Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[MarkT]

The Jews annihilated their enemies when the Jews' enemies showed up to kill them.
Exactly a case of self defense.
They killed the people who came to kill them.

But the Jews did all the killing. You can claim self defence if you are being attacked, but the killing has to stop when the enemy stops attacking.

But in this case the Jews did whatever they pleased.
Esther 9:5
So the Jews smote all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering, and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.

Doesn't sound like self defence to me. Sounds like a party.

Wherever the king’s command and his edict came, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday. Esther 8:16-17

Why would you think anyone showed up to kill the Jews? Why would they if they knew the king's decree?

 

[Jim Parker]

But the Jews did all the killing. You can claim self defence if you are being attacked, but the killing has to stop when the enemy stops attacking.

They WERE being attacked.
Their enemies came to kill them and their families and plunder their goods.

 

[MarkT]

They WERE being attacked.
Their enemies came to kill them and their families and plunder their goods.

The Bible doesn't say anyone came out to attack the Jews. Why would they if they knew the king's decree? It says the fear of the Jews fell upon them. Esther 8:17 And no one could make a stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples. Esther 9:2

The Bible only says the Jews slew anyone who hated them.

 

[Jim Parker]

The Bible doesn't say anyone came out to attack the Jews. Why would they if they knew the king's decree? It says the fear of the Jews fell upon them. Esther 8:17 And no one could make a stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples. Esther 9:2

The Bible only says the Jews slew anyone who hated them.

Est 9:16 The remainder of the Jews in the king’s provinces gathered together and protected their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of their enemies; but they did not lay a hand on the plunder.

The Bible specifically does say that the Jews lives were at risk and they protected themselves.
The lives of the Jews were not at risk from enemies who stayed home and didn't try to kill Jews.
The lives of the Jews were at risk from those people who showed up with swords and the intent to kill Jews.
The Jews gathered together. They didn't go house to house looking for enemies to kill.

It was the intention of the enemies of the Jews to kill them but the Jews overcame their enemies and slaughtered those who wanted to kill them.

 

[Razeontherock]

But the Jews did all the killing. You can claim self defence if you are being attacked, but the killing has to stop when the enemy stops attacking.

But in this case the Jews did whatever they pleased.
Esther 9:5
So the Jews smote all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering, and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.

Doesn't sound like self defence to me. Sounds like a party.

Wherever the king’s command and his edict came, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday. Esther 8:16-17

Why would you think anyone showed up to kill the Jews? Why would they if they knew the king's decree?

Besides the fact that you're missing the whole point of the story and ignoring everyone who celebrates it as a Holiday and therefore understands it better than you, you have now moved the goal posts in order to be able to obliterate the distinction between murder and killing. What happened in this story is killing, but not murder. That's an important distinction.

One breaks the law, the other doesn't. This has God as it's source, and our legal system still honors that, regardless what atheists think about it.

 

[MarkT]

Est 9:16 The remainder of the Jews in the king’s provinces gathered together and protected their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of their enemies; but they did not lay a hand on the plunder.

The Bible specifically does say that the Jews lives were at risk and they protected themselves.
The lives of the Jews were not at risk from enemies who stayed home and didn't try to kill Jews.
The lives of the Jews were at risk from those people who showed up with swords and the intent to kill Jews.
The Jews gathered together. They didn't go house to house looking for enemies to kill.

It was the intention of the enemies of the Jews to kill them but the Jews overcame their enemies and slaughtered those who wanted to kill them.

No doubt they gathered to defend their lives. They were also instructed to avenge themselves upon their enemies. Esther 8:13.

But the Bible says they got relief from their enemies, and slew 75 thousand of those who hated them. What does 'they got relief from their enemies' mean?

 

[Jim Parker]

What does 'they got relief from their enemies' mean?

It means that their enemies were no longer a threat or that their enemies quit trying to kill them.

 

[MarkT]

It means that their enemies were no longer a threat or that their enemies quit trying to kill them.

So they slew 75 thousand who were no longer a threat.

 

[Jim Parker]

So they slew 75 thousand who were no longer a threat.

Not after they were slain, no.

 

[jasonc]

If they slew all of medes,and Persians and all in the empire of Persia there wouldn't have been a Persian left alive.and another gentile in the land.that's not in Esther.

Good lord ,at least read up on purim,and it's story a bit better

 

[MarkT]

Not after they were slain, no.

I'd say the threat was over before they slew 75 thousand, just because it says the fear of the Jews was upon all the peoples.

Or it could mean the pressure was off. They were no longer defending themselves at this point. At this point they were killing anyone who hated them. They killed 75 thousand of those who hated them. Esther 9:16

Or it could mean relief from attack.

 

[Razeontherock]

So they slew 75 thousand who were no longer a threat.

You're demonstrating that you do not understand the point of the story. Again.

If you wanted to understand Christmas, would you ask a Muslim? Or a Jew? Wouldn't you expect to get more accurate information from a Christian? I think that's reasonable. Why not look at how Jews celebrate Purim, and why? Their understanding will show the meaning of the story, and will at the very least a lot closer to what actually happened than whatever you arrive at by reading on your own.

 

[MarkT]

You're demonstrating that you do not understand the point of the story. Again.

If you wanted to understand Christmas, would you ask a Muslim? Or a Jew? Wouldn't you expect to get more accurate information from a Christian? I think that's reasonable. Why not look at how Jews celebrate Purim, and why? Their understanding will show the meaning of the story, and will at the very least a lot closer to what actually happened than whatever you arrive at by reading on your own.

To you everything is a story. To me the word of God is life. It's my food. So don't misunderstand me. If I wanted to understand your customs and your traditions, your celebrations and your holidays. I would ask you. But give me Scripture. That's what I want. Give me food. Not empty words. It's all about reading and understanding my friend. The Spirit should be telling you to stay away from crap that is not food.

 

[Northman]

I don't see Scripture telling us that much. David was hunted by family and friends, and saved by the Lord. Had David been killed by Saul or his own son, it wouldn't have been a legal matter in the sense we have today.

While David was reigning securely, there was no one to impose a legal penalty upon him. This doesn't translate directly into our modern world.

It says what it says. Nathan told David that God put the sin behind him, that he would not die. It was said and didn't have to be tested. He was pardoned. The concept would be the same today as it was then, I understand you are trying to say something practical but practical doesn't matter when it comes to God dealing out whatever he chooses to deal out. God didn't have a person execute David's baby, He did it Himself. What ifs are hard to handle. I'm more of the mind that David would have given himself over to whatever judgement God had Nathan pronounce, but that again is a what if and not anything that can or should be involved in a discussion of what the scripture actually says. So in application, if a new believer asks why David didn't have to pay the price as per the law, the answer would not be that he was king, the answer would be the scriptural one that he was forgiven.

There are still natural consequences for our actions, and generally speaking God's forgiveness doesn't short circuit those. Getting cancer or having a tower fall on you isn't "natural consequences." It's superstitious to think that way and Jesus was addressing this.

I will agree that it's superstitious. People like those asking Jesus at the gate what the mans sin was for him to be like that and Job's friend telling him that what happened to him was the result of sin are folks that have been around for a long time and haven't gone anywhere. They are wrong. What I am confused about is what you thought I was trying to refute. Can you point out what that was?

 

[Jim Parker]

I'd say the threat was over before they slew 75 thousand, just because it says the fear of the Jews was upon all the peoples.

I'd say the story does not support or even suggest that.
What you propose would require that the Jews, essentially, went door-ro-door looking for their enemies so they could kill them.


Esther 8:11 By these the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, with their children and women, and to plunder their goods,

The scripture says the Jews gathered together. Today, we might call that a militia.
It states that they gathered together in order to defend themselves against "any armed force" those who had come to kill them.

 

[MarkT]

I'd say the story does not support or even suggest that.
What you propose would require that the Jews, essentially, went door-ro-door looking for their enemies so they could kill them.


Esther 8:11 By these the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, with their children and women, and to plunder their goods,

The scripture says the Jews gathered together. Today, we might call that a militia.
It states that they gathered together in order to defend themselves against "any armed force" those who had come to kill them.

Isn't that what Haman wanted to do to the Jews? Esther 3:8-9 I imagine it would have been house to house, door to door.

Esther 9:2 says the Jews gathered to lay hands on such as sought their hurt, and no one could make a stand against them, for the fear of the Jews was upon all the peoples. Was there an armed force or did the people hide themselves? Esther says they could not make a stand against them.

Was there an armed force? It's possible. But I think at this point they were the ones who were being attacked.

 

[Razeontherock]

To you everything is a story. To me the word of God is life. It's my food. So don't misunderstand me. If I wanted to understand your customs and your traditions, your celebrations and your holidays. I would ask you. But give me Scripture. That's what I want. Give me food. Not empty words. It's all about reading and understanding my friend. The Spirit should be telling you to stay away from crap that is not food.

It would be better if you could appreciate the fact that our Bible IS literature, and that it contains every type of literature our species has ever written. "Rightly dividing the Word of Truth" requires this. Some things ARE stories. Some things are horror, some things are erotic poetry. Some things are humor, that you'll never get from just sticking with an English translation. Those are just a few examples of what you'll encounter, but if you read them as though they are all the same you'll always be missing the majority of what's being said.

 

[MarkT]

Besides the fact that you're missing the whole point of the story and ignoring everyone who celebrates it as a Holiday and therefore understands it better than you, you have now moved the goal posts in order to be able to obliterate the distinction between murder and killing. What happened in this story is killing, but not murder. That's an important distinction.

One breaks the law, the other doesn't. This has God as it's source, and our legal system still honors that, regardless what atheists think about it.

I agree it was killing and not murder only because it was the King's command. So the commandment is you shall not kill. Otherwise it is murder.

 

[Jim Parker]

Was there an armed force?

The Jews were allowed to attack ONLY an armed force that might attack them. (attack the Jews)

Esther 8:11 ...the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, o destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them,

The Jews were allowed "to gather and defend their lives" and to slay "any armed force...that might attack them".
They were not allowed to go searching for enemies to kill.

But I think at this point they were the ones who were being attacked.

The JEWs were being attacked.
They gathered together so as not for each family to have to face an armed mob.
When the people showed up to kill Jews, they got their butts kicked.
It was clearly self defense on the part of the Jews.

 

[Razeontherock]

So in application, if a new believer asks why David didn't have to pay the price as per the law, the answer would not be that he was king, the answer would be the scriptural one that he was forgiven.

You make an interesting point here. I've never encountered a novice in the Word that asks a question about King David with this much depth. I wouldn't say that your answer is necessarily bad to say to a babe in Christ, or that's it's completely wrong. I do think it suffers from our English Christian Bibles in that it glosses over the fact that King David was bad to the bone. I mean, I know what I was doing from the age of 10-15; I never lost a hockey game, and we used those to settle scores rather than having a gangfight. I remember the first time our center turned his back on the opening face off, leaving nothing between their 6' center (who was of course their biggest, strongest player) and our goalie except me, our smallest, weakest, slowest, and least athletic player. And my center did NOT tell me he was going to do this.
I charged him much quicker than he charged me, and by the time he picked himself up he was on his knees begging me not to hurt him. You can imagine nobody on their team played up to their potential after that, but I didn't kill any giants. The odds David overcame on his meteoric rise to being King over Israel were FAR greater than what I faced. So, who was going to kill David? That's a really big part of the story here.
And David killed (not murdered) Goliath solely because of the Anointing. This is most relevant to us because we are all 3 OT offices that had the Holy Spirit; Prophet, Priest, and King. Even King David was only two of those ...

By the time a novice in the Word absorbs that much, they're not a novice anymore.

I will agree that it's superstitious. People like those asking Jesus at the gate what the mans sin was for him to be like that and Job's friend telling him that what happened to him was the result of sin are folks that have been around for a long time and haven't gone anywhere. They are wrong. What I am confused about is what you thought I was trying to refute. Can you point out what that was?

From my post #389:

"Generally speaking, God's forgiveness spares us from His wrath, not the natural consequences of our actions. This passage says nothing to refute that."

Here you rightly divide the Word, and you also give good exegesis, allowing the passage to speak for itself. These passages do nothing to mitigate the natural consequences of our actions, which include restitution for wrong doing.