Skip to main content

A Short Defense of the Book of Esther

There are some severely misguided preachers who think that the Book of Esther should not be in the Bible or even be considered Scripture.  I am afraid that this is a terrible misconception especially by conspiracy preachers.  Please do not quote from the Jewish Talmud (that had a lot of erroneous information about the Old Testament) as it's one of the most dangerous books that keeping Jews from getting saved.  I would like to write this defense for the Book of Esther.  It does not teach anything unbiblical and even if the word God does not appear in the book, the providence of God for the preservation of Israel is still there.  Not that I want people to indulge in treating Jews like royalty because when a Jew is saved, they are no better than any other Christian and when they are not saved, they are going to Hell as much as every other person.

Do you even know why Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman?  This was not a matter of arrogance or that he was power hungry.  The whole idea of bowing down to Haman being bowed down to was more than just a respectful bow.  Esther 3:2 states, "And all the king's servants that were in the king's gate bowed and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him.  But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence."  The whole idea was to worship Haman like as if he was a god and the Bible is clear there is only one God.  Mordecai was a faithful follower of Jehovah God and like a Christian who refuses to bow down to graven images or go out with the wrong crowd because they are saved, he refused to bow down to Haman because he was saved.  Mordecai was not the one who was arrogant but it was Haman who was being arrogant.  Who did Haman think he was that people should do reverence to him like he was a god?  Later when the king had Mordecai honored, I do not even see any signs that he had a high ego.  He simply took the king's reward for him and for the act turning in the two guards that planned to kill the king, he simply did his job and it was the right thing to do.

Haman was a very arrogant and power hungry man.  The evidence was when after he learned why Haman would not bow down to him, you read read in Esther 3:6 which states, "And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai."  Did Adolph Hitler's jealousy of the business acumen of the Jewish people justify what he did during the Holocaust where he killed them using the name of our Jesus Christ in vain?  Did his anger towards being beaten out by a Jew justify his aim to wipe out the Jews throughout Europe?  No amount of anger towards one person of a particular race should justify anybody's murderous intent.  When God ordered the total obliteration of the Canaanites and Amalekites, it was because they were very wicked and judgment was about to fall after they have continued in their evil ways.  Haman's wickedness was based on his arrogance which became his downfall.  His own psychopathic murderous plot backfired on him and his friends, even his own wicked family got killed as a result.  Both Hitler (a religious Roman Catholic) and Haman (most likely a Zoroastrian) got their just desserts for their bitter vindictiveness and arrogance.  

When Esther moved against Haman, it was to protect her people.  She was told by her much older cousin Mordecai who take care of her as a child not to show her being Jewish.  She risked her life to save the Jewish people from Haman's wicked plot which is highly commendable.  It was not wrong for her to put her life in risk because her entire people were in danger.  When it came to the killing of the enemies of the Jews, it was done out of self-defense because of Haman's law that was passed to make sure all Jews were killed so a countermeasure had to be added (Esther 9:1-2).  After Haman was hanged and all those who wanted to kill the Jews got killed in an act of self-defense (which is not murder), please take note that Esther 9:10, 15-16 says that Esther and Mordecai did not lay their hands on the spoils of war.  They were not after power but rather, they were only after the safety of their people.  

The Book of Esther cannot even be considered part of the Apocrypha either.  Nowhere in the Book of Esther is the use of magic, works salvation, purgatory doctrine, pagan philosophy, racial discrimination or historical accuracy.  I have no reason to tear Esther out of my Bible like it was part of the counterfeit books that keep coming in claimed with divine inspiration.  

Popular posts from this blog

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the st…

James 2 DOES NOT Teach Works Salvation

In a hasty attempt to defend works salvation, they would appeal to James 2.  It would be time to actually clear the fact that Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other. James 2 DOES NOT teach works salvation in which now can be clearly seen when this whole chapter is being dissected to show that James 2 does not defend the heretic crowd.  So let's try to check out what James 2 really is saying.
So first, it's time to think about these facts to debunk the heretical argument of using James 2:
1.) James 2:14-18 is not talking about works salvation but rather, again showing one's faith by one's works.  James 2:18 is a challenge to show one's faith.  Want to know about faith?  Hebrews 11 talks about the results of faith with some of the heroes of the Bible.  Try to coincide Hebrews 11 and James 2 and one sees the results of faith.  As said, when one says that a faith without works is DEAD because true faith produces good works to validate faith.  That's really th…

Does Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ Grant a License to Sin?

Here's a commonly heard argument saying, "Well salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ is unjust and grants a license to sin." which is frequently done by most world religions.  They demand people must work for their salvation and for one, it's NOT even realistic or practical as it promotes the idea of a dictator God PLUS it's nothing more than asking for the impossible because God's standard of holiness is a LOT higher than all the good works man does.  Despite all the good man does, still they will fall into sin and the followers of almost every false religion this world has to offer shows that like how your average religious person attends religious services yet he/she falls into sin for the rest of the week, showing he/she is WEAK in the flesh.
Now it's time to really correct the whole erroneous argument as false.  Why?  The Bible says otherwise about what God's salvation by grace through faith really does- it transforms the individual to resist…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…