Esther 9-10 - The Day of Reckoning and Rejoicing

9:1-4 – The day arrives.  After all that had been done and the joy of chapter eight, the actual day for the struggle of the Jews had yet to be decided though things were increasingly in the favor of the Jews.  The Jews had been authorized to defend themselves against anyone taking aggression against them on the thirteenth of the twelfth month.  Not only could they take action against such persons, but they also had the support of the government officials and so “the tables were turned” (cf. Jer.30:16).  The rise of Mordecai lent tremendous support to the upsurge of Jewish support by the various government personnel including those who were earlier mentioned as caring for the monies that Haman would have contributed to the coffers of Persia (9:3-4; cf. 3:9). 

9:5-17 – The defeat of the Jewish enemies and the end of Haman.  Rather than this being a Jewish killing spree, it was an organized and authorized response to aggression against the Jews.  In fact, the author of Esther repeats three times that the Jews did not take any plunder as they had been authorized to do by the edict from Mordecai (9:10, 15, 16; cf. 8:11).  It is stated that the Jews “did what they pleased” which would be a reversal of what Xerxes had told Haman he could do to the people he plotted against (cf. 3:11).  What they “pleased” was not the same level of destruction that had been plotted against them though.  However, the sons of Haman were all put to death and thus their names were listed in order to signify the complete destruction of Haman’s family line.  As an aside, the names of his ten sons are listed in the Hebrew text with the name to one side and the definite direct object marker to the other creating a clearly distinct list-type following the pattern of the list of defeated kings in Joshua 12:9-24 and cities gifted by David after defeating his enemies at Ziklag in 1 Samuel 20:27-31.  There was a clear accounting to the king of all those killed in the citadel of Susa (9:11-12), Susa proper (9:15) and throughout the empire (9:16).  After reporting to the king the initial slaughter of the Jewish enemies in the citadel of Susa he asked what more could be done for Esther giving her a sort of carte blanche to do as she desired.  So Esther requested that the enemies in Susa proper be dealt with the next day.  Were they expected to try to continue to attack the Jews?  Why should she ask for another day of killing?  The text does not answer this.  The killing that lasted an extra day in the city of Susa became the reason that the celebration of Purim was observed on two different dates by Jews in the cities and those in the country (9:18-19).  Esther also asked that Haman’s ten sons that were killed be hung on gallows for a public display of their shame (cf. 1 Sam.31:1-13 – the public display of the bodies of King Saul and his sons by hanging).  The numbers reported killed (500; 300; 75,000) have been considered nothing more than items of farcical comedy by some (Berlin 81-82), but records of factual history by others (Jobes 199) despite the excessive numbers. 

9:18-32 – The institution of Purim.  The “day of feasting and joy” was not observed on the days of killing and battle, but on the day after when things were peaceful finally.  Also, the “celebration is…different from the feasts prescribed by the Torah.  Rather than being imposed on the people from above as God’s command met, Purim began as the spontaneous response of God’s people to his omnipotent faithfulness to the promises of the covenant” (Jobes 214).  The institution of this day (though celebrated on different days in different locations) became one of celebration for having gained “rest” from enemies (contrast how Haman plotted to take “rest” from Jews by their enemies – 3:8).  It was not a celebration of battle or destruction.  It was a celebration of joy having come from sorrow and rest from enemies and thus a day for blessing others including particularly the poor (9:19, 22).  Thus, Mordecai wrote and sent letters about these events to all of the Jews throughout the empire and described what should be done concerning this celebration that it should be carried out in perpetuity (9:27-28; cf. Exo.17:14).  The Jews received this gladly (9:23, 27).  As part of the closing remarks the story was written in summary fashion (9:24-25) as an “‘official version’ of the story…simplified and sanitized” to make the king seem to be the one responsible for saving the Jews from wicked Haman and thus leading to the reversal of events (Berlin 90).  This all was used for an etiological explanation for the name “Purim” as the casting of the pur (an Akkadian term that had the Hebrew plural affixed to it for unknown reasons in naming the festival) or lot which would otherwise apparently be lost to the readers of the book since it was some time after the initial events.  Esther also wrote a letter of commendation for this celebration.  Both of their letters were sent to all of the provinces of the empire as a message of “goodwill and assurance” (Heb. shālôm w^ə’ĕmet “peace and truth”; cf. Isa.39:8; Jer.33:6; and the reverse order in Zech.8:19).  Not only was there to be feasting, but this appears to have been preceded by a time of fasting (likely over the days of conflict leading to the celebration with rest and feasting).  Why should Esther have written something more than what Mordecai had written and what might this have added to the credibility of that writing?  Perhaps this adds to the established authority of Esther who earliest in the story was submissive and now was one who acted the part of the queen as one with authority.

10:1-3 – The continued rise of Mordecai.  The conclusion of the book (technically 9:18-10:3) acts as a sort of appendix to summarize what happened after the events of the victory of the Jews against their enemies where the Lord had turned their “lot” from sorrow and destruction into one of joy and blessing.  The final few verses enumerate how Mordecai continued to exercise authority throughout the empire as well as to be recorded in the annals of Persia for all he did (following the identical pattern for recordings of the kings of Israel and Judah, for example: 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:14; 1 Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron.25:26).  Mordecai was exalted among the Jews because of all he did on their behalf (cf. the celebration of “Mordecai’s Day” in 2 Macc.15:36).  Why should Mordecai be so exalted in the conclusion of a book named after Esther?

Esther 3-4 - A Time for Action

3:1-6 – Haman…the Agagite.  Whereas the last we read would have suggested that Mordecai should have been rewarded by the king, we find only the mention of another man who instead receives honors and acclaim from the king…and this man will seek for the destruction not only of Mordecai, but of all the Jews.  Haman is introduced by stating that he was an “Agagite” which would suggest an immediate tension for the reader who has just recently discovered that Mordecai is not only a Jew, but even a descendant of Kish the father of King Saul.  This seems intended to bring to mind the age-old conflict between the Amalekites (which used “Agag” for their royal family name) and Israel (Exo.17:8-16; Num.24:7; Deut.25:17-19) and was exemplified in Saul’s nearly destroying all of the Amalekites with the exception of king Agag in 1 Sam.15.  According to Josephus and several of the targums “Amalek” is actually given in place of “Agagite” here (though the Greek versions completely alter the name destroying any connection to this historical conflict).  The term “Agagite” in Esther functions in a nearly synonymous way with “enemy of the Jews” (Esther 3:10; 8:1, 3, 5, 10, 24; Bush 384).  This may, in fact, answer why Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman despite the command of the king.  The text does not explain a reason and there was sufficient precedence for bowing to kings, rulers and others (Gen.27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 1 Kings 1:16).  Certainly Mordecai had bowed to the king, so why not to Haman?  The only reason suggested by the text is that Mordecai was “a Jew” and this must be read then in light of Haman being “Agagite”.  The targums and the LXX versions add several different explanations about the worship of God alone for the reason that Mordecai would not bow down, but this goes well beyond what the text actually says and tries to spiritualize his reasoning.  It seems more likely it was the ethnic identity that was the factor involved.  The questioning of Mordecai about why he would not bow and pay homage may be more to force him to do this rather than to actually discover why.  Mordecai’s actions so enraged Haman that he actually determined to destroy not only Mordecai, but all of Mordecai’s people—the Jews.  “There is a parallel between the decree against all women because of the disrespect shown by one (Vashti) and the decree against all Jews because of the disrespect shown by Mordecai” (Berlin 37-38).

3:7-15 – The Lot Cast.  The time indicated in 3:7 places these events five years after Esther’s choice as queen, sixteen years after the return to Jerusalem of Ezra and the rebuilding of the Temple, and sixty-four years after Zerubbabel and the first return from exile (Breneman 328).  In the first month of that year Haman cast the pur (an Akkadian loanword from which the celebration takes the plural form for its name - Purim) that was explained as the “lot” (Heb. goral).  He did this to determine the best time to destroy the Jews.  This was a normal manner for determining certain matters of great importance and allowing for either the fates or divine direction to lead one (cf. Josh.18:6; Ps.16:5-6; Prov.16:33).  The date selected by the lot was to be exactly eleven months later.  So Haman then went to Xerxes to convince him to make the edict and used truth (“scattered”), half-truth (“different than all others”) and outright lies (“do not obey”) to convince the king to give his approval.  He never once mentioned the people he was referring to, but only referred to them obliquely as “a certain people”.  His appeal was made primarily to the empires and king’s self-interest and greed.  The amount offered of 10000 talents of silver (or about 333-375 tons) equaled nearly the entirety of tribute collected by the Persians in a single year (Herodotus 3.89)!  Perhaps Haman thought to collect this by pillaging the Jews, but the king seems not even to care about such matters.  He simply issues the decree.  “Haman is unmitigated evil, but the king is dangerous indifference personified” (Bush 387).

The exact date that Haman of the edict being issued was the thirteenth of Nissan which was the eve of Passover when the Jews would be celebrating Israel’s deliverance by the hand of God (Exo.12:18; Lev.23:5; Num.28:16).  Would God again deliver His people?  Would the LORD be faithful to His covenant?  None of this is appealed to, but all of it remains implicit.  The edict was made available in every language throughout the empire in order to encourage people everywhere to prepare to take action against the Jews on the 13^th of the twelfth month.  According to Herodotus it took approximately three months for a message to be carried across the entire empire (5.52-53).  The chapter closes with the king and Haman drinking together while the rest of the city of Susa was “bewildered” as the edict went out.

4:1-5 – Sackcloth and Ashes.  Mordecai immediately tore his clothes in mourning and put on sackcloth and ashes, publicly wailing (cf. Num.14:6; 2 Sam.1:11; 3:31; 13:31; Ezra 9:3; Isa.36:22).  These were the normal ancient cultural ways of demonstrating ones sorrow.  He would not even change his clothes to approach Esther with the news, but instead stayed outside the city gate wailing.  The effect upon the Jews everywhere else was similar as they heard the news of their impending destruction.  When Esther heard the news she tried to get Mordecai to put on fresh clothes so she could speak to him, but was forced to speak to Mordecai through her eunuch-servant Hathach.

4:6-17 – A Call for Action.  Mordecai relayed everything to Hathach who in turn relayed it all to Esther including bringing a copy of the royal edict concerning the destruction of the Jews.  Further, Mordecai pleaded with Esther to go to the king on behalf of her people.  Esther relayed that she, though the queen, could not simply go to the king for fear of losing her life unless he should choose to receive her or call for her.  She had not, for whatever reason, been invited to the king’s presence for a month and did not know when this would next happen.  Herodotus records that a message could be sent to the king requesting an audience (3.118, 140), but apparently Esther must have had her reasons for not wishing to send a message to request an audience.

Mordecai’s reply to Esther suggests that she will die if she does nothing.  She must take action if there is to be hope for her and her family (which presumably would include Mordecai).  Bush reads the first part of 4:14 as a rhetorical question with an emphatic “No!” as the answer.  This reading would then suggest that there would be no deliverance for the Jews if Esther did not do something now (395-7; but see the contrary in Breneman 336fn4).  Mordecai also questions Esther that she may have come to her position for such an opportune moment despite whatever the previous circumstances may have suggested.  These are the usual verses that are used to point to God’s providential care, but why at this moment (above all others) didn’t the author of Esther choose to refer to God explicitly in any way whatsoever?  The LXX makes God’s action very explicit both here and at other specific points, but the Hebrew text used in our canon does not.  How should we understand this?  “One logical conclusion from God’s absence is that human action is important.  Time and again, Esther and Mordecai’s initiatives are what make the difference for the Jews; we do not see them passively waiting for signs from God or for God to perform a dramatic miracle of some type….[T]he author is intentionally vague about God’s presence in events.  He affirms on the one hand, that God is indeed involved with his people, but, on the other hand, he admits that it is sometimes difficult to perceive God’s involvement” (NIDOTTE 4:583-4).  “These unfolding events begin to show the inscrutable interplay between circumstances thrust upon us, sometimes unjustly, and those the result of our own behavior, often flawed.  God’s providence marvelously moves through both in his own good time” (Jobes 124).

Esther called for a severe fast of three days whereas normally fasting seems to have only gone from sunrise to sunset (NIDOTTE 3:781; cf. Judges 20:26; 1 Sam.14:24) and that there would be nothing to drink for the time Esther spoke of.  Esther and her maids would also do this and then she would go to the king whatever the consequences to herself.  Here we note that Mordecai does as Esther has commanded.  Why is there no object for their fasting and no spiritual explanation?  Again, this is implied in the text, but is not in any way stated.  Fasting could be carried out for very secular reasons (as it is in our own day), but this would seem to be for an entreaty to the LORD despite His not being named.  The time for action would be prepared for by a call for solemnity and fasting.  When one realizes that the Jews only had one day a year for mandatory fasting (i.e., the Day of Atonement, though there were numerous other days later added – cf. Zech.7:5) this adds to the solemnity of the occasion.  Further, when one realizes that this fasting would be occurring during the Feast of Passover (much as Daniel’s did in Daniel 10:2-4) which was a commanded feast (Num.9:13).

There are often propitious moments where we must take action despite what may appear to be the consequences to ourselves.  The following is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller who was a leading German pastor that realized all too late that action should have been taken by the true Church of Germany to oppose Nazism and its desire to exterminate certain people including particularly the Jews:

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Esther 1-2 - Parties That Bring Change

1:1-3 – The stage is set.  According to Adele Berlin, chapter one “portrays the Persian court in all its decadent lavishness” and “sets the tone of the book” which is a “tone of excess, buffoonery, and bawdiness” (3).  This would characterize Xerxes and Haman, but does not seem to accurately describe either Mordecai or Esther.  The author of Esther lays out the pomp and “glory” of Xerxes (derived from the Persian khsyay’rsha) in all of his supposed power by establishing the extent of his domain.  He apparently reigned in Susa (cf. Dan.8:2; Neh.1:1) during this account which normally served as a winter palace among the four capitals of the Persian rulers (Susa, Ecbatana, Babylon and Persepolis).  The 127 “provinces” (compare the 120 “satrapies” of Dan.6:1; cf. Ezra 2:1) give particular emphasis to the supposed greatness of the king who threw a banquet in his third year (483BC) for all his officials.  This may have been to determine the best course of action against the Greeks that Xerxes would carry out in the upcoming years before returning in defeat in approximately 480-479BC.

1:4-9 – A Party in Persia.  Perhaps the 180 days mentioned in verse 4 refers only to these meetings with the officials as well as the demonstration of Xerxes opulence.  At the end of that time, he threw a party for seven days by inviting everyone.  The descriptions of the location for the feast are unparalleled in Scripture except by the descriptions of the construction of both the Temple (1 Kings 6-7) and the Tabernacle (Exo.26, 36).  This creates an aura of greatness concerning the scene and also suggests that at the time of the writing of Esther the glory of that scene had passed, but the Temple had been rebuilt (though all of this remains completely unspoken).  The wine flowed freely (or “as befits a king” – Bush 348) at this party and it was, according to Herodotus, customary for the Persians preferred to make important decisions when drunk (1.133).  It is important to the narrative that Queen Vashti gave her own banquet as a separate affair from King Xerxes.

1:10-22 – The King and Queen at Play.  On the final day of the party, King Xerxes  called for his Queen to be brought before him and his whole party to show her off, but Vashti refused and so Xerxes was furious.  So Xerxes sought the advice of his counselors who proposed that in order to save face Xerxes should send out an unrepealable decree (cf. Dan.6:9,13, 16) against Vashti appearing ever again before the king, so that other women will not treat their husbands like Vashti has treated Xerxes.  This is exactly what Xerxes does, but instead of this saving face it ironically reveals the very thing he wished to hide…that Vashti had scorned him.  This is part of the satirical nature of this account (Bush 355).  Further, the lists of the Persian names of the seven eunuchs sent to fetch Vashti (1:10) and the seven nobles asked for advice (1:14) all may be intended to sound “ludicrous to Hebrew ears” (Bush 350).  Whether this edict was ever even enforceable does not even seem to enter into the equation for the advisors and Xerxes, however the Hebrew may suggest that the goal of the edict was assure of husbands of their wives’ respect (1:20) and of ruling their houses (1:22) than that this should be the actual edict (Berlin 20).  Why might Vashti (who after verse 19 is never again referred to with the title “Queen”) have not appeared before Xerxes?  Should we moralize this account to either vilify her for not honoring her husband or should we honor her for not appearing?  Or should we simply recognize that whatever her reason it ultimately did not matter to the author other than to set the stage for someone else to become Queen in her place without any comment as to the wrongness or rightness of any of these actions?

2:1-14 – The Search for a Queen.  Xerxes later seemed to wish he still had his Queen, but since he had decreed that she could never return to him, he sought the advice of his counselors again.  And they advised that he should issue a decree to find among the most beautiful young women of the empire one who “pleases” him to be made queen in place of Vashti.  These women would be put into the harem of the king and would have one night to impress the king after undergoing extensive (one year according to the text of which six months were aromatic in nature) “beauty treatments.”  Suddenly a man by the name of Mordecai is introduced and his lineage is signified as being from the tribe of Benjamin with Kish (the father of Saul[?] in his family tree; cf. 1 Sam.1:9).  He is further connected as either one of the exiles from the time of Jehoiachin (cf. 2 Kings 24:6-17) in 597BC (but this would make him about 120 years old) or as a descendant of one of the exiles.  It is very significant that Mordecai is called “a Jew” (Heb. yehudi) which refers to the ethno-religious origin rather than to the tribal origin (Judah) since he was from Benjamin.  “Mordecai’s most outstanding characteristic” is not his morality, but “his Jewishness” (Berlin 24).  He had adopted his orphaned cousin Hadassah (meaning “myrtle”), daughter of Abihail (2:15; 9:29), whose notable characteristics here are her beauty and body (2:7) and whose name is everywhere else called Esther (from either Babylonian “Ishtar” the goddess of love and war or from Persian stâra for “star”).  The women chosen for the harem were all appointed to Hegai the King’s eunuch who provided for their preparations and who favored Esther.  Mordecai would regularly check on her during all of this time and in the days to come as he had also tried to protect her (knowing what might lay ahead for them?) by telling her to keep her ethnicity a secret.  Can we appropriately accept the actions of either Mordecai or Esther in her allowing herself what will become of her in the life with a gentile King? (cf. Deut.7:3; Ezra 9:12; 10)  In what sense must each of us seek to obey the Lord in a world where it is not always easy to do so?   “Regardless of their character, their motives, or their fidelity to God’s law, the decisions Esther and Mordecai make move events in some inscrutable way to fulfill the covenant promises God made to his people long ago” (Jobes 103).

2:15-18 – A Queen is Found.  Esther chose to make herself appealing by doing what she was told.  This brought favor from those she was surrounded by (cf. Gen.39:4; Dan.1:9).  She was taken to Xerxes after three more years some time in either December of 479BC or January of 478BC.   The king was particularly please with Esther though we are not told exactly why.  Certainly something about her pleased him more than all the other women he had taken to “try out” as a potential queen.  So another banquet was held and this one was in honor of Esther as the new queen.

2:19-23 – A Plot is Foiled.  Mordecai served somehow in the administration (which is what it means to sit at “the king’s gate”) and overheard an assassination attempt was going to be made on Xerxes life.  Rather than use this as an opportunity for a new king he told Esther who told the king and this will prepare for the events in chapter 6 when Mordecai will eventually be rewarded for this deed according to the reading of the annals of that day.  The two potential assassins were “hanged” but this more than likely does not refer to either impalement or to crucifixion, but to exposure of their bodies post-mortem (Berlin 32; Bush 373; cf. Gen.40:19; Deut.21:22; Josh.8:29; 10:26).

The Old Testament for Seventh Graders (in Four Weeks!) 4

Life Under the Covenant - Joshua-Malachi

Story: Living in the Land (Joshua-2 Chronicles) – Israel entered the land of eternal promise, but once they were in the land they failed to live according to the covenant.  The LORD rescued them again and again even though they always managed to rebel again and again. (Joshua 23:16; Judges 21:25; 1 Kings 9:3-9) SCROLL   

Prophets: The Word of the LORD (Isaiah-Malachi) – The LORD always sent his messengers with a word to his people to do what was right because he loved them enough to call them back to the covenant and to remind them of the consequences of disobedience.  The word of the LORD was for the whole world, but what would people do? (Hosea 1:2; Jeremiah 1:9-10; 7:25; Amos 3:7; Jonah 3:2, 10) HORN 

Exile: Judgment Days (Daniel, Esther) – Because Israel would not listen to the LORD they were sent into exile among the nations, the temple was destroyed and the kingship that was promised forever was done.  At every turn it seemed like Israel would be completely destroyed, but the LORD continued to preserve His people even in exile.  (Daniel 9:4-19) SWORD

Wisdom: Two Paths (Job-Song of Songs) – The reflections of people concerned with life, suffering, blessings, judgment and obedience became sharpened by the time spent in exile even while most of the works belonged to persons of ages long before the exile.  Songs and sayings of wisdom where one considers what really matters serve to remind Israel that they must choose the right path.  (Psalm 1; Proverbs 4:20-27) FORK-IN-THE-ROAD

Return: A New Day? (Ezra-Nehemiah) – The LORD brought Israel back again to the land and restored the temple with promises for the future, but the question remained, “For how long?”  Would Israel be able to remain faithful or again be disobedient and undo it all?  (Zechariah 8:1-8; Malachi 4) SUNRISE

For the other installments: 1, 2, 3

Daniel 6 - Delivered From Lions

Cyrus the Great Cylinder

6:1-5 – The kingdom of Darius the Mede.  Joyce Baldwin argues rather persuasively that “Darius” may have been Cyrus’ enthronement name used only in his first year (29-31; 141fn107; cf. Dan.5:31; 9:1; 11:1).  At the very least, it seems very probable that the two names “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian” refer to the same individual (without further evidence forthcoming to demonstrate just who this “Darius” might otherwise be…since the conjectures of Gobryas, Ugbaru or even a mythical composite character seem untenable at best).  The “and” in the NIV and other translations (Aram. conjunctive waw) can in fact be read as “even” or “that is” in Dan.6:26 (see the NIV footnote) reading “during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian”.  This proposal seems more probable than that this individual was only a king of Babylon and not the ruler of the empire whose decision would be irrevocable. 

Darius is said to have appointed 120 satraps to give oversight to the kingdom.  A satrap was a sort of governor and over these he chose three individuals to give specific oversight…Daniel being one of the three.  The 120 would not necessarily each oversee one satrapy, but may have simply shared duties over various regions.  The numbers listed for satrapies elsewhere range in the twenties (though Esther 1:1 lists 127 during the later reign of Xerxes).  The special appointment of Daniel due to his exceptional qualities made him a target for those who were jealous of his position.  This does not necessarily mean that all 122 men were involved in the conspiracy against Daniel, but only that there was a significant group that was leading the way against him.  They were forced to admit that any accusations against him would not be successful unless it pertained to the “law of his God” because Daniel was above any sort of reproach, and was a faithful Jew.

6:6-9 – The decree.  The plan was to convince the king that there was agreement among all of his officials that he should issue a 30-day decree demanding that all prayers be offered to (through?) him for that time period.  The Medo-Persian (Achaemenid dynasty) were Zoroastrians more clearly under the later named Darius I though possibly as early as our king Cyrus (here called “Darius”).  Under Zoroastrianism, there was a single god that was worshipped, Ahura Mazda, whom the king was the earthly representative of and so it would not be a far stretch for Darius in Dan.6 to receive prayers or be a mediator of prayers.  Besides it would be supposed that this may serve to unite a newly gathered empire in their whole-hearted service of their new king.  They further clarify that this decree should be put in writing so that, according to Medo-Persian law, it will be unalterable (cf. Esther 1:19). 

The punishment that they surmised would be appropriate was to be “thrown into the lions’ den.”  This “den” would have been some sort of pit where lions would have been kept for just such punishments.  There likely would have been two compartments to this pit with a divider between them.  The lions would be in one part for attacking their victims and that portion would also have an opening for throwing in the victims from the top and sealing it with a stone.  The other portion perhaps would also have some hole for enticing the lions into it in order to move them and replace the divider so that any scraps, feces and bones could be removed as needed from the pit where the lions would be kept.

6:10-15 – Daniel’s prayers.  It was not a matter of Daniel’s ignorance of the law that led to his violating it, but with his full knowledge of it he went home and did as he had always done…he prayed three times a day (cf. Ps.55:17, 18; Didache 8; though Psalm 119:164 mentions seven times a day).  “It is not, as with his three companions [in chapter 3], a question of a positive sin which he will not commit, but of a positive duty which he will not omit” (Miller 182, citing Driver).  Daniel apparently had a room on top of his home built with a window specifically facing towards Jerusalem so that he could pray facing in that direction (cf. 1 Ki.8:35, 38, 44, 48; 2 Chron.6:34).  Not only was Daniel praying as was his custom, but he was “asking God for help.”  What kind of help?  Was he asking for help for himself or for the king or for Jerusalem?  “To Daniel…this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve whatever from his usual customs in prayer….What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be faithful to God although it would cost him his life” (Walvoord 138).  Daniel’s enemies went out of their way to spy on Daniel and report as a group to the king what Daniel had done and make sure the king would enforce his edict.  They made sure to mention that he was one of the “exiles from Judah” perhaps in order to emphasize that even though he had been brought as an exile over 70 years prior, he still remained Jewish in his religious practices of prayer (among other things) and was not integrated into the society as they were.

6:16-24 – Daniel in the lion’s den.  The king begrudgingly followed through with his edict and had Daniel thrown into the lions den even at his old age and even though he was among those most reliable in his new kingdom.  Darius stated “May your God…rescue you” (an imperfect verb and not a jussive as the RSV translated it) meaning that this was not simply a wish, but that Darius was committing Daniel to the hands of Daniel’s God knowing that only Daniel’s would have to be the one to rescue Daniel.  The KJV translation suggests too strongly that it certainly will happen which Darius does not seem so convinced about and so he called to Daniel in “an anguished voice” the next morning.  Darius is convinced that if anyone will rescue Daniel it must be Daniel’s God, because Daniel has given himself so completely to his God that there could be no other outcome that could be positive and perhaps Darius had heard the stories of deliverance that Daniel recounted for him.  The king was so distressed about having Daniel thrown into the lion’s den that he could not even do what he would normally do – whether eating or entertainment (whatever the Aramaic dahăwān seems to signify—which is difficult to define), or even to sleep.

It was a custom that once the sun began to dawn a sentence had been served if the individual had survived the night and so the king rushed to the lions’ den even if not fully convinced that he would find Daniel alive or well.  Did he call out to Daniel expecting a reply or was this more rhetorical?  Note Darius’ use of “the living God” in reference to the God of Daniel (cf. Deut.5:26; Josh.3:10; 1 Sam.17:26; 2 Ki.19:4; Jer.10:10; 23:36; Hos.2:1; Ps.42:3; 84:3).  “This rich OT title for God suggests not merely that God is alive rather than dead, but that he is active and powerful, awesome and almighty, involved in bringing judgment and blessing” (Goldingay 133).  At any rate, he received the reply of Daniel wishing him long life. 

Daniel also testified that God had sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions (Heb.11:33), because of his innocence before God and the king.  As Daniel’s three friends has bodily testified to their deliverance in the fire, here Daniel’s body gave testimony once it was lifted out of the den that it was in no way harmed (Ps.91:9-16).  Is this intended to be a universal promise of deliverance for all of God’s people?  Certainly not.  Many have paid with their lives as Hebrews testifies and as our Lord Jesus Himself testified.  But our God is able and no law of man can over-rule the obedience that is due the Lord.  How might we understand his deliverance?  (cf. Isa.11:6; 65:25; Hos.2:18)  “In the man of God the powers of the world to come have broken in, in anticipation of what will be when the king comes to reign” (Baldwin 145).

The king then commanded all those who had conspired against Daniel to be thrown into the lion’s den.  Was it all of the 120 or considerably less?  The LXX states it was the two other administrators, but this seems a gross re-adjustment to try to downplay how many were involved.  While this punishment may be understandable (Gen.12:3; Deut.19:18-19; Esther 7:9-10) for those specifically involved, how should we understand throwing the wives and children of the conspirators in as well? (cf. Num.16:27-33; Deut.24:16; Josh.7:24-25; Esther 9:25; Isa.13:15-16)  There is not really any condoning of this practice by mentioning it, but only a record that it was carried out (on this being something carried out elsewhere among the Medo-Persians, see Herodotus Histories 3.119).  The account also notes that those who were thrown in did not even reach the floor of the den before the lions killed them and “crushed all their bones” thus demonstrating the miraculous nature of Daniel’s deliverance and the judgment against those who tried to harm Daniel.

6:25-28 – The decree of Darius to all peoples concerning the God of Daniel.  Whereas Nebuchadnezzar had issued a decree against anyone who should speak a word against the God of the three in Dan.3:29, Darius actually commands people everywhere to “fear and reverence the God of Daniel”.  This is not a command against, but a command for.  Does this command exclude the worship of other Gods?  By no means, though it does make clear that Daniel’s God endures when other’s do not and that Daniel’s God performs the miraculous and delivers.  This will be poignant for those who face what is revealed in the chapters that lay ahead in Daniel…particularly as other kingdoms and kings are named that are off in the future who will seem to have authority and power that are unlimited.  However, God is sovereign and able to deliver His people through whatever they will suffer if they will endure and remain faithful.  This chapter closes with the note that Daniel then prospered under the Medo-Persians in an era when God would restore Jerusalem, return the captives and rebuild the Temple.  It could be said of Daniel that in his old age as he “prospered” in Babylon that he had indeed become a light to the Gentiles by the mouth of Darius (cf. Isa.42:1-12; 49:1-7; Zech.2:11; 8:20-23).

John Goldingay notes the similarity and contrast between Jesus final days and Daniel 6, when he writes how Jesus, “too, is the victim of conspiracy and betrayal from people whose position is threatened by him and who seek occasion to manipulate higher authorities into executing him, professing that they have no king but Caesar.  They, too, will eventually pay for their hostility, along with their children.  He, too, is arrested at his customary place of prayer.  These higher authorities, too, find no fault in him and labor to free him, but are reminded that the law forbids it.  He, too, has to rely on God to deliver him as his tomb is sealed.  Indeed, he actually dies, and injury can be found on him after he comes back from the dead: more extraordinary is it, then, that very early, at sunrise, he, too, is discovered to be alive after all” (136).

Ezekiel 47-48 - The River And The Land

47:1-6 – A trickle from the temple becomes a great river.  The location that Ezekiel is shown may indicate where the “sea” was once kept in Solomon’s temple, but there is no mention of such a thing in this temple (1 Kings 7:23-26).  While the directional descriptions are difficult it seems that the trickle flowed through the temple and out the eastern gate that was closed (Ezekiel even uses a Hebrew term that sounds like gurgling from a jug for it coming out the gate).  Again, the man has his measuring rods and begins taking notes.  At 1000 cubits (1500ft.) it was ankle deep, at 3000ft. it was knee-deep, 4500ft. it was waist-deep and at 6000ft from the temple it was already so deep that Ezekiel was forced to swim…and all of this without tributaries and from a trickle!

47:7-12 – The river from the temple brings miraculous life wherever it flows (cf. Gen.2:10-14; Ps.36:8-9; 46:4; Joel 3:17-18; Zech.14:5-11; John 7:38; Rev.22:1-2).  “The scene calls for a miraculous act, the converse of that experienced by the Israelites at the Red Sea.  Instead of creating a dry path through the sea, this holy stream produces a water course through the desert” (Block NICOT II:694).  On the banks are many trees whose leaves will not whither providing “healing” and whose seasons have become months because of the life they receive from the river (cf. Ps.1:1-3;  Rev.22:2).  The river will flow to the Arabah (or the Jordan valley) and into the Salt Sea (the aptly named “Dead” Sea because it sits at 1400 feet below sea level and cannot sustain life) where it will not only turn its waters to fresh water (cf. Exo.15:25; 2 Kings 2:19-22), but will cause its waters to have more life than even the Mediterranean (the Great) Sea.  In fact the whole (“from En Gedi to En Eglaim” refers to the western and eastern shores respectively) of the Sea will be changed to give life, with the exception that the low areas will still produce salt.  Why should they be left?  “It is necessary that salt should be available as an element of covenant consummation” (Duguid NIVAC 533).  It will also serve as a blessing to those who fish and those who harvest. 

47:13-23 – The boundaries of the land of Israel (cf. Num.34:1-15; Josh.15-21).  Why does Joseph get two portions?  Because there must still be twelve (this was also the counting of the tribes) and Levi receives his portion as a priestly portion and because Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh as his own (Gen.48:8-20).  Of particular significance are four things: first that they receive their portions as “inheritance” in the form of gift from a sovereign and not by right, and second that they “are to divide it equally among them”.  This is significant, because this had never been done before.  There was a greater equilibrium to be accomplished in Israel by this act.  As part of this they each had a portion that ran from the Mediterranean inland and was exactly the same distance north-to-south.  Third, all twelve of the tribes were to be reunited into one land again which had not been possible for several hundred years.  Fourth, their boundaries were to exceed anything in their previous history.  It is also notable that Ezekiel mentions the “aliens” (Heb. gēr) as being permitted to receive an inheritance if they settle and have children (cf. Lev.19:33-34; or the “foreigner” in Isa.56:3-8).  In other words, this was not only a promised blessing for ethnic Israel, but for all who would identify themselves with the covenant community.

48:1-29 – The tribal, princely, sacred and city allotments.  The tribes are largely rearranged from their earlier portions and there is no longer any mention of the territories possessed in the Trans-Jordan.  Dan Block notes that in the allotment Bilhah and Ziphah’s sons are furthest out with Benjamin and Judah on both sides of the sacred precinct (cf. Josh.18:28; 1 Sam.9; 2 Sam.5:5-6)—though Judah is on the north and Benjamin the south—and Rachel and Leah’s sons are closest with Ephraim and Manasseh by each other (NICOT II:723-724; for the matronage see Gen.35:22-26).  In the midst of verses 1-8 and 22-29 describing the tribal allotments is the focus of the chapter—the special allotment that is for the prince, the city and the sacred precincts.  We have previously discussed this area in chapter 45 (for more detail see the notes there).  Some of the new things emphasized here pertain to the workers that would be necessary for maintaining the city and the supply of food for all of the tribes as they take their turns in coming to the temple and the city.

48:30-35 – The exits of the city.  There are twelve gates to this city which is considerably more than any normal city not to mention that it would be exceptional that any city should be square to begin with which has sacred connotations.  The city is approximately one mile by one mile (contrast this to the New Jerusalem that is described as a cube-like structure approximately 1400 miles by 1400 miles by 1400 miles! Rev.21:16).  Interestingly, Levi has a gate and so Joseph has a gate (which would be for both Ephraim and Manasseh). 

Ezekiel 45-46 - Sacred Land and Days

By Clarence Larkin (click to enlarge)

45:1-6 – The sacred district.  The full sacred area would cover an area seven miles wide and seven miles long.  One section stretching seven miles long and three miles wide would be for the priests and would be for the “Most Holy Place”.  Another section stretching seven miles long and three miles wide would be for the Levites who serve on behalf of the people of Israel in the temple.  They would no longer have towns scattered among the tribes (as in Josh. 21), but would live with all of the rest of Israel focused upon the center: the temple as the presence of the LORD in the midst of His people.  The “city” would take up a section about one mile wide and seven miles long for the whole of Israel.

45:7-12 – The prince(s) of Israel.  No longer would the princes be allowed to abuse Israel as had occurred throughout Israel’s history, but would receive a portion of the land surrounding the sides of the sacred districts.  What is the importance of fair measurements? (cf. Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov.11:1; Amos 8:5-6; Hos.12:7)  One shekel would be approximately 4 oz. and therefore one minah about 24 oz.  The ephah (for dry measurements) and bath (for liquid measurements) would be about 5.8 gallons and so the homer would be about 58 gallons total.

45:13-20 – Offerings for atonement.  Why would the LORD be so specific about the offerings Israel was to offer?  The offerings made of wheat and barley were nearly 2% of the total, the oil 1% and the sheep .5%.  These sacrifices were specifically for atonement.  What need would Israel have for atonement?  Also, note that the prince plays a particular role in making provision for the sacrifices as well.  There was to be an atonement made on the first day of the year and the seventh (were these to be repeated?) for atonement of the temple.  Why would the temple need atonement?  What sorts of sins were said to be covered by this sacrifice?

45:21-25 – The feasts.  The requirements here are notably different than those found in the Torah concerning the Passover celebration (cf. Exo.12:1-28; Num.9:1-14; Deut.16:1-8).  However, it is also notable that whereas there was never a repetition of the smearing of blood on the doorposts after the exodus from Egypt, yet in verses 19-20 the posts of the temple were to be smeared in sacrificial blood prior to the actual celebration of Passover that would begin a week later.  The other feast day is unnamed but is said to occur at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (cf. Deut. 16:13).

46:1-12 – The Sabbath and New Moon feasts.  The eastern outer court gate was perpetually kept shut, but the inner courts eastern gate was opened every Sabbath and New Moon when the prince was to come and offer sacrifices and stand at the entrance of the gate giving worship to the LORD.  The people were also to worship the LORD at that gate.  The prince must come and go at the same gateway, but the people were to leave at the opposite (if they entered north they left south and vice-versa).  What is the point of the control at the gates?  The prince was to act as just another person and would not stay longer than the rest of the people though he was the only one permitted use of the eastern inner court gate which would be shut at evening after he had gone.  There was a marked difference between what Ezekiel was instructed and what had happened throughout Israel’s history in regard to the ruler’s relations to the temple.

46:13-15 – The command to make daily offerings.  Why might the language have shifted from the third person to the second person (“you”) for these few verses?  Was Ezekiel expected to participate in this?  Also, how does the nature of the sacrifices being a “lasting ordinance” relate to what is written in Hebrews 7:27; 9:25-10:18?

46:16-18 – The prince and his land.  What is the importance of the inheritance being kept within the prince’s family and of the prince not being able to take any property from the rest of the house of Israel?  (on acquisition of Israelite territories and inheritance issues see Deut.17:14-20; 2 Sam.9:7; 16:4; 24:24; 1 Kings 9:16; 16:24; 21:1-29)  Many have often confused the notion of this “prince” with the Messiah, but Iain Duguid astutely notes, “It is the temple that points us to Jesus, not the prince” (NIVAC 524).

46:19-24 – The importance of the kitchens.  Why should Ezekiel be shown the kitchens in the temple and why should these be mentioned for us?  It is significant because temples of the ancient Near East were places for the gods to feast, but not for the general population, but in the temple of the LORD He prepares a table before His people and shares it with them (cf. Ps. 23:5; Matt.22:1-14; Rev.3:20; 19:9).

Ezekiel 6-7 – Too Late to Repent

6:1 – Can Ezekiel speak apart from the word of the LORD coming to Him? (cf. 7:1; and see 3:27)

6:2 – “set your face against the mountains of Israel”? Perhaps this has reference to the “high places” (6:3, 13) though the “high places” could also be in the valleys. More likely it is a judgment against the land (as the king, people, and temple are also judged).

6:3 – “hear the word of the Sovereign LORD” as a prophetic introduction see Josh.3:9; 1 Sam.15:1; 2 Kings 7:1; 20:5; Amos 7:16; Isa.1:10; 28:14, 16.

6:4-7 – What is the reason the LORD gives for why He will do what He pronounces: You will know that I am Yahweh. He will show the idols and sacred places to be worthless and those who worship such to be as what they worship (cf. Ps.135:15-18). The word for “idols” (Heb. gillulim) is not the normal term, but one of derision for the worthlessness of the idols basically identifying them with excrement (Block NICOT 226). “Scatter the bones around your altars” implies that they will surround the altars they have already surrounded but instead of dancing and worship it will be as the dead and judged (Duguid NIVAC 108)

6:8-10 – Those who are scattered exiles will be those sanctified by the LORD and not those who remain in the land. God’s judgment means ultimate redemption. Dan Block (NICOT 231-233) notes three things the remnant exiles will do: 1) remember the LORD; 2) loathe themselves; and 3) “know that I am Yahweh” (6:13-14; 7:4, 9, 27). This last phrase is key to the whole of the prophecy (cf. Exo.14:4, 18).

6:11 – “Strike your hands together” (or “clap your hands”)? This is as a sign of God’s anger with Israel (see Num.24:10; Eze.21:14, 17; 22:13). He is also told “stomp your feet” which is a sign of condemnation and rejection. “Alas!” does not convey the more direct translational value of “Ah!” (the sound of a disgusted sigh).

6:12 – Is there any escaping from the LORD? (see Ps.139)

6:13-14 – The irony is that “rather than offering life to the devotees, the pagan sanctuaries have become symbols of death” (Block NICOT 237). “From the desert to Diblah” (should read “Riblah” – the ‘d’ and ‘r’ look almost identical in Hebrew) means from the south to the very far north the LORD will desolate everywhere.

7:2-6 – “The end…”? What does this mean? Also, is the LORD’s judgment just? In what manner will He judge? Is the end “coming” or has it “come” already? Why will God not have pity?

7:10, 12, 17, 19 – The “day” of the LORD is the “moment of his intervention in human history, with the outcomes of such interventions being determined by him alone” (Block NICOT 244).

7:10-13 – Note the agricultural and commercial irony. What relation does “blossoming”, “budding” and the “staff” have to Aaron’s staff in Num.17:8?

7:14 – What is this verse referring to? Nebuchadrezzar’s approach and Jerusalem’s fall. Why is everyone judged? Were all of Israel wicked? Why do the righteous suffer with the wicked?

7:15-18 – Where is escape? It is of interest that those who escape do so to the mountains (cf. Mt.24:16; Mk.13:15; Lk.21:21). Are those who survive going to rejoice? Why not? What are the expressions in vs.17 meant to express? Apparently an utter lack of composure (the LXX and most modern commentators understand this to suggest they will wet themselves).

7:19 – What good is gold and silver in the day of the LORD’s wrath?

7:20-22 – The “beautiful jewelry” may suggest (following Rabbis Rashi and Kimchi) the treasures of the temple (7:22-23) which would make the acts of Israel that much worse. How might the treasury be “defiled” and “desecrated”? “The wicked of the earth” are used as God’s hand of judgment. John Calvin in his commentary on Ezekiel wrote concerning this, “They are borne along by a depraved disposition, but God has a wonderful plan, incomprehensible to us, according to which he impels the wicked here and there—without becoming involved in their guilt (cited in Duguid NIVAC 122).

7:23-24 – Who is the LORD telling to “prepare chains”? What is the reason? (cf. Gen.6:11) Note that the LORD says, “I will…” concerning the judgment (see who “strikes the blow” in 7:9).

7:25-27 – “They will seek peace but…” there will be no help for anyone. “Then they will know…”? (cf. 2 Pet.3:3-4)

2 Kings 22-23:30 – Josiah – Is There Still Hope?

22:1 – Josiah – son of Amon. He reigned for 31 years (640-609BC) over Judah doing what was right in the sight of the LORD as David had done – he was the ideal king (Deut.17:20) and fulfilled the prophecy given by the unnamed prophet of Judah (1 Ki.13:2). He became king while only 8 years old. The Babylonians with the Medes found freedom from Assyria at the death of Ashurbanipal in 626BC. They conquered the Assyrian capital of Ninevah in 612 and finally destroyed the Assyrians in 609. When Josiah turned 16 (in 632BC) he began to make certain religious reforms in Judah (2 Chron.34:3). In his 12th year as king (at age 20 – or 628BC), he began removing idolatry from Judah (2 Chron.34:3). His 18th year as king of Judah (age 26 and year 622) led to the repairs and restoration of the Temple of the LORD (2 Ki.22:3; 2 Chron.34:8). Hilkiah the High Priest oversaw the repairs of the Temple and “found” the “Book of the Law” (2 Ki.22:8; apparently it had been removed from beside the Ark of the Covenant – Deut.31:26) which after being read was then read in the presence of King Josiah (2 Ki.22:10). When Josiah heard the “Book of the Law” he tore his robes in repentance and sent his administration to Huldah the prophetess to inquire of the LORD concerning the Law. In response to the message of impending judgment given by Huldah, Josiah initiated full-fledged reform in Judah and even Israel. He called all the people, the priests, and the prophets (this last one is not found in 2 Chron.34:30) together to hear the reading of the Book of the Covenant (and thereby renew the Covenant – Deut.31:9-13), and to cleanse the land and the Temple, and to celebrate the Passover in an unprecedented scale (2 Ki.23:21). In his reforms, he had the aid of the writing prophets: Jeremiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. In 609BC, Pharaoh Neco of Egypt on his way to the Euphrates to engage the Babylonians (as ally or enemy?), Josiah challenged him to fight at Megiddo. Neco declared that God had sent him and that Josiah should not fight, but Josiah attempted to disguise himself and was shot with an arrow. He was returned to Jerusalem where he died and was buried.

22:8 – What “Book of the Law (22:8) / Covenant (23:2)” was “found”? Many believe it was at least a portion of Deuteronomy if not the whole book or even possibly the whole Torah. How is it possible that it should be “found”?

22:14 – Huldah the Prophetess? She appears to have been a relative (his aunt?) of Jeremiah (Jer.32:7). Huldah was not the only prophetess known to Israel/Judah – see Miriam in Exodus 15:20; and Deborah in Judges 4:4). The prophet Joel (2:23) would later declare by the word of the LORD that the Spirit would be poured out on all persons irregardless of gender, age, or status; and Peter on the Day of Pentecost would declare that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled in the Baptism in the Spirit (Acts 2:14-21). What do we make of the contents of Huldah’s prophecy (see Deut.28:15-68).

22:20 – How could he be “buried in peace” in light of his violent end in 1 Ki.23:29?

23:3 – The pledge of the covenant is comprehensive. It involves heart and soul to all of the commandments, regulations and decrees and involves everyone (much as the renewal in Josh.24:1-27).

23:4-25 – Josiah’s Reforms: removed and destroyed all the utensils in the Temple of the LORD used to worship other gods; removed the pagan priests from the Temple; burned the Asherah pole Manasseh had put in the Temple; destroyed the quarters used by the male shrine prostitutes and the women who made clothes for Ashtoreth; desecrated all the high places in all of Judah; broke down the shrines at the gates of Jerusalem; desecrated Topheth where children had been offered to Molech; removed the horses dedicated to the sun and destroyed the accompanying chariots; removed the altars for astral deities installed by Manasseh and Ahaz; destroyed and desecrated the high places Solomon had built for his many foreign wives (see 1 Ki.11:7); destroyed and desecrated the high places and altars in Israel set up by Jeroboam in Bethel (see 1 Ki.12:25-13:5); removed the spiritists and mediums in Judah (see Lev.19:31; 20:27; Deut.18:11); removed the idols and tools for divination; and slaughtered the priests in Israel (see Ex.22:20; Deut.13:6-11; 18:20). He also commanded Judah (and Israel) to “celebrate the Passover” (see Ex.12:1-11; Deut.16:1-8).

23:13 – The “mount of corruption” (har hammashith;) is a Hebrew play on words with the name of the “mount of anointing (‘olives’)” (har hammisha) – (Konkel NIVAC 637).

23:22 – What made this Passover celebration so utterly unique? What would be the difference between the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah (2 Chron.30:1-27) and this one (2 Chron.35:18)? According to 1 Esdras (1:1-20) and Josephus (Ant.10.70-72) it was the sheer volume of sacrifices and the scope of uniting Israel and Judah in this celebration.

23:25 – What does it mean for Josiah to turn to the LORD with his whole “heart”, “soul”, and “strength”? (see Deut.6:4-5) Why should this be followed by a “nevertheless” concerning the judgment of the LORD (2 Ki.23:26)? Also, why would the LORD reject the place he has chosen and what is the significance of removing His Name from there (23:27)?

23:29-30 – Why did Josiah go to fight Neco of Egypt given the message to do otherwise by God (compare 2 Chron.35:20-25)? Also, why did he wear a disguise (compare Ahab in 1 Ki.22:30)? This was considered such a national tragedy that Jeremiah is reputed to have penned a lasting lament to be sung annually in memoriam (2 Chron.35:25). According to 1 Esdras 1:28, Jeremiah had warned Josiah not to fight against Neco, and according to Josephus (Ant.10.76) “fate” drove him that Judah might be judged by the LORD.