Amalek

AI summary: Amalek's significance is rooted in enmity remembered across generations. The attack at Rephidim gives Amalek a defining place in Israel's memory, and later texts return to that hostility when discussing judgment, kingship, and obedience. Saul's failure in relation to Amalek becomes especially important for the story of his rejected kingship. Because of this repeated opposition, Amalek comes to represent persistent resistance against God's people in the wilderness and beyond. The cross references present Amalek as one of the Bible's most memorable enemy peoples of the southern frontier.¹

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). They were probably a tribe that migrated from the shores of the Persian Gulf and settled in Arabia. “They dwelt in the land of the south...from Havilah until thou comest to Shur” (Num. 13:29; 1 Sam. 15:7). They were a pastoral, and hence a nomadic race. Their kings bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8). They attempted to stop the Israelites when they marched through their territory (Deut. 25:18), attacking them at Rephidim (Ex. 17:8-13; comp. Deut. 25:17; 1 Sam. 15:2). They afterwards attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Num. 14:45). We read of them subsequently as in league with the Moabites (Judg. 3:13) and the Midianites (Judg. 6:3). Saul finally desolated their territory and destroyed their power (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:3), and David recovered booty from them (1 Sam. 30:18-20). In the Babylonian inscriptions they are called Sute, in those of Egypt Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets include them under the general name of Khabbati, or “plunderers.” ³