When the Jews killed their enemies in the Book of Esther, was it vengeance or self-defense?

[tonychanyt]

Est 3:

13 Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with instruction to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods.

Haman fired the first shot: a genocidal decree to exterminate the Jewish race on Adar 13.

Est 8:

11 The king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, children and women included, and to plunder their goods, 12 on one day throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.

In defense of Haman's threat, Mordecai fired the second shot: on Adar 13, Jews were allowed to kill anyone who might attack them.

The 2nd decree was a defense against the 1st decree. By obtaining the king's authorization for their actions, the Jews ensured that their response to Haman's decree was lawful and justified within the framework of the empire's legal system.

On the fateful day, Est 9:

2 The Jews gathered in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen on all peoples. 3 All the officials of the provinces and the satraps and the governors and the royal agents also helped the Jews, for the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them.

It wasn't exactly a fair fight. The local officials sided with the Jews.

16 Now the rest of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives, and got relief from their enemies and killed 75,000 of those who hated them, but they laid no hands on the plunder.

The decree allowed the Jews to take plunder but they didn't. The Jews' restraint in not taking plunder aligned with ethical principles of proportionality and justice. They focused solely on neutralizing the threat without engaging in additional exploitation.

Haman instigated the first decree to annihilate the Jews. In defense, Mordecai supplied the counter decree to save the Jews. Officially, Haman started the fight.

When the Jews killed their enemies in the Book of Esther, was it vengeance or self-defense?

It was self-defense. Further, it was legal self-defense, both in intent and execution. They responded to a genocidal threat with decisive action to protect their lives, exercising restraint and adhering to the legal framework provided by the king's counter-decree. The refusal to take plunder further underscored that their motivation was survival, not vengeance.

 

[okay]

I would agree that it would count as self-defense. At the same time, I know I am not alone in thinking Esther can easily be read as comedy/satire. There are a lot of exaggerations such as the 7-story stake Haman built, characters like Haman that are basically caricatures, and there are scenes that can almost be read as using low-brow or slapstick humor. When read this way, the 75,000 number also seems like an exaggeration, especially for a minority community to pull off.

Of course, even if it might be comedy the book addresses many serious issues. This includes things that have always been important for the Diaspora, including anti-Jewish sentiments (usually fomented by lies and demonization), and the real danger of violence against them.