February 3rd, '19
rights reserved © message by Kris Jackson
go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy...both man and woman, infant and nursing
child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Samuel 15:3)
Of all biblical enigmas, the mass slaughter of
Amalekite children rates pretty high on the that-doesn't-make-sense
list. Slay the men, sure. And maybe hamstring their camels since they can be
used to transport infantry, but why kill an Amalekite "nursing child"? The Lord
answers, "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him
on the way as he came up from Egypt" (vs 2). Sounds like an unsettled score
from four-hundred years earlier, still fresh in Jehovah's mind. Hebrew children
perished in that ambush. That Moabite king "attacked [Israel's]
rear ranks...when [they] were tired and weary; and he did not fear God"
(Deuteronomy 25:18). It is a scriptural principle, "The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father..." (Ezekiel 18:20) God doesn't slap the boy for something
his dad did. So these junior Amalekites were not paying for an old grievance.
But note the line, "he did not fear God". That spirit carried through Amalek's
generations, like father, like son. Through divine foreknowledge it was clear
that these infants would "fill up the measure of their fathers", and it proved true.
Because Saul did not carry out Samuel's "scorched earth" order but "spared Agag
alive", the Amalekite king sired a son, who ended up several years later, being
the very person that took Saul's life.
The lesson is that the sin a man fails to
crucify will be the one that comes back to bite him. The infant will
soon be the infantry. The breast-fed baby will soon be a battle-ready
man. Huge lions begin as little kitty cats. True, we live under a different
covenant. Our sword is no longer made of steel. We have the "sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). The Amalekites we battle
are spiritual, not physical. But they must be fought with the same unsparing
finality. The baby sins have to die as surely as the adult. Some movies are categorized
as mature. There are not differing categories of sin, only degrees.
There is no difference between adult sins and infant sins. We excuse the
infantile, even giggle and call it cute. But remember the breast that feeds the
Amalekite baby contains the same poisoned milk as its parent.
You do understand I am not talking about "flesh
and blood"? (Ephesians 6:12) Amalek is a type of the flesh. Sin is the parent,
sins (plural) are the offspring. Sin is the volcano, sins are the sulfuric
cinders. Sin is the hive, sins are the hornets. Sin is the root, sins are the
fruit. Sins are the babies born from an unregenerate nature, so they must
suffer the sword blade just as must that nature itself. God has no quarrel with
Amalekite kids but He does have serious trouble with the nature that spawns
them. The battle is much easier to win in the pediatric stage. The man who
faces the electric chair should have been disciplined back in the high chair.
To "utterly destroy" these infant sins means there is no negotiating or
bargaining. Those who are Christ's have "crucified the flesh, with the
affections and lusts" (Galatians 5:24), past-tense. Note, the flesh gets the ax
first, but the "nursing" children, "affections and lusts", receive the same
blow. Don't be fooled by earthly rating systems, as though PG is just pretty
gross whereas R is downright rancid or rotten. The DNA of
both Amalek and his little ones are identical. I am too ignorant to speculate
on why the babies had to die in Saul's day, but I know quite well why infant
sins have to die today. Because they mature, and reproduce, like rabbits.