I Samuel 15
Option 2: Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel (or anywhere else, for that matter): Similar problem here: there were no social relief programs/processes adequate to take care of this many dependent people.
There were no social relief, welfare, or benevolent resources ANYWHERE in the ANE, even in the "wealthiest" of nations.
Let's be VERY clear about this. We take these for granted and they simply did NOT exist in the ancient world. This was NOT in any sense an option for this situation.
Option 3: Leave them there in the desert to their fate
This, of course, is simply another form of the death sentence: a slower death through exposure, predatory animals (and possibly slave-traders), and dehydration.
To escape from a military victor was the same as escaping to a prolonged and agonizing death, in the ANE:
Option 4: Kill them there in the desert
•We do have some data from antiquity that shows that people preferred quick deaths over slow agonizing ones, and this data also comes from suicide events.
"Men condemned to participate in amphitheater events [in the Roman empire] realized that their deaths would be agonizing and painful. Some chose to commit suicide, and...spare themselves the torment..." [As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History, Jo-Ann Shelton, Oxford: 1988.]
•And we have already seen that people preferred quick deaths to 'normal' foreign slavery.
•In fact, in antiquity, people preferred quick deaths (e.g., suicides) over many adverse situations in which they were still alive.
So, if we except the reality of the lack of social infrastructure necessary to support such a group, this final alternative looks like the "least painful and least dehumanizing" There is nothing laudatory about it, to be sure, but the moral difficulty was forced on the Israelites by the Amalekite warrior aggression. The fact that the destruction of the Amalekite warrior group was required to end the continual anti-Israelite savagery, forced the Israelites into this situation.
What this means is that the ancients disagree with moderns over what is morally acceptable euthanasia.
I remember vividly the first time I was confronted with this concept. I glanced at a scene on TV. I wasn't watching the show at all, but was struck by the image of two heads sticking up out of level ground. As I tuned in to the situation, I saw something that deeply disturbed my thinking. The hero cowboy had ridden up with his friend, on horseback, to this spot of level ground. What showed sticking up out of the ground were the backs of two human heads, one an Indian squaw, and the other a paleface" man. They had been buried up to their necks in the dirt (rendering them immovable), next to a fire-ant mound. The hero read the Indian sign nearby and explained to his fellow they these two had been caught in some sexual impropriety some days back, and they were sentenced to die slowly and painfully by fire-ant. The heads were still recognizable, but not moving or speaking, and fortunately the camera did not show their faces. The hero took out his gun and shot the two people, ending an agony that I still cannot think of without squirming. I remember thinking -- 'was that really murder? It was deliberate, it was unprovoked, it was violent--but it was merciful.
Credits and Sources:
Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
James Patrick Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/
Loading...
10:00Amalekites Rewind Part 1 of 9by caccjamaica132 views
All Comments