# Wicked Esther?



## TylerRay

My wife and I currently use Gertrude Hoeksema's Bible story book with our children. When we got to the section dealing with Esther, we found that Hoeksema interpreted Esther as having been an unrepentant wicked woman whom God used for good. We initially thought that this was a rather novel interpretation, but I have recently heard Michael Barrett of PRTS say much the same thing. Has anyone run across this line of interpretation? Are there any good commentaries that are written from this point of view?


----------



## timfost

Yes, this is also my pastor's interpretation which I find very convincing. I think it's a story about how God works in preserving His people (unfaithful Israel) because He is faithful, not a story of "heroes of the faith." Why did Esther's ancestors not return to Jerusalem with the faithful? Why did she seek revenge to the extent that she did? Why is there no mention of God?


----------



## Pergamum

Wow. Never heard this view before. Any links to sermon transcripts or commentaries or article? 

I thought she did not return to Jerusalem because she was young and under another's care. I never thought her actions to be evil vengeance, but justifiable self-protection of her people. Are the Jews wrong then in celebrating their deliverance (i.e. celebrating sinful vengeance)? 

I am not sure I am ready to yet buy Hoeksema and the PRTS line of reasoning on this.


----------



## Jack K

I have heard that school of thought. Certainly, several commentators have suggested that Esther is of questionable character based on how well she thrives in the king's harem.

I suspect the story is masterfully told in such a way as to make the reader wonder, initially, about Esther and Mordecai. Mordecai has remained in the diaspora, which makes us wonder if they might be less-than-fully-faithful Jews. Esther, who goes by a Persian name and seems willing to follow the harem rules without question, is also suspect. As the story progresses, Mordecai proves himself a faithful Jew by his refusal to bow before Haman, but the reader still wonders about Esther. Does she find her identity in being queen of Persia, or in being one of God's people? Her decision to intervene with the King provides the answer—she is faithful—but this happens only after considerable tension has been built up, and perhaps after Esther herself has had to wrestle with her faith (note the need for Mordecai to remind her of her duty toward her people).

There is also, of course, the work of God going on behind the scenes, as he arranges events so as to preserve the Jews. Being a good, well-told story, the book of Esther is able to keep both themes going. The story is about God's work, but also about these characters. And I say Esther is a hero, just not the sort of hero you instantly recognize as such from the start. As far as we are to emulate the human characters in this story, Esther urges us to be faithful to God even in ungodly cultures and workplaces, recognizing that we sometimes hesitate but encouraging us to trust God's providence and remain true in the end.

Villianizing Ester because she may not be "all in" yet at the start of the story misses the point. Many of us have found ourselves in similar situations. A person of faith is not one who has always been a perfect model of godly obedience, but rather one who ultimately relies on God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

A friend of mine told me several years ago that Angus Stewart said much the same thing in his church news-letter. I have just contacted the Revd Stewart and will see if I can get access to the article.


----------



## Jonny.

In my experience, the trap people tend to fall into is to turn Esther into some sort of one dimensional Disney princess: she's pretty, she's good, she saves the day. I think Jack is right in saying that the story has been woven masterfully to make us wonder exactly where her loyalties lie.

It's pretty obvious that Esther was far from perfect. I always find it particularly striking that when she makes her big reveal in chapter 7; it's a shock. Surely if she had been serious about following God, word would have got back to Haman that she was one of the Jews. 

Having said that, I just don't see the text suggesting that Esther was unrepentant or wicked. She was young and probably had little say in whether her family returned from Persia, and she was effectively kidnapped to be brought into the King's harem (how could she possibly say no?). I'm not saying she was blameless in all this, but I very much doubt that she was relishing the directions her life was taking.

I think a certain amount of faith is implicit in some parts of the book (chapter 4 for example), and I think the end of the book suggests that Esther and Mordecai acted righteously with their new found influence. It's true that they don't explicitly mention God, but I suspect that God isn't named in the book because it's training us to see God's work when we can't see God himself. That's certainly a lesson we need when things don't go according to our plans.

I think we rob ourselves of something when we whitewash Esther. I wonder do we rob ourselves of something when we completely vilify Esther too? Part of the beauty of the book is its many shades: she comes from a questionable family background (like many of God's people), she found herself in hideous circumstances (like many of God's people), she was frightened and reluctant (like many of God's people), and the odds were stacked against her (like many of God's people). Yet, whenever we see Esther in that light, the subtle workings of God shine out all the more. 

I can understand viewing Esther as an unbeliever, because it shifts the focus from where it often falls (Esther as a good example) and fixes it on where it should be (God saving the day, in spite of the material he had to work with). Having said that, I don't see how that couldn't also be the case if Esther was a genuine believer who had made compromises and was far from a model of faith. Isn't that the experience of all of God's people?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is a link to the source that I mentioned earlier: http://www.cprf.co.uk/crnews/crnmarch2007.htm#esther


----------



## Logan

Thankfully, the story is isn't dependent upon the character of those God used.

But I think I would side with what Matthew Henry says in many places in his commentary, that we should strive to think charitably of those we read about, having not been there ourselves and not knowing the entire situation.


----------



## Jonny.

http://www.cprf.co.uk/crnews/crnmarch2007.htm#esther said:


> Esther, at Mordecai’s promptings, entered a royally-sponsored beauty contest, which involved fornication with the king. What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest in the first place? What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest, thereby agreeing to fornication with the one sponsoring it? It was a gross violation of the seventh commandment.



I'm not convinced that Esther "entered" this contest, or that it had much to do with Mordecai's promptings. 



Esther 2:3 said:


> And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the beautiful young virgins to the harem in Susa the citadel





Esther 2:8 said:


> So when the king's order and his edict were proclaimed, and when many young women were gathered in Susa the citadel in custody of Hegai, Esther also was taken into the king's palace and put in custody of Hegai, who had charge of the women.



Could she have put up more of a fight? Maybe, I don't know. But it reads to me like she didn't have a choice in the matter - go willingly or go against your will.


----------



## kodos

In the article posted above, just replace Esther with David's encounter with Bathsheba and you would get the same, albeit flawed rhetorical point. From the article cited:


> "What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest in the first place? What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest, thereby agreeing to fornication with the one sponsoring it? It was a gross violation of the seventh commandment... By agreeing to marry Ahasuerus, Esther violated the marriage ordinance God had established in paradise, for she contradicted the purpose of marriage by being unequally yoked to an unbeliever."



Let's apply this thinking to David: What child of God would watch a woman bathing with lust? What child of God would commit fornication with her? King David had the added sin that he was her superior and was commanded to bless her and protect her as per the Fifth Commandment. What child of God would murder Bathsheba's husband - a violation of the 6th Commandment.

David too violated the marriage ordinance God had established in paradise by taking multiple wives. I must not be tracking the logic used against Esther in the article. 

As others have noted - it is improper for us to expect perfection from any of God's saints. As Logan noted: I think some charity towards Esther is warranted. Imagine the pressure being brought to bear on her by King Xerxes! While I agree that she should not have fornicated with him, she is a fallen person. It is a mark of God's longsuffering that while we are faithless He remains faithful.

It is interesting to note that in the midst of Esther's famous statement, "if I perish, I perish" there is something else mentioned:


> *Chapter 4:15* Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”



It is interesting that Esther also has her maids join her in her fasting, which is a religious duty and as their superior she also commands them to fast.

Personal thoughts: I have had those moments where my faith has flickered, had wavered, and had been so dim as to almost be undetectable. However, God has kindled my faith so that in the end I was proven to be faithful even after turning away from God's commands. Usually after a good kick in the pants 

When I read Esther I detect something similar, especially for the low condition that the Church found itself in in her day: I certainly do not think it is unexpected that she participates in the harem in the face of the terrible man that was King Xerxes.

But almost all persons of faith in the Bible and in life come from vile and wicked conditions that the grace of God brings them out of. As mentioned King David is another example of this. A man who commits many deeds of wickedness. David needed a Savior who would never break God's Law. So did Esther. So do I.

I was blessed recently to listen to a series of sermons on Esther by the Rev. Kenneth Stewart. I love Rev. Stewart's preaching in general, but this series was one of his best: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=33151448190


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Just a note: Despite my postings, I have no dog in the hunt. I remain open to persuasion on both sides. 

I would, however, be interested to know if this interpretation of Esther being unregenerate is a novelty or does it have any credible historical pedigree?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No expert here but I had never read this idea; find me a puritan that held to it and I'll reconsider strongly going with novelty off the cuff.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> I would, however, be interested to know if this interpretation of Esther being unregenerate is a novelty or does it have any credible historical pedigree?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am actually preaching through Esther at the moment and I tend to side with the school that Esther and Mordecai (especially) are not given to us for emulation, but as negative examples that God uses despite themselves to protect his covenant people. Esther is kind of the anti-hero version of Daniel as well as purposefully giving the "other side of the story", if you will, of the days of Ezra/Nehemiah, etc...

For instance, Jack brought up Mordecai's refusal to bow in Esther 3. I tend to think his being a son of Kish (Saul's family) who had an ethnic hatred of Agagites (see 1 Sam 15), had more to do with that than any pretended love for the second or third commandments. 

Remember Mordecai is not working in the court of Xerxes out of coercion as Daniel and his three friends were. 

Another parallel worth thinking about in the case of Mordecai and Esther are Abram and Sarai in Egypt in Genesis 12.


----------



## timfost

I taught a couple studies through the book of Jonah recently. Like Esther, we may be disappointed if we look to the characters as good examples of the faith. However, we will never be disappointed if we look at the faithfulness of God in spite of man's shortcomings.

Whether we understand Esther to be numbered among the faithful is probably not the point of Esther. If we look to the faithfulness of God, we will never be disappointed regardless of how we understand and interpret Esther's heart.


----------



## Pergamum

Jonny. said:


> http://www.cprf.co.uk/crnews/crnmarch2007.htm#esther said:
> 
> 
> 
> Esther, at Mordecai’s promptings, entered a royally-sponsored beauty contest, which involved fornication with the king. What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest in the first place? What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest, thereby agreeing to fornication with the one sponsoring it? It was a gross violation of the seventh commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced that Esther "entered" this contest, or that it had much to do with Mordecai's promptings.
> 
> 
> 
> Esther 2:3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the beautiful young virgins to the harem in Susa the citadel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther 2:8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when the king's order and his edict were proclaimed, and when many young women were gathered in Susa the citadel in custody of Hegai, Esther also was taken into the king's palace and put in custody of Hegai, who had charge of the women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could she have put up more of a fight? Maybe, I don't know. But it reads to me like she didn't have a choice in the matter - go willingly or go against your will.
Click to expand...


Yes, I had always assumed she was "rounded up" against her will. If the king in the story is Ahasuerus III (Xerxes 485-465 B.C.) then he was cruel and war-minded, indeed.

Almost all evangelicals, it seems, view Esther as a hero. It would appear that it is thus only some of the reformed that view Esther in the negative. Why this trend? Was there a famous Dutch Reformed commentator that took that view or something?


----------



## Jack K

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> For instance, Jack brought up Mordecai's refusal to bow in Esther 3. I tend to think his being a son of Kish (Saul's family) who had an ethnic hatred of Agagites (see 1 Sam 15), had more to do with that than any pretended love for the second or third commandments.



Oh, I agree about the commandments. Bowing before Haman would not be a violation of either of those commandments. God's people may bow before a king or prime minister. The mention of each man's heritage clearly shows that Mordecai's refusal is due to the fact that Haman (both by pedigree and, it turns out, by personal temperament) is an enemy of God's people.

As for the fact that Mordecai seems likely to be a decendant of Saul... this may be adding fuel to Mordecai's obstinance, or it may simply be there to help us see the connection to 1 Samuel 15. I'm not quite ready to buy the idea that this was primarily a family feud, mostly because Haman's anger comes down on not just Mordecai's family but on all of God's people throughout the realm. The whole book is about Haman vs. the Jews, with only one hint that Haman vs. Saul's family may have been the dynamic that actually started the whole affair.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Jack K said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, Jack brought up Mordecai's refusal to bow in Esther 3. I tend to think his being a son of Kish (Saul's family) who had an ethnic hatred of Agagites (see 1 Sam 15), had more to do with that than any pretended love for the second or third commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree about the commandments. Bowing before Haman would not be a violation of either of those commandments. God's people may bow before a king or prime minister. The mention of each man's heritage clearly shows that Mordecai's refusal is due to the fact that Haman (both by pedigree and, it turns out, by personal temperament) is an enemy of God's people.
> 
> As for the fact that Mordecai seems likely to be a decendant of Saul... this may be adding fuel to Mordecai's obstinance, or it may simply be there to help us see the connection to 1 Samuel 15. I'm not quite ready to buy the idea that this was primarily a family feud, mostly because Haman's anger comes down on not just Mordecai's family but on all of God's people throughout the realm. The whole book is about Haman vs. the Jews, with only one hint that Haman vs. Saul's family may have been the dynamic that actually started the whole affair.
Click to expand...


Right, the bowing was not out of accord with the commands. I agree. 

However, I have read in a couple of the commentaries I am using at present an attempt to make that argument to buttress the general evangelical "heroic" take which is general the case with Mordecai and Esther. In other words that Mordecai is to be commended for not bowing to an idolatrous prime minister. 


I am taking kind of a via media between the hero story of Esther and Mordecai noted above as being the evangelical consensus and the idea they were wicked and unregenerate. I think spending too much time on their own personal faith is kind of missing the forest for the trees. As I mentioned with the Genesis 12 example you have a couple of less than virtuous covenant members who are being used in spite of themselves to protect God's people in Persia. 

On something else noted above I do not get the impression from chapter two that this Miss Persia contest was through the work of press gangs rounding girls up for the presentation for the king. I mean Mordecai instructs Esther on how to play the game and move on in the competition. The Hebrew word is fairly general in its meaning and has a wide range of uses in the old testament, from gathering sheep to bringing in the sheaves, etc... 

This is not to say that it was optional, but it was rather unique in that Xerxes went outside the royal families to find a new Queen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great discussion!

I think more Evangelicals could learn from the idea that the people in the Scriptures are neither ideals that we ought to strive to emulate or scoundrels that we need to avoid hanging with.

It's always struck me that people that think think that the only person with whom Christ identifies is some perfect princess or underground resistor doesn't understand their own heart and the nature of salvation.

I agree that the overall story is an amazing bit of God's Providence preserving the Jewish people from destruction by those who didn't even understand all the plots arrayed against them.

Consider the plot by Haman to destroy Mordecai the very day of the second feast. He walks in just a Ahaserus is bent on honoring Mordecai because he couldn't sleep the night right after a banquet?!

We can recount some sins of Esther but we can also say she had the courage to walk into the king's presence under the threat of potential death. She's imperfect but has moments.

If we're always looking for the white hats and the black hats in the Scriptures then we'll miss where God is dealing with people kindly who are neither for His own glory and their good.


----------



## Pergamum

In fact, it seems like one of the major themes of Scriptures (especially the Old Testament) is the sinfulness of the patriarchs....it is all laid out and cannot ever be accused of being hagiographic. I was just newly astounded reading again through the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob how often the Bible seems to hone in and focus on their sins.All the characters are shown to be flawed so that only God comes out of it looking good.


----------



## Jack K

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, Jack brought up Mordecai's refusal to bow in Esther 3. I tend to think his being a son of Kish (Saul's family) who had an ethnic hatred of Agagites (see 1 Sam 15), had more to do with that than any pretended love for the second or third commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree about the commandments. Bowing before Haman would not be a violation of either of those commandments. God's people may bow before a king or prime minister. The mention of each man's heritage clearly shows that Mordecai's refusal is due to the fact that Haman (both by pedigree and, it turns out, by personal temperament) is an enemy of God's people.
> 
> As for the fact that Mordecai seems likely to be a decendant of Saul... this may be adding fuel to Mordecai's obstinance, or it may simply be there to help us see the connection to 1 Samuel 15. I'm not quite ready to buy the idea that this was primarily a family feud, mostly because Haman's anger comes down on not just Mordecai's family but on all of God's people throughout the realm. The whole book is about Haman vs. the Jews, with only one hint that Haman vs. Saul's family may have been the dynamic that actually started the whole affair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the bowing was not out of accord with the commands. I agree.
> 
> However, I have read in a couple of the commentaries I am using at present an attempt to make that argument to buttress the general evangelical "heroic" take which is general the case with Mordecai and Esther. In other words that Mordecai is to be commended for not bowing to an idolatrous prime minister.
> 
> 
> I am taking kind of a via media between the hero story of Esther and Mordecai noted above as being the evangelical consensus and the idea they were wicked and unregenerate. I think spending too much time on their own personal faith is kind of missing the forest for the trees. As I mentioned with the Genesis 12 example you have a couple of less than virtuous covenant members who are being used in spite of themselves to protect God's people in Persia.
> 
> On something else noted above I do not get the impression from chapter two that this Miss Persia contest was through the work of press gangs rounding girls up for the presentation for the king. I mean Mordecai instructs Esther on how to play the game and move on in the competition. The Hebrew word is fairly general in its meaning and has a wide range of uses in the old testament, from gathering sheep to bringing in the sheaves, etc...
> 
> This is not to say that it was optional, but it was rather unique in that Xerxes went outside the royal families to find a new Queen.
Click to expand...


All good points. It is hard to be certain about several of the events of the early chapters, and the motivations behind them. I've adjusted my thinking on this a few times over the years, and consider my current take on it to be a sort of middle ground as well, though ending in an overall favorable view of both Esther and Mordecai.

A few years ago I had a rather well-known Reformed writer of material for children (you would recognize the name if I mentioned it) scold me quite strongly for not being glowing enough in my praise of Esther. At the same time, another Reformed-ish author reviewed the same work and told me I missed the entire point of the book by seeing Esther in a positive light. The story indeed brings out strong, often opposing, views.


----------



## Paul1976

I heard an interesting observation on Mordecai's refusal to bow to Haman. His refusal to bow to the prime minister had never made a lot of sense to me, and is particularly perplexing when one studies the story carefully. Mordecai evidently held a position of some importance within the palace system to be in place at the gate routinely. This is also suggested by him being privy to a secret conversation between palace officials about assassinating the king. Such a position would simply be impossible to attain without bowing to individuals in authority on a somewhat regular basis. The "Sunday School" reason of Mordecai refusing to bow to pagan officials just does not seem plausible.

Mordecai's tribe was the tribe of Saul, whose kingship was lost over Saul's failure to devote the Amalekites to the sword. The Agagites were the descendents of the Amalekites Saul should have wiped out. Mordecai was not likely refusing to bow for religious reasons, but because Haman was an Amalekite specifically. Inclusion of enough information to piece this together is likely deliberate and would have been more obvious to the original readers than to us today.


----------



## Paul1976

Some individuals are interested in a good reformed sermon series on Esther. I listened to Brian Borgman's recently and found it to be excellent. He is of the opinion that Esther and Mordecai are relatively uninterested in the things of God at the beginning of the story, but begin to show evidence of some relationship with God as the story progresses. He probably wouldn't go so far as to call Esther an unrepentant wicked woman, but she does not show much evidence of any serious faith early in the story, and there isn't clear evidence later. I cautiously view the book similarly to his thoughtful assessment.

http://gracenevada.com/Sermons.html?sa_action=mode_series
Select the series "An Exposition of Esther"


----------



## Paul1976

Regarding Esther's moral status, in my view, she shows zero evidence of taking the Jewish faith seriously in the first portion of the book. Consider the following:

- As has been pointed out, Esther was in Persia when God's people were called to return to Israel. Can Esther be blamed for her family not having moved? Of course not. But, it does reasonably suggest she grew up in a nominal Jewish environment.

- She enter's the King's immoral "Beauty contest." There is no hint in the text that she did anything to avoid consideration for it. Had the author wanted to indicate she tried hiding (as some later interpretations suggest) it would have only required an additional sentence to state

- She ate the king's food and accepted all the beauty treatments. The Hebrew scriptures apparently place Esther directly after Daniel, who declined the King's food when placed in a similar situation of being conscripted into the king's service. The contrast between the two is stark, and I think missed by our arrangement of the OT. Daniel was approximately the same age as Esther would have been when both entered the service of their respective kings, so I do not believe Esther's age absolves her of responsibility.

- She did not seem to resist being married to a pagan, which is unacceptable under Jewish law.

- She agreed to hide her Jewish identity in the harem. What other purpose could this serve than to advance her chances with the king?

- She won the "beauty contest," which implies some desire to succeed within the harem

- I heard (and have not investigated) that many of the dates given fall on Jewish holidays, and Esther is recorded doing things inconsistent with those holidays.

- Mordecai needs to tell her that her personal safety, not just the safety of her people, is jeopardized by Haman's plot before she acts.

In my mind, these clues together give us a picture of an individual with little concern for her Jewish heritage. I do not believe she had a vibrant relationship with the living God at the beginning of the book. I personally hope she came to know God at some point, but I do not believe there is anything in the text that indicates this as strongly as what is there to imply compromise with a pagan culture at the beginning of the story.

I agree with several of the previous posts that Esther is probably focused on God's faithfulness to His people in spite of their faithlessness to Him.


Paul


----------



## MW

"Wicked" appears to me to be a judgment which the book does not suggest. We have an account of events in an environment where the name of the Lord was absent and where the word of the Lord was silent. Nevertheless everything works out in ways which lead one to think of the name of the Lord being present and the word of the Lord being active. Not only so, but this was to be commemorated in time to come.

Let us add a notable feature of the book. The term, "the Jew," is used with individual significance in a way it has not been used before. Its repeated use in connection with Mordecai means that it is an integral part of the plot's tension and resolution. The narrative twists and turns with "the Jew." This suggests that the book is showing ways in which individuals can function as the covenant people of God even though they are estranged from normal covenant community life.

Now there is one striking contrast between Queen Esther and Mordecai which is explicitly announced in the book. Moredecai tells people he is a Jew yet charges Esther to not yet show her kindred or people. Not only so, but this turns to the advantage of the Jews as a whole. So we have this wisdom emphasis on individual choice and action as to identifying oneself as a Jew. Far from classifying Esther as "wicked," it would appear that the book uses her as an example of prudence and piety in relation to Mordecai the Jew and the well-being of the Jews in general.


----------



## Paul1976

MW said:


> Now there is one striking contrast between Queen Esther and Mordecai which is explicitly announced in the book. Moredecai tells people he is a Jew yet charges Esther to not yet show her kindred or people. Not only so, but this turns to the advantage of the Jews as a whole. So we have this wisdom emphasis on individual choice and action as to identifying oneself as a Jew. Far from classifying Esther as "wicked," it would appear that the book uses her as an example of prudence and piety in relation to Mordecai the Jew and the well-being of the Jews in general.



Is it prudence or piety to hide ones connection to the living God? I agree it served God's purposes, yet so did Joeseph's brother's actions against him. Those actions are not hinted at being anything but sinful, despite God's use of them for ultimate good. Was Peter's denial of Christ "prudent" when it avoided connecting him with his Lord who was on trial? I think the author of Hebrews inspired interpretation of the story of Moses is relevant here.

"Heb. 11: 24-28 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them."


----------



## MW

Paul1976 said:


> Is it prudence or piety to hide ones connection to the living God?



We have to step outside the parameters of the book to ask that question. God is not explicitly in the book. People are not classified in terms of being "people of God" in an explicit sense. As noted, the term, "the Jew", becomes individually significant. To get to the message of the book we have to think inside its own parameters.


----------



## yeutter

The Septuagint records additions to Esther [Apocrypha The Rest of Esther] that cast her in a more positive light. It should be noted that none of these Greek supplements to the Hebrew text are quoted anywhere else in the Bible.


----------



## Paul1976

I certainly agree that "people of God" isn't an important concept to Jews who had been assimilated into the pagan culture of Persia. But, it is not an alien concept to the Bible overall. Most (including myself) agree that, although God is not mentioned by name in the book, His providence and presence are clear throughout, and I'm sure that the inspired writer was aware of this. I'm certain that the writer intended Esther to be considered alongside and in light of other scripture. I do believe that the author intends us to examine the actions of characters in this book in light of how God's people should live.

I would suggest that you are correct in saying we have to consider the book in light of it's own parameters, but I would add we should concurrently consider it from the perspective of the rest of the Bible.


----------



## Paul1976

yeutter said:


> The Septuagint records additions to Esther [Apocrypha The Rest of Esther] that cast her in a more positive light. It should be noted that none of these Greek supplements to the Hebrew text are quoted anywhere else in the Bible.



I'm reasonably certain that a different version of Esther is used in the Catholic and Orthodox version of the Bible that includes significant faith elements like you suggest. While I'm far from an expert, my understanding is that the version we have is considered more reliable. The fact that later authors wanted to add faith into a story where it is conspicuously absent tells us that the authors intent is to highlight the lack of faith of Esther and Mordecai early on in the story.


----------



## yeutter

Paul1976 said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Septuagint records additions to Esther [Apocrypha The Rest of Esther] that cast her in a more positive light. It should be noted that none of these Greek supplements to the Hebrew text are quoted anywhere else in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reasonably certain that a different version of Esther is used in the Catholic and Orthodox version of the Bible that includes significant faith elements like you suggest. While I'm far from an expert, my understanding is that the version we have is considered more reliable. The fact that later authors wanted to add faith into a story where it is conspicuously absent tells us that the authors intent is to highlight the lack of faith of Esther and Mordecai early on in the story.
Click to expand...


Agreed, the additions are apocryphal. I find it interesting that the Grecian Jews did not know what to make of Esther and sought to add to Esther to make sense of it.


----------



## Miss Marple

"- She enter's the King's immoral "Beauty contest." There is no hint in the text that she did anything to avoid consideration for it. Had the author wanted to indicate she tried hiding (as some later interpretations suggest) it would have only required an additional sentence to state"

I get distressed at observations like these, because I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) that Esther and women in general were in a society/culture where women were trained from infancy to obey the men in charge without question.

To disobey her uncle, or the king may well have never occurred to Esther as a possibility. I am not at all certain that is her fault or her sin.

Perhaps I am too mushy but I see her as a victim in terms of her training that she must obey without question. It reminds me of blaming children when their parents instruct them or force them to sin. I just don't see it as their sin; but rather the sin of their parents.

And I see her as very, very brave. Scripture instructs women to be brave and I love that about her. It is very inspiring.


----------



## Ephrata

Miss Marple said:


> "- She enter's the King's immoral "Beauty contest." There is no hint in the text that she did anything to avoid consideration for it. Had the author wanted to indicate she tried hiding (as some later interpretations suggest) it would have only required an additional sentence to state"
> 
> I get distressed at observations like these, because I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) that Esther and women in general were in a society/culture where women were trained from infancy to obey the men in charge without question.
> 
> To disobey her uncle, or the king may well have never occurred to Esther as a possibility. I am not at all certain that is her fault or her sin.
> 
> Perhaps I am too mushy but I see her as a victim in terms of her training that she must obey without question. It reminds me of blaming children when their parents instruct them or force them to sin. I just don't see it as their sin; but rather the sin of their parents.
> 
> And I see her as very, very brave. Scripture instructs women to be brave and I love that about her. It is very inspiring.



On that note, do we have any means of judging whether Vashti was right in disobeying her husband? I heard a scholar mention that this was actually an injunction for her to do some sort of inflammatory dance (a possible parallel presents itself in Matthew 14:6), and he lauded her for refusing to show herself off to men other than her husband, or to take part in their drunken revelry.

Is it possible or productive to evaluate her actions, or (as someone ostensibly outside of God's kingdom) is she just there to provide context to the historical narrative?


----------



## Jack K

Vashti is important because we see the concequences of being too headstrong with this king. Its a warning to Esther that she should know her place. It make Esther's decision to come before the king unbidden all the more dangerous, and brave.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Ephrata said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> "- She enter's the King's immoral "Beauty contest." There is no hint in the text that she did anything to avoid consideration for it. Had the author wanted to indicate she tried hiding (as some later interpretations suggest) it would have only required an additional sentence to state"
> 
> I get distressed at observations like these, because I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) that Esther and women in general were in a society/culture where women were trained from infancy to obey the men in charge without question.
> 
> To disobey her uncle, or the king may well have never occurred to Esther as a possibility. I am not at all certain that is her fault or her sin.
> 
> Perhaps I am too mushy but I see her as a victim in terms of her training that she must obey without question. It reminds me of blaming children when their parents instruct them or force them to sin. I just don't see it as their sin; but rather the sin of their parents.
> 
> And I see her as very, very brave. Scripture instructs women to be brave and I love that about her. It is very inspiring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that note, do we have any means of judging whether Vashti was right in disobeying her husband? I heard a scholar mention that this was actually an injunction for her to do some sort of inflammatory dance (a possible parallel presents itself in Matthew 14:6), and he lauded her for refusing to show herself off to men other than her husband, or to take part in their drunken revelry.
> 
> Is it possible or productive to evaluate her actions, or (as someone ostensibly outside of God's kingdom) is she just there to provide context to the historical narrative?
Click to expand...


As I noted in my sermon Xerxes was not asking Vashti to come out and show the boys her ability with Trigonometry. 

He was wanting to show his wife off, in a Matt. 14:6 way, to his friends and the nobles. I think she was right, even if her motives were not 7th Commandment grounded, to refuse the unlawful request of her husband and king and I think Esther 2:1-4 shows that even Xerxes realizes this to be the case.

But as Jack says it is also a way of showing the reader the rashness of Xerxes.


----------



## DeniseM

TylerRay said:


> My wife and I currently use Gertrude Hoeksema's Bible story book with our children.


We used this book years ago, when first teaching our oldest child. We ordered it as part of a curriculum set from Covenant Home, and with it they also sent a pamphlet explaining that they didn't support the views of the author, regarding her treatment of Esther. I didn't read the pamphlet ahead of time, and ended up being shocked by Hoeksema's version also.

It lead me to search out commentaries on the book of Esther, and I didn't find any among the trusted Reformed commentators (Henry, Calvin, etc.)that agreed with Hoeksema either.


----------



## Paul1976

Miss Marple said:


> "I get distressed at observations like these, because I perceive (correct me if I am wrong) that Esther and women in general were in a society/culture where women were trained from infancy to obey the men in charge without question.
> 
> To disobey her uncle, or the king may well have never occurred to Esther as a possibility. I am not at all certain that is her fault or her sin.
> 
> Perhaps I am too mushy but I see her as a victim in terms of her training that she must obey without question. It reminds me of blaming children when their parents instruct them or force them to sin. I just don't see it as their sin; but rather the sin of their parents.
> 
> And I see her as very, very brave. Scripture instructs women to be brave and I love that about her. It is very inspiring.



We agree on a lot. Esther most certainly lived in a culture where she was expected to be submissive to what was expected to her. Given that Mordecai 1) was uninterested in leaving his comfortable life in Persia to return to the promised land and b) seems to go primarily by his pagan name (derived from the Pagan god Marduk, if memory serves), she probably had little training in Judaism. From a human perspective, she was acting reasonably. I've also found Esther frustrating because we often don't have enough information to evaluate why characters did what they did, and how we are to regard their actions. (Vashti is a good example here)

Is Esther's compliance with the "beauty contest" a sin? I would say yes in that it violated God's law. And the OT is clear that sins in ignorance remain unacceptable. But, I'm sympathetic to Esther given her (likely) ignorance of God's law coupled with the culture she lived in. That doesn't excuse her, but it does make her a sympathetic character. 

I think where we may disagree is whether Esther is to be a role model to Christians. I grew up with a lot of Sunday School lessons which whitewashed the story to the extent that she and Mordecai were untarnished heroes. We really want to find individuals to emulate here. Obviously Greek Jews did much the same thing, resulting in the apocryphal versions of the book. When I reread the book for myself years later, I was rather distressed and confused by how different the Bible actually told the story compared to the way it had been presented. I also remain frustrated that it is so hard to decide to what extent either Esther or Mordecai knew God. Of course, we need to step back and realize the book isn't incomplete or deficient in any respect. The problem must be with what I am trying to take from the story, not with what God wants to tell me through it.

After re-examining the book, I came to the conclusion that the conclusion that the book is decidedly NOT making Esther or Mordecai into great heroes of the faith, especially early on. They are compromised with their culture, and have forgotten God to the extent his name is not mentioned in the entire book. (Hopefully no one will write a book about any of us that fails to mention God) But, God has not forgotten His people, and is still watching out for them and working for their good. I am increasingly troubled by the tendency to cram this story into a clear morality story for Sunday school like a round peg in a square hole. The closer one examines it, the worse the book conforms to that interpretation.

Do I agree with Hoeksema's interpretation? I'm not sure. I haven't read it. I probably would avoid the terms "wicked" and "unrepentant" in describing Esther. She is certainly a victim of her environment and a sympathetic character. In my view, she is all the more sympathetic for "winning" the "beauty contest" and ending up close to a capricious, ruthless dirtbag king than she might have been had she "lost." I remain convinced that, with what little we have to go on, the book presents Esther compromising with the world at every step, until she is convinced (after some discussion!) to stand up for God's people. Personally, I tend to believe Esther probably came to repentance and faith in God at some point. That is not inconsistent with the book (to my knowledge). I do believe what Hoeksema apparently presents is consistent with the book, which is more than I can say for a lot of the Sunday School lessons I remember on it from childhood.


----------



## timfost

Paul1976 said:


> Do I agree with Hoeksema's interpretation? I'm not sure. I haven't read it. I probably would avoid the terms "wicked" and "unrepentant" in describing Esther...



Paul, I agree. It seems like the book does not give us enough information to come to any definite conclusion. It is equally speculative to emphatically say she had faith or she didn't.

Again, if we shift our focus from sinful characters to the God Who always keeps His promises, the book poses no real problems.

I believe this is for good reason, too. The bible primarily sets forth very bad examples of man, even many of whom had faith. In seeing man's deficiency, we are left looking for a better Man, realized perfectly and completely in our Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Man that we should strive to emulate.

If anything, the book of Esther teaches us that God is faithful and begs us to look for a better Man.


----------



## Paul1976

Very, very well said Tim.


----------



## Jack K

timfost said:


> If anything, the book of Esther teaches us that God is faithful and begs us to look for a better Man.



Indeed. So many of the biblical accounts of kings and palace intrigue cuase us to look for the better King.

Haman's desire for honor is an often-overlooked element of the story. Haman schemes to gain honor by getting Xerxes to bestow it. This backfires on him, and no wonder; true and lasting honor is given only by a better King than Xerxes. The honor bestowed on Mordecai at the end of the story was worked out by the true King who controlled events behind the scenes.

The story shows Xerxes to be a vindictive, easily duped, love-'em-and-leave-'em sort of king. King Jesus is so much better in every way. Esther ultimately showed herself to be wise; she risked displeasing Xerxes in order to serve a better end than any honor he might bestow. I suspect that Esther had a measure of old-covenant faith in Christ—that she knew there must be a better King and chose to side with Him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Paul1976 said:


> I would suggest that you are correct in saying we have to consider the book in light of it's own parameters, but I would add we should concurrently consider it from the perspective of the rest of the Bible.



"The rest of the Bible" should not be used to undermine the unique contribution which any particular book of the Bible is designed to provide. The Book of Esther provides a new situation for thinking about how one is to live as "the Jew," and as such should be permitted to speak its own mind and contribute the distinctive message it brings in the unfolding of God's redemptive purpose.

While Ezra-Nehemiah highlights developments in the promised land, Esther reminds us that "the Jews" were still under the power of one who reigned "from India even unto Ethiopia." That is, the post-exilic restoration to the land had failed in one important ideal -- it had not re-established the theocracy but remained under the dominion of foreign power. The book must be understood in that context.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I must say I find the aspersions cast upon the characters of Esther, and her elder cousin, Mordecai, more in accord with a hermeneutic of suspicion than a hermeneutic of faith. That Herman Hoeksema (his wife would not publish against his own views) was of the view I decry is a rare failing in a theologian and commentator I highly respect. The PRC’s view of marriage and divorce no doubt played a part in his position.

In Esther 2:2, it is written, “Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins *sought* for the king” AV. “search be made” NIV ’84; “be sought out” ESV; “search the empire” NLB; “seek for” YLT. The Hebrew, _bāqaš_, carries the meaning, to seek, to require, to obtain, seeking someone’s presence. In Esther 2:23, it has the meaning to make inquisition concerning. In light of this it does not appear Hadassah / Esther had any choice but to submit to the royal decree. A woman of beauty could not easily disappear into hiding during such a widely-known societal search.

It is said in Esther 2:8, “So it came to pass, when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were *gathered* together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai....”. The word “gathered”, _qâbats_, has the meanings, to gather, to collect, to assemble. This does appear to be a compulsory gathering together of those women deemed suitable to fulfil the decree.

That she obeyed Mordecai’s commandment is made to seem a fault in this “enlightened” era of ours, but it was a virtue then. That the two of them neither overtly call upon God is the design of the inspired narrator—and is consistent with his method throughout the work—perhaps the better to dramatically reveal the remarkable providences of Jehovah-Jireh, yet one can see in certain sections their dynamic faith. When, in 3:2, “But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor”, this may well have been from a recollection of Deuteronomy 25:19:
“Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.”​ 
When Mordecai commanded Esther _initially_ not to reveal her Jewish identity, who is to say this is not wisdom given him from God, seeing as the curses of the broken covenant laid heavily upon the people in this diaspora, and he may well have had Deut 28:65,66 or the like in mind:
“And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life”.​ 
When Mordecai became aware of the decree of destruction levied against him and his people—the flock of the LORD— it is said of him, “When Mordecai learned all that had happened, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city. He cried out with a loud and bitter cry” (4:1). Who is to say that this “loud and bitter cry” was not to Jehovah of hosts in the presence of all, for doom had openly been pronounced upon him and all his kindred, the people of the living God? Why must this suspicion of his character be read into the text when it is certainly not inherent in it?

When, later, Mordecai, upon hearing of Esther’s reluctance to gain entrance to the king unbidden on possible pain of death, it is recorded,
“Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”​ 
Where could such “enlargement and deliverance arise” for the Jews but from El Shaddai? Who alone could have brought her where she was “for such a time as this”? This is faith speaking! And this was the appointed time to reveal to the king the true identity of the woman he loved. Her obedient—and famous—response was,
“Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.” (4:16)​ 
Can one possibly think that these particular Jews, familiar with the Law, had no faith? Can one imagine that Esther told Mordecai to have the people merely cease from eating three days, and not to call upon the LORD who is a very present help in time of trouble? The narrator skillfully chose to keep overt faith—and God’s name—hidden in the background.

This precious book of God’s word is not only about the wisdom and courage He gives His people, but a poignant display of His hidden providence in the caring of them, even applicable in our day, as we see the horizon darken with a gathering storm.

We see this providence again when she approached king Ahasuerus: “And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight” (5:2), and he welcomed her in with a glad and generous heart (showing the truth of Proverbs 21:1).

We continue to see the loving and spectacular providences of the Almighty as the story goes on. As for us in 2015, even though we have the full canon of God’s revealed word to humankind, as well the final and crowning climax of prophetic vision to His people—the Apocalypse of John—we tend to worry about how it will fare for us _when all around *our* souls gives way_ in the days to come, and this story is a good antidote to such worry. God’s providential care operates in the minutiae of our circumstances and lives, with the remarkable precision of timing it did for Esther and Mordecai. We can fully trust Him.

In part our worry is that we do not have a physical Goshen, or (generally speaking) physical deliverances where we will be safe from the horrors of persecution and the poundings of consequent divine judgment on persecuting nations (in which we live), but instead a _spiritual_ Goshen of safety and deliverance in the presence of our Shepherd, “our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim 1:10). Resurrection changes everything; suffering and death are no longer destroyers, but usher us into everlasting peace and the hearty love of our great King.


----------



## TylerRay

This has all been very helpful. We should certainly read the Esther with a heart that loves the 9th commandment. We should neither make the men and women in the book to be better nor worse than they were. And, in accord with Tim's sage comment (#37), the point is not to find out what was in Esther and Mordecai's hearts, but to see God at work, albeit through weak instruments.


----------



## TylerRay

By the way, my spellcheck thinks that Mordecai should be camcorder.


----------



## OPC'n

IDK, I guess I just wish I could say at the end of my life, "God used me for an extraordinary job for his glory.", and I would just sit and smile at all the gossip of my imperfect life cuz I would think inside my head, "Yep, it was all God's doing when he performed that extraordinary job.". As it is, I'll be satisfied, very satisfied, if I'm used by him to bring one person to salvation.


----------



## Paul1976

Hi Steve,

I'm sorry for not responding earlier. I picked up a nasty stomach flu, and haven't been out of bed for a few days.

We certainly disagree on quite a bit about Esther. I will say I saw the book as you did prior to hearing a comment similar to the original post and reexamining it. As I stated, I would not go as far as to use the word wicked or unrepentant to describe Esther. I view the book as providing hints of Esther and Mordecai coming to know God during the story, which would imply repentance.

I'm not certain whether Esther (or Mordacai) had anything to do with her being sent to the King's harem. The book is unclear on that. What follows from there are a series of compromises with pagan culture up to the point Esther is convinced to confront the King. Find one example where Esther does NOT compromise with the world that is trying to conform her into its pattern. Compare to Daniel, where I cannot think of a case where he DOES compromise. In Mordeccai's case, it is hard to imagine an excuse for his compromise of living (presumably quite comfortably) in pagan culture when his people were called to return to the Promised Land. It would have been easy for the author to include slight details to exonerate Esther and Mordecai, but the author consistently does not do that.

I am troubled by the efforts to excuse Esther's compromises due to circumstances. Does the Bible EVER excuse compromise of our identity in God due to pressures from the world? Esther's compromises were perfectly understandable. None of us, apart from God's grace, would have likely behaved any differently. But reasonable from a human perspective and acceptable to God are different things.

I would respectfully suggest you reread Esther from your perspective, looking for details showing her to be a woman of faith and character throughout. Then read about Daniel's life as an exile, and compare. For Daniel, he could have avoided the lion's den simply by moving his daily prayer to his prayer closet. I don't believe Daniel prayed to God publicly due to a specific command in scripture (correct me if I'm wrong), but as a matter of personal habit or conviction. His resolve not to compromise an inch to the culture around him was sufficient that he was unwilling to even modify his daily habits in response to the King's edict.

Both have a lot in common. They were both drafted into the service of pagan kings at comparable ages. You might compare how Daniel, although given a Babylonian name, was most often addressed by his Hebrew name. Esther's pagan name evidently stuck. Daniel refused the kings food, Esther bathed in the king's ointments. Esther hid her heritage, Daniel proclaimed God's name at every opportunity. The list could go on.

After Daniel, reread Esther from the perspective of the book presenting her as an assimilated, compromised individual, at least early in the story. I believe you will find, as I did, that the "culturally compromised" version of the characters is a far more natural fit. I would also suggest you recall our unconscious tendency is to build up the importance of humankind, not God. I know you wouldn't intentionally do that, but all of us have to constantly watch to avoid that tendency. Which version of the characters is a better fit to the book? The apocryphal versions suggest our tendency is to exalt the characters, while the inspired narrative makes this frustratingly difficult to do.

Many of the examples you brought up to defend Esther and Mordecai's character I fully agree with. These happen after Haman's plot is unveiled. While the details remain frustratingly scant, I do see Mordecai as realizing the disaster he has brought on his people, and realizing he needs to call on his people's God for deliverance. When Esther is made to see that she must confront the King, her fasting is likely an effort to call on God as well. Where we differ is I see two individuals who have generally ignored God their whole lives drawn to him through Haman's plot. 

I hope we agree that Mordecai and Esther's state is not the main message of the book. (If it were, we'd probably be given more information to use!) While unnamed, God remains the main character. His protection for his people does not depend on their value or worth. 

I'll happily claim the title of approaching the scriptures with a "hermeneutic of suspicion" when it comes to the worthiness of fallen human beings. I would hope anyone on this board would as well. I do not believe anything I have posted suggests a lack of faith in God, however. If it does, I apologize, and would ask you to point it out to me.


----------



## johnny

I am perceving this debate to be the glass half empty, half glass full kind.
And I have always been a glass half full guy. 

As an example, I'm hoping Demas was saved, and simply got married.
Despite some ancient accounts saying that he worked in a pagan temple.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Paul,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 

I think the reason the Hoeksemas turned against Esther was that H. Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Church is from taking Luke 16:18 as the primary text regarding marriage and divorce: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery”, while discounting the “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9—“except it be for fornication”—and Paul’s teaching on abandonment by an unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor 7. Given that view, Esther was _prima facie_ an adulteress in the Hoeksemas’ eyes.

Paul, I acknowledge there are some commentators who agree with your view, so perhaps the best we can do is state our cases and let it drop. You have stated yours in this thread repeatedly, so to even the input I’ll add a little more.

Beyond “hermeneutics of suspicion” there may be a hermeneutic of cynicism, which, basically, is believing the worst about people, and showing disdainful scorn regarding their motives and virtues. I do appreciate a) Esther is no “Disney princess” nor Mordecai some flawless hero, and b) the doctrine of total depravity encompasses all humankind without exception save the Lord from Heaven, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Both the characters in the story we are looking at are flawed humans, without a doubt. And for that matter so is Daniel, although we are not shown any of his flaws.

I find most of your observations impugning the motives and character of Esther are merely assumptions arising from your hermeneutic approach, and not inherent in the text. The view that Mordecai not honoring Haman arose from ethnic hatred, referencing 1 Sam 15, overlooks the command to Saul (through Samuel) that he should “utterly destroy” Amalek in the first three verses. Back to Esther though. John Gill in his _Exposition of the Bible_, comments edifyingly on Esther 2:15,
Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed.​ 
Gill:
what he ordered her to have, or to do, she submitted to, being in his hands, and so obeyed his orders: but more she asked not, either for ornament or attendance, being not at all solicitous whether the king liked her or not; for it was not of choice, but by constraint, she went unto him; nor needed she any thing to recommend her, her virtue, modesty, and beauty were sufficient... (p 168)​ 
________


Turning now to Matthew Poole, in his introduction of the Book of Esther:
“The penman of it is both by Jewish and Christian interpreters, ancient and modern, thought to be Mordecai; who was both a holy man of God, and a principle actor in this history” (Vol 1, p 907).​ 
Commenting on Esther 2:8, _Esther was brought_, or _taken_; Poole says, “and that by force, as that word oft signifies. So great was the power and tyranny of the Persian kings, that they could and did take what persons they liked to their own use.”

On 2:10, _Esther had not shewed her people nor her kindred: for Mordecai had charged her that she should not shew it_.

Poole: Lest the knowledge hereof should either make her contemptible or odious, or bring some inconvenience to the whole nation, as things might happen. But there was also a hand of God in causing this to be concealed, for the better accomplishment of that which he designed, though Mordecai was ignorant of it.

On 2:15, _Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed_.

Poole: _she required nothing_, to show that she was not desirous to please the king, and that she was brought to the king without and against her own inclination and choice.

On 2:16, _So Esther was taken unto king Ahasuerus into his house royal in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign_.

Poole: _into his house royal_; and into his bed, as is implied; to which it is not strange if she, though a virtuous person, did in those circumstances yield, considering the infirmity of human nature, and of that sex, and the state of those times, when plurality of wives was permitted, and concubines were owned as wives; and these virgins were by this action made his wives or concubines. (Ibid. p 910)
______

These just to give a taste of a non-cynical interpretive approach to the text we are discussing. From reading your insistence in previous posts I doubt you will acquiesce to my view, and I, for my part, would then be reminded of the line, “the lady doth protest too much . . . methinks” (from _Hamlet_). At any rate, good men may differ.

I think it unwise to second-guess any reasons for their remaining in the diaspora apart from those who returned to Jerusalem and the Jewish homeland. To do so to make a case against them is to concoct “evidence” out of thin air.

I’ve been reading Daniel and Esther for nearing on fifty years, and have pondered these writings—along with the rest of God’s revelation—many times. And you and my other “suspicious” brothers have not convinced me of your hermeneutic, although I have noted it. Thanks for the discussion, Paul.


----------



## bookslover

Jonny. said:


> I think Jack is right in saying that the story has been woven masterfully to make us wonder exactly where her loyalties lie.



I think it's quite obvious where Esther's loyalty was - with the Jews (being a Jew herself [Esther 4.13]). Remember, she risked her life in appearing before the king unbidden so that she could promote the Jews' cause - namely, their survival.

I think that "new" interpretation of Esther, which I've never heard before, is nuts. The whole point of the book is to show how God works behind the scenes to work His will.


----------



## Paul1976

You're right Steve that there are very good Christians on both sides of the issue. I'm still scratching my head why the book is so ambiguous that we can't agree on something that seems so basic. It's a secondary issue to the display of God's providence, where I believe all posters agree.

Your far ahead of me with the time you've engaged in any meaningful study of these books. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Jack K

bookslover said:


> Jonny. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jack is right in saying that the story has been woven masterfully to make us wonder exactly where her loyalties lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's quite obvious where Esther's loyalty was - with the Jews (being a Jew herself [Esther 4.13]). Remember, she risked her life in appearing before the king unbidden so that she could promote the Jews' cause - namely, their survival.
> 
> I think that "new" interpretation of Esther, which I've never heard before, is nuts. The whole point of the book is to show how God works behind the scenes to work His will.
Click to expand...


What I actually say is that the story is told as to make us wonder *initially* where Esther's loyalties lie. As the story progresses we see that she is faithful to God, and, yes, even more importantly that God is faithful to his people.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Esther 4 opens with a Mordecai doing the "What Have I Done?" speech from Bridge Over the River Kwai (my favorite movie of all time). Likewise I think there is a bit of a "Great Awakening" in v.3 among the Jews who stayed behind in a kind of "I guess we should have gone back when good King Cyrus was around". 

Likewise Esther thinks Mordecai has lost his mind and sends him some clothes to wear. Part of the background there is Esther's being shielded from real life in the palace. 

So, in other words, Esther 4 is the fulcrum of the story which changes how we are to look at Mordecai and Esther, from nominal (at best) ethnic Jews, to Jews who through the heat of persecution are reminded that there is more to being a Jew than hating Agagites, etc... which leads to God using them to save His people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> So, in other words, Esther 4 is the fulcrum of the story which changes how we are to look at Mordecai and Esther, from nominal (at best) ethnic Jews, to Jews who through the heat of persecution are reminded that there is more to being a Jew than hating Agagites, etc... which leads to God using them to save His people.



I like that summary. It could describe a lot of us Evangelicals...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

That take may indeed “describe a lot of us Evangelicals”, but I don’t believe it describes Mordecai or his motivations. I rather view Mordecai as one in whom the Spirit of God burns against the Agagites / Amalekites (and who knows what might have transpired had not the LORD brought it to a head at that point), not a realization that he merely “blew it” big time!

Esther was indeed shielded from real life, as you say, Benjamin, in the confines of the palace, but her response was one of fear, anguish, and great distress—as her maids had told her this was the case among the Jews generally (4: 3,4), not only Mordecai. She wanted to comfort and calm her foster father, but he would none of it, rather gave directions what she should do, and so on.

_______

Paul, thanks for your gracious and humble response.

Jack, thank you for your deeply insightful analyses!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think the reason the Hoeksemas turned against Esther was that H. Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Church is from taking Luke 16:18 as the primary text regarding marriage and divorce: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery”, while discounting the “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9—“except it be for fornication”—and Paul’s teaching on abandonment by an unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor 7. Given that view, Esther was prima facie an adulteress in the Hoeksemas’ eyes.



Well noted, Steve. Their view of divorce and remarriage is probably the underlying assumption behind the thinking that Esther was unregenerate. While I am a *big* fan of the PRC guys, and I am currently enjoying reading Herman Hoeksema's _Peace for the Troubled Heart_, I cannot agree with them on this subject (or, indeed, on several other issues).

I also started reading Esther again late last week and I do not think you could conclude she was an unbeliever unless one was operating with certain other ideological assumptions that were not derived from the text.


----------



## Jonny.

Jack K said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonny. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jack is right in saying that the story has been woven masterfully to make us wonder exactly where her loyalties lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's quite obvious where Esther's loyalty was - with the Jews (being a Jew herself [Esther 4.13]). Remember, she risked her life in appearing before the king unbidden so that she could promote the Jews' cause - namely, their survival.
> 
> I think that "new" interpretation of Esther, which I've never heard before, is nuts. The whole point of the book is to show how God works behind the scenes to work His will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I actually say is that the story is told as to make us wonder *initially* where Esther's loyalties lie. As the story progresses we see that she is faithful to God, and, yes, even more importantly that God is faithful to his people.
Click to expand...


Yes, I got that Jack, and I was a little ambiguous in what I said. The reader could perhaps ask the question in the early chapters, and chapter 3 seems tense to me - will Esther stand up and be counted or will she try to hide and preserve herself? By the time we reach the end of the chapter, it is obvious, but not necessarily before then (if we haven't read the story before that is).

But I definitely agree that the whole point of the story is to show how God is working behind the scenes. While Esther & Mordecai's intentions may not be irrelevant, we could waste a lot of time arguing over something which Scripture does not explicitly state, and miss this truth which is a direct comfort for us today.

I love Matthew Henry's comments in his introduction: 'Though the name of God be not in this book, the finger of God is shown by minute events for the bringing about his people's deliverance.'


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I think one of the ways the book of Esther can be misread is by applying the later actions of Mordecai and Esther to their earlier situations. In other words instead of allowing them to grow, by God's grace, as they become more aware of their position we instead anachronistically read their future work into their former manner of life. 

If that makes any sense.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Benjamin, I would agree that they grow both spiritually and in the responsibilities they must assume as the story progresses, but to seeing “Mordecai and Esther [change] from nominal (at best) ethnic Jews” into realizing there is more “to being a Jew than hating Agagites” goes beyond credibility. I won’t change your view, and you are already heavily invested in the narrative you are pursuing (preaching on it), so I’m willing to let it drop if you are.


----------

