Esther and living Jewish in Hard Times...

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Your approach to what David done is like it was against the Will of God.. mine isn't
Doesn't deal with a lick of scripture, v--and it's an argument via emotion if one cannot address it. And for more on what David did plainly when living amongst the Philistines:
1 Samuel 27

David Among the Philistines

1 But David thought to himself, “One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand.”


2 So David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maok king of Gath. 3 David and his men settled in Gath with Achish. Each man had his family with him, and David had his two wives: Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel, the widow of Nabal. 4 When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him.
5 Then David said to Achish, “If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in one of the country towns, that I may live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?”
6 So on that day Achish gave him Ziklag, and it has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since. 7 David lived in Philistine territory a year and four months.

8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.
10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.” 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life

1 Samuel 29

Achish Sends David Back to Ziklag

1 The Philistines gathered all their forces at Aphek, and Israel camped by the spring in Jezreel. 2 As the Philistine rulers marched with their units of hundreds and thousands, David and his men were marching at the rear with Achish. 3 The commanders of the Philistines asked, “What about these Hebrews?”


Achish replied, “Is this not David, who was an officer of Saul king of Israel? He has already been with me for over a year, and from the day he left Saul until now, I have found no fault in him.”

4 But the Philistine commanders were angry with Achish and said, “Send the man back, that he may return to the place you assigned him. He must not go with us into battle, or he will turn against us during the fighting. How better could he regain his master’s favor than by taking the heads of our own men? 5 Isn’t this the David they sang about in their dances:
“‘Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his tens of thousands’?”
6 So Achish called David and said to him, “As surely as the LORD lives, you have been reliable, and I would be pleased to have you serve with me in the army. From the day you came to me until today, I have found no fault in you, but the rulers don’t approve of you. 7 Now turn back and go in peace; do nothing to displease the Philistine rulers.”
8 “But what have I done?” asked David. “What have you found against your servant from the day I came to you until now? Why can’t I go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?”

9 Achish answered, “I know that you have been as pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God; nevertheless, the Philistine commanders have said, ‘He must not go up with us into battle.’ 10 Now get up early, along with your master’s servants who have come with you, and leave in the morning as soon as it is light.”
11 So David and his men got up early in the morning to go back to the land of the Philistines, and the Philistines went up to Jezreel.



If your approach is "Biblical", it should at the least be able to acknowledge where David lived as a Crypto-Jew and did many of the same things as Esther did. Thus far, the best that has been offered is trying to claim others don't do what's Biblical...as if that in/of itself is an argument. One can do better, especially when seeing where other Messianic Jews knowledgable on the subject of Crypto-Judaism have addressed it squarely.


Your approach to what Esther did was like it against the Will of God.. mine isn't
Sorry--but claiming an approach to something as "unscripture" doesn't deal with actually showing what scripture notes on how others approached situations. David was undercover--and He lied about his stances when living amongst the Philistines. That goes directly in line with the showbread instance where it was not lawful and yet he was allowed to eat it due to the intent of the Law/Torah rather than the letter of it.

Esther was undercover, as well as eating what was set before her per the standards for Harems in the Persia Empire. It's revisionist to try altering the story to look as if it's a buffet she had available and not even deal wih historical fact....but at the worst, it's unbiblical to try ignoring that and telling oneself they are for the Will of God when they've not even come close to addressing what the Lord's will was shown plainly in scripture---and that is an issue of pretense/seeing oneself as being more than those in the scriptures are. It was already claimed earlier that those in the scriptures such as Esther or David and others were "weak" as opposed to how the scriptures praise them---and that, in/of itself, is a pride issue when not being able to follow their examples as the definition of strong. It is what it is...and when you're ready to actually address/deal with the scriptures as they are rather than ignoring them as others have often noted, then there can be real discussion of what the Will of the Lord is. Till then, what you're advocating is actually seperate from the Lord's Will..and really a matter of making your own Will as if it's His will. The two are radically different, V :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So you do want to switch from Esther to David..
When you first deal with Esther and address the historical background of what women in Harems were allowed rather than switching/saying others do so, you can talk. Thus far, you've neither dealt with Esther or David (or others brought up besides David, like Raha, Elijah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc)-and one can do better than that:cool: As it is, David was brought up alongside others when there was claim of there not being a precedent of allowances in Law on certain situations---and he's far from the only one. And what you noted goes starkly against what is said in Messianic Judaism at multiple points when not squaring with that and the reality of what others often had to face when Crypto-Jews were persecuted.

Scripture must be scripture, although it's always sad to see that the scriptures cannot be accepted as they are when they diverge from what one wants or may percieve..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Easy G (G²);59594078 said:
When you first deal with Esther and address the historical background of what women in Harems were allowed rather than switching/saying others do so, you can talk. Thus far, you've neither dealt with Esther or David (or others brought up besides David, like Raha, Elijah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc)-and one can do better than that:cool: As it is, David was brought up alongside others when there was claim of there not being a precedent of allowances in Law on certain situations---and he's far from the only one. And what you noted goes starkly against what is said in Messianic Judaism at multiple points when not squaring with that and the reality of what others often had to face when Crypto-Jews were persecuted.

Scripture must be scripture, although it's always sad to see that the scriptures cannot be accepted as they are when they diverge from what one wants or may percieve..
You are also placing both Esther and David on the middle of the bell curve for obedience.. rather than chosen because they were on the upper end of the bell curve...
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You are also placing both Esther and David on

the middle of the bell curve for obedience .. rather than chosen because they were on the upper end of the bell curve...
Incorrect..and again, it was not only DAvid as there were dozens of others (i.e Elijah with the Ravens, Rahab/lying to protect the spies, the Midwives in Exodus 1 who lied to protect the Hebrew babies from being killed, Hosea being married to one sexually immoral, etc). Being selective as if it was only one person mentioned on the subject of allowance is not a good argument, vis. And again, what matters is what the text says plainly. You've not dealt at all with Esther and showing historically where Persian regulations allowed for people to eat buffet style in a Harem, nor have you addressed others similar such as David who lied when living amongst the Philistines...and thus, you're avoiding the text to support a pressuposition you've not proven when claiming that only those eating Kosher are either godly or "strong." That's simply not Biblical...nor does it deal with how both Esther and DAVID were already on the upper bell-curve due to their walks with the Lord. Because you interpret anyone not keeping Kosher (As was the case with Esther or others) as being on the low/middle end, you read into the text what's there...and that's begging the question rather than addressing the scriptures.

They were chosen because of their faith/trust in the Lord, just as others were chosen who never kept Kosher (i.e. Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, Noah, etc) to do mighty works for the Lord. It is what it is, sis :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
This has already been discussed. One doesn't have to eat that one little part of the meal that is non-kosher. They can "refuse" to eat it simply by concentrating on what else is on the plabe and still walk away quite satisfited thanking the cook. We Messianics do it all the time and our host is never insulted and nary a word has been spoken other than how delicious the meal was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
This has already been discussed. One doesn't have to eat that one little part of the meal that is non-kosher. They can "refuse" to eat it simply by concentrating on what else is on the plabe and still walk away quite satisfited thanking the cook.

We Messianics do it all the time and our host is never insulted and nary a word has been spoken other than how delicious the meal was.
That, however, is not the same as those in eras where it was expected to eat whatever is placed before you--without option, as was the case with Harems in the Persian empire or times of persecution as often occurred with Crypto-Jews. No one is saying, by the way, that others today don't have the option of going to a banquet and turning down those specific foods they may not prefer and avoid insulting a host....even though others today do have instances on the mission field where they must eat what's set before them/trust that the Lord will work in it as he has before. That was discussed elsewhere more in-depth here in #64 when it came to the issue of debate over going to parties/eating food that wasn't "kosher" according to some...

What's being said is that we cannot read back into culture what we have available in the 21st century with all of our comforts/abilities, as if it was a matter of having real options in those times...and as it concerns our times today, for others who are Crypto-Jews (or later in the future), it does give illustration when they're struggling. And for those Crypto-Jews who've often noted the struggles, be it with Maranos in New Mexico or the Sephardic Jews in Spain/Portugal or many others throughout history, I must take note of that....and consider the ways the Lord's providence is at work at all times for his people :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Our lives is lived out in witness to God's Will and before whomever ... giving in .. is no witness...
That doesn't go with what the Lord said of his people when they were Crypto. Just as the Lord called his servants blessed, be it Rahab or David or the Hebrew Midwives noted for fearing the Lord/that being the motivation behind their lying ( Exodus 1:19-21 /Exodus 1 ) to protect baby boys...and many others...their witnesses for the Lord were in tact. The same with Esther, as she realized just as many other Jews have noted throughout the centuries where the Law already made room for allowances and the Lord commanded such. Witnessing against that goes against proper witness to His Will/Mindset.


When any of us have been in the exact same situations as Esther/others where it's life or death (as opposed to the comforts we all have available to us behind the keyboard:cool:) or have to face what other Crypto-Jews have gone through, it's another thing entirely since it's easy to say of someone else they're weaker than others when they've never been tested.

The scriptures must be the scriptures....and with being undercover, it's all about what the Lord deems as just at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Easy G (G²);59594192 said:
That, however, is not the same as those in eras where it was expected to eat whatever is placed before you--without option, as was the case with Harems in the Persian empire or times of persecution as often occurred with Crypto-Jews. No one is saying, by the way, that others today don't have the option of going to a banquet and turning down those specific foods they may not prefer and avoid insulting a host....even though others today do have instances on the mission field where they must eat what's set before them/trust that the Lord will work in it as he has before. That was discussed elsewhere more in-depth here in #64 when it came to the issue of debate over going to parties/eating food that wasn't "kosher" according to some...

What's being said is that we cannot read back into culture what we have available in the 21st century with all of our comforts/abilities, as if it was a matter of having real options in those times...and as it concerns our times today, for others who are Crypto-Jews (or later in the future), it does give illustration when they're struggling. And for those Crypto-Jews who've often noted the struggles, be it with Maranos in New Mexico or the Sephardic Jews in Spain/Portugal or many others throughout history, I must take note of that....and consider the ways the Lord's providence is at work at all times for his people :)

But what is seen in your posts, Easy, is the attempt to get permission to break God's dietary laws. After all, as you say, we are not in such a culture that we cannot choose to not break those laws instituted by God. If and when we are, like you said, God will work in it for His glory. Until then, His word stands firm - we choose to eat what He considers "food."
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But what is seen in your posts, Easy, is the attempt to get permission to break God's dietary laws.
Y, I don't need permission to do something when the scriptures already note plainly (As other Messianic Jewish organizations have as well, alongside JUDAISM itself) the subject of allowance in times of survival and protecting life. One must be intellecually inconsistent with the text if not trying to address that--and in many ways, making up a scenario of what they view the Law to be rather than dealing with what the scriptures said of how the Law played out.

Sincerely, neither you nor I and others get to change up where David did what was unlawful with eating showbread (or remaining undercover in the Land of the Philistines), nor do we get to ignore Esther eating what was given to her in Esther 2 nor do you get to ignore where the Lord told Elijah to eat from ravens in hard times if claiming one wishes to deal with the WOrd. It is what it is. I don't where one really has room to assume the discussion is about getting others to "break kosher" as if I've said such since that wasn't even the main subject of the OP---for the subject of the OP also discussed what it meant in Esther 8 for many in the country to become Jews. But with that stated, IMHO, where I stand is with other Messianics noting that there needs to be honesty in seeing how what often appears is that one can make assumptions without proving them and then assuming anyone disagreeing with those assumptions doesn't agree with God's dietary laws.

As other Messianics have often pointed it, many discussing the need to keep the Dietary laws/condeming others not lining up with their paticular stances often do not understand the Laws fully nor have they really made attempt to live fully by them--and those often tripping already give themselves allowance by trying to do them all in bits and pieces but covering it by saying "Well, we can only do so much..." when the Law makes plain how they were to be played out in FULL, with a priest and all. If others wish to keep "kosher" As that, they're welcome to. But I simply don't agree with others saying what they do is the essence of what the ceremonial laws were ever about.


After all, as you say, we are not in such a culture that we cannot choose to not break those laws instituted by God.
"We" as in US on this forum, in comfortable homes with freedom of speech. As made clear if actually reading the OP, what was of focus was those who are Crypto Jews in similar cases or those forced to be undercover in their faith....a seperate subject from what you noted with previous discussions of how to handle onself when invited to the house of another to eat foods one's not comfortable with...and thus, if not able to acknowledge that, IMHO, you're reading more into what I said than what was there :) Again, if nothing else, simply look up the issue of Crypto-Judaism and what it was like for Jews who had to live on the surface one way/be undercover in order to survivie. None of that has anything to do with saying it's somehow wrong for others to want to keep "Kosher" as I've never said such. What was said was that there was more than enough Biblical reasons when dealing plainly
If and when we are, like you said, God will work in it for His glory.
Amen.

Until then, His word stands firm - we choose to eat what He considers "food."
Already addressed that/mentioned it earlier, as mentioned here #64..just as other Messianics Jews (such as Dr.Michael Brown here /here ) or Arnold Fruchtenbaum (here /here ) or Dan Juster (here )have addressed that in reagrds to what is or isn't "food." If you disagree, you disagree....and life moves on in the Messianic world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Yet David acted like a priest..
*And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: AND DAVID OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS AND PEACE OFFERINGS BEFORE THE LORD. (II Sam 6:17)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yet David acted like a priest..
His acting as a priest would not be in line with the Law which allowed for Levities only to do so. As said before elsewhere in the thread where you brought up that issue, I agree with the concept of David acting as a priest. That doesn't mean he acted exactly as one within the Levitical priesthood....and the same goes for the sons of David who were known to be priests as well (even though the line of Judah had no right to the Davidic priesthood.

And on the issue of David's sons being priests:

2 Samuel 8:17-18 /2 Samuel 8
Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Kerethites and Pelethites; and David’s sons were priests.

If saying David's sons were priests, if correct (as the textual evidence seems unclear), one would have to suppose that membership into the priesthood was not limited to Levites in the time of DAvid. David already possessed significant power over the priesthood...with many saying he was a priest akin to Melchizedek (i.e. the king having the priest/prophet dynamic going to mirror the Messiah)--and although Zadok was indeed the high priest according to the Word, in replacement of Abithar (1 Kings 2:26-28 /1 Kings 2 , 1 Kings 1:44-46 , 1 Kings 2:34-36 , 2 Samuel 20:24-26 , 2 Samuel 15:34-36 , 2 Samuel 8:16-18 , 2 Samuel 15:23-25 / 2 Samuel 15 , 1 Chronicles 15:10-12 , 1 Chronicles 24:2-4 , 1 Chronicles 29:21-23 ), it's possible David was also priestly in a different sense.

As said elsewhere:
Easy G (G²);59501054 said:
If being in the tabernacle and not being a Levite, there's a similar dynamic that has happened elsewhere in scripture..such as with David making sacrifices (even though he was descended from the line of Judah and only priests were allowed to do that in the temple). This was in contrast to others such as King Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin) who offered sacrifices rather than waiting for a priest---and this was against God's laws in Deuteronomy 12:5-14 and against the specific instructions of Samuel in I Samuel 10:8.

Under pressure from the approaching Philistines, he took matters into his own hands...for He was doing a good thing (offering a sacrifice to God before a crucial battle) but he was considered as doing it in the wrong way. However, again, David and Solomon did the SAME THING---offering sacrifices as a king in I Kings 3:4, I Kings 8 and I Kings 8:62-63 when it came to the temple. David, Solomon, and other kings speak about the “many sacrifices they offered” (as a means to prove their personal piety)---with 1 Chronicles 21:27-29 ...and even David himself, not being a Levite, had SIGNIFICANT access with the priesthood and ability in shaping it in differing ways, especially as it concerned Praise/Worship ( 1 Chronicles 15:15-17 /, 2 Chronicles 7:5-7 , 2 Chronicles 8:13-15 2 Chronicles 29:25-27, Ezra 3:9-11 , 1 Chronicles 23:5-7 ) David was even allowed to eat the showbread that was meant for the priests to eat.



Some have sought to explain the issue by saying what David/Solomon did was a matter of reflecting a heart to worship the Lord---and others have said it was all connected to the Melchizedek dynamic. If those Judahites were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then maybe that is why Solomon and David got away with it. It also raises the question of how one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek while at the same time witness a priesthood set up in the order of Levi....and how one would qualify for the Melchizedek version. One was obviously superior to the other and the Messiah came through the Mechizedek one to accomplish his work....and what's interesting is that there's no real record showing that Melchizedek was a Hebrew at the time of his meeting ABraham...even though they both were in the same vicinity.

David ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible) he ate the showbread


Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. David’s obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David...even though he did blend the monarchy with the priesthood ..and even ate the sacred bread of the tabernacle which was punishable by death in a way that no other Hebrew King ever did. David was a prophet, a priest and a king.....
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
2 Samuel 8:18 “David’s sons were chief ministers.

I bet you are thinking no big deal.. Right? Ok in Hebrew it reads, “uVenayahu Ben Yohoyada vehakreti venality uvenei David cohanim hayu.”

“David is a Cohen, which is a special line of the Levi priests.”
“The only possible translation for the word Cohen in the Bible is priest, so how could the sons of David be priests?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: yedida
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
2 Samuel 8:18 “David’s sons were chief ministers.
Indeed. None of that was denied.

What is denied, however, is that David's sons were Levites as others were since he was from the line of Judah--and one didn't need to be a Levite in order to be a priest.

I bet you are thinking no big deal..
Actually I wasn't :cool:;)

Right? Ok in Hebrew it reads, “uVenayahu Ben Yohoyada vehakreti venality uvenei David cohanim hayu.”

“The only possible translation for the word Cohen in the Bible is priest, so how could the sons of David be priests?”

“David is a Cohen, which is a special line of the Levi priests.”
Your basis for this, outside of where that was mentioned here and here and here in #74 , as this doesn't deal with the whole of scripture noting where David was not a Levite and other Messianics have since addressed that one when it comes to Cohen not equating to being a Levitical minister.


There is the example in scripture of a king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1King 9:25)--and David, despite Zadok being the high priest, also had one named Ira the Jairit who was a priest unto David (2 Samuel 20:25-26 2 Samuel 20 ). Ira the Jairite was a native of Havvoth-jair in Gilead ( Numbers 32:41/Numbers 32:17, Deuteronomy 3:14 , etc)--and he was a descendant of Manasseh...Joseph's clan. Again, the man was a non-Levitical priest and descendant of Jair ...and in contrast to later periods it seems to have been acceptable during David's reign for the king to have a private priest who was not a Levite.

Some think that the idea behind the phrase "chief minister" is that Ira was sort of a chaplain to David.

For commentary from Lexicon:

And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler about David
And Ira
`Iyra' (ee-raw')
wakefulness; Ira, the name of three Israelites -- Ira.
also the Jairite
Ya'iriy (yaw-ee-ree')
a Jairite or descendant of Jair -- Jairite.
was a chief ruler
kohen (ko-hane')
literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman) -- chief ruler, own, priest, prince, principal officer.


Additionally, as Clarke's Commentary and Gill said best:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Ira - was a chief ruler about David - The Hebrew is כהן לדויד cohen ledavid, a priest to David; and so the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. The Chaldee has רב rab, a prince, or chief. He was probably a sort of domestic chaplain to the king. We know that the kings of Judah had their seers, which is nearly the same: Gad was David's seer, 2 Samuel 24:11, and Jeduthun was the seer of King Josiah, 2 Chronicles 35:16.

The conclusion of this chapter is very similar to the conclusion of 2 Samuel 8:16-18

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Ira also the Jairite,.... Which some take to be the same with Ira the Ithrite, 2 Samuel 23:38; a son of Jether or Ithra the Israelite, 2 Samuel 17:25; though others suppose he was Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, 2 Samuel 23:26; and so the Targum here calls him Ira the Jairite, which was of Tekoah; and Tekoah being the chief place in Israel for oil olive (d), with which the lamps were lighted, Jarchi thinks he had the name of Jairite from Jair, which signifies to enlighten; but rather he was a descendant from Jair the Gileadite, and perhaps was a great friend to David when in Gilead, and from whence he brought him and promoted him: for he was a chief ruler about David; a prime minister, an intimate friend, the chief of his privy council; perhaps he succeeded Ahithophel; it is much we hear nothing of Hushai.


 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In the event that it was missed (or lost), one of the main focuses within the OP was on the following:
Esther 8:16-17 Esther 8

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came , the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews ; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
As mentioned before, in the LXX, it has καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμοντο καὶ ιουδάιζον which literally translates as "and many of the nations were circumcised and became Jews." To me, that is interesting to consider since it seems that the translators of the LXX understood the concept that circumcision was necessary for a Gentile to become a Jew ...although that's not to say that circumcision alone was what made one "Jewish" since it was a lifestyle that gave fullness (as Romans 4 echoes alongside Romans 2 and other scriptures).\

If anyone has any thoughts on that specific point, would love to hear sometime.


Considering previous discussions about the requirements of conversion to Judaism, if anyone has any thoughts on this text from the LXX, would love to hear what others may think.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Easy G (G²);59595695 said:
Indeed. None of that was denied.

What is denied, however, is that David's sons were Levites as others were since he was from the line of Judah--and one didn't need to be a Levite in order to be a priest.

Actually I wasn't :cool:;)

Your basis for this, outside of where that was mentioned here and here and here in #74 , as this doesn't deal with the whole of scripture noting where David was not a Levite and other Messianics have since addressed that one when it comes to Cohen not equating to being a Levitical minister.


There is the example in scripture of a king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1King 9:25)--and David, despite Zadok being the high priest, also had one named Ira the Jairit who was a priest unto David (2 Samuel 20:25-26 2 Samuel 20 ). Ira the Jairite was a native of Havvoth-jair in Gilead ( Numbers 32:41/Numbers 32:17, Deuteronomy 3:14 , etc)--and he was a descendant of Manasseh...Joseph's clan. Again, the man was a non-Levitical priest and descendant of Jair ...and in contrast to later periods it seems to have been acceptable during David's reign for the king to have a private priest who was not a Levite.

Some think that the idea behind the phrase "chief minister" is that Ira was sort of a chaplain to David.

For commentary from Lexicon:

And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler about David
And Ira
`Iyra' (ee-raw')
wakefulness; Ira, the name of three Israelites -- Ira.
also the Jairite
Ya'iriy (yaw-ee-ree')
a Jairite or descendant of Jair -- Jairite.
was a chief ruler
kohen (ko-hane')
literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman) -- chief ruler, own, priest, prince, principal officer.


Additionally, as Clarke's Commentary and Gill said best:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Ira - was a chief ruler about David - The Hebrew is כהן לדויד cohen ledavid, a priest to David; and so the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. The Chaldee has רב rab, a prince, or chief. He was probably a sort of domestic chaplain to the king. We know that the kings of Judah had their seers, which is nearly the same: Gad was David's seer, 2 Samuel 24:11, and Jeduthun was the seer of King Josiah, 2 Chronicles 35:16.

The conclusion of this chapter is very similar to the conclusion of 2 Samuel 8:16-18

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Ira also the Jairite,.... Which some take to be the same with Ira the Ithrite, 2 Samuel 23:38; a son of Jether or Ithra the Israelite, 2 Samuel 17:25; though others suppose he was Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, 2 Samuel 23:26; and so the Targum here calls him Ira the Jairite, which was of Tekoah; and Tekoah being the chief place in Israel for oil olive (d), with which the lamps were lighted, Jarchi thinks he had the name of Jairite from Jair, which signifies to enlighten; but rather he was a descendant from Jair the Gileadite, and perhaps was a great friend to David when in Gilead, and from whence he brought him and promoted him: for he was a chief ruler about David; a prime minister, an intimate friend, the chief of his privy council; perhaps he succeeded Ahithophel; it is much we hear nothing of Hushai.


God didn't strike David dead in the tabernacle ..
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
God didn't strike David dead in the tabernacle ..
As David was beloved of the Lord/unique in a myriad of ways (as he was both a King, Priest and Prophet among other things--a type of Christ), it's no surprise he wasn't killed. But again, just because he wasn't killed didn't mean all others had a free pass to do what the Levites alone had been given instruction to do...just as it was with others throughout the scriptures (Jethro being a prominent example, as he was a priest himself/righteous man according to Exodus 2:15-17 /Exodus 2 , Exodus 3 and Exodus 18 ..and alongside him, Job in Job 1:4-6 / Job 1 who'd often offer up prayers/sacfices on behalf of his children as a regular custom--a priestly function, just like it was with Melchizedek in Genesis 14).


It's up to the Lord to decide when/where, as He's the one who makes the rules and it's not to us to question them anymore than an employee has the right to question his boss because the boss decides to allow someone else to do something they didn't sign up for in their contract. Either the employee can assume they're in the same category as the one who is treated differently--or assume there's special treatment due to reasons they don't understand...or they can throw a fit/demand the boss treats them the same. ..or simply realize has differing requirements for others depending on what He desires and has the right to make allowance when he so chooses. In many ways, it goes back to what Yeshua noted in Matthew 20:2 with others getting angry for getting paid the same as those they felt worked "less" for it (even though the latter folks got paid according to the amount the boss set for them)--and the Boss let them know He was the focus, not them...and it was HIS money to do with as He pleased.

So it is with David and many others, Esther being amongst them in what she did when she ate her portion of food given by the Chief Keeper of the Harems. It didn't take one being a Levite/keeping accordance with all aspects of the Levitical/Mosaic system in order to be a priest or to be holy before the Lord, nor were the standards always the same...and even within the standards a group agreed to, there was plain commands in scripture for allowances. For the Jews in captivity in Babylon and later the Persian Empire, there were many developments that occurred where many things were changed and circumstances were not as simple as they used to be...and the Lord in scripture showed how He was aware of that/understood it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Easy G (G²);59595891 said:
As David was beloved of the Lord/unique in a myriad of ways (as he was both a King, Priest and Prophet among other things--a type of Christ)... <snip>.
And there you have why David can go to the tabernacle and eat shewbread..
 
Upvote 0