Clever (and thoroughly enjoyable) hypothesis. However, in the context of the central question/argument, I find this hypothesis to be a dodge.
The better follow-up question to the question posed in the title is “by what standard?” (I.e. who defines morality?). Once that question is answered truthfully, I think the rest of the logic locks into place: regardless of the bloodline of the Amalekites, their sin as a people required capital punishment. And because our God is covenantal, ALL the people were included in the capital punishment (a microcosm of the human race represented in Adam’s fall). The Israelites were God’s instrument of delivering this judgment.
Implication for today? God is covenantal and chooses to work through people/families/nations. In the New Covenant, this is specifically the Body of Christ. What we do matters—even the most mundane things—because we are the instrument through which His Kingdom grows.
Ian, thank you for your thoughtful response. There are a couple of points I'd like to address:
While you refer to my hypothesis as clever and enjoyable, it's important to clarify that the argument regarding the Amalekites being giants who defiled the land is directly derived from biblical texts and interpretations, rather than being a mere theory. This perspective is supported by specific passages in the Bible and scholarly work, such as Dr. Michael Heiser's research on the Rephaim and Nephilim. Therefore, it’s more than a hypothesis; it is a biblically grounded interpretation that aligns with ancient Near Eastern contexts and theological studies.
The argument presented is not a dodge but a legitimate interpretation of the biblical narrative. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Amalekite genocide by situating it within the broader framework of biblical theology and ancient context. By highlighting the nature of the Amalekites as demonic giants, the argument seeks to explain why their eradication was commanded, thus directly addressing the ethical concerns raised by modern readers. This explanation is intended to clarify rather than avoid the central issue.
Your point about "by what standard?" is indeed central to the discussion, and I appreciate it. Additionally, I appreciate your thoughts on the implications for today. Recognizing that God works through people, families, and nations within the New Covenant reinforces the idea that our actions matter significantly. Thank you!
Thanks for replying. I concede your point: “hypothesis” was a poor word choice on my part. I don’t mean to take away anything from your interpretation of the texts—I’m fully on board with it.
My point in using “dodge” isn’t intended to offend but merely to say that I didn’t feel the argument it fully addressed, head-on, the question posed in the title.
Again, I fully enjoyed the article and am onboard with your interpretation of the texts, and your goal of re-enchanting a world asleep under the dark spell of the “enlightenment.”
Clever (and thoroughly enjoyable) hypothesis. However, in the context of the central question/argument, I find this hypothesis to be a dodge.
The better follow-up question to the question posed in the title is “by what standard?” (I.e. who defines morality?). Once that question is answered truthfully, I think the rest of the logic locks into place: regardless of the bloodline of the Amalekites, their sin as a people required capital punishment. And because our God is covenantal, ALL the people were included in the capital punishment (a microcosm of the human race represented in Adam’s fall). The Israelites were God’s instrument of delivering this judgment.
Implication for today? God is covenantal and chooses to work through people/families/nations. In the New Covenant, this is specifically the Body of Christ. What we do matters—even the most mundane things—because we are the instrument through which His Kingdom grows.
Ian, thank you for your thoughtful response. There are a couple of points I'd like to address:
While you refer to my hypothesis as clever and enjoyable, it's important to clarify that the argument regarding the Amalekites being giants who defiled the land is directly derived from biblical texts and interpretations, rather than being a mere theory. This perspective is supported by specific passages in the Bible and scholarly work, such as Dr. Michael Heiser's research on the Rephaim and Nephilim. Therefore, it’s more than a hypothesis; it is a biblically grounded interpretation that aligns with ancient Near Eastern contexts and theological studies.
The argument presented is not a dodge but a legitimate interpretation of the biblical narrative. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Amalekite genocide by situating it within the broader framework of biblical theology and ancient context. By highlighting the nature of the Amalekites as demonic giants, the argument seeks to explain why their eradication was commanded, thus directly addressing the ethical concerns raised by modern readers. This explanation is intended to clarify rather than avoid the central issue.
Your point about "by what standard?" is indeed central to the discussion, and I appreciate it. Additionally, I appreciate your thoughts on the implications for today. Recognizing that God works through people, families, and nations within the New Covenant reinforces the idea that our actions matter significantly. Thank you!
Thanks for replying. I concede your point: “hypothesis” was a poor word choice on my part. I don’t mean to take away anything from your interpretation of the texts—I’m fully on board with it.
My point in using “dodge” isn’t intended to offend but merely to say that I didn’t feel the argument it fully addressed, head-on, the question posed in the title.
Again, I fully enjoyed the article and am onboard with your interpretation of the texts, and your goal of re-enchanting a world asleep under the dark spell of the “enlightenment.”