PDA

View Full Version : The Book of Esther...



CRNA
May 30th 2008, 08:56 AM
I have just finished reading Esther. One reason I was reading it was due to the fact that my wife wanted a tatoo of Esther crown on her ankle :o, and since God is showing me how to relinquish the unbiblical control I was trying to impart on her life, I said it was okay if she feels God is not convicting her otherwise (I am still praying that God will show her different, if that is His will). Okay to the point now; I was disturbed to find out that after Esther overturned the law that Haman had made concerning the killing of all of Mordecai's people, which were the Jews, that Mordecai allowed all of the Jews to seek revenge on the people in the kingdom that originally wanted to kill all the Jews instead of allowing grace. I mean, it was okay, or though it seems, for the slaughter of thousands of people. I guess I dont understand.

P.S. King Xerxes and King Ahasuerus are one in the same? Different translations use one name while the other translation uses the other name.

valleybldr
May 30th 2008, 12:32 PM
I said it was okay if she feels God is not convicting her otherwise (I am still praying that God will show her different, if that is His will). He already weighed in on the subject . "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28).

Physical graffiti should be nothing more then a Led Zeppelin recording.

todd

seamus414
May 30th 2008, 12:37 PM
He already weighed in on the subject . "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28).

Physical graffiti should be nothing more then a Led Zeppelin recording.

todd


That is Old Covenant which no longer applies to Christians.

knuckledamus
May 30th 2008, 12:52 PM
From what I understand, the book of Esther was a fulfillment of prophecy. Haman was an Amalekite, of whom God prophecied that they would all be wiped out. It was fulfilled in that book.

valleybldr
May 30th 2008, 01:16 PM
That is Old Covenant which no longer applies to Christians. Sorry, I was adressing the Christians who believe that "...it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. 4:4

todd

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 01:34 PM
Sorry, I was adressing the Christians who believe that "...it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. 4:4

todd

Exodus 22
18 - "You shall not allow a sorceress to live.

Do you follow this as well?

valleybldr
May 30th 2008, 02:01 PM
Exodus 22
18 - "You shall not allow a sorceress to live.

Do you follow this as well? I don't live in a theocracy. The principle, however, still stands. todd

knuckledamus
May 30th 2008, 02:07 PM
I don't live in a theocracy. The principle, however, still stands. todd


(Galatians 3:10-14)

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree" -- that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 02:07 PM
I don't live in a theocracy. The principle, however, still stands. todd

Ah, so THAT particular commandment only applied to Israel...

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2008, 02:08 PM
Let's get back on topic :OFFT: which has nothing to do with tattoos or the Law. Was the revenge on those who had intended to kill the Jews ordained by God or was it merely historically what happened? My opinion is that it's just what happened and not necessarily what God ordained. Like when Jacob's boys killed every man in the town where the boy had been with Dinah. That does not seem to have been ordained by God either. Now chill out and play nice! :D

God Bless!

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 02:25 PM
Sorry - I didn't think we were playing "un-nice". But, to get back on topic:
I don't have any tatooes just because they don't appeal to me but I won't judge anyone else for having one or not having one. It's between them and God, if they are a believer.

As for the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=15&verse=18&version=49&context=verse)
and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ' Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.'

Looks like God wanted them exterminated.

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2008, 02:31 PM
As for the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=15&verse=18&version=49&context=verse)
and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ' Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.'

Looks like God wanted them exterminated.This was a command given to King Saul, not to Mordecai. It is not my point that the Amalekites should have been allowed to live, but simply that God does not seem to tell Mordecai to do so. God's will is going to be accomplished but by whose hand? You mentioned something you believe was given as a command to the nation of Israel not applying to others. In this case you point out a command given to Saul, why would you believe that automatically applies to Mordecai, as well? :hmm:

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 02:37 PM
This was a command given to King Saul, not to Mordecai. It is not my point that the Amalekites should have been allowed to live, but simply that God does not seem to tell Mordecai to do so. God's will is going to be accomplished but by whose hand? You mentioned something you believe was given as a command to the nation of Israel not applying to others. In this case you point out a command given to Saul, why would you believe that automatically applies to Mordecai, as well? :hmm:
Because God's will WILL be accomplished, no matter what. If one doesn't do it, another shall.

The law was given to the Israelites. The were kept healthy and had them most just system of governance of all the peoples around them. Why? In my opinion, it was ensure that the people remained alive and well with traceable lineage until the Promise was fulfilled.

Jesus was the reason for the Law.

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2008, 02:51 PM
Because God's will WILL be accomplished, no matter what. If one doesn't do it, another shall.

The law was given to the Israelites. The were kept healthy and had them most just system of governance of all the peoples around them. Why? In my opinion, it was ensure that the people remained alive and well with traceable lineage until the Promise was fulfilled.

Jesus was the reason for the Law.You didn't answer the question. Why do you transfer a command given to Saul and seem to see it applying to Mordecai? The command to exterminate the Amalekites was given to Saul, was it not?

threebigrocks
May 30th 2008, 03:00 PM
Okay to the point now; I was disturbed to find out that after Esther overturned the law that Haman had made concerning the killing of all of Mordecai's people, which were the Jews, that Mordecai allowed all of the Jews to seek revenge on the people in the kingdom that originally wanted to kill all the Jews instead of allowing grace. I mean, it was okay, or though it seems, for the slaughter of thousands of people. I guess I dont understand.

God works in all things. He left thousands if Israelites to die and killed thousands more during the 40 years of exile.

What do you see that action as, looking at the principle of it for what it was?

timmyb
May 30th 2008, 03:25 PM
I have just finished reading Esther. One reason I was reading it was due to the fact that my wife wanted a tatoo of Esther crown on her ankle :o, and since God is showing me how to relinquish the unbiblical control I was trying to impart on her life, I said it was okay if she feels God is not convicting her otherwise (I am still praying that God will show her different, if that is His will). Okay to the point now; I was disturbed to find out that after Esther overturned the law that Haman had made concerning the killing of all of Mordecai's people, which were the Jews, that Mordecai allowed all of the Jews to seek revenge on the people in the kingdom that originally wanted to kill all the Jews instead of allowing grace. I mean, it was okay, or though it seems, for the slaughter of thousands of people. I guess I dont understand.

P.S. King Xerxes and King Ahasuerus are one in the same? Different translations use one name while the other translation uses the other name.

here goes... the law that allowed to Amalekites to wipe out the Jews could not be rescinded since by Persian law it was sealed with the king's ring and could not be revoked... but he could make a new law that allowed the Jews to take up arms and defend themselves... so basically a Middle Eastern gang war was in the mix... and a government sanctioned one at that... it just happened that the Jews won... Esther didn't overturn the law, she just asked the king to make a new one...

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 03:40 PM
You didn't answer the question. Why do you transfer a command given to Saul and seem to see it applying to Mordecai? The command to exterminate the Amalekites was given to Saul, was it not?
I thought I did answer.

Because God's will WILL be accomplished, no matter what. If one doesn't do it, another shall.

Do you believe it was God's will that the Amalekites be exterminated?

tgallison
May 30th 2008, 04:03 PM
He already weighed in on the subject . "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28).

Physical graffiti should be nothing more then a Led Zeppelin recording.

todd



http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gif1Cr 10:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=10&v=23&t=KJV#23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

RogerW
May 30th 2008, 04:15 PM
Okay to the point now; I was disturbed to find out that after Esther overturned the law that Haman had made concerning the killing of all of Mordecai's people, which were the Jews, that Mordecai allowed all of the Jews to seek revenge on the people in the kingdom that originally wanted to kill all the Jews instead of allowing grace. I mean, it was okay, or though it seems, for the slaughter of thousands of people. I guess I dont understand.

I see this differently. I see this as the Jews, through Mordecai, given permission from the King to defend themselves against those who seek their life. Had Mordecai and the Jews done nothing, showing the enemy grace as you suggest, then every Jew would have been wiped out. Can you see why this slaughter (as you call it) was necessary to preserve the people of God?

Es 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,

Es 8:13 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies.

Es 9:2 The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people.

Es 9:5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.

Many Blessings,
RW

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2008, 04:16 PM
Do you believe it was God's will that the Amalekites be exterminated?Yes. But no you didn't answer the question. My question was specifically, why do you believe the command God gave to Saul automatically transfers to Mordecai even though scripture doesn't show the command being given to Mordecai? Also, as with my other example of Jacob's sons, Levy and Simeon, killing the whole town because of the incident with Dinah. Nothing in scripture shows that God ordained that either but I can understand, humanly, why they did it. In the same way, I can understand, humanly, why the Jews would have sought out those that had intended to harm them and taken advantage of the king's edict to kill them. What I do not see is any scripture that says GOD told them to do so. There were likely those that were not Amalekites who had put in their lot with Haman. My point is a simple one. The passage you quote is a command made directly to Saul and Saul alone. Not all Israel, only one man. Why do you seem to transfer that command to Mordecai though there is no scripture to do so? :hmm:

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 04:45 PM
Yes. But no you didn't answer the question. My question was specifically, why do you believe the command God gave to Saul automatically transfers to Mordecai even though scripture doesn't show the command being given to Mordecai? Also, as with my other example of Jacob's sons, Levy and Simeon, killing the whole town because of the incident with Dinah. Nothing in scripture shows that God ordained that either but I can understand, humanly, why they did it. In the same way, I can understand, humanly, why the Jews would have sought out those that had intended to harm them and taken advantage of the king's edict to kill them. What I do not see is any scripture that says GOD told them to do so. There were likely those that were not Amalekites who had put in their lot with Haman. My point is a simple one. The passage you quote is a command made directly to Saul and Saul alone. Not all Israel, only one man. Why do you seem to transfer that command to Mordecai though there is no scripture to do so? :hmm:
I'm not sure I'm following you, so please bear with me.

I believe it was God's will that the Amalekites be totally destroyed. I believe He gave a specific command to Saul. Saul did not fulfill that command. God still wanted the Amalekites exterminated. I don't know why exactly but I would guess it was because they had ill will towards the Israelites and would try until the last man standing to wipe them out. If they succeeded, there would be no Messiah, or at least no traceable lineage.

I don't view it as a transfer of a command at all. Besides, Saul was King - it would be a command to the nation, not just the King. If that makes any sense.

Thanks for the dialogue -
V

knuckledamus
May 30th 2008, 05:00 PM
I believe that the Amalekites were the people who came and tricked the Jews into not attacking them when they came across the Jordan. Not sure though... Memory is a bit hazy.

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2008, 05:12 PM
I too see that God intended for the Amalekites to be destroyed. I simply do not see scripture that says He commanded Mordecai to kill, not just the Amalekites but anyone else who had thrown in their lot with Haman. As to the OP's issue of why God would call for revenge, I don't see it that way. To see it that way I would have to see something that says something like, 'And God said to the children of Israel, go ye out and smite all those who are in league with Haman'. I don't see that. There are many things in scripture that happen that God did not ordain, so to speak. Did God know they would happen? Absolutely! That's just different than what the OP was asking. :dunno:

God Bless!:)

Vhayes
May 30th 2008, 11:49 PM
I too see that God intended for the Amalekites to be destroyed. I simply do not see scripture that says He commanded Mordecai to kill, not just the Amalekites but anyone else who had thrown in their lot with Haman. As to the OP's issue of why God would call for revenge, I don't see it that way. To see it that way I would have to see something that says something like, 'And God said to the children of Israel, go ye out and smite all those who are in league with Haman'. I don't see that. There are many things in scripture that happen that God did not ordain, so to speak. Did God know they would happen? Absolutely! That's just different than what the OP was asking. :dunno:

God Bless!:)
I think the answer is in the way the edicts were seen and obeyed – look at the verses below:

Esther 8

8 - "Now you write to the Jews as you see fit, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's signet ring; for a decree which is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king's signet ring may not be revoked."

Back in chapter 3, we read that Haman had also sent out a decree that was sealed with the King’s ring. In other words, the edict to destroy the Jews could not be rescinded. So, to counter THAT edict, the Jews were given permission to defend themselves. No Amalekite would have died had they not attacked the Jews.

9 - So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.
10 - He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king's signet ring, and sent letters by couriers on horses, riding on steeds sired by the royal stud.
11 - In them the king granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil,

And then in Esther chapter 9

1 - Now in the twelfth month (that is, the month Adar), on the thirteenth day when the king's command and edict were about to be executed, on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them.

My apologies to TimmyB and RogerW - they had already said the same thing(s) I just did, only better...

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2008, 12:53 AM
VHayes, Esther is one of my favorite books. I completely understand the edicts and the way they were to be carried out. The OPs question, however, was VERY specific. I have simply been attempting to address that specific question.

Esther 3:12-13
12 Then the king’s scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded—to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king’s signet ring. 13 And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

You see the enemies of the Jews were decreed ONE DAY to kill and plunder the Jews. So, the king made a second edict after Esther's banquets that allowed the Jews to legally defend themselves on that day. Now here, let's look at what happened AFTER that one day when the Jews would have needed to defend themselves against enemies that legally had a right to kill them.

Esther 9:12-13
12 And the king said to Queen Esther, “The Jews have killed and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the citadel, and the ten sons of Haman. What have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition? It shall be granted to you. Or what is your further request? It shall be done.”
13 Then Esther said, “If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do again tomorrow according to today’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows.”

You see. The decree to kill them had been squashed and it was over. Esther asked for another day where only the Jews would be allowed to kill their enemies. This is why the OP asked specifically why Mordecai sought revenge instead of having grace. It is merely my point that Mordecai, was a man, not God.

God Bless!

Vhayes
May 31st 2008, 04:00 AM
VHayes, Esther is one of my favorite books. I completely understand the edicts and the way they were to be carried out. The OPs question, however, was VERY specific. I have simply been attempting to address that specific question.


Ah, now I see. Thank you or clearing that up. I had misread your post #23.

And as I said, both Timmyb and RogerW had said what I did, they had just said it much better than I.

I guess I'm still at the same place I was earlier - if something is God's will, He will make it happen; if not by one hand, then by another.

Thanks again for the dialogue -
V

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2008, 01:51 PM
Revenge is never mentioned in the book of Esther. The Jews were just defending themselves. Had Saul obeyed the word of the LORD earlier, the crisis in the book of Esther never would have occurred.You may want to take a look at post 25. You are absolutely right that Saul should have obeyed God and avoided all this, but unfortunately he didn't. You are also correct that on the day of the first edict orchestrated by Haman (the 13th day of the 12th month) the Jews were only defending themselves, but that is not the basis of the OPs question. The SECOND day that Esther requested from the king had nothing to do with mere defense.

Esther 9:13 - Then Esther said, “If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do again tomorrow according to today’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows.”

The plot by Haman had been squelched. Those who had come out against them to 'legally' kill and plunder them had done so that day, the 13th day of Adar. Esther was now requesting that the Jews be given a SECOND day to 'legally' kill their enemies. This second day was a day when the enemy would have no 'legal' right to attack the Jews. It is that NEXT day that the OPs question of revenge addresses. I stand firm on my answer to them that Mordecai was a man, not God, and this in no way shows that somehow God was endorsing or ordaining revenge. ;)

God Bless!

SIG
May 31st 2008, 08:27 PM
Back to Esther:

I tend to look at Scripture typologically rather than in the specifics. Both are equally instructive, but I BEGIN with the types...

Esther is about rabid anti-Semitism (and while in exile, at that). "I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you" sums it all up.

In Esther, the details are fascinating (had Saul wiped out the Amalakites, what would be taking place in the Book of Esther? I propose there would have been some other group of anti-Semites; they are never in short supply).

The bottom line is: God will preserve a faithful remnant, however He wills, until all things are accomplished.

Brother Mark
May 31st 2008, 09:01 PM
The plot by Haman had been squelched. Those who had come out against them to 'legally' kill and plunder them had done so that day, the 13th day of Adar. Esther was now requesting that the Jews be given a SECOND day to 'legally' kill their enemies. This second day was a day when the enemy would have no 'legal' right to attack the Jews. It is that NEXT day that the OPs question of revenge addresses. I stand firm on my answer to them that Mordecai was a man, not God, and this in no way shows that somehow God was endorsing or ordaining revenge. ;)

God Bless!

You are correct. We do not know God desired for Mordecai to destroy the amalekites. However, we do know that the order to destroy them went out way before Saul. God promised way back in the time of Joshua to utterly wipe them out. Esther was about dealing with Agag and his offspring much more than it was about Israel being set free, IMO. That and the beautiful picture of Christ, his cross, and the redemption and victory that came about as a result.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 1st 2008, 12:05 AM
You are correct. We do not know God desired for Mordecai to destroy the amalekites. However, we do know that the order to destroy them went out way before Saul. God promised way back in the time of Joshua to utterly wipe them out. Esther was about dealing with Agag and his offspring much more than it was about Israel being set free, IMO. That and the beautiful picture of Christ, his cross, and the redemption and victory that came about as a result.You hit the nail right on the head as to my point! ;) I absolutely agree that God's will is going to be accomplished. We just never know whose hand He is going to use. One thing interesting about the book of Esther is that nowhere does it say that God said anything to anyone involved. Which is why I don't assume anything when it comes to that. The book is historical and it gives a compelling account to us, historically, of what happened but what it does not do is give us ANY information as to what God may have revealed to any of them. That would be interesting to know but alas there is no information in the text for us. :dunno:

Brother Mark
Jun 1st 2008, 03:06 AM
You hit the nail right on the head as to my point! ;) I absolutely agree that God's will is going to be accomplished. We just never know whose hand He is going to use. One thing interesting about the book of Esther is that nowhere does it say that God said anything to anyone involved. Which is why I don't assume anything when it comes to that. The book is historical and it gives a compelling account to us, historically, of what happened but what it does not do is give us ANY information as to what God may have revealed to any of them. That would be interesting to know but alas there is no information in the text for us. :dunno:

It is history and then some. For instance, the cross created to destroy Mordecai was also the very thing that destroyed Hamaan. I love the story and how it foreshadows Christ without hardly mentioning God at all! But back to the historical portion... We do know that God had declared war against the Amalekites during Moses day and swore to wipe them out and to war with them from generation to generation. Then he saw fit to let us know that Hamaan was an offspring of Agag, king of the Amalekites in the text. God was hunting Hamaan. However, like you say, that doesn't tell us about the rest of those guys. When God goes "hunting" he does so through authority. That's why he had the king deal with Hamaan and not Mordecai.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 1st 2008, 10:42 AM
Very interesting insight about the cross (the gallows), Mark. I didn't pick up that in your last post but yes that is an interesting analogy. The enemy's plan to destroy God's Son (Mordecai/His people) actually destroyed the enemy (Haman/Satan) instead, and all his sons (demons)! Brilliant! And yes, I see how the political authority was the one through which the ultimate order came. Thanks Mark! :)

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Jun 1st 2008, 12:07 PM
Very interesting insight about the cross (the gallows), Mark. I didn't pick up that in your last post but yes that is an interesting analogy. The enemy's plan to destroy God's Son (Mordecai/His people) actually destroyed the enemy (Haman/Satan) instead, and all his sons (demons)! Brilliant!

Ruth and Esther are two of my favorite books. They are rich in allegory. Through it all, Esther interceded for the people and God said he would raise up someone else if she didn't do it. My pastor's wife once did a teaching on how Esther developed intimacy with the King (God). Wow, was all I could say. She spoke of the bitter herb and how the bitterness of life often serves to crush our outer man.

Anyway, I think I need to read Esther again just to see the cross. I love how Jesus paraded the enemy in front of God once his mission was complete.

Col 2:13-15
13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
NASB

Studyin'2Show
Jun 1st 2008, 01:07 PM
Ruth and Esther are two of my favorite books. They are rich in allegory. Through it all, Esther interceded for the people and God said he would raise up someone else if she didn't do it. My pastor's wife once did a teaching on how Esther developed intimacy with the King (God). Wow, was all I could say. She spoke of the bitter herb and how the bitterness of life often serves to crush our outer man. Wow! I would love to see the notes on that teaching! God has revealed much to me concerning Ruth that I believe we've discussed in the past. But this insight He has given me through you concerning Esther is phenomenal! So much has opened up in the book of Esther for me. That's why I so love posting in this format where so many believers from all over the planet can share ideas and revelations. Iron does indeed sharpen iron doesn't it! :D I would have repped you but I guess I've done so recently. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

God Bless!

Vhayes
Jun 1st 2008, 04:38 PM
It is history and then some. For instance, the cross created to destroy Mordecai was also the very thing that destroyed Hamaan. I love the story and how it foreshadows Christ without hardly mentioning God at all! But back to the historical portion... We do know that God had declared war against the Amalekites during Moses day and swore to wipe them out and to war with them from generation to generation. Then he saw fit to let us know that Hamaan was an offspring of Agag, king of the Amalekites in the text. God was hunting Hamaan. However, like you say, that doesn't tell us about the rest of those guys. When God goes "hunting" he does so through authority. That's why he had the king deal with Hamaan and not Mordecai.
Thanks for the great post, Brother Mark! If I knew how to do reps, I'd send one to you.
V

Ta-An
Jun 1st 2008, 05:07 PM
That is Old Covenant which no longer applies to Christians.
So if you tear the OT out of your Bible, the NT has absolutely no value.... :D as the OT is the root or foundation of the NT... without any foundation, a house can not stand...


************************************************** ****************************


I love this piece in the Book of Esther (Hadassah in Hebrew) Esther 4:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=17&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at thistime, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

Obedience!!! The blessings that follows obedience is amazing!!

It shows G_d's omniscience and His provision :idea:

Studyin'2Show
Jun 1st 2008, 05:37 PM
Thanks for the great post, Brother Mark! If I knew how to do reps, I'd send one to you.
VClick the 'scales' image http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/reputation.gif in the upper right portion of his post and then type in a short message. :D

Vhayes
Jun 1st 2008, 05:40 PM
Click the 'scales' image http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/reputation.gif in the upper right portion of his post and then type in a short message. :D
Thank you!!! I'm still learning my way here.
Blessing to you -
V

threebigrocks
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:18 PM
Please do not allow posts to become counterproductive to discussion, season your words, and keep it on topic. If discussion cannot stay edifying - this thread will be closed.

timmyb
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:22 PM
me, i look for reasons to give reps around here.. i've given so much to mark that I got to spread the love a little more!... Mark... this is brilliant... I got to share with you sometime my revelation concerning the Book of Ruth... Esther is an amazing book as well...


two thumbs up from the timmyb corner!

SIG
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:26 AM
For a fascinating possible fulfillment of prophecy in Esther, Google "Purimfest 1946"...

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:18 AM
From what I understand, the book of Esther was a fulfillment of prophecy. Haman was an Amalekite, of whom God prophecied that they would all be wiped out. It was fulfilled in that book.

Okay, I can understand that.

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:21 AM
Let's get back on topic :OFFT: which has nothing to do with tattoos or the Law. Was the revenge on those who had intended to kill the Jews ordained by God or was it merely historically what happened? My opinion is that it's just what happened and not necessarily what God ordained. Like when Jacob's boys killed every man in the town where the boy had been with Dinah. That does not seem to have been ordained by God either. Now chill out and play nice! :D

God Bless!

There we go, I just thought there was no grace and in fact quite the opposite. I mean, instead of the Jews accepting the grace that was revealed through Esther and the King; they took it pretty far by seeking revenge on anyone who was going to follow the law, killing thousands. I was curious if God was pleased with this or not, nothing was mentioned in the book if he was saddened or upset.

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:23 AM
Sorry - I didn't think we were playing "un-nice". But, to get back on topic:
I don't have any tatooes just because they don't appeal to me but I won't judge anyone else for having one or not having one. It's between them and God, if they are a believer.

As for the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=15&verse=18&version=49&context=verse)
and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ' Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.'

Looks like God wanted them exterminated.


Okay, I understand this. But I didnt see any clarification that everyone they killed were Amalekites, just Haman and his family were Amalekites that I could see.

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:30 AM
here goes... the law that allowed to Amalekites to wipe out the Jews could not be rescinded since by Persian law it was sealed with the king's ring and could not be revoked... but he could make a new law that allowed the Jews to take up arms and defend themselves... so basically a Middle Eastern gang war was in the mix... and a government sanctioned one at that... it just happened that the Jews won... Esther didn't overturn the law, she just asked the king to make a new one...

Thank you for your response. The King allowed Esther to "revoke" the law that Haman the Agagite wrote to destroy the Jews. ( Esther 8:5)

Wow, further reading clarifies all of this, check out Esther 8: 11

11 The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies.

So the king allowed Mordecai to write the above law, I guess that is the war that you were speaking of.

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:31 AM
I see this differently. I see this as the Jews, through Mordecai, given permission from the King to defend themselves against those who seek their life. Had Mordecai and the Jews done nothing, showing the enemy grace as you suggest, then every Jew would have been wiped out. Can you see why this slaughter (as you call it) was necessary to preserve the people of God?

Es 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,

Es 8:13 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies.

Es 9:2 The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people.

Es 9:5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.

Many Blessings,
RW


Thank you, I actually just read that, makes sense now.

CRNA
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:45 AM
VHayes, Esther is one of my favorite books. I completely understand the edicts and the way they were to be carried out. The OPs question, however, was VERY specific. I have simply been attempting to address that specific question.

Esther 3:12-13
12 Then the king’s scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded—to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king’s signet ring. 13 And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

You see the enemies of the Jews were decreed ONE DAY to kill and plunder the Jews. So, the king made a second edict after Esther's banquets that allowed the Jews to legally defend themselves on that day. Now here, let's look at what happened AFTER that one day when the Jews would have needed to defend themselves against enemies that legally had a right to kill them.

Esther 9:12-13
12 And the king said to Queen Esther, “The Jews have killed and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the citadel, and the ten sons of Haman. What have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition? It shall be granted to you. Or what is your further request? It shall be done.”
13 Then Esther said, “If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do again tomorrow according to today’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows.”

You see. The decree to kill them had been squashed and it was over. Esther asked for another day where only the Jews would be allowed to kill their enemies. This is why the OP asked specifically why Mordecai sought revenge instead of having grace. It is merely my point that Mordecai, was a man, not God.

God Bless!

Agreed, this is where it became hazy to me. It seemed like Esther had a specific intention, a murderous one. I understand the desire to save your people, as she did, but then it seemed like it turned into a killing frenzy, one that I did not see the hand of God behind.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:31 AM
Wow! I would love to see the notes on that teaching! God has revealed much to me concerning Ruth that I believe we've discussed in the past. But this insight He has given me through you concerning Esther is phenomenal! So much has opened up in the book of Esther for me. That's why I so love posting in this format where so many believers from all over the planet can share ideas and revelations. Iron does indeed sharpen iron doesn't it! :D I would have repped you but I guess I've done so recently. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

God Bless!

Yea, I run into that problem with you a lot too. Sometimes, I wish I could override that rep limit because people deserve it. :lol: I love the OT and how well it illustrates the new. I wish I still had that tape where she taught. I'll see if I can find it. She focused on how Esther prepared herself and what kind of perfume, herbs, etc. that was used. It was an awesome teaching.

God is such a great author. He can say so much in so little.

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:45 PM
Thank you for your response. The King allowed Esther to "revoke" the law that Haman the Agagite wrote to destroy the Jews. ( Esther 8:5)

Wow, further reading clarifies all of this, check out Esther 8: 11

11 The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies.

So the king allowed Mordecai to write the above law, I guess that is the war that you were speaking of.

but to revoke the law in the Persian Empire that was sealed with the king's ring was totally illegal... notice how a new law was made toward the Jews that they could defend themselves and prepare for their enemies.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:24 PM
but to revoke the law in the Persian Empire that was sealed with the king's ring was totally illegal... notice how a new law was made toward the Jews that they could defend themselves and prepare for their enemies.The language of the translation does say 'revoke' but I believe it just has a different meaning than what we think of when we hear the word.

Esther 8:4-5(NKJV)
4 And the king held out the golden scepter toward Esther. So Esther arose and stood before the king, 5 and said, “If it pleases the king, and if I have found favor in his sight and the thing seems right to the king and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to revoke the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to annihilate the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces.

The KJV says 'reverse'.

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:25 PM
The language of the translation does say 'revoke' but I believe it just has a different meaning than what we think of when we hear the word.

Esther 8:4-5
4 And the king held out the golden scepter toward Esther. So Esther arose and stood before the king, 5 and said, “If it pleases the king, and if I have found favor in his sight and the thing seems right to the king and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to revoke the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to annihilate the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces.


yeah.. because if I remember Persian Empire laws right... I am a bit rusty... I was under the impression that the king's word was unbreakable law... meaning that there has to be a different meaning

Studyin'2Show
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:29 PM
yeah.. because if I remember Persian Empire laws right... I am a bit rusty... I was under the impression that the king's word was unbreakable law... meaning that there has to be a different meaningYes, I've been taught that as well, which is why I believe it may have a different meaning than what we would think. Otherwise, he could have just 'reversed' or 'revoked' the first edict and that would have been it. But obviously he couldn't take it back but in issuing a new edict he could pretty much make, in essence, the first one useless as it was originally intended. :dunno:

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:37 PM
now I'm no Persian lawyer... but if I wanted a law made useless... I would go that route... and Mordecai was no fool either... he knew the law... basically instead of watching his people killed without mercy, just ask the king to make a new law and let's watch a Middle Eastern gang war... snacks anyone?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:49 PM
Just another side note...

The law of the medes and persians couldn't be changed. I think they got that from God though they abused it. Once he passes judgment, it's passed with no recourse.

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:32 PM
Just another side note...

The law of the medes and persians couldn't be changed. I think they got that from God though they abused it. Once he passes judgment, it's passed with no recourse.

a side note! I've been trying to make that point all day! :B
oh well

Steve M
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:38 PM
Hey, everybody. Can somebody please give me proof Haman et al were Amelakites?

Because my Bible calls him an Agagite. And while that bears a passing resemblance to the name of an Amalekite king... that doesn't come close to the sort of proof one usually requires when making a statement about the scriptures.

Knuckledamus; the Amalekites attacked the Israelites in the rear--the women and children, basically--when they were coming up out of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 25
17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:47 PM
Hi Steve. Agag is the name of the king of the Amalekites.

1 Sam 15:7-8
8 And he captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
NASB

In the hebrew it doesn't mean a name, it means a title.

OT:90 'Agag (ag-ag'); or 'Agag (Ag-awg'); of uncertain derivation [compare OT:89]; flame; Agag, a title of Amalekitish kings:

KJV - Agag.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Here is what scripture says of Haman.

Est 3:1

3 After these events King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and established his authority over all the princes who were with him.
NASB

And the word for agagite is as follows...

OT:91 'Agagiy (ag-aw-ghee'); patrial or patronymic from OT:90; an Agagite or descendent (subject) of Agag:

KJV - Agagite.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Not only was Haman an offspring of the Amalekites, but he was an offspring of the king of the Amalekites! He was royalty. He was a direct descendant of Agag, the king of the Amalekites.

Steve M
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:51 PM
...hmm... but this confuses me slightly.

I Chronicles 4
41 The men whose names were listed came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. They attacked the Hamites in their dwellings and also the Meunites who were there and completely destroyed them, as is evident to this day. Then they settled in their place, because there was pasture for their flocks. 42 And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day.

So if Agag was cut off... if all the Amalekites were cut off, including those who escaped... BEFORE going away into captivity...

Did they miss some?

Anyways....

Just sort of a side jaunt. But those who know me know I particularly insist that the details be fully supportable via scripture. :)

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:54 PM
...hmm... but this confuses me slightly.

I Chronicles 4
41 The men whose names were listed came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. They attacked the Hamites in their dwellings and also the Meunites who were there and completely destroyed them, as is evident to this day. Then they settled in their place, because there was pasture for their flocks. 42 And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day.

So if Agag was cut off... if all the Amalekites were cut off, including those who escaped... BEFORE going away into captivity...

Did they miss some?

Anyways....

Just sort of a side jaunt. But those who know me know I particularly insist that the details be fully supportable via scripture. :)

More details for further clarification or confusion. ;)

Ex 17:14-16

14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." 15 And Moses built an altar, and named it The Lord is My Banner; 16 and he said, "The Lord has sworn; the Lord will have war against Amalek from generation to generation.
NASB

If God blots them out, how can he have war against Amalek from generation to generation?

talmidim
Jun 4th 2008, 02:16 PM
Hi!

Can I play? This is a little off the main thrust of the OP, though related in a round-about way. Have any of you read E.W.Bullinger's work on the acrostic of the name of the Almighty that appears hidden in the book of Esther? It is a fascinating read and addresses some of the points that have been brought up in this thread. The link is here: http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app60.html

Have fun!
Phillip

Studyin'2Show
Jun 4th 2008, 04:15 PM
That was very interesting, Phillip! :D So, He was hiding His Face but yet he was there!

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 04:19 PM
not an entirely foreign concept...

SIG
Jun 5th 2008, 04:11 AM
Chuck Missler teaches on the hidden names in Esther, and adds that the word "Moshiach" (Messiah) is also contained in the text...

Has any one Googled "Purimfest 1946" yet? No?

http://desiretoshare.com/purim.htm

Studyin'2Show
Jun 5th 2008, 10:23 AM
Has any one Googled "Purimfest 1946" yet? No?

http://desiretoshare.com/purim.htmI have, SIG, and I found this page that you are referring to that explains the deal concerning the 10 sons of Haman and the significance of Purimfest 1946. http://www.geocities.com/eproceeding/purimfest1953/html/purimfest1946.html But I can't understand the point of Zohar Vayikra that seemingly points ahead to Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). Is this from Talmud or from a particular rabbi? It's interesting but without understanding the tie to Sukkot I'm missing something. :hmm: