Is Esther A Heroine? Revisited.

 

You can read the original version of this article here.

I came across something interesting while doing some research for another writing project that affirms a thought I have had for some time: the book of Esther is not positive towards the remaining Jews in Babylon, but shows how Babylon had corrupted many of them.

I have long thought this, but it is good to see some commentators got their first:

"Esther is the only book of the Bible in which the name of God is not mentioned. The New Testament does not quote from the Book of Esther, nor have copies of it been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Law is never mentioned in the book nor are sacrifices or offerings referred to. This fits the view that the Jewish people residing in the Persian Empire were not following God's will. They were shunning their responsibility to return to Palestine and to become involved in temple worship. Prayer is never mentioned in the book, though fasting is. In other postexilic books prayer is important to the main characters (both the books of Ezra and Neh. are good examples), but in the Book of Esther nothing is said about Mordecai or Esther praying. Both Esther and Mordecai seem to have lacked spiritual awareness except in their assurance that God would protect His people."[1]

Add to this that in Daniel, he and the other three heroes refuse to compromise on their Jewish values. Whereas Esther and Mordecai appear to not be willing to suffer to refuse the marriage between Esther and a strongly pagan king. And it is not just that he is Persian, but that he is a pagan. It was forbidden for faithful Israelites to marry unbelievers, but there is no sign here that they take serious steps to stand against this like the three heroes do when they are asked to bow before the king of Babylon’s statue in Daniel. Mordecai appears much more keen to use worldly means to fight for his people in this book, rather than the faithful means that other Israelites in Babylon used in other books.

After Jerusalem was destroyed the centre of Jewish power became the Jewish population in Persia. This is where the Babylonian Talmud was written down and eventually became the dominant text of the Pharisees, who remained the most powerful Jewish religious group after the destruction of the Temple.

I have always thought it rather odd that the book of Esther describes Mordecai as pragmatic rather than holy. Mordecai and Esther are clearly contrasted to Daniel and his friend, and they are contrasted with the way Nehemiah is described in his account as well. Those other books go out of their way to emphasize the deep faith of the protagonists, Esther does not. As I have already noted, Esther should have preferred to suffer rather than marry a pagan King. Mordecai should have told her this, and the book should have emphasized this if it was commending them. The way Esther hid her identity is very different to how biblical heroes are shown to act in Babylon in the other books as well. How Mordecai and Esther manipulated their way to power is more Machiavellian than biblical. And the fact that they never once explicitly pray (though it does mention fasting but not prayers) or explicitly seek God for help has always stood out to me. Mordecai's argument to Esther that someone else would save the Jews from Persia could be interpreted as a reference to fate, as much as to God, because of the silence about divine providence. We often infer he means God, because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt, but this is not a necessary inference.

Also the festival of Purim that comes out of this event is never affirmed in the New Testament. It is interesting that the only time the festival of Purim is believed to be referred to (though this is only a possibility) in the New Testament is John 5. This is the chapter in which Jesus accuses the Jewish leaders of having completely misunderstood both God and the scriptures, and therefore who he is. This would therefore indict this festival as unbiblical, not affirm it. Placing it among the traditions of the elders Jesus condemned. 

And I have also recognized another clear contrast and this one is far more fascinating than the ones that I have already mentioned. Did you know that in the Greek Old Testament Haman was crucified, or impaled on a cross? He was hung on a cross. The Persians invented crucifixion, but it was a form of punishment that developed out of a much more ancient form of punishment, which was impalement. Both are equally brutal, though crucifixion is a slower death. According to the Septuagint the king says to ‘staurootheto” which means to hang or impale Haman on the cross. The Jews seek to save themselves through this method of execution. What is interesting is that in Persian culture crucifixion was often done to nobles who were considered traitors.

So, look at this contrast. In Esther the Jews seek to save themselves by using their power, with Persian assent, to crucify or empale their enemy on the cross. In The New Testament it is the Jewish man hung on the cross, a victim of Jewish and Roman power, who is the salvation of Israel and the world. This is almost a direct rebuke of the book of Esther. It was a man on the cross which would save Israel, but not how they thought.

What's also fascinating is that the Jewish festival of Purim acknowledges this reading of Esther, and the death of Haman, to be essentially correct. During the festival of Purim Jews acknowledge among their enemies both Haman and Jesus,

"The interpretation of Haman’s death as crucifixion had serious consequences in late antiquity, since the crucifixion of Haman suggested to Jewish minds a connection with Jesus.[10] In fact, Jews used this obvious parallel for polemical effect.

An Aramaic poem in honor of Purim,[11] composed towards the end of Late Antiquity (400-600 C.E.), imagines Haman conversing with all the great tyrants of Jewish history, such as Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar.[12]

After each villain complains about his failure, Haman retorts that his story contains more tragedy. Towards the end of the poem, Haman talks with Jesus, who chastises Haman and claims that his own lot was the worst of all. The poetry focuses on death by crucifixion, the feature of life that both Jesus and Haman share:[13]…

…For some ancient Jews, singing this poem likely functioned as a pressure-release valve. The daily hard and soft forms of Christian persecution for which they could not seek political, social or military redress were rectified in the performed space of fictive poetic drama. Instead of fomenting rebellion, Jews re-crucified Haman (= Jesus) every Purim."[2]

Purim is a festival that celebrates, in part at least for some Jewish people, the death of Jesus in exactly the opposite way that Christians do. They see him as a criminal deserving crucifixion. In their rituals his defeat means their victory. The man hung on the tree is cursed according to the law. Christianity subverts all this by telling us, yes, he was cursed, for us, so that we might be saved from the curse of sin. For Christians the cross is the ultimate victory, because on the cross God achieved salvation for all. This is a reverse mirror to the Jewish celebration.

In light of all this, I think it is best to read the book of Esther in light of a contrast between the faithful Israelites, and the faithless Israelites. There is the faithful remnant, many of whom returned back to Jerusalem as they were supposed to do once the exile was complete, as Isaiah says, “Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!” (Isa. 48:20). And as Jeremiah noted in Jeremiah 51:6, “Flee from the midst of Babylon; let every one save his life! Be not cut off in her punishment, for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance, the repayment he is rendering her..." and also 50:8, “8 Flee from the midst of Babylon, and go out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as male goats before the flock.” And there is also the faithless remnant who remained in Babylon and used Machiavellian means of achieving power, like Mordecai, and became increasingly powerful in the kingdom of Persia and Babylon, where the Jewish faith became increasingly influenced by Babylonian ideas.

These contrasting books, Daniel, Nehemiah and Ezra which juxtapose with Esther, show us the twin trajectories of the people who professed to be the people of God. One trajectory sought to follow God, though imperfectly. The other sought power and dominance in Babylon. I think this teaches us a lot when we see it in this light. What do you think?

List of References

---

[1] https://bible.org/question/was-it-realy-feasible-mordecai-or-ester-return-jerusalem-during-their-time-persia-it-seems-

[2] Dr A. J. Berkovitz, 2025, Was Haman Hanged, Impaled or Crucified? https://www.thetorah.com/article/was-haman-hanged-impaled-or-crucified