In this chapter, the king orders that Haman honor Mordecai.
If my readers remember the introduction to Esther I wrote earlier, I said that the central theme of Esther is reversal of fortunes. Basically the way reversal of fortunes is demonstrated in this story is through two parts: the establishment of a particular intent or pattern, and then the reversal of that pattern. In broad terms, the “establishment” is concentrated in the first 4-5 chapters, which lays out the general background and framework of the story. Once we pass through the climax of the story in chapters 4 or 5, the remainder of the book consists of the reversal of fortunes previously established.
To show one example, Esther 3:5 and 5:9 establish a pattern of Mordecai refusing to honor Haman, and Haman being enraged at it. Haman gets his revenge by ordering the destruction of the entire Jewish race, and at the very end of chapter 5 he decides to petition for Mordecai’s death. Verse 1 of this chapter has the closest thing to a deus ex machina that we will find in Esther, because if the king had not suffered insomnia on this one particular night, asking to read the royal chronicles on this one particular night, it is very possible that Haman would have asked for (and received) the death of Mordecai.
But because it does happen, we see (at least) two reversals in the same moment. The first is that Haman went to the king planning to ask for Mordecai’s death, and instead is ordered to honor Mordecai. The second is that Mordecai refused to obey the king’s command to honor Haman, but Haman is forced to honor Mordecai. One could also add that Haman instructed the king with the expectation that he would be honored himself, but instead the honor was given to his enemy. There are many layers of irony in this part of the story.
Going back to verse 1, this is one of the clearest instances of the book of Esther nearly touching the subject of divine intervention. There are other cases where people hint at the possibility of divine intervention (such as the “deliverance arising from another place” of Esther 4:14), but this is the one really clear instance where we see it happen. It is instructive to note the Greek Esther translation of verse 1: “That night the Lord took sleep from the king…”. So while Hebrew Esther leaves the point ambiguous, Greek Esther makes it clear that they viewed this as an instance of divine intervention. I want to touch on a couple points here.
The bible has a lot of crazy stories about food coming from heaven, or people being raised from the dead or leprosy being healed and stuff like that. But for how many miracles are recorded in the bible, most people see very few miracles like that in their day to day lives. This creates a tension, as many people seek to explain the difference between biblical miracles and what they see in their personal lives. The tension is resolved in different ways by different people: some people resolve that God simply doesn’t perform those kinds of miracles anymore, and “no miracles” is the new standard. Other people view this difference as arising from their own deficits or lack of knowledge or training. Perhaps if I was a holier person, or wiser, or more gifted, I could perform miracles of many kinds, but because I am not, I cannot.
I don’t intend to pick sides here, but I do want to point out that Esther presents an alternative view of what divine intervention can look like, that is quite different from the miracles of Exodus or Kings. Instead, what we see in Esther is a relatively subtle intervention. God is tipping the scales in favor of his servants, but what plays a much bigger role in the story is the faithfulness and persistence of humble men and women like Esther and Mordecai. From the structure of the story, I think we have very good reason to believe that Esther indeed came to her position as queen “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14). How did Esther get her position? It is clear that she received favor from the king’s eunuchs, and ultimately the king himself, but Esther also played a role with her quiet diligence, faithfulness and obedience; in some measure to the king, but also to God.
In this context, Mordecai and Esther were already positioned to bring deliverance to the Jews, in large part because of their own efforts. However, so often we find our own efforts are not enough to make it the whole way, and that is true here too. God breaks in by calling attention to Mordecai’s previous service to the king, and that’s basically all it takes to get things turning around.
On the other hand, if Esther and Mordecai are receiving favor because of their faithfulness and hard work, Haman’s prideful attitude has set him up for a tremendous “fall” (v. 13). There are few things that demonstrate Haman’s character more directly than verse 6; Haman simply doesn’t believe that there is anybody better than himself, and that there is nobody more deserving of honor and praise than himself. Of course, this attitude is why Haman himself declares the many honors that should be bestowed on Mordecai, his enemy, because Haman couldn’t imagine a world where the king would seek to honor Mordecai.
Lastly, this chapter contains a second instance of Haman rushing home to meet his wife and friends. He did this just a little while ago in chapter 5, when he returned home to brag about his personal success in life. This time around, he rushes home in shame and grief, devastated that he was compelled to honor his enemy with the same honors that he desired for himself. Coming from a man who was “enraged” that Mordecai refused to bow before him, I can’t imagine how Haman must have felt when he was compelled to honor Mordecai above himself. This is also another reversal of fortune; previously, Mordecai was grieving and fasting (Esther 4:1-3) and Haman was honored and rejoicing. Now Mordecai is honored, and Haman is grieving.
I would also like to point out that Haman has awful friends. Can you imagine going home in grief and shame, and the advice your friends give you is, “Because Mordecai is Jewish, you will certainly fall before him.” Thank you so much for the help and advice, wife and friends. But why should Haman be concerned that Mordecai is of Jewish origin? Why would that result in Haman’s downfall? The inference our (predominantly Jewish) audience would take from this verse is that Haman is doomed to fall because God is with the Jewish people. Greek Esther makes this point explicitly, modifying the verse to say “If Mordecai is of the Jewish people… you will not be able to defend yourself, because the living God is with him.” It’s another place where the Hebrew text strongly infers the point and the Greek text makes the point explicitly.
In the next chapter, things go from bad to worse for Haman and he is put to death on his own gallows.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther 5
In this chapter, Esther, Haman and the king eat a meal together and Haman plots the downfall of Mordecai.
This chapter has one of my favorite parts of the story, at the very beginning in verses 1 and 2. This moment when Esther appears before the king, and she is clothed in her finest royal robes, knowing that she is placing her life in the king’s hands. In this moment, the king may choose if Esther will live or die. From the previous chapter, we can clearly sense Esther’s anxiety and tension about appearing before the king, highlighted in verse 3 when the king asks what is “troubling” Esther. At the same time, in my imagination I picture the king as friendly and relaxed. The language is very muted and neutral so it doesn’t really speak to the king’s emotional state, but his reception of Esther is polite, generous and kind.
After this very first moment though, it seems clear to me that the crisis is over; the king receives Esther favorably and in my mind, it’s all but certain that Esther’s request will be granted. That said, I think Esther handles the situation beautifully. First of all, we see Esther dress in her finest apparel. This is a subtle point, but I think it’s important; we know for a fact that the king loves extravagent displays and he loves the fine things of life. I think Esther is clearly playing to his personality because these kinds of formal affairs are exactly what the king enjoys. Second, Esther invites the king to a banquet. Not only does Esther invite the king to a banquet, but at the conclusion of this banquet she petitions the king to attend a second banquet, the following day. From the very beginning of the book, we know that the king loves feasts and banquets and this is what Esther is using her. I wouldn’t want to call it manipulation exactly, but I think Esther is using her knowledge of the king’s personality to make her request more appealing to him, and I think that she is being very clever and effective at it.
One question that generally comes up in this chapter is why Esther asked the king to go with her to a second banquet. Why not ask for deliverance at the first banquet? I think it’s possible anxiety may have been a factor; she was probably uncomfortable making her request to the king and wanted to put it off. However, we could just as well question why Esther invited the king to the first banquet; why not make her request in the king’s throne room? I think the most likely answer is what I mentioned above: the king loves banquets; the king loves pomp and circumstance. Inviting him to a banquet is likely to make him receive Esther more favorably, and if one banquet is good then certainly two banquets is better. From a story point of view, the two banquets also creates more dramatic tension and we will see in the next chapter or two that it plays out in a very particular way. But I think the best explanation is that Esther is simply accommodating what she knows about the king’s personality.
To go back to the personality studies that we started earlier, we see three actors in this chapter: the king, Esther and Haman. I already mentioned how Esther is working to manipulate the king into saving her people, but what do we see from the king and Haman? In short, both of them are generally consistent with what we saw previously.
The king goes along with Esther’s plots without any objection or apprehension. It looks like he’s simply enjoying himself and agrees to whatever Esther asks for. Haman is much more interesting. In this chapter, we see Haman’s pride shine through above everything else. After attending the banquet (the fourth feast in the book), Haman is “glad and pleased of heart” (v. 9), but when he sees Mordecai refuse to rise or tremble before him, he is enraged. This is the second time that Mordecai has “refused” Haman, though the first time around it was Mordecai refusing to bow; now he is refusing to stand. This symmetry (between chapter 3 and chapter 5) serves to highlight the section between them, particularly chapter 4 and the beginning of 5 when Mordecai asks Esther to approach the king, and her favorable reception. This kind of repetition is a framing technique very similar to chiasm, which emphasizes the part of the text in the middle.
Verse 11 is even more striking, because when Haman gets home the first thing he does is start bragging about how much money he has, how many sons he has, and how many times the king has honored him. Verse 12 is an ironic conclusion because he mentions the feast with queen Esther as one of his “glories”, when in fact Esther is going to use that feast to undermine his position and accuse him before the king. It’s a subtle jab, but Haman’s destruction is already in progress, and yet he thinks it is to his glory. In verse 13, we see Haman’s fundamental insecurity emerge once again, because no matter how much money and glory Haman might possess, he cannot abide even a single man refusing to bow to him.
Finally, in verse 14 Haman builds a gallows to kill Mordecai, showing that even if Esther can reverse the king’s command, the danger is perhaps not yet over; Haman may still succeed in killing Mordecai even if Esther attains mercy for her people.
The last comment I would like to make here is to reference again the additions of Greek Esther (GE). There is a long section at the beginning of chapter 5 that is included in Greek Esther and not the Hebrew version. I highly recommend that everyone read it because it’s a really fantastic text. Anyway, it is Greek Esther chapters 13-15 and it includes a prayer of Mordecai, a prayer of Esther and an expanded scene describing Esther’s first appearance before the king (Esther 5:1-2 in the Hebrew text). I don’t have anything to say about the prayers, but the description of Esther’s appearance before the king is truly astonishing. It describes Esther as being “terrified” before the king, who was “seated on his royal throne, clothed in the full array of his majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones” (GE 15:6). Not only that, it says that the king “looked at her in fierce anger”, at which point the queen “faltered… and collapsed… Then God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness, and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms.” (GE 15:7-8). Later she faints a second time after describing the king as “wonderful, my lord, and your countenance is full of grace.” (GE 15:14-15).
It’s honestly kind of ridiculous stuff, a fairly blatant dramatization and while the story is consistent with the Hebrew text, the general tone and writing style is extremely different and distinct. Greek Esther basically turns this part of the story into a romantic drama, which is generally inconsistent with the rest of the biblical text (in terms of tone and literary style). Nevertheless, I think it’s wonderfully entertaining stuff.
As this chapter concludes, the story remains in motion. Haman has declared he will go and ask for Mordecai’s death, and Esther has petitioned the king and Haman to attend a second banquet. In the next chapter, Haman’s request for Mordecai’s death is interrupted in a most surprising fashion.
This chapter has one of my favorite parts of the story, at the very beginning in verses 1 and 2. This moment when Esther appears before the king, and she is clothed in her finest royal robes, knowing that she is placing her life in the king’s hands. In this moment, the king may choose if Esther will live or die. From the previous chapter, we can clearly sense Esther’s anxiety and tension about appearing before the king, highlighted in verse 3 when the king asks what is “troubling” Esther. At the same time, in my imagination I picture the king as friendly and relaxed. The language is very muted and neutral so it doesn’t really speak to the king’s emotional state, but his reception of Esther is polite, generous and kind.
After this very first moment though, it seems clear to me that the crisis is over; the king receives Esther favorably and in my mind, it’s all but certain that Esther’s request will be granted. That said, I think Esther handles the situation beautifully. First of all, we see Esther dress in her finest apparel. This is a subtle point, but I think it’s important; we know for a fact that the king loves extravagent displays and he loves the fine things of life. I think Esther is clearly playing to his personality because these kinds of formal affairs are exactly what the king enjoys. Second, Esther invites the king to a banquet. Not only does Esther invite the king to a banquet, but at the conclusion of this banquet she petitions the king to attend a second banquet, the following day. From the very beginning of the book, we know that the king loves feasts and banquets and this is what Esther is using her. I wouldn’t want to call it manipulation exactly, but I think Esther is using her knowledge of the king’s personality to make her request more appealing to him, and I think that she is being very clever and effective at it.
One question that generally comes up in this chapter is why Esther asked the king to go with her to a second banquet. Why not ask for deliverance at the first banquet? I think it’s possible anxiety may have been a factor; she was probably uncomfortable making her request to the king and wanted to put it off. However, we could just as well question why Esther invited the king to the first banquet; why not make her request in the king’s throne room? I think the most likely answer is what I mentioned above: the king loves banquets; the king loves pomp and circumstance. Inviting him to a banquet is likely to make him receive Esther more favorably, and if one banquet is good then certainly two banquets is better. From a story point of view, the two banquets also creates more dramatic tension and we will see in the next chapter or two that it plays out in a very particular way. But I think the best explanation is that Esther is simply accommodating what she knows about the king’s personality.
To go back to the personality studies that we started earlier, we see three actors in this chapter: the king, Esther and Haman. I already mentioned how Esther is working to manipulate the king into saving her people, but what do we see from the king and Haman? In short, both of them are generally consistent with what we saw previously.
The king goes along with Esther’s plots without any objection or apprehension. It looks like he’s simply enjoying himself and agrees to whatever Esther asks for. Haman is much more interesting. In this chapter, we see Haman’s pride shine through above everything else. After attending the banquet (the fourth feast in the book), Haman is “glad and pleased of heart” (v. 9), but when he sees Mordecai refuse to rise or tremble before him, he is enraged. This is the second time that Mordecai has “refused” Haman, though the first time around it was Mordecai refusing to bow; now he is refusing to stand. This symmetry (between chapter 3 and chapter 5) serves to highlight the section between them, particularly chapter 4 and the beginning of 5 when Mordecai asks Esther to approach the king, and her favorable reception. This kind of repetition is a framing technique very similar to chiasm, which emphasizes the part of the text in the middle.
Verse 11 is even more striking, because when Haman gets home the first thing he does is start bragging about how much money he has, how many sons he has, and how many times the king has honored him. Verse 12 is an ironic conclusion because he mentions the feast with queen Esther as one of his “glories”, when in fact Esther is going to use that feast to undermine his position and accuse him before the king. It’s a subtle jab, but Haman’s destruction is already in progress, and yet he thinks it is to his glory. In verse 13, we see Haman’s fundamental insecurity emerge once again, because no matter how much money and glory Haman might possess, he cannot abide even a single man refusing to bow to him.
Finally, in verse 14 Haman builds a gallows to kill Mordecai, showing that even if Esther can reverse the king’s command, the danger is perhaps not yet over; Haman may still succeed in killing Mordecai even if Esther attains mercy for her people.
The last comment I would like to make here is to reference again the additions of Greek Esther (GE). There is a long section at the beginning of chapter 5 that is included in Greek Esther and not the Hebrew version. I highly recommend that everyone read it because it’s a really fantastic text. Anyway, it is Greek Esther chapters 13-15 and it includes a prayer of Mordecai, a prayer of Esther and an expanded scene describing Esther’s first appearance before the king (Esther 5:1-2 in the Hebrew text). I don’t have anything to say about the prayers, but the description of Esther’s appearance before the king is truly astonishing. It describes Esther as being “terrified” before the king, who was “seated on his royal throne, clothed in the full array of his majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones” (GE 15:6). Not only that, it says that the king “looked at her in fierce anger”, at which point the queen “faltered… and collapsed… Then God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness, and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms.” (GE 15:7-8). Later she faints a second time after describing the king as “wonderful, my lord, and your countenance is full of grace.” (GE 15:14-15).
It’s honestly kind of ridiculous stuff, a fairly blatant dramatization and while the story is consistent with the Hebrew text, the general tone and writing style is extremely different and distinct. Greek Esther basically turns this part of the story into a romantic drama, which is generally inconsistent with the rest of the biblical text (in terms of tone and literary style). Nevertheless, I think it’s wonderfully entertaining stuff.
As this chapter concludes, the story remains in motion. Haman has declared he will go and ask for Mordecai’s death, and Esther has petitioned the king and Haman to attend a second banquet. In the next chapter, Haman’s request for Mordecai’s death is interrupted in a most surprising fashion.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther 4
In this chapter, Esther agrees to intercede with the king on behalf of her people, at the risk of her own life.
In the beginning of the chapter we see the king’s command spreading through the whole empire, with great weeping and mourning by the Jews wherever the order came. The only good news is that the command is post-dated so nobody will actually get killed for a couple months. There is still time for some kind of deliverance to come through, but at the same time there can be no doubt this is a great catastrophe for the Jews.
Now, interestingly, in verse 4 Esther finds out not the king’s command, but rather she learns that her uncle Mordecai was mourning, and she “writhed in great anguish” at the news, and it’s only in verse 5 that she sent a eunuch to go talk to Mordecai and find out what was wrong. We can imagine someone going to Esther and saying, “Hey I saw your uncle today, he was crying and wearing sackcloth near the king’s gate”. Esther knows something is wrong but she doesn’t know what.
Here’s the irony: the king’s wife, who is (secretly) a Jew, is the last person to discover that the king ordered for all the Jews to be killed. The king didn’t ask her opinion, didn’t even tell her he was doing it. I’m not sure if it’s because the king considered it a minor affair not worth discussing with her, or because he didn’t consider the queen’s opinion to be worth consulting when he makes decisions. It’s probably a combination of both. I think this also shows that to a certain extent, Esther is disconnected from what’s happening in the rest of the world. This is part of the reality of life as the queen. Basically the way it works is that in 99% of circumstances, the only men permitted to interact with the queen (or any of the concubines) are eunuchs. Any son of the queen is a presumptive heir to the throne, so at least to the king it is very important to ensure that it is his own son and not the bastard child of another man.
I don’t know the exact rules for how it worked, but I think we can infer that the queen spends the vast majority of her life within the confines of the palace. She lives in luxury and is waited upon 24 hours a day by her staff of caretakers, but at least in this story we can see a glimpse of how it isolates her from the community where she grew up.
In any case, verse 8 is when the real action begins: Mordecai orders Esther to go speak to the king and plead for mercy. Verse 11 delivers Esther’s counterpoint: Nobody, not even the queen, is permitted to go to the king without being invited. Anyone who breaks this law is condemned to death, except if the king extends his scepter of mercy and delivers that person from death. Esther has not been invited for over 30 days, and the implication is clear: she does not expect to be summoned anytime soon.
Mordecai’s response in verses 13-14 contains one of the most famous quotes in the bible: who knows whether you have attained your position for such a time as this?
This is the dramatic center of the entire story. This part of the story ties together all of the elements in the previous three chapters. The deposition of Vashti, Esther’s attained position as queen and Haman’s threat to destroy all the Jews are all tied together in this one moment when Mordecai asks Esther to use her position as queen to plead for deliverance from Haman’s threat. This is also a point of unresolved tension because we don’t yet know the outcome. Esther has agreed to risk her own life with no guarantee that she could save the Jews even if she dies. It is possible that Esther could die in the attempt and the Jews still may perish. The only reason we have for confidence at this point is Mordecai’s obscure reference to “deliverance from another place”, which nearly all scholars agree is a veiled reference to the LORD.
In the midst of all this tension, the story presents to us two paradoxes. The first paradox is that in order to save her people from death, Esther must risk her own life. All of the Jews are subjected to the threat of death, by no choice of their own. In turn, Esther must voluntarily choose the risk of death in order to save her people from that same threat. To me this carries undertones of the ritual sacrifices from the Pentateuch. The whole concept of the Passover and the Day of Atonement is that the Israelites could kill an innocent animal in order to save their own lives from the guilt of death. In the same way, Esther is not under the king’s command of death, but she must choose to place herself under another command of death in order to save her people.
I don’t think it’s an accident that this is the one point in the story where we see people fasting. Remember that this is a story largely defined and structured by feasting. All throughout the book we see the king or Esther hosting one feast after another. Here, in the pinnacle of drama, we see Esther, Mordecai and all the Jews of the capital fasting for three days. On one hand, I think this serves as a dramatic counterpoint to all the feasting. On the other hand, I think the fasting here stands as a metaphor of Esther’s embrace of her own death. There are many places in the bible when fasting is a type of intercession, and that is clearly true here. However, it is even more common for fasting to be a kind of mourning; that is also true here. I think the ostensible purpose of the fasting is to intercede for God’s favor for Esther, that the king might spare her life and favorably receive her petition. A secondary purpose is, simply put, to mourn her death (whether she literally dies or not).
The second paradox is that Esther must choose to obey either Mordecai or the king, but she cannot obey both. Now is the moment when Esther is forced to make a decision. Who will she obey? Esther’s instinct is clearly to obey the king, and we see that in Esther’s response in verse 12 (when she initially refuses to obey Mordecai because of the king’s command). It is only after Mordecai insists that she must act when Esther decides to disobey the king’s Law.
To me, this is the most pivotal moment in Esther’s life. In the past we saw Esther diligently obey Mordecai, and then Hegai. Now she is married to the king and we can easily imagine Esther would like to obey the king in the same way. Strange as it may sound, I think this is possibly an even greater risk for Esther than the risk of death. This is the first (and only) time in the entire story we will see Esther disobey anyone. Not without reluctance, and not without a great amount of fear, but she does it. In my opinion, this is a defining moment in Esther’s growth as a person, because in the end she is willing to act contrary to her personality and instinct.
Lastly, I want to reiterate how this mimicks the story of Joseph, with Esther playing the role of Joseph. Especially in light of Mordecai’s line “Who knows whether you have attained your position for such a time as this?” Esther “attained her position” for the same reason that Joseph “attained his position” in Egypt, to deliver the Israelite nation from destruction. The details are quite different from the overall framework of the story is quite similar.
The chapter concludes with Mordecai and the Jews going off to fast on Esther’s behalf, and in the next chapter we will see the outcome of all this drama.
In the beginning of the chapter we see the king’s command spreading through the whole empire, with great weeping and mourning by the Jews wherever the order came. The only good news is that the command is post-dated so nobody will actually get killed for a couple months. There is still time for some kind of deliverance to come through, but at the same time there can be no doubt this is a great catastrophe for the Jews.
Now, interestingly, in verse 4 Esther finds out not the king’s command, but rather she learns that her uncle Mordecai was mourning, and she “writhed in great anguish” at the news, and it’s only in verse 5 that she sent a eunuch to go talk to Mordecai and find out what was wrong. We can imagine someone going to Esther and saying, “Hey I saw your uncle today, he was crying and wearing sackcloth near the king’s gate”. Esther knows something is wrong but she doesn’t know what.
Here’s the irony: the king’s wife, who is (secretly) a Jew, is the last person to discover that the king ordered for all the Jews to be killed. The king didn’t ask her opinion, didn’t even tell her he was doing it. I’m not sure if it’s because the king considered it a minor affair not worth discussing with her, or because he didn’t consider the queen’s opinion to be worth consulting when he makes decisions. It’s probably a combination of both. I think this also shows that to a certain extent, Esther is disconnected from what’s happening in the rest of the world. This is part of the reality of life as the queen. Basically the way it works is that in 99% of circumstances, the only men permitted to interact with the queen (or any of the concubines) are eunuchs. Any son of the queen is a presumptive heir to the throne, so at least to the king it is very important to ensure that it is his own son and not the bastard child of another man.
I don’t know the exact rules for how it worked, but I think we can infer that the queen spends the vast majority of her life within the confines of the palace. She lives in luxury and is waited upon 24 hours a day by her staff of caretakers, but at least in this story we can see a glimpse of how it isolates her from the community where she grew up.
In any case, verse 8 is when the real action begins: Mordecai orders Esther to go speak to the king and plead for mercy. Verse 11 delivers Esther’s counterpoint: Nobody, not even the queen, is permitted to go to the king without being invited. Anyone who breaks this law is condemned to death, except if the king extends his scepter of mercy and delivers that person from death. Esther has not been invited for over 30 days, and the implication is clear: she does not expect to be summoned anytime soon.
Mordecai’s response in verses 13-14 contains one of the most famous quotes in the bible: who knows whether you have attained your position for such a time as this?
This is the dramatic center of the entire story. This part of the story ties together all of the elements in the previous three chapters. The deposition of Vashti, Esther’s attained position as queen and Haman’s threat to destroy all the Jews are all tied together in this one moment when Mordecai asks Esther to use her position as queen to plead for deliverance from Haman’s threat. This is also a point of unresolved tension because we don’t yet know the outcome. Esther has agreed to risk her own life with no guarantee that she could save the Jews even if she dies. It is possible that Esther could die in the attempt and the Jews still may perish. The only reason we have for confidence at this point is Mordecai’s obscure reference to “deliverance from another place”, which nearly all scholars agree is a veiled reference to the LORD.
In the midst of all this tension, the story presents to us two paradoxes. The first paradox is that in order to save her people from death, Esther must risk her own life. All of the Jews are subjected to the threat of death, by no choice of their own. In turn, Esther must voluntarily choose the risk of death in order to save her people from that same threat. To me this carries undertones of the ritual sacrifices from the Pentateuch. The whole concept of the Passover and the Day of Atonement is that the Israelites could kill an innocent animal in order to save their own lives from the guilt of death. In the same way, Esther is not under the king’s command of death, but she must choose to place herself under another command of death in order to save her people.
I don’t think it’s an accident that this is the one point in the story where we see people fasting. Remember that this is a story largely defined and structured by feasting. All throughout the book we see the king or Esther hosting one feast after another. Here, in the pinnacle of drama, we see Esther, Mordecai and all the Jews of the capital fasting for three days. On one hand, I think this serves as a dramatic counterpoint to all the feasting. On the other hand, I think the fasting here stands as a metaphor of Esther’s embrace of her own death. There are many places in the bible when fasting is a type of intercession, and that is clearly true here. However, it is even more common for fasting to be a kind of mourning; that is also true here. I think the ostensible purpose of the fasting is to intercede for God’s favor for Esther, that the king might spare her life and favorably receive her petition. A secondary purpose is, simply put, to mourn her death (whether she literally dies or not).
The second paradox is that Esther must choose to obey either Mordecai or the king, but she cannot obey both. Now is the moment when Esther is forced to make a decision. Who will she obey? Esther’s instinct is clearly to obey the king, and we see that in Esther’s response in verse 12 (when she initially refuses to obey Mordecai because of the king’s command). It is only after Mordecai insists that she must act when Esther decides to disobey the king’s Law.
To me, this is the most pivotal moment in Esther’s life. In the past we saw Esther diligently obey Mordecai, and then Hegai. Now she is married to the king and we can easily imagine Esther would like to obey the king in the same way. Strange as it may sound, I think this is possibly an even greater risk for Esther than the risk of death. This is the first (and only) time in the entire story we will see Esther disobey anyone. Not without reluctance, and not without a great amount of fear, but she does it. In my opinion, this is a defining moment in Esther’s growth as a person, because in the end she is willing to act contrary to her personality and instinct.
Lastly, I want to reiterate how this mimicks the story of Joseph, with Esther playing the role of Joseph. Especially in light of Mordecai’s line “Who knows whether you have attained your position for such a time as this?” Esther “attained her position” for the same reason that Joseph “attained his position” in Egypt, to deliver the Israelite nation from destruction. The details are quite different from the overall framework of the story is quite similar.
The chapter concludes with Mordecai and the Jews going off to fast on Esther’s behalf, and in the next chapter we will see the outcome of all this drama.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther 3
In this chapter, Haman is introduced and convinces the king to kill all the Jews.
Haman is the fourth and final major character in this story, besides Esther, the king and Mordecai.
What do we learn about Haman? First, we learn he is an “Agagite” (v. 1). This most likely means that he is a descendant of king Agag of the Amalekites (See 1 Samuel 15). They have an ancient blood feud with Israel dating all the way back to the Exodus, which the death of Agag was supposed to have resolved. As we can see, an heir survived and thus the feud lives on with him.
Second, we learn that Haman has somehow gained favor with the king and has been promoted to chief advisor, over all his officials. We don’t know why, but Haman must have really pleased the king somehow and is now his second in command.
Third, we learn that Haman is a proud and insecure man. Verse 5 tells us that when Haman learned a single man was not bowing down to him, he was filled with rage. This is not the attitude of a man who is content with his life. Haman is acting like somebody who wants to be the greatest, most powerful and feared man on earth, and when he learns that there is someone who does not respect him, it cuts him right to the heart.
When Haman learns that Mordecai is a Jew is reawakens the deep animosity between the Amalekites and Israelites, and Haman resolves to destroy all the Jews in the empire. The king, as always, goes along with his advisor’s suggestion and agrees to destroy the Jews. The language in v. 11 is a bit confusing, but my understanding is that “the silver is yours” is a conventional phrase that indicates the king’s assent to the deal. I don’t think it means the king is giving the money back to Haman, just that Xerxes accepts the offer.
One obvious question is, why does Mordecai refuse to bow to Haman? There are several possibilities but I don’t know for sure. One possibility is because Mordecai learns Haman is an Amalekite, and Mordecai refuses to bow to his enemy. Another possibility is that Mordecai simply refuses to bow to anyone out of some sense of piety or because of his faith. There is nothing in the Law that condemns bowing to a human authority, so long as you do not worship them or treat them like a god, but it’s possible that Mordecai viewed bowing to this man as similar to idolatry and therefore unlawful.
Greek Esther 13 includes a prayer of Mordecai where he explains in verse 12 that “it was not in insolence or pride or for any love of glory that I [refused to bow]... but I did this so that I might not set human glory above the glory of God, and I will not bow down to anyone but you.” Although Greek Esther is not part of the Protestant canon and it’s unlikely that Greek Esther was written at the same time as Hebrew Esther (the normal version), I do think it’s interesting how this addition directly confirms the “piety” explanation.
In the final verse of this chapter, the king and Haman sit down to drink while the capital city, Susa, is “in confusion” over the order. This is the third feast and it marks the beginning of the real drama in this story. In the next chapter, the drama reaches Esther within the palace.
Haman is the fourth and final major character in this story, besides Esther, the king and Mordecai.
What do we learn about Haman? First, we learn he is an “Agagite” (v. 1). This most likely means that he is a descendant of king Agag of the Amalekites (See 1 Samuel 15). They have an ancient blood feud with Israel dating all the way back to the Exodus, which the death of Agag was supposed to have resolved. As we can see, an heir survived and thus the feud lives on with him.
Second, we learn that Haman has somehow gained favor with the king and has been promoted to chief advisor, over all his officials. We don’t know why, but Haman must have really pleased the king somehow and is now his second in command.
Third, we learn that Haman is a proud and insecure man. Verse 5 tells us that when Haman learned a single man was not bowing down to him, he was filled with rage. This is not the attitude of a man who is content with his life. Haman is acting like somebody who wants to be the greatest, most powerful and feared man on earth, and when he learns that there is someone who does not respect him, it cuts him right to the heart.
When Haman learns that Mordecai is a Jew is reawakens the deep animosity between the Amalekites and Israelites, and Haman resolves to destroy all the Jews in the empire. The king, as always, goes along with his advisor’s suggestion and agrees to destroy the Jews. The language in v. 11 is a bit confusing, but my understanding is that “the silver is yours” is a conventional phrase that indicates the king’s assent to the deal. I don’t think it means the king is giving the money back to Haman, just that Xerxes accepts the offer.
One obvious question is, why does Mordecai refuse to bow to Haman? There are several possibilities but I don’t know for sure. One possibility is because Mordecai learns Haman is an Amalekite, and Mordecai refuses to bow to his enemy. Another possibility is that Mordecai simply refuses to bow to anyone out of some sense of piety or because of his faith. There is nothing in the Law that condemns bowing to a human authority, so long as you do not worship them or treat them like a god, but it’s possible that Mordecai viewed bowing to this man as similar to idolatry and therefore unlawful.
Greek Esther 13 includes a prayer of Mordecai where he explains in verse 12 that “it was not in insolence or pride or for any love of glory that I [refused to bow]... but I did this so that I might not set human glory above the glory of God, and I will not bow down to anyone but you.” Although Greek Esther is not part of the Protestant canon and it’s unlikely that Greek Esther was written at the same time as Hebrew Esther (the normal version), I do think it’s interesting how this addition directly confirms the “piety” explanation.
In the final verse of this chapter, the king and Haman sit down to drink while the capital city, Susa, is “in confusion” over the order. This is the third feast and it marks the beginning of the real drama in this story. In the next chapter, the drama reaches Esther within the palace.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther 2
In this chapter, Esther becomes the queen.
In the beginning of the chapter, it’s as if king Xerxes was so distracted by everything with Vashti that he forgot he didn’t have a queen anymore. “The king’s attendants” come forward with their business plan for how the king should select a new queen, basically by gathering up all of the prettiest young girls that they can find and having the king choose whichever one he likes the most. This plan “pleased the king”. I can only imagine it did; there aren’t many men who would not be pleased if they got to pick their favorite girl out of a hundred applicants.
Esther gets swept up in one of these dragnets, possibly against her will, but it doesn’t really matter because she does not get a choice about this. We also learn that Esther is an orphan and is being raised by her uncle Mordecai. The book does not dwell on it, but my readers should infer quite a bit of hardship in verses 6-7.
Mordecai, and all the people of his generation, were taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, and also Esther is an orphan. It doesn’t specifically say that Esther was taken into exile too, so it’s possible she was born into exile after her parents were carried off to Babylon. Either way, it should be clear that the Jews are being subjected to considerable hardship in their slavery; there may have been many such orphans as Esther. However, I think we can also see a resiliency in such Jews as Mordecai. Even though they live in slavery and hardship, men such as him are still laboring to protect and preserve their people.
In verse 9, we see that Esther quickly gains the favor of the chief eunuch Hegai. In my opinion this is the first of God’s numerous interventions. Similar to Ezra and Nehemiah, God’s deliverance in Esther largely occurs through “favor” with officials or through coincidences.
I mentioned this in my introduction, but I want to say again that there is a clear similarity to the story of Joseph (from the book of Genesis). In the story of Joseph, we see him unfairly sold into slavery, but earning the favor of his master through hard work and excellence. Joseph did not deserve to be sold into slavery; he didn’t deserve to be falsely accused of rape. Joseph was mistreated, but he persevered, earned favor with his masters, and ultimately prevailed and saved his family from the famine.
Esther did not deserve to live in slavery. I would say that she didn’t deserve to be taken into the king’s palace, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for her since even the royal concubines would have been well treated and fed. She doesn’t have a choice and may not desire it, but all things considered it is not entirely a bad outcome for her. Anyway, Esther earns the favor of Hegai.
One core difference between Joseph and Esther is how they earn favor. In the case of Joseph, he earned favor through hard work and excellence. This is what would have been expected of him. In the case of Esther, we don’t know what she did to please Hegai but I suspect it was because Esther fulfilled Hegai’s expectations for a good woman.
What we see from Esther, more than anything else, is her obedience. Verse 15 and v. 20 show Esther obeying the instructions of Hegai and Mordecai respectively. I’m sure there’s more to it than simple obedience; Esther was probably a quiet, gentle and respectful person. What the text emphasizes the most, however, is obedience. I think the overall effect is to draw a contrast with Vashti, who was just recently deposed for being disobedient to the king. I don’t want to emphasize it too much, because I think Esther is simply doing what she needs to do to survive, but I do think her obedience and humility are Esther’s most obvious traits and part of the reason why she is selected to be the new queen. The other reason is God’s intervention on her behalf, though this intervention is only implied.
In verse 17, Esther obtains favor a second time, this time with the king, and she is promoted to be queen. The king celebrates with another feast, the second feast of Esther. This marks Esther’s ascension to power; it is a much quicker and simpler process than what Joseph went through, but it’s also much less complete. Esther’s power is a soft power; she has the power of suggestion, not the power of command. Everything in Esther’s life hinges on maintaining her relationship with the king, and in the previous chapter we saw the king view his queen primarily as a treasure to be displayed. Esther’s challenge is to change the king’s perspective.
I don’t know what’s the right way to describe it. Esther doesn’t have to earn the king’s respect the way that a man would earn the king’s respect, through competence or wisdom. Instead, I think Esther needs to first establish her identity as a person to the king, and second, to establish herself as a person that the king likes. We have already seen how vulnerable the king is to suggestion, so if Esther is ever in a conflict it won’t be with the king; it will be with one of the king’s advisors. What will ultimately decide Esther’s fate is whether the king likes her more than her opponent. So far we have seen Esther please the king and earn his favor, but this is one of the threads I will follow through the book.
If the first chapter introduced king Xerxes, clearly this chapter is the introduction of Esther. In the next chapter, we are introduced to Haman, who is the villain of the story and the opponent that Esther will later face.
In the beginning of the chapter, it’s as if king Xerxes was so distracted by everything with Vashti that he forgot he didn’t have a queen anymore. “The king’s attendants” come forward with their business plan for how the king should select a new queen, basically by gathering up all of the prettiest young girls that they can find and having the king choose whichever one he likes the most. This plan “pleased the king”. I can only imagine it did; there aren’t many men who would not be pleased if they got to pick their favorite girl out of a hundred applicants.
Esther gets swept up in one of these dragnets, possibly against her will, but it doesn’t really matter because she does not get a choice about this. We also learn that Esther is an orphan and is being raised by her uncle Mordecai. The book does not dwell on it, but my readers should infer quite a bit of hardship in verses 6-7.
Mordecai, and all the people of his generation, were taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, and also Esther is an orphan. It doesn’t specifically say that Esther was taken into exile too, so it’s possible she was born into exile after her parents were carried off to Babylon. Either way, it should be clear that the Jews are being subjected to considerable hardship in their slavery; there may have been many such orphans as Esther. However, I think we can also see a resiliency in such Jews as Mordecai. Even though they live in slavery and hardship, men such as him are still laboring to protect and preserve their people.
In verse 9, we see that Esther quickly gains the favor of the chief eunuch Hegai. In my opinion this is the first of God’s numerous interventions. Similar to Ezra and Nehemiah, God’s deliverance in Esther largely occurs through “favor” with officials or through coincidences.
I mentioned this in my introduction, but I want to say again that there is a clear similarity to the story of Joseph (from the book of Genesis). In the story of Joseph, we see him unfairly sold into slavery, but earning the favor of his master through hard work and excellence. Joseph did not deserve to be sold into slavery; he didn’t deserve to be falsely accused of rape. Joseph was mistreated, but he persevered, earned favor with his masters, and ultimately prevailed and saved his family from the famine.
Esther did not deserve to live in slavery. I would say that she didn’t deserve to be taken into the king’s palace, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for her since even the royal concubines would have been well treated and fed. She doesn’t have a choice and may not desire it, but all things considered it is not entirely a bad outcome for her. Anyway, Esther earns the favor of Hegai.
One core difference between Joseph and Esther is how they earn favor. In the case of Joseph, he earned favor through hard work and excellence. This is what would have been expected of him. In the case of Esther, we don’t know what she did to please Hegai but I suspect it was because Esther fulfilled Hegai’s expectations for a good woman.
What we see from Esther, more than anything else, is her obedience. Verse 15 and v. 20 show Esther obeying the instructions of Hegai and Mordecai respectively. I’m sure there’s more to it than simple obedience; Esther was probably a quiet, gentle and respectful person. What the text emphasizes the most, however, is obedience. I think the overall effect is to draw a contrast with Vashti, who was just recently deposed for being disobedient to the king. I don’t want to emphasize it too much, because I think Esther is simply doing what she needs to do to survive, but I do think her obedience and humility are Esther’s most obvious traits and part of the reason why she is selected to be the new queen. The other reason is God’s intervention on her behalf, though this intervention is only implied.
In verse 17, Esther obtains favor a second time, this time with the king, and she is promoted to be queen. The king celebrates with another feast, the second feast of Esther. This marks Esther’s ascension to power; it is a much quicker and simpler process than what Joseph went through, but it’s also much less complete. Esther’s power is a soft power; she has the power of suggestion, not the power of command. Everything in Esther’s life hinges on maintaining her relationship with the king, and in the previous chapter we saw the king view his queen primarily as a treasure to be displayed. Esther’s challenge is to change the king’s perspective.
I don’t know what’s the right way to describe it. Esther doesn’t have to earn the king’s respect the way that a man would earn the king’s respect, through competence or wisdom. Instead, I think Esther needs to first establish her identity as a person to the king, and second, to establish herself as a person that the king likes. We have already seen how vulnerable the king is to suggestion, so if Esther is ever in a conflict it won’t be with the king; it will be with one of the king’s advisors. What will ultimately decide Esther’s fate is whether the king likes her more than her opponent. So far we have seen Esther please the king and earn his favor, but this is one of the threads I will follow through the book.
If the first chapter introduced king Xerxes, clearly this chapter is the introduction of Esther. In the next chapter, we are introduced to Haman, who is the villain of the story and the opponent that Esther will later face.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther 1
In this chapter, king Xerxes hosts a great feast and Vashti is deposed as queen.
This chapter is “setting the scene” for the events to follow. It begins with a feast; if my readers recall, I mentioned in the introduction to Esther that there are seven feasts in the book and the feasts divide the text into distinct sections. This is the first feast and it mainly serves to establish the king’s character and motivation for the king’s later association with Esther.
When I study king Xerxes (who is called Ahasuerus in the original text of Esther), I see three defining characteristics. The first is that he is powerful. Throughout the entire book, Xerxes remains in an almost god-like position in the story, where he is the ultimate judge of who lives and who dies. We see in this chapter Xerxes bring out generous quantities of wine, and “displaying the riches of his royal glory” (v. 4). Xerxes has all the power in this story and everyone else has power, glory and success to the extent that Xerxes grants it to them. We know that God is the true power behind the throne, so a large part of the story is seeing how God directs the king’s heart to accomplish God’s purposes.
The second characteristic is that Xerxes is remarkably pliable. I see it as kind of a paradox: even though Xerxes holds all of the power, he almost always does what other people tell him to do. It is clear that Xerxes is used to receiving advice from his counselors; this is how he governs, but since Xerxes so rarely contradicts his advisors, it sometimes seems like Xerxes’s advisors have more influence than he does.
The third and last characteristic is his affinity for partying, feasts, wine and women.
Xerxes never faces any conflict or challenges in the story, and since he is so receptive to the influence of others, his role is mostly neutral. I imagine Xerxes to be like a neutral force of nature; he has power and he changes things, but he doesn’t have any obvious goals that he is trying to achieve, other than feasting and preserving his own power from the occasional threat. For the most part, he doesn’t take anybody’s side.
Vashti only appears in this one chapter, since she is deposed at the end of it and stripped of her position. I think one of the most interesting questions in this chapter is why did Vashti disobey the king’s command (v. 12)? I think it’s so interesting because first, the text does not give us the reason why, second, because Vashti has so much to lose from disobeying the king, and third, because it implies there must have been some kind of conflict or grievance that the queen held against the king, but without saying as much openly.
It is clear from v. 12 that this is not “the queen was not able to fulfill the king’s command”. It’s not “the queen did not receive the king’s command”. The queen received it, understood it, was capable of it, and refused. We don’t really know why she refused, so I’ll offer my best guess. When we study the power dynamic between the king and queen Vashti, it is clear that the king wishes to present queen Vashti in the same way (and for the same reason) that he presented “the riches of his royal glory” (v. 4). Basically the king is showing off all his money, jewelry, fine art, and so on, and towards the end here he also wants to “show off” his queen. I don’t think the queen is a person in the king’s mind, I think she is yet another one of his possessions.
It seems likely that the king would regularly bring out the queen for exactly this purpose; it only appears in the story this time because the queen refused. I think in the end the queen decided that she didn’t want to be a trophy, she wanted to be her own person with her own value. A friend of mine described Vashti as being the first feminist; this is also speculative but not without reason.
Verses 17-22 make it clear that the king’s advisors certainly think Vashti is the first feminist. They are afraid that if Vashti is not punished, then all the other women in the nation “will speak in the same way”, and “there will be much contempt and anger” (v. 18). Really what this means is that wives will start talking back to their husbands, refusing to do things, and generally just expressing their opinions and attitudes. The king and his advisors don’t want women to have opinions, they want them to be obedient.
I don’t know that Vashti wanted to be an example, but in her position as queen she has no choice, and the men respond accordingly. Their solution is simple: divorce. She did not fulfill her duty as they saw it, so the king removed her and we can presume he sent her back to live with her parents again. It’s difficult to say what would have happened to her. Being publicly rejected from such a high profile role, it’s hard to imagine who would have married her after that, even if the king would have allowed it. She is not immediately killed, but I think it leaves her fate uncertain. Since Vashti is no longer important to the story of Esther, she disappears from the book after this point.
The chapter concludes with a reminder that “every man should be the master in his own house”. Like so many other places, this is not the bible telling us what the world ought to be like, it’s telling us how it was. I hope my readers understand this is the culture into which Esther was born, and this is the culture in which her heroism is demonstrated.
In the next chapter, Esther herself appears in the story and she becomes queen.
This chapter is “setting the scene” for the events to follow. It begins with a feast; if my readers recall, I mentioned in the introduction to Esther that there are seven feasts in the book and the feasts divide the text into distinct sections. This is the first feast and it mainly serves to establish the king’s character and motivation for the king’s later association with Esther.
When I study king Xerxes (who is called Ahasuerus in the original text of Esther), I see three defining characteristics. The first is that he is powerful. Throughout the entire book, Xerxes remains in an almost god-like position in the story, where he is the ultimate judge of who lives and who dies. We see in this chapter Xerxes bring out generous quantities of wine, and “displaying the riches of his royal glory” (v. 4). Xerxes has all the power in this story and everyone else has power, glory and success to the extent that Xerxes grants it to them. We know that God is the true power behind the throne, so a large part of the story is seeing how God directs the king’s heart to accomplish God’s purposes.
The second characteristic is that Xerxes is remarkably pliable. I see it as kind of a paradox: even though Xerxes holds all of the power, he almost always does what other people tell him to do. It is clear that Xerxes is used to receiving advice from his counselors; this is how he governs, but since Xerxes so rarely contradicts his advisors, it sometimes seems like Xerxes’s advisors have more influence than he does.
The third and last characteristic is his affinity for partying, feasts, wine and women.
Xerxes never faces any conflict or challenges in the story, and since he is so receptive to the influence of others, his role is mostly neutral. I imagine Xerxes to be like a neutral force of nature; he has power and he changes things, but he doesn’t have any obvious goals that he is trying to achieve, other than feasting and preserving his own power from the occasional threat. For the most part, he doesn’t take anybody’s side.
Vashti only appears in this one chapter, since she is deposed at the end of it and stripped of her position. I think one of the most interesting questions in this chapter is why did Vashti disobey the king’s command (v. 12)? I think it’s so interesting because first, the text does not give us the reason why, second, because Vashti has so much to lose from disobeying the king, and third, because it implies there must have been some kind of conflict or grievance that the queen held against the king, but without saying as much openly.
It is clear from v. 12 that this is not “the queen was not able to fulfill the king’s command”. It’s not “the queen did not receive the king’s command”. The queen received it, understood it, was capable of it, and refused. We don’t really know why she refused, so I’ll offer my best guess. When we study the power dynamic between the king and queen Vashti, it is clear that the king wishes to present queen Vashti in the same way (and for the same reason) that he presented “the riches of his royal glory” (v. 4). Basically the king is showing off all his money, jewelry, fine art, and so on, and towards the end here he also wants to “show off” his queen. I don’t think the queen is a person in the king’s mind, I think she is yet another one of his possessions.
It seems likely that the king would regularly bring out the queen for exactly this purpose; it only appears in the story this time because the queen refused. I think in the end the queen decided that she didn’t want to be a trophy, she wanted to be her own person with her own value. A friend of mine described Vashti as being the first feminist; this is also speculative but not without reason.
Verses 17-22 make it clear that the king’s advisors certainly think Vashti is the first feminist. They are afraid that if Vashti is not punished, then all the other women in the nation “will speak in the same way”, and “there will be much contempt and anger” (v. 18). Really what this means is that wives will start talking back to their husbands, refusing to do things, and generally just expressing their opinions and attitudes. The king and his advisors don’t want women to have opinions, they want them to be obedient.
I don’t know that Vashti wanted to be an example, but in her position as queen she has no choice, and the men respond accordingly. Their solution is simple: divorce. She did not fulfill her duty as they saw it, so the king removed her and we can presume he sent her back to live with her parents again. It’s difficult to say what would have happened to her. Being publicly rejected from such a high profile role, it’s hard to imagine who would have married her after that, even if the king would have allowed it. She is not immediately killed, but I think it leaves her fate uncertain. Since Vashti is no longer important to the story of Esther, she disappears from the book after this point.
The chapter concludes with a reminder that “every man should be the master in his own house”. Like so many other places, this is not the bible telling us what the world ought to be like, it’s telling us how it was. I hope my readers understand this is the culture into which Esther was born, and this is the culture in which her heroism is demonstrated.
In the next chapter, Esther herself appears in the story and she becomes queen.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Bible Commentary - Esther Introduction
And so we begin the book of Esther. :)
Esther is the very last book of the OT historical section. After this we begin the Wisdom Literature (Job through the Song of Songs).
I think at a high level, Esther shares many characteristics with the book of Ruth. The most obvious is the central female protagonist, but it’s more than that. Both Esther and Ruth are like period pieces drawn from their respective historical epochs. They are written in the historical context of a specific era, but the events in each book do not particularly tie in with the rest of the bible.
Judged purely based on shared references, neither Ruth nor any events from the book of Ruth are mentioned anywhere else in the OT[1]. In a similar way, neither Esther nor any events from the book of Esther are mentioned anywhere else in the bible. What this means is that if Ruth and Esther were both removed entirely from the bible, there would be no “gaps”, in the sense of later books assuming their audience’s familiarity with either Ruth or Esther.
Rather than “advancing” the history of Israel, I view both Ruth and Esther as narrative interludes, whose essential focus is not to tell us about what happened to Israel as a nation, but rather to teach us about the lives of individual people during their respective periods. Other books in the OT focus on individuals, but only when those individuals are leaders of the nation who have the power to effect change at the national level. For instance, the book of Joshua has much to say about the person of Joshua, but these are all events of national importance because Joshua is the national leader. Same thing with Ezra and Nehemiah, who are both also national leaders.
Ruth and Esther are different because Ruth is a commoner (and a foreigner at that) and while Esther becomes queen, she is queen of Persia and not a community leader of Israel itself.
Both Ruth and Esther focus on individuals, but their intent is illustrative: in the case of both books, their authors are trying to show us what society was like at the time. In the case of Ruth, we see Ruth and her family struggling to survive through the turbulent, lawless Judges period. In the case of Esther, we see Esther and her uncle strive to maintain their cultural and religious identity while living in the midst of a hostile, foreign oppressor.
Focusing particularly on Esther, the historical context is virtually identical to Ezra and Nehemiah. The Jewish people have been exiled from their homeland and they face a serious identity crisis. The Tabernacle of Moses (and later, the temple) was central to the Jewish faith. It was central to the sacrificial system and to the three mandated festivals. All of this was part of the Law of Moses. When the temple was destroyed and the people exiled, it meant that following the Law in the way it was originally intended becomes literally impossible. Hence the identity crisis: what does it mean to be Jewish if it is impossible to obey the Law as it was originally meant?
As a secondary factor, but also tremendously important, the Jews were taken out of their homeland where they existed as a local majority, and moved to a foreign land where they exist as a local minority. That is, before the exile an average Judean man could expect 9 out of every 10 of his neighbors to be the same ethnicity and religion as himself. Now it’s the opposite; perhaps only 1 out of every 10 of his neighbors will be the same ethnicity as himself. There are numerous implications.
First, it redefines in their conception what a “neighbor” is. In the past, “neighbor” and “brother” could be used almost interchangeably. Although I don’t want to be overly optimistic and say that the Israelites always lived at peace with each other, I do think there was a reasonable expectation that the people in a given town or community would protect and help each other. The Law commands generosity towards one’s neighbor in part due to this expectation. Foreigners were also supposed to be treated well because, as a minority in the Jewish homeland without social protection, they were more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Now it is the Jews who are living as foreigners, and they are vulnerable to the exact same exploitation and abuse that the Israelites had been ordered to eschew.
Second, in addition to the abuses and exploitation the Jews might receive, there is a significantly increased risk of cultural dilution via intermarriage and economic pressure. Nehemiah 13:23-24 writes briefly about this challenge, but in the context of the Jewish exiles in Jerusalem. It would have been a significantly greater risk in Persia where the Jewish exiles were a minority and surrounded by foreign people. It is likely that a significant fraction of Jews in exile learned a foreign language (like Persian), married a foreign spouse, worshiped foreign gods, and while they and their descendants lived on, they ceased to maintain a Jewish identity, and therefore ceased to exist as a separate people.
In my opinion, the most important challenge faced by Esther and all the people of her generation is how to maintain their Jewish identity while surviving in the midst of a hostile, foreign power. Even though the story never says it directly, I think this is the most important question of Esther’s generation and I think much can be learned by studying Esther with this perspective.
I believe that Esther’s “answer” to this question is similar to lessons we have drawn from Nehemiah: in a sentence, the Jewish people should engage with the hostile society, they should seek to cultivate influence and to excel in whatever role they attain, but that they should never forget their origin and people and maintain their “Jewishness” in every situation. It is a pragmatic attitude, seeking to accrue power and wealth, but then using that power to benefit the Jewish community. We saw this with Nehemiah, who was cupbearer to the king but then plied his influence to become governor of Judea and build the wall of Jerusalem. I also see an analogy to Joseph the son of Jacob. He was sold by his brothers into slavery, but then excelled in every position he got and was eventually promoted to second in command beside Pharaoh. After garnering influence and power, Joseph used his position to provide food and land for his parents and brothers, bringing deliverance to the community of Israel during the famine. Esther is much the same story.
Wrapped around this existential challenge, the book of Esther is a beautiful example of ancient Mideast storytelling. The primary theme of Esther is reversal of fortune. It is woven throughout the book in more places than I could mention here. Esther contains a fairly standard narrative arc, with the first half of the book building up the tension in each chapter until it reaches the climax, deliverance is won and the book concludes happily for all the good guys. The final conclusion of Esther is to explain why the Jews celebrate a festival called Purim, which is an annual festival celebrating the deliverance of the Jews that Esther won by her virtue and bravery.
The book of Esther has the usual cast of actors, with a protagonist, antagonist and various supporting characters. I will discuss the characters as we see them emerge in the story.
My readers should also note the central role played by feasts. There are seven feasts in the book of Esther and they are used to structure the narrative into distinct sections.
One of the most unique characteristics of Esther is that throughout the entire book it does not contain the word “LORD” or “God”. Esther was one of the last books added to the biblical canon and this is one of the reasons why. One theory I had heard was that Esther was written without references to God as a survival mechanism of sorts, because the Persian authorities might have destroyed a book that was openly dedicated to a god outside their religious system. I don’t know if that is true but it seems plausible.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention the additions of Greek Esther. Greek Esther is a document that may be unfamiliar to many Protestants, but possibly familiar to Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Greek Esther is basically a Greek translation of the book of Esther, which formed part of the Septuagint, the ~1st century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament. Amongst other differences, the Septuagint contained several additions to the book of Esther that are not included in the traditional Hebrew version of the same book. These Greek additions are most likely an expansion on the Hebrew “original” text and the work of a later author, though it is difficult to estimate the date of both the Hebrew original as well as the later Greek additions. I don’t plan to comment on the Greek additions themselves, but since the additions to Esther themselves date to at least the 3rd century BCE, I think they provide an invaluable perspective on how ancient Jews may have interpreted and viewed the book of Esther.
One of the most interesting differences between Greek Esther and the “traditional” Hebrew Esther is that Greek Esther includes numerous references to God and to prayer. The omission of references to God is obvious to ancient Jews just as much as it’s obvious to us, and my guess is that Greek Esther was one attempt to “fix” this “problem”. That is, I hypothesize that Greek Esther added a bunch of references to God as an attempt to correct what its author/translator viewed as a deficiency of Hebrew Esther. There are other possible theories but without having more evidence it is difficult to reconstruct the history and relationship between these two documents.
In conclusion, while I expect to be writing at length about the cultural context and themes of the book, I don’t want my readers to forget that Esther is a story about challenges, danger, and triumph over adversity. Even if it means reading the book twice, I think Esther is a dramatic thriller that should be enjoyed first and then analyzed second. While I am going to mostly focus on the literary analysis, I would be doing my readers a disservice to suggest that careful analysis is the most important thing we can do with Esther. It truly is a masterpiece and I sincerely hope that my readers enjoy it.
And with that, let’s move on to the first chapter of Esther!
[1]She is mentioned in the genealogy of Matthew in the New Testament but nowhere else.
Esther is the very last book of the OT historical section. After this we begin the Wisdom Literature (Job through the Song of Songs).
I think at a high level, Esther shares many characteristics with the book of Ruth. The most obvious is the central female protagonist, but it’s more than that. Both Esther and Ruth are like period pieces drawn from their respective historical epochs. They are written in the historical context of a specific era, but the events in each book do not particularly tie in with the rest of the bible.
Judged purely based on shared references, neither Ruth nor any events from the book of Ruth are mentioned anywhere else in the OT[1]. In a similar way, neither Esther nor any events from the book of Esther are mentioned anywhere else in the bible. What this means is that if Ruth and Esther were both removed entirely from the bible, there would be no “gaps”, in the sense of later books assuming their audience’s familiarity with either Ruth or Esther.
Rather than “advancing” the history of Israel, I view both Ruth and Esther as narrative interludes, whose essential focus is not to tell us about what happened to Israel as a nation, but rather to teach us about the lives of individual people during their respective periods. Other books in the OT focus on individuals, but only when those individuals are leaders of the nation who have the power to effect change at the national level. For instance, the book of Joshua has much to say about the person of Joshua, but these are all events of national importance because Joshua is the national leader. Same thing with Ezra and Nehemiah, who are both also national leaders.
Ruth and Esther are different because Ruth is a commoner (and a foreigner at that) and while Esther becomes queen, she is queen of Persia and not a community leader of Israel itself.
Both Ruth and Esther focus on individuals, but their intent is illustrative: in the case of both books, their authors are trying to show us what society was like at the time. In the case of Ruth, we see Ruth and her family struggling to survive through the turbulent, lawless Judges period. In the case of Esther, we see Esther and her uncle strive to maintain their cultural and religious identity while living in the midst of a hostile, foreign oppressor.
Focusing particularly on Esther, the historical context is virtually identical to Ezra and Nehemiah. The Jewish people have been exiled from their homeland and they face a serious identity crisis. The Tabernacle of Moses (and later, the temple) was central to the Jewish faith. It was central to the sacrificial system and to the three mandated festivals. All of this was part of the Law of Moses. When the temple was destroyed and the people exiled, it meant that following the Law in the way it was originally intended becomes literally impossible. Hence the identity crisis: what does it mean to be Jewish if it is impossible to obey the Law as it was originally meant?
As a secondary factor, but also tremendously important, the Jews were taken out of their homeland where they existed as a local majority, and moved to a foreign land where they exist as a local minority. That is, before the exile an average Judean man could expect 9 out of every 10 of his neighbors to be the same ethnicity and religion as himself. Now it’s the opposite; perhaps only 1 out of every 10 of his neighbors will be the same ethnicity as himself. There are numerous implications.
First, it redefines in their conception what a “neighbor” is. In the past, “neighbor” and “brother” could be used almost interchangeably. Although I don’t want to be overly optimistic and say that the Israelites always lived at peace with each other, I do think there was a reasonable expectation that the people in a given town or community would protect and help each other. The Law commands generosity towards one’s neighbor in part due to this expectation. Foreigners were also supposed to be treated well because, as a minority in the Jewish homeland without social protection, they were more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Now it is the Jews who are living as foreigners, and they are vulnerable to the exact same exploitation and abuse that the Israelites had been ordered to eschew.
Second, in addition to the abuses and exploitation the Jews might receive, there is a significantly increased risk of cultural dilution via intermarriage and economic pressure. Nehemiah 13:23-24 writes briefly about this challenge, but in the context of the Jewish exiles in Jerusalem. It would have been a significantly greater risk in Persia where the Jewish exiles were a minority and surrounded by foreign people. It is likely that a significant fraction of Jews in exile learned a foreign language (like Persian), married a foreign spouse, worshiped foreign gods, and while they and their descendants lived on, they ceased to maintain a Jewish identity, and therefore ceased to exist as a separate people.
In my opinion, the most important challenge faced by Esther and all the people of her generation is how to maintain their Jewish identity while surviving in the midst of a hostile, foreign power. Even though the story never says it directly, I think this is the most important question of Esther’s generation and I think much can be learned by studying Esther with this perspective.
I believe that Esther’s “answer” to this question is similar to lessons we have drawn from Nehemiah: in a sentence, the Jewish people should engage with the hostile society, they should seek to cultivate influence and to excel in whatever role they attain, but that they should never forget their origin and people and maintain their “Jewishness” in every situation. It is a pragmatic attitude, seeking to accrue power and wealth, but then using that power to benefit the Jewish community. We saw this with Nehemiah, who was cupbearer to the king but then plied his influence to become governor of Judea and build the wall of Jerusalem. I also see an analogy to Joseph the son of Jacob. He was sold by his brothers into slavery, but then excelled in every position he got and was eventually promoted to second in command beside Pharaoh. After garnering influence and power, Joseph used his position to provide food and land for his parents and brothers, bringing deliverance to the community of Israel during the famine. Esther is much the same story.
Wrapped around this existential challenge, the book of Esther is a beautiful example of ancient Mideast storytelling. The primary theme of Esther is reversal of fortune. It is woven throughout the book in more places than I could mention here. Esther contains a fairly standard narrative arc, with the first half of the book building up the tension in each chapter until it reaches the climax, deliverance is won and the book concludes happily for all the good guys. The final conclusion of Esther is to explain why the Jews celebrate a festival called Purim, which is an annual festival celebrating the deliverance of the Jews that Esther won by her virtue and bravery.
The book of Esther has the usual cast of actors, with a protagonist, antagonist and various supporting characters. I will discuss the characters as we see them emerge in the story.
My readers should also note the central role played by feasts. There are seven feasts in the book of Esther and they are used to structure the narrative into distinct sections.
One of the most unique characteristics of Esther is that throughout the entire book it does not contain the word “LORD” or “God”. Esther was one of the last books added to the biblical canon and this is one of the reasons why. One theory I had heard was that Esther was written without references to God as a survival mechanism of sorts, because the Persian authorities might have destroyed a book that was openly dedicated to a god outside their religious system. I don’t know if that is true but it seems plausible.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention the additions of Greek Esther. Greek Esther is a document that may be unfamiliar to many Protestants, but possibly familiar to Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Greek Esther is basically a Greek translation of the book of Esther, which formed part of the Septuagint, the ~1st century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament. Amongst other differences, the Septuagint contained several additions to the book of Esther that are not included in the traditional Hebrew version of the same book. These Greek additions are most likely an expansion on the Hebrew “original” text and the work of a later author, though it is difficult to estimate the date of both the Hebrew original as well as the later Greek additions. I don’t plan to comment on the Greek additions themselves, but since the additions to Esther themselves date to at least the 3rd century BCE, I think they provide an invaluable perspective on how ancient Jews may have interpreted and viewed the book of Esther.
One of the most interesting differences between Greek Esther and the “traditional” Hebrew Esther is that Greek Esther includes numerous references to God and to prayer. The omission of references to God is obvious to ancient Jews just as much as it’s obvious to us, and my guess is that Greek Esther was one attempt to “fix” this “problem”. That is, I hypothesize that Greek Esther added a bunch of references to God as an attempt to correct what its author/translator viewed as a deficiency of Hebrew Esther. There are other possible theories but without having more evidence it is difficult to reconstruct the history and relationship between these two documents.
In conclusion, while I expect to be writing at length about the cultural context and themes of the book, I don’t want my readers to forget that Esther is a story about challenges, danger, and triumph over adversity. Even if it means reading the book twice, I think Esther is a dramatic thriller that should be enjoyed first and then analyzed second. While I am going to mostly focus on the literary analysis, I would be doing my readers a disservice to suggest that careful analysis is the most important thing we can do with Esther. It truly is a masterpiece and I sincerely hope that my readers enjoy it.
And with that, let’s move on to the first chapter of Esther!
[1]She is mentioned in the genealogy of Matthew in the New Testament but nowhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)