is it worthy of worship by people who are more just, fair and merciful that it is?
To savage, barbaric bronze age man, the justice of the spook in the sky may have sounded fair and just.
If hacking and burning people who weren't privileged to know "the truth" about some spook in the sky, that "hides" from us so that we can't know unless it is "revealed" to us by some "apostle", sounds like justice to you then perhaps there is some stone/bronze age man lurking just under your outward appearance.
To me, the OT is more like a book written by a demon rather than a god. He will hack us in pieces and burn us to death and then resurrect us and throw us into a lake of fire - but he loves us.
Yes he loves us, he's not speaking to us, but he loves us - and he needs our money . . .
So when can we expect the book, Gavin? Better yet, the movie? You could call it, History of the World II, starring Mel Brooks and Dom DeLuise.
I concluded, a long time ago, that we (none of us) cannot really understand why God does the things he does; or tells people to do certain things.
The Old Covenant is filled with stories like this. I think the book of Job makes the point best. Problem is most don't even get the main point of Job. They think it is mainly about the self-righteousness of good-old Job. It is not. Although it is related to the self-righteousness we all have.
I call it the God-complex we all have. We think we are God. We know best. We actually know better than God. This complex tends to be exaggerated with leaders. (actually "tends" is a kind word)
This point will be made, in spades,
during the Tribulation. God knew we would have this God-complex. Remember Adam and Eve?
The first point we need to understand. (and we still haven't gotten it yet----that includes the Church of God) is that God is smarter than we are. Much smarter. There is no comparison. None.
From time to time I will utter one of my favorite little sayings. It fits here.
Even if God created us morally perfect (which he did not obviously)-----life would still not work.
We are too stupid.
P.S. Just to prove my point, I mistakenly put this on the post Samuel and Saul, Pt. 1
Jim
"Even if a monstrous spook in the sky did exist, which it doesn't, is it worthy of worship by people who are more just, fair and merciful that it is?"
Matt 25:24“He also who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter.'"
Corky, I'd rather be found "so doing" than be in your shoes, it seems.
"Corky, I'd rather be found "so doing" than be in your shoes, it seems."
I have no doubt you would but what does the "talent" represent? It is a parable, ya know?
I reckon I've never received my "talent" of "truth" to hide in the earth. I've heard people who think they have but I have no reason to believe them because they produce no evidence of it.
Jim Butler said...
I concluded, a long time ago, that we cannot really understand why God does the things he does; or tells people to do certain things.
The Old Covenant is filled with stories like this.
So by implication we must accept an illogical, brutal, bloodthirsty, genocidal God, rather than question whether scripture is "God Breathed"? As a friend of mine once said "don't blame God for your lack of research into some ancient texts".
And how do you square that view with the "Abba" father that Jesus presents as being the true nature of God?
Old YHWH kicked butt and took names later.
I call it the God-complex we all have. We think we are God. We know best. We actually know better than God. This complex tends to be exaggerated with leaders. (actually "tends" is a kind word)
I have never heard a politician, a religious leader, an educator ever make the case that God has emptied himself into humanity. That man has always been empowered with every thing he ever needed to meet his needs.
If people saw the face of God in the face of their fellow man rather than in abstract doctrines, preachers, churches, they'd be a little less inclined to kill those fellow humans, to denigrate them in disfellowshipments, and to steal their money and call it giving to God.
You can't show love towards God without first showing it to mankind.
This point will be made, in spades,
during the Tribulation.
Aha...you do believe a the bloody Sky God.....
God knew we would have this God-complex. Remember Adam and Eve?
You need to reread the Genesis account the way the Jews do. Then you need to read all the similar Genesis accounts that predate the Biblical one, and you'll come away with a very different understanding of those texts.
Genesis is, if anything, a story of coming into consciousness, and the potential for good and evil in all mankind.
Genesis, is for me, probably the strongest evidence for humans once being part of the animal world.
Once a world of no questions, no guilt, only needful survival, mankind finds itself somehow transformed into examining the larger questions beyond biology,
of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. Things that biology cannot teach, for biology is inherently selfish in its desire to preserve its genetic code.
BambooEnds said, “Genesis, is for me, probably the strongest evidence for humans once being part of the animal world.”
How very true: for in Eccl 3:18 “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?”
The lawyer knew he didn’t have an immortal soul "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25
A chimp’s DNA is 99% like mans.
God is willing to wipe out all and start over with one, much like a farmer does with roundup at planting time. But God still holds the trump card. Even though He did not wipe out Israel and replace it with Moses, He did tell Moses to place the book of Deuteronomy beside the Ark (where one could access the Book but not die by touching the Ark), and He tells us Moses is our witness—if we don’t believe Moses, we won’t believe Christ--it seems He did start over with Moses …
So how can one throw out the Old Testament and only use the New?
It is a myth that the Old Testament was full of wrath and the New Testament is full of grace. There is wrath and grace in both places.
The election of Israel was an election of grace. And Christ spoke more about Hell than about Heaven. Christ also clearly stated that the "many" would not receive salvation and the "few" would. The imagery of fewness occurs several times in the Bible.
Why would God direct that Canaanite children be killed in the process of invading the land? This goes against our grain and raises our hackles. I do not think there is any way to be at peace with this concept wholly. But I do believe that God possesses Middle Knowledge. That is, he can ask "What if?" He knows all possible outcomes based on all possible conditions. What if among those Canaanite children, there were nobody who would ever under any circumstances accept God? What if they were all going to reject God and consign themselves to Hell? In that larger picture of self-imposed suffering, would death by the sword really be of paramount importance? Or would it fit seamlessly with the eternal death that they would select for themselves?
A corollary to this is that I believe God will save every possible person who is willing to be saved. (I am not an extreme Calvinist.) He will work the circumstances of their lives until they move to appropriate salvation.
He would not abandon anybody, including the Canaanite children. But it may well be that his efforts with them would always, under any circumstances, be fruitless. Throught Middle Knowledge, he knows the optimal conditions for conversion and because he is outside time and space, he knows what the outcome will be.
"Throught Middle Knowledge, he knows the optimal conditions for conversion and because he is outside time and space, he knows what the outcome will be."
Who came up with the idea that "he" is outside time and space? That's not in the "word". Of course, knowing the end from the beginning is "predestination" pure and simple.
But, the biblegod doesn't even try to convert anyone and hides himself from all but a select few.
Of course we only have the "select few's" word that this is so and, guess what? They are only human, just like you and me.
We have nothing to go on, no evidence whatsoever, only someone else's word who died millennias ago.
Wishful thinking aside, what do you have concerning the existence of a god or "salvation" from a natural death?
Evidently biblegod is reluctant to show any evidence of his existence and says that he even hardens people's hearts so that they will not believe.
What is so important and righteous about believing an unreasonable and downright silly story written by men that you gain salvation by doing so?
If a God told me something, I would believe it too, just as Abraham was supposed to have done. But, a God has never told me a damn thing. Men have tried to tell me all kinds of crazy sh*t but, a god? Nope!
corky:
You seemed to be very confused. My guess is that you have neither read or thought very much about any of this.
Rather than trying to discover what you need to by interacting with bloggers, I would suggest you get a systematic theology and read some sections of it.
Start with the idea that "God is outside time and space" and read about that and think about that.
Your argument "That's not in the "word"." Is really a very typically Armstrongite argument. Armstrongites, of course, do not believe God is outside time and space, because it is not in the Bible. But then again, Armstrongites must also believe he did not create time and space. So time and space are eternal divinities of some sort. But the scientific community will tell you that time and space are closely coupled physical properties of the universe. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Bamboobends,
I'm afraid you missed my point.
By the way, the Tribulation is brought on by man---not God.
God has to intervene in the end, remember, to prevent man from annihilating himself.
Wolftrack,
It does not sound like you have a background in the Church of God. The Church of God does not believe most people are having their opportunity for salvation at this time. Most will have their opportunity after the millennium. When it says few will be saved it is referring to this concept, that is, the first-fruits.
Jim
wolf_track said...
"corky:
You seemed to be very confused. My guess is that you have neither read or thought very much about any of this."
Really there's nothing to think about. The existence of a god or gods has never and will never be proven. An unknown and unknowable entity could be outside time and space or not, we can't know.
It would also stand to reason that if a god cannot be proven to exist then the probability of it's existence is very, very low.
There have been thousands of gods and goddesses in human history but they are all false and do not exist, right? Can you prove that? I don't think so.
However, they were believed in for thousands of years. You see, I accepted the fact that Zeus and Ra and Tammuz do not exist and realize that YHVH has the same probability of existing as they did.
All the other gods and goddesses existed in the minds and beliefs of humans only and had no existence of their own. They were inventions.
If you believe in only one God, I believe in only one less than you do.
Post a Comment