Does God Affirm Infanticide and Genocide?

I apologize for being inactive for almost an entire month! I am back, though, and ready to keep pumping out articles every week, answering the most common and best questions I can find. During the time I was "off," I completed a book that is the first in a series aimed at evaluating the evidence and arguments for the existence of God, starting with the very beginning, the Big Bang. What Caused The Universe? It is available on Amazon, or you can download the PDF version for free by clicking the blog logo on the homepage and clicking the "open file" button under the books section. But I am not here to promote my book; rather, I am here to answer questions.

Today, I will be answering two questions in one, but specifically one. The first question will be whether God affirmed genocide with the conquest narratives in general; the second is asking if He affirmed infanticide in 1 Samuel 15:3, and resolving a supposed contradiction that arises under this view. This second question is the main focus of this article, but the first one is also answered very early on. Without further ado, let's see if God really did command Israel to genocide the Canaanites, and if they slaughtered all of the Amalekites' children.

Multiple Aspects To Keep In Mind

Context Of The Judgement

Were the Amalekites innocent? Did the Israelites commit genocide against them? Genocide means to specifically target a group of people with the goal of removing them from their homeland or a region unprovoked. Is this what is happening? Did they really do nothing wrong?

The Amalekites were a semi-nomadic tribe that lived primarily in the Negev Desert south of Canaan. Shortly after the Hebrews left Egypt, the Amalekites attacked them at Rephidim (Exodus 17:9-16) in a surprise attack from behind, specifically targeting the weakest of the camp. They originate with Amalek, a descendant of Esau through Eliphaz and Timna, making them the distant relatives of Israel through Isaac (Genesis 36:12, 16). They would remain a fierce military enemy of Israel throughout their history, invading them, destroying crops, livestock, and taking land and slaves. After their surprise-behind attack, God ultimately cursed them to be judged (Exodus 17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19; and 1 Samuel 15:2-3). So they already have a rough start, but what did they practice?

Although they were not directly in Canaan, and they left behind no archaeological evidence of what their ritual practices looked like, the Amalekites occupied the Negev and Sinai regions, not far south from it, making cultural exchange extremely likely. They also had overlapping pantheons, and the practices of the Canaanites were not exclusive to them; fertility cults and divinations were extremely common in antiquity. So, if we cannot know exactly what the Amalekites practiced, we can deduce that they probably were very similar to those of the Canaanites. What did they practice? Leviticus 18:24-30 and 20:1-23 give us a good summary:

²⁴ “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. ²⁵ Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, ²⁷ for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. ²⁸ And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. ²⁹ “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. ³⁰ Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’” (Leviticus 18:24-30)

¹ The Lord said to Moses, ² “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. ³ I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. ⁴ If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, ⁵ I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek. ⁶ “‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people. ⁷ “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. ⁸ Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy. ⁹ “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. ¹⁰ “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. ¹¹ “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ¹² “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. ¹³ “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ¹⁴ “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. ¹⁵ “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal. ¹⁶ “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ¹⁷ “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. ¹⁸ “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people. ¹⁹ “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. ²⁰ “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. ²¹ “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. ²² “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. ²³ You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:1-23)

And Deuteronomy gives us the exact reasoning for why they were being driven out of the land:

²⁹ The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, ³⁰ and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” ³¹ You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:29-31)

¹⁶ However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy^[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. ¹⁸ Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

The Amalekites probably also practiced child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10), incest (Leviticus 18:6-8), adultery (Leviticus 18:20), homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22), bestiality (Leviticus 18:23), divination, sorcery, witchcraft (Deuteronomy 18:10), and idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:4-5). They were not morally innocent to God, they were wicked in practice.

God's Sovereignty

Another thing to keep in mind here is that humans are under a moral law that is grounded in God's character. So when a human goes out and kills seemingly innocent people, it is morally wrong. God, being transcendent to us and our experience, is not under a law or standard, or confined to any human limitations. Being the sovereign creator of life, God has the right to do whatever He wants with it.

If all men have sinned against the glory of God, then God can and will end every single human at some point in their life (Romans 3:23, 5:12, 6:23; 1 Kings 8:38; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Ezekiel 18:20; James 1:15). If you turn away from the source of life itself, then the only logical consequence is that life should be taken away; yet God, in His mercy, does not end all sinners immediately, but gives us lifetime to repent. So it is not morally or even logically adequate for a human to say God cannot do something, as they are simply not in a good ontological position to do such a thing. They must sit in God's lap in order to try to slap Him. God can judge individuals and corporate entities/nations if He pleases, because we have all sinned and He is sovereign over life. This is not an emotionally satisfying answer, but it is a logical one. This also means that God is not morally obligated to inform us why He does what He does when He does it.

The Age Of Accountability

In numerous places scripture hints at a certain time in a child's life where they become morally accountable through knowledge of good and evil that comes with time (Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 7:15-16; and Romans 7:9). So that whenever an infant dies, they are taken into the direct presence of God, and not immediately be judged because they were ignorant of God's law. So if these infants in 1 Samuel 15 were to die, then they would all return to be with the LORD.

While God is judging a community or nation, and infants are the collateral of that judgement; when the infants come to God, they may know that they died very young as part of God's judgement on a wicked nation on Earth. As they spend more and more time in eternity with God, the pains of their death will fade away and be overpowered by the overwhelming glory of God. To them, was there really any value in continuing a mortal life away from God when you have the next forever with Him? So these infants were not being judged for no reason, they were changing location; to the presence of their creator.

Hyperbolic Language (Paul Copan)

In his book, Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament,¹ biblical scholar and philosopher Paul Copan argues that the total destruction language of the conquest narratives, and 1 Samuel 15:3, are simply hyperbolic war rhetoric that was common among ancient war texts. The Mesha Stele uses the same type of hyperbolic total-destruction vocabulary that the Old Testament contains.² Yet the groups named in the Stele are known to have survived the attacks, implying the language is hyperbolic and exaggerating what happened. Amalekites also reappear not long after this and throughout the remainder of the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15:8-9, 32-33, 27:8, 30:1-2; 1 Chronicles 4:42-43; Esther 3:1), which is internal textual evidence against a literal complete annihilation. It's more likely the language is using the culture's total-war vocabulary that was characteristic of that period.

This suggests that the scale was not literal, but the judgment of dispossession of the Amalekites was. So we must keep in mind that the language used in the Old Testament is not the same as our modern vocabulary and slang. The language of the Bible fits within the limitations of the cultural framework of the ancient world.

May Not Be A Mere "Village"

Some scholars argue that the "cities" and "villages" that were being driven out of the land may not have been mere living quarters, but rather military encampments/depots. This was probably not a random village, but a specific location that possessed not just a spiritual threat to Israel, but a physical one too. Paul Copan argues that the cities mentioned in the conquest may be military depots and not ordinary living locations. But this cannot be known for sure.³ So this wasn't a randomly chosen village of innocent people to genocide, and none of the places in Canaan were either. But what about Samuel's command to kill infants?

³ Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Samuel's Cultural Framework

Before moving on to answering the second question, an important piece of information must be covered. Prophets elsewhere in the Bible use their own personality and cultural vocabulary even when they relay a message of divine origins, like Amos' shepherd imagery (Amos 3), Ezekiel's priestly categories (Ezekiel 44), or Jeremiah's lamentation poetry in Lamentations and his confessions throughout his own prophetic book. The prophets probably did not relay word-for-word transcriptions of what God may have told them in these instances, but their own minds, hands, and mouths were the medium through which God's message is traversing. So it is not a stretch to posit that Samuel, a man of his era, steeped in total-war language just as much as anybody else in his time, would relay a message in his culture's language.

But the cultural framework may play into this another way, though more speculative. Perhaps God Himself chose to communicate through the total-war idiom that was already Samuel's native vocabulary for a total, decisive judgment. The wording chosen may have been the one most likely to land as an unmistakably serious and binding command in that cultural moment in antiquity. Maybe God was working with Samuel where he was in order to convey His message. And perhaps God works this way various times with multiple prophets and people. It gives God's creatures, humans, an opportunity to join God in reclaiming humanity and ushering in a time for the Messiah to come and save all. God offers a prophet a message, and the prophet has some creative freedom in how to convey that message.

So we are left with two possibilities, though I am more sold on the first. (1) God sent a message to Samuel, commanding the Israelites to run the Amalekites out of the land. Samuel receives the message, articulates it through His cultural vocabulary; and then relays the message to Saul. Or (2) God, already with the total-war slang of the time in mind, may have given the directive in hyperbolic language to Samuel. Samuel, hearing a command in his native vocabulary using intense war language, would have his attention caught and focused on relaying it. Either one passes for me, although the second is a bit speculative.

But What About Deuteronomy 24:16?

When the skeptic takes this literal interpretation of hyperbolic war language, they may realize a contradiction with Deuteronomy 24:16, which states that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers.

¹⁶ Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

There seems to be a contradiction here. Perhaps laying it out would help:

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.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Samuel informs Saul to go to the Amalekites and totally destroy them, and kill the men and women, children and infants, an the livestock.

⁸ He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. ⁹ But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed. ¹⁰ Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: ¹¹ “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

¹⁴ But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

¹⁹ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?” ²⁰ “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

²² But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

If children are not to be punished for the sins of their fathers, why are infants being judged here as well? Deuteronomy is speaking of individual criminal punishment for parental sin that was written after the events of 1 Samuel 15 when Israel was a matured nation with judges in a court. It was addressed specifically to Israel. If a father is deserving of death in a court, his children are not to be executed, and vice versa; if his children are deserving of death, their father shouldn't be put to death. This is reinforced across multiple passages where someone refuses to execute someone for another's sins (1 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:30, and Ezekiel 18:20)

Individual guilt governs how human courts operate, but God has reserved for Himself the right to render a final decision; not all situations are resolved in a human court, some await the verdict of God Himself. Additionally, scripture acknowledges corporate responsibility, as humans were not designed to operate in isolation, and lines of affinity extend beyond families, to communities, to whole nations. Each situation must be evaluated to determine whether it involves a principle of human jurisprudence, or a divine prerogative of final judgment, and scripture operates with all simultaneously. Deuteronomy 24:16 governs human judicial practice, while the conquest narratives describe divine action operating under a different set of principles.

We must keep in mind that Deuteronomy was a work-in-progress, and it would not have been completed during the events of 1 Samuel 15; it emerged later as the nation matured institutionally. For example, we see the law followed by King Amaziah (979-789 BC) when he refused to execute the children of his father's assassins, citing 24:16 as his reasoning. This merciful departure from the earlier Israelite and broader ANE mindset suggests the deuteronomist were the first to articulate and codify the law. Since the Torah represents a Suzerain Treaty, a binding ancient political agreement where a king provided protection and land to a subject, called a vassal, laws were not viewed as universal legislation, but rather stipulations provided by the king on a case-by-case basis to guide lower judges and the common people through thinking about justice.

And the Torah is exactly that, a case-by-case stipulation to guide the judges as people of Israel through justice and mercy. It resembles other treaties from surrounding nations, but scholars have pointed out that the Torah, compared to the other treaties, is actually revolutionary in ancient moral codes, offering protections and rights for women, children, foreigners, and slaves. Slavery wasn't even permanent ownership with brutal punishment.⁴ So it is most likely that the moral view of Israel hadn't left the corporate responsibility mindset yet: as they experienced more economic and legal development, the moral code grew in its view and by the 8th century, the focus was on individual accountability. This step-by-step process is like a father helping his son through anger issues.

He can't simply come to him and command him to stop lashing out as his son doesn't understand why it is wrong, or how to control it. Instead, his father may start with baby steps. He may inform his son of the triggers and reactions that he can identify and begin to actively notice. He may practice breathing techniques, or other methods to remove himself from the situation or calm down. All of these stages are not done in one step, that is not how people work. A father works with his children where they are at, he does not expect them to already be where he is at. Each step is closer to solving the issues and recognizing the truth, exactly how God works with men, especially a stubborn ancient people of Israel. Through baby steps a Christian learns and matures in Christ by slowly, through trials, learn the truths of His character and yearn to be more like Him. Through a genuine love relationship we get to know God's character as Jesus reveals it to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. And we can see this play out in the history of ancient Israel.

This text only contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16 if one takes the command in 1 Samuel 15:3 to be literal, universal, absolute moral legislation meant to apply to all people for all time. That is just a simply intellectually dishonest and ignorant interpretation of the text. The Bible is a document that invites us to study not just its text, but the land it describes, the culture and knowledge of the people it records and wrote it, and so much more. The bible surely makes no sense, as any book would, without any context. Especially ancient war documents. This position ignores the possible location, cultural vocabulary and framework of the writers, moral development of Israel, history of antiquity, and the date of the writing of the texts that contradict. It has to pose as ignorance in order to suffice, and that is not a contradiction, nor an inconsistency.

Personal Agency And The Limits Of Certainty

One very last thing to keep in mind is that we must not be hasty and choose one possibility and run with it as doctrine. God, as a mind, has libertarian freedom. He can cause a chain of events without prior conditions determining his decision. In other words, a mind is not deterministic, and thus one cannot "know" the reason for why a mind does something unless the mind-agent reveals that reason. This personal agency means that we, including the skeptic, cannot say for certain why God chose to command Samuel in that fashion unless God Himself reveals that reasoning. It is also the same reason you cannot claim to know for certain why your gram made a cherry pie. You may guess right, but that's probability, not certainty.

All we can do is suggest possibilities of how we can at least attempt to understand in a limited way why and how God may have gotten to that command: but we cannot say for certain. You simply cannot claim why I make a grilled cheese unless I tell you it's because my dogs favorite food is grilled cheese; until then, you may have guessed I was hungry, but you did not know for certain. What is for certain is that there is no inconsistency or contradiction here. A difficult passage, surely; but the Bible and Christians do not attempt to hide this, it is tackled directly. Of all the textual criticism the Bible has been through, it is still the most harmonious text of all history. May God Bless You.

¹ (Copan, Is God A Moral Monster?, pgs 170-176)

² (Lemaire, What Does the Mesha Stele Say?, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/what-does-the-mesha-stele-say/)

³ (Copan, God Is Great, God Is Good, in Contending With Christianity's Critics [2009], pg 146)

⁴ (John H. Walton, Christopher J. H. Wright, David Baker, and Kenneth Kitchen are some prominent examples)