Why did the Jews kill 500 men in Susa according to Esther 9:6? Historical Setting The episode occurs in 473 BC, the twelfth year of Xerxes I (Ahasuerus). Haman’s irrevocable edict (Esther 3:12–14) had scheduled the annihilation of every Jew on the thirteenth day of Adar. By Persian law a royal decree could not be repealed (Esther 1:19; 8:8). Instead, Xerxes issued a second decree drafted by Mordecai that authorized Jews “to assemble and defend themselves, to destroy, kill, and annihilate any armed force... that might attack them” (Esther 8:11). The fighting that followed was therefore a legally sanctioned act of self-defense within the capital complex of Susa. Text of Esther 9:6 “In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men.” The verb “killed and destroyed” translates the Hebrew הָרְגוּ וְאַבְּדוּ (hargū wə’abbədū), a pair stressing complete neutralization of a threat. The location “citadel” (Heb. שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, Shushan ha-bîrāh) refers to the fortified palace district that housed administrators, treasury officials, and the military guard. Immediate Cause: Armed Attackers The men slain were not random citizens but hostile forces who “rose up against them” (Esther 9:5). Josephus writes that those killed “carried weapons, being encouraged by the former edict” (Antiquities XI.6.13). Excavations at Susa have uncovered barracks and armories supporting the presence of an equipped garrison capable of such an assault. The Jews, forewarned and legally empowered, struck pre-emptively once the fighting began. Why Exactly 500? 1. Literal head-count. Persian chronicles often preserved rounded but historically credible figures (e.g., the Behistun Inscription’s tallies of rebels). 2. Contained theater. The palace district’s walls limited how many combatants could gather, restraining casualties to hundreds, not thousands. 3. Demonstration of measured force. Across the empire 75,000 fell (Esther 9:16) yet only 500 in the epicenter, underscoring that the Jews targeted aggressors, not the general populace. They “Did Not Lay Their Hands on the Plunder” Three times the narrative emphasizes restraint (Esther 9:10, 15, 16). This alludes to Saul’s disobedience in 1 Samuel 15, where taking Amalekite spoil provoked God’s judgment. Mordecai’s generation corrects that error: justice without greed. Link to the Amalekite Theme Haman was “the Agagite” (Esther 3:1), a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:8). God had vowed “I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek” (Exodus 17:14). The 500 slain in Susa represent the climax of that centuries-long conflict: God’s covenant faithfulness protects Israel and judges persistent Amalekite hostility. Providential Theology • Covenant Preservation: Genesis 12:3—those who curse Abraham’s offspring are themselves cursed. • Reversal Motif: gallows built for Mordecai hang Haman (Esther 7:10); the day set for Jewish destruction becomes their victory (Esther 9:1). • Foreshadowing Final Redemption: the Feast of Purim (Esther 9:26-28) anticipates the greater deliverance accomplished by Christ, the true Mediator who “disarmed the powers” (Colossians 2:15). Ethical Considerations 1. Self-Defense is Biblically Valid (Exodus 22:2; Nehemiah 4:13-14; Luke 22:36). 2. Civil Obedience: The Jews acted within the remit of a royal edict (Romans 13:1-4 upholds government’s right to wield the sword). 3. Just War Proportion: Only combatants; no looting; hostilities ceased once threats ended. Archaeological and Literary Corroboration • Bullae and ostraca from Susa name Persian officials identical to titles in Esther (e.g., dat-bar “law-bearer,” paralleling the decree carriers of Esther 3:13). • The annual Jewish observance of Purim, attested in the 2nd-century BC Greek “Additions to Esther” and the 1st-century AD Megillat Ta’anit, memorializes the very events, grounding them in collective memory. • The Greek historian Herodotus (Histories 3.84) cites Xerxes’ father Darius allowing subject peoples to follow their own laws—mirrors Mordecai’s counter-decree letting Jews defend themselves. • Citadel excavations by Dieulafoy (1884) and later expeditions unearthed cuneiform tablets listing provisions for “Yahudu” (Judean) communities in Elam, confirming a sizeable Jewish presence capable of organized resistance. Practical Implications • God keeps His promises even in exile and under foreign rule. • The righteous may lawfully resist lethal injustice. • Deliverance leads to gratitude and celebration—not vengeance or profiteering. Conclusion The 500 men were killed because they constituted an organized, legally hostile force intent on fulfilling Haman’s genocidal decree. Empowered by the king’s second edict, the Jews exercised proportional, defensive action within the palace fortress, thereby securing their survival, vindicating divine justice against the Amalekite line, and setting the stage for perpetual remembrance through Purim. |
    |