Hubbry Logo
AmalekAmalekMain
Open search
Amalek
Community hub
Amalek
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Amalek
Amalek
Amalek
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17).

Amalek (/ˈæməlɛk/;[1] Biblical Hebrew: עֲמָלֵק‎, romanized: ʿĂmālēq) is described in the Hebrew Bible as the enemy of the nation of the Israelites. The name "Amalek" can refer to the descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau, or anyone who lived in their territories in Canaan,[2][3][4] or North African descendants of Ham, the son of Noah.[5] Amalekite denotes a tribe that dwelt in Arabia Petraea, between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea. They were not the descendants of Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, for they existed in the days of Abraham (Gen 14:7).

Etymology

[edit]

Most scholars regard the origin of the term, "Amalek" to be unknown[6] but in some rabbinical interpretations, it is etymologized as am lak, 'a people who lick (blood)'.[7]

Richard C. Steiner has suggested that the name is derived from the Egyptian term *ꜥꜣm rqj "hostile Asiatic", possibly referring to Shasu tribesmen from around Edom.[8]

In the Hebrew Bible

[edit]

According to the Hebrew Bible, Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (himself the son of Esau, ancestor of the Edomites and the brother of Israel) and Eliphaz's concubine Timna. Timna was a Horite and sister of Lotan.[2] According to a midrash, Timna was a princess who tried to convert. However, she was rejected by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. She replied she would rather be a handmaiden to the dregs of Israel than be a mistress of another gentile nation. To punish the Patriarchs for their attitudes, God caused Timna to give birth to Amalek, whose descendants would cause Israel much distress. Amalek was also the product of an incestuous union since Eliphaz was Timna's stepfather according to 1 Chronicles 1:36,[9] after he committed adultery with the wife of Seir the Horite, who was Timna's biological father.[10][11] First-century Roman Jewish scholar and historian Josephus refers to Amalek as a "bastard" (Koine Greek: νόθος);[12] the Hebrew equivalent, mamzer, is a specific category of persons born from a forbidden relationship.

Battle with the Amalekites, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1860), representing Exodus 17:8–16.

Amalekites

[edit]

Amalek is described in Genesis 36:16[13] as the "chief of Amalek" among the "chiefs of the sons of Esau", from which it is surmised that he ruled a clan or territory named after him. In the oracle of Balaam, Amalek was called the "first of the nations".[14] One modern scholar believes this attests to Amalek's high antiquity,[15] while traditional commentator Rashi states: "He came before all of them to make war with Israel".[16] The Amalekites (/ˈæməlɛkaɪts/)[17] were claimed to be Amalek's descendants through the genealogy of Esau.[18]

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Amalekites inhabited the Negev and Sinai Peninsula.[3] They appear to have lived a nomadic or seminomadic lifestyle along the fringes of southern Canaan's agricultural zone.[4] This is probably based on the association of this tribal group with the steppe region of ancient Israel and the area of Kadesh (Genesis 14:7).

As a people, the Amalekites are identified throughout the Hebrew Bible as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites:[18]

  • In Exodus 17:8–16 during the Exodus, the Amalekites ambush the Israelites encamped at Rephidim, but are defeated. Moses orders Joshua to lead the Israelites into battle, while Moses, Aaron and Hur watch from a nearby hill. When Moses' hands holding his staff are raised, the Israelites prevail, but when his hands are lowered, the Israelites falter. He sits with his hands held up by Aaron and Hur until sunset, securing the Israelite victory.
  • In Deuteronomy 25:17–19,[19] The Israelites are specifically commanded to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven" once they have taken possession of the Promised Land in retribution for "what Amalek did to [them] on the way as [they] were coming out of Egypt", a reference to the Amalekite ambush on the Israelites at Rephidim. Earlier, in Deuteronomy 7:1–16[20] and Deuteronomy 25:16–18,[21] they are commanded to utterly destroy all the inhabitants of the idolatrous cities in the promised land and their livestock; scripture purports that King Saul ultimately loses favor with Yahweh for failing to kill King Agag and the best livestock of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15[22] in defiance of these commandments.
  • In Numbers 14:45,[23] the Amalekites and Canaanites kill a group of Israelites who tried to enter the hill country of the Amorites without Moses's permission.
  • In Judges 3:13,[24] Amalek, and their Moabite and Ammonite allies, defeat Israel so that the Moabites could oppress them. Judges 10:11–13[25] confirms Amalek as being one of the many oppressors of Israel.
  • In Judges 6:1–6,[26] Amalek, and their Midianite allies, destroy Israelite farms "as far as Gaza", inducing a famine. They also help the Midianites wage wars against Israel, according to Judges 6:32–34[27] and Judges 7:11–13.[28]
  • In 1 Samuel 15:1–9,[29] Samuel identifies Amalek as the enemy of Israelites, saying "Thus says the Lord of hosts: I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt," a reference to Exodus.[30] God then commands Saul to destroy the Amalekites, by killing man, woman, infant and suckling.[31] This massacre is believed to be a retelling of the raids in 1 Samuel 14:48,[32][33] although it additionally specifies that it occurred in the "city of Amalek", which was believed to be the "principal place of arms"[34] or the "metropolis" of Amalek.[35] In 1 Samuel 15:33,[36] Samuel identifies King Agag of Amalek as an enemy and killer, saying "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women."
  • In 1 Samuel 27:8–9,[37] David and his men conduct raids against the Amalekites and their Geshurite and Gezirite allies. He kills every man and woman but takes sheep, cattle, donkey, camels, and clothing. These Amalekites were theorized to be refugees who fled from Saul or a separate Amalekite faction that dwelt to the south of Israel. Gili Kluger believes these narratives were anti-Saul propaganda, designed to make him appear weak compared to David, since no losses were attributed to David.[38]
  • According to 1 Samuel 30:1–2,[39] the Amalekites invaded the Negev and Ziklag in the Judean/Philistine border area towards the end of the reign of King Saul, burning Ziklag and taking its citizens away into captivity. David led a successful mission against the Amalekites to recover "all that the Amalekites had carried away".[40]
  • In 2 Samuel 1:5–10,[41] an Amalekite tells David that he found Saul leaning on his spear after the battle of Gilboa. The Amalekite claims he euthanized Saul, at Saul's request, and removed his crown. David gives orders to his men to kill the Amalekite for killing the anointed king, believing him to be guilty by admission.[42]
  • In 1 Chronicles 4:43,[43] the Simeonites kill the remaining survivors of Amalek and live in their settlements.
  • In Psalm 83:7,[44] Amalek joins Israel's other historic enemies in annihilating Israel. Their attempts are thwarted by God. Although most scholars believe the passage refers to a real historical event, they are unsure which event it should be identified with.[45] One likely answer is that it occurred during the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the 9th to 7th centuries BC.[46]

Interpretation

[edit]

Judaism

[edit]
"Davidstern" (Star of David) by Dick Stins is a Holocaust memorial in The Hague. The text at the side (in Dutch and Hebrew) is from Deuteronomy 25:17, 19 – "Remember what Amalek has done to you ... do not forget."

In the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides derived three commandments, two positive and one negative, related to references to Amalek in the Torah:

# Type Commandment Source
59 Negative Not to forget the wicked deeds which Amalek perpetrated against us[47] "Do not forget" (Deut. 25:19)
188 Positive To exterminate the seed of Amalek[48] "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" (Deut. 25:19)
189 Positive To constantly remember what Amalek did to us[49] "Remember what Amalek did to you" (Deut. 25:17)

Many rabbinic authorities such as Maimonides ruled that the commandment only applies to a Jewish king or an organized community, and cannot be performed by an individual.[50] According to Rashi, the Amalekites were sorcerers who could transform themselves to resemble animals, in order to avoid capture. Thus, in 1 Samuel 15:3, it was considered necessary to destroy the livestock when destroying Amalek.[51] According to Haggahot Maimuniyyot, the commandment only applies to the Messianic Age and not present times; medieval authorities widely support this limitation.[52] According to the Midrash, every nation on Earth has a guardian angel overseeing its destiny, except for two: Israel rejected archangel Michael as its guardian, in favor of God himself. The other is Amalek, whose guardian angel is the foremost angel of evil, Satan. The final war will be fought between the children of God and the children of Satan, between good and evil. This is possibly why the 188th commandment exists: to wipe out Amalek completely, male and female, young and old, sparing none, since evil has no future. However, one obscure prophecy states that all nations will eventually worship God alone, which raises the question of how there can be a Third Temple when Amalek is annihilated. The Midrash state there is no quandary, given the last Amalekite is a convert to Judaism.[53]

Maimonides elaborates that when the Jewish people wage war against Amalek, they must request the Amalekites to accept the Seven Laws of Noah and pay a tax to the Jewish kingdom. If they refuse, they are to be executed.[54]

Other Talmudic commentators argued that the calls to spare no Amalekite or "blot out their memory" were metaphorical[55] and did not require the actual killing of Amalekites. Samson Raphael Hirsch said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites.[56] Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter interpreted the command as thoroughly hating Amalek without performing any physical action.[57] Yisrael Meir Kagan said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek and that Jews only need to remember what Amalek did to them.[58]

Isaac S.D. Sassoon believes that the ḥerem commands existed to prevent the Jewish community from being endangered but believes people should think twice before literally following them.[59] Nathan Lopes Cardazo argues that the Torah's ethically questionable laws were intentional since they were a result of God working with an underdeveloped world. He believes that God appointed the Chazal to help humanity evolve in their understanding of the Torah.[60]

Christianity

[edit]

Theologian Charles Ellicott explains that the Amalekites were subject to ḥerem in the Book of Samuel for incapacitation due to their 'accursed' nature and the threat they posed to the commonwealth of surrounding nations.[34] Matthew Henry considers the ḥerem to be defensive warfare since the Amalekites were invaders.[61] John Gill describes the ḥerem as the law of retaliation being carried out.[62]

According to Christian Hofreiter, almost all Christian authorities and theologians have historically interpreted the ḥerem passages literally. He states that "there is practically no historical evidence that anyone in the Great Church" viewed them as being purely an allegory. In particular, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin have defended a literal reading of these passages at length. Origen is sometimes cited as having viewed the ḥerem passages allegorically; Hofreiter argues that although Origen prioritized a spiritual interpretation of the Bible, he did not deny that the herem passages described historical events.[63]

Modern academia

[edit]

Some commentators have discussed the ethics of the commandment to exterminate all the Amalekites, including children, and the presumption of collective punishment.[64][65][66][67] It has also been described as genocidal, according to genocide scholars like Norman Naimark.[68][69][70][38]

Gili Kugler of the University of Haifa argues that the biblical tradition that commands Amalek’s extermination cannot be explained simply by the nation’s actions, since the Hebrew Bible often depicts Amalek in surprisingly neutral terms and does not give a clear justification for their unique fate. Instead, she suggests that the command to annihilate Amalek reflects political, theological, and psychological frameworks within Israelite society. In her view, the portrayal of Amalek developed as a "mythical enemy" used to negotiate Israel’s self-understanding: from a political standpoint, the Amalek tradition was employed in struggles over kingship, particularly in shaping the Saul and David narratives; from a theological standpoint, Amalek functioned as Israel’s rejected counterpart, a kin-people portrayed as the "rejected son" which ultimately reinforces Israel’s chosenness; and from a psychological standpoint, Amalek served as a scapegoat for the Israelites’ feelings of self-negation as well as their own existential fears of destruction. Kugler thus interprets the Amalek tradition as a projection of "metaphysical hatred", where hostility toward Amalek is rooted less in Amalek itself than in Israel’s attempt to define and preserve its identity.[38]

According to Ada Taggar-Cohen of Doshisha University, ḥerem commands were not uncommon in the ancient Near East. These commands had a dual purpose: convey to an enemy that the aggressor's deity was on their side, and that the enemy deserved the deity's wrath as punishment for their "sins". They also allowed kings to pursue militarist policies without accepting moral responsibility.[71] C. L. Crouch of Radboud University considers the ḥerem commands to be an exceptional component to Israelite and Judahite warfare. They were erratically applied, even in the early stages of national and ethnic identity formation, and were an extreme means to eradicate the threat of chaos, views shared by Assyrian rulers such as Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.[72]

Paul Copan argues that the ḥerem commands were hyperbolic since the passages contain merisms such as "man and woman"[73] and Near Easterners valued "bravado and exaggeration" when reporting warfare.[74][75] Kluger believes this is an earnest attempt to absolve the Israelites, and their God, of moral responsibility. Nonetheless, she argues Copan's interpretation still "normalizes mass violence" and "hostility towards targeted groups".[38] However, scholars such as John H. Walton and Kenneth Kitchen also concluded that such language in the Hebrew Bible was hyperbolic, based on comparisons to the language of other literary cultures.[76][77]

Historicity

[edit]

Egyptian and Assyrian monumental inscriptions and records lack any reference to Amalek or the Amalekites, even though both recorded various tribes and peoples of the Levant. This led archaeologist Hugo Winckler to conclude that the Amalekites and the Biblical stories about them were ahistorical.[78] Although archaeological research has improved knowledge about nomadic Arabs, no specific findings definitively link to Amalek.[4]

However, some scholars propose a connection between Amalekites and certain fortified settlements in the Negev highlands, such as Tel Masos near Beer-sheba, which is possibly equivalent to ancient Hormah.[79][80] If true, Saul's campaigns against the Amalekites may have been motivated by a strategic desire to control of copper production at Tel Masos, a valuable resource for the early Israelites and their theology and rituals.[81]

Further archaeological evidence from sites in the Negev like Tell el-Qudeirat and Horvat Haluqim, dating to the late 11th to early 10th century BC, could corroborate with the Biblical Israelite-Amalekite confrontations during the reigns of Saul and David. Hendrik J. Bruins of Ben Gurion University of the Negev discovered that their inhabitants were semi-nomadic agro-pastoralists who lived in tents, rode camels, traded copper, and worshipped gods at masseboth shrines. Oval fortresses were built during the relevant timeframe. Still, other scholars attribute these settlements to the Edomites or Simeonites.[82]

Alternative theories of origin

[edit]
Gustave Doré, The Death of Agag. "Agag" may have been the hereditary name of the Amalekite kings. The one depicted was killed by Samuel (1 Samuel 15).

In Genesis 14:7, the "field of the Amalekites" is mentioned, but the person who is named Amalek was not born yet.

Some commentators claim that this passage is a reference to the territory which was later inhabited by the Amalekites.[83] C. Knight elaborates this concept by making a comparison: one might say "Caesar went into France", though Gaul only later became known as France.[5]

John Gill believes the Amalekites of Genesis 14:7 were equivalent to the Hamite-Arabian Amalekites described by Muslim scholars. He argues the Amalekites were always allied with the Canaanites who descended from Ham, were conquered by the Shemite Chedorlaomer, existed before the Edomite Amalekites thus affirming Numbers 24:20, and that the Edomites never rescued these Amalekites from Saul's campaigns due to inter-tribal feuds.[84]

By the 19th century, many Western theologians believed that the nation of Amalek could have flourished before the time of Abraham. Matthew George Easton theorized that the Amalekites were not the descendants of Amalek by taking a literal approach to Genesis 14:7.[85] However, the modern biblical scholar Gerald L. Mattingly uses textual analysis to glean that the use of Amalekite in Genesis 14:7 is actually an anachronism,[4] and in the early 19th century, Richard Watson enumerated several speculative reasons for the existence of a "more ancient Amalek" than Abraham.[86]

In his exegesis of Numbers 24:20, concerning Balaam's utterance: "Amalek was the first one of the nations, but his end afterward will be even his perishing", Richard Watson attempts to associate this passage to the "first one of the nations" that developed post-Flood.[86] According to Samuel Cox, the Amalekites were the "first" in their hostility toward the Israelites.[87]

Abrahamic traditions

[edit]

Jewish traditions

[edit]

Amalek is the archetypal enemy of the Jews and the symbol of evil in Jewish religion and folklore.[88] Nur Masalha, Elliot Horowitz, and Josef Stern suggest that the Amalekites represent an "eternally irreconciliable enemy" that wants to murder Jews. In post-biblical times, Jews associated contemporary enemies with Amalek or Haman and, occasionally, believed pre-emptive violence is acceptable against such enemies.[89] Groups identified with Amalek include the Romans, Nazis, Stalinists, Islamic State,[90] and bellicose Iranian leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[91][92] More metaphorically, to some Hasidic rabbis (particularly the Baal Shem Tov), Amalek represents atheism or the cynical rejection of God, which leads to unethical hedonism. This is sometimes known as the "Amalekite doctrine".[93] In contemporary times, religious Jews associate Amalek with violent antisemites,[89][94] nihilism and Jewish doubt in God.[93]

During the Purim festival, the Book of Esther is read in commemoration of the salvation of Jewish people from Haman, who plotted to kill all Jews in Persian Empire. It is customary for the audience to make noise and shout whenever "Haman" is mentioned, in order to desecrate his name, based on Exodus 17:14. It is also customary to recite Deuteronomy 25:17–18 on the Shabbat before Purim. This was because Haman was considered to be an Amalekite although this label is more likely to be symbolic rather than literal.[95][94][96] Some Iranophilic Jews interpreted Haman's Amalekite background as being anathema to both Jews and 'pure-blooded Iranians'.[97]

In the past, some Jews associated Amalek with the Roman Empire and medieval Christians.[98]

Rabbis generally agree that Amalek no longer exist as a unified nation, based on the argument that Sennacherib deported and mixed the nations, so it is no longer possible to determine who is an Amalekite.[99] Since the Holocaust, the phrase as it appears in Deuteronomy 25:17 is used as a call to witness. Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to the Holocaust, features the phrase on a banner, and in letters between European Jews during the Holocaust, they plead with each other to "bear witness".[55]

Christian traditions

[edit]

Early Church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyprian consider the defeat of Amalek in Exodus 17:8–13 to be reminiscent of Jesus defeating the powers of the devil at the cross. Origen sees the battle as an allegory of the Law mysteriously invoking Christ, who recruits strong people (i.e. Christians) to defeat the demonic Strong Man, as described in Ephesians 6:12.[100]

John Gill believes that Amalek is a type of antichrist that 'raises his hand against the throne of God, his tabernacle and his saints'. He believes the phrase "from generation to generation" in Exodus 17:16 specifically refers to the Messianic Age, where Amalek and other antichristian states are exterminated by the Lamb.[101] Likewise, Charles Ellicott notes that the Amalekites were collectively called 'the sinners' in 1 Samuel 15:18, which was only used elsewhere for the Sodomites in Genesis 13:13.[34]

Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch state that the Amalekites were extinct by the second half of Hezekiah's reign.[102]

Professor Philip Jenkins notes that Christian extremists have historically labelled enemies such as Native Americans, Protestants, Catholics and Tutsis as Amalekites to justify their genocides.[103] Jews and victims of the Crusades were also called Amalekites. Because of this, modern Christian scholars have re-examined the Biblical narratives that inspired these atrocities using philology, literary analysis, archaeology and historical evidence.[38]

Islamic traditions

[edit]

Islamic commentators[who?] believe that the Amalekites were an ancient Arabian tribe. The monotheistic Ishmaelites evangelized to them in Mecca and later, they supplanted their population. However, the paganism of the Amalekites and other Arabian tribes negatively influenced the Ishmaelites, including their approach to the Kaaba.[104]

Ibn Khaldūn believed that God ordered Saul, the king of Israel, to depose the Amalekites, which caused Haman's hostility to the Jews in the Book of Esther.[97]

Adam J. Silverstein observes that most scholars who lived in the medieval Muslim world ignored the Book of Esther or they modified the details of it, despite their familiarity with the Persian Jewish community. This was caused by their attempt to reconcile the Biblical Esther with the Quranic Haman, who was the antagonist of the Exodus narrative, and Persian mythological historical traditions. Notable exceptions include Ibn Khaldūn, who affirmed the Amalekite origins of Haman and his antisemitic vendetta.[97]

Hitler as an Amalekite

[edit]

Many have identified Hitler as an Amalekite.[105][106][107] According to the Hebrew Bible, Amalek lived in Canaan: "Amalek dwells in the south land" (Numbers 13:29). The Israelites were instructed to kill all those who dwelled in Canaan: "thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes" (Deuteronomy 19:16) otherwise "I shall do to you, as I thought to do to them" (Numbers 33:56). Amalek and Israel were archenemies, their enmity originating from the Battle of Refidim, where the Amalekites targeted and killed weak Israelites. As a result, God decreed Amalek to be obliterated "from beneath the heavens" (Deuteronomy 25:19). The Hebrew Bible connects "Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite" (Esther 3:1), the genocidal antagonist of the Book of Esther, to Agag, king of Amalek, whom the Israelites failed to kill (I Samuel 15:9). According to these verses Hitler may be seen as a result of this failure. However, Hitler could also be seen as a "symbolic" Amalekite.[108][109]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[edit]

In the Israel–Palestine conflict, some Israeli politicians have compared Palestinians to Amalek, stated that the Palestinians are the Amalekites[110][111] or accused Arabs of exhibiting "behavior" that is "typical" of Amalekites.[98] Yasser Arafat was called "the Amalek and Hitler of our generation" by 200 rabbis.[98] Many in the Gush Emunim movement see Arabs as the "Amalek of today".[112] One reason includes the belief that Amalek is any nation that prevents Jews from settling in the Land of Israel, which includes the Palestinians, as they refuse to leave their ancestral homeland.[113]

Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Palestinians at the Cave of Patriarchs, compared Palestinians to Amalekites, seeing both as desert-dwelling "predators" of the Jewish people.[114] Goldstein's mass shooting itself happened shortly after the reading of the Amalek narrative on Shabbat Zachor prior to Purim in 1994.[115][116] Meir Kahane tended to see all enemies of Israel as modern-day Amalek, while other Jewish scholars see this as a distortion of the Torah.[116]

During the 2014 Gaza war, a leading yeshiva identified Palestinians as the descendants of the ancient Amalekites and Philistines.[113]

Gaza genocide

[edit]
Further information: Gaza genocide

During the Gaza war Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Israeli government was "committed to completely eliminating this evil from the world", and he also stated: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember".[117] At an argument to the International Court of Justice about allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, South Africa presented the comments as inciting genocide against the Palestinian people. Netanyahu denied that was his intention, stating the South African accusation reflected a "deep historical ignorance" since he was referring to Hamas.[118][119]

Multiple members of the Israeli Knesset, including Avihai Boaron, Amihai Eliyahu, Tally Gotliv, and Bezalel Smotrich, have invoked the commandment to wipe out the memory of Amalek in reference to the war in Gaza.[120][121][122]

There have been examples of secular Zionists also using the Amalek metaphor.[115] For example, Ariel Porat, the president of Tel Aviv University, cited the example of Amalek to justify Israel's attack on Gaza.[115]

In March 2025, the Israeli High Court rejected allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza; one of the judges cited the "sacred war" (milkhemet mitzvah) against Amalek in his opinion.[115]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Amalek

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Amalekites were an ancient nomadic tribe inhabiting regions of the southern Levant, primarily known from accounts in the as descendants of Amalek, the son of (Esau's firstborn) and Timna. According to Genesis 36:12, this lineage positioned them as kin to the Edomites but distinct in their antagonism toward the . They are depicted as the first nation to wage unprovoked war against the shortly after , ambushing the rear of the fleeing multitude at and targeting the feeble, hungry, and weary, as detailed in Exodus 17:8-16 and reiterated in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. This aggression elicited a divine vow from , relayed through 's victory and upheld by raised hands, to eradicate Amalek's memory from under heaven, establishing them as archetypal adversaries symbolizing unmitigated hostility. Biblical narratives further chronicle recurring conflicts, including a mandated campaign by the against King in 1 Samuel 15, instructing total destruction of Amalekite people, livestock, and possessions as retribution; 's partial compliance—sparing King and select spoils—led to his rejection as monarch, with personally executing . Later references portray Amalekites as raiders allied with other foes, such as in the defeat by at (1 Samuel 30) and Haman's Amalekite descent in the , framing perpetual enmity. Despite their central role in Israelite foundational lore, no archaeological artifacts, inscriptions, or extra-biblical texts independently attest to the Amalekites as a discrete entity, distinguishing them from better-evidenced neighbors like and ; their nomadic lifestyle in the and Sinai fringes likely contributed to this evidentiary gap.

Etymology and Biblical Identity

Linguistic and Textual Origins

The name Amalek (Hebrew: עֲמָלֵק) derives from the , where it designates both an individual and the eponymous tribal group, with its linguistic etymology remaining obscure and subject to scholarly debate. classifies it as probably of foreign, non-Hebrew origin, lacking clear attestation in cognate or known West Semitic personal names. Proposed Hebrew derivations include a compound from 'am (עַם), denoting "" or "kinsman," and the verb malaq (מלק), meaning "to wring" or "to extract," potentially implying a group characterized by extraction or oppression, though this remains speculative without direct linguistic parallels. Alternative roots, such as 'mlq evoking "travail," "vexation," or "sorrow," appear in interpretive studies but lack empirical support from ancient inscriptions or comparative philology. Non-Semitic influences have been suggested, including a possible Hurrian -q affixed to a 'ml, potentially rendering a meaning like "toil" or "labor," as discussed in specialized biblical forums, though no Hurrian texts confirm this. Traditional Jewish , such as calculations equating Amalek's numerical value (240) to safek ("doubt"), offers symbolic rather than historical-linguistic insight, emphasizing thematic opposition rather than etymological origins. Folk etymologies, like "am lak" ("blood-licker"), circulate in some rabbinic traditions but stem from midrashic wordplay without grounding in ancient Near Eastern . Textually, Amalek first appears in the Torah's genealogical lists in Genesis 36:12, identifying Amalek as the son of (Esau's ) and Timna, thus linking the name to Edomite lineage within the framework dated compositionally to the Yahwist source around the 10th-9th centuries BCE by scholars. Subsequent narrative references in Exodus 17:8-16 introduce the Amalekites as aggressors against the post-, with the term's consistent across Masoretic manuscripts, showing no variant spellings in fragments like 4QGen-Exod^a. No contemporaneous extra-biblical texts from the —such as Egyptian, Assyrian, or Canaanite inscriptions—explicitly reference Amalek as a toponym, , or , underscoring its primary attestation within Israelite literary traditions. This absence suggests the name's origins may reflect internal Israelite oral or scribal traditions rather than borrowed from broader regional corpora.

Genealogy and Tribal Characteristics

According to the genealogical records in Genesis 36:12, Amalek was the son of , 's firstborn son, and Timna, Eliphaz's concubine, making Amalek a grandson of Esau and thus an ancestor within the Edomite lineage. The Amalekites, as descendants of this eponymous figure, formed a distinct or branching from the broader Edomites, who settled in the mountainous regions southeast of the Dead Sea, though the Amalekites maintained a more peripheral nomadic identity. This kinship tie to Esau—brother of the Israelite patriarch —positioned the Amalekites as distant relatives of the , yet biblical texts emphasize their separation as a hostile group rather than integrated kin. Biblical descriptions depict the Amalekites as a warlike, nomadic tribe primarily inhabiting the arid Negev region and southern desert areas between Egypt and Canaan, as noted in Numbers 13:29 where spies report their presence in the Negev alongside other groups. They are characterized by predatory raids and cruelty, exemplified by their unprovoked assault on the Israelites shortly after the Exodus, targeting the weak and weary stragglers at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–16), which biblical narrative attributes to inherent enmity rather than territorial dispute. This aggressive disposition persisted in later accounts, marking them as opportunistic warriors who allied with other foes of Israel, such as in raids on Canaanite cities (Genesis 14:7) and support for Moab against Israel (Judges 3:13), underscoring a tribal identity rooted in mobility, martial prowess, and opposition to Israelite expansion.

Biblical Narratives

Encounters in the Torah

The initial encounter between the and Amalek occurs in Exodus 17:8-16, shortly after the from , when Amalek initiates unprovoked warfare against the encamped at . Moses instructs to select men for battle while he ascends a nearby hill to pray with outstretched arms, supported by and Hur to maintain the position associated with Israel's success. defeats Amalek during the day, but the text notes that Amalek's memory must be utterly erased, with declaring perpetual enmity: "The will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." This event establishes Amalek as the first post- adversary, targeting the vulnerable without cause. A subsequent reference appears in Numbers 13:29, identifying Amalekites as inhabiting the region of , prompting caution during the reconnaissance mission ordered by . This leads to the encounter in Numbers 14:40-45, where, following the spies' negative report and the ' rebellion against entering the land, a group defiantly ascends despite ' warning of divine abandonment. Amalekites, allied with Canaanites dwelling in the hill country, descend and rout the , pursuing them to Hormah, illustrating the consequences of disregarding God's command. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 recounts the 17 attack as a deliberate assault on the faint and weary at the rear, devoid of , mandating perpetual remembrance and the obliteration of Amalek's memory upon Israel's settlement in the . This passage frames the encounter not merely as a battle but as an archetypal act of existential enmity, requiring communal to preserve historical accountability. No further direct confrontations are detailed in the beyond these, emphasizing Amalek's role as a paradigmatic foe in early Israelite trials.

Conflicts in the Historical Books

The primary conflict involving Amalek in the occurs in 1 Samuel 15, where , of , receives a divine command through the to attack the Amalekites and devote them to complete destruction as retribution for their earlier assault on during from . mobilizes forces and strikes from to the border of , encompassing the region east of Egypt's territory, but deviates from the command by sparing and the best livestock while destroying only the inferior animals and people. rebukes , emphasizing that obedience surpasses ritual sacrifice, and declares that has rejected as due to this partial obedience. In response, summons , who approaches expecting mercy, but executes him by hewing him to pieces before the at . Additional encounters appear in David's campaigns recorded in 1 Samuel. While residing among the Philistines in Gath to evade Saul, David conducts raids against the Amalekites from his base at Ziklag, presenting these actions to the Philistine king Achish as strikes against Israelite targets in Judah, the Jerahmeelites, and Kenites to maintain favor. Later, during David's absence fighting with the Philistines, Amalekite raiders attack Ziklag, burn it, and capture women and spoils, prompting David to pursue them with 400 men after inquiring of the Lord. David overtakes the Amalekites, who are dispersed in revelry, recovers all captives and goods without loss, and executes 400 who fled on camels. Amalekite alliances with other adversaries of Israel are noted in Judges. In Judges 3:13, Eglon king of Moab, supported by Ammonite and Amalekite forces numbering 18,000, subjugates Israel for 18 years until Ehud assassinates Eglon, leading to Moab's defeat. Similarly, in Judges 6:3-5, Amalekites join Midianites and eastern peoples in annual incursions into Israel, destroying crops and livestock until Gideon's victory at the spring of Harod, where the Lord grants triumph despite Gideon's smaller force. These depict Amalek as opportunistic raiders rather than primary aggressors. In 1 Chronicles 4:42-43, post-Solomonic Simeonites undertake a campaign against Amalekite remnants in , seeking pastureland, and annihilate them, indicating incomplete eradication from Saul's era and ongoing threats into later periods. This action aligns with broader Deuteronomistic themes of fulfilling prior mandates against Amalek, though the text provides no specific dates or casualty figures beyond the total destruction claimed.

The Divine Commandment

Scriptural Basis and Wording

The foundational scriptural commandment regarding Amalek appears in Deuteronomy 25:17–19, which mandates perpetual remembrance of Amalek's attack on the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt and requires the eradication of Amalek's remembrance upon Israel's settlement in the land. The passage states: "Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; for they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" The Hebrew verb māḥâ ("blot out"), used here, conveys total obliteration of Amalek's name and legacy, tying the obligation to Israel's future security and divine justice for Amalek's opportunistic assault on the weak and weary. This directive is invoked and specified in 1 Samuel 15:2–3, where , through the prophet , instructs King to execute the destruction as retribution for Amalek's historical enmity: "This is what the Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to when they waylaid them as they came up from . Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" The command employs the term ḥērem (devotion to destruction), prescribing comprehensive of Amalekites and their possessions without exception, framing it as fulfillment of the earlier Deuteronomy mandate amid 's . This wording underscores a , irrevocable judgment rooted in Amalek's prior aggression, distinct from defensive warfare by targeting non-combatants and livestock to prevent any remnant. Cross-references in Exodus 17:14–16 provide antecedent context, where vows perpetual enmity after the initial battle at , declaring, "I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven," but the prescriptive commandment for emerges explicitly in Deuteronomy. These passages collectively form the biblical basis, emphasizing remembrance (zākôr) as a alongside eradication, without temporal limits in the Deuteronomic text.

Execution and Outcomes in Biblical History

The primary execution of the divine commandment against Amalek occurred under King , as recorded in 1 Samuel 15. The prophet instructed Saul to attack the Amalekites and "totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul mobilized 210,000 foot soldiers and defeated the Amalekites from to Shur, near the border of , but spared King and the best of the sheep, cattle, and calves, claiming they were for to , while destroying only what was despised and weak. This partial obedience led to divine rejection of Saul's kingship. God informed Samuel of Saul's disobedience, prompting Samuel to confront Saul, who justified sparing the animals but admitted his fear of the people. Samuel declared that obedience is better than sacrifice and that rebellion is like divination, resulting in God regretting making Saul king. Samuel then summoned Agag, who approached expecting mercy, but Samuel executed him by hewing him in pieces before God at Gilgal, emphasizing that "the sword devours one as well as another" and that Agag's prior bloodshed demanded retribution. Subsequent biblical narratives indicate incomplete eradication, with Amalekites persisting into the reign of . In 1 Samuel 30, Amalekites raided while was absent, capturing women and goods; pursued and recovered all, smiting them until evening with 400 men, though 200 of his men were too exhausted to join, and four hundred Amalekites escaped on camels. 's campaigns against Amalekites contrasted with 's by fully distributing plunder, avoiding divine rebuke. An Amalekite later claimed to have killed the wounded , bringing his crown to , who executed him for slaying "the Lord's anointed," highlighting ongoing Amalekite enmity. Later texts suggest further diminishment: 1 Chronicles 4:43 records Simeonites destroying remaining Amalekites who had escaped to during Hezekiah's time, approximately 715-686 BCE. The identifies as an , implying descent from the spared , linking unfulfilled execution to later threats against , though Amalekites as a distinct group fade from historical records post-monarchy. These outcomes underscore the biblical theme of incomplete human fulfillment of the commandment correlating with prolonged conflict, while Saul's failure directly precipitated the transfer of kingship to .

Historicity and Archaeological Evidence

Potential Identifications with Ancient Peoples

Scholars have proposed several tentative identifications of the biblical Amalekites with ancient Near Eastern groups, primarily based on their described nomadic lifestyle in the southern Levant, Negev desert, and Sinai Peninsula, as well as chronological overlaps with regional migrations. However, these remain hypothetical due to the absence of extra-biblical inscriptions or artifacts explicitly naming "Amalek" or "Amalekites," leading most archaeologists to view them as a biblical construct representing recurrent nomadic threats rather than a precisely identifiable ethnicity. One hypothesis links the Amalekites to the , the Semitic rulers who invaded and dominated northern circa 1650–1550 BCE before their expulsion by . Proponents, including some biblical historians, argue that the Hyksos' nomadic origins, expulsion narrative, and subsequent raiding activities in align with Amalekite depictions as mobile aggressors post-Exodus (traditionally dated to around 1446 BCE or 1250 BCE). This view draws on parallels in aggressive expansion and defeat motifs but is critiqued for chronological mismatches and lack of linguistic or material evidence tying Hyksos names (like "Asiatics" or specific rulers) to Amalek; mainstream Egyptologists reject it as speculative, often tied to revisionist chronologies like those of . Alternative suggestions connect Amalekites to the , semi-nomadic pastoralists attested in Egyptian texts from the 18th–19th Dynasties (circa 1550–1200 BCE) as inhabiting Transjordan, the , and Sinai, often labeled "Shasu of " or other southern locales. Biblical accounts place Amalekite settlements in overlapping territories (e.g., south of , near ), and their shared Bedouin-like raiding tactics support this affinity; some analyses propose Shasu inclusivity of Edomite-related clans, with Amalek as a subgroup given their Esau-descended genealogy (Genesis 36:12). Yet, Egyptian records do not specify Amalek, and Shasu are generically "Asiatic" herders, complicating direct equation—archaeological surveys of sites like Tel Masos ( I, circa 1200–1000 BCE) yield fortified villages potentially linked to such nomads but yield no Amalekite-specific markers like distinct pottery or ostraca.

Absence of Direct Evidence and Scholarly Skepticism

No inscriptions, artifacts, or settlement remains have been unearthed that can be definitively linked to the Amalekites, despite surveys in regions associated with their biblical habitat, such as the Negev Desert and Sinai Peninsula. Egyptian records from the New Kingdom period, which detail campaigns against numerous Levantine nomads and tribes including the Shasu and Habiru, contain no references to Amalek or a comparable group, even though such interactions would align with the timeline of purported Exodus-era encounters around 1400–1200 BCE. Similarly, Assyrian annals from the Iron Age, chronicling expansions into southern Canaan, omit any mention of Amalekite polities or forces, despite biblical accounts of their persistence into the monarchic era. This evidentiary void fuels scholarly skepticism, particularly among biblical archaeologists and historians who prioritize extra-biblical corroboration for ancient Near Eastern narratives. The Amalekites appear exclusively in texts, with no contemporary attestation in , hieroglyphic, or other independent sources, prompting doubts about their portrayal as a cohesive, aggressive nomadic confederation capable of sustained warfare against Israelite forces. Critics in the minimalist tradition, such as those influenced by the Copenhagen School (e.g., Niels Peter Lemche and ), contend that Amalek functions as a literary of existential enmity rather than a verifiable ethnos, constructed in exilic or post-exilic periods to encode theological motifs of and . Such views emphasize how the absence of material traces—beyond generic pastoralist campsites—undermines claims of their historical role in events like the battle (Exodus 17) or Saul's campaign (1 Samuel 15), which lack parallels in regional chronologies. Even maximalist scholars, who affirm broader biblical historicity, concede the elusiveness of Amalekite-specific data, attributing it partly to their semi-nomadic yielding minimal durable remains, yet questioning why no oral traditions or incidental references surface in neighboring cultures' archives. Proposed equations with groups like the invaders or southern clans remain hypothetical, unsupported by onomastic, genetic, or stratigraphic matches from sites such as Tel Masos or Horvat Qitmit. This lacuna persists amid institutional tendencies in toward discounting Israelite-centric accounts without Assyrian-Egyptian validation, highlighting a methodological that privileges monumental over potentially ephemeral tribal dynamics. Ongoing excavations in the Arad-Beersheba valley have illuminated conflicts but yielded no Amalekite signatures, reinforcing interpretive caution.

Theological Interpretations

Jewish Perspectives

In Jewish theology, Amalek represents the paradigm of an irredeemable foe who attacks the vulnerable out of innate enmity toward divine order, as articulated in Deuteronomy 25:17-19, which mandates remembering their ambush of the at and blotting out their memory from under heaven. This dual command—remembrance on the preceding (Shabbat Zakhor) and eradication—forms one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, emphasizing vigilance against forces that deny God's providence by targeting the weak. Rabbinic sources, such as the ( 20b), classify it as a positive commandment applicable in eras of prophetic or kingly authority, underscoring its conditional execution tied to Israel's sovereignty. Medieval authorities like (Rambam) codify the obligation to wage war against Amalekites, destroying them utterly if they refuse peace offers, as per Deuteronomy 20:10-12, but qualify it as inapplicable without a or anointed king, reflecting pragmatic limits amid lost genealogical traces. In Mishneh Torah (Kings and Wars 6:1-4), he lists it as commandment 188, targeting all descendants indiscriminately to eliminate the nation's ideological threat, yet notes historical assimilation has obscured identification, shifting focus to the enduring duty of and remembrance. (Ramban), in his commentary on Exodus 17:16, interprets the perpetual war ("a hand upon the throne of the Lord") as divine sanction against Amalek's archetypal —a "butcher-like" rejection of moral norms—extending symbolically to successors like , which embody similar unprovoked aggression. Talmudic and midrashic exegesis further spiritualizes Amalek as the embodiment of doubt in divine oversight (karcha in Deuteronomy 25:18 implying "cold" calculation or happenstance denying miracles), contrasting Israel's faith-based exodus. The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 54b) links Amalek to Haman, whose partial conversion of descendants (e.g., studying Torah in Bnei Brak, Gittin 57b) illustrates potential redemption for individuals but not the collective nation, reinforcing the command's focus on eradicating systemic evil rather than genetics alone. Later Chasidic thought, as in Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev's teachings, internalizes Amalek as the yetzer hara (evil inclination) manifesting as cynicism or self-doubt, urging personal eradication through faith and mitzvot observance. Contemporary Orthodox rabbis debate literal applicability: some, like those citing , maintain the persists if Amalek's descendants reemerge identifiably, mandating destruction without mercy to affirm . Others, prioritizing textual fidelity over speculative genealogy, view it symbolically as combating any ideology of gratuitous hatred—e.g., Amalek's "not fearing " (Deuteronomy 25:18)—that undermines , without endorsing vigilante application absent halakhic consensus. This interpretive spectrum preserves the commandment's theological core: affirming causality rooted in moral accountability, where unchecked enmity invites divine reciprocity, as Amalek's fate exemplifies retribution deferred but inevitable.

Christian Views

In early Christian , Amalek and the Amalekites were often interpreted allegorically as representing spiritual adversaries opposed to God's people, drawing parallels between the biblical battles and the Christian struggle against sin and demonic forces. Patristic writers such as and viewed the Amalekite conflicts, particularly raising his arms in Exodus 17:8-13, as prefiguring Christ's and victory over evil, with Amalek symbolizing pagan or unbelief that must be overcome through prayer and faith. This typological approach emphasized perseverance in rather than literal ethnic enmity, aligning with themes in :12 of battling "principalities and powers." During the Reformation, interpreters like John Calvin focused on the divine commandment in 1 Samuel 15 as a test of obedience, highlighting Saul's failure to fully execute the herem (ban) against Amalek—sparing King Agag and livestock—as disqualifying him from kingship due to partial compliance with God's explicit instructions. Calvin argued that the command reflected God's sovereign justice against a nation repeatedly hostile to Israel, including unprovoked attacks on the vulnerable during the Exodus (Deuteronomy 25:17-18), underscoring that divine retribution targets persistent wickedness without human mercy overriding holy mandates. This perspective reinforced sola scriptura by treating the narrative as historical fact, not moral allegory, while cautioning against applying Old Testament judicial laws directly to the New Covenant era. In modern , the Amalekite destruction is defended as righteous judgment for their generational crimes, including attempts to eradicate as bearers of God's redemptive , positioning Amalek as an existential to history rather than arbitrary . Theologians note that Amalek's aggression, rooted in Esau's lineage yet marked by godless enmity (Exodus 17:16), exemplified corporate culpability under divine law, with the command's totality—encompassing women, children, and livestock—ensuring no resurgence of or , as evidenced by Amalek's later role in inciting Saul's downfall and Haman's plot in . Typologically, Amalek represents the "old man" or indwelling sin that believers must mortify without compromise (Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:5), promoting vigilance against . Some mainline perspectives, however, express unease with the herem's severity, viewing it through a post-Christ lens of grace superseding such judgments, though acknowledging its role in demonstrating God's holiness. Overall, Christian traditions do not extend the commandment to contemporary literal application, instead deriving lessons on unwavering fidelity to divine will and the incompatibility of evil with covenant life.

Islamic References

The Quran does not explicitly name Amalek or the Amalekites (known as Amaliqa in ). Islamic references to them appear primarily in tafsirs (exegetical commentaries) that interpret certain Quranic narratives involving the Children of Israel and their adversaries, drawing parallels to biblical accounts without direct textual equivalence. These interpretations position the Amalekites as tyrannical rulers or formidable opponents subjugating or threatening the , often in the context of divine tests of faith and leadership. In tafsirs of Surah al-Baqarah (2:246–251), which recounts the ' request for a (Talut, identified as ) to lead them against their enemies, commentators such as those in Maarif-ul-Quran describe the oppressors as infidel who had seized control over the after periods of prophetic guidance waned. This subjugation prompted the divine appointment of Talut and the subsequent victory led by Dawud () over Jalut (), framed as retribution against Amalekite dominance. The narrative underscores themes of obedience to prophetic authority, with the Amalekites exemplifying infidelity and aggression toward the monotheistic community. Tafsirs of Surah al-Ma'idah (5:20–26), detailing Musa (Moses)'s call to enter the and the spies' report of its inhabitants, identify the feared "giants" or powerful people as the Amaliqa, who ruled and at the time. According to Tazkirul Quran, the ' refusal to confront them due to terror resulted in a 40-year divine punishment in the wilderness, after which a subdued the land with God's aid. This portrayal casts the Amalekites as a symbol of worldly might that tests believer resolve, emphasizing causal consequences of cowardice and disobedience. Certain Islamic traditions, reflected in broader exegetical literature, extend Amalekite associations to pre-Islamic Arabian contexts, viewing them as an ancient tribe encountered by Ishmaelite monotheists in , though such links remain interpretive rather than scriptural mandates. Figures like , mentioned in Surah al-Qasas (28:6–8) as Pharaoh's advisor, are occasionally linked to Amalekite lineage in some historical narrations, portraying persistent enmity against prophets, but these claims lack direct ic support and vary across sources. Overall, Amalekites in Islamic thought serve as historical exemplars of opposition to divine order, without the perpetual enmity mandate found in Jewish texts, focusing instead on episodic conflicts resolved through prophethood.

Symbolic and Moral Dimensions

Amalek as Embodiment of Irrational Hatred

In the biblical account, Amalek's assault on the at shortly after exemplifies unprovoked aggression, as the Amalekites targeted the "faint and weary" stragglers at the rear of the column, exploiting vulnerability without any preceding conflict or territorial claim. This selective attack on the weak, as detailed in Deuteronomy 25:17-18, underscores a deliberate choice to assail those least able to defend themselves, devoid of strategic necessity or rational grievance. Jewish interpreters characterize this as sinat chinam, or baseless hatred, marking Amalek as the primordial instance of enmity directed not at actions or threats but at existence itself—specifically, the Jewish people's emergence as a nation embodying and human dignity. Jonathan Sacks described Amalek's animus as the "paradigm case of irrational hatred," contrasting it with or envy-driven ; unlike rational hatreds that dissipate with changed circumstances, Amalekite-style malice persists across generations, adapting forms while retaining its core irrationality, as evidenced by antisemitism's historical mutations from medieval blood libels to modern ideological variants. Theological tradition holds that Amalek's descendants inherited this trait, symbolizing forces that deny and , attacking civilization's fragile rearguard—its ideals of and redemption—out of existential opposition. The perpetual commandment to "remember what Amalek did" (Deuteronomy 25:17) serves not merely historical recall but active vigilance against such hatred's recurrence, framing it as an enduring human pathology that targets the vulnerable to undermine universal moral progress. This interpretation posits Amalek less as a literal post-biblical era and more as an ideological , embodying causeless malice that rational discourse cannot appease, requiring resolute defense rooted in ethical clarity.

Debates on Literal vs. Metaphorical Application

The biblical commandments in Deuteronomy 25:17-19 and 1 Samuel 15:3 mandate to "blot out the of Amalek" and destroy its , , and possessions as retribution for their unprovoked attack on the post-Exodus. Traditional halakhic authorities, including in his , codify this as a perpetual positive commandment () to eradicate identifiable Amalekites, applicable even to , provided they refuse peace offers and persist in enmity. qualifies that the obligation hinges on Amalek's refusal to accept the Noahide laws or cease hostility, reflecting a framework where literal warfare applies only under conditions of existential threat and divine sanction. Halakhic tradition generally resists purely symbolic readings of this commandment, as such interpretations risk eroding its practical, normative force; emphasizes preserving the literal intent to maintain Torah's actionable imperatives. However, with no verifiable Amalekite descendants extant—due to historical assimilation or post-biblical era—the mitzvah's literal fulfillment remains suspended, prompting debates on whether it obligates proactive identification of modern equivalents or devolves into mnemonic alone, as in the Zakhor Torah reading. Proponents of a literal stance, often in Orthodox circles, argue the commandment endures until messianic resolution, potentially extending to groups embodying Amalek's archetypal traits of gratuitous aggression, though rabbinic consensus prohibits vigilante action without prophetic or authority. In contrast, mystical and Hasidic interpretations recast Amalek metaphorically as an internal or ideological foe, symbolizing doubt, atheism, or the (evil inclination) that obstructs divine connection and rational faith. The , founder of Hasidism, viewed Amalek as the "cynical rejection of " manifesting in personal skepticism, transforming the commandment into a spiritual battle against irrationally hostile forces within humanity. Modern rabbis like extend this to ethical living, positing that "blotting out" Amalek occurs through purposeful existence aligned with values, rather than physical destruction. Such metaphorical applications, while enriching moral theology, face critique for diluting the commandment's concrete demands, potentially aligning with broader progressive tendencies to allegorize ethically challenging texts. The moral status of Amalek as a divinely mandated eternal enemy raises profound ethical challenges in Jewish thought, occupying a volatile intersection of theology, history, and moral philosophy. Classical sources already contend with the literal application of eradication by introducing neutralizing principles, such as stringent conditions for identification and warfare, effectively suspending practical violence. Rabbinic tradition increasingly abstracts Amalek into symbolic or moral categories—representing absolute evil or irrational hatred—particularly amid the lack of identifiable lineage, transforming the commandment from ethnic destruction to an ethical imperative against existential threats. This evolution sparks debates on whether moral progress reinterprets such commands through philosophical and halakhic strategies or merely suspends them, as modern discourse risks oversimplifying the nuance between enduring vigilance and prohibited aggression. Scholars note that while metaphorical views dominate contemporary discourse—interpreting Amalek as emblematic of or —they coexist uneasily with halakhic literalism, which prioritizes textual fidelity over adaptive symbolism. Moshe Amiel, for instance, symbolizes Amalek as unchecked military power, yet this remains a philosophical overlay on the underlying obligation to confront existential threats decisively. The tension underscores Judaism's dual commitment to immutable and interpretive , with literalists warning that over-symbolization invites selective observance, while metaphorists emphasize perpetual relevance through ethical combat against Amalek-like hatred.

Modern Applications and Controversies

Usage in Jewish Thought and Zionism

In , Amalek is interpreted as the archetype of unprovoked aggression against the , targeting the weak and embodying doubt in , as evidenced by their attack on the stragglers during . The Torah's commandments to remember Amalek's deeds (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) and to blot out their memory (Exodus 17:14) are observed through the annual reading of parashat Zakhor before , serving as a perpetual reminder of existential threats rather than a call for ongoing literal warfare, since no identifiable Amalekite descendants exist today. Medieval authorities like classified the eradication as applicable only with prophetic confirmation of Amalek's identity, rendering it inoperative in practice and shifting focus to spiritual eradication of Amalek-like traits such as cynicism toward morality. Hasidic and modern Orthodox thinkers further symbolize Amalek as an internal adversary representing the (evil inclination) or forces of metaphysical evil that oppose Jewish faith and continuity, with figures like the Lubavitcher Rebbe describing contemporary Amalek as ideological enemies manifesting as rather than a specific nation. This metaphorical extension has linked Amalek to historical persecutors, including in the Purim story and the Nazis during , where their systematic targeting of Jews echoed Amalek's biblical assault on the vulnerable. Such interpretations emphasize remembrance as a tool for resilience, cautioning against complacency that invites repetition of past atrocities, without endorsing indiscriminate . Within , particularly its religious variants, Amalek serves as a rhetorical symbol for existential threats to Jewish national revival and security, framing adversaries who reject Israel's right to exist as modern equivalents driven by irrational enmity. Religious Zionist thinkers, drawing from biblical mandates for , have occasionally applied the Amalek motif to Arab rejectionism or terror campaigns post-1948, viewing them as continuations of ancient patterns of hostility toward Jewish , though secular Zionist founders like Herzl prioritized political over scriptural typology. This usage underscores Zionism's causal emphasis on proactive deterrence against genocidal ideologies, informed by empirical history of pogroms and exiles, but remains debated among rabbis who warn against over-literalization that could blur ethical distinctions in conflict.

Netanyahu's Invocation Post-October 7, 2023

On October 12, 2023, during a Knesset address marking the formation of a national emergency government in response to the Hamas attacks of October 7—which resulted in 1,200 Israeli deaths and the abduction of 251 hostages—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical command from Deuteronomy 25:17, stating: "against the enemy, with the ancient command 'Remember what Amalek did to you' ringing in our ears, today we are uniting forces." This reference underscored the need for unified action against Hamas, portrayed as an existential threat akin to Amalek's historical ambush of vulnerable Israelites during their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16). The invocation gained greater prominence on October 28, 2023, as Netanyahu announced the escalation of ground operations in Gaza, with expanded IDF forces entering to dismantle infrastructure. In a televised address alongside Defense Minister , he declared: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we remember." The statement framed Israel's campaign as a to eradicate Hamas's military and governance capabilities, return the remaining hostages (then numbering around 240, with some released in prior exchanges), and prevent future attacks, equating the group's tactics—such as using civilian areas for military purposes—to Amalek's perfidious warfare. Netanyahu emphasized the war's goals as achieving "victory of good over evil," directly tying the Amalek allusion to the biblical mandate to blot out the memory of an enemy that targeted the weak without cause (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Netanyahu's use of the Amalek motif drew on its Jewish tradition as a symbol of irredeemable enmity, as later clarified by his office, noting the phrase's prominence at , Israel's memorial, where it commemorates unprovoked genocidal aggression rather than endorsing indiscriminate violence. The addresses occurred amid ongoing rocket fire from Gaza and intelligence confirming Hamas's intent for repeated massacres, reinforcing the invocation as a call for resolute defense rather than literal extermination beyond combatants.

Accusations of Incitement and Rebuttals

Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's October 28, 2023, address invoking the biblical commandment to "remember what Amalek has done to you" (Deuteronomy 25:17) in reference to Hamas's , critics accused the rhetoric of constituting against . South Africa's legal team highlighted the statement during the January 11, 2024, (ICJ) hearings in its case alleging Israeli in Gaza, arguing it evidenced intent to destroy as a group by equating them with the biblical Amalekites, whom scripture commands to eradicate. Similar claims appeared in outlets like and , portraying the reference as drawing on a "dangerous history" potentially justifying indiscriminate violence, with some linking it to far-right Israeli usages of Amalek imagery against . Israeli officials and defenders rebutted these accusations as distortions of and Jewish . Netanyahu's stated on January 16, 2024, that the reference described Hamas's "utterly evil" actions akin to Amalek's unprovoked attacks on the vulnerable, not a call to against Palestinians or civilians, emphasizing Israel's targeted operations against Hamas militants while minimizing civilian harm through warnings and evacuations. The Prime Minister's Office analogized the claim to absurdly interpreting references to Nazis as against all Germans, noting Amalek's historical invocation against genocidal foes like the Nazis without implying . Jewish scholars and institutions further argued that Amalek symbolizes perpetual, irrational enmity rather than a literal ethnic group today, with rabbinic interpretations (e.g., from ) framing the commandment as ideological opposition to evil, obligating protection of non-combatants and prohibiting harm to innocents even in defensive wars. The critiqued South Africa's ICJ interpretation as historically ignorant, pointing out that Jewish law derives from the a duty to distinguish combatants from civilians, as evidenced by Israel's evacuation orders and aid facilitation in Gaza, contradicting genocidal intent. Netanyahu himself rejected the allegations in January 2024 as "false and preposterous," underscoring that the targeted Hamas's , not the Palestinian population. These defenses highlight that accusations often overlook the metaphorical evolution of Amalek in Jewish thought—from literal ancient foes to archetypes of antisemitic terror like —while Israel's military conduct, including over 1.1 million Gazans evacuated pre-offensives, aligns with self-defense under rather than extermination.

References

  1. https://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?t=666
  2. https://www.sefaria.org/topics/amalek
  3. https://jewishstudies.duke.edu/news/destroying-amalek
  4. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/amalek-0020291
  5. https://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2023/05/amalekites-josephos-and-philo-on-a-prototypical-arch-enemy-people-first-century-ce/
  6. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6002.htm
  7. https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amalek.html
  8. https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2018/04/hebrew-word-study-amalek/
  9. https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Tetzaveh/Amalek/amalek.html
  10. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/145807/what-does-the-name-of-amalek-mean
  11. https://biblehub.com/genesis/36-12.htm
  12. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-amalekites
  13. https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html
  14. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3942715/jewish/Who-Were-Amalek-and-the-Amalekites.htm
  15. https://biblehub.com/topical/ttt/t/the_amalekites--character_of_warlike_and_cruel.htm
  16. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-are-the-amalekites-in-the-bible.html
  17. https://biblehub.com/numbers/14-45.htm
  18. https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3605367/jewish/Zachor-Haftarah-Companion.htm
  19. https://www.sefaria.org/topics/Amalek?tab=sources
  20. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A2-3&version=ESV
  21. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A7-9&version=ESV
  22. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A22-23&version=ESV
  23. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A32-33&version=ESV
  24. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+27%3A8-10&version=ESV
  25. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+30%3A1-8&version=ESV
  26. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+30%3A16-20&version=ESV
  27. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+3%3A12-14&version=ESV
  28. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+6%3A3-5%2C33&version=ESV
  29. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Chronicles+4%3A42-43&version=ESV
  30. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A19&version=ESV
  31. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A17-19&version=NIV
  32. https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.25.17-19?lang=en&aliyot=0
  33. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A17-19&version=ESV
  34. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015%3A2-3&version=NIV
  35. https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm
  36. https://www.sefaria.org/I_Samuel.15.3?lang=en&with=Translations
  37. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017%3A14-16&version=NIV
  38. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9989/jewish/Chapter-25.htm
  39. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&version=NIV
  40. https://bible.org/seriespage/saul-and-amalekites-1-samuel-151-35
  41. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/1-samuel-15/
  42. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2030&version=NIV
  43. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%204%3A43&version=NIV
  44. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%203%3A1&version=NIV
  45. https://answersresearchjournal.org/ancient-egypt/hyksos-bible-who-they-were/
  46. https://www.academia.edu/97365447/VELIKOVSKY_AND_THE_AMALEKITES
  47. https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p027/c02790/j11_1_111-123.pdf
  48. https://nabataea.net/media/04shop/PDFS/Edom.pdf
  49. https://armstronginstitute.org/180-king-david-more-evidence-unearthed
  50. https://www.academia.edu/81590986/Amalek_Saul_and_David_The_Role_of_the_Amalekites_in_the_Deuteronomistic_History_of_the_Early_Monarchy
  51. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961562/jewish/Positive-Commandment-188.htm
  52. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ask-the-expert-blotting-out-amalek/
  53. https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2024/1/19/talmudology-on-the-parsah-bshalach-amalek-forever
  54. https://aish.com/wiping-out-amalek/
  55. https://schechter.edu/are-jews-still-commanded-to-blot-out-the-memory-of-amalek-2/
  56. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-lessons-of-amalek-for-our-time/
  57. https://evolve.reconstructingjudaism.org/confronting-the-legacy-of-amalek/
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280211465_Amalek_and_the_amalekites_in_the_ancient_christian_literature
  59. https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/vengeance-on-amalek
  60. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/saul-and-the-amalekite-genocide/
  61. https://intotheword.ca/view/why-did-god-command-the-absolute-destruction-of-the-amalekites
  62. https://www.christiancentury.org/critical-essay/biblical-amalekites-are-israelites-enemies-and-their-kin
  63. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2022/11/how-the-churches-forgot-the-amalekites/
  64. https://quran.com/en/2:246/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
  65. https://quran.com/en/5:25/tafsirs/tazkirul-quran-en
  66. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5046830/jewish/Amalek-and-the-Irrational-Antisemites-of-All-Generations.htm
  67. https://aish.com/amalek-and-irrational-hate/
  68. https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/ki-teitse/two-types-of-hate/
  69. https://jeremy-brown-vpk4.squarespace.com/s/The-Punishment-of-Amalek-in-Jewish-Tradition-1994.pdf
  70. https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/2301416/jewish/The-Everlasting-Battle.htm
  71. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/punishment-of-amalek-in-jewish-tradition-coping-with-the-moral-problem/889E0F204DDBBB9FDCE987618202BCC1
  72. https://library.yctorah.org/files/2016/09/Moralization-in-Jewish-Law-Genocide-Divine-Commands-and-Rabbinic-Reasoning.pdf
  73. https://www.etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/issues-jewish-thought/rabbinic-thought/amalek
  74. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/267677/jewish/Wipe-Out-Amalek-Today.htm
  75. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/remembering-amalek/
  76. https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/amalek-hamas-kant/
  77. https://theisraelbible.com/what-makes-amalek-so-evil/
  78. https://www.hartman.org.il/do-not-invoke-amalek-lightly/
  79. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/event-speech121023
  80. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/statement-by-pm-netanyahu-28-oct-2023
  81. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-goal-of-war-is-to-defeat-the-murderous-enemy-ensure-our-existence-in-our-land/
  82. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics
  83. https://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-office-says-its-preposterous-to-say-invoking-amalek-was-a-genocide-call/
  84. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/south-africa-reminds-icj-of-netanyahus-amalek-rhetoric-to-invoke-genocide-against-palestinians/3106313
  85. https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4794831-netanyahu-denies-inciting-genocide-gaza%25C2%25A0%25C2%25A0?_wrapper_format=html&page=4
  86. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/
  87. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/spoke-hague160124
  88. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-782357
  89. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/52716
  90. https://news.kehila.org/was-netanyahus-scriptural-reference-to-amalek-a-call-to-genocide-in-gaza/
  91. https://www.polity.org.za/article/sas-amalek-genocide-complaint-is-historically-ignorant-says-israels-netanyahu-2024-01-17
  92. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-31/biblical-story-amalek-south-africa-icj-genocide-case-israel/103403552
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.