# The command to destroy

The commands to devote entire peoples to destruction raise questions about divine violence, historical uniqueness, and spiritual application. How readers answer shapes their understanding of Scripture, war, and the Christian life.

Source: https://manybibles.app/articles/the-amalekites — ManyBibles. Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from ManyBibles' records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.

## The passage (Scripture)

### 1 Samuel 15:1-3

> [1] Samuel said to Saul, "Me the LORD sent to anoint you as king over his people, over Israel. Now listen to the voice of the words of the LORD. [2] Thus says the LORD of Armies: 'I have marked what Amalek did to Israel, what he laid out for him on the way when he came up from Egypt. [3] Now go, and you must strike Amalek, and you all must devote to destruction all that he has, and you must have no pity on him, but you must put to death from man to woman, from infant to nursing baby, from ox to sheep, from camel to donkey.'

Study the chapter: https://manybibles.app/study/1-samuel/15

### Deuteronomy 20:16-18

> [16] Only of the cities of these peoples, which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive any breathing thing. [17] Instead, you shall utterly devote them to destruction: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you; [18] so that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominations, which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.

Study the chapter: https://manybibles.app/study/deuteronomy/20

## The question

How should readers understand the commands to destroy whole peoples?

## Background (historical background)

The commands in 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 20 belong to the Deuteronomistic History and the legal core of the Pentateuch respectively. In 1 Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel instructs King Saul to 'devote to destruction' the Amalekites, using the Hebrew root h-r-m, often translated 'ban' or 'utterly destroy.' Deuteronomy 20:16-18 commands the total destruction of six Canaanite peoples 'as the LORD your God has commanded you,' explicitly to prevent them from teaching Israel their religious practices.

Both passages use the language of herem, a practice attested in other ancient Near Eastern texts such as the Moabite Mesha Stele, where a conquered people is devoted to a deity. The commands are set within narratives of Israel's formation as a distinct covenant people, and they have generated extensive interpretive traditions across Jewish and Christian communities.

## How the traditions read it (each tradition's interpretation)

### Catholic: A just and unique divine judgment, also read spiritually as war against passions.

The Latin tradition holds that these wars were just because God explicitly commanded them, executing judgment on deeply rooted Canaanite abominations. Thomas Aquinas and later moral theologians also read the chapter's exemptions and fruit-tree protections as evidence that divine law sets rational limits on warfare. In the Eastern and Alexandrian tradition, the commands are read primarily as allegory: the enemies are not flesh and blood but demons, vices, and passions. This dual approach lets the Church affirm the historical justice of the conquest while directing Christians to spiritual combat.

### Eastern Orthodox: Allegories for spiritual warfare, not models for Christian violence.

Orthodox reception, shaped by Alexandrian exegesis, insists that Christians read these texts spiritually: the Canaanites and Amalekites are types of demonic forces and carnal passions. The command to 'save alive nothing that breathes' is applied to the ascetic struggle against logismoi—sinful thoughts—and the faithful are told to make no peace treaties with temptations. The military exemptions for new houses, vineyards, and betrothals are read ascetically as warnings that worldly attachments hinder spiritual combat. This does not deny the historical reality of the Old Testament but subordinates the literal sense to the spiritual benefit of the Church.

### Lutheran: Israelite civil law and a unique divine judgment, not a mandate for holy war.

Lutheran theology classifies Deuteronomy 20's warfare regulations as Israelite civil law (lex civilis), which does not legally bind Christians. God's active regulation of warfare shows that military service is a legitimate vocation in the temporal realm, as the Augsburg Confession affirms. The command to utterly destroy the Canaanites is understood as a unique, time-bound administration of God's wrath against flagrant idolatry. Lutherans reject any application of these texts to crusades, forced conversion, or church coercion, maintaining a sharp distinction between the two kingdoms.

### Reformed: A one-time intrusion of final judgment, with lasting moral principles for war.

Reformed theology interprets the total destruction as an eschatological intrusion of final divine judgment, localized to Israel's theocracy and unrepeatable. The Westminster Confession's principle of 'general equity' is applied to the chapter's other regulations: the offer of peace to distant cities and the prohibition on cutting down fruit trees establish universal moral boundaries against wanton violence. John Calvin emphasizes these limits as binding moral principles. Reformed readers also apply the physical warfare typologically to the believer's duty to mortify remaining sin without compromise.

### Anabaptist: Old Covenant violence is superseded by Jesus' nonviolent teaching.

Anabaptist tradition insists on strong covenantal discontinuity: the literal sword commanded under the Old Covenant has been replaced by the nonresistant cross of the New Covenant. Early Anabaptists like Pilgram Marpeck argued that these texts were valid for fleshly Israel but no longer authorize carnal warfare for the church. Contemporary Mennonite scholarship, such as Millard Lind, highlights the subversive elements in Deuteronomy 20 that undercut militarism. The commands are read as spiritual warfare against sin, while Christians are called to nonviolence and conscientious objection.

### Pentecostal: Typological warning for separation from sin, not a mandate for war.

Classical Pentecostalism often reads Israel's battles through a typological and spiritualizing lens, especially given early Pentecostal pacifist currents. The priest's assurance that God fights for His people is received as a promise of the Holy Spirit's empowering presence. The command to utterly destroy the Canaanites illustrates God's absolute holiness and judgment against sin, serving as a typological warning for believers to maintain absolute separation from worldly abominations. It is not understood as a standing mandate for holy war.

### Jewish: Halakhic distinctions between obligatory and discretionary wars.

Rabbinic tradition organizes this chapter around the distinction between milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) and milchemet reshut (discretionary war). The Mishnah rules that the exemptions for new houses, vineyards, and betrothals apply only to discretionary wars. Maimonides rules that the obligation to call for peace applies universally, even against the Canaanites, provided they accept subjugation and the Noahide laws. The injunction against destroying fruit trees becomes foundational for Jewish environmental law (Bal Tashchit). These laws inform Jewish military ethics rather than licensing modern violence.

### Historical-critical scholarship: Retrospective literary construct, not a record of historical practice.

Historical-critical scholars generally date the final form of these laws to the late pre-exilic or exilic periods, when the listed peoples no longer existed as distinct military threats. The commands are therefore understood as retrospective literary theology, not contemporary military directives. Comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence, such as the Moabite Mesha Stele, shows that herem was a known regional practice. The legislation functioned polemically to enforce strict monolatry and separation from foreign religious practices in the authors' own day.

### Jehovah's Witnesses: Righteous, unique judgment for ancient Israel; Christians remain neutral.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the command to destroy the Canaanites was a righteous, delayed execution of Jehovah's perfect judgment against nations that had centuries to repent. The destruction was necessary to protect pure worship and the Messianic line. These literal combat laws belonged strictly to pre-Christian Israel's theocracy. Since Jesus established a spiritual congregation, modern Witnesses maintain strict political and military neutrality, viewing their warfare as entirely spiritual.

## The text and its translation (historical background)

The Hebrew root h-r-m underlies 'devote to destruction'; English translations include 'utterly destroy,' 'ban,' and 'put under the ban.' There are no major manuscript variants affecting these verses, although Deuteronomy 20:19 contains a well-known textual crux about trees that does not bear on the commands regarding peoples.

## Common ground (AI explanation)

All traditions represented here treat these passages as Scripture and as texts that require careful interpretation within a wider canonical or traditional framework. They generally agree that the commands are not a universal license for genocide, and most read them either as unique historical judgments, spiritual allegory, or retrospective literary constructs. There is also broad recognition that later readers must not simply imitate the literal violence without qualification.

## Why it matters (AI explanation)

Historically, these texts have been invoked to justify crusades, colonial violence, and the civil punishment of heretics; many Christian traditions now explicitly reject such applications. For Jewish communities, the laws shape halakhic discussions of war and environmental ethics. For Christians, these passages raise pressing questions about divine character, the authority of Scripture, and the ethics of war; they also inform spiritual practices like ascetic self-examination and the mortification of sin.

## Questions people ask

### What does herem mean in 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 20?

Herem is the Hebrew root behind translations such as "devote to destruction," "utterly destroy," and "put under the ban." It describes something set apart for God, in these passages by total destruction, and it is attested in other ancient Near Eastern texts like the Moabite Mesha Stele. The article notes that no major manuscript variants affect these verses.

### Why do these passages command the destruction of whole peoples?

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 gives the stated reason that the Canaanite peoples would otherwise teach Israel their religious practices, while 1 Samuel 15 presents the Amalekites' destruction as divine judgment carried out through Saul. Traditions weigh that reason differently: some read it as a unique, time-bound judgment, others as allegory for spiritual warfare, and historical-critical scholars as a retrospective literary construct.

### Do these commands justify war or violence today?

No tradition summarized in the article treats them as a standing mandate for holy war or genocide; each restricts them in some way. The article notes that these texts have been invoked historically to justify crusades and colonial violence, applications that many Christian traditions now explicitly reject.

### How do Jewish readers interpret the command to destroy the Canaanites?

Rabbinic tradition distinguishes milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) from milchemet reshut (discretionary war), and the Mishnah applies the exemptions for new houses, vineyards, and betrothals only to the latter. Maimonides holds that the call for peace applies even against the Canaanites, provided they accept subjugation and the Noahide laws. The injunction against destroying fruit trees became foundational for Jewish environmental law, Bal Tashchit.

### How do Christian traditions read these passages?

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox readers commonly treat the enemies as types of demons, vices, and passions, so the commands direct Christians to spiritual combat rather than literal violence, while the Latin tradition also defends the wars as just because God commanded them. Lutheran and Reformed theology classify the warfare laws as Israelite civil law or a one-time divine judgment, and Anabaptists read them as superseded by Jesus' nonviolent teaching. Jehovah's Witnesses treat the destruction as a unique judgment on ancient Israel's enemies and maintain strict neutrality today.