|
|
A Review of "Bad Queen Esther" Pt. 2 Last week we began to review an article taking a critical look at Esther and Mordecai in the Book of Esther. The author, Lawrence Kelly, believes Bible students in the past have missed the boat with Esther. Instead of seeing her and her uncle as examples of faith and risking their lives to protect their people, he sees two selfish, lazy, and faithless Jews. I differ with Mr. Kelly as stated in last week’s article and want to continue a review of his article in this bulletin. (D.T.)Kelly’s article states: "Esther has no concern about her fatherland or her people. She expresses no desire to return and when her people are in peril, she is reluctant to do anything about it." Keep in mind this book is but a snapshot of the life of Esther and Mordecai. Her attitude toward the Jews returning to Canaan or the rebuilding is not germane to the story. I assume the writer is referring to the decree that Haman had written stating that the Jews were to be killed on the twelfth day of Adar (chapter 3). In chapter 4, Mordecai appears in the front of the king’s gate in sackcloth. Once Esther finds out what Mordecai is doing, she sends a servant out to find out what is going on. Mordecai sends back word stating the decree against the Jews and points out to Esther her life is also in danger. She is in a position where she can do something about this. Lawrence Kelley puts the worst possible spin on this situation. "Though she had power to intervene, she delays until convinced that if she doesn’t reveal her Jewish identity to the king that she will be killed herself." What the passage does not state is the time between the decree and Mordecai’s appeal to Esther. It may have been days, weeks, or months. Had Queen Esther heard anything at all concerning this decree before? As far as what the passages state, this was the first time she had heard about the decree. Esther did not respond with a "that means nothing to me" attitude. Instead, she told Mordecai to "gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day" (Esther 4:16). Does this sound like a godless person with no concern for her people? Frankly, I do not know what other way she could have responded to be more humble and godly.In one paragraph Kelly stated: "Unlike Daniel and his young friends who refused to conform to the ways and customs of their captors, even in the face of the most dire consequences, Esther is more than ready to do whatever it takes to fit in. For Esther, fitting in meant getting some inside information on how Ahasuerus liked his women to look and act and then blowing him away when it came her turn in line to have sex with him" (2:15-17). In reading Esther 2:8-17, I see where she obtained favor from Hegai, the custodian of the women, and she received special treatment; but it says nothing about instructions on how to "blow" the king away with her ability in the bedroom. If so, where is the passage? Instead I see a beautiful young lady who was not spoiled and willing to listen to the one in charge— much like we admire Ruth for listening to the counsel of Naomi in the Book of Ruth. Where does Esther 2 say she went and had sex with the king? I know Lawrence Kelley inferred this, but it is not a necessary inference. The passage says, "Thus prepared, each young woman went to the king, and she was given whatever she desired to take with her from the women’s quarters to the king’s palace. In the evening she went, and in the morning she returned to the second house of the women" (verses 13-14a). One could infer she went to have sex with the king, but it is not stated nor necessarily inferred. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba it is plainly stated. Why would it not be stated here? I will admit to wondering what did happen when Esther went to the king, but we are not told. Maybe some of the women did have sex with the king in hopes of impressing him. Perhaps Esther did not and that impressed the king. I cannot state, one way or another, what happened when Esther went to the king’s palace. Kelly points out, rightly so, that the book of Esther is unique in that God is not mentioned one time. "They did not speak of Him, they did not worship Him or seek to return to the land where they could live." Once again, the author states a fact and then over reaches to make a point. I could just as easily point out that the word idol or idolatry is not used nor is any worship to idols mentioned. Actually, the lack of the word God or idol proves very little. It simply does not address when or how Mordecai and Esther worshipped. Personally, I believe this book shows us how godly people rely on God even without mentioning His name. It seems Kelly assumes that Esther and Mordecai did not return to the land of Canaan because they were ungodly, idol worshippers. His interpretation of the whole book is with this premise. Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman is seen as a bad thing. He believes Haman simply wanted the respect due him and Mordecai refused. This is the only time I have ever heard of Haman being the good person and Mordecai the bad person. "But there is no indication that Haman, though arrogant, was claiming deity or requiring anything more than honor as a royal official. We have numerous examples of godly men bowing in deference before others without it being considered an act of idolatry (1 Samuel 24:8)." Let us look at the text. "And all the king’s servants who were within the king’s gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow or pay homage" (Esther 3:2). Notice there are two acts, the one of bowing down and the second of paying homage. Another word for homage is reverence. According to Strong’s Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, the word homage means to lay down before, to prostrate oneself in worship. There are times we read of people bowing down before others in humbleness such as when Joseph’s brother bowed down before him. There are other times when it is connected to worship. According to Wycliffe’s Commentary on this passage, But when Persians bowed before their kings, they paid homage as to a divine being. The Spartans refused to bow before Xerxes for this reason (Herodotus, 7,136). We are to worship God, the Creator, and not the creature. Another problem Kelly has is with Esther’s response to Mordecai in chapter 4, "And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!" (verse 16b). "This is not the way the heroes of scripture express their faith, but is a clear example of pagan fatalism. She does not express a trust in God to deliver her, or a belief that God’s providence will triumph, but only that whatever will be will be." Queen Esther, by approaching the king without him calling for her, was taking her life in her own hands. How many of us would have such courage? She did not know if God would intervene or not, but she was willing to put her life on the line for her people. Let us compare Esther’s response with that in Daniel 3. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego refused to bow down to an image. Nebuchadnezzar offered them a second chance. They could bow down to the image or be thrown into a furnace. Their response was, "If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from you hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up" (Daniel 3:17-18). They trusted in God and did not doubt His ability to save them, but they realized that He might not save them. God did not spare every martyr in the Old or New Testament. They all trusted in God, but realized His will was more important than their own. Esther was expressing the same sentiment. She realized her life was in danger, but if she must die for her people, then she would. I find it hard to see anything wrong with that attitude. One final point: Kelly states, "We are reluctant to accept this because we want to make heroes out of every character we can. Some would even make Jonah out as a good example even though he is portrayed as a scoundrel." I know of no one who says we need to be like Jonah. T here are many lessons we can learn from that Book, and some of those lessons are what not to do. We can see Jonah’s change of direction in the fish’s belly and his preaching to the people of Nineveh. As Kelly states, Jonah still had some problems in the end of the book. Jonah is not the hero, God is! Esther was not perfect, she was fallible as was Mordecai. But neither were they the vilest of sinners, ungodly, worshippers of idols. I have always believed the lesson from Esther is how God works through natural means to accomplish His will. There are no miracles, no great doctrinal issues in Esther; there is God protecting His people. --Dennis Tucker |