1 Samuel 15:3

[Ben Bet Beh]

I'm struggling with this passage from the Bible and was hoping someone could help with the context. What I find particularly troubling is the command from God through his prophet Samuel to kill everyone including infants.
Thank you!

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here you go, follow this through from the start

Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this or a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Exodus 17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Duet 25:17Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;

Duet 25:18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.

Duet 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

1Sam 15:2Thus 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.

2Sam 15:3 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.

1Sam 28:18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.

Whereas Jeus said, ye have heard hate your enemies, now I say unto love your enmies. There they were to execute his wrath, whereas now we execute His mercy.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

...Whereas Jeus said, ye have heard hate your enemies, now I say unto love your enmies. There they were to execute his wrath, whereas now we execute His mercy.

Do you suggest ignoring the Old Testament as far as being useful in today's world and just stick to the New Testament?

 

[Fireinfolding]

To the King of Amalek, Samual took care of him, saying...

1Sam 15:3 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

As it says here...

Lev 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Duet 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Jesus now...

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Do you suggest ignoring the Old Testament as far as being useful in today's world and just stick to the New Testament?

We sure didnt have to ignore it here. For example Jesus uses the example which can be shown in Saul (to execute His wrath) and the very eye for an eye principal (there) and speaks again to the "but I say unto you".

Not always do I understand what it might be showing, or there might be what appears to be a contradiction, as in why is this so (here) but not so (there) and speaks of rightly diving the word of truth as well. I sure dont do that perfectly, but I dont stay on the NT (as in the books from Christ forward) because Jesus can be expounded upon out of the law and the prophets (beforehand) likewise, the testimony of Him is in there. He opened their minds to those things and expounded to them the things concerning himself, these I love finding of Him.

The eye for an eye I ignore, the meats and drinks I ignore, certain things after becoming familiar with the NC I try to divide from the OC but even the NC is spoken of in the scriptures of old. So they can work together to show a thing, depends how you use them though too.

 

[mrmccormo]

Do babies go to hell?

Also, do sinners go to hell without God?

Babies are not sent to hell. They do not yet have the witness of the conscience, they do not yet know "the law", therefore they cannot transgress the law.

So, if God sent His prophet into a pagan nation and told him to kill all the infants, isn't that a mercy? If those children grew up, they would most certainly grow up into paganism, transgress the law, and then go to hell.

I'm not saying we should all go out and kill some babies. What I'm saying is that God has mercy even in the most brutal of circumstances.

 

[HeavenlyMetal]

No babies do not go to hell. Yes sinners go to hell without God.

Babies are safe in Jesus until they are at the age of accountability where they need to be saved.

 

[HeavenlyMetal]

We sure didnt have to ignore it here. For example Jesus uses the example which can be shown in Saul (to execute His wrath) and the very eye for an eye principal (there) and speaks again to the "but I say unto you".

Not always do I understand what it might be showing, or there might be what appears to be a contradiction, as in why is this so (here) but not so (there) and speaks of rightly diving the word of truth as well. I sure dont do that perfectly, but I dont stay on the NT (as in the books from Christ forward) because Jesus can be expounded upon out of the law and the prophets (beforehand) likewise, the testimony of Him is in there. He opened their minds to those things and expounded to them the things concerning himself, these I love finding of Him.

The eye for an eye I ignore, the meats and drinks I ignore, certain things after becoming familiar with the NC I try to divide from the OC but even the NC is spoken of in the scriptures of old. So they can work together to show a thing, depends how you use them though too.

The eye for an eye isn't to be taken literal. I used to believe that it meant that someone's consequence is equal to their action. But in Matthew it clearly means that for as much someone does bad to you, do good to them. The purpose is to try and win them over to Christ. A very good method too.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The eye for an eye isn't to be taken literal. I used to believe that it meant that someone's consequence is equal to their action. But in Matthew it clearly means that for as much someone does bad to you, do good to them. The purpose is to try and win them over to Christ. A very good method too.

No bro, I didnt mean it literally. What I am talking about is how the example of an eye for an eye is shown in the doings of God (in executing his wrath) even as God stated so in respects to the doings of Amalek in the OC. How Jesus mentions the an eye for an eye (likewise) followed by the "but I say unto you"


Eye for an eye is OC

Cheeks and turning the other cheek in the NC.

That way I meant it, avenge not yourself, leave room for wrath, overcome evil with good amen there.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

The age of a child has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

No babies do not go to hell. Yes sinners go to hell without God.

Babies are safe in Jesus until they are at the age of accountability where they need to be saved.

I don't think the Bible addresses whether or not babies go to hell. Using your logic, killing an infant is not only tolerable, but desirable as the infant would automatically go to heaven - being safe in Jesus.

The age of a child has nothing to do with salvation.

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate on your thoughts as it pertains to the Biblical passage in question? Thanks!

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

It is written, that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit.

The first state of man is flesh, not Spirit.

John 3:3;"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, Except a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Man is born into this world fleshy minded, and sinful, even from our youth; Genesis 8:21;..."for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;"

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 tells us;"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." "For as in Adam all die ..."

By this we know all men are born into this world spiritually dead toward the righteousness of God.

Just as it is written in 1 Corinthians 15:46;"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

All men are born sinners.

Romans 3:23;"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Romans 5:12;"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Therefore being born first into this world as sinners, we are truly first born into this world as dead men.

Only those whom are born again of Gods Holy Spirit are alive to God, the flesh truly profits nothing, no matter what the age of the flesh.

But that decision is up to God.

For it is written;"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that shows mercy."

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

Thank you for the response. To go back to my question, what does that mean in relation to the infants in 1 Samuel 15:3? Are you saying the decision is up to God and we don't know the fate of those infants that God ordered killed in this case?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres a for instance where David sinned in taking another mans wife, God took care of His sin (taking that away) but the consequences of His deed the child would die

2Sam 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

David mourned while he yet lived (though was told by the LORD the child would die)

2Sam 12:22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

Then David says...

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

There are many things we don't know, such as why one lives, but yet another dies.

Romans 9:21-23;"Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

23."And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

God knows whom he has chosen, but we don't.

Romans 11:34-35;"For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counsellor? Or who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again."

God is justified in himself.


Job 1:21;"And said, Naked came I out of my mothers womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord."

Job understood that the Lord our God is a righteous God, whether we understand things or not; and whether we live, or we die, blessed is the name of the Lord.

 

[HeavenlyMetal]

I don't think the Bible addresses whether or not babies go to hell. Using your logic, killing an infant is not only tolerable, but desirable as the infant would automatically go to heaven - being safe in Jesus.


What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate on your thoughts as it pertains to the Biblical passage in question? Thanks!

Well my logic doesn't suggest that killing an infant is a good thing, or at all desirable. Just that if a baby dies, then he is safe in Jesus.

Matthew 19:14- "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

That verse proves that a child may follow Christ and have salvation. Since we are created by God, you'd think we would start out as Christians (like Adam & Eve) knowing no such thing as evil. Ideally we would all grow up like that as well, but the events in Genesis obviously changed that. Now we know both good and evil, right and wrong. Until a child becomes of age to know both right and wrong, then that child is safe in Jesus (like Adam & Eve were both good UNTIL they gained the knowledge of both good and bad).

And when does a child gain the knowledge of right and wrong? The age of accountability, which varies but it's surely not in the infant stage.

Besides, I just couldn't see God condemning those who don't even have the chance to know the truth (infants). Maybe he has different plans for them, maybe he gives 'em a new start in new flesh so they can live to atleast hear the truth.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

Job 1:21;"And said, Naked came I out of my mothers womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord."

Job understood that the Lord our God is a righteous God, whether we understand things or not; and whether we live, or we die, blessed is the name of the Lord.

This was very helpful. Our limited minds can only fathom but a speck (if that) of the realm of God - yet we can know him nonetheless. What happens in this world may seem awry, but in the end, God knows much more than we do in such things.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

Ideally we would all grow up like that as well, but the events in Genesis obviously changed that. Now we know both good and evil, right and wrong. Until a child becomes of age to know both right and wrong, then that child is safe in Jesus (like Adam & Eve were both good UNTIL they gained the knowledge of both good and bad)....

Are not our evil tendensies inherrant in our defective DNA? We inherited our sinful nature from Adam & Eve.

...And when does a child gain the knowledge of right and wrong? The age of accountability, which varies but it's surely not in the infant stage....

Jesus says we need to be born again. He doesn't say we need to be born again, except those infants that haven't learned about good & evil yet. I agree that there is an age of accountability where children at some point recognize on a more intellectual level the difference between good and evil.

...Besides, I just couldn't see God condemning those who don't even have the chance to know the truth (infants)....

I personally believe that all will at least know the truth about God in this life, whether infant or adult. This doesn't necessarily mean that they will understand him as you or I may understand him. A severely brain damaged individual has the capacity to know Jesus Christ even though he may not have the intellectual capacity to know him. However, he could know him in his heart. It is the same with infants. This doesn't mean I believe without a shadow of a doubt that all infants will indeed know Jesus in their hearts. However, I do believe it is possible.

...Maybe he has different plans for them, maybe he gives 'em a new start in new flesh so they can live to atleast hear the truth.

I disagree with this analogy. It sounds a bit too reincarnationalist. We are given this one life to live, whether we live as long as 100 years or merely a few hours as an infant. This is the one life God has given us. He may use us to give glory to himself in the way he sees fit. Having said that, I believe the God that I know is a God of love and wills my salvation. The choice is mine as to whether I accept him or not. Even with what may appear to be evil looking at a passage in the Bible (such as 1 Samuel 15:3), God knows much more than I do in such things. I trust God will lead me to the truth. That truth is love. That love may sometimes appear to not be a very loving action. But if we have eyes to see, we can see what is truly good for us.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

Heres a for instance where David sinned in taking another mans wife, God took care of His sin (taking that away) but the consequences of His deed the child would die...

This isn't very comforting for someone who has lost a child through miscarriage (myself).

Sometimes I think the Israelites of the Old Testament used this language to explain why bad things happened to them. Because of some sin they had committed, this bad thing happened to them.

Jesus changed this thinking in the New Testament. The lepers were made to believe that their illnesses were the result of their sin or their parents sin. In one sense, what the Old Testament said is true, in another they completely missed the mark. The consequence of sin is death. David's sin, resulted in the death of his child. Likewise, disease has entered our world due to sin. Yet Jesus heals those who have been injured by disease and sin. I recall the ten lepers who were healed by Jesus and only one came back to give praise to him. Jesus told that one leper that his faith had healed him. What of the others? I can't recall if the Gospel says. However, it is worth noting that the one who had faith was really the one who was truly healed.

 

[Fireinfolding]

This isn't very comforting for someone who has lost a child through miscarriage (myself).

Sometimes I think the Israelites of the Old Testament used this language to explain why bad things happened to them. Because of some sin they had committed, this bad thing happened to them.

Jesus changed this thinking in the New Testament. The lepers were made to believe that their illnesses were the result of their sin or their parents sin. In one sense, what the Old Testament said is true, in another they completely missed the mark. The consequence of sin is death. David's sin, resulted in the death of his child. Likewise, disease has entered our world due to sin. Yet Jesus heals those who have been injured by disease and sin. I recall the ten lepers who were healed by Jesus and only one came back to give praise to him. Jesus told that one leper that his faith had healed him. What of the others? I can't recall if the Gospel says. However, it is worth noting that the one who had faith was really the one who was truly healed.

I am sorry you lost a child through a miscarraige, I am sure that was difficult and you were greived, even moreso at that time.

Jobs children were taken from Him, and he did no wrong.

David did not lose through miscarraige.

It was comforting (much later on though for me) when I lost my six year old daughter Emily a few years ago. She fell suddenly ill and died within 24 hours of her sickness.

God gives and takes away, His name be blessed for ever, should be our words.

I do see her as lucky. She unlike me will not to endure this life. If I could chose the time of my departure, it would have been at a much younger age then her.

She got my wish (I wished for myself).