|
|
A Review of "Bad Queen Esther?" (Pt. 1) Recently an article by the title of "Bad Queen Esther" was brought to my attention. I do not know the author, Lawrence Kelley, I have not read any thing else he has written, and I do not know his religious background. Let me say I appreciate people who think "outside the box" challenging me to think. There are certain preachers that I tend to read after for they cause me to study and sometimes see things differently. On the other hand, we need to be careful of finding something new when there is nothing new to find. After reading this article, I am reminded of what Lowell Blasingame said in a gospel meeting. To paraphrase brother Blasingame, The problem we have is not over what the Bible says but over what it does not say. For instance, in John 8 the Jews brought a woman caught in adultery to the Lord. Twice Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground. If I ask, "Did Jesus write on the ground?" the answer is an obvious yes. How do we know this? The passages clearly state in verses 6 and 8 that "He stooped down and wrote on the ground." What did Jesus write on the ground? We could speculate that He wrote the Ten Commandments, or Deuteronomy 22, or about forgiveness, or hypocrites, or the Star Spangled Banner. Anything you or I say would be pure conjecture. We simply do not know. As 2 Peter 1:3 says, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue." Since it was not revealed to us, it does not relate to our salvation. The silence of the scripture means we need to respect what the Bible does and does not say. To go beyond what has been revealed is wrong. There is a difference between necessary inferences and unwarranted inferences. We understand Acts 20.7 teaches us that we are to come together on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper. Just as the Jews who were to keep the Sabbath were to keep every Sabbath, so we necessarily infer we are to remember the Lord’s death every Sunday. On the other hand, some in reading of the conversion of Lydia and her household in Acts 16, teach that babies are to be sprinkled. They infer Lydia’s household included babies. The passages say no such thing. Furthermore, to infer such contradicts what other verses teach about hearing and believing the Gospel of Christ. How can a baby believe Jesus is the Son of God? Babies know and understand nothing except they are hungry, tired, or uncomfortable. We have to be content to speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent. The author, Lawrence Kelley, infers a number of things not revealed in the Book of Esther and states them as facts. Claiming something is a fact does not make it so. This book is only ten chapters long and does not deal with Esther’s childhood except that her father and mother died and her uncle, Mordecai (chapter 2, verse 7) reared her. Much of the book covers other important characters such as the king and his servant, Haman. In "Bad Queen Esther?" the author states this was during the time when a remnant returned to Canaan to rebuild Jerusalem and eventually the temple. He infers that Esther and Mordecai, not being among the group going back, show they were guilty of compromise and did not care about serving God. Why did Esther and Mordecai not return to Canaan? We have no idea. Perhaps they were intending to return and the events of this Book occurred before they had time to go. Maybe they had been providentially hindered, or maybe they were waiting for another group to return. We can speculate, but the Book does not tell us why. The inference that those who returned were spiritually minded and those who did not return had become idolatrous, lazy bums is unwarranted. Not all of those who returned to Canaan were faithful to God’s word. "You have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt of Israel" (Ezra 10:10). When reading through Nehemiah, we find they were slow to rebuild, and they complained and grumbled about the dangerous work. Tobiah, one of the enemies of the Jews as they rebuilt the temple, had authority in one of the storerooms of the temple (Nehemiah 13). They also allowed their sons to marry the people of the land, thus transgressing the law of God. Were remnants that returned holy and righteous? Yes, but not all. In the same way, those who did not return may have been holy and righteous. How do I know this? On the Day of Pentecost, there were "devout men, from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). These were Jews who lived in places such as Cappadocia, Asia, Egypt, and Phrygia. They were devout Jews who had not returned to Canaan. Lawrence Kelley’s inference that Esther and Mordecai not returning to Canaan meant they were ungodly, and idolatrous Jews is unfounded. I could just as easily ask why Nehemiah was serving as the king’s cupbearer instead of being in Jerusalem in Nehemiah 1? Had he been callous to the events in Canaan before this time? Such would be pure conjecture of the worst kind and sounds ridiculous. —To Be Continued— |