Why should I believe a loving God commands violence?
By Will Bourne · Question 94
The direct answer
You should not be asked to call violence loving simply because a text or speaker attributes it to God. The specific passage, its claim, and the proposed interpretation need examination. First Samuel 15:3, which includes children in the command to destroy, is a serious moral difficulty.
Fuller explanation
The passage presents the action as judgment against Amalek. That explains how the narrative frames the command. It does not remove the question of children’s responsibility or demonstrate to a skeptical reader that the command came from a good God.
Some Christians understand such texts as exceptional divine judgments. That account must explain why the judgment includes those who did not personally commit the earlier wrongdoing. Other readers appeal to ancient war rhetoric. That approach must show what the wording and evidence support; it should not simply announce that no vulnerable person was harmed.
Other Christians believe the text reflects an ancient understanding of God that must be evaluated through Jesus. That raises further questions about inspiration, authority, and why Scripture contains this attribution. It is a substantive position, not a cost free way to keep every earlier account of biblical authority unchanged.
An honest discussion should state which account is being defended and face its strongest objection. Merely saying God has authority over life describes a premise in one defense. It does not establish the goodness of a particular attributed command or explain why a reader should accept the premise.
Nothing in the episode gives a modern leader permission to attack people because of a claimed revelation. A person should not have to endorse that transfer to take the passage seriously. The moral and historical investigation can remain open while coercive or violent applications are refused.
The objection we still need to face
Would you condemn the same command if it appeared in another religion?
We should apply a consistent moral and evidential standard. A familiar attribution to God should not receive automatic exemption. If a Christian argues that this case is different, the relevant differences need to be established rather than assumed because the text belongs to our own Scripture.
Scripture and its use
1 Samuel 15:1–3; Deuteronomy 20:10–18; Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 9:51–56. These texts create interpretive questions; juxtaposing them does not itself resolve the account of divine action.
Read these passages in their surrounding chapters alongside the explanation.