Let me first say that yes, the Old Testament, the Jewish Tanakh, contains some barbaric events. Throughout history, a number of justifications have been offered to excuse such actions, but I think this approach is misguided.
Instead, I think we should look at what the book of Samuel is. Now, while current Bibles have First and Second Samuel, they really constitute a single work. For instance, the Talmud refers to the entire narrative as the Book of Samuel. The reason we have it in two parts is simply a product of how ancient sources were written.
Scrolls used by scribes were roughly the same size. When Samuel was translated into Greek sometime in the third century BC, it was too large to fit on a single scroll. So it was separated into two pieces. But really, we should be looking at it as a whole. It is also possible that the first two chapters of 1 Kings also belong with the Book of Samuel.
However, this is where it begins to get more complicated. While the Book of Samuel should be seen as a singular work, it is also a work that is a composite of other works. One clear independent narrative is what has been called the Ark Narrative, which comprises 1 Samuel 4-7:1 and 2 Samuel 6.
This Ark Narrative is often regarded as the oldest section of the Book of Samuel. While we can strip it out, we also have to recognize that it was deliberately integrated into a broader narrative. So we have to treat it as both part of the larger narrative and as something removed from that narrative.
A second widely accepted independent narrative in Samuel, though on shakier ground, is the so-called Succession Narrative. Along with those independent narratives, we also have a later editor or editors, with the book possibly having been edited multiple times, during different time periods.
So we are looking at a work that is a composite work of different narratives and sources that are then later edited and brought together, which at times means that some stories actually appear twice, but in different manners, giving us different versions, as one could say.
What all this creates is really a piece of literary art, and we should read it as such. Fact and fiction are melded in the work, and reading it as a straightforward history just doesn’t work. One could see it as historical fiction.
I point all that out because it’s important to understand the context in which works are written so that we can read through them properly. Some background can go a long way toward understanding what a text says.
Looking at this narrative, we see a struggle between Saul, and Samuel, who had the unique authority to anoint Saul to be King, and it’s implied that he has the power to strip Saul of that kingship, which is something Samuel will exercise.
Samuel is basically scolding Saul for insubordination, and is stating, you will do as I say; don’t forget who put you where you are.
We then get into a clear command for genocide. Now, the Amalekites were a nomadic people to the south of Israel. They are portrayed as vicious adversaries of the Israelites, and later on, the term Amalek ends up signifying archenemy. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19, we are told that the Amalekites had massacred many Israelites. That is what 1 Samuel 15:2 is referencing, and what leads up to the command for genocide.
In verse 3, the one in question, Samuel says, Now, go and strike down Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has, you shall not spare him, and you shall put to death man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
This is a bit more than what we think of genocide. The ban, or proscription as other translations read, was one of the cruelest practices in Near Eastern warfare. It called for total destruction. To be clear, this practice wasn’t unique to the Israelites; it is seen throughout the ancient Near East. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does put it into context.
So it truly is a horrendous act that is being commanded. But it should be noted that it isn’t necessarily God’s command. Throughout much of Samuel, there is ambiguity about whether the command comes from God or from Samuel himself, who claims to speak for God.
Standing back, we can say that it was Samuel speaking. That Samuel was making such a command; a command that is shaped by current practices within warfare at that time and place. We also have to realize that this isn’t necessarily history, but a piece of literary art.
So where do I stand on this verse?
Make no mistake, it portrays a terrible and horrific practice of ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. It’s not something to be praised. We can understand it from a historical perspective, but we shouldn’t try to justify such actions.