# comment

text:
<p>and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti. The thing pleased the king, and he did so- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn’t conceive; and this is a repeat of the lesson given to him in <a href='B:190 1:21'>Est 1:21</a> when again he is obedient to the words of others. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>There was a certain Jew in the citadel of Susa, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish a Benjamite- Mordecai is a take on 'Marduk', whose temple had been rebuilt by Cyrus. Instead of responding to the decree of Cyrus for Jews to return home, Mordecai had instead gone with the flow of assimilating to Cyrus' religion. So much of later Isaiah is taken up with mockery and criticism of the Babylonian gods and the Marduk cult. The book of Esther, with Mordecai as the joint hero, named as he was after Marduk, demonstrates how caught up were the Jews with the Babylonian gods. Ezekiel repeatedly reveals the idolatry of the captives. Isaiah was therefore an appeal for the Jews to quit the Marduk cult and believe in the radical prophecies about the overthrow of Babylon. We know from Ezekiel 8, Jeremiah 44 and Zechariah 5 that many Jews had accepted the idols of their Babylonian conquerors, rather like Ahaz did after his defeat by Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:10'>2Ki 16:10</a>). The spirit of ridiculing the idolatry of Babylon whilst living in it, waiting the call to leave, is so relevant to modern Christians working, living and waiting in latter day Babylon. Mordecai was a descendant of the family of Saul; he isn't presented as a particularly spiritual man to start with. The fact he worked in the palace also indicates that, seeing he would have to go along with much paganism to do his job. If the LXX is correct, he sacrificed his own intended wife because he loved the idea of having power and prestige more than he did his wife. Again, not a very spiritual impression.</p><p>The Biblical character Shimei was the one who cursed David and supported his overthrow. The Shimei mentioned here was either the same person, or someone named in his honour. Immediately we don't get a positive spiritual impression of Mordecai's ancestry- nor Esther's, who was related to the same line. "Kish" likewise suggests Saul's father. Haman was an Agagite, and Saul had had war and victory against the Agagites. So again we see how from the get go, the higher hand of God was involved, repeating history. </p>


text:
<p>who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away- Note the triple repetition of "carried away". This is to se up the similarity but spiritual contrast with Daniel who is described in the same way. "Who had been carried away"  grammatically has a relative pronoun that should refer to Mordecai, not Kish. If Mordecai was one of the captives carried away, this means he was either a very old man, or the "Ahasuerus" of the story is a name for one of the early kings of Persia during the exile. We note that those taken captive with Jeconiah were the ruling classes (2 Kings 24:15).  Possibly the reference of "Who had been carried away" is to Kish, making him a fourth generation exile. But the logical reference is to Mordecai himself. At this time, he is established in the kingdom, and the exiled Jews are wealthy. So we are now some way into the exile. If he had been carried away captive, this would make him an old man, and his intention to raise the virgin Esther as his wife (:7 LXX) presents him as somewhat perverted. And yet it was this dysfunctional family that God chose to use to save His people. Not an Ezra or Nehemiah, but a man like Mordecai. And it is he who out of left field, in spiritual terms, is so highly exalted. Esther 2:5 introduces him as “a man, a Judean” ('ish Yehudi). This very phrase is found in Zech. 8:23: “In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a man, a Judean ('ish Yehudi), saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’”. And that happened in that “many peoples (nations) from the land declared themselves Jews, for fear of the Jews had fallen on them” (Esther 8:17).</p>


text:
<p>He brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter; for she had neither father nor mother- "Myrtle" ['Hadassah'] is a plant native to Persia and not Palestine, suggesting her assimilation; and the group of myrtle trees in <a href='B:450 1:8'>Zec 1:8</a>; <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a> appears to represent Persia.  She doesn't have a name that references Yahweh or in fact anything directly spiritual. The myrtle was associated by the prophets with Judah's return from exile (Is. 41:19,20; 55:13; Zech. 1:8-11; Neh. 8:15). The fact Esther didn't return, and her life's work didn't result in her people returning but rather remaining in exile... rather suggests that she failed to live up to her potential. Esther, "Star", is another reference to Marduk (see on :5); or "Esther" could be a form of 'Ishtar', goddess of sex, and the title given to the woman who won the sex contest. "Uncle's daughter" is an interpretation; the idea is, a relative. Some versions give "cousin", and Marduk [=Mordecai] and Ishtar [= Esther] were cousins. Yet "Esther", Ishtar / Astarte, the queen of sex, was I suggest the title given to Hadassah when she won the sex context to become the queen. If indeed she was Mordecai's cousin, we again see the invisible hand of God at work. Especially considering that she apparently hid from the king her relationship to Mordecai. She is hardly presented as a spiritually minded young woman, but as a Jewess who had totally assimilated into Persia.</p><p>The maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter- "Daughter" is 'bat' and "house" is 'bet'. This confusion and unclarity in the Hebrew led the LXX to assume 'bet', and that this means he took her with the intention to be his wife. LXX "And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father’s brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself". This would be rather similar to how Uriah raised Bathsheba (according to Nathan's parable of the man with the lamb) to become his wife, and she did so. Seeing Mordecai hadn't yet married Esther, she would have been very young, perhaps still in her mid teens. That God should use such a youngster is typical of how He uses the meek and weak for His great purposes. And quite possibly if Mordecai had been taken into exile, he was now very old. "Took her" usually refers to a man taking a wife. It has been claimed that "'Hadassah' is the Aramaized form of Akkadian hadashshatu, 'bride', a common epithet of Ishtar". In this case, naming the orphan "bride" spoke of what Mordecai intended doing with her. Raising an orphan girl in order to marry her... doesn't speak well of him really. Quite possibly he is presented as a nonce. And yet the book of Esther has more to say about Mordecai than about Esther, and concludes speaking extensively of his glory- whilst Esther isn't mentioned. He certainly came a very long way spiritually- and very quickly. We notice twice that Esther was "taken"- by Mordecai, as his daughter; and into the harem (Esther 2:7,8). Esther's passivity will be changed by the hand of providence into her being a proactive worker on her own initiative for the salvation of God's people. </p>


text:
<p>So it happened that when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together to the citadel of Susa, to the custody of Hegai, Esther was taken into the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women- Hegai and his college of women was not simply a safe place for the women to stay. It was effectively a college for sex workers. And Esther willingly entered it, on Mordecai's arrangement. The whole intention was to produce women who could fulfil the king's various desires.</p>


text:
<p>The maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness from him. He quickly gave her cosmetics and her portions of food- "Pleased him" is literally, found grace in his eyes- the same language used of Joseph finding grace before Potiphar (Gen. 39:4). And there are many such similarities. But in many ways the similarities break down, because Esther wasn't Joseph. Thus Pharaoh gave his signet ring to Joseph, but in the Esther story, the king gives it to Haman (Gen. 41:42; Esther 3:10). She is contrasted with young Daniel, who in this situation refused to eat such food. She is presented as spiritually weak.</p><p>And the seven choice maidens who were to be given her out of the king’s house. He moved her and her maidens to the best place in the women’s house- These maidens were likely to be used in the sex show she was being trained to put on. Hegai clearly had a big influence upon who was finally accepted. He knew the king's taste in women as it was his job to pander to it and arrange fulfilment for him. His instinctive liking of Esther amongst the many competitors was therefore providentially arranged.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not made known her people nor her relatives, because Mordecai had instructed her that she should not make it known- God's people were intended to be a light to the Gentile world (Ex. 19:6). And marriage to Gentiles and sex outside of marriage was wrong according to God's law. This was surely an indication of spiritual weakness; and yet God worked through it, just as He may use marriage out of the faith to bring someone to the faith. She stands in stark contrast to Daniel  and his friends who risked death for the sake of keeping the Jewish law (Dan. 1:8-16; 6:8-10), and yet similar to Jonah who in his weakness did not tell / make know his people to the sailors (<a href='B:390 1:8'>Jon 1:8</a> s:w:)- and at that point, he was representative of a spiritually weak Judah in exile.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai walked every day in front of the court of the women’s house, to find out how Esther was doing, and what would become of her- He paced up and down in agitation. Mordecai really wanted his plan to succeed, but for the wrong reasons. But God chose to work through it, rather than turn away from a poorly motivated man and his weak daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Each young woman’s turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after her purification for twelve months (for so were the days of their purification accomplished, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet fragrances and with preparations for beautifying women)- The ultimate opulence of the court scene in chapter 1 is matched by the king sleeping with hundreds of virgins, who had each been preparing for their night with him for a whole year. Herodotus claimed that a Persian king could only marry a queen from one of the seven Persian royal families; that was typical of most monarchs in whatever empire or nation. And so this appeal for the most sexual women to be gathered to him to marry was a departure from tradition. Driven by his extreme hedonism. The fragrances mentioned here are those already noted in the Bible for their use in a specifically sexual and immoral context (Prov. 7:17; Song 1:13; 5:5,13), and this obviously raises questions as to whether Esther was morally right to go along with this. The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:2) was possibly because he was away fighting the Greeks; but it might also suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another. 'Going in to the king' surely is the familiar euphemism for the sexual act. To be willing to do this with a Gentile outside of marriage is surely an indication of spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The young woman then came to the king like this: whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the women’s house to the king’s house- This doesn't just refer to whatever cosmetics or clothing she desired. She had been given seven female assistants. The idea was that she would conceive and put on a sex show for the king; for the idea was that she was to do what Vashti had refused to do. But see on :15. The Gentile Vashti thereby appears as more moral and ethical than the Jewish Esther, as we find so often in Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women’s house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name- That Esther 'went in' to the king in the evening and then returned in the morning, having spent the night with the king, to the separate dwelling, of women with whom the king had slept and who were no longer virgins, indicates clearly enough that she slept with him. She knew this was to be the procedure and that statistically he was unlikely to 'marry' her seeing there were many such competitors. To participate in this, let alone with the enthusiasm for it which Mordecai showed, was clearly sinful and a betrayal of all the moral principles Israel were supposed to be committed to. If Vashti had refused to be sexually immoral on pain of death, Esther surely could have done likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, came to go in to the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. Esther obtained favour in the sight of all those who looked at her- I suggested on :13 that she had been given the seven other young women in order to prepare a sex show for the king. But it could appear that she didn’t take them with her, and only used the cosmetics and clothing provided. Perhaps it was this unusual departure from the norm which focused the king's attention singularly upon her. So perhaps she too was being taught that her even slight attention to some level of morality was being blessed. However we notice her obedience to Hegai, her trainer and handler. This totally contrasts with Daniel and his friends, whose example was surely known to Esther. They too had a handler and trainer, another eunuch; but they refused what they were given. She contrasts weakly and poorly with Daniel.</p>


text:
<p>So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. This was about five years after the Vashti incident; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favour and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti- This was also from God; He worked on the tastes and perceptions of the king so that he favoured Esther. For all such attraction is subjective and deeply personal. But God worked through this. For four years, the king had been sleeping with beautiful virgins, trained by the pimp Hegai to sexually gratify him. He therefore hardly knew what it was to truly "love" a woman. We can read this as meaning that he didn't truly love her. Or, we see something abnormal here- something from the God who is never specifically mentioned. A man who had had all this sexual experience for the previous four years... actually loved one woman, Esther. And God was going to work through that, to the salvation of His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces, and gave gifts according to the king’s bounty- "Holiday" is literally "release"- from taxation, or from military service, or from both, for a specified period. The invisible hand of God was working to make Esther popular with the Persian people.</p>


text:
<p>When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate- It would seem that the gathering of virgins to the king for him to choose a queen was a regular occurrence. The houses for the girls were already built and the system of preparing them was already organized. But it could be that there was an attempt to replace Esther with the puppet of some other group. Esther had won the conquest because (under God’s hand) the king preferred her. But there were likely other men and interest groups like Mordecai who wanted their daughters to be chosen. The repetition of Mordecai being "In the king's gate" in :21 would suggest that it was because of his position there that he uncovered the assassination plot. And this would have solidified his position, when perhaps it was under threat from other pretenders who were aware that Esther was his daughter, even though the king seems unaware of it. Or we could read this as his appointment to sit in the king's gate; and the implication might be that Esther was somehow behind it. The second gathering of the virgins was perhaps to witness Esther's coronation. They would all have been seething with jealousy and frustration.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not yet made known her relatives nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai, like she did when she was brought up by him- LXX "and Esther changed not her manner of life" may suggest she did not have any spiritual transformation whilst in the palace. She was still a spiritually weak young woman who rose up to the situation. She presents as always obedient- and likewise obedient to whatever Hegai told her to wear and what sex to do, the night she went in to the king. It is only the need of her people that was the call for her to individuate, and suddenly initiate a plan to save her people. And we see such growth, not only spiritually but also of persons, as they mature under the guidance of God's invisible hand. </p><p>
It is observable that many believers start their walk with the Lord by keeping their commitment to Him somewhat secret. Yet we are a city set on a hill, a candle lit by the Lord to give light to others. Salvation requires us  to “declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’” (Rom. 10:9). There must be public confession. And so the Lord often works through providence to create situations where a believer has to 'come out'. Esther is a classic case of this, and we see it in the spiritual paths of many Muslim background believers. Mordecai quite possibly justified his command to Esther by reflecting that Moses had likewise concealed his Hebrew ethnicity until he was 40 years old, when he likewise served in the court of a Gentile despot. And yet those years weren't Moses at his best, and again, God providentially orchestrated situations so that Moses too had to come out as Hebrew, and save his people.
</p>


text:
<p>In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs who were doorkeepers, Bigthan and Teresh, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- LXX claims they were angry because Mordecai had been promoted.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became known to Mordecai, who informed Esther the queen; and Esther informed the king in Mordecai’s name- This was clearly the invisible hand of God working to set up Esther and Mordecai positively in the king's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>When this matter was investigated, and it was found to be so, they were both hanged on a tree; and it was written in the book of the chronicles in the king’s presence- And yet the king seems to have forgotten about Mordecai, who was well known as a Jew, because he signs the decree for killing all the Jews without thinking about that. He comes over as a superficial man with no interest in the past or its consequences. And yet God was working to nudge even such a person towards Him.</p>


text:
<p>After these things- Between the seventh (<a href='B:190 2:16'>Est 2:16</a>) and the twelfth (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>) years of Xerxes’ reign.</p><p>King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him- "Hammedatha" is a female proper noun. Possibly the Jewish Queen Hammutal of 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18. And yet he was essentially an Agagite through his father. Unless we read "the captive" instead of "the Agagite". If this connection is valid, then we can better understand the jealousy between Mordecai and Haman.</p><p> The lifting up of Haman will end with his being lifted up on his own gallows. Time and again, the record pokes fun at the high and mighty of this world. Again we see the superficial nature of the king, to promote such a person to the greatest position of power. "Agagite" is a form of "Gog", and so he is set up as the representative of the latter day attempted persecutor of God’s people. But Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand this to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek. But Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (<a href='B:190 2:5'>Est 2:5</a>), and thus connected with Saul, who had conquered Agag. This would partly account for the natural personality clash between Haman and Mordecai. It would also mean that the people killed by the Jews towards the end of the story would likely have been Amalekites, and this would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag"). We note the Biblical repetition of the curse against Amalek (Ex. 17:8-16; Num. 24:7; Dt. 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 15; 1 Chron. 4:42). King Saul took the spoil of Agag but failed to kill him; the Jews effectively result in Haman the Agagite's death, but refuse to take the spoil. </p><p>
Mordecai is a form of Marduk, and Esther a form of Ishtar. "Haman" is a form of the god Humban. But the irony is that in Persian mythology, Marduk and Ishtar overcome Humban; and Marduk becomes the greatest of the gods in the pantheon, just as Mordecai was highly exalted. Time and again we conclude, "You just can't make this stuff up". There was clearly a higher hand at work- that of the one and only true God.</p><p>
And yet we may well ask at this point, Why was Haman exalted and not Mordecai? Had Esther spoken up for her Jewishness and stated her relationship with Mordecai, surely he would have been exalted at this time? Because the family of the queen were typically exalted, which was exactly why Mordecai wanted Esther to become queen. Her failure led to the exaltation of Haman, and yet that exaltation led to his pride and fall- and thereby the salvation and security of God's people. Again and again we marvel at how God works through human weakness. Thus some personality types thrive on opposition, and opposition to the spreading of the Gospel [from within or without God's people] often leads to the further spreading of it.  The exaltation of Haman rather than Mordecai set Mordecai up to have the jealousy and personality complex against Haman which led to him refusing to bow to him. And this in turn led to the planned pogrom and then the salvation and exaltation of the Jews. It's truly amazing how God works.
</p><p>
Esther 3:2 All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life. However, the exiles had been told to bow their neck under the yoke of their Babylonian captors (Jer. 27:8). Jeremiah had even made a yoke and made this an acted parable. The false prophet Hananiah had broken it and urged the Jews not to bow their neck beneath that yoke- and he was slain as a result. Mordecai presents as being on the side of Hananiah. As a first generation exile, Mordecai was well aware of this prophecy and command. It was pride and pig headedness, according to Jeremiah's prophecies, that made him refuse. Not fierce loyalty to Israel's God. There was no specific Mosaic command that forbad bowing before a Gentile official. And the Persian kings did not consider themselves divine, unlike the Roman Caesars. "Abraham rose up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth" (Gen. 23:7). Esther herself bowed to the king and "fell down at his feet" (Esther 8:3). So this was not a case of refusing to bow down to another god. In fact, Mordecai's refusal to bow is typical of observable reality in many Christian groups- those not famed for their spirituality, apparently not highly committed to the Lord, will suddenly rise up and make a huge issue [even to their own cost] over a matter of church tradition or external appearance. Like the timings of a church meeting, colour of the chairs, the type of wine to be used for communion etc. There was a personality clash between Mordecai and Haman, spurred by perhaps Mordecai not getting the exaltation which Haman did.
</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life. However, the exiles had been told to bow their neck under the yoke of their Babylonian captors (Jer. 27:8). Jeremiah had even made a yoke and made this an acted parable. The false prophet Hananiah had broken it and urged the Jews not to bow their neck beneath that yoke- and he was slain as a result. Mordecai presents as being on the side of Hananiah. As a first generation exile, Mordecai was well aware of this prophecy and command. It was pride and pig headedness, according to Jeremiah's prophecies, that made him refuse. Not fierce loyalty to Israel's God. There was no specific Mosaic command that forbad bowing before a Gentile official. And the Persian kings did not consider themselves divine, unlike the Roman Caesars. "Abraham rose up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth" (Gen. 23:7). Esther herself bowed to the king and "fell down at his feet" (Esther 8:3). So this was not a case of refusing to bow down to another god. In fact, Mordecai's refusal to bow is typical of observable reality in many Christian groups- those not famed for their spirituality, apparently not highly committed to the Lord, will suddenly rise up and make a huge issue [even to their own cost] over a matter of church tradition or external appearance. Like the timings of a church meeting, colour of the chairs, the type of wine to be used for communion etc. There was a personality clash between Mordecai and Haman, spurred by perhaps Mordecai not getting the exaltation which Haman did.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the king’s commandment?- This question may have been from inquisitive interest; they were surprised a Jew wouldn't bow down to a man. And yet there were many Jews in Shushan, as archeology also bears out; enough to kill hundreds of men as recorded later in <a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>. They hadn't see any other Jew articulate their belief in this way- a tacit reflection upon the spiritual weakness of the Jews generally, highlighting all the more the sensitive conscience of Daniel. For it is so hard to uphold principles when our own brethren don't uphold them or consider them merely cosmetic issues. Not bowing down to men was however not specifically commanded in the Mosaic law, and there are accounts of Israelites bowing down to men (<a href='B:110 1:16'>1Ki 1:16</a>; <a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:100 18:28'>2Sa 18:28</a>). It would be a reflection of a very sensitive conscience toward God to refuse to do so. Perhaps he reasoned that the Messianic king would be higher than Agag (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a>) or that Haman was setting himself as a divine figure. And yet Mordecai was clearly not such a high sensitized believer; the very fact he worked in the palace was evidence enough. For whenever Daniel was promoted to power, he seems to have slipped out of the job and is only later recalled. This confirms my suggestion on :2 that Mordecai was using religious issues as part of a personality struggle with Haman. And we must beware we don't do the same. See on <a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him and he didn’t listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s position would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew- Haman was apparently unaware Mordecai was a Jew; it was the servants who told him of this. Again we are left with the impression that Mordecai was not a particularly strong believer, and was using the issue of not bowing down to any apart from Yahweh as an excuse to legitimize his native despising of Haman. See on <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>. If he told Esther not to reveal her Jewishness, he likely had followed the same policy. Zeresh, Haman's wife, changes her position on Mordecai as soon as she realizes he is Jewish. It seems Mordecai said he was a Jew in a moment of frustration and anger... and this hot headed moment triggered the plans for the pogrom. Just as the king's drunken, hot headed demand that his wife appear naked before the drunk dinner guests led to him divorcing her and marrying Esther. Yet the hidden hand of God worked through these things. "They told Haman.... for he had told them that he was a Jew" uses the word "told" twice. The implication is surely that he told them he was a Jew, and they then immediately told Haman. All implying he had hidden his Jewishness from them all until this point. </p>


text:
<p>When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath- Circumstances repeat in human lives, both within the same life and between persons. This was just the response of the king when Vashti refused to expose herself. Like the king, Haman wanted to have the disrespectful person murdered. But there was no law in place, apparently, which allowed him to do this. It was just assumed that all bowed down to the first minister, just as it was assumed that wives must obey their husbands, especially if he was the divine king. See on <a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai’s people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even Mordecai’s people- Had Esther revealed her Jewishness, it's unlikely Haman would have thought up this massive pogrom. She kept her Jewishness secret, unlike Daniel who habitually prayed toward Jerusalem with his windows open. Again, her weakness in this was used by God, in order to set up all the anti-Jewish forces and destroy them. We have here an insight into the thought processes of Haman which only an inspired record could give. Haman thought for a moment of just destroying Haman, but scorned that thought, and instead went on to thinking of destroying all the Jews. Again we see how sin starts from within the human mind and not due to any possession by demons or a cosmic Satan figure. See on <a href='B:190 4:13'>Est 4:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- Some think that the idea is that every day they cast lots to see which month and day they should do it on, but the date given was about as far distant within the course of a year as possible. There was therefore going to be maximum time for the Jews to defend themselves, and for the king to change his mind. As Ahasuerus felt bound by his own law and couldn't kill Vashti as he wanted to, so was Haman. He obviously wanted to execute the massacre as soon as possible; but he was disallowed from doing this by his own structures of superstitions and laws.</p><p>However a more natural reading is that in one session, they cast lots for every day ["from day to day" NEV] to see which day would come out positive. And they got negative until the very end- the 13th day of the 12th month, a year's time. For they did this on the 13th day of the first month. This run of negatives was surely to warn Haman that luck, or the gods, were against him. It's like flipping a coin 364 times and it always lands on the same side, when you have agreed that that side means "no". And you keep doing it until eventually you get a "yes". And they likely had the idea that 13 was an unlucky number. In this incident we see a typical theme of the book- what seems total chance, and chance directed towards evil, is in fact overruled by God for good. If LXX is correct, "So Haman went to his gods to learn the day of their death", the gods are shown to be fools and totally manipulated by Yahweh's higher hand. For the Jews were given maximum time to prepare for the pogrom. The whole incident shouts out to be connected with Prov. 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”. The Lord simply had to be in this, the "every decision" over the 364 days when the lot said "no", had to be "from the Lord"- although it is not specifically stated.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from other people’s. They don’t keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain- There is the implication that the king was so dim witted or befuddled by alcohol that he didn’t even ask for the "people" to be defined, and just gave his signet ring to Haman to do as he wished. It could well be that he made these decisions whilst drunk (see on :15; <a href='B:190 7:2'>Est 7:2</a>), and his personality was such that he didn’t worry about the past but just lived for the present, with no thought to the implications of what he had done or agreed in the past. For surely he knew that Mordecai was a Jew (<a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>) and that the Jews were in positions of power throughout the empire.</p><p>The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom...". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p>


text:
<p>If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn’t return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God’s Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God’s kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming. Herodotus claimed that the total revenue of the Persian Empire under Darius had been 14,560 talents; so this offer suggests the enormous wealth of the Jews, attained so relatively quickly since arriving as exiles. </p><p>
The word for "destroy" has a very wide meaning. It is used of expulsion or fleeing. The words for "enslave" and "destroy" have only one small letter different; quite possibly Haman gave the impression he spoke of enslaving, not destroying. The king agreed to this, but he may have understood it as no more than the expulsion / deportation of an ethnic group from his empire. Perhaps Esther alludes to this when she later comments: "if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace" (Esther 7:4). The actual decree is far harsher- to destroy, kill and spoil. We see how the king presents as forgetful, self absorbed, distant, disinterested and so easily manipulated. When he finally realizes Haman has done this, he is therefore the more angry- transferring his anger with himself onto Haman. And again this was all in God's good plan for His people. Of course, had the Jews returned as commanded- they wouldn't have been in Persia and the whole situation with Haman need never to have occurred. And with 12 months notice, they ought to have made a deal with the Persian authorities and returned to Judah. For the king was apparently good with the idea of them being deported. Instead they remain and God has to save them, although with the spiritual cost of their becoming wealthy and popular, and thus even less likely to heed the call to return and reestablish the Kingdom. </p><p>
"When this became known..." (Esther 9:25) suggests that the king was ignorant of the intention to destroy the Jews, until Esther pointed it out to him. This may just be a simplified form of the story. But if these words are a true reflection of how things really were, we are again left with the impression of a king with limited awareness of reality, who never actually read the decree Haman issued in his name to destroy the Jews and only realized what it implied some time later. Being an alcoholic could explain this; but so could super narcissism and perhaps a total focus upon international political and military matters.
</p>


text:
<p>The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy- To give Haman authority to act in his name was surely unwise. Especially when it would not surely have been hard to perceive that Haman had his personal agendas for wanting the Jews destroyed, and was a man obsessed. Again the king comes over as seriously lacking judgment, perhaps due to making these decisions when drunk (:15).</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Haman, The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you- This may be a reference to the assumption that the "silver" or wealth of executed persons went to the state; rather than saying Haman could keep it all for himself; for the intention was still to pay the money to the king's treasuries (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). But again this sounds like the wild kind of promise made when drunk (see on :15).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring- The decree to kill the Jews was given on the 13th day of the first month, the night before Passover, when the Jews would have been reciting the narrative of their deliverance from Egypt. Again we see the hidden hand of God- for this ought to have reminded the Jews of their Passover deliverance. Just as we read nothing of "God" nor prayer in Esther [forgetting the LXX additions], so too the connection with Passover is not made explicit. Possibly the Jews weren't keeping it anyway; and effectively, they replaced it with Purim, a feast not commanded by God. And perhaps they consciously did this, because they kept Purim on the 14th day of the 12th month whereas Passover was on the 14th day of the first month. And they command that Purim is to be kept "for ever" (Esther 9:19), in the very language used of the Passover (Ex. 12: 24-27). We must read their instigation of Purim in the context of Zechariah and Haggai criticizing the returned exiles for establishing at least three other feasts, whilst not keeping God's commands properly if at all. It was a way to escape their obligations to their God, through creating their own set of legalistic traditions. </p><p> "The thirteenth having been found to be a lucky day for the massacre itself, Haman may have thought it advisable to choose the same day of the first month for entering upon the preparation for it". The word for "princes" is a technical terms referring to the chiefs of the various conquered peoples.</p>


text:
<p>Letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions- There are connections between characters within Biblical history, just as there are between our lives and theirs, and between the lives of believers. This is so clear in the Bible that we are to accept this as a Divine principle, and look for these connections with other believers. This is in reality the basis of fellowship between believers. We have a worked example here. The situation is very similar, and allusive to, Jezebel sending letters in the king's name, ordering Naboth's death: "She wrote letters in Ahab’s name and signed them with his seal, and sent the letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city" (1 Kings 21:8). The allusion presents the king as the weak and manipulated Ahab, despite all his power. He was weak and manipulated ultimately by God's hand, and the show of power with which the Esther story opens is thus subverted. Just as is all human show of strength. Just as Ahab returned home miserable because he couldn't have Naboth's vineyard, to be encouraged by his wife to destroy Naboth and grab his property, so the wife of Haman acts identically (Esther 5:14 cp. 1 Kings 21:7). </p><p> The LXX claims to report a copy of the letter: "And the message was sent by posts throughout the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to destroy utterly the race of the Jews on the first day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to plunder their goods. </p><p>And the following is the copy of the letter; The great king Artaxerxes writes thus to the rulers and inferior governors of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even to Ethiopia, who hold authority under him. Ruling over many nations and having obtained dominion over the whole world, I was minded (not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and gentleness) to make the lives of my subjects continually tranquil, desiring both to maintain the kingdom quiet and orderly to its utmost limits, and to restore the peace desired by all men. But when I had enquired of my counsellors how this should be brought to pass. Aman, who excels in soundness of judgment among us, and has been manifestly well inclined without wavering and with unshaken fidelity, and had obtained the second post in the kingdom, informed us that a certain ill-disposed people is mixed up with all the tribes throughout the world, opposed in their law to every other nation, and continually neglecting the commands of the king, so that the united government blamelessly administered by us is not quietly established. Having then conceived that this nation alone of all others is continually set in opposition to every man, introducing as a change a foreign code of laws, and injuriously plotting to accomplish the worst of evils against our interests, and against the happy establishment of the monarchy; we signified to you in the letter written by Aman, who is set over the public affairs and is our second governor, to destroy them all utterly with their wives and children by the swords of the enemies, without pitying or sparing any, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, of the present year; that the people aforetime and now ill-disposed to us having been violently consigned to death in one day, may hereafter secure to us continually a well constituted and quiet state of affairs".</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be prepared against that day- LXX "all the nations", looking ahead to the day when "all nations" will be gathered against the Jews. The stress upon all provinces and languages (:12) is a reflection of how widely the Jews had been scattered in the previous 70 years.</p>


text:
<p>The couriers went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed- The haste was no doubt ordered by Haman because he feared the king might change his mind. if the king was an alcoholic, this would explain his apparent memory loss and acting as if he was unaware of the consequences of his past actions and decisions.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Mordecai found out all that was done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and wailed loudly and a bitterly- Mordecai's sinful personality clash with Haman now forced him to 'come out' as a Jew, and this shows God's hand in leading His people forward. He wished to now come out openly as a Jew. He doubtless realized that so much suffering was going to come on God’s people because of his refusal to bow to Haman, due to his personality clash with him (see on Esther 3). And this in itself was good for him spiritually- for he openly identified himself now with God’s people, instead of teaching Esther not to do so, and not being known to Haman as a Jew initially (<a href='B:190 3:4'>Est 3:4</a>). His wailing is recorded in the LXX: "A nation that has done no wrong is going to be destroyed". If this is indeed so, he was far from understanding the persistent prophetic message- that Judah had indeed done wrong and were therefore in exile, and were worthy of complete destruction.</p><p> The cry of Mordecai is a direct quote from that of Esau when he realizes that his blessings have been taken away and he has been rejected: "When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a loud and a bitter cry" (Gen. 27:34). I have pointed out elsewhere that it was God's intention to slay the Jews in dispersion, unless they repented and returned to their land. And it seems that through Haman, He is now going to do this. And so the connection between Mordecai's cry and the cry of rejected, cursed Esau is absolutely on point relevant. The fact Judah are saved from this is therefore a case of extreme grace from God. Likewise, Amalek- apparently represented by Haman the Agag man, king of Amalek- is descended from Esau (Gen. 36:11-16). Yet it is Haman the descendant of Esau who is judged- by Mordecai's plot, a man who also has the characteristics of Esau. The destruction of Haman at Mordecai's hand was therefore by grace alone. It was Esau vs. Esau. Note too how Haman "disdained to lay his hands on Mordecai alone" (Esther 6:3), making Mordecai the one “disdained”. But this Hebrew verb appears in this form in only one other place in the Bible; when we read that  “Esau disdained the birthright” (Gen. 25:34). Again there is the connection between the rejected Esau and Mordecai.</p>


text:
<p>He came even before the king’s gate; for no one was allowed inside the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth- He was hoping to thereby be noticed and the message relayed somehow to Esther, with whom he didn’t have constant contact. He wanted her to "come out" and do as he was doing. The final phrase of :2 and the first phrase of :3 in Hebrew contains words where every seventh letter spells 'El Shaddai'. Another example of God being stamped onto the record- in this case, at the apparent nadir of Judah's fortune. Even then, God was subtly stamped as still present.</p><p>I suggest that Mordecai had kept his Jewishness hidden. For it would make no sense to tell Esther to hide her Jewishness if he had not previously hidden his. We reflect too how later, Vashti changes her attitude about Mordecai the moment she learns Mordecai is Jewishness. Mordecai could well have reasoned that he would not call upon Esther to 'come out' and appeal to the king, because as his adopted daughter [rather than a blood descendant] she could have argued she was not in fact Jewish. But instead he makes a public scene outside Esther's window, as it were, forcing her to 'come out' as Jewish. Because he believes that only she could save him from Haman, seeing that he reasons in :14 that 'God' might save the Jewish people, but [by implication] He would not save the non-observant Mordecai and Esther. Only Esther's charming of the king could secure that. And so he as it were dumps her in it, by advertising so publically his connection with her.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, weeping and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes- This may well be the language of repentance. God’s plan had been that the exiles would repent and then return to restore the Kingdom. But they generally didn’t return, preferring the kingdom of Babylon and their own wealth to that of Yahweh. This persecution was the sending of "hunters" to chase them back, and bring them to repentance (<a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a>). And they did repent- but when their destruction was averted by the prayer and repentance of a minority, they returned to their old position. Which is why the book of Esther finishes rather sadly, with the Jews again wealthy and even more prosperous and established within their local societies, and thereby even less likely to return to the land.</p>


text:
<p>Esther’s maidens and her eunuchs came and told her this, and the queen was exceedingly grieved. She sent clothing to Mordecai, to replace his sackcloth; but he didn’t receive it- She thus began to openly identify herself with Mordecai and the Jews, although at this point she had not heard about the decree; for it was known that Mordecai was a Jew, and now she is moved to identify with him. This first response from her was then developed by God until she totally "came out" in self-identification as a Jewess. She did what was not worldly-wise, because of her grief for people. God likewise gives us opportunities to make small responses to Him, He develops our consciences until we are then given larger opportunities to respond. She could of course have disowned any knowledge of Mordecai or stressed she was only his adopted daughter.  There are many such stories from the holocaust of secular Jews doing just this. But we must ask how we would have responded; how emotionally do we feel connected to the rest of God’s people?</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs, whom he had appointed to attend her, and commanded him to go to Mordecai, to find out what this was, and why it was- As noted on :4, Esther at this point didn’t know about the decree; but she had been moved to identify with the Jews by deciding to openly care for Mordecai and thus identify herself with him. And God was going to move her further along the path of "coming out" for Him.</p>


text:
<p>So Hathach went out to Mordecai, to the city square which was before the king’s gate- See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai told him of all that had happened to him, and the exact sum of money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:9'>Est 3:9</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn’t return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God’s Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God’s kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>He also gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them, to show it to Esther, and to declare it to her, and to urge her to go in to the king to make supplication to him, to make request before him for her people- These are the Hebrew words for Daniel 'making supplication' and 'making request' before God (Dan. 9:3), whereas here Mordecai urges Esther to do this before the human king. Again, as with eating the food of captivity, Daniel is presented as far spiritually superior to Mordecai and Esther.</p><p> Heb. 'ask for favour'. The passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. She was to ask the king for favour, but clearly she was asking God for favour, even though they were unworthy of it. And God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>), and their deliverance from Haman is an example of it. But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). This double recompense was perhaps at the hands of the Babylonians in Judah the first time, and the second time was intended to be when the sword followed them into captivity, at the hands of Haman. But God graciously relented, despite Judah's impenitence. But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>Hathach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai- LXX adds that Mordecai appealed to her to respond, "remembering, said he, the days of thy low estate, how thou wert nursed by my hand: because Aman who holds the next place to the king has spoken against us for death". Her own salvation by grace was to move her to save others; and this again is a timeless principle for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther spoke to Hathach and gave him a message to Mordecai- All this communication through a messenger meant that surely the news of the Esther-Mordecai relationship and her intended actions would have not been secret and would have started to spread within the palace and further. We think of all the messages between David and Bathsheba by the hand of messengers. Mordecai perhaps made such a scene and then made communications with Esther precisely so that she now could not hide her Jewishness. He saw her as the only hope for reversing the decree. He is ensuring that she is now identified as a Jewess. This is why he will reason that even if all Israel are spared, he and therefore she will for sure be slain unless she does something to change the situation. He was now using her to save his own skin. He could have hoped, as did many in the Holocaust, that somehow she would survive where she was, since she had concealed her Jewishness so far. Whatever his motives, Mordecai forces Esther to come out as one of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that whoever, whether man or woman, comes to the king into the inner court without being invited, there is one law for him, that he be put to death; except those to whom the king might hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live. I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days- Not having been called to come in to her husband for 30 days gives us another insight into the miserable lot Esther had as queen. This lack of invitation would have made her wonder whether she had fallen out of favour with him; although he had many wives and concubines. "To come in to the king" could possibly allude to the sexual act; and "thirty days" might suggest she was menstruating. There is a purposefully ambiguity in these things. Because we are being invited to imagine how it might have been, to enter thereby into her angst. She was initially unwilling to risk death in order to save her people. She needed to be persuaded by the later reflection of Mordecai that she would be found out as a Jewess and also be slain herself; and that God would indeed deliver His people but her refusal to cooperate with His plan would result in her death anyway (:13,14). We see again her development; from selfish self-preservation to a wider sense of responsibility for her entire people. And in broad outline terms, this is something we are all to pass through. See on <a href='B:190 6:4'>Est 6:4</a>; <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>.</p><p>This response was effectively a "no" from Esther to Mordecai. Previously she had always obeyed him; now she is led towards individuation.</p>


text:
<p>Then Mordecai asked them to return answer to Esther, Don’t think to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house any more than all the Jews- As noted on <a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>, we have here an insight into the thought processes of Esther which only an inspired record could give. The Bible continually emphasizes the importance of self-talk and how we think in our hearts. She was tempted to adopt a path of thought which was effectively saying that she would be the only Jew who would survive; and that was not going to happen. The 'house of the kingdom' of Babylon would not save her from death.</p>


text:
<p>For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows if you haven’t come to the kingdom for such a time as this?- "Silent now" is AV "at this time"; the same words at the end of the verse, "a time as this". This was her time.  "Who knows if...?" is surely rhetorical, as if to say, 'Anyone could surely realize / know that you became queen for this time' . I do wonder whether some people are born to achieve one thing at one time in God's purpose. This could be such a case. And yet "Who knows if?" has an answer: God. Again, God isn't mentioned, but Mordecai is brought to seeing and implying God's presence and knowledge. "Place" is Hebrew maqom, usually used of a holy place. He implies "God" but can't bring himself to say so in so many words. Mordecai speaks with authority, but he is only making assumptions; that if help came from another quarter, then Esther and her family, including Mordecai, would "perish" even if the other Jews didn’t. And the source of that 'perishing' would be God’s judgment, not Haman. "Mordecai also seems confident that deliverance would arise from "another place". From another place" clearly means "God", but God is never mentioned in the book of Esther. Perhaps at the time Mordecai just had a distinct hunch that deliverance would come, but when he thought about who else, humanly, apart from Esther, could effect this deliverance... he would conclude that it would have to be God alone. So we see this otherwise secular, weak believer being provoked by circumstance to have a greater faith. Everyone in the story is being nudged towards greater faith and spirituality through the dysfunction of them all. This is the marvel of God’s working. But the basis for Mordecai's confidence that "deliverance" would arise is because the same word was used by the prophets for how God’s people would be "delivered" from the lands of their exile to return and reestablish His Kingdom in Zion (e.g. <a href='B:330 34:10'>Eze 34:10</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>). Mordecai was taken into exile as a young man and would have heard or known these words of Ezekiel. </p><p>The text can legitimally be translated: "Will then relief and deliverance come to the Jews from another place? You and your father’s house will perish". There is no "but..." in the original. This opens up the question of whether God automatically reassigns a task and possibility to another; or whether if we let the ball drop, His intention will not be realized. The lack of clarity is intentional. We are to appreciate the degree to which we matter. The Lord's parables speak of Him giving His wealth to His servants to trade with. How far His work prospers is over to them; for He has 'gone into a far country', He is far away in the sense that He has delegated to us authority to do His work on His behalf, and will review that work at His return. </p><p>But to return once more to the text. We can also read this as Mordecai saying that if Esther doesn't intercede, then the Jews generally will be saved from "another place". He seems not spiritual enough to say "God" in so many words. Although there was no other source of deliverance apart from Yahweh. But, he is confident that she and he will perish, even though God would save the Jews generally. He felt that for sure, Haman would ensure that he died, and he was sure that Haman would soon figure [if not already] that Esther was his relative- so she for sure would also be slain. Mordecai therefore doesn't have the faith to believe that God ["from another place"] will save him personally; salvation is indeed for God's people, He is the God of Israel, His promise to preserve Abraham's seed will come true; but not for me personally. I can't believe it for myself. We've all encountered this mentality, it is psychologically credible. And Mordecai may well imply that he knows that Esther likewise is not exactly much of a believer in Yahweh. So she also cannot expect any salvation from Him. And yet he considers that she might be able to save him, and herself, by a special appeal to her husband the king. By implication, this salvation would not be from God ["from another place"], but by dint of her feminine charms. He sees that perhaps it was meant to be that she had become queen, to save him and herself from death. 'It was meant to be' is hardly strong faith in God, but it at least veers that way. But nothing more. It is at least a recognition that there is at least something above the ordinary going on in human life. </p><p>
There is the element of uncertainty in Mordecai's words. We as readers surely perceive that of course Esther had come to the throne for this time. But that is only a possibility for Mordecai. Again he presents as without full faith and limited spiritual perception. We would rather him exhort her about the clear hand of God in their lives, urging her in faith to make full use of where she had been placed by God. All this further reflects a selfish and weak spiritual streak in Mordecai. He presents as more concerned with his own salvation than that of his people. When Esther's personal salvation is assured, she to her credit then begs the king to save her people. In a very short time, a day or so, she matures beyond her adopted father very quickly. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther asked them to answer Mordecai- LXX "Esther sent the man that came to her to Mordecai, saying"; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast the same way. Then I will go in to the king, which is against the law- Daniel's request to his friends to pray for him as he went before the king (Dan. 2:17,18), so that they should not die, contrasts with Esther asking her friends to simply fast for her- with no reference to God. Just as Daniel and his friends were greatly exalted, so were Esther and Mordecai.</p><p>Mordecai's sackcloth and ashes, and now a total fast without water ["do not drink" = Jonah 3:7 "shall not drink"], all recalls Nineveh's repentance and the altering of the Divine decree of destruction. Jonah was fairly recent history in Esther's time. We wonder whether consciously or unconsciously, she was influenced by this. “Who knows but that God may turn and relent… so that we do not perish” (Jonah 3:9 NJPS) may be the basis for Esther's similar fatalism mixed with faith, when she too uses the word "perish": "If I perish, I perish". Both Nineveh and the Jews had a period defined before they would be destroyed- 40 days for Nineveh, 12 months for the Jews in Persia. "Who knows, perhaps you have attained to royal position for just such a crisis" (Esther 4:13,14) recalls "Who knows but that God may turn and relent?" (Jonah 3:9).  “When the news ['the word'] reached the king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6) parallels “When Mordecai learned all that had happened” (Esther 4:1) and the word reaching the Jews (Esther 4:3- the same Hebrew words are used). And yet the king of Nineveh cries out and fasts to God, openly repenting, urging others to do so. Mordecai apparently only laments the pain of Divine judgment. And he seeks Esther's help in getting out of that pain. For the prophets had said that Judah in captivity would suffer if they refused to repent. This was to be the curse for breaking the covenant. 
The people would not only be sent into captivity, but God would send a sword to pursue them there: Lev. 26:33 "I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you; and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste"; "I will scatter them also among the nations... and I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them", (Jer. 9:16); "I will pursue after them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be tossed back and forth among all the kingdoms of the earth, to be an object of horror, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations where I have driven them" (Jer. 29:18).  It was God's intention to destroy them in the lands where they were sent captive: "You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will eat you up" (Lev. 26:38). Only a very small remnant of the captives would "escape the sword among the peoples, when you shall be scattered through the nations" (Ez. 6:8); "I will preserve a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence; that they may declare all their abominations among the nations where they come" (Ez. 12:16). Yahweh will scatter you among the nations [cp. the Jews being present is all 127 provinces of the Persian empire] and you shall be left few in number among the nations where Yahweh shall lead you away" (Dt. 4:27); "Among these nations you shall find no ease and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot. Yahweh will give you there a trembling heart and failing of eyes and pining of soul" (Dt. 28:65); "He would overthrow their seed among the nations, and scatter them in the gentile lands" (Ps. 106:27). The Psalms frequently appeal for God's people to remember Him and declare His glory "among the nations", and "among the nations" is the language of the curse for breaking the covenant (Ps. 18:49; 44:11,14; 46:10; 57:9; 67:2; 79:10;  96:3,10; 106:47; 108:3; 110:6; 126:2). This is all some evidence that God intended to destroy the majority of Jews in exile who didn't return. He didn't carry this out- by grace alone. The Esther story is an example of His desperate attempt to get them to return, giving them 12 months from the edict of Haman so that they had time to go. </p><p>
Just as the Gentile Vashti presents as more sexually moral than Esther, the king of Nineveh and his people present as more spiritual than Mordecai and the Jews. Mordecai mourns not from repentance but from lament at the prospect of loss of life. Nineveh repented (Jonah 3:4), but the same word is used of how the decree to kill the Jews is turned about (Esther 9:1). Nineveh's repentance was the basis of God turning back or re-thinking their judgment; He likewise turned back the judgment of the Jews but by grace and His gracious manipulation of Esther to that end. Again, as often in Esther, we are not left with a great picture of Esther's faith nor spirituality; but rather of God's sovereign grace. The whole Haman incident was a case of fishers and hunters being sent to make the Jews return to Judah. But the book of Esther shows they refused to take the prod, and yet in love and pity God saved them even from the pain of that prod when they refused it. </p><p>
The decree to kill the Jews was issued on the 13th day of the month Nisan, the day before Passover. We can assume that the news spread immediately, and that the Jews in Shushan heard of it immediately (Esther 3:12,15). The dialogues between Esther and Mordecai therefore took place on the 13th or 14th of Nisan- Passover. Yet Esther commands a total fast from both food and water. This would have meant that those fasting would not have celebrated Passover. She realized, or was made to realize, that cultural, technical obedience to religious laws was overshadowed by the urgent need to intensely connect with God. Although she doesn't ask for prayer, surely that is the implication of her asking Jews to fast immediately and thus not keep Passover. To fast "for me" suggests the fasting was to be no mere lament, but to somehow empower her to success; and that implies appeal to a higher power. On the other hand, seeing the date for destruction was still 12 months off, she could have put God's law first and called for the fast [and approached the king] a few days later, after Passover. </p><p>
So far in the story, Esther has been the passive, obedient young woman. Now for the first time she takes the initiative. No longer does she wear and do what Hegai suggests to charm the king, nor dumbly follow Mordecai's script. As for so many, the need becomes the call... to find and be themselves, and to turn to God. Albeit in the spirit of there being no atheist on a plane that's going down. Fasting of itself implies an attempt to flag the attention of a higher power. This was not fasting as mere lament over a situation. It was to be done before Esther went in to the king- so clearly, the implication was that help was being sought from a Divine being. Although there is no mention of prayer, which usually accompanies such fasting in the Bible. It's as if the record is at pains to avoid any mention of prayer or God... it is intentional. Exactly in order to flag up the ways of providence. God is so present, but as it were God is hiding in plain sight. Indeed this omission of God and prayer is so strong, that we could posit that it is a Divinely inspired rework of some official chronicle of the Kings of Persia, mentioned in Esther 10:2. This would explain the references to "Jews" in the third person and the title “Mordecai the Jew”. And also the way the record focuses on events rather than motives. It would also make sense of the detailed listing of the king’s advisors. 
</p><p>The text carefully omits any mention of prayer to God, perhaps because of His statement that He would hide His face from them in the captivity. She was being taught what the king had been taught in <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a> (see note there); that law could not save. She had to go outside the law for salvation, which meant a total casting of herself upon grace. She clearly feels her inadequacy; she feels the need for the fasting of others. And she is now unashamed to identify herself with the Jews, for this message was sent through a messenger (:15) which would have meant that her identification with the Jews was now going to be spread around everywhere. There was a large Jewish community in Shushan; able to kill 300 men (<a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>).</p><p>And if I perish, I perish- The idea may be that she was going to perish anyway, if the decree wasn't changed. She had accepted Mordecai's warning about this in :13,14. And yet it is hard to avoid a sense of fatalism, using the same construction as in <a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a>. She had faith and weakness at the same time, as we would likewise have had. Again we are left wondering whether she had faith, or was merely fatalistic. This is to help us enter deeper into her possible feelings and to identify with her.</p><p>Her fatalism rather than faith appears greater when we consider that the "if..." is more commonly translated "when", "where" or "how". "If..." in the sense of possibility isn't the usual meaning of this Hebrew word. It isn't the same word translated "if" in :14 "If you keep quiet...". The word suggests she felt she would perish either by going to the king uninvited, or in the pogrom. This saying of Esther is often referred to in Jewish thinking, as it is the basis of the Jewish principle of galut- choosing the least bad solution or outcome. It is hardly faith, but more a resigned fatalism. It was death or death, so she chose the death that had at least some chance of leading to life. Contrary to the image of Sunday School Christianity, or Shabbat school Judaism, this is not a case of heroic faith in God, nor of willingness to make some stellar self-sacrifice. And yet God worked through it; that's the point. It's rather a case of "out of weakness made strong", as Paul would put it. Indeed a relevant question could be: 'Would any person of whatever faith background have done anything other than what Esther did?'.</p>


text:
<p>So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him- "Went his way" is literally 'passed over', i.e. over the river Ulai, on which Shushan was built, to the Jewish quarter. The allusion to the Ulai river is another point of unfavourable comparison with Daniel, who was apparently in prayer by the river Ulai, presumably because he also lived in the Jewish quarter where Mordecai lived, and was rewarded with a Divine vision: "I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai... I sought to understand it [presumably by praying]; and behold... I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision" (Dan. 8:2,15,16).</p><p>
The need was the call, and now the once dumbly obedient, passive Esther is taking the initiative and has men doing what she tells them, rather than the other way around. We notice twice that Esther was "taken"- by Mordecai, as his daughter; and into the harem (Esther 2:7,8). Esther's passivity will be changed by the hand of providence into her being a proactive worker on her own initiative for the salvation of God's people. Again we see a breaking of the paradigm that a woman was always to be obedient to a man. LXX adds various exaggerated claims about Esther's righteousness and prayers to God, e.g. "And having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning; and instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes and dung, and she greatly brought down her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with the torn curls of her hair".</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal clothing- Perhaps because as stated in <a href='B:190 4:17'>Est 4:17</a> she had taken it off in order to mourn and cover herself in sackcloth.</p><p>And stood in the inner court of the king’s house, next to the king’s house. The king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, next to the entrance of the house- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. Esther would surely have recalled how she had first entered the king's house, to sleep with him whilst in the contest for becoming Queen. She surely would have looked back and realized that was all of God, somehow, that she 'won' against amazing odds. And this would have been designed to encourage her that God could do the same again. For that is how life is structured.
</p>


text:
<p>When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther came near, and touched the top of the sceptre- The record is as it were a video shot by the Divine cameraman. We see her standing there, see her fingers touching the very tip of the sceptre. And we get the feeling that the outcome finally will be good for her.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king asked her, What would you like, queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you even to the half of the kingdom- Esther was breaking paradigms here; it was the king who always gave invitations, and not his wife. She effectively comes to dominate him, although in a very humble and nervous way, used by God.</p><p>An offer "to the half of the kingdom" was a serious offer, and the king makes it three times to Esther (Esther 5:3,6; 7:2). Hearing those words, she could have blurted out her request. Instead, she invites him to the banquet. Why did she not just state her request there and then, seeing he had given the green light to whatever she wanted and would find it hard to retract? We could argue she was cunning and thought a banquet setting, with him drunk, was the better way to go. The banquet is a "banquet of wine" (the wine is stressed in Esther 5:6; 7:2,7,8). He had previously made epic decisions whilst drunk, concerning Vashti and then in signing the pogrom decree for Haman. He was known for his rage and extreme emotionalism. And she knows that effectively rescinding that decree will be hard for him to do if sober and rational. Again we enquire, whether this is the way a faithful Jewish woman would think- to get your husband drunk in order to get them to do a favour for you. It is the behaviour of Lot's daughters, but surely it shouldn't have been the way of a believer in Yahweh. But still God works through it. Or we could see her as overcome by circumstance, not knowing how to respond to the unexpected open cheque he was offering her... and stuck with her plan. For she had already prepared the banquet (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, If it seems good to the king, let the king come with Haman today to the banquet that I have prepared for him-&nbsp; It seems to me that she intended to ask for mercy for the Jews. But her nerve fails here, and she asks them to come to a banquet. And when they come, her nerve fails her again, and she asks them to come to another banquet. And God worked through that weakness. Because the final request was made the night after he had recalled how Mordecai had saved him. And the intrigue and suspense was built up, his attention was particularly focused upon this one of his many wives, who was demanding his attention two or three days running. I don't personally interpret Esther here as the cleverly calculating, amateur psychologist female. Rather do I see a nervous teenager who gets stage fright at the last minute, twice. And God worked through her nervousness. Perhaps after each failure to make the request, she beat herself up for her weakness. But God worked through it. This is His style, right up to this day. LXX "To-day is my great day"; probably the king didn’t even know Esther's birthday, ust as he didn’t know her family or relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). Maybe it wasn't her birthday, and she just blurted out whatever came into her mind. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>). The four Hebrew words in the  phrase "may the king and Haman come today", yavo ha-melech v’haman ha-yom, begin with the letters which make up the Yahweh Name: ‘yod – hey – vav – hey’. On one hand, Esther was scheming in a very human way, and hoping to get the king drunk so that he would more easily agree to her request. Yet God puts the stamp of His Name in that- not necessarily of His total approval of her methods. </p><p> We may well ask, Why did Esther invite Haman to the banquet? Perhaps because she knew he had the king's signet ring, and the reversal of the decree required that. Possibly because she was a shrewd psychologist who figured that the king would be angry with Haman if he were present. Maybe she believed that pride comes before a fall, and she rightly guessed that inviting Haman would make him proud (Prov. 16:18). But none of these reasons match the Divine hand in it all- that whatever reason, God made Haman faint from a panic attack and collapse on Esther's couch, looking to the king as if he had tried to rape her. </p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, Bring Haman quickly, so that it may be done as Esther has said. So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther had prepared- The command to bring Haman "quickly" was because such invitations were usually given well in advance, and Esther was breaking all the paradigms by wanting everything quickly, throwing last minute parties. We see in this how she was now thinking fast and on her own initiative, outside the box- whereas previously she is presented as having been dumbly obedient to Mordecai and Hegai. We note from Esther 1:9 that Vashti made a separate feast for the women at the time of the king's great feast. Why is that detail included in the record? Possibly to remind us that the genders were segregated at such feasts / drinking parties. The way Esther invites two men to a private drinking feast with her is therefore paradigm breaking. She is really thinking outside the box, driven to initiative by the extremity of the situation. And so the need is the call in our lives and spiritual growth, time and again. Perhaps her insistence upon the private banquet, rather than grabbing the opportunity to get the king to give her anything, was because she was ambitious enough to actually want Haman killed. And she knew that the drinking party was more likely to achieve that than asking the king for such a favour in a more rational and formal setting.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, What is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- This apparently unlimited offer leads us to expect that Esther is now going to seize the moment and ask for the Jews not to be destroyed. The Biblical text often works like this, setting up expectations in the mind of the reader or hearer, and then presenting an unexpected outcome. We are all expecting now for her to make the request, and the next verse heightens that sense of expectation- and we are then the more involved in the plot when again, Esther doesn't make the request as she maybe intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther answered and said, My petition and my request is this- The pause implied in the text heightens our sense of suspense as to whether she will find the strength to make her true request. And again her nerve fails and she rather dumbly asks for more time. Earlier, she had "asked" or 'requested' [s.w.] nothing from Hegai, but had just been dumbly obedient and submissive (Esther 2:15). The king's agents had "sought" or 'requested' brides for the king (Esther 2:2 s.w.) and she had agreed. Haman had asked or requested for the death of all Jews (Esther 3:6 s.w.). But now Esther is taking the initiative and asking / requesting the king- and she is recorded as doing so multiple times. For meetings with him, for the life of the Jews, and for further favours for the Jews. Again we see a previously passive person being moved by God to be proactive and work on her own initiative. For she had nobody to advise her at this point. Her requests for banquets and her actual requests for the Jews were not advised by anyone; she took the initiative. The need was the call, to quit passivity and become proactive for God's people and His cause.</p>


text:
<p>If I have found favour in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition and to perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king has said- This could be read as saying 'I do have a petition; but your attendance at my banquet tomorrow will mean that you have agreed to the petition I have in my heart, but which I'm not telling you right now'. This would perhaps be the best support for an argument that Esther calculated all this, rather than just getting stage fright each time she was asked to tell her petition. The ambiguity and difficulty of interpretation is intentional- to direct our thinking to her motivations, to get the reader into the mind of Esther. It could also be that she judged her husband not sufficiently drunk in order to press home her request. This doesn't exactly score very highly for her in spiritual terms. This is no Nehemiah desperately praying to God for favour in the eyes of the king as he makes a request for God's people. But the king was busy, as ruler of most of the known world. To devote two evenings one after the other to some mysterious domestic drinking party with his wife whom he had not asked to see him for the last month... was strange indeed. Esther had her request answered- he had attended her banquet. Then, surely, was the time to act. I suggest therefore that on balance, her idea of a second banquet was indeed from stage fright. </p><p>
In all these things, we see the hand of God. What if Vashti had agreed to come in to the king? What if the king hadn't asked her to flaunt her beauty before his men? What if the king had married a standard Persian beauty queen, and not Esther? What if the king hadn't had a sleepless night? What if Mordecai hadn't overheard the plot to kill the king? What if the king hadn't forgotten to reward Mordecai and had done as usual and rewarded him immediately? What if he hadn't have had a sleepless night? What if Mordecai had not fallen into a personality clash with Haman? What if Haman had drawn a lot to kill all the Jews more quickly? What if Esther hadn't had stage fright and begged the king to come to a second banquet? All this is of God, of His grace, of His higher hand.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he didn’t stand up nor move for him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai- Here we have a profound insight into the processes going on within Haman's mind. This is far from a simple court tale. The record juxtaposes his prideful joy with the jealousy which then beclouds him as he sees Mordecai, dressed in sackcloth, refusing to stand up. The Esther record gives wonderful insight into the feelings and thought processes of the characters in a way in which contemporary literature of the time doesn't; the stories are full of unrealistic exaggerations, whereas the Bible focuses upon real situations and upon the state of the heart. And here we see the typical power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings.</p><p>Mordecai has gone beyond not bowing to Haman. He now will not even stand up in his presence. We wonder if this was related to his faith that Esther was going to somehow succeed in her entreaty. If so, we see the first beginnings of actual faith in him. The idea isn't that Haman simply noticed Mordecai in the gate area. To sit in the gate meant to have a position of authority, often associated with being a judge (Job 5:9; 31:21; Prov. 31:23; Ruth 4:1,11). It was Mordecai's senior position which irked Haman so much. Mordecai had presumably removed his mourning garments because it wasn't allowed to sit in the king's gate dressed like that (Esther 4:2). That just possibly might imply that he was living in hope that Esther's appeal would succeed. But I suggest more like he had to return to work, and so he had no option but to remove his mourning garments. In which case again we see the higher hand of God, making Mordecai act as if his mourning was over- because a resolution to the grief had been made possible. He may not have believed that, but the hand of providence made him act like it, to coax him towards faith. It's like finding yourself singing a hymn in church, the words of which are actually far beyond your personal faith at that point. But you reflect afterwards that actually, you sung those words to God. </p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Haman restrained himself, and went home. There, he sent and called for his friends and Zeresh his wife- The impression is given that he wanted to murder Haman immediately, or at least ask the king to authorize it. But he waits for another day, because of the desire to do nothing without first seeking advice. And it was that day which altered the entire outcome. Again we see a man of great power, but bound by his own traditions and legal structures; just as was the king when Vashti refused to come and he wanted to kill her. The same occurred when he took counsel as to the date on which to murder the Jews. And the answer came out as in 11 months' time. The folly of human wisdom and counsel is a big theme in Esther and Daniel.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king- He had ten sons (<a href='B:190 9:7'>Est 9:7</a>). Here again we see a connection with the situation in Esther 1, where the glory of Ahasuerus is presented and then he is manipulated and circumscribed by a woman and his own laws and culture.</p>


text:
<p>Haman also said, Yes, Esther the queen let no man come in with the king to the banquet that she had prepared but myself; and tomorrow I am also invited by her together with the king- His overweening pride is being set up for a mighty fall; and this is typical of the Biblical record, to focus upon pride as the reason for judgment. What he was most proud of turned out to be the very point of his destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yet all this avails me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate- He kept seeing Mordecai, i.e., in his own mind. Just as people are conned by advertising to keep seeing images of things which then become 'must haves' for them. This is the power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings. He kept in his mind the image of this man "sitting" instead of standing up and bowing. It is such mental images which are the root of so much jealousy. See on <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>; <a href='B:190 6:13'>Est 6:13</a>. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>). In this verse 13, it is the final letters of the four Hebrew words which spell YHWH. The term "the king" occurs 190 times in Esther's 167 verses. So often, that we are surely being asked 'Who really is the king here?'. Because the earthly king was so clearly being manipulated by others, and above all by God. The King is clearly Yahweh. We note the similarities with Ahab and his wicked wife Jezebel's advice. He had everything but like Haman, he wanted just that one more thing. And his wife gave evil advice as to how to get it, which ultimately went wrong for him.  The Hebrew for "friends" in Esther 5:10 is 'ahab'. Again and again we feel that 'you just can't make this stuff up'. We see how psychologically credible are the Biblical records; for the 'just that one more thing' mentality is deeply engrained in the unreformed human psyche. </p>


text:
<p>Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, Let a gallows be made fifty cubits high, and in the morning speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on it. Then go in merrily with the king to the banquet. This pleased Haman, so he had the gallows made- Zeresh presents as the classic case of a wife who encourages her husband in an evil path for the glory of her family, and thus ends up destroying her family. The ten sons were killed but nothing is said of her death. We wonder if she committed suicide, or was left alive by God to spend the rest of her miserable life reflecting on her gross sin, perhaps like Delilah. All this is so true to observation of life situations today. There is no agreed meaning for her name, but one option is "Star of adoration", and we reflect that 'Esther' means 'star', alluding to Ishtar. She was likely jealous of Esther. She was her opposite number as it were, and wanted her husband to be exalted rather than Esther's relative Mordecai. 
</p><p>We also note the irony of how Esther opens with male concern at wives becoming too dominant. And yet as the story unfolds, we see Esther and Zeresh taking charge of the situations. An unseen supernatural hand is clearly working out that irony- and it is the hand of God. This is one function of the irony within Esther. It is so intense that it becomes a pointer to an invisible, Divine hand at work.
</p><p>The gallows was huge, 25 meters / 75 feet high. "According to Persian law the power of life and death resided in the king alone". So Haman was assuming that he could get Mordecai executed, even though there was apparently no legal apparatus for him to do so. Again we see a theme of Esther continued- that the characters are all forced to act outside of the law. This was surely to prepare the Jewish audience of the book to realize the limitations of Mosaic law, especially in the casuistic sense in which they liked to use it.</p><p>Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 at this point includes her prayer to God, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel (<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>On that night, sleep fled from the king. He commanded the book of records of the chronicles to be brought, and they were read to the king- We naturally wonder why the King was sleepless. Quite possibly it was because of the strange actions of his wife, taking the unheard of initiative of inviting him and Haman to a drinking party just with her- when women didn't drink with men, as Vashti's party for the women made clear. And we think of the "Lady's bar" in British pubs back in the day. Clearly she wanted a big favour but couldn't bring herself to ask him. And now she had invited him to yet another such party, promising to then make her request. What was it? And why was she so specific about Haman attending? And alone? It'd be enough to more than pique the curiosity of any husband. </p><p> Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book, e.g. as acrostics (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>), and several times in this chapter. The message is clearly that God was active, but in a subtle, hidden way. His insomnia was due to an unconscious sense that something wasn't right, that a payback hadn't been made, or that a payback against himself was now due. Gramatically, there seems a word missing here. Literally, his sleep was taken from him; but the grammar requires the definition of who took it from him. And that isn't stated. Some versions have supplied "God" or "the Lord", but this isn't in the original. The name of God never occurs in Esther. We are to understand only by implication that it was God. The book of records is that alluded to in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>, the "book of remembrance" k<p>ept before God concerning His servants:&nbsp;</p><p> A fair case can be made that when we read in Esther of simply "the king" rather than "King Ahasuerus", sometimes there is an intentional ambiguity as to whether King Ahasuerus is referenced, or Yahweh, the one true King. The Hebrew scroll of Esther read at Purim, the Megillah, is punctuated with decorative words stating "THE KING". As if the Jews saw the one true King, God, stamped throughout the book in some of the places when we read simply of "the king"- which is very often. And so here we read that "the king" couldn't sleep and so had his diary read to him. But Yahweh is presented as a king who does apparently sleep, and is, as it were, awakened by prayer. We think of Ps. 121:4: "Behold, the guardian of Israel will neither sleep nor slumber". Likewise Ps. 44:24: "Awake, why do you sleep, Lord?". God was as it were awoken from sleep by the prayers of His people. Although that is implied very indirectly, and not stated explicitly.</p>


text:
<p>It was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who were doorkeepers, who had tried to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- The fact the king had forgotten this reflects his superficial character, focusing only upon the present. But even such a person still has a conscience and a fear of judgment which keeps them awake at night.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, What honour and dignity has been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then the king’s servants who attended him said, Nothing has been done for him- Again we get the impression that the king was forgetful, because he lived only for the immediate present and forgot his responsibilities and undertakings, perhaps resultant from his alcoholism. Likewise he had divorced Vashti and agreed to search for a replacement for her, but had to be reminded five years later to get on and do so. The recollection of having been saved by grace led him to naturally feel that he should do something positive for this man Mordecai. Any move against that man was not going to be well received by him. The entire situation is true to life and has the ring of psychological credibility to it- in contrast to the histories written at the time by uninspired writers.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Who is in the court? Now Haman had come into the outer court of the king’s house, to speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him- Hebrew, "for himself". Again we see the theme of ironic mocking of those in power, evidence of the Higher Hand and the total reversal of things. We learnt from <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> that anyone entering the inner court without invitation was risking their life. Haman's bitterness and jealousy was enough to lead him to risk his life by entering into the court on his own initiative to ask the king to let him kill Mordecai. The proud, self confident Haman approaching the king on his own initiative is set up in parallel to the nervous, humble Esther doing the same- risking her life to save, rather than to destroy. "Who is in the court?" could be read as the king enquiring who was in the court who could practically arrange to reward Mordecai. But we can also read this [and the ambiguity is maybe purposeful] as meaning that he was aware someone had come into the court uninvited to talk to him. And he asks who this person is. And then ignores having a meeting with Haman but instead just tells him to reward Mordecai.</p>


text:
<p>The king’s servants said to him, Behold, Haman stands in the court. The king said, Let him come in- Haman was risking his life to enter uninvited, but such was his obsessive jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>So Haman came in. The king said to him, What shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honour?- It is tempting to imagine that the king was aware of Haman's antipathy toward Mordecai, and already suspected foul play in the plan to exterminate the Jews. At least, it seems he may well have asked the question knowing that Haman would reply as he did, assuming that he was in view.</p><p>Now Haman said in his heart, Who would the king delight to honour more than myself?- Again we see the focus of the record upon the human heart and its self-talk. The self talk of a man's heart is recorded for us to review, many centuries later. "Said in his heart" is a phrase used multiple times in the Bible, but the vast majority of them are about evil men saying wrong things in their heart- confirming the Lord's teaching that sin comes from the heart's self-talk (Mk. 7:21-23). The irony of the situation is of course huge, and intended. The extent of the irony makes us realize that there is a higher hand orchestrating everything- and God is hiding in plain sight, although never mentioned.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to the king, For the man whom the king delights to honour- Haman's eyes were on the throne, and so he asks that this person be set up as the successor of the king; thinking it should be himself. See on :8. The irony of the situation is so strong that again we are left asking ourselves how it could have arisen... were it not for God's invisible hand.</p>


text:
<p>Let royal clothing be brought which the king wears, and the horse that the king rides on, and on the head of which a crown royal is set- "Royal clothing" is LXX "the robe of fine linen". As noted on Esther 1, the palace and regal system is being set up as a fake temple and Kingdom of God. But the impression given here is that Mordecai is being set up as the king, wearing the king's own clothing, riding the king's horse with a royal crown upon it. David’s command for Solomon to ride upon his own horse meant that he wanted Solomon to be the next king after him (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>). See on :9. This grossly exaggerated response to Mordecai's faithfulness was typical of powerful eastern monarchs; we recall how Pharaoh made the prisoner Joseph to be the Prime Minister of Egypt when just hours before he had been wallowing in a dungeon, and was totally unknown to Pharaoh. This would have been shocking to Haman; that Mordecai was suddenly being declared the successor to Ahasuerus. It seems typical of his irresponsible behaviour. But it was tantamount to replacing Haman with Mordecai; for surely Haman's eyes were on the throne for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Let the clothing and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man whom the king delights to honour with them, and have him ride on horseback through the city square, and proclaim before him, ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!’- The man of the king's "delight" is a way of saying 'Whom he wishes to set upon his throne'; it is used in that sense in <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a> and possibly <a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>. The woman whom the king 'delighted in' was made queen (<a href='B:190 2:14'>Est 2:14</a> s:w:). See on :8.</p><p>Haman is twice described as being full of wrath against Mordecai (Esther 3:6; 5:9). Prov. 6:34 uses the same word in saying that jealousy is the wrath of a man. Haman was jealous of Mordecai, even though I suggested that Mordecai was jealous of Haman's promotion, believing he ought to have had it because his relative Esther was now queen. Haman had it all, but was still jealous. It's again that human trait of 'I need just one more thing'. Which we must recognise and avoid.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Haman, Hurry and take the clothing and the horse, as you have said, and do this for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken- "The Jew" means that now Mordecai has declared his Jewishness; or perhaps a note had been made of this in the chronicles, and the king was thereby reminded of it. It could be that the king was unaware that the nation to be destroyed were the Jews; or that he had agreed to it whilst drunk (see on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>) and was unaware of what he had really agreed to. The paradox was that a man who was publically disobedient to the king's command to bow before Haman (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>) was now being exalted. Again the king is being nudged towards realizing the trap of his own legalism. He had made a law which a man whom he was deeply indebted to- had broken! He likely had heard of Mordecai's disobedience, because it was performed publically and was known by the king's servants.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman took the clothing and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and had him ride through the city square, and proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!- The record naturally invites us to imagine the tone of voice in which he said this. Haman felt he had to be obedient to the king's commandment- to honour a man who was disobedient to the king's commandment (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai came back to the king’s gate, but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and having his head covered- The roles are now reversed; recently Mordecai had been weeping with covered head in the king's gate, and now Haman was. Esther mourns before going to the first banquet; and now Haman does before the second banquet. The way God brings about justice reflects His full awareness of all that has gone on in the past; unlike human justice. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and all his friends everything that had happened to him. Then his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him, but you will surely fall before him- The very same words are used of how Mordecai recounted to Esther "everything that had happened to ['befallen'] him" with regard to Haman's planned pogrom (Esther 4:7). He was being made to understand what he had done to Mordecai and the Jews. Not solely as punishment, but perhaps in the hope he would therefore repent. But he didn't.</p><p> These "wise men" were those who had thrown the lots in order to choose the day of the massacre (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>). Suddenly their wisdom changed- from advising to massacre the Jews and kill Mordecai, to now predicting that Haman was not going to succeed but would himself perish. Again, the folly of Persian customs, traditions and wisdom is being developed. Zeresh, his friends and wise men had only yesterday been joining him in glorying over his enemy; and now they change completely, and he is left awfully alone. The book of Esther perhaps functioned as a means of telling the Jews in exile that they were preferring the kingdom of Persia over that of Yahweh; and the kingdom they preferred was terribly weak and compromised at its very foundations. They say that he is going to "fall" before Mordecai; and it was exactly Mordecai's refusal to "fall" before Haman which had been so engraved in Haman's memory (see on <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And again we find repeated the theme of a wife being wiser than her husband and willing to be separate from his positions, as Vashti and Esther were before Zeresh; and what she says comes to pass.</p><p>Zeresh has a strong belief that any conflict against the Jews will end in victory for the Jews. It seems she was previously ignorant of Mordecai's Jewish connections, because he like Esther had hidden them and was a non-practicing Jew. Otherwise her sudden volte face is not understandable. Perhaps Zeresh knew the prophecies that Israel would finally triumph over Amalek and their descendants the Agagites, from whom her husband was descended (Ex. 17:16; Num. 24:20; Dt. 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 15). She had a very strong premonition about the power of Israel's God for His people, just as Mordecai is sure that the God of Israel will come through for the Jews generally, but he can't believe that Israel's God will come through for him personally. Perhaps this is why although her husband and sons were slain, there is no record that she was. The statements of both Zeresh and Mordecai definitely imply the existence of the God of Israel, and that He will come through for His people. But this is not explicitly stated by either of them. It is only our careful reflection on the implications of their words that reveals this. And so it is, time and again, with the fact that our God will come through for us in the end. The truth of it is there, so clearly, but it is not explicitly stated to us.</p>


text:
<p>While they were yet talking with him, the king’s eunuchs came, and hurried to bring Haman to the banquet that Esther had prepared- Just as Haman had "hurried" the messengers carrying his decree to kill the Jews, so he was "hurried" by the messengers to come to the banquet; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen- The record helps us see it all happening as if in a video. Haman went first to the king and then together they two came to Esther. Remember that "banquet" means 'a drinking'. For men and women to drink alcohol together was unusual. I have suggested that Esther's plan was to get the king drunk and then make her request. I suggest she gave the impression that she too was drinking wine, perhaps pouring her drinks from a non-alcoholic wine she had carefully prepared. Again and again we have to comment, that all this was not the most spiritual way to achieve the salvation of God's people. It does indicate a high degree of initiative on her part; for she had nobody to take advice with. She had seen the pattern of wine-wrath-decree of death or exile followed by anger abating, with Vashti; and she thought the same could happen with Haman. And it did. Until now she had been mutely obedient; but now the need was the call. And this is typical of how God works in human life. Perhaps her insistence upon the private banquet, rather than grabbing the opportunity to get the king to give her anything, was because she was ambitious enough to actually want Haman killed. And she knew that the drinking party was more likely to achieve that than asking the king for such a favour in a more rational and formal setting.</p>


text:
<p>The king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is your petition, queen Esther? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- "The banquet of wine" confirms the connection between the king and alcohol discussed on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>. "Banquet" is literally "the drinking". But in Yahweh's system of things, "wine is not for kings" (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). The kingdom of Persia is set up as most definitely not the kingdom of God, to which the exiles ought to have aspired rather than to prosperity in Persia's kingdom. Again we the readership wait with baited breath, knowing that surely now Esther has to overcome her stage fright and speak. And she does.</p><p>But I will argue on Esther 8-10 that although Esther is indeed heroic and a commendable example of the triumph of good over evil, neither she nor Mordecai go far enough. For they do not seek the restoration of the Jews to Judah. She is set up in conscious contrast with Nehemiah, also a Jew in the palace at Shushan. He too asked for a favour, and whilst also very nervous is asked by the king "What is your request?" (<a href='B:160 2:4'>Neh 2:4</a>). His request was for the restoration of the Jews to their land. Esther by contrast says nothing about the restoration, but asks only for short term deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen answered, If I have found favour in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request- "My request" reflects her understanding that their salvation was being made to depend upon her requesting it. The same words are used in <a href='B:150 7:6'>Ezr 7:6</a>, the only time outside of the book of Esther, to describe how "the king granted [Ezra's] request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him". Perhaps Esther had been encouraged by Ezra's example, knowing that the invisible hand of God made kings of Persia grant requests. We too should be directed and inspired by Biblical examples, and those within our own experience of the brotherhood. The ideas of 'finding favour in your sight' and asking for petitions / requests being granted are more commonly associated with people praying to God; indeed the whole verse is intended to recall Moses' plea to Yahweh to save the people, if indeed Moses has "found favour in Your sight" (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a>). This young, nervous, not very spiritually strong teenager was suddenly catapulted into the place of Moses, Judaism's most revered figure. We are surely intended to conclude that her begging the king was a reflection of her prayers to God, or at least, she would have perceived that her petitioning the king was effectively petitioning Yahweh. Again, she was led closer to God by her experience.</p><p>It simply can’t be that we rejoice in our own salvation, and don’t want to breathe a whimper of that good news to others. Esther made her request for “my life… my people” in parallel; and when her own safety was assured, she didn’t just relax and mop her brow with relief, she went on to petition for them- with all the risks this involved for her (see on <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>). We can’t possibly just rejoice in our own salvation, that we have found the Lord and are secured in Him; if we have truly experienced this, we will wish to share it with others.</p>


text:
<p>For we are sold- This could mean that the huge sum of money offered by Haman if the Jews were destroyed may not have been a reference to their goods being plundered; but rather to Haman 'buying' the Jews through a huge donation to the treasury. Esther here is an eloquent type of the Lord’s mediation for us, risked her life because she felt that “we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed”. She was tempted to reason that if she’d have kept her mouth shut, she wouldn’t have been destroyed. But she fought and won the same battle as we have daily or weekly before us: to identify ourselves with our weaker and more suffering brethren. The Lord Jesus didn’t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He felt a sinner, even though He wasn’t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (<a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a>).</p><p>I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish- Esther had apparently concealed her Jewishness for five years, clearly eating unclean food and going along with idolatry. That's a long time, and we can only conclude that she had not been an observant Jewess. She didn't only eat and dress like a Persian, but worshipped like one. She was hardly like Daniel who prayed regularly towards Jerusalem with his windows open for all to see. This is Esther 'coming out' as a Jewess; she seems to emphasize the point: "we... I and my people... we...". It appears only later that she stated her relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). We reflect how little the king knew about his wives; he didn’t know her nationality, her parents nor even her birthday (see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>).  It's rather like Moses coming out as a Hebrew at age 40 to save his people.</p><p>But if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s loss- Haman the adversary [LXX ho diabolos, the devil] had offered to compensate for the lives of the Jews by paying money to the treasury. But she is saying that even if the Jews had been enslaved and not killed, the loss to the king would never have been compensated by money. She argues for the value not only of human life, but of that human life being lived in freedom and not slavery. And we note her usage of the word "we" in reflection of her connection with her people. LXX "for the slanderer is not worthy of the king's palace". As discussed on Esther 3:9, Esther alludes to how Haman had sold his plan to the king as a plan to possibly deport or enslave the Jews rather than necessarily exterminate them all. Once the king agreed to the principle, Haman wrote the decree to command their actual extermination. The word for "destroy" in Esther 3:9 has a very wide meaning. It is used of expulsion or fleeing. The words for "enslave" and "destroy" have only one small letter different; quite possibly Haman gave the impression he spoke of enslaving, not destroying. The king agreed to this, but he may have understood it as no more than the expulsion / deportation of an ethnic group from his empire. Esther is cleverly getting the king to see that Haman had misled him. She was working to a plan, drawn up it seems purely on her initiative.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he who dared presume in his heart to do so?- Again we note the emphasis of the record upon "his heart". Surely the king knew the answer. "Where is he" could as well be translated "How could he...", as if the king is now angry with himself for letting this happen. Or perhaps he really was so disconnected from reality that he didn’t guess it was Haman. We notice this disconnection from reality several times in the record (not least his not enquiring which people were to be destroyed before agreeing, and failing to make the connection between the Jews being destroyed and Mordecai being a Jew). Through all this, God was revealing His Name. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>). Although whenever a Gentile is speaking, the Y-H-V-H is formed by the letters at the end of the words.</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, The adversary and the enemy is even this wicked Haman!- These words "adversary and enemy" are frequently used together in the Psalms, in prayers that the adversary and enemy would not triumph but that God would triumph over them. Surely Esther was alluding to them. She could have tried to tactfully point out that the destruction of the Jews would involve her and Mordecai being killed, and work towards some negotiated solution, without wishing to offend Haman. But she calls him "this wicked Haman!". It was all or nothing. If the king took Haman's side, she would lose her life. For this was not a tactful approach. It was an outburst of accusation. But it worked. Likewise in standing up for God’s people, it is all or nothing; nicespeak and negotiated solutions cannot be the answer.</p><p>I imagine that Esther could have resolved her personal problem in a quite different way. She had invited Haman and the king to a banquet / drinking of wine. She could have chatted them up nicely, waited until they were drunk, and then said to the effect: "Gents, I have a slight problem with this decree about killing the Jews; because actually, I'm a bit Jewish. Can't you just kindly resolve that little problem for me?". And her two guests would likely have proudly chuckled and said to the effect "Sure, no problem, we can just easily fix that, don't you worry, just relax, really it's nothing, sure, sleep easy tonight about that. The whole thing's under our control, nobody will touch you, all's good. And just... bring us the next pink champagne on ice". This was the kind of thing the holocaust was full of. But she didn’t take that path. Her spiritual growth was very fast, as it can be in all people. She realized now that it wasn't a case of merely her salvation, but that of the body of God’s people. To focus solely upon "me being saved" would be selfish. There is more to relationship with God than that. It's about His glory and the larger picture of His purpose rather than only "me". It takes some decades to realize this; but Esther got there in the course of a few days.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>The king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden- Circumstances again repeated in his life; for he had arisen in fury from the banquet in Esther 1, seeking to have Vashti killed; and he was circumscribed by his own laws, as discussed there. Likewise here, he was angry because he was circumscribed by his own laws. It would be hard to change the law without resigning his own supposed divinity. We enquire what is the connection with the other mention of the palace garden in Esther (Esther 1:5; 7:7). It was in the palace garden that Vashti had shamed the king at the banquet; and after Haman's plot is revealed, he goes alone to the same place, again after drinking wine and after a private banquet, presumably with the garden strangely empty now. Again he has been shamed and made to look foolish, this time by Haman. Considering the similarities, he would surely have reflected that now he has a good woman. And this would have made him yet more open to Esther's subsequent requests regarding her people. We note the stress that the king arose from his wine feast and made a decision. The connection is made clear between the alcohol and his subsequent behaviour. Again we have to comment that Esther doesn't present ideally by getting him drunk before pressing her request. A spiritual woman would surely have done otherwise; and yet God worked through this to save His people, from the results of Mordecai's own pigheaded actions.      </p><p>Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king- We recall that Haman fixed the picture in his mind of Mordecai not standing up before him in respect, and it led to terrible jealousy complexes (<a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And now he stood up and bowed in desperate respect for his life before Mordecai's Jewish daughter. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).  The same word for "make request" is used of Esther. She too 'stood up' before the king and 'made request' for her life and the lives of her people. "Evil" had been likewise determined against her and her people. We wonder whether Esther thought that therefore she ought to show Haman grace. We too at times have those same difficulties. We who have been shown grace wonder as to the degree and nature of grace we ought to show others who clearly have been abusive. In this case, as also can happen in our lives, the decision can be taken out of our hands. For Haman has a panic attack and collapses on Esther's bed, the king walks in and assumes Haman has tried to rape Esther, and therefore immediately orders his death.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman had fallen on the couch where Esther was- The Esther story is full of the hand of providence. It seems Haman had collapsed, perhaps suffered a heart attack from the stress on top of the alcohol from the "banquet / drinking of wine" (:2). And he fell unconscious onto Esther's couch. That was surely from God, because the king was greeted by the sight of Haman's prostrate body on his wife's couch.</p><p>Then the king said, Will he even assault the queen in front of me in the house?-&nbsp; "Assault" is AV "force", and the idea is not only of force but more manipulation. The word choice reflects the king's anger at how he had been manipulated.</p><p>As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face- Condemned criminals were not allowed to see the king's face. The courtiers knew that Haman was condemned to death. This was all a strange fulfilment of Ps. 71:13 "Let them be covered with reproach and dishonour that seek [s.w. Esther 3:6 of Haman seeking the destruction of the Jews] my hurt ["evil", s.w. "the evil of Haman" Esther 8:3]". The circumstance in David's life now repeated in the life of Esther.</p>


text:
<p>Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were with the king said, Behold, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman has made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, is standing at Haman’s house. The king said, Hang him on it!- This may have been one of the eunuchs sent to collect Haman from his house, who had seen the gallows at Haman's home and heard from the surrounding folks what it was intended for.</p>


text:
<p>So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified- The irony is huge; the reversal of fortune absolutely 180 degrees. To such an extent that we can only see "God" here yet again, even though He is not specifically mentioned. Just as we see in our own lives. Earlier, the king's wrath had demanded pacification in killing Vashti. But he was caught by his own legal system, and had been unable to do that. We wonder whether there was any legal basis for the execution of Haman; probably there wasn't. By the letter of the law, he had done everything right. So the execution of Haman was the king departing from the letter of the law; and as discussed on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, this is a major theme of the book. God was nudging the king beyond legalism, and also to a realization that his laws weren't actually very good and needed to be changed. And therefore, he was not the divine being he liked to think he was, who made perfect laws that could never be changed because to do so would be to question his divinity and rightness.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews’ enemy, to Esther the queen- "Enemy" here is LXX diabolos, the slanderer / enemy. Clearly he is set up as representative of the organized opposition to God’s people, although we have here another example of how the word refers simply to a human being and not an external cosmic being. The presence of the article, the slanderer / diabolos, is significant in that it torpedoes the position of those who argue that every reference to ho diabolos refers to the cosmic being of popular theology. It doesn't, for here it refers simply to the man Haman.</p><p>Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her- The king was ignorant of this, apparently not knowing much about the personal history of his wives; see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>. We now see them both 'coming out' even more. We are intended to shine as candles not under a bucket but set on a hill. And God gently works to lead us all to a situation where our faith isn't solely personal but is made public. And yet we struggle to believe that the king married a woman without knowing anything of her background. We are surely led to believe, given the characterization of the king as forgetful and distant from domestic reality, that rather he had clean forgotten her relationship to Mordecai, and that Mordecai was a Jew.</p>


text:
<p>The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman- The gift of a "house" to a woman and this decision making by a woman was unusual; but the whole story is about the overthrow of traditional, conservative paradigms and legalistic approaches by the movement of God’s invisible Spirit. For the very young, previously passive Esther suddenly becomes a head of house. It is also a story of the subdued, obedient young woman, always obedient to Mordecai and Hegai, being faced with a case of "the need is the call". And this transformed her. She takes initiative, and becomes the initiator rather than the manipulated and used. Such transformations in character are often worked by God in a similar way today.</p>


text:
<p>Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews- This presumably involved risking death again by going in to the king's audience uninvited. But she had learnt the lesson- that she was not to merely seek her own salvation but to continue to risk her life for that of others. She begs "with tears", apparently more emotionally and passionately than she did when she first asked about the matter. Her passion for the salvation of others had now become stronger than her desire for personal salvation; when according to our reflections on <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> her initial reaction to the news of the decree was to consider that she could save herself by keeping quiet, and she had been unwilling to go to see the king uninvited. Such spiritual growth over such a short period can be seen in the lives of God’s people today and is possible for each of us. Esther now intercedes with tears, unlike in her first nervous request for her own life. Her passion for the salvation of her people was greater than her passion to save her own life. This is psychologically credible, and yet is a pattern for us all- to not be spiritually selfish. Too many sit within the bubble of church or denominational life, and are effectively spiritually selfish. It could be argued that Esther's request for her people is the only thing she does on her own initiative; and the only thing she did that was not motivated by personal benefit for herself. Although she does express it in terms of not wanting to see her own people suffer. </p>


text:
<p>Then the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre. So Esther arose, and stood before the king- The use of the sceptre shows she was still approaching him uninvited and at the risk of her life.</p>


text:
<p>She said, If it pleases the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces- Esther's appeal failed. The letters were not reversed or withdrawn [Heb. shub]. Although the laws of the Persians could not change, there was also a law that said the king was sovereign and could do as he wished, above any laws. The laws of the Persians could be overridden by the king, and Esther clearly knew this, hence her request. It was only pride that stopped them exercising this right. Cambyses, desiring to marry his sister, was advised by his advisers that, although there was no law permitting such an act, yet there was one to the effect that the king might do as he pleased. But all the same, the king didn't reverse the letters of Haman. He simply gave another law that allowed the Jews to defend themselves. This consideration militates against any view of Esther as a gloriously successful heroine. And we ponder the lack of later allusion in scripture to Esther. There are Proverbs which allude to Haman's folly and pride coming before a fall (Prov. 27:1; 29:23), and possibly to the king's folly in listening to unwise advisors and acting hastily (Prov. 12:23; 29:20; Ecc. 10:1 are alluding to both the king and Haman). But there are no such allusions to Esther nor Mordecai. I find that significant. Christians are raised with the image of Esther winning a beauty contest [rather than a sex competition, as it actually was], and heroically saving her people through her faithful devotion to God. But she acted for her own salvation from force of circumstance and with fatalism more than faith. Getting the king drunk before making her request for her own life. And her attempt to save her people failed insofar as the decree about the pogrom was not reversed, as she asked for.</p><p>She stresses that Haman wrote the letters- even though they were written in the king's name. But laws of the Persians couldn't be reversed- unless the king was going to admit he wasn't actually divine. And it could be that she was asking him to make this radical step of realization and humility. To "reverse" the decree, or turn it back, was the same idea as 'repenting'. But he refuses, and instead tries to get around the problem by issuing another decree.</p><p>Clearly Esther did find favour before both the king and her God. But this apparently contradicts earlier statements in the prophets. But the passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>). But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>For how can I endure to see the evil that would come to my people? How can I endure to see the destruction of my relatives?- Life lived solely for ourselves, even eternal life, is not endurable if our brethren are not living it with us. This had multiple implications. LXX "How can I survive the destruction…?" suggests she felt she would die with those who died. Her life was bound up with the life of her Jewish people, although previously she was but an ethnic Jewess who had totally assimilated into the life of the Persians. But she in her heart would live and die with them. Just as part of us dies in the death of those we love, and the Lord died and dies in our deaths and we in His.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, If I have freely granted you all that was Haman's, because he laid his hand on the Jews, and hanged him on a gallows, what do you further seek?- We begin to tremour a little with Esther, wondering if the king's patience has worn thin. But we see again the king's shortsightedness and lack of empathy and appreciation of the implication of events and statements. He considered that if Haman was dead, and he had given the wealth of Haman to Mordecai, then there could be no other problem. The king is basically saying that Esther has an open cheque, just as he gave to Haman. Again and again, he is characterized as being hasty and distant from actual issues. This would fit very well with our earlier suggestion that he was alcoholic.  </p>


text:
<p>Write also to the Jews, as it pleases you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring; for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may not be reversed by any man- The idea is that the first decree could not be reversed, but the king could issue a second decree empowering the Jews to defend themselves. Again, as explained on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, the king was caught up in his own legalism. God was trying to nudge him towards realizing that he was not in fact God; for that was the basis upon which they considered that royal laws couldn't be changed, because they thought 'gods' were unchanging. But he is repeatedly taught, and the readership are taught, that any such system of legalism ends up limiting freedom of movement and ends up in contradiction. What is being highlighted is that the God of Israel isn't like that; He can and does change, even His own laws. Casuistic approaches to law were bound to fail, because God Himself is dynamic; the only point at which He doesn't change is His constant love for the sons of Jacob and not punishing them as their sins deserve (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). His comment that the king's decree could not be reversed "by any man" may suggest that he was slightly moving towards the acceptance of a personal God far mightier than himself; for he may mean that "man" couldn't reverse it, not even himself, but God could.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called at that time, in the third month Sivan, on the twenty-third day of the first month, which is Nisan; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, and to the satraps, the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, and to the Jews in their writing and in their language- It seems better to go with AV and GNB "This happened on the twenty-third day of the third month, the month of Sivan". Seventy days have elapsed since the decree was given on 13 Nisan. The persecution intended by Haman was part of the 'fishers and hunters' sent to return Israel to their land. These 70 days surely connect with the 70 years of intended captivity before they returned. The connection is surely to suggest that the response of the Jews should have been to return to their land. But like men ignore bush fire evacuation orders in order to remain with their property in the vain hope of saving it, so the Jews remained in Persia. </p><p> Again we have a tacit recognition of the degree to which the Jews had been scattered, throughout the 127 provinces of the empire- exactly in fulfilment of the prophecies of scattering. For the proud king to do this was also a tacit recognition that his laws and decision making were not infallible and he had been set up to make a major decision which was wrong. It is perhaps to his credit that he allowed the second decree to be written and sent.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king’s ring, and sent letters by courier on horseback, riding on royal horses that were bred from swift steeds- There may have been an attempt to outrun the carriers of the earlier decree, even though they were also "hasted".</p>


text:
<p>In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together, and to defend their life, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions- The second edict is worded in the terms of the first; the Jews were empowered to do to their enemies what those enemies had wished to do to them. This is the repeated basis for judgment in the last day; thus throughout Revelation, the seals of judgment upon latter Israel are then brought upon their abusers in the form of the trumpets and vials. The LXX adds some detail; "he charged them to use their own laws in every city, and to help each other". Haman had previously made a fuss about the Jews' laws. Now they were encouraged to use their own laws, and to use them as they were intended- to help each other, after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. This was another prod of the exiles towards obedience to the law as intended, and to turn to their God more fully.</p><p>However we could comment that such extreme measure for measure judgment, killing the women and children, was not exactly spiritually correct. Self defence is one thing, but murder of women and children because of their association with aggressors is surely another. Perhaps we see here another hint that Mordecai was not a very spiritual person, although he evolved quickly.</p>


text:
<p>on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- This was the date which Haman had chosen by casting lots. And again the hand of God was invisibly in that, for now the Jews had plenty of time to prepare themselves.</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies- Vengeance on Israel's enemies was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration. But the Jews in Persia were those who hadn't responded to that. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on :14; <a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So the couriers who rode on royal horses went out, hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment. The decree was given out in the citadel of Susa- The parallel is clearly with the hasting of the king's commandment to destroy the Jews. Esther is full of such inversions. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai went out of the presence of the king in royal clothing of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and was glad- The colours and materials are those mentioned in the description of the scene at the king's palace in Esther 1:6. Mordecai is, on one hand, totally absorbed into the way of the Persian empire. Rather than being back in Jerusalem where he ought to have been. The descriptions of his clothing however recall some elements of the High Priestly clothing; he too wore a crown. Zechariah's visions were of a king-priest dressed in the garments of both king and priest, who would reign in Jerusalem when the Kingdom was restored (Zech. 6:11,14; the "crown" is s.w. Esther 8:15). Zerubbabel disappears from the record, as does Joshua the High Priest. They were the intended fulfillments, but failed. I suggest Mordecai may have been set up as another potential fulfilment; but he too failed, preferring to remain in the secular glory of the Persian court.</p><p> The joy of Susa is in conscious contrast with how at the first decree, the city of Shushan was perplexed (<a href='B:190 3:15'>Est 3:15</a>; <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>). As noted on :13,14, the impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But they didn’t take this theme further, and realize that it was in Zion where their fortunes were to be finally and more totally reversed. They were experiencing a foretaste of what would be possible far more fully if they repented and returned to Zion; but they refused to take that Divine nudge.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews had light, gladness, joy, and honour-  This is the image of Ps. 97:11: "There is sprung up a light for the righteous". The springing up of Judah's light is spoken of in Isaiah as happening at the restoration, in terms of Zion's light coming to Jerusalem in the person of Messiah. Likewise joy and gladness was to be Judah's experience in Zion. But it seems what could have been the breaking in of the Messianic kingdom for them even in captivity didn’t lead to that Kingdom. For they preferred their own kingdom of wealth in Persia. They remained there; and the true light and joy of Zion wasn't experienced by them. See on :13-15.</p><p>The final chapters of Esther have much to say about the joy of the Jews. It is a consistent theme. But the same words are used of the joy Judah were intended to have at their return from Persia / Babylon and restoration of the Kingdom- which they refused to do. The rejoicing of Judah is to be contrasted with the consistent teaching that Israel and Judah were to rejoice and be glad when their exile was ended, when their "captivity returned" (Ps. 14:7; 53:6; Jer. 31:13), with their rejoicing being in their God (Ps. 85:6), rejoicing "in My [restored] house" (Is. 56:7; Zech. 4:10), when Judah's mourning would be turned to joy at the restoration (Jer. 31:13; Zech. 2:10); and then the nations would be glad and rejoice (Ps. 67:4). The Gentiles in Persia rejoiced [s.w.] at the outcome for the Jews and the exaltation of Mordecai (Esther 8:15 "the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad"). But all this joy was misplaced; the joy of Judah and the nations was intended to be in the restoration of God's Kingdom and the return of His people from captivity. But their joy was of a purely secular nature. </p>


text:
<p>In every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness, joy, a feast, and a good day. Many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen on them- Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (:16), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 9:27'>Est 9:27</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn’t make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return. See on :13-16 and Esther 2:6.</p><p>The raising up of Haman's pogrom was of God; it was part of the threatened punishment of sending them into exile and sending a sword after them to destroy them there. And it was part of Jeremiah's "fishers and hunters" sent to drive God's people back to their land. On one hand, it failed to achieve this, and God cut short the pogrom from sheer pity. And yet through this whole exercise, the fact many Gentiles "became Jews" [which surely implies they became Jews in a religious sense] shows that God used even this failure to further His saving purpose. Quite possibly in the Kingdom we will share eternal fellowship with some random Persian Gentile who became a Jew because of all this experience. Absolutely nothing can foil God's purpose to save man, not even the failure of His plans to bring about Israel's repentance. He works to save in every way and through every situation. Such is His saving grace and His core, essential personality as a Saviour.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put into effect, on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to conquer them, (but it was turned about so that the opposite happened- the Jews conquered those who hated them)- "To conquer" is the same word used in Dan. 6:24 for the lions having the mastery over those Persians who wished to kill Daniel by throwing him to the mastery or conquering of the lions in the den of lions. We have noted the many spiritually unfavourable contrasts between Daniel's spirituality and Esther and Mordecai's unspirituality. But the connection with Daniel's deliverance from the lions shows that by grace, God treated them the same as He did Daniel. </p><p>This theme of 'turning about so the opposite happens' is a major theme of Esther. The fasting of Esther is contrasted with the feasting of Haman and the king; and now it is the Jews who are feasting. Instead of the Jews being destroyed by their enemies, they destroy their enemies. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. The turning of curse into blessing is simply because God loves Israel (s:w. <a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a>; <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>). But the exiles had doubted His love, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear. But through this whole incident, God seeks to display His love to His people, and His grace.</p><p>One great theme of Esther is of reversal of fortune. Esther 9:1 spells this out: "It was turned about so that the opposite happened- the Jews conquered those who hated them". The same word is found in Esther 9:22; the day of their destruction "was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day". The book opens with a parade of the greatness of the king and the Persian empire; it closes with the greatness of Mordecai the Jew. The Persian banquets of the opening are matched by those of the celebrating, victorious Jews. Esther begins by identifying as a Gentile, but the book closes with Gentiles identifying as Jews (Esther 8:17). The elevation of Haman (Esther 3:1) is matched by Mordecai's elevation and granting of the king's signet ring as once given to Haman. The command to destroy the Jews ends up with a command to destroy the enemies of the Jews. And it is this great reversal of all things which is stamped throughout God's dealings with man. The poor become rich, the weak become the strong, the despised become the glorified, with the Lord's death on the cross and subsequent glorification being the parade worked example.</p><p>This theme of ultimate reversal is at the core of the Gospel. The Beatitudes spell it out, spoken as they were as the Lord's opening statement of the Christian message. The weepers will rejoice, the poor will become rich, the mocked will be praised, the weak and sickly become immortally strong, the renters and homeless become eternal owners etc. This theme is so major that it is absolutely logical that we now must be the underdogs. We cannot have it both ways- being the great ones now and also eternally. Otherwise this massive theme of reversal cannot be played out in our personal experience.</p>
Dramatic reversal of fortune in this way is typical of what happens when God is at work for His people. Although God isn't mentioned here specifically, how else could things have been 'turned around' like this? The implication is that someone turned things around. And who, if not God? We think of the songs rejoicing at the victory over Egypt at the Red Sea (Ex. 15), Hannah's song of rejoicing (1 Sam. 2), the David and Goliath story... the underdogs amongst God's people come out on top. Because of God. Here, the reversal of fortune is clearly stated. But we are left to join the dots, and see that God has to be the source of that. But this isn't specifically mentioned, because we are left to reflect that God achieved this in this case without miracle but through His unseen hand. It is the difference between what Robert Roberts called "The Visible Hand of God", as seen at the Red Sea and David's conquest of Goliath; and "The Ways of Providence". </p><p>
This theme of Divine reversal of things in Esther contrasts with how the laws of the Persians could supposedly not be reversed: "Let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, so that it cannot be revoked / reversed" (Esther 1:19). The decree to destroy the Jews likewise appeared unable to be reversed. But the invisible hand of God totally reversed the apparently irreversible decree. The evil of Haman was overturned or reversed, because Esther "beseeched him to overturn the evil plotted by Haman" (Esther 8:3).
</p>


text:
<p>The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on those who wanted to harm them. No one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen on all the people- Their gathering together to help each other was after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. Her example would have been inspirational in the mending of so many interpersonal relationship issues amongst the Jews, just as the Lord's example of mediation and sacrifice to achieve it should likewise for us. For "the fear..." see on :3.</p><p>"To lay hand on such as sought their hurt" can be read as more than self defence, but rather a command to kill those who had shown support for the decree to kill the Jews. Thus it was open to the Jews to assume the offensive, and not necessarily await an attack. In this case, we reflect that there was some providence in there being a gap between the decrees. The overall result was that all anti-Jewish opposition was revealed and destroyed, and the Jews exalted. This was clearly brought about by some unseen hand- that of the God of Israel. "Withstand" suggests the Jews were not just fighting in self defence, but twisted the permission to do so in order to go on the attack. Again the morality of the whole thing is called into question; and yet it resulted in the exaltation of God's people. </p>


text:
<p>All the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who did the king’s business helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them- The fear of Israel falling upon the peoples (also in :2) uses the very same phrase used about the effect of the Exodus miracles upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:230 105:38'>Psa 105:38</a>), with Mordecai functioning as Moses. And yet the same effect as the visible miracles was achieved by the invisible, non-miraculous hand of God working in human and national lives. The implication was that this was all to prepare the exiles for their intended exodus out of Persia and back to their land- but they refused to make good on what was set up for them.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater- LXX "For the order of the king was in force, that he should be celebrated in all the kingdom". The king was obviously deeply impressed by Esther and Mordecai, and surely was being himself nudged towards accepting the God of Israel by the transformation he witnessed in these secular Jews towards truly spiritual, brave people of principle. "The man Mordecai" suggests this was all rather human and secular rather than spiritual. After Isaac had sinned in unfaithfulness to his wife, we read the same phrase: "The man grew great, and grew more and more until he became very great" (Gen. 26:13). This is identical language now used about Mordecai. We find "the man" used about Jacob when again he is blessed undeservedly, by grace, after a "low" spiritual period also outside the promised land: "The man increased exceedingly, and had large flocks" (Gen. 30:43). The connection with Isaac and Jacob shows this was by grace alone, and quite undeserved blessing which came right after moral failure.   </p>


text:
<p>The Jews struck all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they wanted to those who hated them- This suggests a primary fulfilment of the prophecy that the exiles in Babylon / Persia would become God’s weapons of war with which to judge the nations where they had been taken captive (<a href='B:300 51:20'>Jer 51:20</a>). The intention was that they would judge their captors, return to the land and be part of the reestablished Kingdom of God. But the exiles only allowed a partial fulfilment of this, and remained with their wealth in Persia; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men- AV "In Shushan the palace". The extent of opposition to the Jews was therefore significant (800 killed in all, :15), despite Mordecai now being the prime minister, and the king clearly pro-Jewish. The pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiment was significant in the palace, and therefore Esther is revealed as the more brave for coming out as Jewish. Haman knew that his plan was tapping in to widespread support. If indeed Haman was the descendant of Agag the Amalekite (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>) this would mean that the people killed here by the Jews would likely have been Amalekites. This would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag"). No Messiah figure was in view; but had they returned to the land in faith and repentance, then the restoration prophecies stated that one would have arisen. And so we find here a partial fulfilment of the prophecies about Amalek and Agag, and not a complete one:&nbsp;See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha- The "ten sons" of Haman is a phrase stressed four times in :10-14, and although ten are indeed listed here, the idea may mean "all his children" as in <a href='B:90 1:8'>1Sa 1:8</a>. The Jews interpret Haman as representative of the yetzer harah, the evil inclination, which the New Testament at times understands as the great satan / adversary to spiritual life. The Jews then see in the meanings of the names of his sons the various characteristics of the flesh. Each of the names of the sons apparently contain the word “self” in the Persian language. Although the meaning of these names is hard to define, the Jewish view is that these first three names stand respectively for 'distance [from God]', 'door to bad intentions', 'gathering of money'.</p>


text:
<p>Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'a woman's private parts' [if spelt backwards]; 'pride' and 'preying like a lion to destroy others'.</p>


text:
<p>Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'ripping into division', 'subjugation of the righteous' and 'bitterness', the end result of all these various features of the fleshly life.</p>


text:
<p>the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jew’s enemy; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- This is emphasized, because they had been given the right to do this (<a href='B:190 8:11'>Est 8:11</a>). They were following the example of Abraham who refused to add to his wealth by taking the spoil of his enemies (<a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a>). This can be read as a politically astute decision, so as not to give the impression they had orchestrated all this for their benefit; but there was surely thereby a nudge from God towards remembering that they were Abraham's seed, and ought to return to the land promised them as his seed. We can also read this refusal to take the spoil to themselves as an implication that it was not theirs but God's, seeing He had given them the victory. Possibly in this case they burnt the spoil rather than take it to themselves, as in Josh. 6:17,18; or sent it to the newly rebuilt temple, thus partially fulfilling prophecies about the wealth of the Gentiles flowing to Zion. And thus they reversed the sin of Saul who took the spoil to himself (1 Sam. 15)- recalling that Mordecai was in the direct line of Saul. The destruction of all Haman's sons but not his wife was perhaps an attempt to fulfil what their ancestor Saul failed to do- to destroy the rulership of Agag / Amalek. And yet ten sons of Saul were slain and hung, three on the wall of Bethshan (1 Sam. 31) and then seven when revenge was taken on Saul's family by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21). Saul's descendant Mordecai had effectively slain and hung 10 sons of the Agagite, doing what Saul should have done. And yet ten of Saul's sons were slain and hung. This is again one of those strange twists in the story which may not have specific meaning, and yet the very existence of which shows the higher hand of God somehow involved. </p>


text:
<p>On that day, the number of those who were slain in the citadel of Susa was brought before the king- A king would surely be concerned about the outbreak of civil war. The fact he allowed the slaughter to continue right on his doorstep in Susa would suggest that he perceived that those killed were not his own people, but the supporters of Haman, Amalekites. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in the citadel of Susa, including the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your further request? It shall be done- Her first intercession had brought her to a position where now the king came to her, guessing what she would like and offering it. She doesn't come to him, he perceives what she wants and offers it to her. We possibly see here some insight into the nature of the Lord's relationship with the Father after He interceded for us on the cross. Romans 8 describes all this as the intercession of the spirit, as if the Father and Son have a meeting of minds / spirit, and the Father knows and automatically grants what He knows His Son wants for His people. The question "What is your further request?" implies that the king perceives that Esther is not yet satisfied. We see Esther now as the initiator and controller, a far cry from the cowed, submissive youngster she once was. Transformed by the principle of 'The need is the call'.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther said, If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows- We see here how circumstances repeat. Esther had previously come to the king with a request to come to a banquet, and then repeated that same request, to come "tomorrow". The Esther story shows clearly how things work according to a Divine plan which is multidimensional and yet has internal consistencies and similarities. See on :12. We are left wondering whether Esther was not just seeking maximum damage upon her enemies. For to fight in self defence is one thing; but to ask for another day of fighting rather suggests the Jews were on the offensive and not the defensive. Is Esther not being simply bloodthirsty? After all, at this point no Jewish blood has been shed. Nor, apparently, will it be. We are tempted to see similarities with Israeli desire to abuse others as they were abused during the holocaust. Such suggestions of course read difficultly to those who have been raised to think of Esther as a heroine of faith. I suggest that the Bible is full of examples of failure and partial success, with very few of the characters presented as totally positive [Joseph, Daniel, the Lord Jesus]. We are to find ourselves in the stories and autobiographies, and to perceive the connections and lessons. For we too are mixed and impure. We are not so much as awed by the peerless examples we meet [which is often unfruitful], as challenged by the similarities between our weakness and those of others who all the same were the historical people of God. </p>


text:
<p>The king commanded this to be done. A decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons- We have just read in :10 of the murder of his sons. Perhaps the LXX is therefore to be preferred here: "And he permitted it to be so done; and he gave up to the Jews of the city the bodies of the sons of Aman to hang".</p>


text:
<p>The Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and killed three hundred men in Shushan; but they didn’t lay their hand on the spoil- This makes a total of 800 killed over the two days. See on :6 for the significance of this anti-Jewish sentiment in Shushan. For "spoil", see on :10. For "gathered themselves together" see on :16. Their refusal to take the spoil is mentioned three times (:10,15,16), and stands in contrast to the intention of taking their property as spoil under Haman's plan (<a href='B:190 3:13'>Est 3:13</a>). The Jews had been empowered to take the spoil and also kill the women and children of their attackers (Esther 8:11). But they only kill the men, and don't touch the spoil (also :12). We too have apparent rights to treat others as they treated us... but the way of the Spirit is not to do so. We noted earlier the clear connections between Haman and Agag king of Amalek, and the way Mordecai is a direct descendant of Saul. All Agag's spoil was to be taken and dedicated to Yahweh (1 Sam. 15), and the command of Esther 8:11 allowed the Jews to do so. But they didn't. They could have legitimately seized the spoil of the 75000 they slew and sent it to the temple community in Jerusalem. Lesson: the fact we can legitimately do something, even according to God's word, doesn't mean we have to. There may be a higher way of wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>The other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, defended their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- LXX renders "gathered themselves together" as "and helped one another". They were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn’t just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God’s people. We see here how good spiritual attitudes can spread quickly and effectively.</p><p>The edict of Esther 8:11 allowed the Jews to "cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions". It is noted they didn't make use of the provision to plunder. But we can surely infer that they made use of the other provisions- to kill their enemies and also their women and children. To achieve this, the Jews would have spent months arming themselves. Instead, they ought to have moved to Judah, which was the Divine intention of the pogrom.</p>


text:
<p>This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of that month they rested and made it a day of feasting and gladness- Israel being given "rest" from their enemies was the sign that they should now inherit the promised land (s:w. <a href='B:50 12:10'>Deu 12:10</a>); rest from their enemies meant that they were to blot out the name of Amalek (s:w. <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>). Clearly these things were coming about, seeing that Haman was an Amalekite and those they were killing were likely Amalekites (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>). But they failed to go further with these Divine possibilities, just as we can fail to; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>. Being given rest meant they could inherit the land (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> s:w:) but they preferred to remain in Persia. Tellingly, the same word is used in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>, addressed to the exiles: "But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth days of the month; and on the fifteenth day of that month, they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness- The subtext to this otherwise positive picture of good triumphing over evil is that their day of feasting and gladness was prophetically intended to be in Zion (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a> s:w:). They went into exile exactly because they had days of 'feasting' and didn’t respond to the prophetic message (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:12'>Isa 5:12</a>). It was in Zion that they were to experience "gladness" (<a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>) when they returned (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>). They were to leave the lands of their captivity in "gladness" and thus come to Zion (<a href='B:290 55:12'>Isa 55:12</a> s:w:). But they didn’t return. They were to have eternal "gladness... in their land" (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>), the day of <a href='B:300 31:7'>Jer 31:7</a> (s:w:). The "day of gladness" was to be accompanied by the blowing of trumpets (s:w. <a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a>), summoning them to Zion. But there is no mention of this; because they didn’t want to return there, but to remain in prosperous Persia. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Jews of the villages, who lived in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, a good day- The decree to kill the Jews was given on the 13th day of the first month, the night before Passover, when the Jews would have been reciting the narrative of their deliverance from Egypt. Again we see the hidden hand of God- for this ought to have reminded the Jews of their Passover deliverance. Just as we read nothing of "God" nor prayer in Esther [forgetting the LXX additions], so too the connection with Passover is not made explicit. Possibly the Jews weren't keeping it anyway; and effectively, they replaced it with Purim, a feast not commanded by God. And perhaps they consciously did this, because they kept Purim on the 14th day of the 12th month whereas Passover was on the 14th day of the first month. And they command that Purim is to be kept "for ever" (Esther 9:19), in the very language used of the Passover (Ex. 12:24-27). We must read their instigation of Purim in the context of Zechariah and Haggai criticizing the returned exiles for establishing at least three other feasts, whilst not keeping God's commands properly if at all. It was a way to escape their obligations to their God, through creating their own set of legalistic traditions. We note there is no later Biblical allusion to Purim; it was man-made, and not part of God's original intention nor command.</p><p>The existence of Jews even in villages and remote settlements of the Persian empire reflects the degree of their scattering, in fulfilment of the prophecies about this.</p><p>And a day of sending presents of food to one another- Generosity to others was a reflection of their personal experience of grace. We are to be generous to others and concern ourselves with their salvation, as God did to us. "Grace" literally means a gift, and the giving of gifts ought to reflect that. As noted on :16, they were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn’t just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God’s people.</p><p>One thing we learn from the book of Esther is that we must look beneath the surface of the text, meditate upon it, and see a subtext. The clearest example is that such meditation reveals that the apparently absent God is in fact hiding in plain sight. And so we here think about the implication of sending presents "to one another" [repeated in :22]. But not to the Gentiles. Surely the Jews ought to have responded to God's grace to them by reflecting that grace to the Gentile world, and bringing them to their gracious God. But there is not a word of gratitude to God. Just celebrating their good luck, and celebrating it selfishly amongst themselves.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both near and far- LXX "wrote these things in a book". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Mordecai of how he, a secular and not very religious Jew, had seen his&nbsp; weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :29 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Esther.</p>


text:
<p>To enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar yearly- Whilst this was understandable it could be argued that the subtext of the history is negative; there is no mention of them keeping the Mosaic feasts, but instead they created a new one to celebrate in the lands of exile. Instead, they ought to have returned from those lands and not remained there; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>as the days in which the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending presents of food to one another, and gifts to the needy- LXX "a change was made for them, from mourning to joy, and from sorrow to a good day". This change from mourning to joy connects with the prophecies of the restored kingdom, when mourning would be turned to joy for Zion (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>; <a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:290 61:3'>Isa 61:3</a>). But Judah hadn't repented nor returned to the land as intended. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. For "turned...", see on :1.</p><p>Thanks to Esther's mediation and Haman's death, the Jews "had rest from their enemies". But this is the phrase used for how Israel in the promised land would finally have "rest from their enemies" (Josh. 11:23). Significantly, it is the phrase used in Dt. 12:10,11 for the precondition required before the a permanent tabernacle [cp. the temple] could be established: "When... He gives you rest from all your enemies around you, so that you dwell in safety, then to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause His name to dwell there, you must bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices". This "when... then" is quite clear. The 'rest from enemies' should have led them back to the land. As they had been commanded. But still they refused, and to this day Judaism continues to use their self-declared feast of Purim as an excuse to get drunk and party. God sent Haman's persecution as the 'fishers and hunters' of Jeremiah, to prod them back to their land. They were given 12 months notice of their destruction, during which they could have emigrated back. Their materialism and attachment to Persia meant that they didn't. So God by grace saved them, despite His promises to chase and pursue them to death amongst the nations. He changed this intention by grace alone; for there is no record of the peoples' prayer nor repentance, simply their lament as to their persecution. This 'rest from their enemies' should have provoked them to return to the land and establish the temple. And again they refused, as they refused all His various ways of coaxing and appeal. Even worse, we don't read of any thanksgiving to God for the amazing deliverance by grace. It went unperceived. If some did make or feel some gratitude to God, it isn't recorded... because presumably it wasn't more than skin deep.</p><p>
This serves as a bookend, connecting with how the Esther story opens with the Persians feasting. Now everything is reversed, and it is God's people who feast with joy. We begin reading of the "greatness" of the king (Esther 1:4; 6:3) and conclude with the "greatness" of Mordecai (Esther 10:2). It seems to me that God's gracious salvation of His people was more powerfully shown by all the invisible miracles, than if He had acted by visible miracles. We thereby see more clearly the extra-ordinary in the ordinary, the vast scale of the invisible miracles. And such things happen in our lives today, so there is no disjuncture between the book of Esther and our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews accepted the custom that they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them- What is specifically in view is the command to keep the 15th day as well. The abiding weakness of the exiles was their attempt to have a foot in both camps and to compromise with the world of their exile- rather than returning to Judah and worshipping Yahweh exclusively. Zechariah criticizes them for not keeping God's laws as required, and yet establishing various new feast days to memorialize the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and the captivity. I suggest their inauguration of Purim was likewise not God's will, and was a compromise with the world of their exile. The Babylonians also had a feast to celebrate "pur", the lot; reflecting their belief that on New Year's Day, the gods met and cast lots to determine the destinies of man for the next year. It has also been suggested that "Purim" is a corruption of Phruraia or Phurdaia, a word derived from the Persian "Farwadigan", a festival celebrated at the end of the year. The LXX and Josephus confirm this. The Farwadigan festival and Purim were both in the month of Adar. </p>


text:
<p>because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them- LXX has "the Macedonian" for "Agagite", as if to encourage the reading of the whole story as applicable to the abuse of the Jews by Alexander of Macedon.</p>


text:
<p>but when this became known to the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows- "When this became known..." (Esther 9:25) suggests that the king was ignorant of the intention to destroy the Jews, until Esther pointed it out to him. This may just be a simplified form of the story. But if these words are a true reflection of how things really were, we are again left with the impression of a king with limited awareness of reality, who never actually read the decree Haman issued in his name to destroy the Jews and only realized what it implied some time later. Being an alcoholic could explain this; but so could super narcissism and perhaps a total focus upon international political and military matters.</p><p>"Wicked device" is literally wicked thoughts (s:w. <a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a>; <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a>); perhaps some of the Proverbs which use the phrase to speak of wicked plans have Haman in view (<a href='B:240 6:18'>Pro 6:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>). Again we see the theme continued that it was for his thoughts that Haman was condemned; for the state of the heart is of paramount importance to God. But the phrase is used in <a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a> of how a "wicked device" against God’s people was intended to elicit their repentance. It didn’t, and so they went into captivity in Babylon / Persia; and now again, repentance was not elicited as intended.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they called these days Purim, from the word ‘Pur’. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come to them- They wanted to especially remember how the lots ["pur"] drawn by Haman were overruled by God to fall in nearly a year's time, so that there was time for Esther's mediation and their preparation. The Divine overruling of the lots was therefore felt to be the parade example of Divine providence in their salvation. But again, this seems rather a case of mistaken focus; the Divine grace of it all and the brave mediation of Esther were not the focus. It could be argued that it was more of a celebration of Jewish good luck than of Divine grace. The root meaning of pur, "lots", is 'a thing of nothing' (s:w. <a href='B:230 33:10'>Psa 33:10</a>). Drawing lots was based upon astrology, and the fact the drawing of lots was to the Jews' favour hardly seems an appropriate thing to celebrate. And we are left with the impression that the Jews in Persia would now celebrate Purim religiously; whilst no mention is made of keeping Yahweh's feasts. Again, there is a subtext here that we have to read. But as ever with the book of Esther, it is below the surface.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews established and imposed on themselves and on their descendants, and on all those who joined themselves to them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to what was written, and according to its appointed time, every year- Note the reference to the Gentiles who "joined themselves to them". Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (<a href='B:190 8:16'>Est 8:16</a>), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn’t make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return.</p>


text:
<p>and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor their memory perish from their seed- This sadly presupposes ["every province"] that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim- LXX "wrote all that they had done". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Esther of how she, a secular and not very religious Jewess, had seen her weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :20 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Mordecai. See on :32. The powerful Esther, giving commands with such authority and initiative, is a transformed character from the girl totally submissive to Mordecai and Hegai. "The need is the call" transformed her personality, as it can for so many today who are otherwise caught in a submissive, bubble mentality.</p>


text:
<p>He sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21. "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (<a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had decreed, and as they had imposed upon themselves and their descendants, in the matter of the fastings and their cry- LXX suggests differently, to the effect that Mordecai and Esther fasted at the time of Purim, perhaps in recognition of their own weaknesses at the time, asking forgiveness for how they had lived as secular believers before they were forced to give their whole lives to their God and their people: "And Mardochaeus and Esther the queen appointed a fast for themselves privately".</p></p>Here and :27 stress that the Jews "imposed upon themselves" this feast. It was not of God, and must be seen in the context of Zechariah's condemnation of the Jews at this time for creating extra feasts as mere ritualism, whilst their hearts were far from God and the spirit of His feasts.</p>


text:
<p>The commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book- Confirming my suggestion on :29 that Esther was the author of the book.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land, and on the islands of the sea- The idea is of imposed forced labour, such as Solomon ordered, and which caused much resentment. Why mention this? Perhaps it is included to signal that all was not well, although the story is to end with good triumphing over evil; see on :3. Or we can understand that Haman's offer to make the king rich by killing the Jews and taking their spoil was matched by this taxation policy of Mordecai. For the implication of :2 is that this tribute was one of the "acts" of Mordecai.</p>


text:
<p>All the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai to which the king advanced him, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?- As noted on :1, the story ends positively, but with the subtext that all was not as it could have been. A Jew and a Jewish queen become almost the most influential people on earth at the time, with huge power and might. But still they did not lead their people back to their God and to their land. That is the unspoken conclusion which any spiritually minded, sensitive reader or hearer will come to. Again it is a story of so much potential and Divine grace being as it were wasted. Mordecai and Esther contrast unfavourably not only with Daniel, but also with Nehemiah. Although cup bearer to the Persian king, he used that permission to beg the king to let him go and assist the returned exiles in Jerusalem, and he grieved because of their situation. There is nothing like that recorded of Mordecai and Esther. Admittedly it is an argument against them from silence, but the silence is quite deafening. </p></p>And perhaps that is why there is no mention of God's Name in the book, nor any further allusion to Esther nor Mordecai in the Bible. We note that this epilogue makes no mention of Esther. She remained married to an alcoholic, abusive man. There is no happy ending for Esther. And that was to some degree, of her own making. Her willingness to go along with Mordecai's immoral usage of her had consequences, to the end of her days. It worked for Mordecai- he indeed achieved glory through the marriage of his adopted daughter. He got what he dreamt of. Haman got what he deserved, the king remained foolish and distant from domestic reality. But for her... ? </p><p>
The story ends with the greatness of Mordecai, who out of such initial weakness was made strong. The account of him is full of reference to the Babylonian tales of the god Marduk, recorded in the Enuma Elish. Especially his glorification in Esther 8:15. Mordecai is a form of "Marduk", and so maybe the idea was to show Persia that in fact Marduk had no real existence; rather does God work through His weak people by His invisible hand, to exalt them.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai the Jew was next to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his descendants- Even though Mordecai was so highly respected amongst the Jews, there is the implication noted on :2 that Mordecai failed to realize his full potential before God, even if he died respected by his own people. Not only did Cyrus and the other various potential fulfillments of the servant songs fail to rise up to their potential; Judah preferred to stay in the soft life. The sad ending of the book of Esther leaves Judah prosperous in Babylon, having declined the potential exodus back to Zion which God had set them up with. Mordecai and Esther ought surely to have used their huge power to move the Jews to return to the land, as was clearly the wish of God as expressed in the prophets. But they didn’t; it seems the secularism which characterized their earlier lives may have returned in later life, and tradition has it that Esther was murdered when the Persian empire fell to the Greeks. And perhaps that is why there is no mention of God's Name in the book, nor any further allusion to Esther nor Mordecai in the Bible. We note that this epilogue makes no mention of Esther. She remained married to an alcoholic, abusive man. There is no happy ending for Esther. And that was to some degree, of her own making. Her willingness to go along with Mordecai's immoral usage of her had consequences, to the end of her days. It worked for Mordecai- he indeed achieved glory through the marriage of his adopted daughter. He got what he dreamt of. Haman got what he deserved, the king remained foolish and distant from domestic reality. But for her... ?
</p><p>The story ends with the greatness of Mordecai, who out of such initial weakness was made strong. The account of him is full of reference to the Babylonian tales of the god Marduk, recorded in the Enuma Elish. Especially his glorification in Esther 8:15. Mordecai is a form of "Marduk", and so maybe the idea was to show Persia that in fact Marduk had no real existence; rather does God work through His weak people by His invisible hand, to exalt them. But again we are left with open questions at the very end here. Persia was about to fall to the Greeks, and so we wonder how long Mordecai's "descendants" went on for. Surrounded by the glory of his family and his own exaltation by the king, we see the similarities with Haman who had just the same experience. For a short while. And we are left wondering whether this too happened to Mordecai. For as always with the book of Esther, we are intended to read the subtext.
</p>


text:
<e>Joshua: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>After the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh, Yahweh spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ servant, saying- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise- </p><p>The Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up [God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s:w. <a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a>; <a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a>; <a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a>]&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e.g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>]. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.</p><p>Go over this Jordan, you, and all this people, to the land which I give to them, even to the children of Israel- </p><p>This was a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, and we too experience that. For the covenant is not only about 'jam tomorrow'. In a sense, the promises that the seed would inherit the land, and that God would be their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He is their God. And that land in a sense was given to the Jewish fathers (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a>; <a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a> NIV; <a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a>; <a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the main fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has already been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i:e:, us!</p>


text:
<p>I have given you every place that the sole of your foot will tread on, as I told Moses- </p><p>This meant that according to their spiritual ambition, so would be their inheritance of the Kingdom, as Moses had told them (<a href='B:50 11:24-25'>Deu 11:24-25</a>). The temptation for them, as for us, was to consider that once we have our small inheritance, our farmstead and secure land, as it was for them- then we need have no wider vision. For to go onwards from that parochial mentality and tread upon the entire land (:4) up to the Euphrates was a vision only worth pursuing if they had a vision of collective inheritance of the Kingdom. To seek to get others there is a call which few really perceive. See on <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even to the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border- </p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates. But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. See on :3,6,15.</p>


text:
<p>No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not fail you nor forsake you- </p><p>But these very words are quoted in <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> as the grounds of our matchless confidence that the Lord God will be with us too! As He was with Moses- not just in power, but in wondrous patience and gentleness- so He will be with us too. Not only did God encourage Joshua to see himself as in Moses' shoes; He inspired Jeremiah likewise (<a href='B:300 21:8'>Jer 21:8</a> = <a href='B:50 30:15'>Deu 30:15</a>; <a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a>), and Ezekiel (<a href='B:330 2:3'>Eze 2:3</a> = <a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a>; <a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a>; <a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a>); and He wishes us to also see Moses' God as our God. But if Moses' God is to be ours in truth in the daily round of life, we must rise up to the dedication of Moses; as he was a faithful steward, thoroughly dedicated to God’s ecclesia (<a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a>), so we are invited follow his example (<a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a>; <a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a>). Note that the promise of Moses that God would not fail nor forsake Joshua, but would be with him (<a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a>) was similar to the very promise given to Moses which he had earlier doubted (<a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:15'>Exo 4:15</a>). Such exhortation is so much the stronger from someone who has themselves doubted and then come to believe.</p><p>We may boldly say that we will not be fearful, as Joshua was, because God has addressed to us the very words which He did to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” (<a href='B:650 13:5-6'>Heb 13:5-6</a>). In this especially, Joshua is our example. When <a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a> speaks of us going forth outside the camp, perhaps there is a reference to Joshua who dwelt with Moses outside the camp- thus making Joshua symbolic of us all.</p><p>Watch out for quotations and allusions within Scripture; there are connections not only between New and Old Testaments, but also (e.g.) between Paul's letters; Peter alludes to Paul's writings, Paul frequently alludes to the words of John the Baptist; Jeremiah often refers to Job's words and experiences. Note the context of the source quotation, because this often sheds light on the passage in which it is quoted. Be aware that many NT passages mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e.g. "The deliverer will come from Zion" (<a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a>) is a conflated quotation of <a href='B:230 14:7'>Psa 14:7</a>; <a href='B:230 53:6'>Psa 53:6</a> and <a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a>. And <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> combines quotes from <a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a> and <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>. <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together.</p>


text:
<p>Be strong and courageous; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them-</p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates (<a href='B:60 1:4'>Jos 1:4</a>). But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. Joshua was to divide up the whole land promised to Abraham, amongst the tribes of Israel (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>). And yet in the extensive descriptions of Joshua dividing up the land, we don’t find him dividing up that whole territory up to the Euphrates. He seems to have lacked that vision, and fallen into the mire of minimalism, just content with a utilitarian, small scale conquest, rather than seeing the bigger picture of the potential Kingdom which God wanted to give His people:&nbsp;See on :3,4,15.</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you. Don’t turn from it to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>.</p><p>As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed. Likewise, he led the Israelites in battle whilst Moses stood on the hill with arms uplifted in prayer for his success. And in capturing Ai, it was Joshua’s turn to stand on a hill with arms uplifted [also in prayer?] whilst Israel fought.</p><p>That you may prosper wherever you go-</p><p>Joshua potentially could have been the Jesus-Messiah figure, leading Israel into what could have become the Kingdom of God. He could have given the people rest; but he didn’t. Yet the possibilities and prophecies relating to Joshua were then reinterpreted and fulfilled in another ‘Jesus’, the Son of God. Solomon was another case of this. God’s servant Joshua was intended to “prosper” (<a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>); but in the end it was the Lord Jesus through His death who was the servant who would “deal prudently” [s:w. ‘prosper’, <a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a>]. And so, in His foreknowledge, God spoke of “another day” when His begotten Son would give “rest”, fulfilling what Joshua could potentially have achieved, and so much more (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). The lesson for us is that so much has been potentially prepared for us to achieve. Our salvation may not necessarily depend upon achieving all those things, but all the same, so much potentially is possible which we refuse to reach up to, because we are petty minimalists, like Israel, satisfied with their little farm in the valley, rather than seeking to possess the fullness of the Kingdom prepared for them.</p>


text:
<p>This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein. Thus you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success-</p><p>In <a href='B:230 1:1-3'>Psa 1:1-3</a>, David makes several allusions to Joshua. He speaks of how the man who meditates in God’s word day and night will prosper in his ways; and he uses the very same Hebrew words as found in <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a> in recounting God’s charge to Joshua. But David’s point is that the man who does these things will not “walk in the counsel of the ungodly”- he won't give in to peer pressure. The fact that Joshua was wrongly influenced by his peers in later life would indicate that he didn’t keep the charge given to him.</p><p>Try to memorize Scripture, run through verses as you go about life, play tapes of Bible studies or Bible reading in the background (instead of the mindless radio). Much of Scripture was probably memorized by various contemporary believers. "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (<a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>) presumably means that Joshua was commanded to keep reciting it to himself in daily life, so that he would be obedient to it. The way Jeremiah consciously and unconsciously quotes and alludes to Job would suggest that he had memorized that book. And many of the Psalms are written in such a way (in Hebrew) as to be easily memorized. David memorized God’s law and meditated upon it (hardly the easiest part of Scripture to memorize, at least to Western eyes; <a href='B:230 119:16'>Psa 119:16</a>). He recited it to himself in the night seasons.</p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>).</p><p>This connection between Joshua and Israel is developed in <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>, which describes the new covenant which God will make with Israel in the Messianic Kingdom in terms evidently reminiscent of Joshua- as if the new covenant was made with him, thereby enabling him potentially to be part of a Messianic Kingdom even in his day:&nbsp; “And as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: my Spirit that is upon thee [“Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him” <a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a>; <a href='B:40 27:18-23'>Num 27:18-23</a>] , and my words which I have put in thy mouth [<a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> - God’s words were put in Joshua’s mouth], shall not depart out of thy mouth [“this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth”, <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>, s:w:], nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever”.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t I commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed: for Yahweh your God is with you wherever you go- </p><p>The idea being, as discussed on :3, that wherever they went, they would have victory and take the land for themselves. The various towns in our lives may be alcoholism, the struggle to forgive, gentleness, patience, or whatever seems so insuperable. It is God’s eager desire that we should inherit the Kingdom, and so we need not fear (<a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a>). The command to be strong and courageous is understood by David as meaning "be of good courage, and He will strengthen your heart" (<a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:230 31:24'>Psa 31:24</a>). It is not so much a call for human strength and bravery, as to open our hearts to the strengthening of His Spirit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying- </p><p>"Officers" is literally 'the scribes'. It could refer to those who had a record of the people from the latest census, and could therefore better organize them. But we wonder if it refers to those who had already been set up to keep copies of God’s law and interpret it to the people. And yet their work was not academic, just as true Bible study can never be an academic discipline. They were to in practice prepare the people to enter the land and conquer Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>Pass through the midst of the camp, and command the people, saying, ‘Prepare food; for within three days you are to pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess’- </p><p>The "three days" period sends the mind to the Lord's resurrection, which was what gives us ultimate entry into Canaan. Preparing food in advance was a new discipline for people who had lived for decades on the daily provision of manna by God every morning. That this need to "prepare food" should be recorded gives absolute circumstantial credibility to the record. Such a command would have been absolutely necessary. These things really happened. The exodus from Egypt had been in haste, so that they had no time to "prepare food" (<a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a>). They had left Egypt because of push factors. Now, they were to be motivated by the pull factor of the Kingdom, and were not being thrust out in haste, but rather entering the Kingdom on their own terms.</p><p>These three days may be those of <a href='B:60 3:1-2'>Jos 3:1-2</a>. The order to prepare food was given on 7th Nisan, as they crossed Jordan on the 10th. The spies would have been on their mission between the 5th and 8th Nisan.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh saying- </p><p>They had received their inheritance to the east of Jordan, because they were attracted by the rich pasture there for their many flocks and herds&nbsp; (<a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a>; <a href='B:40 32:24'>Num 32:24</a>). This had been on the agreement that they would help the rest of Israel to inherit their inheritances too.</p>


text:
<p>Remember the word which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you saying, ‘Yahweh your God will give you rest, and will give you this land- </p><p>After the pattern of the Reubenites, we have been given the promised rest of the Kingdom here and now (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> cp. <a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a>); but we will, like them, only take possession of that inheritance after we have ensured that our brethren have received their possession (<a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a> present a paradox: the Reubenites were given their "rest", but they would only get their "rest" once their brethren had. Those Reubenites really were symbols of us: for this passage is surely behind the reasoning of Hebrews 4, where we are told that we have entered into rest, but that we must labour if we want to enter into it.</p>


text:
<p>Your wives, your little ones and your livestock shall live in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but all your mighty men of valour shall pass over before your brothers, armed, and shall help them-</p><p>This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard. Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God’s protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn’t work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.</p>


text:
<p>until Yahweh has given your brothers rest, as He has given you, and they have also possessed the land which Yahweh your God gives them. Then you shall return to the land of your possession and settle it, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise’- </p><p>See on :13. Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); but he said he had (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but both Joshua and Israel would not. <a href='B:50 1:38'>Deu 1:38</a> states clearly that “Joshua… he shall cause Israel to inherit [s:w. possess]” the land. Yet by the end of Joshua’s life, Israel were not inheriting the land in totality. He didn’t live up to his potential. Note, in passing, that God’s prophecy here was conditional, although no condition is actually stated at the time. See on :4,6.</p>


text:
<p>They answered Joshua saying, All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go- </p><p>As noted on :14, the demands on them were a great test of faith. That they agreed and didn’t seek to renege on the agreement is therefore the more commendable.</p>


text:
<p>Just as we listened to Moses in all things, so will we listen to you. Only may Yahweh your God be with you as He was with Moses- </p><p>This was surely an exaggeration, as Israel had not been obedient to Moses "in all things".</p>


text:
<p>Whoever rebels against your commandment, and doesn’t listen to your words in all that you command him, he shall be put to death. Only be strong and courageous-</p><p>They now encourage Joshua themselves, perhaps sensing his weakness and nervousness. There is repeated encouragement to be strong and of a good courage and not be fearful (<a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-8'>Jos 1:6-8</a>; <a href='B:60 1:18'>Jos 1:18</a>). What does this imply about Joshua? He could perhaps have potentially been 'Jesus', as his name means, the Messiah figure. But he failed, perhaps because of his fear, and so this possibility was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus. Hebrews effectively makes this point, saying that although Joshua gave the people "rest", in fact he didn’t ultimately; and so his work was fulfilled only in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Joshua had been charged to be strong, of good courage, not fearful nor be dismayed. Yet he had a tendency to forget those charges, the implications of his having been called by God for a purpose; and needed to be reminded of them as he forgot or lost faith in them. Perhaps this is why he is an otherwise surprising omission from the list of faithful men and women in Hebrews 11. And here of course is the challenge to us. We too have been given commissions and callings. Whether it be to raise a Godly family, to establish an ecclesia in a certain place, to overcome a specific vice…the obstacles will flee before us, every place where the soles of our feet rest, will be blessed…if we truly believe in God’s purpose with us. Yet like Joshua, we usually fail to have a full faith in this. We get distracted by the views of others, peer pressure, worried by lack of resources, discouraged by setbacks; when it is belief in God’s most basic initial promises to us that will overcome them. Joshua’s fear is all the more reprehensible when we consider the testimony of Psalms 91. Here Moses speaks about Joshua, the one who dwelt in the secret place or tabernacle of God (<a href='B:230 91:1'>Psa 91:1</a> = <a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a>), and who therefore was miraculously preserved throughout the wilderness wanderings. Thousands of Joshua’s generation died at his side from the various plagues which wasted out his generation during those wanderings; but they never came near him (<a href='B:230 91:5-8'>Psa 91:5-8</a>). As a result of this, he was commanded by Moses to “not be afraid” (<a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a>), perhaps Moses was thinking specifically about peer pressure, with the assurance that truly God would hear Joshua’s prayers (<a href='B:230 91:14-15'>Psa 91:14-15</a>). His amazing preservation during the wilderness years ought to have instilled a faith and lack of fearfulness within him; and yet the implication is that he did very often fall prey to fearfulness in later life. Just as with us, the circumstances of earlier life are controlled by the Father to give us faith with which to cope with later crises; but we don’t always learn the lessons we are intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun secretly sent two men out of Shittim as spies, saying, Go, view the land, including Jericho. They went and came into the house of a prostitute whose name was Rahab, and slept there.</p><p>The spies were sent out "secretly". I'd argue that the sending out of the 12 spies about 40 years earlier was essentially a lack of faith- in the fact that God’s Angel had gone ahead of them anyway to spy out the land, and Yahweh Himself had told Israel how good the land was. Likewise here- the spies actually achieved nothing in military terms, because God's strategy for taking Jericho didn't depend upon anything they did nor found out. But their weakness in undertaking the mission was used to save Rahab and her family, just as God works so often. They were instructed to "go see the land", but instead they "go ['went'] and came into the house of a prostitute". The planned reconnaisance didn't happen; the spies learnt nothing that influenced the strategy for taking Jericho. It could even be enquired whether in fact these two "young men" [Heb., LXX "youths"] simply went absent without leave from their mission, and went in to her brothel exactly in order to sleep with her. The missionaries away from home and out of sight of their elders... sleep with a whore [think of the origin of 'the missionary position']. Or try to. We will later note that the word used for 'slept there' has a distinctly sexual sense. In the natural order of things they would hardly have 'slept' much that nerve wracking night, if we take 'slept' as just referring to sleeping and nothing sexual. Perhaps the secrecy involved a sense that this was in fact not really a very spiritual decision and Joshua was somehow furtive about it. Israel had never known urban life nor perhaps even seen walled cities like Jericho. The spies entered the city at evening time, and the gate was shut. Strangers always attract attention in such places- let alone when the city was in the direct line of attack of the Hebrews. The language / accent of the two spies would've given them away. According to the record in Joshua 2, it seems they entered the city gates at dusk, the gates were shut, and they'd have perceived that they were being watched and had been noticed as suspicious strangers. And so they used some desperate initiative, and dived into a whorehouse nearby to the gate. This was the sort of place strangers would go to, as it would be today. We imagine them entering the house, and meeting the madame of the house. "What do you want?" was as dumb a question as the doctor asking the patient "How are you feeling today?". Rahab was a smart woman, accustomed to strangers, and knew what was going on. Within the first couple of sentences, she'd have figured who they were. And it seems they spoke for a short time, maybe an hour or so, realized they were busted, understood they were in a death trap within that walled city, and threw themselves on her mercy. And there, providence kicked in. <a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a> calls those men "messengers", with a message Rahab believed. They hardly had an hour to tell her the message, before men were knocking on the door enquiring what Rahab knew about the spies. In that brief time, she believed a very sketchy and incomplete Gospel of the Kingdom. And her works reflected that faith, in telling the men [whom local culture would've barred from entering the house of a single woman] that the spies had come and gone. "That was quick!", we can imagine the King's men joking. There was weakness and dysfunction all around this story. The men "lodged" with Rahab (<a href='B:60 2:1'>Jos 2:1</a>)- but the Hebrew term is often translated "slept with..." in a sexual context. In fact, whenever the term is used in relation to a woman, let alone a prostitute, it implies intercourse. As a word it does mean simply to sleep... but it is strange that no other term for 'lodging the night' is used, and that the term in the context of a female or prostitute does usually carry a sexual meaning. Whilst I don't believe the spies did sleep with Rahab, it's strange that no other word for 'lodging' is used. The ambiguity is, I suggest, purposeful. But they and their message were 'welcomed in peace' by Rahab (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), she 'received' their message and justified herself by works by protecting them (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>). This would contribute to an overall theme in the book of Joshua of Israel's weakness- the land wasn't fully possessed, Joshua appears himself as weak in many ways, he didn’t fully follow the admittedly hard-to-follow act of Moses, Rahab believed the very words of promise which Israel didn’t believe, the spies were sent out secretly by Joshua with no command from God to do this, when God had promised to go before Israel and give them victory... and yet God worked through all this. Even to the extent of using the weakness of the spies in going in to a brothel and "sleeping" with the madame... in order to save that woman and her family, and the lives of the spies, all in a manner which through human weakness glorified the God of Israel. Rahab had an extensive knowledge of parts of Moses' words and law, and this was the basis for her faith. Yet where did she, a whore in Jericho, get that knowledge from? Presumably from her clients, who would've been travellers who had heard these things and passed them on to her. All this is wonderful encouragement for all sinners- that God has a way of working through sin to His glory, and He doesn't give up so easily with human weakness.</p><p><a href='B:470 1:4'>Mat 1:4</a> records that Salmon married Rahab. Salmon was of the tribe of Judah, because this is the genealogy through Judah (<a href='B:470 1:2'>Mat 1:2</a>). The two spies who had been faithful the first time when spies were sent out were Joshua and Caleb- of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah (<a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:9'>Jdg 2:9</a>). It seems a fair guess that when the two spies were sent out, they were from these same two tribes; see on :23. Salmon was a prince of the tribe of Judah- it’s a fair guess that he was one of the two spies who went to Rahab, and he subsequently married her.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Jericho was told, Behold, men of the children of Israel came in here tonight to spy out the land!- </p><p>Their dress would likely have been unusual, having worn the same clothes and shoes throughout the wilderness journeys. And they would maybe have asked a few people on the street for directions and their accent and language would have given them away. They would have been spotted going in to Rahab's house.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Jericho sent to Rahab saying, Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered into your house; for they have come to spy out all the land- </p><p>We have an example here of how a king's representatives are spoken of himself personally. This is why the Lord Jesus can be called "God" because he functions as God’s representative; but this doesn't make Him God Himself in person in a Trinitarian sense.</p>


text:
<p>The woman took the two men and concealed them. Then she said, Yes, the men came to me, but I don’t know where they came from- </p><p>There are times when circumstances do change the appropriacy of behaviour which in more normal life we should practice. Take lying as an example. To lie is wrong. We should be truthful. Of course. But think of Rahab. She lied- and her lie and acts of deception are quoted in the New Testament as acts of faith! Further, Rahab implied that the Israelite spies were her clients- "there came men unto me" (<a href='B:60 2:4'>Jos 2:4</a>) appears to be a euphemism- and she gave the impression that of course, as they were merely passing clients, how did she know nor care who they were nor where they went? Her male interrogators would've found it hard to press her further for information after she said that. So she not only lied but she gave the impression that the messengers of the Kingdom of God were immoral- in order to protect both them and her. Of course the way she left a red cord hanging from her window, as if almost inviting people to imagine the spies had been let down over the wall from her home on the wall, was a tremendous act of faith and witness by her, but she presumably kept to her story that they were her anonymous clients. For she was still living in her home when the city was taken. Her witness was thus an indirect one to those who wished to perceive it, but it was made within the context of a major series of untruths. The Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians- and were blessed for it. And we could give other examples. If we probe further, and ask why such lies were acceptable and even required, we find that often those lies were connected with saving life. To do anything that would cause the loss of human life when it is in our power to save it is dangerously close to murder. If it is in the power of our hand to do good, surely we should. Otherwise we are likely to be saying "Be warmed and filled!", yet do nothing. We do of course emphasize the need for prayer- and we have arranged days of prayer and fasting for these cases. But this does not absolve us from the need for action. Rather, it seems, do those prayers open up ways practically for us to seek our brethren's good.</p><p>There are times when we marvel at God’s way of working. Rahab as a prostitute was the only person who could say with credibility that yes, men came into my home- but I have absolutely no idea who they were or where they came from. And her male interrogators would have had to avert their eyes from her gaze and shrug and leave her. For they could say no more to that implied comment that "What? You ask me of all women that question?! In my profession you don't ask those questions, didn’t you realize that...".</p>


text:
<p>It happened about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I don’t know. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them- </p><p>Here she moves into telling untruths; see on :3,4 for the discussion of that. For her lies are cited in Hebrews and James as an example of her faith and works in response to that faith. "Overtake" is the word for ability or possibility. She is implying that surely if they are true men, they will have the strength to chase after these spies and catch them. She was an expert in male psychology. And they obeyed her (:7).</p>


text:
<p>But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them under the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof-</p><p>We imagine the spies panicked once inside the walled city, with their clothing and accent / language making it so obvious they were foreigners. With the Israelites only a short distance away across the river, everyone was fearful of spies. And they realized they had no way out. So they in desperation ran into a whore house. And it seems Rahab immediately perceived who they were, and figured they were in danger. For they were noticed entering her house in the evening (:3), and the gate was closed in the evening (:5,7), when the pursuers chased after the spies [as they thought]. So she hid them immediately they knocked on her door. Their desperate prayers for deliverance were heard in this unusual way. She would have heard of the Israelites and their God, perhaps from her clients who would have been travellers. And she desperately wanted to connect with their God. But she was stuck in Jericho, and stuck in a life of sin. It would have seemed impossible to make the connection with Him she so desired. But then two of His representatives came knocking on her door.</p><p>"The harvest" at this time was the barley harvest (<a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a>), which was traditionally reaped on 10 Nisan; not the wheat harvest, which was at Pentecost seven weeks later (<a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a>). We note that the barley and flax harvests were at this time, and the two crops were harvested at the same time (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>; <a href='B:20 9:33'>Exo 9:33</a>). This would explain why Rahab had flax stalks on her roof (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>). This is the kind of internal corroboration within the record which is to me the greatest proof of Biblical inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>The men pursued them the way to the Jordan to the fords. As soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate- </p><p>As discussed on :5, this had been her challenge to her own people, and they fell for it. They likely searched every house in Jericho for the spies. But not hers, or at least, not too thoroughly. Male awkwardness and embarrassment before a woman like her would have meant they accepted her word and she ceased from being a possible suspect.</p>


text:
<p>Before they had lain down, she came up to them on the roof- </p><p>Rooftops were consistently associated with idolatry throughout the Hebrew Bible. But here, Rahab learns more of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, having quit idolatry. The spies are called "messengers" in Hebrews 11 because they had a message for her; and their message were 'welcomed in peace' by Rahab (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), she 'received' their message and justified herself by works by protecting them (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>). But the nature of the situation was such that the "message" they declared to her must have been stated very quickly, before she hid them on the roof. She believed that message and showed her faith by the works of hiding them. So there was a very limited  timescale for hearing the message and experiencing peace from believing it. The core of the Gospel is indeed simple.</p>


text:
<p>and she said to the men, I know that Yahweh has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you-</p><p>See on <a href='B:230 24:6'>Psa 24:6</a>. When she says that she was aware that God had "given you the land" (<a href='B:60 2:9'>Jos 2:9</a>), she uses the same two Hebrew words used repeatedly in Deuteronomy regarding God’s promise to give Israel the land of the Canaanites. "Your terror is fallen upon us" is likewise an allusion to <a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a> [the same Hebrew word for "terror" is used by Rahab]. Rahab speaks of how her people are "fainting" in fear- quoting <a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a> about how the inhabitants of Canaan would "faint" (AV "melt away") because of Israel. Knowing all this, she has the ambition to request the impossible- that she would be the exception, that with her a covenant would be made. When she says that "we have heard" about the Exodus (<a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a>), she may be referring to the prophecy of <a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a>: "The people shall hear and be afraid". In this case, her emphasis would have been upon the word "have"- 'yes, we have heard indeed, as Moses sung, and yes, we are afraid'. Seeking God’s face is actually to strive for the unachievable in this life; but it's what we are to do. Spiritual ambition of the type Rahab had lifts us far above the mire of mediocrity which there is in all human life under the sun.</p>


text:
<p>For we have heard how Yahweh dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt; and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond Jordan, to Sihon and to Og, whom you utterly destroyed- </p><p>This utter destruction was because Yahweh had hearkened to the voice of Israel (<a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a> cp. <a href='B:50 3:6'>Deu 3:6</a> s:w:), and Rahab was attracted to a God who listened to prayers and responded to dramatically. Israel's enemies were to be 'utterly destroyed' which is defined as meaning that no covenant be made with them (<a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Rahab desperately wanted to enter covenant with Yahweh, but she saw she was doomed to 'utter destruction' because that was to be Jericho's fate (<a href='B:60 6:21'>Jos 6:21</a> s:w:). But her desire from the heart was read by God, and responded to in such a wonderful way, beyond any human device; hence in :12 (see note there) she asks for covenant relationship.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as we had heard it, our hearts melted, neither did there remain any more spirit in any man because of you; for Yahweh your God- </p><p>When the earlier spies had spent 40 days looking around Canaan, they had reported that the people were strong, and they were despised by them, as if they were mere grasshoppers (<a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a>). The Canaanites represent all those things which appear insuperable to our inheritance of the promised kingdom. But behind those high walls, were people with melted hearts. But the ten spies perceived the people as so strong that they could never defeat them, whereas Joshua and Caleb perceived how things really were- which is how Rahab described it. The paradox is that the hearts of the Canaanites melted (<a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a>), and this is the phrase used of how the hearts of the Israelites melted (<a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a>). Both sides were scared of each other; but victory could have been with Israel. They wasted so much potential.</p><p>He is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath-</p><p>She is repeating Dt. 4:39 "The Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below". This was the prophetic hope, that at the restoration (see on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a>, where I suggest Joshua was rewritten for the exiles), the Gentiles would come to state that "Yahweh is God" as they had done at times historically (here and <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>; <a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a>; <a href='B:110 8:60'>1Ki 8:60</a>; <a href='B:120 5:15'>2Ki 5:15</a>; <a href='B:120 19:19'>2Ki 19:19</a>; <a href='B:290 45:14-15'>Isa 45:14-15</a>). Rahab was therefore set up as representative of the Gentiles at the time of the exile.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please swear to me by Yahweh, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father’s house, and give me a true token-</p><p><a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a> comments that "By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace". Rahab's faith was faith in God’s grace. For Rahab was an Amoritess and according to the law of Moses there was to be no pity or covenant with them- only death (cp. <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>):Rahab had the spiritual ambition to ask that they make a covenant with her- she requests hesed, the common term for covenant relationship ("deal kindly with me", <a href='B:60 2:12'>Jos 2:12</a> cp. <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>). See on :10. And the spies made a covenant with her. Grace, like love, finds a way. Remember that she was also aware of what Israel had done to their enemies on their way to Jericho- and she appears to allude to Moses' commands to destroy utterly and not make covenant with the peoples of the land (<a href='B:50 2:32-37'>Deu 2:32-37</a>; <a href='B:50 7:1-5'>Deu 7:1-5</a>; <a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a>).</p><p>The spies apparently didn’t give her any token, apart from their word that their lives would be forfeit if hers was lost- if she continued faithful to the covenant (:14). Considering they were completely at her mercy, we wonder why they didn’t make any token. Perhaps they had nothing material to give her apart from their word. But see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Please save alive my father, my mother, my brothers and my sisters and all that they have, and will deliver our lives from death- </p><p>Rahab apparently lived alone, with her family avoiding her for shame that she was a whore and her home was a brothel. They would have had to significantly humble themselves to accept the gospel of the Kingdom from her mouth, and to have entered into her home in order to be saved.</p><p>It seems from Josh. 6:23 that her family didn't include her own children. She had none. It was common for barren women to be divorced, shamed and have to turn to prostitution. Being unable to get pregnant meant there was no issue with contraception. And yet she became pregnant by a prince of Judah and thus an ancestor of the Lord. And so many any miserable, lonely loves have thus been used and transformed. Rahab who was on very periphery came to be "in the midst of Israel". </p>


text:
<p>The men said to her, Our life for yours, if you don’t talk about this business of ours; and it shall be, when Yahweh gives us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you- </p><p>"Kindly and truly" is the language of covenant. Jericho was to be utterly destroyed which meant no covenant made with her inhabitants (see on :10,12; <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Here they repeat that the covenant has been extended to her, if she doesn't betray them. We note the contrast between Gentile whore Rahab and respectable Israelite family man Achan. He broke covenant (<a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>), whereas she entered covenant and was faithful to it (<a href='B:60 2:12-14'>Jos 2:12-14</a>). She took and hid the spies (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>), whereas Achan took and hid the spoil (<a href='B:60 7:21-22'>Jos 7:21-22</a>). Rahab saved her family alive (<a href='B:60 2:13-14'>Jos 2:13-14</a>; <a href='B:60 6:22-23'>Jos 6:22-23</a>), whereas Achan destroyed his family (<a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was on the side of the wall, and she lived on the wall- </p><p>Heb. "in the wall" may mean her house was between the inner and outer walls. Perhaps the flax stems on her roof had been grown outside the city walls and she therefore had a rope to haul them up to her. This may have been a way of avoiding paying tax on them, which would have been required if they had been brought through the city gate.</p><p>Escaping out of a window down the wall was the experience of David and Paul (<a href='B:510 9:25'>Act 9:25</a>). Paul describes it as one of the most humiliating things which happened to him (<a href='B:540 11:32'>2Co 11:32</a>). The triple repetition shows the same Divine hallmark of His operation, in the lives of different men separated by centuries.</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Go to the mountain, lest the pursuers find you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers have returned. Afterward, you may go on your way- </p><p>Rahab comes over as in command of the situation, even though she was a Gentile prostitute begging for God’s grace. "Three days" may be a non literal period. <a href='B:20 14:4'>Exo 14:4</a>; <a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a> uses the same word for "pursuer" about the Egyptians likewise pursuing Israel in vain- also around the time of Passover.</p>


text:
<p>The men said to her, We will be guiltless of this your oath which you have made us to swear-</p><p>The next three verses give the conditions for the covenant, but they say that Rahab had "made us swear". She had used her position of power over them to make them enter a covenant of Yahweh with her (see on :10,12).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, when we come into the land-</p><p>LXX "If we succeed in penetrating into a part of the town".</p><p>You shall bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which you used to let us down. You shall gather to yourself into the house your father, your mother, your brothers and all your father’s household- </p><p>See on :21. This line or rope may have been the "true token" of :12. It seems they gave her the scarlet thread. Perhaps they had worked this out in advance, entering Jericho with the aim of finding someone to believe their message. It was around Passover time, and so this may have been an invitation for Rahab to in essence participate in the Passover ritual, putting the symbol of blood on her house so that she might be saved whilst the rest of the world around her perished. She was being treated as one of the covenant people. Scarlet was associated with the removal of sin (<a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a>; <a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a>; <a href='B:30 14:51'>Lev 14:51</a>; <a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a>) and the Passover blood (<a href='B:20 12:7'>Exo 12:7</a>; <a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a>).</p><p>Heb. "the cord of this crimson thread" means that "this cord", the rope, was made of crimson thread. Possibly it was the sign she had on her door advertising her home as a brothel, rather like chemists and barbers have always had their specific trade signs. To hang out a red light or cord is a truly ancient tradition for brothels. She was told to display the cord when Israel came to take Jericho- maybe implying she was to take it down, to cease being a whore, but display it again when they returned. We see how God used the symbol of her sin to save both herself and His two men. His saving purpose is so intertwined with human sin and failure even in its worst forms. And that scarlet thread became to her as the blood of the Passover lamb. This thought becomes even more actual when we consider that there are several stories of brothels on walls, where the clients exited down a scarlet rope. The rope, the symbol of sordid, shameful, secret failure, became the path to salvation for the spies. Just as it was only because she was a whore that she was able to tell the men of Jericho that she didn't know the names of the spies nor where they were from. Only a whore could get away with saying that. And it was her lie, which of itself as an isolated event was a sin because lying is wrong- which came to be seen as an act of faith in Hebrews 11. All this came to its final term in the cross, the symbol of ultimate shame, "cursed is every one that hangs on a tree". But in Christ it became the symbol of ultimate salvation. God indeed doesn't turn away from sin in disgust, but works through and with us. This fits with the suggestion on :1 that the spies perhaps originally went into her house in order to sleep with her. God worked through so much weakness. And remember that Rahab did fall pregnant by a prince of the tribe of Judah. </p>


text:
<p>It shall be that whoever goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood will be on his head, and we will be guiltless. Whoever is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand is on him- </p><p>This continues the allusions to the Passover legislation, although Rahab and her family were only able to keep the spirit and not the letter of it. As Rahab was a whore and her home a brothel, her family had to humble themselves to accept the Gospel and take refuge in it.</p>


text:
<p>But if you talk about this business of ours, then we shall be guiltless of your oath which you have made us to swear- </p><p>Compare the evidence for Rahab's preaching the message of the spies, with the terms of the covenant thrashed out with her- if she were to "utter" (Heb. to preach, advertise openly] the "business" of the spies, then the covenant would be null and void. She did indeed do this, and yet the covenant still stood. Perhaps the agreement insisted upon by the spies was somewhat self-protective, without the ambition which Rahab had to bring others to throw themselves upon God’s grace. This would only make her spiritual perception and ambition stand out the more. All this fits in with the overall theme of the book of Joshua- that Israel were given the land, Ephraim and Manasseh were allowed to return to their lot East of Jordan, despite the fact that they were disobedient and didn’t drive out all the Canaanites as required by God. Taking the crossing of the Red Sea as a type of baptism, the wilderness walk as symbolic of our probationary lives now (<a href='B:530 10:1-3'>1Co 10:1-3</a>), the entrance of the promised land speaks of our entrance to God’s Kingdom- and this will likewise be by grace, in the face of all the mess ups, disobedience, failure to obey... which we're all so guilty of.</p>


text:
<p>She said, According to your words, so be it. She sent them away, and they departed. She tied the scarlet line in the window-</p><p>Rahab was told to bind the scarlet cord in her window "when we come into the land" (<a href='B:60 2:18'>Jos 2:18</a>). But Rahab bound it there immediately when they left- as if she recognized that her land was already in Israel's hands (<a href='B:60 2:21'>Jos 2:21</a>). Considering the whole town was wondering how the spies had escaped, and she was under suspicion, to leave the escape rope dangling there, indeed to take it up and then place it there again immediately (so :21 implies), was really stupid. She didn’t need to do that at that stage. But the joy of the Gospel should make us fools for Christ's sake. But does it, in our postmodern age? When was the last time the joy of the good news we know, lead you to do something humanly foolish? It could be gathered from <a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a> that Rahab preached to others the message she had received from the spies- for the inspired commentary there notes that Rahab did not perish with those "that believed not"- apeitheo suggesting disbelief, a wilful refusal to believe. What message did Jericho not believe? There was no particular message for them from the words of Moses or Joshua. The message was presumably an appeal from Rahab, to repent and accept the God of Israel as she had done- to cast themselves upon His mercy. And in any case, as a prostitute estranged from her family, either due to her profession or because estrangement from them had led her to it, she must have gone to her estranged family and preached to them, bringing them within her despised house. The question, of course, is: 'Why then was not Rahab killed by the people of Jericho if she openly preached to them about the God of Israel?'. The ancient law code of Hammurabi contains the following statute: “If felons are banded together in an ale-wife’s [prostitute’s or innkeeper’s] house and she has not haled [them] to the palace, that ale-wife shall be put to death” (S:R. Driver and J:C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws [Oxford: Clarendon, 1956], 2:45). Perhaps she was so despised that she was untouchable, or treated as mad. Perhaps former clients of hers in the city's leadership decided it would be better to let her 'get religion' rather than spill any beans about them. But it could be said that it was a miracle she wasn't murdered for her witness. She certainly ran the risk of it. If men and women with a far less complete understanding of the Gospel could risk their lives for it... what does our understanding and faith convict us to do for the sake of witnessing to it? Give money towards it? Risk our lives, health, convenience in travelling for it? Risk our embarrassment and loss of standing in the workplace or family by preaching it…? Our knowledge of the Gospel of the Kingdom is far more detailed than that of Rahab, who picked up snatches of it from her clients, and had at most an hour's pressured conversation with the spies before she had to show whether or not she believed it. If it motivated her to do all she did- what about us?</p><p>The book of Joshua was rewritten for the encouragement of the exiles (see on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a>). Judah had gone into exile because they had acted like a prostitute, as the prophets make clear. This account of the salvation of a prostitute was therefore for their encouragement. Against all odds, they could be saved out of Babylon, a nation and city marked out for destruction by 'falling' as was Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>They left and came to the mountain, and stayed there three days until the pursuers had returned. The pursuers sought them throughout all the way, but didn’t find them- </p><p>Rahab appears to have knowledge and authority in all this, although she was the underdog. The pursuers and the spies are both presented as doing what she told them to do; as if she, the despised Gentile whore in a condemned city, was exalted to a position of power by her commitment to God.</p>


text:
<p>Then the two men returned, descended from the mountain, passed over, and came to Joshua the son of Nun. They told him all that had happened to them- </p><p>"Returned and descended" is the very phrase used of how the faithful spies, Joshua and Caleb, had returned and descended to Israel with the news that they could easily conquer the land (<a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a>). I suggested on :1 that there were distinct connections between those two faithful spies and the spies now being sent out. Israel were being bidden learn from their failure to believe the spies 38 years previously. The Bible continually bids us learn from recorded history.</p>


text:
<p>They said to Joshua, Truly Yahweh has delivered into our hands all the land. Furthermore, all the inhabitants of the land melt away before us!</p><p>They had begun to melt away after the exodus (<a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a> s:w:), and the spies may be almost frustrated that Israel had wasted so much time before believing this. For nearly 40 years, the Canaanites had been in this 'melted away' mental state, and Rahab uses the same word to describe them (:9). The prophetic descriptions of hills [nations / cities] and 'the land' "melting" before God (s:w. <a href='B:370 9:5'>Amo 9:5</a>; <a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:410 1:15'>Nah 1:15</a>) are therefore not to be read literally, but rather alluding to this state of mind amongst the peoples within the land promised to Abraham- in the shadow of latter day Divine judgment and the giving of their kingdoms to His people.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose up early in the morning-</p><p>In the days before alarm clocks, special note is taken of this feature of Joshua (<a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). There is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); ). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people ( ; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>And they moved from Shittim, and came to the Jordan, he and all the children of Israel. They lodged there before they passed over-</p><p>Lodging in full view of Jericho would have been a tactical mistake, humanly speaking. Far better, surely, a quick attack by an advanced guard of soldiers, rather than taking the whole nation over Jordan in full view of their enemies waiting for them.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after three days that the officers went through the midst of the camp-</p><p>The three days spent looking at Jordan was perhaps to encourage them to meditate upon the Red Sea deliverance and to help them make the move in faith. Humanly speaking, sitting there in full view of the men of Jericho was unwise. These three days may be those of <a href='B:60 1:11'>Jos 1:11</a>. The order to prepare food was given on 7th Nisan, as they crossed Jordan on the 10th. The spies would have been on their mission between the 5th and 8th Nisan.</p><p>Jericho was protected from the oncoming Israelites by the Jordan river. Rahab mentioned to the spies that the men of Jericho were terrified at the way Israel's God had dried up the Red Sea (<a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a>), implying that they believed Yahweh could likewise dry up the Jordan and take away their line of natural defence. Perhaps Joshua and Caleb envisaged the drying up of the Jordan as already in essence accomplished when they reasoned that their defence [the Jordan] was departed / held up / turned off from them (<a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a>). The whole situation was a purposeful repetition in essence of the Red Sea crossing. Circumstances repeat in life so that we learn faith from the previous incident, at least potentially. 1:11 had foretold they would pass over the river, but they had to go forward in faith not knowing how exactly that would work out in practice. Once they had gone over Jordan, they were entering a hostile country from which there would now be no retreat. This is hinted at in the descriptions of Israel not only passing over but totally passing over (3:17; 4:1). This is the way God works- if we go forward in faith, then the way back to the world is harder. Joshua therefore encouraged them that when God drove back the river it would be as if He had stretched out His hand to strike all the inhabitants of the land (<a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a>). The wonder of our baptism implies that all future conflicts and obstacles to entry to the Kingdom will likewise be overcome.</p>


text:
<p>and they commanded the people saying, When you see the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God and the priests the Levites bearing it, then you shall move from your place, and follow it- </p><p>Instead of following the pillar of cloud and fire they had to follow only the ark. The miraculous presence of the fire and cloud was now removed- that had trained them to follow God’s leading even when now there was no miraculous sign. <a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a> had reasoned that a division of the waters immediately prior to Israel's entry into Canaan would make the Canaanites fear Israel. There was therefore the hint that a drying up of the Jordan would happen- Joshua seems to have imagined it would, but only the spiritually minded amongst Israel would've grasped the hint from <a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a>. This is typical of how God works- those who love His word find hints and encouragements for their faith when facing specific obstacles. Those who are not sensitive to God’s word or who are ignorant of it don't find this same encouragement. Hence when <a href='B:290 64:3'>Isa 64:3</a> comments that God did great things for Israel which they "looked not for"- this is an expression of His grace towards the less spiritually perceptive. They should have 'looked for' this miracle- but even although they did not, God still did it. This is comfort, although not without limit, to those who still wonder how and whether they shall pass over to be in God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure. Don’t come near to it, that you may know the path to follow; for you have not passed this way before-</p><p>Two thousand cubits is nearly one kilometer. The ark was as it were able to protect itself, without the need of being guarded by soldiers- in fact it was the unguarded ark which was itself a guard to them. In this lies a caveat about 'apologetics' and the idea of defending God and His Truth. He doesn't need it, and so much damage has been done by those who think that somehow, His Truth and glory depends upon them to preserve it. The distance from the ark was to also focus their attention upon it as the means of their crossing over the river- just as our crossing into the Kingdom will be made with total focus on the person of Jesus as our Saviour. We need the appropriate distance from Him so that we may observe His path.</p><p>"Space" translates a word which is often used about time, s:w. "a great while to come". The physical distance between them and the ark looked ahead to how the ark, representing the Lord Jesus, was to enter into the rest before they did, but as the guarantee that they / we would follow. If we follow that "path". "The way" "passed" is a phrase often used about the wilderness wanderings (<a href='B:60 24:17'>Jos 24:17</a> and often in Deuteronomy). Some of the wilderness march was going over similar territory where they had been before; but the entrance to the Kingdom was to be of a totally different nature. On one hand, we are to live the eternal life now, acting now as we will in the Kingdom. But on another hand, the Kingdom life will not at all be what we have experienced in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, Sanctify yourselves; for tomorrow Yahweh will do wonders among you- </p><p>This was calmly spoken in absolute faith. For there was no visible evidence that the Jordan would dry up. They were to sanctify themselves not so as to be worthy of God’s gracious action, but rather because they were in the presence of it. These "wonders" are a hint that they are to enter covenant with God as at Sinai (s:w. <a href='B:20 34:10'>Exo 34:10</a>). The command to sanctify themselves recalled the command as they entered covenant at Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:10-15'>Exo 19:10-15</a>). "Tomorrow" would have been the 10th Nisan (<a href='B:60 4:19'>Jos 4:19</a>), the day when they had taken to themselves a lamb for salvation (<a href='B:20 12:3'>Exo 12:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and walk in front of the people. They took up the ark of the covenant, and walked ahead of the people- </p><p>This is now happening on the day following :5, the "tomorrow" there spoken of. It was the Angel and pillar of fire which had "walked ahead of the people" (s:w. <a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a>; <a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a>). But now all focus was to be upon the ark, representing the Lord Jesus. The time of following Angels and seeing God’s actions as solely through them needs to give way to perceiving His direct presence with us through the Lord Jesus, represented by the ark.</p><p>It was God’s intention that Moses would go before the people and lead them into the land (<a href='B:50 10:11'>Deu 10:11</a>), but Moses failed, and so it fell to Joshua. But it seems he was nervous, and so God used the ark rather than Joshua personally to 'go before the people' (s:w. <a href='B:60 3:6'>Jos 3:6</a>). All the time we see God setting up potential programs which have to be amended because of human weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Today I will begin to magnify you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was with Moses, so I will be with you-</p><p>Just as Moses was given credibility before the people by the miraculous opening of the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a>), so Joshua was given similar credibility. Moses achieved the miracle by his rod; Joshua did so by the ark of the covenant. Both times they passed over "on dry ground" (3:17). Clearly Joshua was not of the personality type which would naturally be found compelling as a charismatic leader. And so God gave this to him (<a href='B:60 4:14'>Jos 4:14</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>You shall command the priests who bear the ark of the covenant saying, ‘When you come to the brink of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand still in the Jordan’- </p><p>More commands to the priests resume in :13. "Stand still" recalls how at the Red Sea, Israel were to stand still and see the saving action of God in parting the water (<a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a> cp. <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>). Only the older ones would have remembered the Red Sea parting. They were all being shown that what was apparently merely Bible story time events were going to be repeated just as amazingly in their own experience.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the children of Israel, Come here, and hear the words of Yahweh your God- </p><p>This continues to allude to the covenant at Sinai. Although the date was here just before Passover, and Israel first entered into the covenant after Passover. God is not a literalist, and clearly the essence of the Passover and entry into covenant at Sinai were being repeated.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Hereby you shall know that the living God is among you-</p><p>Heb. "in the midst of you". The God of the living ones, the cherubim which covered the ark and between which was the shekinah glory, was now revealed. For the ark was no longer hidden from view in the most holy place, but openly in view of all. And all Israel could look at it as they passed over. The Lord Jesus uses this phrase in speaking of His abiding presence in the midst of His people today (<a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a>).</p><p>And that He will without fail drive out the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite from before you- </p><p>But they did not drive them all out. Here we have an example of a conditional promise, spoken of as a prophecy. They were made "to know" that surely they could inherit the entire promised land up to the Euphrates, and the seven nations are spoken of surely as a summary of all the tribes. But the experience of the miracle at Jordan didn’t have an abiding impression upon them. And so again we see that miracles don't in fact inculcate abiding faith. Pentecostalism needs to reconsider the role of miracles. For faith, according to Biblical history, is simply not predicated upon miracles. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passes over before you into the Jordan-</p><p>It could be rendered&nbsp; “the ark of the covenant is called the ruler of the whole earth"- as if the ark is personified, encouraging us to see it as representative of a person (the Lord Jesus). <a href='B:450 4:14'>Zec 4:14</a> likewise associates the ark with "the Lord of all the earth"; and the eretz in view is the land promised to Abraham. The Israelites looked across Jordan to a land apparently not under their control. But they are invited to see Yahweh as enthroned between the cherubim, and therefore His entry into Canaan was as it were His taking control as Lord of His own territory. And they as His people were therefore assured of taking the land.</p><p>Israel had been taught throughout their wilderness journey that they were 'passing over', the word is used so often in Deuteronomy about their passing through various places on the journey. It is another allusion to Passover, which feast was about to begin. The fact God has brought us over so much day by day in this current journey means that our final crossing over at judgment day into God’s Kingdom will just be another stage in the journey, seamlessly part of the process we are currently experiencing, and we should not therefore see judgment day as some huge unknown factor which lies inexorably ahead. They had been taught to speak to others of how they were to pass over Jordan (e.g. <a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a> "as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did to me, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the land which Yahweh our God gives us"; see too <a href='B:40 33:51'>Num 33:51</a>; <a href='B:40 35:10'>Num 35:10</a>; <a href='B:50 4:22'>Deu 4:22</a>; <a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a> "you shall pass over this Jordan"; 9:1; 11:31; 12:10 "when you pass over Jordan"; 27:2,4,12; 30:18; 31:13; 32:47). That's a total of 14 times that they were specifically told they were to pass over Jordan, corresponding to the endless Biblical encouragement we receive that really, we shall inherit the Kingdom. Even if like Israel the words can appear to just drone on in our ears. We too are to live with the full assumption [not presumption] that by grace we shall enter and inherit the Kingdom. The 'passing over' of the ark was to be seen by them as a guarantee that they too would pass over Jordan, just as we are to see in the resurrection of the Lord and His passing over into Divine nature the guarantee of our personal salvation. The Lord's resurrection thereby becomes utterly central to our assurance of salvation if we are indeed 'in Him'. The 2000 cubits distance may be a hint at the Lord 'passing over' 2000 years ahead of us doing so at judgment day. Note that the Hebrew for 'passed over' is also translated 'to carry over' (e.g. <a href='B:60 4:3'>Jos 4:3</a>; <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>)- they were carried over by God just as we will be.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore take twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, for every tribe a man- </p><p>These men had to be appointed first, and were then used in the ritual of <a href='B:60 4:2-4'>Jos 4:2-4</a>. They were to take stones with them, which all looked forward to the future reality of <a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It shall come to pass, when the soles of the feet of the priests who bear the ark of Yahweh, the Lord of all the earth, rest in the waters of the Jordan- </p><p>Israel had been encouraged in <a href='B:60 1:3'>Jos 1:3</a> that "I have given you every place that the sole of your foot will tread on". Wherever their foot stepped could be theirs. And this was now dramatically and visually taught to them. The waters represented the nations, and perhaps specifically their armies, as in later scripture. As soon as the soles of their foot stood in Jordan, then Jordan was theirs, and the flow of the water of the nations against them would be stopped. For Yahweh was Lord of all the eretz promised to Abraham, and they were His people.</p><p>The waters of the Jordan will be cut off. The waters that come down from above shall stand in a heap-</p><p>"Cut off" is a direct allusion to the crossing of the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 15:8'>Exo 15:8</a>). But I suggested above that the waters represented the flow of nations against them. And those nations were to be "cut off" before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the people moved from their tents to pass over the Jordan, that the priests who bore the ark of the covenant walked in front of the people- </p><p>But at a distance of 2000 cubits, about 1 kilometer. There was a natural fear at who was to go first. God went first. It is a natural human fear and desire that someone leads, goes over first. And the Lord Jesus, represented by the ark, has done that. We are "like sheep", and God realizes that. We have the huge comfort that One has indeed gone ahead first, and we are to follow.</p>


text:
<p>When those who bore the ark had come to the Jordan, and the feet of the priests who bore the ark had dipped in the edge of the water (for the Jordan overflows all its banks all the time of harvest)-</p><p><a href='B:230 114:5'>Psa 114:5</a> and <a href='B:290 43:2'>Isa 43:2</a> reason that what God did at the Jordan He does in essence in our lives. God made the people cross Jordan at the time when it was widest- an example of how (at some times, in some ways) He purposefully tests faith. To cross the Jordan in flood was a heroic and very difficult act, according to <a href='B:130 12:15'>1Ch 12:15</a>. Likewise God chose their crossing place as facing Jericho ("right against Jericho", :16)- the strongest opponent, whose spies no doubt were nervously watching the Israelites. <a href='B:230 93:3-4'>Psa 93:3-4</a> refer to how the floods lifted up their voice, but God’s people walked through them- this is more relevant to the Jordan crossing than to the Red Sea exodus. Jordan is widest after the Spring snow melt in the Lebanon mountains ("the swelling of Jordan", <a href='B:300 12:5'>Jer 12:5</a>; <a href='B:300 49:19'>Jer 49:19</a>)- incidental proof that they crossed Jordan around Passover time, which is when they had crossed the Red Sea. "The harvest" was the barley harvest, which was traditionally reaped on 10 Nisan; not the wheat harvest, which was at Pentecost seven weeks later (<a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a>). We note that the barley and flax harvests were at this time, and the two crops were harvested at the same time (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>; <a href='B:20 9:33'>Exo 9:33</a>). This would explain why Rahab had flax stalks on her roof (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>). This is the kind of internal corroboration within the record which is to me the greatest proof of Biblical inspiration.</p><p>God arranged circumstances so that they could see the similarities with the Red Sea crossing, and learn from that incident now that the circumstances were repeating. God does the same with us, daily; repeating circumstances, and trying to get us to see how in essence our experiences are repeating Biblical experiences. All the promises that Israel would enter Canaan actually implied this miracle- but it was for the thoughtful Israelite to perceive that.</p>


text:
<p>that the waters which came down from above stood and rose up in one heap- </p><p>Presumably they froze and congealed, as perhaps happened at the Red Sea. &nbsp;The language of waters divided and gathered together recalls the language of creation (<a href='B:10 1:6'>Gen 1:6</a>; <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a>). Allusions to creation language are frequent in the Bible, to encourage us that what God did then and continues to do in creation, He does in our lives. The new creation in Christ (<a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a>) involves the same expenditure of energy to create ex nihilo the spiritual person within us.</p><p>A great way off- </p><p>We see here God’s sensitivity to human weakness . They were not asked to cross with a wall of water on one side of them, which they would feared could come crashing down upon them. The water of Jordan fled backwards (<a href='B:230 114:3'>Psa 114:3</a>), referring to this creation of a dry riverbed upstream of the crossing as well as downstream of it. "Jordan" is literally 'the descender', and we see here God’s power to arrest an otherwise apparently inevitable downward movement, and even reverse it. The water was not merely parted, but driven back upstream.</p><p>At Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan- </p><p>We naturally see the symbolism; the problem caused with Adam was arrested by God’s action. "Zarethan", 'place of piercing', would then allude to the promised piercing of the serpent, the power of sin (<a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>). There is no city known as Adam, but probably Admah is in view (<a href='B:10 14:2'>Gen 14:2</a>). It is spelt "Adam" here in order to direct our attention to the symbolism.</p><p>And those that went down toward the sea of the Arabah, even the Salt Sea, were wholly cut off. Then the people passed over right against Jericho-</p><p>As discussed above, this was therefore in full view of the men of Jericho who for sure had been sent out to report on the Israelite movements. Tactically it would have appeared foolish. But this was an example of how we are "fools for Christ's sake". God works not through human wisdom but through the way of His Spirit:&nbsp;I suggested on :13 that the 'cutting off' of the waters represented the cutting off of all opposition to them. And therefore this miracle was the guarantee that they would successfully displace all the tribes in the land (:10).</p>


text:
<p>The priests who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh stood firm on dry ground in the middle of the Jordan. Then, all the people of Israel passed over the Jordan on dry ground- </p><p>As discussed on :13,16, the cutting off of the waters&nbsp; represented the cutting off of all Gentile opposition to them. But this depended upon the priests 'standing firm' or "upright" (Heb:), so that all Israel could inherit the Kingdom. And Israel's history is full of evidence that the priesthood did not stand firm, and all Israel therefore lost the Kingdom because of it.</p>


text:
<p>When all the nation had completely passed over the Jordan, Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>It is stressed that they all passed over (<a href='B:60 3:17'>Jos 3:17</a>). The salvation was complete.</p>


text:
<p>Take twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man- </p><p>These twelve man and their stones looked forward to the final reality of <a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>. We are to see in them symbols of the 12 disciples upon whom the kingdom was to be built.</p>


text:
<p>and command them saying, ‘Take from out of the middle of the Jordan, out of the place where the priests’ feet stood firm, twelve stones, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the resting place where you will rest tonight’- </p><p>The language of rest connects with the potential possibility that Joshua would bring the people to "rest". But <a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a> is clear that he didn’t achieve this, and so all these things come to their ultimate term in a reapplied fulfilment in the work of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deu 27:2-8</a> had commanded that "in the day" Israel passed over Jordan, they were to set up plastered stones with the law written upon them [perhaps just the ten commandments], and put them "in mount Ebal". The location was defined as near Gilgal (<a href='B:50 11:30'>Deu 11:30</a>), where they camped after entering the land. Clearly enough, the ceremony of blessing and cursing ought to have been done immediately they entered the land. But they let secular concerns dominate their spiritual obligation to be thankful as God had asked. For when Joshua fulfilled it in <a href='B:60 8:30'>Jos 8:30</a>, this was not "in the day" that Israel passed over Jordan. They had indeed taken stones with them from the Jordan, but had not used them as intended. They didn’t plaster them nor write the law upon them. And so perhaps God ammended His intention- which was initially that they would set those stones up in mount Ebal immediately. Instead, He sent the people against Jericho, and then against Ai. Perhaps an instant conquest of Jericho had been originally intended, so that they could proceed to mount Ebal immediately. For later in Joshua we will read of God giving His people unnaturally speedy progress against their enemies, all in the same day. Or maybe His intention was that firstly they ought to have gone to mount Ebal with the plastered stones, and only then attacked Jericho. But they didn’t plaster the stones nor wish to proceed immediately to Ebal. And so He arranged the campaign against Jericho and then Ai. We see how God is so eager to accommodate His programs to the weakness of men.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had prepared of the children of Israel, out of every tribe a man- </p><p>They had been "prepared" at the time of <a href='B:60 3:12'>Jos 3:12</a>. They look forward to the 12 disciples whom the Lord Jesus likewise prepared to lay the foundations of His new kingdom (<a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to them, Pass over before the ark of Yahweh your God into the middle of the Jordan, and each of you pick up a stone and put it on your shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel- </p><p>We note that the two and a half tribes who had taken their inheritance east of Jordan were included in this. Always God was (and still is) careful to inculcate a spirit of unity amongst His people. The stones were not huge, they could each be carried upon a shoulder; God is not at all in the grandiose buildings such as Solomon's temple, but is memorialized in small things like this.</p>


text:
<p>This will be a sign among you, that when your children ask in time to come saying, ‘What do you mean by these stones?’- </p><p>These were probably the stones in view in <a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a>, where John warned the people near the Jordan river that God was able "of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". They represented Israel, but an Israel which could become living stones. The language here again recalls that of Passover (<a href='B:20 12:26'>Exo 12:26</a>; <a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a>), which they were about to keep. But the spirit of it was seen in the events they were experiencing.</p>


text:
<p>then you shall tell them, ‘Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off’. These stones shall be for a memorial to the children of Israel forever- </p><p>Here we have another example of where "forever" is not to be read as literal infinity. For the memorial has now vanished. The double emphasis upon the waters being cut off is because as noted on <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a> the waters represented the flow of nations against them. And those nations were to be "cut off" before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often). And therefore this miracle was the guarantee that they would successfully displace all the tribes in the land (<a href='B:60 3:10'>Jos 3:10</a>). This was to serve as encouragement to subsequent generations in their struggles against the local peoples of the land.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones out of the midst of the Jordan as Yahweh spoke to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel; and they carried them over with them to the place where they lodged, and laid them down there- </p><p>The stones were not huge, they could each be carried upon a shoulder (:5); God is not at all in the grandiose buildings such as Solomon's temple, but is memorialized in small things like this. The stones were carried, representing how God carried His people into the land. They apparently lodged at Gilgal (:20).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant stood- </p><p>"In the midst of the Jordan" could be read as "from the midst...". But if we stick with "in the midst...", we are then to understand that there were two memorials. The twelve stones at Gilgal (<a href='B:60 4:20'>Jos 4:20</a>) where they lodged that night (:8), and another 12 stones left in the midst of the Jordan river. This would then speak of how there was both a visible and invisible memorial to God’s bringing His people into the land. Or it could be that the twelve stones were first set up on the dry river bed, and then removed from there to Gilgal. This would have visually symbolized the bringing of all twelve tribes from the river to dry ground.</p><p>They are there to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>For the priests who bore the ark stood in the midst of the Jordan until everything was finished that Yahweh commanded Joshua to speak to the people, according to all that Moses commanded Joshua- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e.g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e.g., about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p><p>And the people hurried and passed over- </p><p>Their haste is understandable, as their eyes would have been toward the wall of water building up some distance from them upstream, fearful it could come surging towards them. But it may be mentioned to draw attention to the similarity with the first Passover and exodus (<a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when all the people had completely passed over, that the ark of Yahweh passed over with the priests, while the people watched- </p><p>The phrase "completely passed over" is used several times. It looks forward to the total deliverance of God’s people into His Kingdom. "All the people" excluded many of the two and a half tribes, but their representatives (:12) were counted as them. "The people watched" because they had never seen the ark before, as it was kept in the most holy place. God had as it were denuded Himself in this great work of salvation. He was enthroned in the shekinah glory between the cherubim. The idea was that it was the ark which had enabled them to pass over into the inheritance of the Kingdom. And God would not cease His working until all His people were in His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben, the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh passed over armed before the children of Israel, as Moses had spoken to them- </p><p>There was no small cost for taking their inheritance east of Jordan. Their soldiers were to all leave their families and flocks defenceless (humanly speaking) and to serve as the vanguard of the assault on Canaan, marching directly behind the ark but in front of the Israelites. Taking inheritance east of Jordan may have appeared initially as an easy way out of showing the faith required to dispossess the Canaanites west of Jordan. But God arranged things, as He does to this day, so that in fact there is no short cut to His Kingdom, no avoidance of showing faith. And in fact attempts to short cut often result in greater faith being required.</p>


text:
<p>About forty thousand men prepared and armed for war passed over before Yahweh to battle, to the plains of Jericho- </p><p>"Thousand" is often not a literal number in the historical records; especially when used in the context of soldiers, it seems to refer to some military subdivision.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, Yahweh magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life- </p><p>It could be that Joshua was a not very confident individual who needed constant encouragement not to fear or be discouraged, as given to him throughout Joshua 1. But God used such an uncharismatic figure, endowing him with respect, because that is His style of working.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>The style here constantly recalls how Yahweh had spoken to Moses and he relayed this to Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Command the priests who bear the ark of the testimony, that they come up out of the Jordan-</p><p>David’s bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a> (s:w:); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a>; <a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a> s:w:). David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises; for Joshua had failed to bring the people into the promised rest as was potentially possible (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). This may explain why Paul in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally.</p><p>The ark is described as "the ark of the testimony" because the tables of the commandments (<a href='B:20 25:40'>Exo 25:40</a>) were "the testimony", and sometimes "the ark" is just called "the testimony". Although other things were in the ark, the tables of stone were paramount. The ark represented the Lord Jesus, who was "the word made flesh", with God’s word within His heart as the word of God was within the ark. God’s covenant word was of the essence in defining His presence amongst men.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua therefore commanded the priests saying, Come up out of the Jordan!- </p><p>This phrase 'come up out of Jordan' is used of the priests, the ark (:18) and the people (:19). Clearly the people were to perceive that their coming through Jordan into the promised land was due to their identification with the ark. It all points ahead to our entry into the Kingdom because the Lord Jesus has enabled it, and has Himself entered in.</p>


text:
<p>When the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of Yahweh had come up out of the midst of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet were lifted up to the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks as before- </p><p>"Lifted up" is literally "plucked up". The Divine cameraman is zoomed in close up. Their plucked their feet up out of the mud onto more solid, dry ground. Once their feet were out of the mid, the waters started flowing back. We can imagine it made quite a sound.</p>


text:
<p>The people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and encamped in Gilgal, on the east border of Jericho- </p><p>The 10th Nisan (<a href='B:60 3:5'>Jos 3:5</a>) was the day when they had taken to themselves a lamb for salvation (<a href='B:20 12:3'>Exo 12:3</a>). It was when the firstfruits were to be offered (<a href='B:30 23:9-15'>Lev 23:9-15</a>). But the grace of their salvation was impressed upon them; instead of their giving something to God, He gave them the great gift of salvation.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua set up those twelve stones which they took out of the Jordan in Gilgal- </p><p>It seems those stones became abused into a form of idolatry, just as the brazen serpent was. And God particularly hated the sins which were therefore committed at Gilgal (<a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a>; <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>; <a href='B:370 4:4'>Amo 4:4</a>; <a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>). It was there that Israel demanded a king, despite the clear message at this time that the ark was the presence of the "Lord of all the earth". Yahweh was their king who had saved them, memorialized by the stones; and there they demanded a king.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke to the children of Israel saying, When your children ask their fathers in time to come saying, ‘What do these stones mean?’-</p><p>Quoting / alluding to Moses- as Joshua often does. The need to teach their children about this great salvation is laboured here just as much, if not more, as is the Passover remembrance.</p>


text:
<p>then you shall let your children know, saying, ‘Israel came over this Jordan on dry land- </p><p>"This Jordan" implies that the question would be asked when the children enquired about the meaning of the stones, which were near the Jordan river and the river was in clear view of the questioners.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh your God dried up the waters of the Jordan from before you, until you had passed over, as Yahweh your God did to the Red Sea which He dried up from before us, until we had passed over- </p><p>The Red Sea crossing clearly represented baptism (<a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a>), and the crossing of the Jordan is very similar- but it represents our entry into the Kingdom. We can therefore conclude that baptism is an entry in prospect into God’s Kingdom; although we must stay the course through the wilderness.</p>


text:
<p>that all the peoples of the earth may know the hand of Yahweh, that it is mighty; that you may fear Yahweh your God forever’- </p><p>The miracle of crossing Jordan was to visually demonstrate the 'cutting off' of the waters of the nations before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often). See on <a href='B:60 3:10'>Jos 3:10</a>. The whole action had been of God’s grace, and therefore they were to fear or respect Yahweh. This will only happen in our experience if we perceive grace to be point of being utterly awed by it, rather than just admiring it in passing.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when all the kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan westward- </p><p>"Amorites" seems a very general term; they were apparently on both sides of the Jordan. Perhaps they were the remnants of those slain during the battle with Sihon and Og, who had fled from Israel to the west bank of Jordan.</p><p>And all the kings of the Canaanites, who were by the sea, heard how that Yahweh had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we had passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more because of the children of Israel-</p><p>Everything about the battle plan was somehow humanly foolish- to yet again attempt to teach Israel, old and new, that victory comes from following God’s way, and His way is humanly foolish. The warriors were circumcised before the battle (<a href='B:60 5:2'>Jos 5:2</a>)- and we know from the Biblical record of Shechem how this would've weakened the men- for this was only a week or so before the battle. The manna wasn't phased out- it stopped abruptly just before the battle of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Jos 5:12</a>). The people would likely have been short of food, and would've been dealing with the problems associated with a new diet- after 40 years! Walking around the city seven times, starting at dawn, would've made the people tired. There was no advantage of shock or surprise by doing this. Planning the final assault for late afternoon was hardly smart either- humanly speaking! But all this was- and is- to teach God’s people that victory His way involves shedding our human strength, just as Gideon was likewise taught so dramatically.</p><p>As Israel were called to follow the Angel after their Red Sea baptism, so we too follow where the Angel leads.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, Make flint knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time-</p><p>"The second time" is omitted by some manuscripts, and some read "tomorrow". For surely a man cannot be circumcised a second time. There could be the implication that there had been a national circumcision of the nation some time previously, although unrecorded; and now this was to be done a second time.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins- </p><p>Everything about the Jericho battle plan was somehow humanly foolish- to yet again attempt to teach Israel, old and new, that victory comes from following God’s way, and His way is humanly foolish. The warriors were circumcised before the battle- and we know from the Biblical record of Shechem how this would've weakened the men- for this was only a week or so before the battle. See on :12. But the point was that they were to enter Canaan only because they were Abraham's seed, and therefore they must be circumcised.</p>


text:
<p>This is the reason Joshua circumcised: all the people who were males who came out of Egypt, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness in the way after they came out of Egypt-</p><p>"In the way" confirms the impression we have of them being slain one by one at different places along the route. The "terror by night" and arrows in the day time (<a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a>) consumed them, and their carcasses were left unburied in the scrub (<a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a>). The wilderness journey was a living out of the condemnation of judgment day for those people.</p><p>The extent of spiritual despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of the children born to them then, thus showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant. There is good reason to believe that Romans 1 is a description of Israel in the wilderness; notice the past tenses there. <a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a> charges them with changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like... to four-footed beasts, and creeping things", clearly alluding to <a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a> concerning how Israel in the wilderness "Changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eats grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Romans 1 is matched by <a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a> "They forgot God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness sins in Psalms 106 is similar to that in Romans 1. "Full of envy" (<a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>) corresponds to them envying Moses (<a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a>), "whisperers" (<a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>) to "murmurers" (<a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a>), and "inventors of evil things" (<a href='B:520 1:30'>Rom 1:30</a>) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (<a href='B:230 106:29'>Psa 106:29</a>). Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each other even to the extent of murder (<a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a>; <a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>). A huge rabble of people living in moral anarchy with little law and order, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had rejected them... is surely a frightening thing to imagine. The emphasis on sexual sin in Romans 1 is paralleled by 1 Corinthians 10 stressing the frequent failure of Israel in the wilderness in this regard. Against such an evil and God forsaking background that young generation rebelled, to become one of the most faithful groups of Israelites in their history. As such they set a glorious example to the youth of today in rebelling against a world that mocks any form of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness by the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised-</p><p>&nbsp;The commands concerning Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land form a large chunk of the Mosaic Law, and thus these were only relevant to the younger generation and the Levites who were to enter the land of promise (note how only those who were numbered and over 20 at the time of leaving Egypt were barred from the land; the Levites were not numbered). This younger generation were in sharp contrast to those aged over 20 at the Exodus. The extent of spiritual despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of the children born to them then (<a href='B:60 5:5-6'>Jos 5:5-6</a>), thus showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant.</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, even the men of war who came out of Egypt, were consumed; because they didn’t listen to the voice of Yahweh. Yahweh swore to them that He wouldn’t let them see the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers that He would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey-</p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn’t hearken to God’s voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn’t hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>). If God’s word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Their children whom He raised up in their place were circumcised by Joshua; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them on the way- </p><p>See on :4. The new generation were raised up by God, not their parents, whom He slew in the desert. They were raised up "in their place" in that they entered the Kingdom which their parents had despised.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>It happened, when they were done circumcising all the nation, that they stayed in their places in the camp until they were healed-</p><p>"All the nation" were circumcised, in that the men represented the women; just as all twelve tribes crossed Jordan, but only in that the soldiers of the two and a half tribes represented those who remained east of Jordan. It is this principle of representation which is hard to grasp for those raised in societies which glorify individualism over collectivism. But it is clearly a principle by which God works, coming to full term in our salvation "in Christ", on account of His representation of us in His representative sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Therefore the name of that place was called Gilgal to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel encamped in Gilgal. They kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho- </p><p>The Lord taught in John 6 that the true manna was His flesh, which He was to give for the life of the world. Some have supposed from <a href='B:60 5:10-12'>Jos 5:10-12</a> cp. <a href='B:20 16:35'>Exo 16:35</a> that the manna fell for the first time on the eve of the Passover, thus adding even more poignancy to the Lord’s equation of the manna with His death. Yet all this painstaking attempt to re-focus the crowds on the spiritual rather than the literal, salvation through His death rather than an immediate benefit for them, patient eating / sharing in His sufferings rather than a kingdom here and now… all this went so tragically unheeded. And it does to this day.</p>


text:
<p>They ate unleavened cakes and parched grain of the produce of the land on the next day after the Passover, in that day-</p><p>They presumably stole this from the local population, who would have fled before them, back into the walls of Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>The manna ceased on the next day, after they had eaten of the produce of the land. The children of Israel didn’t have manna any more; but they ate the fruit of the land of Canaan that year- </p><p>The manna wasn't phased out- it stopped abruptly just before the battle of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Jos 5:12</a>). The people would likely have been short of food, and would've been dealing with the problems associated with a new diet- after 40 years! Walking around the city seven times, starting at dawn, would've made the people tired. There was no advantage of shock or surprise by doing this. Planning the final assault for late afternoon was hardly smart either- humanly speaking! But all this was- and is- to teach God’s people that victory His way involves shedding our human strength, just as Gideon was likewise taught so dramatically. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked- </p><p>Lifting up the eyes to Heaven is an idiom for prayer. This seems likely in <a href='B:40 24:2'>Num 24:2</a>; <a href='B:60 5:13'>Jos 5:13</a>; <a href='B:70 19:17'>Jdg 19:17</a> and <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> among others. The simple implication of all this is that we should begin our prayers with a conscious imagination and personalization of the Father to whom we pray; "Our Father, who is in Heaven" says it all. "God is in Heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few (more often translated "little")" (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). Ezra, Nehemiah and Solomon all start their major prayers with a reference to the fact that God really is there in Heaven.</p><p>And behold, a man stood opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, Are you for us, or for our adversaries?-</p><p>Perhaps this is a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e.g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e.g., about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p><p>The Angels formulate their plans perhaps without knowing whether we will respond suitably to enable the plans to go ahead, or maybe they arrange circumstances whether they know we will obey or disobey, so that we always have the encouragement that if we obey and do our part&nbsp; we will have the pre-arranged workings of the Angels behind us too. The entrance of Israel to Canaan shows this. God had promised in Exodus 33 to send an Angel before them which would drive out the tribes from Canaan; the 'Hornet'- a result of Angelic activity- was sent before them to do the same. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>&nbsp; describes this: "Yahweh your God is He which goes over (the Jordan) before you; as a consuming fire (the language of Angels- <a href='B:20 24:17'>Exo 24:17</a>) He shall destroy them (the nations)... so shall you drive them out". Thus when Joshua approached Jericho to attack it "there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand... and He said... As captain of the host of the Lord (Angels) am I come" (<a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a>). So in prospect the Angels drove out every tribe that was in the land; the people of Israel had to just go in and possess the work which the Angels had done. So when they failed to drive out certain tribes, this was an example of human failing to be "workers together with God". Thus in prospect, the Angels led them to the promised "rest"- <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>; <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:290 63:1'>Isa 63:1</a> N:I:V:; although in practice they did not enter that rest because of their faithlessness (<a href='B:650 3:11'>Heb 3:11</a> to <a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a>), despite the Angel promising He would lead them there- "I will give you rest" (<a href='B:20 33:4'>Exo 33:4</a>). Was this due to the Angel over-estimating the spiritual strength of His charges? See on <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said, No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh’s army. Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshipped and said to him, What does my lord say to his servant?- </p><p>As Israel were called to follow the Angel after their Red Sea baptism, so we too follow where the Angel leads. The conquest of Jericho is a classic example of following the Angel. <a href='B:60 5:13'>Jos 5:13</a> speaks of the Angel who was the commander of Yahweh's army appearing to Joshua, the commander of God’s human army on earth, and standing "over against him", i:e. dead opposite him. Clearly enough, Joshua was being shown that he had an opposite number in Heaven, a representative there before the throne of God- just as each of us do. Note in passing how the Angel answers Joshua's question- 'Are you for me, or against me?'. God has no interest in taking sides in human arguments, demonizing the one side and glorifying the other. The response was simply that the Angel stood for God and was His representative (<a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a>). Religious people so easily fall into this trap of demonizing their enemies, on the basis that "God is with me, and therefore, not with you my opponent, in fact, He hates you because I hate you". The true God and His Angelic servants are far above this kind of primitive, binary dichotomy.</p>


text:
<p>The prince of Yahweh’s army said to Joshua- </p><p>The same phrase is found in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>, where the army is the host of God’s people and their representative Angels</p><p>Take your shoes off of your feet; for the place on which you stand is holy. Joshua did so-</p><p>This is evidently reminiscent of the command to Moses in a similar situation. Shouldn’t Joshua have perceived this, seeing his life was so clearly framed after that of Moses? For we note he had to wait to be asked to do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jericho was closely shut up because of the children of Israel. No one went out, and no one came in- </p><p>The gates which we saw shutting at dusk every day in Joshua 2 were now shut permanently. But the idea may be that God had shut them in; He was the one who closed that gate (s:w. <a href='B:10 7:16'>Gen 7:16</a>; <a href='B:10 19:10'>Gen 19:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Behold, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and the mighty men of valour-</p><p>The idea may have been that the king and his mighty soldiers were much feared in the area. But they were to be overcome without any fighting by Israel. The reference is to <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>, "He will deliver their kings into your hand and you shall make their name perish from under the sky; no man shall be able to stand before you, until you have destroyed them". But this was conditional upon them not being afraid (<a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a>), and believing that God had already softened them up by "the hornet" (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>). This is why Joshua was encouraged constantly not to be afraid (seven times in Joshua 1). It seems that he finally came to the level of faith required, although it's unclear whether Israel did. But thanks to his faith, Jericho and its king was given into the hand of Joshua personally.</p><p>Perhaps the Lord had this scene in mind when He spoke of the strong man guarding his palace, and being overcome by one stronger than himself, i:e. the Lord Jesus, who was represented by Joshua (<a href='B:490 11:21-22'>Luk 11:21-22</a>). We are those who then spoil his palace, making the nervous Israelites representative of us all, and making the victory over Jericho solely due to Joshua's faith; see above.</p>


text:
<p>All your men of war shall march around the city, going around the city once. You shall do this six days-</p><p>Jericho was to be circled for six days before victory on the seventh (<a href='B:60 6:3-5'>Jos 6:3-5</a>). This recalls Naaman's cure on his seventh dipping (<a href='B:120 5:10'>2Ki 5:10</a>), and the way Elijah was only answered at his seventh prayer (<a href='B:110 18:43'>1Ki 18:43</a>). The intention was that through the six times performing something which had no immediate answer, faith, hope and humility were elicited.</p>


text:
<p>Seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark- </p><p>LXX and :8-14 show that this was to be done on each of the six days. These trumpets were to be blown each day (:13). Literally, "trumpets of Jubilee". The allusion may simply be to the length of the blast made; or the idea may be that these were the trumpets used to announce the year of Jubilee on the day of atonement (<a href='B:30 25:9'>Lev 25:9</a>)- announcing freedom for the slaves and landless, which is who Israel were. It could be that the trumpet blasts were to be understood by the people of Jericho as a call to repentance, which they ignored (<a href='B:370 3:6'>Amo 3:6</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>). This would then explain why the city was devoted to Yahweh in destruction which was the punishment for a city which turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:50 13:12-14'>Deu 13:12-14</a>).</p><p>On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets- </p><p>To enter covenant was literally 'to be sevened' (<a href='B:10 21:28'>Gen 21:28</a>; <a href='B:10 21:30'>Gen 21:30</a>). The city was to enter covenant- through those who didn’t want to be in the covenant being destroyed. Rahab wanted to be in the covenant (see on Joshua 2), and was brought into it through the city's destruction.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout- </p><p>This was the victory shout. They were being asked to believe that what was promised had indeed come true, in the spirit of <a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>. They were asked to believe that they had won- before they had. And therefore by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, so says <a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a>.</p><p>The wall of the city shall fall down flat- </p><p>"Flat" can simply mean 'from beneath', or the idea may have been that the rubble would be 'flat' enough for the Israelites to advance over it into the city, straight before them. The same word is used for how Achan hid the silver under or beneath the garment he stole (<a href='B:60 7:21-22'>Jos 7:21-22</a>). "Fall down flat" is the phrase used of enemies falling down beneath a victorious Israel (<a href='B:230 18:38'>Psa 18:38</a>; <a href='B:230 45:5'>Psa 45:5</a>). The mighty wall represented the Canaanites. The same language of a mighty wall falling is used of the destruction of latter day Babylon (<a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a>; <a href='B:300 51:44'>Jer 51:44</a>; <a href='B:330 38:20'>Eze 38:20</a>). Joshua clearly represented the Lord Jesus and His conquest of all opposition to Him in the land of the last days.</p><p>There are archaeological claims to have unearthed a wall laying flat on one of the levels of excavation. But surely a wall built from flimsy cement would have not fallen down "flat" but would have disintegrated on impact. Our faith is purely in God’s word, rather than hinged solely on questionable archaeological evidence. The evidence for the city having been burnt is more solid, and indeed corroborates the later statement that Jericho was burnt.</p><p>And the people shall go up every man straight before him- </p><p>Following the Angel is the theme that lies behind God’s statement that because He had already given Jericho to Israel, therefore they should arise and take it. So many victories have been prepared for us in prospect- against addictions, engrained weaknesses of character, habits, impossible situations. Israel had to follow the ark, where the Angelic presence of God was (<a href='B:60 6:2'>Jos 6:2</a> cp. 6:8). The people were to go up into Jericho "straight before them" (<a href='B:60 6:5'>Jos 6:5</a>; <a href='B:60 6:20'>Jos 6:20</a>), just as the Cherubim-Angels have "straight feet" (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>; <a href='B:330 1:9'>Eze 1:9</a>; <a href='B:330 1:12'>Eze 1:12</a>). They were to follow in the Angel's steps.</p><p>It is unclear whether "the people" refers to the "armed men"; or to the ordinary unarmed people, as I prefer to think. For it would fit the whole theme of a victory being granted to the weak. If there were unarmed people in the mass of Israelites around the city, this would be another example of the strategy being very weak militarily. For masses of unarmed civilians could easily be attacked and panicked. Perhaps they are the "rearguard" of :13.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun called the priests and said to them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>Upon the ark was the "mercy seat", imagined as the throne upon which Yahweh was enthroned as king, perhaps with the shekinah glory visible between the cherubim which were over it. The trumpets going before it were therefore proclaiming or heralding Him as king; hence the usage of the phrase "Lord of all the earth" in connection with the ark (<a href='B:60 3:11'>Jos 3:11</a>; <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a>). The idea is consistently that Canaan was being claimed as His Kingdom, with Himself as King.</p>


text:
<p>They said to the people, Go, march around the city, and let the armed men pass on before Yahweh’s ark-</p><p>See on :13. We note that the focus of the description is upon the ark. The armed men went before it, followed by the priests and only then the ark. But the description begins with the ark, for this was the central point of the procession. The archaeological excavations reveal Jericho to have only been of 600 meters circumference. The people would have spent the rest of the day looking at the walls, meditating upon them. This was all intended to pique their faith in God, compared to the height of the obstacle. They were being set up to undo the mistake of the previous generation, who had considered the walls of the Canaanite cities an insuperable obstacle.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before Yahweh advanced and blew the trumpets; and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh followed them- </p><p>See on :7. This is rather similar to how the ark stood in the Jordan riverbed until the people had passed over, and then followed them. This recalls how the Angel [who was perhaps dwelling over the ark in the shekinah glory] "went behind" [s:w. "followed"] at the exodus (<a href='B:20 14:19'>Exo 14:19</a>). The word is also used in <a href='B:50 23:14'>Deu 23:14</a>, where Israel are warned that if they are unclean, then Yahweh will no longer follow them. They of course were bidden follow Him, but He is also presented as following them. And thus God’s people hear His voice behind them, urging them to choose the right path (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:21'>Isa 30:21</a>); for He is not only their vanguard, but also their rear guard following them (<a href='B:290 52:12'>Isa 52:12</a>; <a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>). This indicates not only the mutuality between God and His people; but the sense that we are both following and being followed by Him, as it were sandwiched by His presence.</p>


text:
<p>The armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets, and the ark went after them. The trumpets sounded as they went- </p><p>"Armed men" is s:w. <a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a>, and could possibly refer specifically to the men of the two and a half tribes who were to be the vanguard for the Israelite army. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua commanded the people saying, You shall not shout, nor let your voice be heard, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I tell you ‘Shout!’ Then you shall shout- </p><p>The command to "shout" was a reflection of the belief Israel were to have in the fact that God had already given them the city- for the Hebrew for "shout" usually refers to a shout of victory. The word is translated "... will I triumph" in <a href='B:230 60:8'>Psa 60:8</a>; <a href='B:230 108:9'>Psa 108:9</a>. The same idea of shouting in victory over a city which has been given to God’s people recurs in <a href='B:230 47:3'>Psa 47:3</a>; <a href='B:230 47:5'>Psa 47:5</a>; <a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a> - "Shout against her round about [cp. compassing the walls of Jericho]... her foundations are [present tense] fallen, her walls [cp. Jericho's] are thrown down". And this speaks of our latter day victory against Babylon- thus making the whole account of earnest relevance to us who live in the last days, and who will see Babylon fall by faith. Notice how literal Babylon fell by the water of the river being dried up, and the walls being opened- just the same sequence of events that occurred at Jericho. Likewise <a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation. Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful.</p>&nbsp;<p><a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a> associates the circling of the walls with faith: “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been circled seven days”. <a href='B:540 10:3-4'>2Co 10:3-4</a> is perhaps an allusion to the way that Jericho was taken with such a humanly weak battle plan: “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ". The point of the allusion is for us to see ourselves as those nervous Israelites desperately clinging on to their faith in God’s victory rather than human strength. And we each have our Jerichos- habits, life-dominating patterns of thinking, that seem so impossible to shift.</p><p>The deliverance at the Red Sea had been intended to teach Israel these very lessons. And the account of the fall of Jericho is recorded in similar language, in order to teach the same lesson. Rahab's house had to be identified by a scarlet cord- like the blood of the Passover lamb sprinkled on the two doorposts and lintel of the Israelites' homes in Egypt. The silence demanded of the people in <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a> was surely to recall <a href='B:20 14:14'>Exo 14:14</a>, there the people standing before the Red Sea were assured: “The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent". Compare the command to keep silent whilst Yahweh fought, with the common practice of yelling war cries as an ancient army approached their enemy. All human convention, wisdom and strength, was placed in purposeful opposition to what seemed quite counter-instinctive- to be utterly silent whilst God did the fighting.</p>


text:
<p>So he caused the ark of Yahweh to go around the city, going about it once. Then they came into the camp and lodged in the camp-</p><p>There's a distinct theme in the record that actually, God’s people didn’t do according to His ideal plan, and yet still He gave them the victory. One wonders whether the comment that "So the ark of the Lord compassed the city" (<a href='B:60 6:11'>Jos 6:11</a>) could imply that the entire fighting force of Israel didn’t bother doing as commanded on the first circuit of the city- possibly they just sent the ark around it. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>The seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of Yahweh went on continually and blew the trumpets: and the armed men went before them. The rear guard came after the ark of Yahweh. The trumpets sounded as they went- </p><p>This rear guard could have just been ordinary unarmed people, as discussed on :5. The restoration prophets may allude to this in saying that Yahweh would be Israel's rear guard (<a href='B:290 52:12'>Isa 52:12</a>), and Yahweh's glory would be their rear guard (<a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>)- manifest in unarmed, ordinary people. The tribe of Dan was the rear guard of the camp when it was usually on the move (<a href='B:40 10:25'>Num 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The second day they marched around the city once, and returned into the camp. They did this six days- </p><p>Verse 10 implies that the people maybe didn’t know the battle plan- each day they would've walked around the city in silence, and nothing happened. They were kept on the tip toe of faith and obedience throughout those six days, and may well have wondered whether this was not just some bizarre ritual which would make no dent in the walls of Jericho. The command to "Shout!" didn’t come- for six days. The whole exercise was surely to develop their faith. Again, this was the most crazy of battle plans, in human terms.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the seventh day that they rose early at the dawning of the day, and marched around the city in the same way seven times. Only on this day they marched around the city seven times- </p><p>As noted above, they would have been exhausted by the end of this. The battle plan was God’s and was against all human wisdom, which would have wanted an early morning surprise attack, with troops at their most fresh. Rather than an exhausted group of soldiers later in the day, in full view of the enemy, having given the defenders every warning that a major attack was coming.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the seventh time, when the priests blew the trumpets, that Joshua said to the people, Shout, for Yahweh has given you the city!-</p><p>The command to "shout" was a reflection of the belief Israel were to have in the fact that God had already given them the city- for the Hebrew for "shout" usually refers to a shout of victory. The word is translated "... will I triumph" in <a href='B:230 60:8'>Psa 60:8</a>; <a href='B:230 108:9'>Psa 108:9</a>. The same idea of shouting in victory over a city which has been given to God’s people recurs in <a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a> - "Shout against her round about [cp. compassing the walls of Jericho]... her foundations are [present tense] fallen, her walls [cp. Jericho's] are thrown down". And this speaks of our latter day victory against Babylon- thus making the whole account of earnest relevance to us who live in the last days, and who will see Babylon fall by faith. Notice how literal Babylon fell by the water of the river being dried up, and the walls being opened- just the same sequence of events that occurred at Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>The city shall be devoted, even it and all that is in it, to Yahweh. Only Rahab the prostitute shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent- </p><p>"The prostitute" is emphasized. Those within her house, a brothel, sound like they were her clients; although we know they were her family. But the language is used like this to emphasize her low moral situation. Her salvation was a strong lesson to Israel. Those whom they would otherwise despise as the lowest of the low, a Gentile prostitute, were to be welcomed into the covenant:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But as for you, only keep yourselves from the devoted thing, lest when you have devoted it, you take of the devoted thing- </p><p>This was precisely what Saul did (<a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>). Like so many, he failed to learn from Biblical history. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p><p>Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>). The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions?</p><p>That would make the camp of Israel accursed- </p><p>"Accursed" is s:w. "devoted". Jericho and its wealth was to be sacrificially devoted to Yahweh. If Israel took that wealth to themselves, then they too would have to be handed over to Him in destruction.</p><p>And trouble it- </p><p>Ahab's denunciation of Elijah as "he that troubles Israel" (<a href='B:110 18:17'>1Ki 18:17</a>) effectively accuses Elijah of being like Achan, the troubler of Israel (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;As Achan brought about Israel's defeat at the hand of her surrounding enemies, so latter-day Israel will blame their similar defeats and the strange drought which will afflict them, upon Elijah:&nbsp;&nbsp;Elijah's response to Ahab's accusation is typical of his theme of the need to throw off the worship of Baal and the other local gods, for that of Yahweh:&nbsp; "I have not troubled Israel, but you... in that you have... followed Baalim" (<a href='B:110 18:18'>1Ki 18:18</a>):&nbsp;The stress upon this may indicate that the latter-day Elijah will seek to turn Israel away from a devotion to Islam - the idol of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>But all the silver and gold, and the vessels of brass and iron, are holy to Yahweh. They shall come into Yahweh’s treasury-</p><p>The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from the Gentile world and dedicated to the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a>; <a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a>; <a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a>; <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets. It happened that when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him; and they took the city-</p><p>See on :5,11; <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>. For "flat", see on :5. Yet according to <a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a>, “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down …”. Whose faith? What faith? Was Joshua-Jesus' faith counted to the people? Or was their very weak, hope-for-the-best faith all the same accepted as faith by God’s grace?</p><p>The people were to shout when the trumpets sounded (<a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>). But in reality, like a Sunday School play gone wrong, the people shouted, the trumpets sounded, and then the people again shouted (<a href='B:60 6:20'>Jos 6:20</a>). See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword- </p><p>"Destroyed" is the word for "devoted". But actually not all was devoted; Achan stole some of it. So this is an example of where the Bible records things as they appeared to men, without as it were adding footnotes to clarify. Just as the language of demons is used in the New Testament, although they do not in fact exist.</p><p>The animals aren't recorded as being destroyed in later conquests. It's as if God recognized that the totality of devotion to Him which He so desired was just not going to be forthcoming from His people. And so He asked for less, and allowed them keep the cattle, which clearly they were tempted to covet. Yet we need to learn from this, and be inspired to at least try to rise up to total devotion.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, Go into the prostitute’s house, and bring out from there the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her- </p><p>Hebrew tenses are vague, unlike tenses in Greek or English. The idea is that Joshua "had said" this to the two men. Artists have done us a great disservice by presenting the walls of Jericho as having fallen, apart from the section where Rahab's house was. She had already been brought out- perhaps by using the scarlet rope to descend the walls, bringing her into full fellowship with the experience of the spies. But the emphasis is that the spies 'brought her out', and entered her house.</p>


text:
<p>The young men who were spies went in, and brought out Rahab with her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. They also brought out all her relatives, and they set them outside the camp of Israel- </p><p>The family had been warned that they must remain within the house, as if they were keeping Passover (<a href='B:60 2:19'>Jos 2:19</a> = <a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a>). They were "brought out" as Israel were then brought out from Egypt, the "house" of bondage (s:w. <a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a>). The king of Jericho had used the same phrase in ordering that the spies be brought out from her house (<a href='B:60 2:3'>Jos 2:3</a>). But it was all turned the other way around, which is typical of God’s style of working.  We see something of God's radical inversion of values in that the sanctuary of refuge in this case was a brothel. Those within it were her family, who swallowed their pride and reconciled with Rahab enough to come within her home; and presumably any others there were her former clients. There would have been a strange compulsion in the witness of a repentant prostitute, warning of judgment to come and salvation within her house. We wonder if some refusd to accept her preaching because they couldn't humble themselves toenter within her home. Their concern about appearances was absurd in that the society whose views they so cared was about to be obliterated. We can easily translate these things into modern relevance.

As the city was closed (:1), the spies would have entered her home at some point before the walls were destroyed. We presume they did this using the red rope hanmging from her window, and that she and her family and converts used that same rope to come to salvation / safety. But red / scarlet is the colour of prostituion, and to this day, 'red light areas' refer to prostitution. The scarlet rope would have been on one hand the sign of her prostitution. And yet she was asked to use this as the sign of her commitment to the covenant, the equivalent of painting blood on the doorposts of the homes in Egypt. And it was through using that rope that those in her house were saved. Whilst of course her sin is not at all justified, the point is that it was through her sin that she had come to hear the Gospel, and she was inviting others to associate with her confession of sin in order to be saved. </p>


text:
<p>They burnt the city with fire, and all that was in it- </p><p>Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames' (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>; <a href='B:60 11:11'>Jos 11:11</a>), surely because they were following the Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Yet quite naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel.</p><p>Only they put the silver, the gold and the vessels of brass and of iron into the treasury of Yahweh’s house-</p><p><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation. Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful. And she was a whore, and her family had to humble themselves to reconcile with her and come within her brothel in order to be saved.</p>


text:
<p>But Rahab the prostitute, her father’s household, and all that she had- </p><p>Family, however estranged from them she must have been, were "all that she had", and in a secular sense that is true for even the wealthiest people.</p><p>Joshua saved alive. She lived in the midst of Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation. Here, it seems that the record is being written whilst Rahab was still alive, and so "to this day" was only a relatively short time after the events.</p><p>Again we see the spies described as messengers; and <a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>; <a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a> say that she believed them. They preached the gospel of the Kingdom and she had faith in it. I suggested earlier that the prince of Judah whom she married (Salmon) was in fact one of the spies, as the two spies would have reflected the tribes of the faithful spies of 38 years before, Ephraim and Judah (Joshua and Caleb). But Rahab reasons in Josh. 2 as if she herself first became intersted in Yahweh when she heard of what He had done at the Red Sea and to Egypt, informed of it by her clients. She would surely have been a teenager at this time. Now, around 40 years later, she would have been at least in her 50s. And it went with the territory of being a prostitute in Jericho that she would have had a number of children, abortions, miscarriages etc. That she could bear a child at this sage and after that kind of lifestype was clearly only possible with God's help; and we see again how fragile are the human threads through which God has worked out His purpose over the generations.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua commanded them with an oath at that time, saying, Cursed before Yahweh is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho. With the loss of his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up its gates-</p><p>The idea was to build it in the sense of fortifying it; for the city was inhabited for quite some time before this curse came true. Was this unnecessarily extreme? However it was fulfilled at the time of Ahab in <a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>: "In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho: he laid its foundation with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun". To even attempt to rebuilt Jericho meant a studied disregard of God’s word, considering Biblical records of Joshua's words to be merely the words of men. Hiel was from Bethel, where the golden calf was. Jericho had been inhabited after Joshua's time (<a href='B:70 3:13'>Jdg 3:13</a>; <a href='B:100 10:5'>2Sa 10:5</a>). So this was a conscious rebuilding of the walls with gates in defiance of Yahweh's word. And his sons died during the building work, perhaps 'at some time between the beginning, in laying the foundations, and the ending of the project, in hanging the gates'. After Abiram died laying the foundations, we would rather imagine that Hiel might have learned the lesson. But he didn’t, such was his desire to defy God’s word. And so his youngest son died when the project was almost completed and the gates were being hung. The desire to rebuild the settlement as a walled, gated city could have been because of its strategic position near the crossing of the Jordan river. Jericho was on the border of Ephraim but belonged to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 16:7'>Jos 16:7</a>; <a href='B:60 18:21'>Jos 18:21</a>), so it seems Ahab had taken it, and wanted to have the city and fortify it as a boundary against the two tribe kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land-</p><p>The eretz promised to Abraham is the land / earth which the Bible focuses upon. “The LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country” (<a href='B:60 6:27'>Jos 6:27</a>), the&nbsp; eretz. Clearly the whole planet didn’t know Joshua had invaded Canaan. Many times in Joshua and Judges we read of the people of the eretz: “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land [eretz] shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth [eretz]” (<a href='B:60 7:9'>Jos 7:9</a>). Here the Israelites feared being cut off from their place in the land. They perceived the world / earth to them as the land where their enemies lived. In <a href='B:60 12:1'>Jos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:60 12:7'>Jos 12:7</a> we meet “the kings of the earth”, i:e. of the land, and this must surely be the basis of how we are to understand the references to “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. <a href='B:50 13:7'>Deu 13:7</a> defines “the peoples which are round about you” [Israel] as being “from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” (RV). Those peoples which bordered with the Israelites were “the earth” / eretz.</p>


text:
<p>But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the devoted things; for Achan, the son of Carmi the son of Zabdi the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things- </p><p>The words for "devoted" and "destroyed" are the same. The wealth of Jericho was to be destroyed in that it was devoted to God. Therefore Achan had to be destroyed, because he had associated himself with that which was to be destroyed / devoted. We&nbsp; too must understand that all things are God’s. To keep wealth as it were for ourselves will lead to our destruction; we are to devote it to God.</p><p>Therefore Yahweh’s anger burned against the children of Israel-</p><p>The gods of the nations were also understood as getting angry with their people but for whimsical, irrational reasons; or without any explanation. Yahweh is presented as a God of consistent, passionate love for His people; but whose wrath burns because of their moral sin. Such a conception of 'God' was unknown to the surrounding world.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven on the east side of Bethel, and spoke to them saying, Go up and spy out the land. The men went up and spied out Ai- </p><p>Joshua had himself received that command 40 years ago, and had done so in faith. And clearly that was what he expected of these spies; but as noted on :3, they had more arrogance than the confidence of faith.</p>


text:
<p>They returned to Joshua and said to him, Don’t let all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and strike Ai. Don’t make all the people to toil there, for there are only a few of them-</p><p>Shouldn’t Joshua have led them into battle in person (<a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a>); he did the second time they attacked Ai (<a href='B:60 8:15'>Jos 8:15</a>). And the spies appear over confident. There were 12,000 men of Ai slain (<a href='B:60 8:25'>Jos 8:25</a>). To assume that they could so easily overcome with an inexperienced force a fraction of their size... indicates arrogance. So the sin of Achan was worked through by God, in a multi faceted way. For they needed the defeat in order to make them more humble. The spies' comment that not all the people needed to "toil" or "labour" to capture Ai betrays a wrong idea that victory was through their labour, rather than God’s grace (<a href='B:60 7:3'>Jos 7:3</a>). And so <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> uses the word in saying that Israel were given a land for which they did not "labour" (s:w:). They were taught through Achan's sin that they were not defeating the Canaanites by their strength, but by God’s undeserved grace.</p>


text:
<p>So about three thousand men of the people went up there, and they fled before the men of Ai- </p><p>Apparently the ark wasn't taken with them (:6); another indication of assuming they would win, rather than going in faith. For the ark had been central to the victory over Jericho. The record consistently places it as the central point of the victory.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ai struck about thirty-six of them, and they chased them from before the gate even to Shebarim, and struck them at the descent- </p><p>"About 36" reads strangely, as we would expect a round number to follow the word "about". But it's likely from archaeological evidence that the peoples of Canaan were using the sexagesimal system; and 6 x 6 would therefore mean 'a large number', or maybe one hundred, according to the decimal system [i:e. 6 x 6 = 10 x 10].</p><p>The hearts of the people melted and became like water- </p><p>This was just how the hearts of the Canaanites had been, according to Rahab's words; and it was how Israel's hearts had been when they were first rejected from the land. They were as if they had never conquered Jericho. All they saw was the result of sin; they didn’t apparently think of the reason for the judgment. Like the peoples around them, they were thinking of Yahweh as if He were one of the standard deities, who got angry with his people for no reason. They were failing to perceive that Yahweh was only angry with His people if they sinned; and therefore, they had sinned:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of Yahweh until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads- </p><p>This was all a sign of grief, but not necessarily of repentance. As discussed on :6, the obvious conclusion was that they had sinned and were therefore not experiencing Yahweh's blessing. For to flee before enemies was a curse for not remaining obedient to the covenant. But Joshua focuses only upon the judgment, rather than the underlying reason for it. He comes over as distinctly lacking in spiritual perception at this point.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Alas, Lord Yahweh, why have You brought this people over the Jordan at all, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to cause us to perish? I wish that we had been content and lived beyond the Jordan!-</p><p>He lost faith in the promise of <a href='B:60 1:5-7'>Jos 1:5-7</a>; <a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>. It is similar to the language of <a href='B:40 14:3'>Num 14:3</a>, the faithless complaint of Israel in the wilderness to the effect that God had cruelly brought them over the Red Sea [cp. over Jordan] just to kill them. And as Israel wished they had remained in Egypt, so Joshua wishes the people had remained east of Jordan. His faith was in tatters. And yet he ought to have had the humility to perceive what had happened- Israel had taken of the devoted thing. He may well have guessed so, but Joshua probably though that such grabbing of a bit of spoil was to be expected, and was surely not such a big item. But it was. And the lesson is that any assumption that we can 'rob God', by assuming our wealth is "ours", is extremely serious to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Oh Lord, what shall I say, after that Israel has turned their backs before their enemies!- </p><p>Joshua lamented how Israel had fled before their enemies the first time they attacked Ai, alluding back to the curses for disobedience which Moses had recently pronounced to them. Therefore the second time they attacked Ai, Joshua and his people purposefully fled before their enemies; as if recognizing that the curses for disobedience were justified for them. But by doing this, they ended up chasing their enemies, just as Moses had said they would if they were faithful. No wonder that after the victory, the whole of Israel recited the blessings and cursings (<a href='B:60 8:5'>Jos 8:5</a>; <a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33-35'>Jos 8:33-35</a> cp. 7:8)!</p>


text:
<p>For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it and will surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. What will You do for Your great name?- </p><p>This seems a half hearted attempt to follow the logic of Moses when he was told that God intended to destroy all Israel because of the sin with the golden calf. But Joshua sounds like faithless Jacob, fearful that the surrounding nations will cut him off- as if he considered God’s promises about his seed as somehow nullified (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>).</p><p>"The earth" here is specifically the eretz promised to Abraham; the peoples of that earth / land would surround Israel. In <a href='B:60 12:1'>Jos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:60 12:7'>Jos 12:7</a> we meet “the kings of the earth”, i:e. of the land, and this must surely be the basis of how we are to understand the references to “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. <a href='B:50 13:7'>Deu 13:7</a> defines “the peoples which are round about you” [Israel] as being “from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” (RV). Those peoples which bordered with the Israelites were “the earth” / eretz.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Get up! Why are you fallen on your face like that?-</p><p>He is being reminded not to just see himself as part of a community, but to remember his personal relationship with God, and not to have such a low self image. He ought to have perceived why Israel had turned their backs to their enemies; it was because they had broken covenant with God through sin. What God now spells out to Joshua, he really ought to have perceived an stated to God. "Like that" suggests Joshua was fallen on his face not in repentance, as he ought to have been, but just in grief for the Divine judgment which had come.</p>


text:
<p>Israel has sinned. Yes, they have even transgressed My covenant which I commanded them- </p><p>See on :10. In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us.</p><p>Yes, they have even taken of the devoted things, and have also stolen and also deceived. They have even put it among their own stuff-</p><p>Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God, and therefore to steal from Him. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>). The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions?</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the children of Israel can’t stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will not be with you any more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you-</p><p>If Canaan is seen to represent the Kingdom, the things which are stopping us entering the Kingdom are our sins. In prospect, Jesus, the antitype of the great Angel which lead Israel into the land and drove out the enemies in prospect, has vanquished all our sins. When Israel sinned, the help the Angels were giving Israel to help them possess what they had already prepared for them, was taken away. Thus with the first attack on Ai, the Angels had in prospect driven out the people of Ai, but the realization of that was conditional on Israel's obedience. Just as Israel in the wilderness were threatened with the withdrawal of the presence of the Angel, so here.</p>


text:
<p>Get up!- </p><p>God was displeased with Joshua moping around on the floor. Joshua needed to recognize Israel had sinned, and had taken things devoted to Yahweh- and devote those things to Yahweh by destroying them.</p><p>Sanctify the people and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because Yahweh the God of Israel says, There is a devoted thing in the midst of you, Israel. You cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the devoted thing from among you- </p><p>This is not the same as guilt by association. The situation here has been misinterpreted by some to mean that we therefore cannot associate with sinners of the Achan category, lest we become defiled by association with them. But the point is that all the community of believers are in a sense considered at fault because of the failings of some of them. So if there is guilt by association, then it cannot be avoided by not associating with sinful people within the community. For the people of God, the community, is indivisible. We are in it and cannot quit it, if we wish to remain God’s people. And in fact the Lord Jesus time and again turned all this around to the opposite- by willingly seeking association with sinners, eating with them, touching the leper etc. He was not thereby condemned, but rather sought to highlight His association with unclean people of God. It was through that willing association that we are saved.</p>


text:
<p>‘In the morning therefore you shall be brought near by your tribes. It shall be that the tribe which Yahweh selects shall come near by families. The family which Yahweh selects shall come near by households. The household which Yahweh selects shall come near man by man- </p><p>This was presumably achieved by the flashing out of yes / no answers from the urim and thummim in the breastplate (<a href='B:40 27:21'>Num 27:21</a>; <a href='B:90 14:42'>1Sa 14:42</a>). The long drawn out process (requiring Joshua to rise early, :16) was surely to elicit repentance and confession from Achan. But instead he hoped against hope that he would somehow not be found out. His lack of immediate confession reflects his impenitence.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, that he who is taken with the devoted thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of Yahweh, and because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel’- </p><p>"All that he has" could mean all his possessions, or it could also include his family. Because surely they knew of his sin, seeing he buried the loot in the tent. And the long drawn out process of :14 had given them all plenty of opportunity to confess what had happened.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua rose up early in the morning and brought Israel near by their tribes. The tribe of Judah was selected- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>He brought near the family of Judah; and he selected the family of the Zerahites. He brought near the family of the Zerahites man by man, and Zabdi was selected- </p><p>"Man by man" refers not to all the men, but to the heads of families.</p>


text:
<p>He brought near his household man by man, and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was selected- </p><p>We note that none of his ancestors had God’s name within their names.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to Achan, My son, please give glory to Yahweh the God of Israel, and make confession to Him. Tell me now what you have done! Don’t hide it from me!-</p><p>He correctly perceives that repentance is a giving of glory to God’s Name. And one is tempted to think that Joshua’s appeal to Achan to properly confess his sin was meant to give him the chance of avoiding the ‘definite’ condemnation promised. However it could be that Joshua accepted Achan had to die, but he urged his repentance because he understood that there would be a future day of resurrection and judgment; and if Achan was repentant, then he would then be saved.</p>


text:
<p>Achan answered Joshua and said, I have truly sinned against Yahweh the God of Israel, and this is what I have done- </p><p>The summary of his sins, and his appreciation of the psychological processes behind them (:21), is very thorough. But it was only made after the long process of exposing him had finished. All through it, and it would have taken some time (therefore Joshua arose early that morning, :16), Achan could have volunteered his confession. But he didn’t; and like the drug addict who completely understands his situation but won't break free, so Achan perceived exactly the process of temptation and sin, but wouldn't really repent.</p>


text:
<p>When I saw among the spoil a beautiful Babylonian robe- </p><p>This could have been a pagan priestly robe which was attractive to Achan as an idolater. Or since "robe" is that used for the kingly robe of <a href='B:390 3:6'>Jon 3:6</a>, it was perhaps the robe of the king of Jericho. To steal it, when it could never be worn or sold easily, is therefore typical of how the lust of the eyes leads to stealing of wrongly obtaining things which have no practical value.</p><p>Two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I coveted them and took them. Behold, they are hidden in the ground in the middle of my tent, with the silver under it- </p><p><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a> uses a family analogy- a man and "his own lust" beget a child, called sin; and sin, in due time, gives birth to death. Strange, surely, how James makes no mention of a personal Devil or demons as having any part at all to play in this process. It's quite possible that James' language is alluding to a classic example of the thought-lust-temptation-sin-death process which we have in the record of Achan in <a href='B:60 7:20-21'>Jos 7:20-21</a>: "I saw two hundred shekels of silver, I coveted them, and took them... I sinned"- and so he was executed.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent. Behold, it was hidden in his tent, with the silver under it- </p><p>The speed was appropriate because they realized that they as a nation were defiled by having material which was God’s still amongst them. It's all a powerful lesson for us; for all we apparently own is not ours. Ownership, especially in its capitalist sense, is an illusion; all is God’s. The Lord's parable of hidden treasure appears to allude to this scene, in an inverse sense. The true treasure we are to find and hide is that of the Gospel, as opposed to material things.</p>


text:
<p>They took them from the middle of the tent, and brought them to Joshua and to all the children of Israel. They laid them down before Yahweh- </p><p>"The middle of the tent" could imply that the entire family were guilty and complicent in what he did, which would explain why they also were slain. "Laid them down" suggests the weight of the wealth stolen. We note too that "Joshua", like the Lord Jesus his namesake, was "Yahweh" in a functional sense, although not of course God Himself in person. The material was laid down before Joshua, i:e. before Yahweh, seeing Joshua was His representative. Failure to appreciate this has led to all manner of Bible verses being misinterpreted as proof texts for the mistaken dogma of the Trinity. Likewise "all the children of Israel" surely means their representative elders, and LXX here gives "elders".</p>


text:
<p>Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his cattle, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the valley of Achor- </p><p>We see here how the record was written at some point afterwards, for the valley "of Achor" was named after Achan, who is called "Achor" in the Chronicles genealogies. Although the judgment was to be by burning, it was also by stoning- so that all Israel would have a hand in it. The destruction of all he had would be a lesson that the rich man who tried to get richer was being judged by losing absolutely all he ever had. We also learn from this that the people crossed Jordan along with a fair number of animals, and perhaps they also had flocks with them in the wilderness journey.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? Yahweh will trouble you this day. All Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire and stoned them with stones- </p><p>Ahab's denunciation of Elijah as "he that troubles Israel" (<a href='B:110 18:17'>1Ki 18:17</a>) effectively accuses Elijah of being like Achan, the troubler of Israel (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;As Achan brought about Israel's defeat at the hand of her surrounding enemies, so latter-day Israel will blame their similar defeats and the strange drought which will afflict them, upon Elijah:&nbsp;&nbsp;Elijah's response to Ahab's accusation is typical of his theme of the need to throw off the worship of Baal and the other local gods, for that of Yahweh:&nbsp; "I have not troubled Israel, but you... in that you have... followed Baalim" (<a href='B:110 18:18'>1Ki 18:18</a>):&nbsp;The stress upon this may indicate that the latter-day Elijah will seek to turn Israel away from a devotion to Islam - the idol of the surrounding nations.</p><p>It was Achan who was stoned with stones. The "them" burned with fire could refer to his family, or to his possessions. Perhaps his family were brought close to observe his death, just as the families of those who committed atrocities in the holocaust were made to watch the hanging of their guilty relatives.</p>


text:
<p>They raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p><p>Yahweh turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place was called The valley of Achor to this day- </p><p>This turning from fierce anger recalls how Yahweh likewise did so earlier- because of the intercession of Moses. Here He turned from His anger because of repentance; but earlier He had done so because of the prayer of Moses, which was therefore counted as if Israel had repented at the time of the golden calf. This raises deep questions as to whether our prayers and intercessions can save the impenitent; see on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>. <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a> speaks of God’s wrath turning away because those who had married Gentile women divorced them. God’s wrath is also turned away by the death of the sinner- the heads of the sinners in <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a> were to be ‘hung up’ before the Lord so that His wrath would turn away. A similar example is to be found in <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>. Jeremiah often comments that God’s wrath is turned away by the execution of judgment upon the sinner (e.g. <a href='B:300 30:24'>Jer 30:24</a>). In this sense His anger and wrath are poured out or ‘accomplished’, i:e. they are no more because they have been poured out (<a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a>). The fact that men such as Moses and Jeremiah (<a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>) turned away God’s wrath without these things happening, or simply by prayer (<a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>) therefore means that God accepted the intercession of those men and counted their righteousness to those from whom His wrath turned away. We shouldn’t assume that these righteous men merely waved away God’s wrath. That wrath was real, and required immense pleading and personal dedication on their behalf.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed. Take all the people of war with you and arise, go up to Ai. Behold, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, with his people, his city, and his land-</p><p>Chapter 7 has presented Joshua as having been so "dismayed" that he lost faith in the promises and encouragement of <a href='B:60 1:3'>Jos 1:3</a>; <a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>. God now continues to encourage him. Although the victory was given into their hand, that was still potential. For obedience was still required:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>You shall do to Ai and her king as you did to Jericho and her king, except its spoil and its livestock, you shall take for a plunder for yourselves- </p><p>God told Israel to totally destroy the spoil from the cities they attacked. But when they failed to do this with Jericho, God told them that with Ai, the next city on the agenda, they were allowed to keep the spoil (<a href='B:60 8:2'>Jos 8:2</a>); even though <a href='B:50 20:14-16'>Deu 20:14-16</a> said that this was how they should treat their distant enemies, but not cities like Ai which were part of their inheritance. This was an undoubted concession to human&nbsp; weakness. The same concession to human weakness applied to other cities apart from Ai; it became a general policy that "all the spoil of these cities... the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves"; and yet following straight on from this we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses" (<a href='B:60 11:14-15'>Jos 11:14-15</a>). God accepted those concessions to human weakness, this living on a lower level, as total obedience. The grace of all this is marvellous.</p><p>Set an ambush for the city behind it- </p><p>Some human strategy was now used to take Ai, whereas the strategy used to take Jericho had been foolishness in secular terms, and was completely Divine, requiring absolute faith. God is coming down a level, in order to meet His weak people and work with them. Although on another level, we can understand that in working with God, often the initiative is with us. All this means that how we plan to preach and care for others does need to be considered. Time and again, God works through humanly devised good strategies (<a href='B:60 8:1-2'>Jos 8:1-2</a>; <a href='B:160 4:9'>Neh 4:9</a> etc:). But I love the way Derek Kidner puts it: "Scripture approves of strategy when it is a tool rather than a substitute for God".</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua arose- </p><p>"Arose" is s:w. 'raise up'. The Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up [God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s:w. <a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a>; <a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a>; <a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a>]&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e.g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>]. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.</p><p>And all the people of war, to go up to Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valour, and sent them out by night- </p><p>This was ten times the number which the spies had originally suggested in their arrogance and lack of true faith. However we note that in :12, five thousand were set in ambush. 30,000 is a large number of men to hide in order to set an ambush, although the term "thousand" when describing military matters rarely means literally 1000, but rather refers to some military division. Perhaps there were two ambushes set (see on :14), or there were a total of 30,000 troops but 5000 used in the ambush. My personal preference is to believe that he set out with 30000 but like Gideon, the numbers were reduced to 5000. For "Joshua chose" 30000 men, to fight against 12000 (:12,25), as if to assure victory by reason of numbers rather than faith; so perhaps God therefore chose 5000.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded them, saying, Behold, you shall lie in ambush against the city, behind the city. Don’t go very far from the city, but all of you be ready- </p><p>"Behind the city" meant on its west side (:9). The specific commands are from Joshua as the general; perhaps they were his interpretation of the command to set an ambush (:2). How that was to be fulfilled was left up to Joshua. The fact he built into the battle plans a retreat before enemies (:5) is therefore a commendable example of humility, recognizing that they deserved defeat for breaking the covenant, but believing that God’s grace would turn that into victory, thereby making it an example of what Buechner called "the magnificent defeat".</p>


text:
<p>I, and all the people who are with me, will approach to the city. It shall happen, when they come out against us, as at the first, we will flee before them-</p><p>Joshua had lamented how Israel had fled before their enemies the first time they attacked Ai, alluding back to the curses for disobedience which Moses had recently pronounced to them. Therefore the second time they attacked Ai, Joshua and his people purposefully fled before their enemies; as if recognizing that the curses for disobedience were justified for them. But by doing this, they ended up chasing their enemies, just as Moses had said they would if they were faithful. No wonder that after the victory, the whole of Israel recited the blessings and cursings (<a href='B:60 8:5'>Jos 8:5</a>; <a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33-35'>Jos 8:33-35</a> cp. 7:8)! Fleeing before their enemies was perhaps a recognition of the truth of <a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They will come out after us, until we have drawn them away from the city; for they will say, ‘They flee before us, like the first time’. So we will flee before them-</p><p>Joshua explains to his people the mind of the people of Ai. They would assume that nothing had changed in Israel between the first attack and this second attack. But what had happened was that Israel had repented, and the things as it were stolen from God had been given to Him. This was the difference, and so Ai were to be defeated because they failed to recognize that.</p>


text:
<p>and you shall rise up from the ambush, and take possession of the city; for Yahweh your God will deliver it into your hand- </p><p>The possession of the city was not because of the clever strategy, but because of God’s deliverance of it into the hand of Israel. And yet He gave them the strategy, and encouraged Joshua to develop it. This is typical of the way He works, a kind of symphony between Divine sovereignty and human volition.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you have seized on the city, that you shall set the city on fire. You shall do this according to the word of Yahweh. Behold, I have commanded you-</p><p>- see on :3; <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>. The very receipt of a command should strengthen our brave obedience to it (<a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>; <a href='B:100 13:28'>2Sa 13:28</a>). But our attitude to God’s word determines our obedience to it. This is one dimension of believing that the Bible is indeed written by Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua sent them out; and they went to prepare the ambush, and stayed between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai; but Joshua stayed among the people that night- </p><p>Again "the people" are put for the soldiers; see on :11. The Divine command to set an ambush (:2) was obeyed very carefully by Joshua, as so emphasized (s:w. :4,7,9,12,14,19,21). I discuss on :27 how Joshua was very good at obeying clear commands, but tended to fail when he had to resolve questions on his own initiative.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose up early in the morning, mustered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, at the head of the people to Ai- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>All the people, even the men of war who were with him, went up and drew near to the city, and encamped on the north side of Ai. Now there was a valley between him and Ai-</p><p>As often in Joshua, "the people" are paralleled with "the men of war". The idea may be that ordinary unarmed civilians also accompanied them; or that the "men of war" were representative of the people. For it was to be their conquest. The land was to be taken by "them", the people, and not simply due to military actions.</p>


text:
<p>He had set about five thousand men in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city-</p><p>Verses 12 and 13 appear to be a recapitulation of the situation. This position was that once occupied by Abraham (<a href='B:10 12:8'>Gen 12:8</a>; <a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a>), and was clearly chosen to remind the people of their being the children of Abraham and in his position as he first entered the land.</p>


text:
<p>So they set the people, even all the army who was on the north of the city, and the ambush on the west of the city; and Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley- </p><p>The idea is that they had set the people in these positions; verses 12 and 13 appear to be a recapitulation.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hurried and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at the time appointed, before the Arabah; but he didn’t know that there was an ambush against him behind the city- </p><p>"The time appointed" is in some manuscripts "the place appointed"; and "the Arabah" is in some "the ambush". In this case there would be the idea of two ambushes, one before and one behind the city. This would explain the two different numbers given for the troops involved in the ambushes; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness- </p><p>"The way of the wilderness" is the very phrase used of the route taken by Israel after they had been barred from entering the land nearly 40 years previously (<a href='B:50 1:40'>Deu 1:40</a>; <a href='B:50 2:1'>Deu 2:1</a>). Joshua was acceptant of the fact that they did not now deserve to enter the land, and was fleeing before his enemies, knowing this was the curse for disobedience to the covenant. He was therefore appreciating that their entrance to the Kingdom was now by grace alone. And so victory was given, and thus in human terms this was all part of the strategy for taking Ai.</p>


text:
<p>All the people who were in the city were called together to pursue after them. They pursued Joshua, and were drawn away from the city- </p><p>We note that Joshua personally was with the group who fled before their enemies, purposefully accepting that they had broken covenant and were worthy of the condemnation which that involved- of fleeing before enemies.</p>


text:
<p>There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who didn’t go out after Israel. They left the city open and pursued Israel- </p><p>This suggests that the people of Bethel had come to support Ai, perhaps in the gap between the two attacks upon Ai.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand. Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand toward the city- </p><p>The javelin would have reflected the rays of the sun and thereby given a message to the ambush to now rise. However there is no doubt that God meant Joshua to imitate the victories of Moses on account of his staff. We see here a mixture of working through human strategy, and yet being given the victory as a result of Divine operation. This was not the optimal way to operate; for before Achan's sin, the 'strategy' for taking Jericho had been complete nonsense in military terms, and had been designed to demonstrate absolute trust in Yahweh for victory. It seems this sign of the javelin was not explained to Joshua ahead of time. He may have wondered how to inform the ambushers of the optimal time to attack; and God now gave him the answer. Or perhaps the exact timing of the signal was from God. And this helps us understand the apparent gaps in God’s revealed strategy with us; they are there so that we live by faith.</p>


text:
<p>The ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand, entered into the city and took it. They hurried and set the city on fire- </p><p>The burning of the cities was because of their uncleanness. And yet Jerusalem was to be burned with fire in the end (<a href='B:300 21:10'>Jer 21:10</a>; <a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a>). She was going to be proven no better than the idolatrous cities of the Canaanites, whose gods Israel eagerly worshipped. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way. The people who fled to the wilderness turned back on the pursuers- </p><p>Having no way to flee is typical of the experience of condemnation which is to come upon both Israel and the Gentiles (<a href='B:300 25:35'>Jer 25:35</a> etc:). Again, as noted on :19,22 etc:, we see the destruction of these Canaanite cities as being the prototype for the later destruction of Israel, seeing they proved no better than the Canaanites but in fact worse.</p>


text:
<p>When Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and killed the men of Ai- </p><p>The smoke signal was clearly planned in advance, as in <a href='B:70 20:38'>Jdg 20:38</a>. We note the very secular strategy employed in contrast to the humanly foolish strategy in taking Jericho. God perceived Israel's low level of spirituality, and worked with them according to that level. The image of the smoke of a burning city ascending is used of latter day Babylon's destruction at the hands of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 18:18'>Rev 18:18</a>). The conquests of Joshua point forward to that of his namesake; but insofar as he could have given the people "rest", but he didn’t. And so his work was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The others came out of the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, some on that side. They struck them so that they let none of them remain or escape- </p><p>But in the end, the same judgment was to come upon an apostate people of God. They too would be left with none to remain nor escape (<a href='B:300 42:17'>Jer 42:17</a>; <a href='B:300 44:14'>Jer 44:14</a>). We noted on :19 that Jerusalem was to be burnt for her filthiness, just as the cities of Canaan were at this time. God’s people were to be judged as Canaanites. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>They captured the king of Ai alive, and brought him to Joshua- </p><p>"Ai" means 'heaps', and the word is used of how Jerusalem was to become heaps (<a href='B:300 26:18'>Jer 26:18</a>). Her king too was captured alive and brought to the leader of the attacking armies. See on :19,22.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Israel had made an end of killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they pursued them, and they had all fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword-</p><p>The soldiers are described as "all Israel", just as in Joshua the armed men are several times termed "the people". The idea is that the soldiers were seen as representative of the people. For the whole people were as it were to be involved in the conquest.</p>


text:
<p>All that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai- </p><p>Initially the Israelites nonchalantly thought only two or three thousand men were needed to destroy them. But then after the defeat, Joshua took 30000 men to deal with them, and it seems God reduced that number to 5000; see on :3. This wavering in faith and confidence has the ring of psychological credibility to it.</p>


