Killing in the Name Of  🔗 **Source:** [Killing in the Name Of](https://share.snipd.com/episode/cfd0c067-82f1-403b-961d-2ec8ac4fc12d) ## Highlights - **Amalek Began As Esau's Grandson And Became Israel's Enduring Enemy** - Amalek originates as a grandson of Esau and becomes a recurring enemy in Israelite memory tied to an ambush at Rephidim in Exodus 17. - The Exodus story frames Amalek as an enduring antagonist whose attack prompted God to vow to blot out their remembrance, shaping later commands in 1 Samuel 15. Transcript: Dan McClellan Two occurrences of the name Amalek in the book of Genesis, specifically in chapter 36 of the book of Genesis. We have Timnah, who was a concubine of Eliphaz, and this is Esau's son, so of Esau fame. And she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. And then these were the sons of Adah, Esau's wife. And then it goes on from there. And then we have Korah, Gatham, and Amalek are the clans of Eliphaz in the land of Edom, and they are the sons of Adah. Okay. That should be sufficient groundwork to lay our scene. Dan Beecher Yeah, it's hard for me to follow all of that, because I don't know who the good guys and the bad guys are in the bigats, But presumably that's just Amalek is just descended from people. Yes. Dan McClellan Well, Amalek was a grandson of Esau. Right. And Esau is the brother of Jacob. Okay. And there's bad blood for a little bit between Jacob and Esau. There's the famous story of him coming. He's got to cross the Yabbok River, and he's going to meet up with Esau again. He's afraid Esau's going to try and kill him. Esau really misses him. And, you know, it's a whole story. It's a whole thing. It's a whole thing. But Esau becomes the ancestors of the Edomites and other peoples. Right. And so Amalek immediately is non-Israelite, obviously, and is an other. But the main kind of choke point of the friction with Amalek occurs in Exodus 17. So this is where the Israelites, they have come out of Egypt. They're making their way toward the land. And then we have this famous story in Rephidim where the children of Amalek, the Amalekites or Amalekites come and fight against Israel. And this is a story where as long as Moses and Aaron and Hur were on the top of the hill and as long as Moses had his hands up, the Israelites were defeating Amalek. But if you dropped them, then the Amalekites were defeating Israel. And so Hur and Aaron had to prop up an arm on each side for Moses. And that way they defeat Amalek. ([Time 0:05:30](https://share.snipd.com/snip/702b33c4-133a-4378-82ba-c40eb7c920c3)) - **Saul's Failure To Carry Out Cherem Cost Him The Throne** - 1 Samuel 15 records a divine command to Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including men, women, children, and livestock (cherem ritual). - Saul spares King Agag and the best livestock, directly disobeying the command and setting up Samuel's denunciation. Transcript: Dan McClellan He's anointing him king. And the Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. Dan Beecher That's a lot. That is very extreme. I feel like it's a bit much, to be perfectly honest with you. Dan McClellan Yeah, this is commanding not just genocide, but even all of their property, even all their livestock. And there's a name for this. This is Kherim. And this is a kind of ritual slaughter, but not just ritual slaughter for the sake of ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter as a means of purifying the land. It's like human sacrifice. And there's a reason it has to be everybody because there's a sense in which you are deleting the bloodline because you understand the bloodline to be contaminated right and so it's It's a means of removing uh the people from the land so that the land can be purged of that evil and be wholly sanctified. Dan Beecher And to be clear, sorry, I just, I suddenly just realized that it keeps using the word Amalek, but it means like the nation of Amalek. We're not talking about the guy, the guy is long since dead. And we're well after that. Even the Exodus stuff is not talking about the guy Amalek, it's talking about the nation of Amalek. Yeah. Dan McClellan And in the Hebrew, it kind of toggles around between referring to Amalek and the people of Amalek, not Amal, excuse me. Woo! The people of Amalek are the sons of Amalek. So you'll see Amalekites sometimes in translation, other times you'll see Amalek. So Saul gets the people, 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 soldiers of Judah, comes to the city of the Amalekites to lay in wait in the valley. And then you have this little aside where Saul somehow says to the Kenites, withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt, so the Kenites from the Amalekites. Dan Beecher And there's a theory. That's an interesting thing. Like, did he have walkie-talkies? All the Kenites are on one frequency? Yeah. Dan McClellan And the thing is, there's a theory that the Kenite-Midianite hypothesis is one iteration of this theory that the people of Israel, at least in the Exodus story, seem to have some kind Of close relationship with Midianites and Kenites. And the Kenites are supposed to be the ancestors of Cain. Oh, you mean the descendants of Cain? Excuse me, yes. I get the direction mixed up occasionally. But yeah, the descendants of Cain. But they have some kind of close relationship with Moses. Like Moses' father-in was a Midianite priest. And so the Canites and the Midianites are somehow connected. So here we have kind of this nod to the notion that we have, we're friends with the Kenites. So we're going to let the Kenites go. So anyway, the Kenites bounce. Saul defeats the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. And then he takes King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. And in the Hebrew, this is the causative form of the verb haram, which is related to the noun cherem. And so Saul does this and spared a Gog and took the best of the sheep and the cattle and the fatted calves and the lambs and all that was valuable and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless, they utterly destroyed. And so that is not what he was told to do. Dan Beecher You were specifically told to destroy all of the everythings. ([Time 0:11:33](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b4235b9e-eae0-4646-bb7d-f0389eb43152)) - **Obeying God Beats Performing Sacrifices** - Samuel confronts Saul for taking spoil and sacrificing the best animals instead of obeying; prophetic poetry emphasizes obedience over sacrifice. - Saul admits sin but Samuel announces God has rejected him as king, illustrating theological priority of obedience. Transcript: Dan McClellan And then the word of the Lord comes to Samuel. I don't know if Saul made it back to the camp yet or if Samuel is just getting this revelation. He's like, oh no, I got a call coming in. Dan Beecher Samuel's working out at the gym and suddenly here's a beep. Dan McClellan And then God says, I regret that I made Saul king. And he's like, oh man, for he has turned back from following me and has not carried out my commands. Samuel was angry and he cried out to the Lord all night. So he rises early in the morning to meet Saul. I invested in this guy. Come on, man. Yeah. Yeah. And Samuel was told Saul went to Carmel where he set up a monument for himself. And on returning, he passed on down to Gilgal. Samuel came to Saul. Saul said to him, may you be blessed by the Lord. I have carried out the command of the Lord. But Samuel said, What then is this bleeding of sheep in my ears and the lowing of cattle that I hear? And Saul says, They brought them from the Amalekites. For the people spared the best of the sheep and the cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God. But the rest we have utterly destroyed. Then Samuel said to Saul, Stop. I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night. He replied, speak. Samuel said, though you are little in your own eyes, you are not the head of the, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel and the Lord sent you on a mission and said, go utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed. Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord? Now Saul defends himself. He's like, no, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I even got their king and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. And then Samuel says, yeah, but you took the sheep and the cattle. You took the best things. And Samuel then gives a little poem. Has the Lord as great? Because, you know, whenever the boss breaks out the poetry, you know something bad is happening. Yeah. To obey is better than sacrifice. It's a famous verse that we get here. And this evidently, the poem evidently convinces Saul that he was wrong. And he says, I've sinned. I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. I pray, pardon my sin. Return with me so that I may worship the Lord. And Samuel says, nah, not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent. I will not return with you for you have rejected the word of the Lord and the Lord has rejected you from being King over Israel. So Samuel turns to go, gives him the cold shoulder. Yeah. And Saul grabs his robe and it tears. The hem of his robe tears. And Samuel, you can see Samuel like pausing and kind of glancing down over his shoulder because he realizes he's torn the hem of his robe. And he goes, the Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day. As a, you know, like, this is an apropos symbol and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you. Oh, no. ([Time 0:16:23](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4c9c105f-53d9-4074-99f1-4de8299841b0)) - **Genocidal Commands And Later Survivors Create Textual Tension** - Biblical commands for total destruction coexist with later narrative evidence that those peoples, including Amalekites, reappear, creating tension in the text. - Apologists often call this hyperbolic ancient war rhetoric, but the hosts argue that claim lacks support and the cherem language is specific and ritualized. Transcript: Dan McClellan And oddly enough, though, by the end of the story, all of the Amalekites are dead. Because they killed everybody but the king. Right. And it's really the cattle and the livestock that are at issue. Dan Beecher That are the problem. Dan McClellan Yeah. And the king doesn't survive. Samuel hacks him up. So technically, the genocide worked. Yeah. Until you get to the end of the book of 1 Samuel. Okay. Because in 1 Samuel chapter 30, we have David now who's in charge. David and his men come to Ziklag on the third day. Good name. The Amalekites had made a raid on the Negev and on Ziklag, they had attacked Ziklag and burned it down and taken captive the women and all who were in it. Okay. Dan Beecher So I see a problem. Yes, the Amalekites are around They're fine. Yeah. And in numbers great enough to do some attacking. It's not just like three. Yeah, yeah. Dan McClellan It's not this plucky band of survivors that hid in a, you know. That put on some Kenite clothes and snuck away. Yeah. This is a war capable people. Yeah. And this is something that apologists have to deal with. But they get a two for one when it comes to this. The apologetic argument is twofold. Okay. Because you get this criticism. This is a God who commands genocide and gets upset when you don't adequately genocide other people. Yeah. But then the Amalekites are back. And the same thing happens in the book of Joshua. Chapters 10 and 11 are like God commands to go slaughter all of these towns of the Canaanites and leave nothing alive that breathes. And it rattles off the names of some places like Lachish and some other names and says, yeah, they left no survivors, killed everybody. Over and over again. Killed everybody. No survivors. And then like a half a chapter later, it's like, so anyway, all these towns hadn't been conquered yet. It's like, wait a minute, we just went and killed everybody and left no survivors in those towns. So there are a couple different places where we have commands for genocide that are not necessarily right next to, but are near references to those people who were supposed to have been Genocided still being around. And don't even bring up the fact that they just barely survived. It's like, yeah, they were around. And so for the apologists, the idea is, okay, well, we got to negotiate between the two. They both have to be true because we are presupposing univocality. We can't say, well, one was just propaganda. They didn't get it right. The other one is the true one. You can't do that. That's not allowed. How do you do that? You make up a scholarly development, a scholarly conclusion. You say that scholars have discovered that the references to killing every man, woman, child, and cattle, and sheep, and ox, and donkey is actually this common ancient Near Eastern Wartime rhetoric that is really just a way to refer to complete victory. To say, we left no survivors, we killed everything that breathed, is just a way to say we won the battle. And that way- Yeah, that's a hell of an exaggeration, but okay. Yes, yes. It is hyperbolic wartime rhetoric. And that way you can have your cake after you have already eaten it. Right. You can say, well, the text is technically true because it's just rhetorical. Everybody who heard it or read it would have known, oh, this just means they won the battle. And the texts that say these people were still around are also true. And so you get to preserve univocality and also you dodge the accusation of a genocidal god. ([Time 0:26:40](https://share.snipd.com/snip/762b6c63-d1e6-4a16-a1f4-2fe30933ff05)) - **Invoking Amalek In Modern Politics Raises Genocide Risks** - Benjamin Netanyahu and others have invoked Amalek as a rhetorical parallel to modern enemies, equating contemporary foes with the biblical 'other.' - The hosts warn this frames conflict as holy war and risks dehumanizing opponents by implying divine sanction for annihilation. Transcript: Dan Beecher Yeah, I was going to say, we teased something. We got to swing it back around to that. And that is the line that Benjamin Netanyahu has used many times, several times, since October 7th, a few years back, the first bombs started dropping in Israel and Palestine. Dan McClellan Yeah, there was the terrorist attack on October 7th, 2023, I believe it was. And then in response, you have Hamas described or equated with Amalek. And then more recently, we have seen Netanyahu say that we read in this week's Torah portion, remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we act in response to Iran attacking Israel. And so we have the prime minister of the modern nation of Israel comparing Hamas and depending on how you look at it, maybe all of Gaza or maybe Palestinians and Iran to Amalek. Now, to be clear, there's no indication whatsoever that any of them have any relationship to any people that ever actually existed named Amalek. Dan Beecher Well, there shouldn't be any more people named Amalek. Dan McClellan Yeah, there shouldn't. And so the identification is definitely a rhetorical thing. Right. There's not actually any literal relationship there. And so it's a very disturbing identification because it's basically saying we need to wipe out every last man, woman, and child of these people. Dan Beecher Least that is a valid interpretation of what uh you know that that is a way that you can interpret that that phrasing and and that invocation i know that i know that the prime minister's Office came out and said well what a preposterous thing why would you ever possibly associate the prime minister bringing up amalek uh in this way with total annihilation of an enemy. And it's just like, okay, I think we've all read the same Bible here. We know what happened to the Amalekites. What are you talking about? Yeah. But I think there is sort of some plausible deniability in that they, you know, they basically just say, no, it's a reference to when the Amalekites attacked Israel rather than when The Israelites attacked them back later on or something. Dan McClellan And I don't know the significance of just doing the remember thing. Yeah. Because that's what he said. We read in this week's story portion, remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we act. Well, it just happened. Like the attack, this came immediately after the attack. And then he told IDF soldiers, you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our holy Bible. And we do remember. But the other part of it, and this comes in a pair. It's not only remember, it's also blot out the memory of that people. ([Time 0:32:24](https://share.snipd.com/snip/182d082a-9c08-4cbb-92c0-0166e06e7c3e)) - **Holy War Framing Makes Atrocities Easier To Justify** - Framing wars as God's fight against God's enemies raises stakes and enables dehumanization, making atrocities easier to justify. - The hosts call this extremely dangerous and caution against religious language granting political carte blanche. Transcript: Dan McClellan It is appealing to the notion that the people on the other side of this are enemies to God. Right. And I think that's phenomenally dangerous. Anytime we try to equate these wars, these battles with the side of God versus the side of God's enemies. I think we are raising the stakes to a dangerous level, to the level where we can dehumanize the other side and we can excuse all manner of atrocity. ([Time 0:37:51](https://share.snipd.com/snip/744f1cc1-7dc9-4aed-b97d-f3cb7c6bad57)) - **Most Apostle Martyr Stories Are Late Apocryphal Legends** - Many popular claims about apostles' martyrdoms come from later apocryphal 'Acts of' literature dated centuries after the events, not the New Testament. - Examples: Peter's upside-down crucifixion appears in the Acts of Peter (2nd century), Andrew's X-cross in Acts of Andrew. Transcript: Dan McClellan Good old Judas. So we'll start with some of the low-hanging fruits, some of the easier ones. The ones that are actually uh i love that we just talked about judas and then you mentioned low-hanging fruit considering he hanged himself yeah he or did he did or did he yeah or did he Dan Beecher Just fall over and blow up Oh, gosh. Dan McClellan Making me think of the Simpsons where he tries to steal all the candy from the candy convention and takes the pop rocks and the soda and like puts them together and chucks them. Like a grenade. Yeah, creates a huge explosion as they run out the door. So the James, the son of Zebedee. Not the other James. Because there's multiple Jameses. Yeah, there's multiple Jameses, but according to Acts 12, verse 2, he was put to death by Herod Agrippa. Okay. He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. Okay. And so, yes. Dan Beecher So that one's actually, that's recorded in the Bible. Dan McClellan In the Bible. That doesn't necessarily mean it's historically accurate, but it is at least recorded in the Bible. So to the degree that we're going to take an account of someone's death in the Bible seriously. We need to take that one. Okay. Seriously. And we've got, and that's really, I think that's it when it comes to the folks mentioned in the Bible. Because Peter, a lot of people understand Peter to his, he was supposed to have been crucified upside down, and people will appeal to Gospel of John chapter 21, where it talks about how Other people will lead you where you're going to go, and your arms will be stretched out, or something like that. So people think of that as a prophetic allusion to Peter's martyrdom. But we don't really have a reference to Peter's martyrdom for a while. You have implied martyrdom, like 1 Clement, Clement of Alexandria, or no, Clement of Rome would be 1 Clement, excuse me, says that he endured many things and then went on to his eternal Reward or something like that. And the implication is that he went on to eternity as a result of the things he endured. A lot of people understand that as a reference to some kind of martyrdom. Some sort of unpleasantness that led to his death. Yes. Now, whether or not this was a martyrdom that could have been stopped by Peter denying his testimony of the risen Savior is really not clear. So that's another thing to bring up. Maybe they did say, you know what, I made it all up. I'm not sure that that actually happened. And they were like, too late. You got to die. So it's not clear that that is actually evidence that he was convinced. But I think Peter, of all the people from the New Testament who claim to have seen the risen Savior, I think Peter has probably the most solid testimony because Paul even talks about having Visited Peter. And Paul refers to Peter's vision of the risen Jesus. So Peter probably did make the claim that he had seen the risen Jesus. Okay. Dan Beecher And the story is that he was crucified in Rome, right? Dan McClellan Yeah. Upside down. And here's the thing, that tradition, it comes from an apocryphal text called the Acts of Peter. And we're going to see that most of these traditions actually come from a genre of literature called the Acts of the Apostles, which are New Testament apocryphal texts usually written Between the 2nd and 6th centuries CE. And they're filled with all kinds of fantastical tales of magic and daring do and all this kind of stuff. Dan Beecher We've met Thecla, so we know some of the daring do that can happen in an Acts of book. Dan McClellan Right. So the account of his being crucified upside down in Rome under Nero comes from a text that was probably written in the second half of the second century. So probably a hundred or more years after he was actually dead is when someone writes that account. So the actual nature of his martyrdom, I would say we've got decent evidence for his martyrdom, but the actual nature of it is apocryphal. ([Time 0:42:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/17e66944-a766-4245-a8db-af81d8d8ee4a)) - **Apostle Deaths Aren't Strong Historical Proofs Of Resurrection** - Direct New Testament references to apostles' deaths are sparse; Acts records James son of Zebedee killed by Herod, but other martyr details rely on later writers like Eusebius and Tertullian. - This undermines claims that apostles' violent deaths are strong independent evidence for the resurrection. Transcript: Dan McClellan It says nothing in the New Testament about Andrew. We have an Acts of Andrew, which was written probably second or third century CE, that talks about a martyrdom. And then Eusebius of Caesarea also talks about mission traditions, that he went gallivanting all around the world. And we're going to see this as well, sometimes conflicting traditions about where these people went and preached. But the tradition that we see in the Acts of Andrew is that he was crucified on an X-shaped cross. St. Andrew's cross, for those of you in the kink world. I think the St. Andrew's cross exists outside the kink world. Outside of the kink world? Oh, okay you guys can have it too that's fine but um yeah you have and notice there's there are variations on a theme peter upside down cross andrew x cross right like everybody everybody Dan Beecher Gets their own everybody gets well because because like the iconography of that t is already taken so we got to go with something different. Dan McClellan And that's why Peter was, according to the Acts of Peter, I believe that that's where it explains it. It was because he didn't feel worthy to be crucified in the same manner as the Savior. Oh, wow. And then we get to John, son of Zebedee. Okay. And Irenaeus says John lived to an old age. Eusebius of Caesarea says he dies in Ephesus. This is one of the disputed ones. Papias of Hierapolis. Kind of maybe there was a martyrdom. Who knows? Could have happened. Dan Beecher Did I see something about John being boiled in oil? Is that one of the legends? Or am I mixing that up? Dan McClellan I don't know anything about, oh, wait a minute. We got, according to Tertullian, John was banished, presumably to Patmos, where he presumably wrote the book of Revelation oh right because we're claiming that this is the same John Yeah after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it oh okay he survived the oil and then just died of old age and then the audience in the Colosseum all converted To Christianity when they saw the miracle of course they did Okay. ([Time 0:47:37](https://share.snipd.com/snip/227a3401-3f92-4ecc-9df9-56a53931b939)) - **Nobody Dies For A Lie Is A Weak Resurrection Argument** - The apologetic slogan 'nobody dies for a lie' is a poor argument for the resurrection because people die for sincerely held false beliefs or mixed motives. - The hosts argue middle-ground explanations (sincere but mistaken experiences) are more plausible than universal deceit. Transcript: Dan McClellan Yeah, and just how much apocryphal literature is out there that is not a part of our Bible, but that continues to influence the way that people think and talk about these figures and construct Arguments for the historicity of what's going on. I think a lot of people would be interested to know that a lot of what they think they know about these figures is actually coming to them from texts they would otherwise dismiss as nonsensical And apocryphal ravings of somebody who wasn't breastfed properly or something like that. Right. Dan Beecher But what's nice about it is just to acknowledge that it's part of the sort of rich, colorful tapestry that is the Christian tradition. Dan McClellan Yeah, it does not descend ex nihilo from one revealed truth. It comes to us from centuries and centuries of transmission and interaction. And yeah, it's messy. But what's not messy is the fact that the argument that nobody dies for a lie, therefore Jesus resurrected, is pretty bad. Yeah, yeah, it is. I declare it defeated. ([Time 1:01:45](https://share.snipd.com/snip/931e884a-38e9-4ca9-99ac-0f96ed39af61))