Saul and Genocide

Saul and Genocide Berel Dov Lerner Western‭ ‬Galilee‭ ‬College God's biblical command to‭ ‬wipe out the memory of the Amalekites‭ (‬Deut.‭ ‬25:19‭) ‬has long been a source of consternation for Jewish thinkers.‭ ‬Michael J.‭ ‬Harris's book,‭ ‬Divine Command Ethics:‭ ‬Jewish and Christian Perspectives1‭ ‬devotes an entire chapter to the issue.‭ ‬Critics of religion have,‭ ‬for their part,‭ ‬focused on the Amalekite‭ "‬genocide‭" ‬as an easy point of attack against biblical morality.‭ ‬The British‭ ‬Guardian newspaper recently ran an item by‭ ‬Katherine Stewart‭ ‬entitled,‭ "‬How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren.‭"‬2‭ ‬That article discusses the story of‭ ‬King‭ ‬Saul's battle against‭ ‬the Amalekites,‭ ‬and cites Philip Jenkins,‭ ‬a prominent American academic historian,‭ ‬as claiming that the story has been‭ ‬used‭ ‬to justify acts of genocide perpetrated by white settlers against Native Americans,‭ ‬Catholics against Protestants,‭ ‬Protestants against Catholics,‭ ‬and even Rwandan Hutus against Tutsis.‭ ‬In recounting the passage from Samuel,‭ ‬Stewart first quotes the command to wipe out the Amalekites that Saul received from‭ ‬Samuel‭ (‬I Samuel‭ ‬15:3‭) ‬and‭ ‬then‭ ‬summarizes the rest of the story as follows:‭ "‬Saul dutifully exterminated the women,‭ ‬the children,‭ ‬the babies and all of the men‭ – ‬but then he spared the king.‭ ‬He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs.‭ ‬God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.‭" ‬One can hardly blame Stewart for her interpretation of the biblical passage‭; ‬as far as I know it is universally accepted by bible-believers and bible-critics alike.‭ ‬A close‭ ‬reading of the actual text of‭ ‬Samuel,‭ ‬however,‭ ‬reveals a very different story. It is the‭ ‬prophet Samuel himself who‭ ‬offers the first clue towards the new interpretation.‭ ‬It should be remembered that,‭ ‬having been spared by King Saul,‭ ‬the Amalekite king Agag is brought before Samuel,‭ ‬who promptly executes him,‭ ‬but not before uttering this harsh goodbye:‭ ‬"As you sword has bereaved women,‭ ‬so shall your mother be bereaved among women‭" (‬I Sam.‭ ‬15:33‭)‬.‭ ‬ Do you see the logical contradiction‭? ‬If Saul has killed all the Amalekite women,‭ ‬Agag's mother should be long dead,‭ ‬but if Agag's mother is dead,‭ ‬what sense is there in saying that she will be bereaved‭!‬? Apparently,‭ ‬some of the women‭ – ‬at least Agag's own mother‭ – ‬must have survived Saul's onslaught.‭ ‬Actually,‭ ‬for those who have read beyond the story of Saul's battle there is no need for pedantic demonstrations that some Amalekites survived the war.‭ ‬After all,‭ ‬just twelve chapters later‭ (‬I Sam.‭ ‬27:8‭) ‬we find‭ ‬David‭ ‬attacking the Amalekites,‭ ‬who later return the favor:‭ ‬By the time‭ ‬David and his men arrived in Ziklag,‭ ‬on the third day,‭ ‬the Amalekites had made a raid into the‭ ‬Negev and against Ziklag and burned it down.‭ ‬They had taken the women in it captive,‭ ‬low-born and high-born alike‭ (‬I Sam.‭ ‬30:1-2‭)‬.‭ ‬If Saul had exterminated all of the Amalekites,‭ ‬who was‭ ‬left to fight against David‭? In order to arrive at an interpretation which will solve these quandaries,‭ ‬our story must be dissected into its relevant sections.‭ ‬These are:‭ ‬1‭) ‬Samuel's command to Saul‭ (‬I Sam.‭ ‬15:1-3‭)‬,‭ ‬2‭)‬ Saul's execution of the command‭ (‬15:4-9‭)‬,‭ ‬3‭)‬ God's complaint to Samuel and the latter's reaction to it‭ (‬15:10-12‭) ‬and‭ ‬4‭)‬ Samuel's condemnation of Saul‭ (‬15:13-30‭)‬. The operative verse in Samuel's command is categorical and chillingly straight-forward:‭ ‬"…attack Amalek,‭ ‬and proscribe all that belongs to him.‭ ‬Spare no one,‭ ‬but kill all alike men and women,‭ ‬infants and sucklings,‭ ‬oxen and sheep,‭ ‬camels and asses‭"‬ (15:3‭)‬.‭ ‬Saul's actual execution of the command is more complicated.‭ ‬Saul‭ ‬first‭ ‬assembles his troops,‭ ‬approaches the Amalekite city,‭ ‬and warns the Kenites to stay clear of the fighting.‭ ‬Finally we have arrived at Saul's attack,‭ ‬which is described as follows:‭ ‬Saul destroyed Amalek from Havilah all the way‭ ‬to Shur,‭ ‬which is close to‭ ‬Egypt,‭ ‬and he captured King Agag of Amalek alive.‭ ‬He proscribed all the people,‭ ‬putting them to the sword‭…‬(15:7-8‭)‬.‭ ‬Take note that these verses are written in the third person‭ ‬singular.‭ ‬What does this signify‭? ‬Certainly we are not expected to believe that Saul vanquished the Amalekites single-handedly‭; ‬rather,‭ ‬we are to understand that in fighting the Amalekites Saul's troops served as instruments of his will.‭ ‬Saul alone decided what was to be done and his men simply followed his orders.‭ ‬ At this point,‭ ‬however,‭ ‬the biblical narrator expands the compass of volition to include Saul's troops,‭ ‬and the text moves abruptly into the third-person plural:‭ ‬But Saul and his troops spared Agag and the best of the sheep,‭ ‬the oxen,‭ ‬the second-born,‭ ‬the lambs,‭ ‬and all else that was of value.‭ ‬They would not proscribe them‭; ‬they proscribed only what was cheap and worthless‭ (‬15:9‭)‬.‭ ‬Apparently,‭ ‬Saul has now abandoned his role as sole decision-maker and has allowed his troops to have their say in how things will be done. How does all of this relate to the prophetic critique of Saul's behavior‭? ‬Samuel explicitly condemns Saul for not killing the animals‭ – ‬is this the bleating of sheep in my ears‭?‬ (15:14‭) – ‬and we should remember that‭ ‬Saul shared the decision to spare those animals with his troops.‭ ‬Ungraciously,‭ ‬Saul even tries to pin‭ ‬all of‭ ‬the responsibility for that misstep on his men and explains to Samuel:‭ ‬"…the troops spared the choicest of the sheep and oxen for sacrificing to the Lord your God,‭ ‬and we proscribed the rest‭"‬ (15:15‭)‬.‭ ‬Saul is claiming that the troops sinned‭ (‬third-person plural‭) ‬by sparing the animals of their‭ ‬own prerogative‭; ‬for his part,‭ ‬he was only personally involved in the proscription‭ (‬first-person plural‭) ‬of the remaining livestock.‭ ‬Saul later confesses that he had been culpably weak in his leadership:‭ ‬"I did wrong to transgress the Lord's command and your instruction,‭ ‬but I was afraid of the troops and I yielded to them‭"‬ (15:24‭)‬.‭ ‬ It seems clear that Saul's wrong-doing involved his‭ (‬passive‭?) ‬participation in actions which reflected the will of his troops.‭ ‬From my earlier analyses,‭ ‬we know that this consists,‭ ‬specifically,‭ ‬of‭ ‬sparing Agag and the livestock.‭ The background developed above hardly contradicts conventional wisdom‭; ‬now it is time to lower the exegetical boom.‭ ‬I have so far abstained from pointing out a glaring difference between Samuel's command and Saul's execution of it.‭ ‬While Samuel spares no words listing every section of the Amalekite population which must be destroyed,‭ ‬the verse describing Saul's execution of the command simply states‭ ‬He proscribed all the people,‭ ‬putting them to the sword‭ ‬(15:8‭)‬.‭ ‬Standard English usage would lead us to believe that the phrase all the people is just a briefer way of saying‭ ‬men and women,‭ ‬infants and sucklings.‭ ‬But is it‭? In our passage,‭ ‬the New Jewish Publication‭ ‬Society translation‭ (‬from‭ ‬which I quote‭) ‬uses the word‭ "‬people‭" ‬to translate the Hebrew word‭ ‬am.‭ ‬In Modern Hebrew the word‭ ‬am has come‭ ‬to‭ ‬denote‭ ‬solely‭ ‬the concept of a‭ "‬people‭" ‬in the sense of a large ethnic community,‭ ‬and it is in this sense that Saul's destruction of the‭ ‬Amalekite‭ ‬am can be seen as an‭ ‬ancient‭ ‬instance of‭ ‬genocide.‭ ‬However,‭ ‬while scripture does sometimes use‭ ‬am in this way,‭ ‬the word often carries another meaning.‭ ‬Consider‭ ‬Genesis‭ ‬14:16,‭ ‬which reports how Abraham and his men recovered captives taken in war:‭ ‬he also brought back‭ ‬his‭ ‬kinsman‭ ‬Lot and his possessions,‭ ‬and the women and the am.‭ ‬Whatever is meant here by‭ ‬am,‭ ‬it certainly does not include women‭! ‬Later we read of Pharaoh setting off to chase the escaping Israelites:‭ ‬He ordered his chariot and took his am with him‭…‬ (Ex.‭ ‬14:6‭)‬; presumably,‭ ‬Pharaoh did not muster the women and children to do battle,‭ ‬but rather the word‭ ‬am refers to the‭ ‬six hundred of his picked chariots,‭ ‬and the rest of the chariots of Egypt,‭ ‬with officers in all of them mentioned in the second half of the verse.‭ ‬As soon as one starts looking for such instances,‭ ‬it becomes clear that scripture is full of verses in which the word‭ ‬am refers to a military force.‭ ‬The Book of Samuel itself uses‭ ‬am in this sense,‭ ‬as,‭ ‬for example,‭ ‬in the verse‭ ‬Saul divided the am into three columns‭; ‬at the morning watch they entered the camp and struck down the Ammonites‭ (‬I Sam.‭ ‬12:13‭)‬.‭ ‬Even the story of Saul's battle against Amalek‭ ‬offers clear instances of this additional usage.‭ ‬In the‭ ‬JPS version,‭ ‬the word consistently translated as‭ "‬troops‭" (‬i.e.,‭ ‬Saul's troops‭) ‬is,‭ ‬in fact,‭ ‬am‭! All of the above points to the validity of a rather unconventional interpretation of our story.‭ ‬Saul did in fact kill all of the Amalekite‭ ‬am,‭ ‬that is to say,‭ ‬he put the Amalekite‭ ‬warriors to the sword,‭ ‬but he spared the non-combatants.‭ ‬It is no longer surprising that Agag's mother would live to mourn his death or that a few years‭ ‬later‭ ‬the Amalekite boys who were too young to fight‭ ‬Saul‭ ‬would‭ ‬grow up to do battle against David.‭ Interestingly,‭ ‬this interpretation helps clarify a well-known midrash.‭ ‬According to the Babylonian Talmud‭ (‬Yoma‭ ‬22b‭)‬,‭ ‬when Saul received the‭ ‬divine‭ ‬command to destroy‭ ‬the entire population of‭ ‬Amalek and its animals,‭ ‬he began questioning its morality:‭ "‬And if human beings sinned,‭ ‬what has the cattle committed‭; ‬and if the adults have sinned,‭ ‬what have the little ones done‭?"‬3‭ ‬A divine voice is said to have replied with a quote from Ecclesiastes‭ (‬7:16‭)‬:‭ ‬Don't overdo goodness.‭ ‬The midrash does not quite make sense given the standard understanding of the war against Amalek.‭ ‬We can understand why Saul is depicted as questioning the order to kill the cattle,‭ ‬since,‭ ‬after all,‭ ‬cattle were‭ ‬in fact‭ ‬spared.‭ ‬But why would the author of the midrash think that Saul was bothered by the idea of having to kill children‭? ‬Given my interpretation,‭ ‬the midrash‭ ‬becomes‭ ‬more understandable‭; ‬Saul spared both the cattle‭ ‬and the children and,‭ ‬appropriately,‭ ‬the midrash suggests that those decisions reflected‭ ‬his‭ ‬qualms about killing members of either category.‭ All of this does,‭ ‬however,‭ ‬leave us with a tricky theological problem.‭ ‬Saul had been commanded by God to kill every Amalekite man,‭ ‬woman,‭ ‬and child,‭ ‬and yet he only killed the warriors.‭ ‬One would think that this merciful bit of improvisation would have drawn down at least as much divine wrath as‭ ‬did the sparing of mere animals.‭ ‬Samuel,‭ ‬however,‭ (‬and presumably God Himself‭) ‬seems completely unbothered by it‭! Since I believe my exegesis to be‭ – ‬up to this point‭ – ‬unimpeachable,‭ ‬I will build a somewhat radical theological conclusion upon it.‭ ‬As became clear above,‭ ‬Saul sinned by giving in to his troop's desire to spare Agag and the livestock.‭ ‬The verse describing how the‭ ‬am was killed‭ – ‬and not the women and‭ ‬children‭ ‬-‭ ‬is written purely in terms of Saul's own‭ ‬(third person singular‭) ‬agency.‭ ‬ Saul is blamed only for bending to his troops‭' ‬will.‭ ‬Appropriately,‭ ‬Samuel chides him,‭ ‬You may look small to yourself,‭ ‬but you are the head of the tribes of‭ ‬Israel‭ ‬(15:17‭)‬.‭ Apparently,‭ ‬when God commands a king to commit genocide,‭ ‬He respects the monarch's prerogative to refuse.‭ ‬Thus,‭ ‬God has no complaint about Saul's unwillingness to kill women and children.‭ ‬Perhaps this demonstrates a certain sensitivity to the‭ ‬moral‭ ‬predicament of a human being who is asked to play God.‭ ‬ What God will not condone is a weak king who‭ ‬simply‭ ‬yields to his troops‭'‬ wishes when‭ ‬-‭ ‬without any real‭ ‬ethical qualms explaining their behavior‭ ‬-‭ ‬they want to‭ ‬save animals for‭ ‬a barbeque in express‭ ‬defiance of God's command.‭ ‬ While my interpretation of the story hardly leaves us without moral and theological questions,‭ ‬I think it is still significantly more palatable than the standard exegesis.‭ I shall conclude with a brief consideration of how my interpretation relates to a very recent discussion‭ ‬of the war with Amalek.‭ ‬In his latest book,‭ ‬In God's Shadow:‭ ‬Politics in the Hebrew Bible,4‭ ‬political philosopher Michael Walzer uses the Amalek episode to‭ ‬illustrate one of his central theses,‭ ‬i.e.,‭ ‬that‭ ‬in the bible,‭ "‬God's interests are represented by His prophets,‭ ‬while the full and often contradictory set of human interests‭ – ‬personal,‭ ‬dynastic,‭ ‬and national‭ – ‬is represented by the king‭" (‬p.‭ ‬67‭)‬.‭ ‬Walzer compares Saul's reluctance to kill Agag with King Ahab's statesmanlike decision to spare the people of Aram and their king in order to achieve a negotiated peace‭ (‬I Kings‭ ‬20:34‭)‬,‭ ‬a bit of human wisdom‭ ‬which was also condemned by a prophet‭ (‬I Kings‭ ‬20:42‭)‬.‭ ‬ My conclusion is perhaps more discriminating.‭ ‬Indeed,‭ ‬God's interests as voiced through prophecy call for the total annihilation of the Amalekites and their animals,‭ ‬while Saul seems to have other issues in mind.‭ ‬ However,‭ ‬Walzer may have been too quick to‭ ‬completely identify God's interests with the prophetic voice.‭ ‬By the end of the story,‭ ‬both the Israelite prophet and the Israelite king have given ground to each other's position.‭ ‬While Saul agrees that it was wrong to spare Agag and the animals,‭ ‬Samuel makes no complaint about Saul's decision to spare the non-combatants.‭ ‬It appears‭ ‬that‭ ‬God's‭ ‬ultimate‭ "‬interests‭"‬ (as expressed by the outcome of whole‭ ‬narrative rather than by any single voice within it‭)‬ lay somewhere between the‭ ‬strict commands of prophecy and the wisdom of human statecraft.‭ ‬Unfortunately,‭ ‬by failing to kill Agag and the animals,‭ ‬Saul failed on both accounts.‭ ‬Not only did he disobey God's command,‭ ‬but he‭ ‬did so in a demonstration of weak leadership by giving into the narrow‭ ‬momentary‭ ‬interests of his troops.‭ ‬It was this double failure‭ ‬-‭ ‬both of piety‭ ‬and statesmanship‭ ‬-‭ ‬that doomed Saul's reign.‭ ‬Perhaps these‭ ‬further‭ ‬considerations can help complete our reading of the above-cited midrash.‭ ‬When God scolds Saul for his qualms,‭ ‬it is as if God tells him,‭ "‬Right,‭ ‬don't kill the children.‭ ‬But must you spare the animals as well‭!? ‬Don't overdo goodness‭!‬" Notes This article is dedicated to the memory of my father,‭ ‬Dr.‭ ‬Joseph Lerner,‭ ‬z"l.‭ 1‭)‬ M.J.‭ ‬Harris,‭ ‬Divine Command Ethics:‭ ‬Jewish and Christian Perspectives‭ (‬London‭ & ‬New York:‭ ‬RoutledgeCurzon,‭ ‬ 2003‭) ‬pp.‭ ‬134-150. 2‭) ‬K.‭ ‬Stewart,‭ "‬How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren‭"‬ The‭ ‬Guardian‭ ‬30‭ ‬May‭ ‬2012.‭ ‬Recovered‭ ‬7‭ ‬June‭ ‬2012‭ ‬from‭ ‬http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide. 3‭) ‬Soncino translation.‭ ‬I thank the editorial board of JBQ for suggesting that I mention this midrash. 4‭) ‬M.‭ ‬Walzer,‭ ‬In God's Shadow:‭ ‬Politics in the Hebrew Bible‭ (‬New Haven and‭ ‬London:‭ ‬Yale‭ ‬University Press,‭ ‬2012‭)‬. Lerner on Saul‭ 7‬ (final version forthcoming in the‭ ‬Jewish Bible Quarterly‭)