The Ban and Subsequent Interpretations

I was reading through Msgr. Pope's reflections on atheists ads in the DC area here.  I came across a comment concerning the Ban, in which God commanded the Israelites destroy the Amalekites, every man, woman, and child, including animals.  The commenter didn't feel comfortable with ALMIGHTy GOD decreeing that an entire people be wiped out.  I  have two two different sets of thoughts on this, with ultimately the same conclusion.

Thought One
It wouldn't be the first time an entire group of people would be wiped out.  We know of the Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorrah, in which God rained down sulfur and brimstone and destroyed the evil cities.  We also know of the mysterious disappearance of the colony of Roanoake Island, not to mention the "Lost Tribes of Israel."  Legends abound about the civilization of Atlantis.  In our modern world, we have seen the devestation wrought by such forces as tidal waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like (which are called on insurance claims "Acts of God").  We have no trouble attributing the destruction of cities or peoples to God directly (or indirectly through nature), but we throw up our hands and say "God couldn't have commanded the Israelites to wipe a group of people!"

Why not?  Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do?  The same commenter was loath to attribute "objective evil" to a command of God's, when according to that self-same logic, God was directly guilty of that same objective evil when He destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah.  I would trust that God knew what He was doing, because HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD!!  As the Psalmist says in Psalm 95: "It is He who made us and we are His."

Thought Two
The idea that the Ban was simply an Israelite misunderstanding on what God wanted is appealing, but ultimately, it is patently false.  The theory goes something like this: for cultural reasons, miscommunication, or just plain stupidity, the Israelites misinterpreted God's command toward the Amalekites to mean complete and total annhilation.  Sounds plausible, given the subsequent track record of the Israelites on obedience to ALMIGHTY GOD.

However, if this is indeed accurate, what of Saul's disobedience, when he does not follow the Ban, but instead chooses his own path?  He is clearly reprimanded for lack of obedience.  And what of God's command to "have no other gods before" Him, or "do not commit adultery"?  I am sure that the Israelites just misunderstood what God meant when they set up Asherah poles...and consequently got overrun by Midians and the like in Judges.  Oh, and David must have really, really, really, deep-down misunderstood that whole "do not commit adultery" thing when he slept with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover it up!!!  No.  In both those cases, the Israelites and David repented of their disobedience. 

These other cases show us that God's commands, when explicitly given in Scripture, are accurate, not misunderstood.  The Israelites, David, and Saul all knew precisely what GOD had commanded, and chose to either obey or disobey.  If Scripture is wrong in this regard, was it also wrong when God said "do not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill"?  This is ultimate end to this argument, and I believe, the ultimate end to any attempt to "explain away" Scripture in this regard.

This is why I reject completely and totally the "Marcan Priority" arrangment of Gospel authorship, but that is a post for another day.