Saturday 4 May 2024

Is Esther A Heroine?

 


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."[i]

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, like the book of Daniel describes he and the other heroes, or the way Nehemiah is described in his account. 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. And 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 infer he means God, because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt, but this is not a necessary inference.

And 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, the chapter in which Jesus accuses the Jewish leaders of having completely misunderstood both God and the scriptures, and therefore who he is.

I think it is best to read this book 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.

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. I think this teaches us a lot when we see it in this light. What do you think?

List of References

1 comment:

  1. Yes because she risked her life to ask the king for a favor. Not marrying pagans, I’d have to dig deep on that front, because if the prohibition was fathers not giving their daughters, her father didn’t have a choice. I always viewed Mordechais “for such a time as this” as a reference to God. God used them to save His people, that was His mechanism. I’d also be hard pressed to call any of this Machiavellian, there’s nothing shameful about subtlety. I do take your meaning and think it’s worth a dive on why this book of the Bible is “light” on direct references to religion. It could just be showing God’s providence through people who may not have been close to Him, but I’m far more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t get me wrong, you raise an interesting question.

    ReplyDelete