Hard Texts: Catholics And The Violence Of The Old Testament

Guest writer: Pilgrim.

Introduction: The Case of Amalek (1 Samuel 15)

Few passages of Scripture trouble modern readers more than God’s command in 1 Samuel 15 to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites. The story of Amalek is not alone in raising these questions. There is also the Flood, Sodom, the laws on slavery, and the Imprecatory Psalms. But Amalek distils the problem sharply. A prophet is claiming that God commanded the destruction of non-combatants: “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

For many people today, this is morally scandalous. In a recent exchange about this passage, the dispute was sharpened to a single, stark conclusion: “Murder is wrong. Samuel was wrong.” The argument is disarmingly simple. God cannot command evil. The killing of innocent non-combatants is evil. Therefore, whatever Samuel claimed to hear cannot really have come from God. The command must be a human projection, a religious justification for violence, or simply a moral mistake preserved in the text.

There is an obvious moral attraction to this response. It refuses to baptize violence, and it insists, rightly, that God is good. But it also suggests an answer to a deeper, more serious question without really noticing it has done so:

Who gets to judge revelation?

The issue is not whether the story of Amalek is disturbing. It is. The issue is whether we are entitled to decide what God could or could not have said, and then reclassify Scripture accordingly. Once that move is made, often without being fully acknowledged, the problem is no longer the Amalekites. It becomes a problem about the authority of Scripture and about the relationship between divine revelation and our own moral reasoning.

For many Christians, the options appear stark. Either we defend the passage in ways that sound evasive or callous, or we distance God from what the text says. Catholic teaching refuses both options. It does not deny that these texts are shocking, nor does it resolve the problem by placing our moral intuitions above revelation. The Catholic tradition does not offer a single, tidy solution to 1 Samuel 15. It does, however, hold certain things firmly: Scripture is inspired by God; God is truthful and just; revelation is coherent; and Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the whole of Scripture. Within those boundaries, Catholic thinkers have developed several ways of reading these passages, ways that take both the text and the authority of Scripture seriously.

What follows is not a ranking of better or worse answers. It’s a map of the main approaches within Catholic teaching, and of the lines that cannot be crossed without changing the faith into something else. These approaches are not competing escape routes. The first safeguards the Church’s core claims about divine action and inspiration; the others articulate how that action may be understood, received, and ultimately interpreted in the light of Christ.

The Divine Judgment Reading (The traditional understanding)

The most traditional way to read 1 Samuel 15 is straightforward: God judged the Amalekites, and He used Israel as His instrument to carry out that judgment. This reading starts with a simple theological claim: God is the giver of all life, so He has the right to decide when life ends. When a human being kills unjustly, that is murder; they are taking what does not belong to them. All life belongs to God, and He cannot commit injustice, because He is justice itself.

The judgment of Amalek is usually connected to what happened earlier. The Amalekites had attacked Israel in the wilderness when they were at their most vulnerable (Exodus 17; Deuteronomy 25). So this destruction is seen as God’s delayed but decisive judgment on a people who continued to oppose His saving purposes.

This reading does not ask us to pretend the passage is not shocking. The horror is real and acknowledged. It is understood, however, as the horror of judgment itself, not as proof that God did something wrong. Importantly, this reading also makes clear that such events belong to a unique moment in salvation history and do not permit Christians to act this way themselves.

The strength of this reading is that it takes God’s authority and Scripture’s inspiration seriously. The difficulty is that, to modern sensibilities, it can sound as though we are making excuses for God, even though that is not so.

The Mediated Judgment Reading

A second approach, closely related to the first, accepts that God truly judged the Amalekites and truly commanded what the text says. Its focus is not on whether God willed this, but on how His will was received and carried out by human beings who could not fully comprehend it.

When God’s judgment is enacted through human agents in history, those agents inevitably bring their own cultural and moral limitations into its execution. This is not a matter of adding violence to a gentler command. It’s a matter of finite and sinful human beings being unable to fully grasp the full depth and gravity of what God is doing. God judges. Human beings carry out that judgment within the limits of their understanding and their time. The gap is not between what God wanted and what Israel did. It is between what God meant and what Israel could understand.

This reading draws on Catholic teaching about how God governs history. God truly guides what happens, but He works through human choices and actions that are never fully adequate to what He wills. This isn’t a way of saying, “God really meant something else, and Israel turned it into violence.” The violence belongs to the judgment as the text presents it. What is limited is the human capacity to receive that judgment rightly, to understand why it’s given and how it fits within the whole of God’s saving work.

The strength of this reading is that it’s realistic about both God’s authority and human sinfulness. The danger is that, if handled carelessly, it can slide into suggesting that the violence was essentially a human invention placed over a milder divine intention. That is not what the text says, nor what Catholic teaching can accept.

Progressive Revelation

A third approach also affirms God’s real action in history but focuses on the idea that God revealed Himself gradually over time, much like a teacher guides students step by step. God truly revealed Himself in the Old Testament, but He did so within a long process of education. The people of Israel were not given the full picture right away. That would only come with Jesus Christ. God taught His people gradually, working within their cultural understanding and moral capacity at each stage.

This gradual teaching belongs to what the Church calls God’s loving condescension in revelation, not to any lack of truth in what God reveals. The Church teaches that all of Scripture points toward Jesus and finds its complete meaning in Him. What God revealed was real at every stage, but it was not complete until Christ came.

Within this framework, some of the harsh realities of early salvation history can be understood as things God truly governed and used without elevating them into permanent moral norms. The key question is what “accommodation” means here. It does not mean that God was absent or indifferent, or that the text is a human document reflecting Israel’s moral limitations. It means that God truly entered into a specific historical situation, one in which His people were not yet ready to receive the fullness of what He was leading them toward, and worked within it. The revelation is real. The limitation is in the recipients, not in God or in what He said. The command belongs to a stage of salvation history whose full meaning can only be seen in the light of Christ, not to a defective or morally mistaken word from God.

This approach is especially strong in explaining why there is real moral development within Scripture. Its weakness is that people sometimes misuse it to deny that God truly willed what the text says He did. That denial is not something Catholic teaching can accept.

The Spiritual Reading

One of the most characteristically Catholic approaches is often missing from modern debates: reading the passage as having a spiritual meaning beyond the historical events. The Church has always insisted that Scripture is given to help us grow in holiness, not only to record history. So the literal historical meaning does not exhaust the text’s meaning.

In early Christian interpretation, Amalek often became a symbol of sin, of the desires of the flesh, or of demonic forces opposed to the life of grace. The command to “utterly destroy” Amalek was then read as a call to radical conversion and uncompromising spiritual warfare. To spare King Agag became a symbol of moral compromise, of refusing to root out sin completely and allowing it to return in a more destructive form.

This reading does not deny that these historical events took place. In Catholic tradition, the spiritual senses of Scripture are grounded in the literal sense, not offered as a way of replacing it. The spiritual meaning is built on top of what happened. What this reading does is say that the lasting moral and spiritual meaning of the passage is not about military ethics. Its purpose is to teach us about the inner battle against sin. For the Catholic tradition, such readings are not ways of avoiding difficult texts. They are an essential part of how Scripture functions as the living Word of God addressed to the Church.

Reading Through Christ

At the deepest level, all divine judgment in Scripture must be read through Jesus Christ. The cross reveals that God does not remain outside judgment as a distant ruler who hands it down. He enters into judgment Himself. The weight of sin, violence, and human injustice falls upon God in the flesh.

From this perspective, Old Testament acts of judgment, including the destruction of Amalek, are real, but they’re also provisional. They point beyond themselves. They reveal how serious sin is and how destructive evil truly is. They also expose humanity’s inability to carry out justice without becoming entangled in violence. In this way, they prepare for a form of judgment that will no longer be carried out against enemies as enemies, but borne for them in Christ.

This does not make the judgments of the Old Testament easy to bear or morally simple. It does not trivialise them or explain them away. What it does mean is that they are not the final word. The Church can hold the destruction of Amalek as a real act of God without treating it as the fullest expression of who God is. That fullest expression is the Cross, where justice and mercy meet in a way no earlier stage of revelation could yet display. Only when Scripture is read through Christ can the Church hold together both the terrible seriousness of sin and the radical depth of God’s mercy.

Conclusion: Where Catholic Teaching Draws the Line

Because Catholic teaching affirms that Scripture is inspired, that prophecy is real, and that revelation forms a single, coherent whole, certain moves are not available. We cannot say that Samuel made it up. We cannot say that God could not have meant what the text says He meant. We cannot allow our moral reactions to become the final court of appeal over what God may or may not do. And we cannot suggest that Jesus comes to correct or replace the God of Israel, rather than to reveal Him fully.

This is why the apparently straightforward claim, “Samuel was wrong,” is not a small adjustment or a harmless moral rescue operation. It is a different rule of faith. It places human moral judgment above revelation and allows Scripture to speak only where it agrees with us. At that point, we are no longer wrestling with a difficult text within the Christian tradition. We are rewriting the tradition so that God is never permitted to exceed our moral comfort zone.

The scandal of passages like the destruction of Amalek cannot be explained away, but neither can it be solved by shrinking God to fit our sensibilities. The principles outlined here apply not only to Amalek but to every passage where God’s action troubles us. If we cannot read 1 Samuel 15 under the authority of Scripture, we will not read any difficult text that way.

The Catholic response is harder and more honest. It insists that we remain under the authority of Scripture, that we read it in the light of Christ, and that we live with the tension between God’s holiness and our moral unease.

The deepest question is not whether these texts disturb us. It is whether we will allow God to remain God, or only permit Him to be a version of Himself that we already approve of.