AMALEK, the Son of Eliphaz and Timna his Concubine, and Grandson to Esau. He succeeded Gatam in the Government of Edom, which lies Southward of Genes. xxxvi. 12. & 16. 1 Chr. i. 36.the Tribe of Judah. Amalek was the Father of the Amalekites, a powerful People, who dwelt in Arabia Petræa, between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, or between Havilah and Shur, 1 Sam. xv. 7. sometimes in one Canton, and sometimes in another; for we cannot assign the particular place of their habitation. It does not appear that they had any Cities, and perhaps they had but one, which is mentioned in the 1 Sam. xv. 5.first book of Samuel. They lived generally in hamlets, caves, or tents.
The Israelites had scarce passed the Red Sea before the Amalekites came to attack them in the desart of Rephidim, and put those cruelly to the sword who were obliged either through fatigue or weakness to remain Ex. xvii. 8.behind. Moses, by God’s command, directed Joshua to attack this People, to record the act of inhumanity, which they had committed, in a book, in order to have it always before his eyes, and to revenge it in the most remarkable manner. Joshua therefore fell upon the Amalekites, and defeated them, while Moses was upon the Mountain, and with Aaron and Hur in his company, lifted up his hands to Heaven. This happened in the year of the World 2513, before J. C. 1487, before the vulgar Æra 1491.
Observations on the Battle of Rephidim between Israel and the Amalekites.This battle is celebrated in the Scripture: It was one of the most obstinate on both sides, and the victory uncertain and for a long time in suspence. It was fought near Mount Horeb, at the foot of a hill rising at the bottom of the Mountain, and upon the declivity of it the Hebrews were probably incamped. I find the sacred Writer to be so concise in his description of this Battle, that a comment and conjectures may be excused, which however might be more tolerable than the extravagant and confused imaginations which we meet with in the figures of the Scripture Battles, drawn by our Painters with a design rather to amuse us and communicate their own fancies, than to instruct us in the military discipline of the Jews, and furnish us with any true idea of it. It was the method of the People of Asia, and consequently of the Hebrews, to engage in Phalanxes when their forces were equal, but not like those of the Greeks, with the whole front closed and united: Their Phalanx was divided into several bodies, with little intervals between them, for their chariots and troops lightly arm’d, that is, their Slingers and Archers, to retreat to: Sometimes they ranged themselves in great square bodies at a reasonable distance from one another, when they could not equal the Enemy’s front. This method of engaging in large square bodies was common to the Asiaticks and Hebrews, who perhaps had borrowed it from the Egyptians. If any one should require Authorities for this opinion, nothing is more easy than to give him satisfaction; for if this People had made no changes in the way of fighting from the time of Moses to the Battle between Crœsus and Cyrus, as is very probable, we shall find that forty thousand Egyptian Pikemen, who came to the assistance of the first of these, formed four great square bodies, by whom Cyrus was several times put to a stand, and at last they capitulated, for there was only one of them broken. This is a particular which I learn from Xenophon in his Institution of Cyrus, and the account of his retreat with ten thousand Men after the Battle of Cunaxa. But suppose this Authority were not to be admitted, the Scripture would furnish me with infinite examples, and Polybius himself, whither I refer the Reader. They who do not understand Greek may have recourse to the Comment on Polybius, where they will find this way of engaging practised in Antiochus’s war against Ptolemy Philopator. They fought in great Bodies not only with their foot, but with their horse likewise, leaving some little interval between the Squadrons; and the same method may be observed to be in use among the Hebrews; for I do not at all question but that Moses imitated the Egyptians in their way of making war.
Judith iv. 13, 14.I have therefore ranged the Israelites in several Bodies according to their Tribes, with retreats or divisions which were very necessary. Amalek acted like an understanding General, who does not stay to expect the Enemy in his own country, but marches forward to meet and fight him, and so divert his intentions of making inroads into it. The Benedictine Commentator cites Philo, who says, That the King of the Amalekites apprehending lest the Israelites might ravage his territories, resolved to prevent them; and putting himself at the head of his Troops, he marched to oppose their passage, with a design, if they shewed an inclination to resist him, of attacking them with all his Forces. I should have been very well pleased if the sacred Writer had informed us in this place what the number was, and nature of Amalek’s Forces. The book of Judith in few words acquaints us with it, and describes to us the Army of the Amalekits as a formidable one, composed of many horse, and a great number of chariots, the Soldiers whereof were furnished with good weapons, and abounding with confidence in their own strength1. Upon this footing we range the Amalekites in the same order with the Hebrews, the Horse on the wings, and the Chariots on the whole front of the line, and between the distance of the several Bodies.
According to the Scripture way of expressing itself, Moses stood in need of all the virtue of his miraculous Rod, and his ter of so dreadful an Enemy; if God had not concerned himself in the affair, and turned to his People’s side, at the earnest supplications of his Servant, the battle had been lost; the number, valour, and advantage of Amalek’s arms had made the balance incline on his side.
Victory, which God at all times either gives or takes away at his pleasure, was entirely with the Israelites; but it had certainly fled to the Amalekites, if Aaron and Hur, who were with Moses on the Mountain, remote from danger, had not supported the extended arms and hands of this Legislator. This is a mystery which I leave to the Commentators, as their peculiar province; for the preservation or destruction of God’s People lay in the hands and arms of these persons extended in the form of a Cross. To this the success of the Battle was owing, which was such that Amalek was entirely defeated and cut in pieces. Notwithstanding, no victory ever was more disputed; the Battle lasted the whole day till the approach of night; for Ex. xvii. 12.the Scripture says, That the hands of Moses were steddy till the going down of the Sun. As the success of this action was the pure work of God, he said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.
Under the Judges we see the Judg. vi. 3. Judg. iii. 13.Amalekites united with the Midianites and Moabites, in a design to oppress the Israelites; but Ehud deliver’d the Israelites from Eglon, and Gideon deliver’d them from Midian and Amelek. Many years after the World 2930, before J. C. 1070. 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3, &c.the Lord said to Samuel, Go to Saul and say, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both Man and Woman, Infant and Suckling, Ox and Sheep, Camel and Ass.
Saul marched therefore against the Amalekites, advanced as far as their Capital, cut them in pieces from Havilah towards the mouth of the Euphrates, as far as Shur towards the Red Sea, and put all the People of the Country to the sword, but spared the best of all the cattle and moveables, and so violated the command of God. This act of Disobedience was the cause of Saul’s misfortunes, and of his being rejected by God, as we have shewn in the article AGAG, and shall shew farther in that of SAUL.
After this war the Amalekites scarce appear any more in History. Some years after In the Year of the World 2949, before J. C. 1051.this event, a troop of Amalekites came Esau, Jacob. Eliphaz, Levi. Amalek, Koath. —— Amram. —— Aaron. Sam. xxx. 1, 2, &c.David, where he had left his Wife and all his substance. But he returning from an expedition which he had made in the company of King Achish into the valley of Jezreel, pursued them, overtook, dispersed them, and recover’d all the booty which they had carried off from Ziklag.
The Arabians maintain Amalek to have been the Son of Ham, and Grandson of Noah; that he was the Father of Ad, and Grandfather of Schedad. This opinion is not to be rejected: It is not easy to conceive how Amalek, the Son of Eliphaz, and Grandson of Esau, could be the Father of a People so powerful and numerous as the Amalekites were when the Israelites departed out of Egypt. Moses in the book of Genesis relates, that in Abraham’s Gen. xiv. 7.time, and long before the birth of Amalek, the Son of Eliphaz, the five confederate Kings carried the war into Amalek’s Country, about Kadesh, and into that of the Amorites, who dwelt at Hazeron-tamar.
The same Moses in another place relates, Numb. xxiv. 20. ראשית גוים עמלק ואחריתו עדי אבדthat the Diviner Balaam observing at a distance the land of Amalek, said in his prophetick style, Amalek is the first, the head, the original of the Nations, but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever. This commendation of first of the Nations cannot certainly agree with the Amalekites who were so modern; for the Generation then living was but the third from Amalek. Moses never reproaches the Amalekites with attacking the Israelites their Brethren; an aggravating circumstance which he would not have omitted if they had been descended from Esau, and in this sense Brethren to the Israelites. Lastly, we see the Amalekites almost always joined in Scripture with the Canaanites and Philistines, and never with the Edomites; and when Saul made war with Amalek, and destroyed it, the Edomites made not the least motions towards their assistance, nor to revenge them afterwards. It is therefore probable that the Amalekites, who are so often mentioned in Scripture, were a People descended from Canaan, and devoted to the Curse, as well as the other Amorites, and very different from the descendants of Amalek, the Grandson of Esau.
What follows is the account which the Arabians give us of the Amalek destroyed by Saul. He was the Father of an ancient Tribe in Arabia, exterminated in the reign of Saul. It contained only the Arabians, who are called pure, the remains of whom were mingled with the posterity of Joktan and Adnan, and so became Mosara bes or Mostaarabes, that is to say, Arabians blended with foreign Nations. They farther believe, that Goliath, who was overcome by David, was King of the Amalekites, and that the Giants who inhabited Palestine in Joshua’s time, were of the same race; that at last part of the Amalekites retired into Africk, while Joshua was yet living, and settled upon the coasts of Barbary, along the Mediterranean Sea.
Judg. xii. 14, 15.The Son of Amalek2 was Ad, a celebrated Prince among the Arabians. He began to raise stately buildings, and a City very much to be admired, which was the place of his own residence, and of the Giants in his time. Some make him to be the Son of Uz, and Grandson of Aram, the Son of Shem. Let this be as it will, the Mahometans say that Ad was the Father of an Arabian Tribe called Adites, who were exterminated, as they tell us, for not hearkening to the Patriarch Eber, who preached the unity of God to them. Ad had two Sons, viz. Schedad and Schedid. This is what the Arabians relate of the Amalekites.
Read this article in its place on the printed pages