Haman the Agagite

Rembrandt’s The Fall of Haman (ca. 1660-1666)

The story of Esther is set in the historical period of the Persian king Ahasuerus (Esth. 1:1–8:12; Ezra 4:6), known in secular sources as Xerxes I the Great, who ruled the Persian Empire ca. 486-465 BC.¹ One of the king’s leading officials—the main villain in the story of Esther—was “Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite” (Esth. 3:1)

What is an Agagite?

The term “Agagite” is believed to be a derivative of the name Agag, worn by the king of the Amalekites in the days of Israel’s king Saul (1 Sam. 15:8). Rather than a personal name, this was more likely a dynastic title (like “Pharaoh,” “Herod,” “Caesar”) for the rulers of the Amalekite people. Centuries earlier it was prophesied that Israel’s king would be higher than Agag (Num. 24:7), i.e., “higher than high.”

A Long History of Animosity

The Amalekites were descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:12) and the first heathen nation to attack the Israelites as they journeyed from Egypt to Canaan. They remained enemies of God’s people for generations (Ex. 17:8-16). When Saul was anointed king, he was commanded by God to utterly destroy the Amalekites, but he disobediently spared king Agag while destroying the rest of Agag’s people (1 Sam. 15:1-9); not the entire nation but the inhabitants of the nearby city (v. 5). Even though Agag was later killed by Samuel (1 Sam. 15:33), the Amalekites were not completely annihilated (1 Sam. 30:1-17).

Mordechai and his young cousin Hadassah (Esther) shared the same lineage as king Saul, the son of Kish of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1-2; Esth. 2:5-7).² If Haman the Agagite was indeed a descendant of king Agag, the historical conflict between the Amalekites and the Jewish people had in fact persisted for generations. Haman’s hatred for Mordechai and plot against the Jews was a natural continuance of this perpetual hostility, which actually predates even Agag and Saul, all the way back to their respective ancestors, Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:23; 2 Sam. 8:14; 2 Kings 14:7; Mal. 1:1-4; Rom. 9:4-13).

Conclusion

The sordid history from Esau to Agag to Haman is characterized by defiance, rejection of God’s ways and consequent estrangement from God and utter ruin. But one’s family history does not predetermine one’s own decisions and destiny. Nor is it ever too late in one’s lifetime to break this vicious cycle, clearly demonstrated by Saul’s distant relatives, Esther and Mordechai. “The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble” (Prov. 3:34, LXX).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Xerxes I was the son and successor of Darius I. The Greek version Ξέρξης (Xerxes) is the Persian name Xšayāršā rendered in Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu and borrowed into Hebrew as Ăḥašwêrôš (spelled phonetically according to the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign name), transliterated in Latin Ahasuerus and English Ahasuerus (see W. S. McCullough, “Ahasuerus,” in Encyclopædia Iranica 1.6 [New York: Online Edition, 1996]: 634-35). The Ahasuerus of Daniel 9:1 (father of Darius the Mede), and the Ahasuerus of the apocryphal Tobit 14-15 (in league with Nebuchadnezzar), appear to be different persons.

     ² That Mordechai was “the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish” (Esth. 2:5-6) does not necessarily convey immediate and unbroken lines of descent but more likely remote ancestry with presumed gaps (cf. 1 Sam. 9:1-2; 2 Sam. 16:5). See K. L. Moore, “Alleged Discrepancies,” Moore Perspective (18 Jan. 2023), <Link>.

Related Posts: Chronology of the Post-Exilic Period, Timing of Ezra-Nehemiah 

 

Image credit: https://www.codart.nl/guide/agenda/the-fall-of-haman-rembrandts-picture-in-the-mirror-of-time/  

A Herd of About 2,000 Pigs (Mark 5:13): Historical Relevance

All three Synoptic Gospels record the episode of Jesus casting a legion of demons into a herd of swine (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39). Only Mark gives the herd’s approximate number: “about 2,000.” Why were there so many pigs in this one location, and what’s the relevance?

Geographical-Sociocultural Setting

Jesus and his disciples were on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee in the mid-western Decapolis region near the village of Gergesa: predominately Gentile territory.¹ Since the fourth-century-BC conquests of Alexander the Great, the cities of the Decapolis (mainly east of the Jordan) were Greek municipalities that were under Roman control from the first century BC. According to Jewish law, pigs were unclean animals and forbidden as a food source (Lev. 11:7-8; Deut. 14:8), but not among the Greco-Roman population.

Roman Dietary Preferences

Pork was one of the most popular meats in Rome.² The Roman orator Callistratus considered pork to be “the most lawful flesh” (Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales 4.5.1). Emperor Caligula found it curious that the Jews did not eat pork and challenged a delegation from Philo to explain why (Philo, Legatio 45.361-62). Juvenal mocked the Jews of Judea for abstaining from pork and for allowing pigs to live to old age (Satire 6.160). Tacitus noted as unusual, “they abstain from swine’s flesh” (Hist. 5.4.2).

The Legio X Fretensis

Roman legions had been stationed in Syria since its establishment as a Roman province in 64 BC, the center of military operations overseeing the entire region, including the Jewish territories of Galilee and Judea. Around 41-40 BC the Legio X Fretensis (“Tenth Legion of the Strait”) was formed by Julius Caesar’s adopted son Octavian, defeating Marc Antony’s forces at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC that led to the founding of the Roman Empire and Octavian’s accession as Emperor Augustus Caesar. The legion was then stationed in Syria by at least AD 6, having engaged in repressing multiple Jewish uprisings and participating in the campaign to Judea led by legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (cf. Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1; 2.1).³ Documented in Syria in AD 18 (Tacitus, Annals 2.57.2),⁴ they were later involved in the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70 and contributed to the defeat of Galilean and Judean cities and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.

The symbols of Legio X Fretensis were the goddess Venus (Octavian’s mythical ancestress), the bull (perhaps representing Taurus to symbolize the legion’s start around April-May), Neptune (god of the sea), a battleship (signifying victories at sea), and a boar (pictured above). This last symbol is pertinent to our study, seeing that pork was their preferred food.⁵

The Relevance of Mark’s Reference

To feed Roman legions and perhaps countless other pork-consumers who had settled in the general region, a sizeable number of pigs would have been necessary. Moreover, the Greeks regarded pigs to be among the more cost-efficient sacrifices in their cultic rituals, particularly during the annual Thesmophoria festival honoring Demeter (goddess of agriculture/ Roman Ceres) and her daughter Persephone (goddess of spring and queen of the underworld/ Roman Proserpina).⁶

Mark’s seemingly obscure attention to detail makes sense when viewed in its geocultural context. A herd of about 2,000 pigs is not only normal and expected but was probably just a meager fraction of what would have been needed and available for the local economy.

Conclusion

The Roman flavoring of Mark’s Gospel is highlighted by its heavy use of Latinisms,⁷ including the term “legion,” from the Latin legio, descriptive of a division of the Roman army of approx. 3,000–6,000 soldiers. In Mark’s telling of the story of Jesus, there appears to be a subtle anti-Roman sentiment: a “legion” of demons cast into a herd of pigs—the tenth legion’s symbol and favored food source—drowned in the sea. Despite Rome’s apparent dominance, the Son of God has arrived, he is more powerful, and his way is far superior.  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Geographical Confusion: the Land of Demon-Possessed Pigs,” Moore Perspective (6 July 2022), <Link>.

     ² John M. G. Barclay, “‘Do we undermine the Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1–15.6,” in James D. G. Dunn, ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 294.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder Revisited (Part 1),” Moore Perspective (16 Oct. 2019), <Link>.

     ⁴ It has been suggested that they may have comprised the infantry of “two centurions” and “two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen” that commander Claudius Lysias ordered to escort Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-33). See Randall Niles, “The Roman 10th Legion of the Strait,” Drive Thru History Adventures (19 Oct. 2018), <Link>.

     ⁵ Craig E. Evans and Scott Stripling, “Did the Swine drown at Gergesa? Another Look at Mark 5:1 in Light of Text and Topography,” ETS 76th Annual Meeting (11 Nov. 2024), San Diego, CA.

     ⁶ See Matthew Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion (London: Routledge, 2002) 114-16. Remember also the profane pig sacrifice of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes that led to the Maccabean revolt (Josephus, War 1.1.1-2; 2 Macc. 5:11-14; cf. Dan. 8:9-13; 11:21-39).

     ⁷ See K. L. Moore, “Mark’s Audience,” Moore Perspective (27 Oct. 2012), <Link>.

Additional Sources Consulted: Austin J. Alexander, “The Tenacious Tenth: A Brief History of Rome’s Legio X Fretensis,” Medium (12 July 2023), <Link>; Emil Ritterling, “Legio X Fretensis,” Livius (22 June 2020), <Link>; Donald L. Wasson, “Legio X Fretensis,” World History Encyclopedia (20 Aug. 2021), <Link>.

Related Posts: A Legion of Demons; Beyond the Jordan 

Image credit: https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/legio-x-fretensis

Pictured below are tile fragments with the stamp of LEGX F (the Legio X Fretensis) featuring a battleship and wild boar.

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/14448/stamp-of-legio-x-fretensis/

https://x-legio.com/photo/2233/9.jpg

Labeling “False Teachers”

False teachers were problematic in the first-century church, evidenced by the repeated warnings of Jesus and his apostles and most apparent in the New Testament books of Galatians, 1-2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Jude, 1-2 John, and Revelation. Biblical reminders about being alert and on guard are still relevant today and just as important as in the early church.¹

The New Testament speaks of ...

o   false prophets (Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet. 2:1a; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10)

o   false witness/es (Matt. 15:19; 19:18; 26:59-60; Mark 10:19; 14:56-57; Luke 18:20; Acts 6:13; Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 15:15)

o   false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13)

o   false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4)

o   false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 6:3)

o   false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1b)

That being said, ascribing the label “false teacher” is a very serious charge and not something to hurl at others impulsively, hastily, casually, carelessly, callously, or indiscriminately. Those in the Bible regarded as “false teachers” are depicted as greedy, perverse, dishonest, deceptive, morally corrupt, lazy gluttons, in opposition to Christ, and serving their own selfish appetites. If someone is accused of being a “false teacher” but does not exhibit these heinous characteristics, the indictment is not scripturally appropriated.

Biblical Descriptions

Issues constituting false teachers in the first-century church involved:

o   deceit, hypocrisy, evil influence, lawlessness (Matt. 7:15-23).

o   erroneous messianic claims (Matt. 24:5, 24).

o   persistently causing divisions and “offenses,” “hindrances,” or “occasions of stumbling” contrary to apostolic teaching (Rom. 16:16-17).

o   perverting the gospel by binding works of the old Jewish law (Gal. 1:7-9; 2:4, 16, 21; 3:2, 5, 10; 6:13).

o   worldly-mindedness, driven by self-gratification and self-exaltation (Phil. 3:17-19).

o   resisting the truth in arrogance with a corrupt mindset accompanied by selfish, unloving, immoral deeds (2 Tim. 3:1-8).

o   rejecting biblical authority (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

o   denying the Lord with greed and deception (2 Pet. 2:1-3; Jude 4, 8).

o   ungodly and immoral living, injustice, self-willed, resisting authority (2 Pet. 2:6-10a; Jude 8-11).

o   ignorant, corrupt, unrighteous, deceptive, lustful, dishonest, forsaking the right way and going astray (2 Pet. 2:12-17).

o   empty words, lewdness, reverting to worldly ways (2 Pet. 2:18-22; Jude 12-14).

o   intentionally twisting or distorting scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

o   complaining, flattery, mockery, sensuality, causing divisions (Jude 16-19).

o   denying Jesus as the Christ and/or the Son of God (1 John 2:22-23).

o   denying Jesus having come in the flesh (anti-Christ); being of the world rather than of God (1 John 4:1-6; 2 John 7).

o   destitute of love (1 John 4:12-16, 20-21; cf. 3:10-23; 2 John 4-6).

o   adding to or subtracting from God’s revealed will (Rev. 22:18-19).

The “false teacher” image from these biblical descriptions is one who disrespects and rejects the authority of scripture, with a hidden agenda, selfish motives, rebellious, deceptive, manipulative, leading gullible people astray. While the label “false teacher” is surely applicable to what is taught, consideration must also be given to how the message is presented with accompanying intent, behavior, and influence.

The Responsibility of the Faithful

As God’s children we are expected to understand, accept, obey, teach, and defend the truth, not only on an individual basis but collectively as a unified body, ever mindful of “one another.”² None of us can read another’s heart or discern another’s motives, but we can and should be observant and conscientious “fruit” inspectors: “... by their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:15-20). Using God’s word as our standard, we are to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This necessarily involves evaluating the kind of spiritual “fruit” produced by the lives, example, influence, and teachings of those with whom we may disagree (cf. Matt. 12:33; Luke 7:45; 3 John 11).

Biblical Discernment

Consider the obvious differences between the attitudes and behaviors of men like Diotrephes and Demitrius (3 John 9-12). Jesus boldly confronted hypocrisy and deceit,³ while his approach was quite different toward those whose error was not as willful or defiant.⁴ Paul did not shy away from confronting misbehavior and doctrinal error,⁵ weilding the proverbial “rod” of correction when necessary, but he was also capable of warning and reproving “in love and a spirit of gentleness” (1 Cor. 4:21; cf. 2 Cor. 7:4; 10:1-2).⁶

Apollos had mistaken views about a very important doctrine and was teaching wrongly. But instead of writing him off as a “false teacher,” Aquila and Priscilla graciously and tactfully took him aside and helped him understand the truth more clearly (Acts 18:24-26). As Timothy was commissioned to “Hold fast the pattern of sound words ...” (2 Tim. 1:13a), he was reminded:

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

Speaking the Truth in Love

Brethren in Christ will inevitably disagree about sensitive and controversial matters, but this does not have to disrupt the unity and peace in God’s family (note, e.g., Rom. 14:1–15:13). To be sure, “we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph. 4:14-15).

There are times when division is necessary (1 Cor. 11:19), but when possible, unity must be prioritized since it is foundational to the Lord’s cause (John 17:20-21; 1 Cor. 1:10). Admittedly peace and harmony can be fragile and elusive, especially when fallible human beings are trying to achieve and maintain it, so it requires intentionality and concerted effort driven by integrity, humility, patience, and love (Eph. 4:1-4). In fact, love must always be the driving force when addressing divisive issues (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1-7; 16:14).

Conclusion

Surely it is possible to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3) while also “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). May we be wise, discerning, and diligent in seeking both.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Luke 11:34-35; Acts 20:28-31; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 2:4; 3:17-19; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:6; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 3:2-6; 16:15.

     ² Rom. 12:5; 15:14; Phil. 2:1-4; Eph. 4:25; Heb. 3:13; 10:24.

     ³ Matt. 5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20; 12:24-45; 15:1-9, 12-13; 16:1-5, 12; 19:3-9; 21:12-13, 23-46; 22:18, 23-29; 23:1-36.

     ⁴ Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 5:19; 12:28-34; Luke 5:31-32; 7:36-50; 10:41-42; 19:1-10; John 3:1-21; 4:7-26; 5:14; 8:10-11.

     ⁵ 1 Cor. 1:10-13; 5:1–6:20; 11:17-34; 2 Cor. 7:8; 10:9-11; 13:10; Gal. 1:6-10; 2:11-14; 3:1-3; 4:9-11, 20; 5:1-4, 15; 2 Thess. 3:6-15.

     ⁶ 1 Cor. 4:14; 8:13; 9:15-27; 10:14-15, 24, 31-33; 11:1-2; 16:14; 2 Cor. 6:11-13; 7:2, 16; Gal. 5:10; 6:1-2; Eph. 1:15-19; 4:1-6; 6:23-24; Phil. 1:1–4:23; Col. 1:1-12; 1 Thess. 1:1–3:13; 2 Thess. 1:1-5.

*Scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

Related Posts:

o   “What Does ‘Fellowship’ Really Mean?” Moore Perspective (17 Feb. 2013), <Link>.

o   “Church Discipline,” Moore Perspective (29 Nov. 2017), <Link>.

o   “Biblical Reasons for Withdrawing from a Member of the Church,” Moore Perspective (25 April 2018), <Link>.

o   “Intercongregational Responsibilties,” Moore Perspective (16 May 2018), <Link>.

o   “When a Biblical Text is Misapplied: Eph. 5:11,” Moore Perspective (21 Feb. 2018), <Link>.

 

Related articles: Wayne Jackson, “False Teachers”

 

Image credit: https://blog.newgrowthpress.com/the-traits-of-false-teachers/