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?

 

[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.]

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.

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

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.

 

[Rom]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.