In Chapter 8, we see that the king went further in "righting" what Haman had done. He promoted Mordecai from a nobody...to Haman's position. The king gave Mordecai the signet ring (authority), royal attire (honor), even gave him Haman's home and possessions (justice).
Esther stood again before the king and begged for him to reverse the order to destroy the Jews. The king was in a tough spot. Once an edict was passed, it was irreversible. He could not repeal the law...so he allowed Mordecai and Esther to pass any measure they thought necessary in the king's name to save the Jews. In essence, the authority was given to the Jews to have a legal rebellion and to assemble together for the purpose of their own defense on the 13th day of Adar. The Jews were given authority to destroy any and all of the armies of those who might come against them...and to plunder their goods (the spoils of war).
The king could not reverse his edict...so he did the next best thing. He made it legal to destroy anyone trying to enforce it. It would seem that all is made right in the plight of the Jews. Even Mordecai is cheered as he leaves the king's presence for he and Esther have delivered their people. At least POSITIONALLY. Tomorrow, we will see that there is still work to do since the enemy of the Jews will attack and they will have to fight. That is really a strong point of comparison for us as believers today.
The king has issued an edict that we are free from slavery, from the power of sin, and that "in Him" we have overcome the enemy. Yet, we still struggle and strive to own POSSESSIONALLY what has been decreed POSITIONALLY. More to come.
Proverbs 5:15 is the takeaway. "Drink water from your own cistern and fresh water from your own well." The context here is a father's instruction to his son and it occurs on two levels. First, it speaks metaphorically of avoiding temptation to sin because sin is spiritual adultery. He tells his son to flee from it (v.8) because its end is suffering and destruction.
There is also a practical instruction which is very applicable. The father instructs the son to stay away from temptation to sin against his marriage covenant. You may ask, "How can you know that this is not just another metaphorical application?" Simply put: the metaphor only has impact if it connects at a real part of the son's life. If the temptation to sin against his wife were not real, the spiritual adultery would make no sense to him; but since it was real...the message hits home.
As we apply the proverb it is useful to note that we often get into trouble "wanting" what others have...thinking that the grass is "greener" on the other side. The fact is...if it is greener...it is due to being planted over the septic tank. (ok...enought potty humor). I counsel people often who think that everyone else's marriage is better than their own...and that they somehow could do better if they started over.
NEWSFLASH: Most marriages look good from the outside. It is when you get on the inside that you discover that all marriages are messy because they involve two messy people trying to live as one.
Marriages don't really begin to flourish until both parties decide to work as partners with one another. When spouses stop worrying about their own needs and give themselves over to fulfilling their mate's needs...then the whole thing becomes incredible. Until them...it is a constant tug-of-war (at least internally) to see who can care for him/herself more. The same could maybe be said of our vocational choices, our family situations, and other areas. Oh, that we could learn to think as Paul when he said he had learned to become content in whatever place he found himself.
Grace,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Ah, I didn't get that one out of chapter 8, I was seeing the way God provided for the protection of His people in His time even though it had to be looking like doomsday was upon them. I agree with the positional/possessional concept from elsewhere in Scripture, and it does show up here. Thank you.
Proverbs: Good choice, especially with your commentary. I'll add a "proverb" I've heard years ago somewhere: When there are two people and there is no disagreement, one person is unnecessary.
In other words, there will always be conflict between "me", "you" and "us". Although you have probably had more experience, something I've seen from watching marriages go down is that the turning point, regardless of how many issues there might be, always comes when one or both partners reject the idea of "us". Some have gone through trials that I wouldn't think any could survive, but did because, no matter what, the couple always thought as a couple.
My grandparents, who had a marriage that I've heard many consider as an ideal (65 years worth, ended by his death), wasn't all peaches and cream. When I was small, all I knew was that Granddaddy was working out of town so we had to go visit him on weekends. Remembering some things I heard as a child and some things I've heard as I got older, he got the job out of town because he could no longer stand living in the house, but there was never a question of divorce.
Kamatu,
Thanks for the post. Your proverb contribution...is yours. Scripture never speaks of disagreement as any kind of virtue. In fact, disagreement is seen as an outworking of sinful natures colliding. Your thought smacks of enlightenment thinking. Sounds like it came from Des Cartes.
I am not trying to be contrary...it is just that the standard is Scripture and God's plan, not a humanistic-centered concept that the struggle somehow produces virtue. (That is kind of Darwinian...UGH.)
As for your grandparents...I am glad they remained married so long. I might challenge the idea though. Perhaps success in marriage is not the tenure but the quality. Maybe 10 years of servant hearted love toward one another is more ideal than 60 years of living in separate wings of the house (or in different towns). I am not trying to be disrespectful toward your grandparents; I am only saying that after 20 years of marriage personally, more than 3 days away from my wife is much less than ideal. I cannot imagine that living apart but not divorced would be God's plan or ideal for a couple.
You hit a soapbox issue for me so buckle in. We as married couples (and especially as men who are God-ordained as spiritual leaders in our home have an obligation before God to refine our relationships to the point that they are pleasant, encouraging, and effective. To settle for "not divorce" is far less than ideal...and I think it reflects human wisdom rather than biblical wisdom.
Thanks for posting and reading my "soapbox." Grace.
The context I heard it in was in reference to couples that think that once they get married it is all "happily ever after" and any disagreement is grounds for divorce because they must not "be in love" since it isn't "happily ever after". I think too much is being read into "disagreement". If a spouse wants Chinese for dinner and the other wants Italian, they have disagreed, but are not in conflict (unless there is a whole lot more involved than the choice for dinner....).
Oh, definitely not Scriptural but the concept has a Biblical basis as I use it.
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. (Proverbs 27:17)
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (Hebrews 10:24)
Given your stand on being accountable, would you consider a pastor surrounded by "yes men" deacons accountable? Only "yes men" in the congregation?
Kamatu,
Interesting. I see how you got there...just think that the example you used misses the point. Certainly marriage is not all "bliss" and that does not mean "quit." However, to live in different towns because you can't get along...is just as bad. God's standard is for both parties to yield to God as supreme and bring each individual life in line with His purpose. When that happens...there is no driving 20 minutes to see the spouse.
Certainly surround oneself with "Yes men" is not advised. I don't. But I have not married any of the men around me. I was not looking for a wife (moving back to the point) who would sharpen me through disagreement and challenge. That is not the picture of marriage as presented in Scripture.
As for your proverbs...we disagree on biblical. Your proof texts have nothing to do with disagreement. Sometimes the disagreements may occur, but that is not the point of either verse you cited.
Respectfully,
Ugh, I was trying to drop that one, since it would mean opening a marriage counseling session about two that are no longer with us. I tried to make several comments with my last post and this one and it just gets to be too much.
On the "proverb", let's let that one go too. I'm going to put that one on my list to study, but the first error (at a minimum) I can see I'm in is that I could have made that same point without the need to leave Scripture instead of bringing in something from outside and redefining to make it "fit". That can bring confusion into the body, which is most definitely a sin. Thank you.
Post a Comment