any jewish scholars please ?

ladypeartree · October 30, 2007

In a house group last night the question was asked

" In the book of Esther the jews had 3 chances to take the plunder and each time it tells us that they did not take any plunder ...why ? " It was particularly asked from a Jewish perspective ( sorry I dont know why but the person asking was very sure she wanted to know if there was a special reason in Jewish law or ideas ? )

Answers please

Phil.2:12 · October 30, 2007

I am, by no means, a Jewish scholar however I have done extensive reading in God's Word. I am reminded of the time that the Jewish nation was led into the Promised Land by Joshua. As soon as they crossed the Jordan river, they were faced with the spectre of Jericho, a heavily defended and fortified city/state with its own king. God gave to Joshua a detailed battle plan that made no sense to the average man. However, Joshua followed the plan to the letter and the mighty fortified wals of Jericho fell down, inward into the city. If they had fallen outward, they would have chrushed all the fighting men as well as the Priests and others who were marching around the city at the base of the walls.

Included in the battle plan for Jerico, God warned the Jews not to take anything from the city of Jericho for their own use or enjoyment. All the treasures of silver and gold were to be placed in the Jewish treasury for the use of the entire nation. All else was decreed an accursed thing by God and had to be destroyed. The destruction of Jericho was absolute right down to the deaths of all life from each man to the families, including any infants, and the death of any animals. When the Jewish warriors were done that night, there was not one living soul left in Jericho, a real blood bath for all in Jericho except for the family of Rahab, the harlot. She and her family were the only ones who surrived the battle of Jericho because she hid the Jewish spies from the authorities and helped them escape.

The next town to be taken was the city/state of Ai, another heavily fortified town. So the Jews scouted out this town and found Ai to be light lifting compared with Jericho. The recommendation was to send three thousand troops to Ai and conquer it immediately, so that's what happened. However, the men of Ai handed the Jewish troops their lunch and killed some 36 Jewish warriors in the rout. When Joshua went before God with this sad state of affairs, God told him that a detestable thing had been taken from Jericho and that is why they were routed from Ai, which should have been a simple victory.

Joshua, under God's guidance, found the guilty party. a man named Achan who had taken some luxurious clothing along with some gold and silver and buried them in the dirt within his tent. For his trouble, Achan and his entire family (including any livestock) were stoned to death and all his possessions were destroyed by fire. This was the penalty God decreed for anyone who disobeyed His commandment to take nothing from the destruction of Jericho. Such a demonstration of the wrath of God against those who disobey His specific instructions left an indellible mark on the collective conscience of the Jewish nation. This was constantly reinforced as the whole story of Jericho and Ai was found in the book of Joshua, a part of the Scriptures from Joshua's day.

Since the consequences of disobedience to an explicit command from God had been planted deep within the soul of the Jewish nation, may have been enough to keep the Jewish nation in exile within Babylon from taking any of the booty freely offered to them by king Xerxes. If the Jews regarded such bounty as an accursed thing (drawing from the Jericho experience) then it would make perfect sense that they would consider such bounty, freely offered by Xerxes, to be (in God's sight) an accursed thing as the bounty of Jericho was in the eyes of God. Remembering the outcome of the first battle at Ai, and the subsequent punishment of Achan, would make the greediest Jew to refuse the bounty of Persia as they were freed from Haman's wicked plot.

ladypeartree · October 30, 2007

Thank you Phil this was the only explaination that occured to the group last night ...they were just curious as to any other thoughts

Rebecca2 · November 1, 2007

The law written by Mordecai allowed the Jews to kill their enemies and take plunder; however, there are a few reasons that this was not an option.

1) This was not in the best interests of the Jewish people living in the midst of a foreign people.

The Jewish men destroyed anyone who threatened their lives and the lives of their women and children. The people who witnessed these events could understand these actions. Many of them would have done the same thing if their families had been threatened. If the Jews had taken the plunder, their neighbors might have become envious or distrustful of them. Eventually these neighbors might have begun to see the Jews as a threat.

2) When a powerful king does a favor for a minority group in his kingdom, it might be in the best interests of that group to make it worth the ruler's efforts. Haman had promised to pay the king to have the Jews destroyed. This king was in the midst of raising funds for a major military campaign. He may have wanted to right the wrong planned for Esther's people, but seriously people, the man needed money - lots of money.

3) HISTORY - Haman was of the family of King Agag of the Amalekites.

In 1 Samuel 15, GOD told King Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites and all they had to punish Amalek for ambushing the children of Israel after they left Egypt.

King Saul disobeyed GOD. King Saul captured King Agag alive. Saul's army took plunder. When Samuel confronted Saul about King Agag and the plunder, Saul made excuses for his disobedience. Because Saul disobeyed the commands of the Lord in this matter, he was rejected as the king of Israel.

In addition, his disobedience led to the escape of at least one member of King Agag's family who I would venture to say harbored a deep abiding hatred of the Jews. This hatred was passed down until a member of the family thought he was finally in a position to destroy the people who destroyed the dynasty of King Agag.

In destroying the house / family of Haman, the children of Israel were completing the original mission given to King Saul. As part of that original mission, the children of Israel were bound to obey the commands of the Lord to not take plunder.

ladypeartree · November 1, 2007

Rebbecca this is great thank you but could I please ask a favour ...if you are willing for me to print this out to share with the ladies who asked the question could you please edit and make the writing bold black cos my poor pronter cant cope with the colour that it is in at the moment

Thank you soooo much

nebula · November 1, 2007

Can you copy and paste to Word and then change the font?

ladypeartree · November 1, 2007

and you think I am clever with these machines

ok mighty computer genius I will have a go ...if worthy boards disapears altogether it is all your fault

TM75 · November 1, 2007

The law written by Mordecai allowed the Jews to kill their enemies and take plunder; however, there are a few reasons that this was not an option.

1) This was not in the best interests of the Jewish people living in the midst of a foreign people.
The Jewish men destroyed anyone who threatened their lives and the lives of their women and children. The people who witnessed these events could understand these actions. Many of them would have done the same thing if their families had been threatened. If the Jews had taken the plunder, their neighbors might have become envious or distrustful of them. Eventually these neighbors might have begun to see the Jews as a threat.

2) When a powerful king does a favor for a minority group in his kingdom, it might be in the best interests of that group to make it worth the ruler's efforts. Haman had promised to pay the king to have the Jews destroyed. This king was in the midst of raising funds for a major military campaign. He may have wanted to right the wrong planned for Esther's people, but seriously people, the man needed money - lots of money.

3) HISTORY - Haman was of the family of King Agag of the Amalekites.

In 1 Samuel 15, GOD told King Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites and all they had to punish Amalek for ambushing the children of Israel after they left Egypt.

King Saul disobeyed GOD. King Saul captured King Agag alive. Saul's army took plunder. When Samuel confronted Saul about King Agag and the plunder, Saul made excuses for his disobedience. Because Saul disobeyed the commands of the Lord in this matter, he was rejected as the king of Israel.

In addition, his disobedience led to the escape of at least one member of King Agag's family who I would venture to say harbored a deep abiding hatred of the Jews. This hatred was passed down until a member of the family thought he was finally in a position to destroy the people who destroyed the dynasty of King Agag.

In destroying the house / family of Haman, the children of Israel were completing the original mission given to King Saul. As part of that original mission, the children of Israel were bound to obey the commands of the Lord to not take plunder.

I believe that the children of Israel are today and that these believers have a form of godliness, but deny the power therof.

Isaiah 9 (1537 Reformation Bible at faithofGod.net)