Wicked Esther?

[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]

"- 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]

"- 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?

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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.

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.

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.