The Message of Esther

David G. Firth

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780830882144
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Commentaire biblique

By any assessment, Esther is a rather strange book to find in the Bible. Not only is it, along with Daniel, the only book of the Bible to be set entirely outside of the Promised Land, it also shows no interest in that land. More than that, Esther is the only book in the Bible which definitely does not mention God. None of this should be taken as meaning that the book has no theological intention--on the contrary it has a developed theology, but it is a theology which operates precisely because it does not mention God directly. In this volume in the Bible Speaks Today commentary series, David Firth explores this paradoxically important book and its implications for our own contemporary context, where the reality of God's presence is experienced against a backdrop of God's relative anonymity and seeming absence.

1:1–22
1. Some parties and their aftermath

Every story needs its starting point, but that of Esther is slightly surprising given that King Ahasuerus is the only character in it who appears later in the book. It might seem, therefore, almost to function like the extended action sequence with which most James Bond films commence – lots of absurd action but not much of relevance to the rest of the plot. But just as those sequences in the Bond films indicate 007’s ability to survive seemingly impossible circumstances and characterise him in ways that prepare for the main story, so also this chapter prepares us for the oddities of the Persian court. Here, we are introduced to lavish parties and a host of activities and statements that are all meant to demonstrate the incomparable power and wealth of King Ahasuerus and all his court associates. But it is a portrayal of power which at the same time pokes fun at it by means of satire, such that anyone with an irony-deficiency needs to have it addressed before they proceed further. The king claims great power, but will turn out to be powerless in the matter of convincing his wife to come to the party. Indeed, he is not only powerless; he is a bumbling buffoon who is surrounded by sycophants who convert a trivial domestic dispute into a state emergency.

Although the book only reveals its own perspective gradually, those who heard and read it could be in no doubt of its position. God is never mentioned, but by showing the futility of such grandiose claims of human power, it opens up the question of where power really lies. The answer to that, too, will only be revealed gradually and never explicitly. But if the greatest human power turns out to be a charade, then already there is a hint that real power lies elsewhere. Just as Christian discipleship in our journey towards the heavenly dwelling is a matter of walking by faith and not by sight,1 so also this text encourages the community of God’s people to continue to trust him, even where his work is not explicit.

1. Three parties (1:1–9)

a. The imperial party (1:1–4)

Because it is important that we gain a picture of the power of Ahasuerus, the narrative begins by describing him in as elevated a manner as possible. The narrator looks back on his time, though one cannot tell from this comment how much later the book is written. The crucial point is that we look back to him as a powerful figure. This is probably why he is described as reigning over 127 provinces (Daniel 6:1 mentions 120) rather than the twenty satrapies to which Herodotus2 refers – the provinces are smaller regions but the number becomes much larger and therefore seems more impressive. But the extent of his realm is still significant, covering ‘India to Cush’, or in modern terms roughly southern Pakistan to northern Sudan. At the time, it was the greatest empire ever known.3

But the narrator does not want to tell any tale about Ahasuerus. Rather, we focus on events in the third year of his reign (483 BC) whilst he was at Susa. Although some translations call it the ‘capital’ (e.g. ESV), it is more likely that the reference is to the citadel (NRSV), the fortified section of the city where Darius had built the Persian palace. It is in this part of the city where much of the book’s action takes place, though we step out of its boundaries from time to time to enter the city proper. Susa was one of four royal cities employed by the Persians, being used as the king’s winter residence and also as the administrative capital, which is consistent with its portrayal as the place from which royal edicts are issued.4 Here, in the heart of his administration, Ahasuerus gave a great feast for all his officials, one lasting a full 180 days. The importance of this feast is shown by the fact that the army of Persia and Media and the prominent citizens and governors of the provinces were all in attendance. In practice, it is likely that such a feast would have had a rolling attendance with certain groups present at certain times, but the narrator is concerned that we realise the incredible extravagance associated with this extended feast. Feasts, indeed, are a major theme in the book,5 and the main story both begins and ends with one.6 But the term used for feast throughout is one associated with drinking, which may suggest that it is more of a drunken party. Rather like the old May Day parades where the tanks and guns were paraded past the leaders of the former Soviet Union, this is both a massive celebration and a declaration of power. But like the rich fool in Jesus’ parable,7 it points to someone whose understanding of wealth and power is misplaced, not least because it was this same army that would shortly be humiliated by the Spartans at Thermopylae. Like the fool in Jesus’ parable, Ahasuerus could not depend on his wealth and power.

b. The palace party (1:5–8)

With the great feast finished one might think that Ahasuerus would have had enough, but he seems to spend much of the book working on the theory that the best way to avoid a hangover is to stay drunk. Accordingly, he proceeded to give another, though smaller, feast for the next week for all those present in the citadel. Perhaps it was also a way of thanking them for their involvement in the great feast, though Reid8 (following LXX) wonders if it might be celebrating his marriage to Vashti. However, we are given no specific clues as to the reason for the feast (as indeed for the first one) because the goal is to show Ahasuerus’ excesses. Conspicuous consumption was not an invention of modernity.

This second party was given in the palace garden, which is consistent with the fact that the Persian palaces were typically surrounded by extensive gardens.9 The extravagance of this party is evident from the description given of the grounds with its extensive and expensive hangings, furnishings and decorations. The exact translation of many of the features of verse 6 is uncertain, but it is clear that they are all expensive, and all help to announce Ahasuerus’ importance even as he offers hospitality to those present. The undertone of the royal claim of power through hospitality becomes explicit in the description of the drinking at the feast. Drinks were provided in the finest vessels and the wine was served in abundance because of the king’s largesse. But the drinking was also done under edict from the king, which was that there was to be no compulsion, with the order given to those attending that everyone could drink as they wished. This introduces the theme of the odd ways in which Persian law operates,10 but as Clines wryly observes, ‘In an autocracy, even the absence of a rule requires a decree!’11 The book of Esther knows that power can be used to serve the people, and it ends with Mordecai doing exactly that.12 But it also knows that even though it sometimes appears to offer something valuable, power can be so self-serving that it becomes a grotesque parody of itself. In part, at least, it is because of Jesus’ awareness of this that he calls for Christian leaders to follow his own model and be slaves of all.13

c. Vashti’s party (1:9)

Whilst Ahasuerus was holding the palace party, Queen Vashti was holding one elsewhere in the palace for the women. It is noteworthy that, after the attention given to the excesses of Ahasuerus’ parties, we are given almost no details for this one. Was it also an excessive time of drinking, a declaration of the glories of Persia? Or was it a quieter, more dignified affair? We do not know. But we are meant to notice that although Vashti gave the party for the women in the palace, it is again said that the palace belonged to Ahasuerus. Whatever Vashti’s exact position and however impressive her party might have been, it too was meant to point to the glory of Ahasuerus whose authority stood behind her. Although here stated more subtly, we again see the problem of unchecked power serving only its own interests.

2. Queen Vashti’s refusal (1:10–12)

Although we have had many events described, the narrative proper begins only now. In doing so, it shows that for all the grandness of his public presentation, Ahasuerus cannot affect what matters most. He cannot ensure that everyone does what he wants, and the balloon of his prestige which had been so carefully established is pricked by a woman who will not come to his party. The careful repetition of royal language in this section only serves to drive this point home, as does the careful naming of the king’s servants. It is the language of power and the presence of seven servants (perhaps not strictly eunuchs) who can be named only supports this, though the book likes to name as many people as possible.

Ahasuerus’ second party had run for seven days, and since it was largely a time of drinking it is no surprise that his heart was merry with wine. But such a statement alludes to two previous instances of powerful people whose hearts were also merry with wine before coming to a sticky end. Nabal14 was a powerful man in the south of Judah while David was on the run from Saul. David had protected his men during sheep shearing, something necessary because of the bandits, but Nabal refused to allow David and his men to join his celebratory feast. David was only prevented from killing Nabal by the intervention of his wife Abigail. Nabal thought he had seen David off but while he was holding a feast15 like a king, his heart also was merry from his drinking. Abigail waited until the following day to tell him she had helped David, and shortly after, Yahweh struck Nabal down. Later, David’s son Amnon had raped his halfsister Tamar,16 incurring the enmity of Tamar’s brother Absalom. Absalom, personifying the idea that revenge is a dish best served cold, waited two years and then invited all his brothers to a feast after shearing his sheep. There he commanded his servants to wait until Amnon’s heart was ‘merry with wine’17 and then kill him. Both stories graphically illustrate the dangers of drunkenness, and although Ahasuerus’ fall will not be as dramatic he is another who makes a foolish decision because of drunkenness. Christians have taken different positions on whether or not is appropriate to drink alcohol at all, and some texts seem to take a positive attitude towards it in moderation,18 but the Bible is clear that drunkenness is never acceptable.19

Unlike Nabal and Amnon, Ahasuerus loses only his prestige. On the seventh day of the feast he directed his seven servants to bring Queen Vashti, specifying that she should wear the royal crown, in order to show off her beauty to those gathered. Yet in doing so, Ahasuerus reveals his attitude to his wife. She is not someone to be honoured and loved,20 but merely the most attractive of his possessions to display before those gathered. Instead of being joined to her as a committed covenant partner,21 Ahasuerus treats his wife as one more object that will bring him prestige because he is married to this great beauty.22 But for all his preening, Ahasuerus is one more drunk to fall. Vashti refuses to come. We are not told why, perhaps because telling us of her motivation would distract from the narrator’s theme. All we need to know is that for all he appears to be flush with power, Ahasuerus cannot simply do as he wishes. Sending a command by his servants cannot make the queen come. His fac¸ade of power is shown for the hollow thing that it is simply because his wife will not come to the party. Vashti’s refusal hints at her own dignity. But it is a crushing blow to Ahasuerus. All he can do is rage, but this is the rage of powerlessness, the frustration of those who cannot do as they wish – always a danger with kings.23

3. The royal council (1:13–22)

Vashti’s refusal triggers a range of events, all of which serve to show the ability of a wounded ego to respond in ways that are completely out of proportion to what has happened. Ahasuerus has thrown lavish parties, so we should not be surprised that he does nothing by half-measures. Yet even as the king tries to repair his public prestige, the narrator cannot resist demonstrating that these attempts show how helpless he really is.

We are probably to assume that Ahasuerus acted immediately after Vashti’s refusal, following his usual custom in consulting his advisers. Indeed, it is notable that throughout the book he does nothing without someone’s advice. Kings may be meant to provide true justice and search out what is hidden,24 but this is clearly not Ahasuerus’ strong suit. Yet in itself this may be one of the ways in which the book points to God’s unseen activity, since even kings are ultimately under God’s control.25 Ahasuerus’ actions will frequently be foolish indeed, yet God’s unseen providence may be hidden in his incessant need for counsel.

But there is also a strong sense of parody here. The king is said to have consulted his wise men who knew the times and were versed in legal matters. It is the law that will be crucial, though it is notable that the word used for law (dāt) is specific to the Persian period. The law they discuss is not Israel’s law, something that is central to Haman’s deception when he arranges for the destruction of the Jews.26 There may be an echo here of the men of Issachar who came to see David after he became king because they had understanding of the times and knew what Israel ought to do27 – but, if so, it is only to show how little these men really knew in comparison. Just as the king had seven attendants who were named when he sent for Vashti, so also he has seven advisers whose names are also given. Of the seven, Memucan is mentioned last but appears to be the senior figure since he speaks on behalf of the group. As well as being wise, we are also told that they were from the princes of the kingdom, and thus those whose own prosperity depends upon that of the king. Self-interest may thus prevent them from actually offering wise advice.

It is not uncommon for the powerful to use the law to their own ends, and Ahasuerus is certainly typical. Confronted by Vashti’s refusal to come to his party he asks his advisers a specifically legal question. What, according to the law, is to be done to Vashti because of her failure to carry out the king’s command, especially one delivered with such splend...