Editing Amalek (section)

=== Christianity ===
Theologian [[Charles Ellicott]] explains that the Amalekites were subject to ''ḥerem'' in the [[Book of Samuel]] for [[Incapacitation (penology)|incapacitation]] due to their 'accursed' nature and the threat they posed to the commonwealth of surrounding nations.<ref name="ellicott">{{Cite web|date=|title=1 Samuel 15: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers|url=https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/1_samuel/15.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108155512/http://biblehub.com:80/commentaries/ellicott/1_samuel/15.htm |archive-date=2014-11-08 |access-date=|website=Biblehub}}</ref> [[Matthew Henry]] considers the ''ḥerem'' to be defensive warfare since the Amalekites were invaders.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=1 Samuel 14: Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible |url=https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/mhm/1-samuel-14.html#verses-47 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240123041504/https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/mhm/1-samuel-14.html#verses-47 |archive-date=January 23, 2024 |website=StudyLight.org}}</ref> [[John Gill (theologian)|John Gill]] describes the ''ḥerem'' as the [[eye for an eye|law of retaliation]] being carried out.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1 Samuel 15: Gill's Exposition|url=https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_samuel/15.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217205118/http://biblehub.com:80/commentaries/gill/1_samuel/15.htm |archive-date=2013-12-17 |access-date=|website=Biblehub}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hofreiter |first1=Christian |title=Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages |date=16 February 2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-253900-7 |pages=247–248 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_WlNDwAAQBAJ }}</ref>

[[Paul Copan]] argues that the ''ḥerem'' commands were hyperbolic since the passages contain [[merism]]s such as "man and woman"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Copan |first=Paul |title=Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God |date=2011 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-0801072758 |pages=175–176}}</ref> and Near Easterners valued "bravado and exaggeration" when reporting warfare.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Copan |first=Paul |date=Fall 2010 |title=How Could God Command Killing the Canaanites? |journal=Enrichment Journal |pages=138–143}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Copan |first=Paul |title=Is God a Vindictive Bully? Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments |date=2022 |publisher=Baker Academic |isbn=978-1540964557 |pages=205}}</ref> 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".{{sfn|Kugler|2020}}