If Esther had not been that beautiful: dealing with a hidden God in the (Hebrew) Book of Esther.

Abstract

The Hebrew story of Esther seems to be a story without God. God does not intervene, is not present as a character in the book, is even never referred to (Fox: 235-47; Beal 1999: xix-xxii). Yet, the religious overtones are present throughout the book. The present article studies some of these religious hints, with special attention to the (reversal of the) power relationships.

**********

The story of Esther starts with a great celebration. The intent is clear: the power and wealth of the Persian king Ahasuerus should be celebrated for 180 days--six full months. Ahasuerus offers a banquet to all the inhabitants of his capital city, moreover, with drinks available according to everyone's desire. This feast thus reveals much about the king's character. According to Fox, he has "an obsession for power," which will lead to an attempt "to buy honor by ostentatious generosity" (172).

The decision that everything should happen as everyone desires, is the first of a series of events in which Ahasuerus does not exercise his power, but has others do as they please. For, as Fox demonstrates, the king never says no. Whoever knows how to manipulate him, be it his servants, Haman, Mordecai or Esther, the king will give him or her the power and responsibility to act (Fox: 173). Although the text never explicitly condemns whatever Ahasuerus does, there is, according to Fox, an implicit condemnation (176; cf. Klein: 154-55).

The inherent reasoning seems to be that foreign rule is like that: hardly worthy of contempt. But such a demonstration of power is not typical for foreign rulers only. King Hezekiah, for instance, shows the envoys of Babel his entire palace, his storehouses and his kingdom (2 Kings 20:12-21). Isaiah prophesises that the king of Babel will plunder everything he showed them. If the Jewish listeners pay attention to the description of Ahasuerus' wealth, they will no doubt remember all the goods stolen by the Babylonians and conquered by the Persian kings. Moreover, some of the Persian wealth stems from bribes (cf. Esth 3:9) and taxes (cf. Esth 10:1). Ahasuerus is showing off with the riches of others, a behavior in sharp contrast with the Bible's critical attitude toward wealth. Moses warns the people (Deut 8:11-14, 18):

   Take heed lest you forget the LORD your God ... lest, when you have eaten
   and are full, and have built goodly houses and live in them, and when your
   herds and flocks multiply, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all
   that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up, and you forget
   the LORD your God [RSV].

For it is God who gives the people the power to get wealth (v. 18). A similar critical attitude is present in some biblical passages concerning the king, texts probably written when the people already had a king who misbehaved and exploited the people. Samuel, for instance, warns the people that a king will demand that their sons and daughters work for him, that he will take their possessions to give them to his favorite servants, and that he will raise taxes (1 Sam 8:11-18). Deuteronomy 17 provides that a king not have too many horses nor too many women, and that he not gather silver and gold. On the contrary, the king should respect God and keep his commandments.

Another aspect of the biblical criticism of kings, is the idea that when all is said and done, God is king of his people. Psalm 145 praises the glorious splendor of God's kingdom, his power and mighty deeds. In 1 Chronicles 29:11, David ascribes to God the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty. God's kingdom protects the rights of the weak (Ps 146), and this is an example to be followed by the earthly kings (cf. Ps 72). Ahasuerus is the prototype of the worst kind of king: a heathen who gathers possessions and wastes them, for his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his majesty. He seeks to be a king of divine allure. The people are clearly under the power of a king with completely different values and behavior than that accepted and valued in their own tradition. This, however, also prompts a question: if God is truly king, will this kind of injustice persist?

Power and Contra-Power

The first step in thwarting Ahasuerus' lust for exposing power is taken by an unexpected figure. The celebration of Ahasuerus had to have a special climax: the appearance of the queen. Yet Vashti refuses to appear, and this refusal is the start of the story. The king is furious and calls his advisers. They exaggerate what Vashti did, maintaining that she has wronged not only the king, but also all the princes of the kingdom. Her act has been transformed from a personal fault to a national crisis (cf. Beal 1999: 13) and a threat to the existing social order (Beal 1995: 97; Fox: 21). All women will hear what happened, will follow her example and look down upon their husbands. Therefore, Vashti's royal power should be given to someone else, who is better than she. Literally: may the king give her royal power to her neighbor, who is better than she--the wording is very similar to that of 1 Samuel 15:28 (YHWH will take from you the royal power over Israel and give it to your neighbor, who is better than you). Just as David will be a better king than Saul, Esther will be a better queen than Vashti. The similarity implicitly suggests that God is involved in the replacement of the queen.

Though the servants' advice is still in line with the queen's disobedience, the actual royal letter has a different, more generalized tone. Each man should be lord and master in his house and speak his own language. There is a shift of attention from the behavior of the queen and the women towards the attitude desired in the men. Nothing is said about the events that led to such a strange decree, though the story of Vashti's refusal will no doubt become well known all over the reign. Only the first part of the royal letter has a direct link with what was said before. The risk that all women would look down upon their husbands is "avoided" by pointing out that the husbands are lord and master in their houses. That the letter is addressed "to each nation in its own own language" has nothing to do with the Vashti incident, but it does give some insight into the meaning of the royal letter. That is, what is actually at stake is power and power relations. The relation between man and woman is the model for power relations in the whole kingdom. Just as the king has power over his queen and just as he can issue orders in many languages to many nations, so also must men of lesser power exercise their power over their women, each in his own language. With this royal letter, the power relations are set once and for all: unequal and open to exploitation, to further enhance the glory and power of the powerful. Glory and power are what Ahasuerus wants to achieve with his demonstration of his wealth and the beauty of his queen. According to his advisers, honor will be given to every man if the deed of the queen is condemned (cf. Esth 1:20). The power should stay in the center, with the man in his house, with the king and his advisers in his reign.

Vashti, having dared to challenge the existing power structure, pays the price: never will she see her husband again; her royal status is taken away. The queen is gone, long live the (new) queen! Yet, apart from opening the way for Esther to become queen, this scene also portrays the circumstances in which she will have to operate. She will be in the hands of a king who can easily be manipulated, arbitrary decisions will be made, and any sign of personal initiative will be severely punished.

Mordecai, Esther and Haman: A Struggle for Power between Good and Evil

Vashti is no longer queen. Before the king can change his mind, the king's servant suggests a kind of beauty contest. After a beauty treatment lasting one full year, the candidates are brought to the king, each to become his woman for one night. At this point in the story, Mordecai is introduced as one of the exiles who were captured by Nebukadnessar (or, depending on the interpretation: as a descendant of a person taken into exile). Mordecai had prior experience of the power exercized by the powerful. Taken into exile, away from his country, he came to Susa and stayed there, even after the edict of Cyrus allowed the people to return to Jerusalem (537). Moreover, the names of Mordecai's ancestors can be linked to King Saul (1 Sam 9:1-3), a fact that already hints at the function of Mordecai in the story. As Saul fought against the Agagites, Mordecai will have to confront Haman the Agagite.

After her uncle, Esther is also mentioned. She is beautiful and "good to look at" (v 7). This description indicates that she is a possible candidate for the beauty contest, especially since Vashti was described with the same expression (Esth 1:11) and since the primary qualification for entry into the harem was comeliness (Esth 2:2-4, RSV: "beautiful"). That the queenship is vacant, that Esther meets the standards for being elected, is indeed taken to the court, and pleases the king, are but a few of the many coincidences that lead to the salvation of the Jews. If Esther had not been that beautiful, she would not be brought to the court, she would never have met the king, certainly not have become queen, would have been in no position to save her people. Coincidence? Or should we read divine activity between the lines (cf. Fox: 240-41)? But there is more. The "beautiful appearance" motif can be found in many prior stories, in which it seems to spotlight the hero or heroine, as well as the divine favor. So Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, and Judith are all "beautiful to look at" (Gen 39:6; Exod 2:2; 1 Sam 9:2; 1 Sam 16:12; Jdt 8:7). It can hardly be a coincidence that Esther is described in the same way as other biblical characters, who all have a similar function: to save their people. In the same way as the handsome David replaced the good-looking Saul, Esther replaced Vashti. She is the "better one." Esther is taken as one of the many to the royal harem. The king falls in love and chooses her to become queen instead of Vashti, since Esther "is good in his eyes" (Esth 2:9).

Now Haman appears on stage. He is presented as an Agagite, one of the born enemies of the Jews (Agag was king of Amalek, the perennial enemy of Israel). During the Exodus (cf. Deut 25:17-19) the Amalekites would have attacked the weak from behind, without any respect for God. Therefore, the people should erase the remembrance of Amalek forever. The book of Exodus emphasizes that God wars continually against Amalek, from generation to generation (Exod 17:16). The Amalekites therefore symbolize the evil that threatens the people of Israel during each generation, against which both the people and God fight.

For our purposes here, the story of Saul is particularly important (1 Sam 15). God proclaims that he will deal with Amelek once and for all. Saul should fight and destroy everything, even the animals. Saul wins his battle, but spares the king, Agag. Moreover, he keeps the most valuable animals. This disobedience to God costs him his kingship, which will be given to another, better than he. The story of Esther alludes clearly to this tradition, since the rule of Vashti will be given to another, better than she, namely Esther. Just as Saul had to fight Agag, so the people should do in every generation. Saul, however, did not succeed. Now Mordecai, the Jew, descended from Saul, has to deal with Haman, the descendant of Agag. Will he succeed where his ancestor failed, now that he can rely upon Esther, who has become queen? Or will someone else ultimately defeat Haman, just as in fact it was Samuel and not Saul who killed Agag (Esther? cf. Beal, 1999: 45)?

Though Haman is favored by Ahasuerus, Mordecai refuses to give him honor. When the servants ask him why, he declares that he is a Jew. This could be interpreted as a sign that Mordecai refuses to bow for anyone else than God. This is, however, not very plausible. Bowing is a particularly prevalent way of greeting an important person (such as the king). It is not very likely that Mordecai, who "was sitting in the King's Gate" adamantly refused to bow, even to the king (cf. Fox: 44). The "obeisance" is also done to kings (1 Sam 24:9), but often this verb indicates weakness, being forced: bending the knees because one is not able to stand any more. Maybe Mordecai decided not to kneel for the enemy of his people. Anyway, as in the case of Vashti, a refusal to pay the honor a mighty person desires is dangerous. Just as Vashti, and indeed all women should be under the thumb of their husbands, so in this case, Haman's reaction goes much further than a reaction against Mordecai alone. The man second in power only to the king is out for revenge. He decrees a day of destruction and accuses the Jews of being a danger to the kingdom: they would follow their own laws and disobey those of the king.

God at Work in the Reversal

When their fate becomes known, the people fast. Though God is--again--not mentioned, this is a religious activity, which can be interpreted as a cry (to God) for help. Mordecai swings into action. He goes to the palace to inform Esther, whose task resembles that of Moses: go to the king to save the people. The dialogue of Esther and Mordecai reminds one of a vocation story. Like Moses, (Ex 3-4), Esther objects to her tasks. She points out that she risks the death penalty by going to the king without invitation. It is not God, however, but Mordecai, who counters her arguments. He is convinced that even without Esther, the people will be saved, though if it be literally without her, she will not survive.

Esther's story seems like a vocation story without God. In Exodus, God informs Moses of his intentions, God sends Moses, God counters Moses' objections, God promises to be with Moses. None of this is found in the book of Esther. Never is it said that God, having heard the cry of his people, comes to the rescue. It is not God, but Mordecai who sends Esther to the king, and she has to go alone, even though it may cost her her life. A vocation story without God. Or not?

At this point, it is interesting to analyse the name "Esther." This non-Jewish name probably refers to a Persian word for "star," or to the goddess of Love Ishtar (Moore: 20). Yet, when read as a Hebrew word, it means "I am hiding" or "I am hidden." In Deuteronomy 31:16b-18, God speaks about a time in which the people will leave God and his laws and God will consequently hide his face (or his presence) from them. The result of this hiding is that the people become an easy prey, and troubles come upon them. According to Beal, a link to Deuteronomy 31 would indicate that God will remain absent, and that the people are the cause of their own troubles. He therefore suggests an interpretation that considers the name Esther as an allusion to God invisibly at work in the story (Beal 1999: xx-xxii). In fact, Beal considers the period of Persian rule precisely as the time of God's hiddenness due to the people's disobedience to his laws. Yet, the story of Esther suggests otherwise. Haman reproaches the Jews for following their own laws rather than those of the king. But the Jews' "own" laws are, precisely, God's laws. I would argue, therefore, that it is not the period of Esther as such that is the period of the judgment, but rather that of the exile.

The exile is often interpreted as God's judgment brought to bear upon the people for their faults. Hence, it is the period of God's absence. Something has changed, though: the people once again obey the laws of their tradition. There is a glimpse of hope. For the same prophets who doomed the people, pointing to the exile in confirmation of their position, also offered the people hope--hope that God will not forever forsake them. That is, in my view, the religious background of the book of Esther. Esther's name is more than a reminder of God's doom. The same God who threatens to hide his face, also resolves not to let the people be destroyed completely (Deut 32:20, 26-27). The God who hides his face from the people will restore their fortunes. Then God will never again hide his face from them (Ezek 39:24-29). Esther is an ambiguous name, hinting at a goddess and at the absence of God, but ultimately laden with the hope-filled meaning: "I am hiddenly present."

In his appeal to Esther, Mordecai mentions a possible salvation "from another place." As Fox argues (63), this must mean another person or persons who may come to the rescue. This profound confidence in the salvation of the people must be based upon the belief that God will not have his people destroyed completely. On the other hand, it is also possible that Mordecai is confident that the Jews are survivors, who can help themselves whatever happens to them. Fox concludes that the author of the book of Esther is creating a "theology of possibility (of providence)" (247). The reader must decide whether God is active in the events of Esther's (or his/her own) life.

Mordecai's words clearly indicate that salvation will come. That salvation, however, can come in several ways. His plea, formulated in a manner redolent of the book of Judith, is that it will come through Esther. Of course, the setting in Judith is entirely religious. The importance of fighting the enemy lies in the protection of the temple. Yet, when the leaders of the people decide to surrender unless God has helped them within a few days, Judith reacts. In her view, God is free to deliver his people when and by whom he chooses (Jdt 8:15-16). She can but pray that she will be God's instrument. The same mixture of personal initiative combined with the possibility that God is acting in this human intervention seems to be present in Esther. Mordecai's words retain an appeal to human responsibility without absolutizing any individual person. Esther should act, but even if she does not, one may expect salvation from God.

Purim: The Celebration of the Change

Esther takes the risk. Instead of pleading for her people, she invites the king for an intimate celebration. This delay offers the opportunity for an ever sharper conflict between Haman and the Jews. Ahasuerus asks Haman, who has come to seek Mordecai's execution, how he can honor a man. Haman is so confident that he cannot even imagine somebody else being the intended man. Yet, the king has him fulfill everything he suggests for Mordecai. Haman, increasingly filled with hatred, obeys. Esther eventually asks for the life of her people. When the king hears that Haman has planned the execution of Mordecai, he has Haman hanged on the gibbet Haman had prepared for Mordecai and, moreover, appoints Mordecai in Haman's place. This, however, does not yet mean that the people are saved. The previous decree cannot be revoked.

The letters that are sent by Esther and Mordecai allow the Jews to defend themselves and to destroy their attackers. The wording resembles Haman's decree, but some important changes are made (Fox: 102). The Jews may defend themselves, and the people risking slaughter are precisely those who afflict the Jews. The context for all this is the whole reign of Ahasuerus, and the people who should be ready for the day are the Jews. The non-Jewish people of the Persian kingdom are now brought into a difficult position. The Greek version of the text avoids the problem by offering them no choice: the letter of Esther and Mordecai annuls the one of Haman and orders the Persians to help the Jews. But the Hebrew text retains the idea that a law of the Medes and the Persians cannot be annulled. Legally, the Persians are therefore obligated to destroy the Jews, but at the same time they risk their lives doing so since the Jews may defend themselves. In this situation of injustice, no easy choices can be made. Scared to death, many of the Persians become Jews. Their leaders make another choice and support the Jews in their fight. On the day when the Jews should have been killed, they triumph over their enemies. The day of doom becomes a day of joy. Mordecai and Esther even make of it an official day of celebration. The celebration of Purim is the feast of the drawing of the lot, Pur--in the plural, Purim--when fortunes are reversed.

Change: More Than Merely Reversal

At this point, I come back to the theme of power and wealth. The celebration of the change would be incomplete if the power relations remained the same. But the changes in the story do not mean that the persons merely assume another role: Esther queen instead of Vashti, Mordecai as the second man instead of Haman, the nations victims instead of the Jews. Within the limits of what they dare and think to be possible, people resist the ruling and the exploitative power relations: Vashti against Ahasuerus, Mordecai against Haman, Esther against Haman and Ahasuerus. It may be noticed that Ahasuerus remains in his powerful position all the time. He is as easy to manipulate at the end of the story as at the beginning. Esther and Mordecai can therefore make the difference. Like Vashti before her, Esther too resists the king. Unlike Vashti, however, Esther is personally involved with her people. Whereas Vashti's choice not to obey the king was her own decision, Esther went because her uncle urged her to do so, and moreover, she sought the support of her people, asking them to fast for her (Esth 4:16). Esther's actions are intended to save her people (Esth 8:6). Also the man-woman relations undergo a transformation: Esther obeys and disobeys Mordecai's orders according to her own best lights by making her family relationships known.

Mordecai, refusing to capitulate to the evil confronting him in Haman, sends Esther to act on behalf of his people. When he is in a position to do this himself, he becomes a mighty person, feared by the other leaders. But at the same time, Mordecai is dear to his people; the quest for his people's happiness and the plea for peace for his descendants guide his ruling (Esth 10:3).

The Persian people can no longer have parties with the powerful, but must choose. Those who take the side of the oppressed can celebrate with them after the battle, and this time, it will be a celebration of solidarity.

The Jewish people obey the letter of Mordecai and kill whoever tries to destroy them, together with their women and children. Modern Bible translations can be somewhat misleading in this regard. When both letters are compared in Hebrew, the wording is exactly the same, but with one important change: the people are not allowed to plunder. They may indeed kill whoever tries to plunder them, but according to the story, the people themselves do not plunder. Whereas Ahasuerus and Haman sought power and wealth, the motivation of the Jews is different: they want only to defend themselves against evil and against those who attack them. In biblical language, this is presented (as in the story of Saul and Amalek) as a struggle from generation to generation. In this story too, the successful struggle is presented as a literal obedience to the same command God had given to Saul: destroy without plundering.

The story of Esther is a lesson on how to live and fight in a world ruled by other norms and values, while still keeping one's own identity as a people. Though God is never mentioned, many hints draw the attention of the reader to the possibility that God is at work here. Will God allow a foreign king to present himself as divinely favored? Is the replacement of Vashti by Esther not in God's hands, as was the replacement of Saul by David? Is the conflict between Mordecai and Haman not the never-ending struggle that YHWH will wage, together with his people, from generation to generation? Is the fasting not also a cry to God for help? Is Mordecai's appeal not constructed as a vocation story in line with that of Moses? Is his conviction that the Jews will be saved not based upon the experience that God never let his people down? Is Esther not portrayed as the heroine, chosen by God, destined to save her people? Is the name "Esther," ("I am hidden"), not more than a reminder of God's judgment--also hinting at the possibility that God is hiddenly present and active in the story? The story of Esther is the story of the destruction of evil and the story of God's dream for his people. From generation to generation, even until today, it should be celebrated that God is present in situations of injustice, in people who act, reversing the fate of the people to save them.

Works Cited

Companion to the Bible, vol. 7, edited by A. Brenner. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Fox, Michael V. 1991. CHARACTER AND IDEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Klein, Lillian R. 1995. Honor and Shame in Esther. Pp. 149-75 in A FEMINIST COMPANION TO ESTHER, JUDITH AND SUSANNA. Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol. 7, edited by A. Brenner. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Moore, Carey A. 1971. ESTHER. The Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 7B. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

Sabine M. L. Van Den Eynde, Ph.D. (University of Leuven, Belgium) is Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research (Flanders) and a member of the Old Testament Department of the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Address: Elfnovemberlaan 36, B-3010 Kessello Belgium (e-mail: [e-mail]. ac.be).