Exodus 17.8-16

Amalek Attacks Israel and is Defeated: Exodus 17.8-16

Israel encounters its first attacking army in the wilderness after escaping Egypt: from the Amalekites. Amalek, of course, is a son of Esau - so this is in a way a battle between the line of Jacob/Israel and the line of Esau. Israel holds the birthright and the divine blessing of land and progeny, so should prevail in this land. But this is not as easy as it initially seems.

Moses tells Joshua to choose some men to go out to fight Amalek the next day. Moses says he will take his stff and stand on top of the hill by the place they will battle.

The next day Moses, Aaron and Hur make their way to the top of the hill. When Moses holds his hand up, Israel prevails. When he lowers his hand, Amalek prevails. It is not explicitly stated whether Moses holds a staff at all during this time. In any case, Moses' hands grow weary, so Aaron and Hur have Moses sit on a stone while they hold his hands up. By sunset, Joshua has defeated Amalek.

The tale closes:

Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.’ And Moses built an altar and called it, The Lord is my banner. He said, ‘A hand upon the banner of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’
(Ex. 17.14-16)

This leaves us with a quandary: If the Lord will utterly block out the remembrance of Amalek, why will war continue from generation to generation? Would it not be easier to simply blot out Amalek?

And I'm not being facetious here. There is a great irony to God saying he will blot out the remembrance of Amalek. God could simply say he will blot out Amalek, but by destroying the memory as well, he extinguishes their historical import; in fact, the Amalekites will have no history, and the Israelites will have no history of them. But the Israelites do have the history of the Amalekites. We are reading it!

Perhaps I am misreading "remembrance." Perhaps that only means contact with them. i.e. when they are gone people still remember the tribe through collective memory, but there the lack of contact eliminates this different understanding of "remembrance" by contact.

Any thoughts?