God’s Message Through Secular Society in the Book of Esther

By Titus Kennedy

Titus Michael Kennedy, an archaeologist and a researcher at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, earned his B.A. in History and Humanities from Biola Univeristy and his M.A. in Near Eastern Archaeology from University of Toronto. He can be reached at titusm@gmail.com.

Peculiarities Of The Book

The book of Esther is perhaps the most unique book in the entire biblical canon, due to its secular nature and setting. In fact, it is the only book of the Tanakh (Old Testament) that gives a description of life in the Diaspora. [1] However, the secularism of the book is the most striking feature: “the Hebrew text of Esther has a distinctly secular flavor in that it contains no explicit reference to God. It does not even mention religious faith or prayer.” [2] Although Esther would be placed into the genre of historical writings based upon the style of the book, it is differentiated from the other historical books in both style and apparent lack of theological content. The secularism that permeates the book may be the reason that Esther is the only book of the Tanakh that has not been found—not even a fragment—among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. [3] Perhaps the Essenes did not consider it holy writing, as it lacks any mention of God, prayer, faith, law, covenant, the temple, or dietary laws. It is possible, however, that someone will discover a copy or fragment of Esther at Qumran someday. Yet, considering the apocryphal additions to Esther, [4] and the lack of references to God and other religious practices, it comes as no surprise that the religious community at Qumran, in addition to many others in the past, would question the book’s inclusion in the canon.

The discomfort with the content of Esther, or lack thereof, is demonstrated most clearly by the Greek additions to the book around the end of the second century B.C. by the Jewish community in Alexandria. Being distressed by the anomalies of this book, the decision was made to rectify the “problems” in the original text, but through addition, not modification. These additions consist of 107 verses, including prayers of Esther and Mordecai, a prophetic dream of Mordecai, eight mentions of God, and additional details not found in the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. These Greek additions are also placed at the end of the Vulgate for as the Catholic Church formally accepted these sections into their “canon” of scripture. [5]

Historicity

The historical setting and accuracy of the book of Esther have been demonstrated by citing such internal details as: the seven princely advisors to the king, the efficient Persian postal system, homage to the king’s officials, rewards for service to the king, hanging on a stake as the form of capital punishment, the irreversible nature of Persian laws, description of the palace similar to archaeological findings at Persepolis and Susa, the use of purim (lots), and Persian vocabulary integrated into the text. Historical conclusions suggest Xerxes I as King Ahasuerus (Persian Khshayarsha), placing the events of the book between 483 and 473 B.C. We also discover a hypothesis that the Amestris written of by Herodotus was the Queen Vashti of the book of Esther. [6] This suggests that the author wrote soon after the events took place, that he lived in the Persian empire, and that he was either an eyewitness or one who had access to eyewitnesses or their sources. However, although interesting and important, the focus of this article is not the historical evidence for the events and characters in the book of Esther, or a discussion of the canonicity of the book, but instead an examination of the lifestyle and spiritual nature of Esther and Mordecai.

Esther As The Heroine

Certain theologians within the church have long regarded Esther as a faithful servant of God, an example to all women, and a brave heroine. One of the earliest church references of this interpretation comes from Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.). He writes, “Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction.” [7] Additionally, in slightly earlier Jewish sources, such as Josephus Flavius and rabbinical writings, Esther is also highly praised for her beauty, virtues, and piety. [8] Thus, there is a long history in commentaries that portray Esther as a hero of the faith and a model servant of God. These interpretations may stem from the LXX additions to the text, which portray Esther and Mordecai as blatantly pious and God-fearing, and insert into the book several references to God. The effect of these works has been to influence a majority view of Esther and Mordecai as examples on par with characters such as Moses, Joshua, David, and in some cases even Daniel.

An Alternative View Of Esther

In contrast to the view that the protagonists were of pious and unblemished character, a closer examination of the text reveals another perspective: Esther and Mordecai were Jews living in opposition to the Torah, and perhaps even in unbelief. Although this view is not held by the majority of commentators, especially not in most ancient church and Jewish sources, some scholars, such as Constable and Pierce, concur. Constable writes that many Diaspora Jews “had pushed God aside in their lives as had Mordecai and Esther. Nevertheless God remained faithful to His promises in spite of His people’s unfaithfulness.” [9] Pierce’s evaluation mirrors this, as he writes, “It is not the book of Esther that is secular, but its characters.” [10] Through an examination of the Hebrew version of Esther, I will point out specific instances that demonstrate the secular and disobedient attitudes of Esther and Mordecai, typified by such oddities in the story as the omission of references to God, no prayer, concealment of Hebrew names and Israelite heritage, marriage to a Gentile, violation of dietary laws, residing outside of the Promised Land following the exile when return was possible, and praise of man instead of praise of God.

Examination Of The Names

The narrative begins with a royal banquet and the Queen Vashti incident; the author does not introduce his readers to the two main characters until chapter two. We are given Esther’s Hebrew name, Hadassah, and told that their family comes from the tribe of Benjamin and the city of Jerusalem (Esther 2:5-7). There is no mention of Mordecai’s Hebrew name, although it is likely that he had one. The meaning of הֲדַסָה (Hadassah) is “myrtle,” [11] while the basic meaning of אֶסְתֵּר (Esther), her Persian name, is “star.” The name Esther derives from the name of the goddess Ishtar, who is also associated with Venus and good fortune. [12]

Mordecai’s name has similar associations with Babylonian gods, meaning “worshipper of mars” or “Man of Marduk”—Marduk at times being the chief god of Babylon. [13] Compare מְרֹדָךְ (“Marduk”) in Jeremiah 50:2 to מָרְדֳּכַי (“Mordecai”) in Esther 2:5 to see the similarities in the root of his name as spelled with Hebrew characters.

It was common practice in much of the ancient Near East to have a preferred god in one’s name. This is even evident in Hebrew names using forms of Elohim and Yahweh. In contrast to Daniel, Esther and Mordecai seem to go only by their pagan Persian names. It is a sign of assimilation into the local culture. In the case of Esther especially, such assimilation helps her gain an advantage she may not have had if she clung to her Hebrew name.

Place Of Residence

Even more puzzling than the adoption of Persian names associated with pagan gods is the fact that Esther and Mordecai remain in Susa instead of returning to Jerusalem, their family’s hometown. Although the story takes place over 50 years after Cyrus allowed the exiled Judeans to return to Jerusalem, they have chosen to reside in a foreign land. Israel, the Promised Land, is where the Lord had commanded His people to reside (Genesis 15, Joshua 1, Exodus 23:33, Isaiah 48:20; Jeremiah 29:10, 50:8 and 51:6), yet they reject this, probably based on convenience and comfort. In light of their refusal to return to Jerusalem and the center of Yahweh worship, it should not be surprising that neither Esther nor Mordecai take the Mosaic Law seriously.

Example By Action

The contest for queen. Following the introduction of the characters, the story quickly moves to the contest for the position of queen of Persia. Esther enters the contest, but for what reason? At this time in the narrative, there is no threat against the Jews in Persia, nor was there any prophecy influencing her to do so, only a chance for advancement in the empire. Further, Mordecai commands her to deceitfully hide her Judean heritage so that she might not lose any advantage in being selected as the next queen (Esther 2:10). Their willingness and effort to mask Esther’s Judean heritage is emphasized by the fact that Esther does not reveal the truth until her last resort plea to the king (Esther 7:4), and Mordecai not until he needed an excuse for not bowing to Haman (Esther 3:4). Both times, circumstances force the two into revealing this fact because of fear of death or punishment. Constable merely comments that “Mordecai encouraged her to cooperate with the king,” [14] while Pierce gives a harsher critique, saying of this situation that “one finds here a diaspora Jewess who desires a chance at the throne so greatly that she is willing to betray her heritage at the advice of her cousin without a hint of resistance.” [15] Although it is possible that Esther greatly desired a chance at the throne, the text does not indicate that as much as her blind obedience to Mordecai (Esther 2:20) and her lack of resistance to breaking the Mosaic Law.

Once Esther goes in to see the king as his concubine, she has violated the Law. The king of course selects her to be the next queen and they are married, with a banquet for Esther following (Esther 2:16-18). In this sequence of events, she breaks three points of the Mosaic Law: sex outside of marriage (Exodus 20:14), marriage outside the faith (Genesis 24:3, 28:1; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4; 1 Kings 11, 16:31; 2 Chronicles 18:1, 21:6; Ezra 10:10-19), and the eating of unclean food from unclean vessels (Leviticus 11). According to Constable, “this sets Esther in contrast to Daniel who purposed not to defile himself.” [16] Clearly, she had a choice to refrain from these actions, but she continued to repeat such actions (Esther 5:5, 7:2)—a betrayal that following the Mosaic Law was unimportant. Ironically, marriage to foreigners outside of the faith was one of the major problems that had previously led to the punishment of the Exile, resulting in Esther’s family being removed from Jerusalem (1 Kings 11, 16:29-34; 2 Chronicles 18:1, 21:4-7, 22:10-12).

Refusal of respect. In the beginning of chapters three and five, there is an interesting situation in which Mordecai refuses to bow down and pay homage to Haman. This occurs both after the king has promoted Haman (Esther 3:2) and when Haman is invited to the banquet (Esther 5:9); failure to pay homage was a direct refusal of the king’s command (Esther 3:3). Mordecai claims, however, that he is exempt from this procedure since he is a Jew (Esther 3:4). In passing, it may appear as if Mordecai is right in refusing this homage to Haman, as the Mosaic Law forbids worship of anyone or anything other than God. However, these two Hebrew words, כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים, used during the first episode in chapter three do not mean worship, but instead indicate a bow and showing of respect. In chapter five, Haman is again upset because Mordecai fails to stand or show respect (Esther 5:9). “[W]hen Mordecai refuses to ‘salute’ Haman it is a ‘breach of etiquette.’ The issue is one of respect, not religion.” [17] Constable corroborates this interpretation, saying that “Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman (v. 5:2) evidently did not spring from religious conviction. …Mordecai did not have to worship Haman (cf. Dan. 3:17-18). Not even the Persian kings demanded worship of their people.” [18]

In fact, Israelites did appropriately bow as a sign of respect (1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Samuel 14:4, 15:28; 1 Kings 1:6). It is interesting to note that even the evil Haman honors Mordecai when instructed to (Esther 6:7-11). In this situation, it is simply a case of pride and jealousy surfacing in Mordecai’s behavior. This is understandable in light of the fact that Mordecai’s exceptional service to the king by foiling the assassination attempt of Bigthan and Teresh (Esther 2:21-22) goes unnoticed at first, while Haman is promoted instead (Esther 3:1). Many commentators have also suggested an additional reason for Mordecai’s disdain of Haman—ancestral tension. This theory comes from linking the title of Agagite in Haman’s name to Agag, the title for the king of the Amalekites, descendants of Esau and enemies to the line of Jacob (Exodus 17:16). One scholar, Howard, argues for several parallels involving events in Esther and 1 Samuel 15.

For example, we see the first pair as the respective ancestors of the second pair (as just noted). In addition, Saul disobeyed God’s command, and spared Agag. Mordechai, by contrast, did not spare Haman, but killed him. Furthermore, Saul spared the best of the booty, also contrary to God’s command. Mordechai, on the other hand, did not touch the available booty (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16), despite authorization to do so (8:11). In the context of Esther, the reason for this last action is clear enough: it avoided the Jews being contaminated by anything Gentile, which reinforces the concept of Jewish superiority over the Gentiles seen in the book. [19]

Although this is an interesting theory and may be viable, Agag was also an area in Media, part of the empire at that time, and possibly the home of Haman’s family. [20] In either case, Mordecai had reason to dislike Haman, even if only based on the events in Susa.

After Mordecai’s show of disrespect, Haman grows extremely angry. The result of this anger is Haman’s edict to destroy not only Mordecai but all of his people (Esther 3:5-6). The edict is issued on the 13th of Nisan, one day before the Passover (Esther 3:12-13). Surprisingly, there is no mention of the Passover; the silence about Passover coinciding with the issue of the extermination decree may merely be yet another example of the secular mindset of Esther, Mordecai, and many of the Jews in Susa at this time. Regardless, Mordecai is obviously dismayed when he receives news of the decree, probably in part because he realizes he contributed to provoke the rage of Haman against the Jews. When Mordecai puts on sackcloth and ashes in chapter four, “we should not interpret Mordecai’s actions in verse 1 as a sign of great faith in God necessarily. … They were common expressions of personal grief (cf. Ezra 8:21, 23; Nehemiah 9:1; Lamentations 3:40-66).” [21] We even see this done later by a Persian, when Haman covers his head as he runs home in mourning because of Mordecai’s promotion and his own humbling (Esther 6:12).

Action as a consequence of fear. Once Mordecai regains his senses, he quickly urges Esther to appeal to the king for a decree that will remedy the dire situation. Esther replies with the excuse that if she is not invited into an audience with the king, she has a chance of being executed (Esther 4:11). Her excuse is unconvincing in light of the fact that the king did not kill Vashti when she defied him in front of many important guests (Esther 1:15-19, 2:1). Pierce agrees, writing, “Esther’s excuse is actually quite weak in view of the picture of Ahasuerus painted earlier in the story. If he did not kill Vashti for blatant insubordination in front of his dinner guests, it is unlikely that he would kill his beloved Esther for humbly making an unannounced visit in private.” [22] To counter this excuse, Mordecai replies with a convincing argument reinforced by a threat of death (Esther 4:13, 14). He says to Esther, “if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish.” [23] Thus, if she refuses to help, and deliverance for the Jews comes, still she and her father’s house will perish! Mordecai adds extra incentive to ensure that Esther begs the king to aid the Jewish people. He “actually threatens Esther’s life, regardless of the outcome, unless she goes to Ahasuerus on behalf of the Jewish people.” [24]

Although this verse contains an obvious threat to Esther, it is also often cited as an obvious allusion to God in the book. However, it seems that Mordecai would have mentioned God, had he meant God would be the divine deliverer of the Jews at this time. Both Pierce and Constable agree, and the latter writes, “Mordecai does not come across in this book as a ‘spiritual’ person. In verse 14, for example, he made no direct reference to God that would certainly have been natural.” [25] Following Mordecai’s convincing reply, Esther is now left facing one of three dangerous outcomes: do nothing and be killed by Haman’s decree, do nothing and be killed by the ambiguous fate Mordecai was suggesting, or face the possible consequence of execution by appearing before the king without an invitation. Esther chooses the least dangerous option, not the heroic option, knowing the king’s love for her and the unlikelihood that he will punish her for seeking an audience (Esther 5:1).

This image of Esther is in direct opposition to the brave, selfless heroine often claimed, and the author portrays Mordecai here as one who will take vengeance upon those who do not follow his will, even if the Jews are saved by other means.

Fasting without prayer. As Esther chooses to go before the king, she asks Mordecai to assemble the Jews in Susa to fast for her (Esther 4:16). Many interpret this as asking for prayer without mentioning prayer, as fasting and prayer often go together in the Old Testament. However, not only does Esther refrain from mentioning prayer in her request, the author makes the point that these were secular Jews by omitting the mention of prayer. This brings up an important point about authorship and inspiration. If an unbeliever had written the book of Esther, we would expect to see few or no references to God, prayer, and other activities of worship. However, assuming the book of Esther is a canonical, inspired book, written by a believer, the lack of reference to God and no mention of prayer seem best explained by assuming the characters within the book were secular. Addressing this assessment, Constable argues, “The writer did not omit God’s name and references to Israel’s theocratic institutions because God’s presence was absent. …I believe he left them out because they were of little concern to Esther, Mordecai, and the other Jews who did not return to the land.” [26] Thus, God is active and working with the characters in the book, but they do not realize He is present nor do they emphasize His importance.

Divine intervention. When Esther approaches the king in order to expose Haman as the one behind the plot to exterminate the Jewish people, she at first loses her courage, it appears, and delays communicating the important message. Of course, God uses her lack of courage in this situation to ensure Haman’s destruction and the preservation of the Jews. The king reads the chronicle account about Mordecai, finally discovering his service to the king. This results in Mordecai’s status being raised and Haman’s being lowered (Esther 6:1-12). Further, because Esther decides to arrange a feast with Haman and the king, instead of merely talking to the king alone, this leads to the situation in which Haman appears to be assaulting Esther as the king walks back into the room (Esther 7:8). Esther did not know that these events would occur; she did not plan for the king to read the chronicle and for Haman to appear to assault her. God knew she would delay attempting to beg for her life and the lives of her people, and He used this to spur events that would ensure Haman’s downfall and the preservation of the Jews.

Bitter vengeance. With the issue of a defense decree and the support of the king, the Jews of the Persian Empire are saved from destruction. They annihilate their enemies, killing a total of 800 in Susa and 75,000 in the rest of the empire. Inexplicably, Esther, it seems, is not content with this, for she requests a second day of massacre and a gruesome display by impaling Haman’s ten already dead sons (Esther 9:13). Perhaps she feared an attack upon her people, although that seems unlikely. Instead, she appears to be vindictive and eager to kill, making sure any who oppose her will would be wiped out or horrified by the exhibition of Haman’s sons. This may be a trivial matter, but it may also shed more light on the character of Esther.

No praise to God. Finally, at the end of the book, we see much praise given to Mordecai as the savior of his people and one who sought the welfare of his nation (Esther 10:2-3). Truly, he was a vital cog in the process of preserving the Jews in Persia. Yet, we see no praise, not even an allusion, offered up to God for preserving His people. “Mordecai and Esther, it seems, were eager to preserve their nation and their religion, but they give little evidence of desire to do God’s will personally.” [27] Again, this is an example of the secular mindset of the characters in this book, and should not be a surprising close if the style is to remain consistent.

Purpose Of The Book

After evaluating the characters of Esther and Mordecai according to their actions described in the book, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the protagonists did not adhere to God’s commands for Israel and the Mosaic Law. Further, the utter absence of prayer and reference to God in the book suggests that Esther and Mordecai were at least living a life consumed by disobedience, even with the possibility that they could have lost their faith—or never had it. Because of the overall secular nature of the book, a viable interpretational option is that the book was composed by a secular author, either not recognizing or ignoring spiritual things such as prayer or the existence of God. This, however, is a poor option that is in clear opposition to its acceptance into the canon of Scripture and a plain interpretation of the book. Still, the reader should ask the question: Do the actions of the protagonists detract from the value or purpose of the book? On the contrary, when viewed correctly, the story strongly demonstrates God’s grace, faithfulness, and promise to preserve His people, even in disobedience or unbelief. Although Esther and Mordecai were not shining examples of faithful servants of God, He graciously preserved His chosen nation by working providentially through an unlikely duo.

The book also demonstrates the foreknowledge and providence of God. Constable comments that “He wove seemingly unrelated and in some cases insignificant occurrences together to accomplish His kind intentions toward His people.” [28] An examination of details in the book shows the truly amazing way in which numerous events all worked together perfectly to accomplish the plan of God for the Jews in the Persian Empire. Another insightful purpose of this book “may be to warn readers against anti-Semitism.” [29] As Esther attests in the case of Haman and his family, God will not allow His people to perish from the earth, nor will He allow those who attempt to eradicate them to go unpunished.

Collectively, the events in the book of Esther clearly demonstrate, as have many other events throughout history, that God is still able powerfully to work His will in a Gentile and unbelieving society. He is sovereign and omnipotent—His will is always done.

Notes

1. Heltzer, Michael. “The Book of Esther: Where does fiction start and history end?” Bible Review 08:01. (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992).
2. Omanson, R. L., & Noss, P. A. A handbook on the book of Esther: The Hebrew and Greek texts. UBS handbook series. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1997), 5.
3. Scanlin, H. P. The Dead Sea scrolls and modern translations of the Old Testament. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).
4. The apocryphal additions to the book of Esther include content such as prayer and reference to God, designed to make the book more acceptable as Scripture.
5. Moore, Carey A. “Eight Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Book of Esther.” Bible Review 03:01. (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1987).
6. William H. Shea “Esther and History.” Bible and Spade Volume 12:90-96. (Associates for Biblical Research, 1983), 95. See also Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Archaeological Backgrounds of the Exilic and Postexilic Era—Part 2: The Archaeological Background of Esther.” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 137:99-110 (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 105.
7. Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
8. Yamauchi, “Archaeological Backgrounds of the Exilic and Postexilic Era”, 106. See also, Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities 11.99.
9. Constable, Tom. Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible. (Galaxie Software, 2003), Esther 9:1.
10. Ronald W. Pierce, “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?” Bulletin of Biblical Research 2 (Institute for Biblical Research, 1992), 77.
11. Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003), 217.
12. Ibid, p. 68.
13. Ibid, p. 507.
14. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther 2:5.
15. Pierce, “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?”, 84.
16. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther 2:5.
17. Bruce W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions about the Book of Esther,” CBQ 39/2 (April 1977), 178.
18. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther 3:1.
19. Howard, David M., Jr. “The Case for Kingship in the Old Testament Narrative Books and the Psalms.” Trinity Journal Volume 9. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1988), 19.
20. Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 421.
21. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther 4:1.
22. Pierce, “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?”, 87.
23. New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Esther 4:14.
24. Pierce, “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?” 87.
25. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther 4:4.
26. Ibid, Esther 9:1.
27. Ibid, Esther 9:1.
28. Weiland, Forrest S. Historicity, Genre, and Narrative Design in the Book of Esther. (2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 159 (159:165). Dallas Theological Seminary.
29. Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Esther Introduction.