Old Testament Terrorists
One common response from modern day atheists who are asked “If you were given proof of the existence of the God of the Bible, would you believe and follow Him?” is to reply “No, I could not believe in or follow a God that would order the killing of innocent women and children as described in the Old Testament”. Was God justified in ordering the killing of the Amalekites’ women and children? Let’s look a little closer at this question.
A couple of years after the traumatic events of September 11, 2001 when the modern world was introduced to large scale terrorism with the fall of the twin towers in New York, Lee Harris wrote a book entitled Civilization and its Enemies. He states that the book is about “Forgetfulness” which he fears has overtaken the modern world. His premise is that generations have gone by since people in the modern world have had to worry about their food being stolen, or they and their children being sold into slavery. The modern world has forgotten that to reach their current state, mankind needed to go through a “civilizing process”. It is a process that begins at birth and takes years to develop a civilized person. As a result one is accustomed to believing that there are no real enemies in the world, there are just disagreements that can be settled by discussions, debates, treaties and other similar approaches. One just needs to understand the source of the disagreement and everyone can work things out. These people would be considered by Harris as “rational” actors in solving problems.
Disagreements were settled differently before the “Age of Enlightment” (also known as the “Age of Reason”) which took place in Europe around the middle of the 18th century. One prominent theme of the Age of Enlightment was the idea of “individualism” and the moral worth of the individual. Another was that people should discuss differences rationally. However, for many parts of the world in ancient times it was the “Law of the Jungle” with the only objective being survival, where there were no rules which were applied to conflicts. A single person cannot survive alone in a jungle; he must join with others to form a tribe. Within a tribe, there are no individuals just members of the tribe. From birth, members are brought up to only think about the survival of the tribe. Any group designated by the tribe as an enemy, threatened the survival of the tribe and had to be destroyed. No tribe member needed to know why they were the enemy just that they were the enemy, and that he had to be willing to die to kill a member of the enemy. It was a “Law of the Jungle” conflict. The survival of any member of the enemy meant death to the tribe. Conflicts were all or nothing, total destruction. Only one group was going to survive even if it took generations to accomplish. There were no “innocent” enemies. Members of the tribe would be what Harris would describe as “non-rational” actors.
This view of an enemy continues to be seen today as shown in a recent newspaper article discussing citizens of Mosul, Afghanistan who were forced to work with ISIS during their occupation of the city. Some Iraqis cite tribal law, in which families share a relative's guilt. "Even women and children of terrorists should be killed, or ISIS will come back," said Wathban Rammah, head of the council of reunification of Mosul tribes. "We need to fully destroy ISIS and their families — the tribes should act on this."
Harris portrays modern terrorists being members of a tribe whose enemy is the modern world. To them the modern world must be destroyed. Members of the modern world who uphold the values of the “Age of Enlightenment” and believe in the rational approach to solving conflict, often refuse to recognize that those who are trying to kill them are their enemies. They believe that those attacking them are all innocents and simply misguided, or misunderstood, or politically immature, and that by using a rational approach to address their anger, they will cease to be an enemy. Harris describes this approach as “an illusion”. They are too far removed from the law of the jungle environment to understand that some persons can hate them and are willing to die to kill them for no logical reason, but rather simply because they have been identified as their enemy. This group also includes many modern day atheists who believe they have a better standard of morality than the God of the Old Testament. With this context, let’s look at the God of the Old Testament and His response to terrorists.
The Amalekites and their hatred of the people of Israel had its beginnings with Esau and Jacob, the sons of Isaac and Rebekah. The battles in this sibling rivalry started even before they were born (Genesis 25:21-22). Amalek, the head of the Amalekites, was the son via a concubine of Eliphaz (Esau’s son). Of the lineage of Esau (known as Edomites), Amalek seems to have been the worst in his hatred of Israel. In addition to carrying the hate from his grandfather Esau, Amalek had two other reasons to harbor animosity towards Israel. According to the Talmud,* his mother had approached Abraham, Isaac and Jacob requesting to convert to their faith but they would not accept her. In addition, when he asked his father Eliphaz about who would inherit this world and the world to come, he was told the Children of Israel and was told to humble himself to them and he would be allowed to enter the world to come. From these experiences, Amalek (and later the Amalekites) developed a driving desire to demonstrate his superiority over Israel by totally eliminating them. Israel was designated the enemy. It was a “Law of the Jungle” conflict, one with no innocent enemies.
The Amalekites’ unrelenting brutality toward the Israelites began with an attack at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–13). Deuteronomy 25:17-18 fills out the story: "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God." The Amalekites attacked and killed the sick, feeble, old and young along with those looking after them. There were no innocent Israelites.
During the period of the Judges, the Amalekites participated with other nations in attacks on the Israelite tribes. Together with the Ammonites, they joined Moab against Israel and were among those who captured “the city of palms” which was apparently Jericho (Judg. 3:12-13). The Amalekites and the people of the East joined with the Midianite raids on the Israelites in the time of Gideon and likely participated in the destruction of crops needed by Israel (Jud.6:1-7). Once again they participated in battles in the valley of Jezreel (Jud.6:33, 7:12). They were relentless in their pursuit of the destruction of Israel.
The decisive clash between Israel and Amalek came only with the advent of the monarch, in the famous Amalekite war of Saul. The Bible tells us; “He did valiantly, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them” (1 Sam 14:48). It’s clear however that the Amalekites were not completely destroyed by Saul, as at the end of this reign they were still raiding the Negev of the Cherethites, of Judah, and of Caleb, and the town of Ziklag, that had been assigned by King Achish of Gath to David (I Sam. 30:14).
Obviously, some Amalekites escaped Saul's army. Five centuries later, as recorded in the story of Esther, an evil man named Haman plotted genocide against the Jews in Persia during the reign of Xerxes. Haman was "the son of Hammedatha the Agagite" (Esther 3:1), probably directly descended from the Amalekite king Samuel killed. One can only conclude that the hate for Israel and its people were passed down from generation to generation so that it became a hereditary trait resulting in the “non-rational” behavior of the Amalekites. As long as any descendant of the Amalekites lived, they would be engaged in a “no rules - Law of the Jungle” war against Israel and its people. Amalekites of the Old Testament would qualify as modern day terrorists. No Amalekite regardless of age or gender could be considered a true innocent; their survival would mean the loss of many more innocent lives both then current and in future generations of the people of Israel.
While God commanded Saul to destroy the Amalekites “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…” (1 Sam. 15:2-3) he took a different approach toward the Egyptians. While the Egyptians had oppressed and enslaved the people of Israel over an extended period of time, God took a different approach to them telling Moses “Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land” (Deut. 23:8). The Israelites had grown greatly in number during their time in Egypt and the Pharaoh had come to fear them; “The Israelites are becoming too numerous and strong for us” (Ex. 1:9). Their feelings of animosity for the Israelites came from a fear of them and therefore it was not in itself “irrational”.
God seems to understand the difference between the “irrational” actions of those driven by an inbred tribal hatred and those based upon “rational” fears and He treats them accordingly. Those driven by rational fears can be negotiated with hopes of finding common ground. But, to save truly innocent lives, both present and future, from the irrational hatred of terrorists, a hatred that spans generations and never dies, God knew that all members of the terrorist tribe needed to be destroyed. This need for the total elimination of a true enemy is a reality lost on modern day Atheists who live in Harris’ “illusion” and also believe that they have a higher sense of morality than the God of the Bible.
-----------------
*The Talmud (Hebrew word for study, learning, instruction) a document which is considered an oral Torah and intended to help explain and interpret the written Torah.
Sources:
Civilization and its Enemies by Lee Harris
The Suicide of Reason by Lee Harris
USA Today, May 31, 2017, Iraqi families fear reprisals against relatives forced to help ISIS
