God Moves In A

Mysterious Way

Rev Rodney A Gray

 Studies in the Book of Esther

The Book of Esther tells the amazing story of how God preserved his people from the
threat of extinction. Yet, remarkably, the name of the Lord never appears in the telling of
the story. There is no reference to worship, prayer, or sacrifice. If we didn’t know better,
we might conclude that it tells us nothing about God. But when we read the story in the
light of the rest of the Bible we discover that it is really a summation of what God reveals
about himself in the totality of Scripture. It is the story of the sovereign purpose of God.
In keeping with the rest of the Bible, the Book of Esther cannot be understood apart from
God’s purpose. His purpose was to preserve his chosen people in the world until the
Savior came through them. It is also the story of the sovereign providence of God. It
records in breathtaking ways how God controls and uses all events and all circumstances
to fulfill his purpose. The thoughts, choices, and decisions of men, whether for good or
evil, all serve the purpose of God. Finally, it is the story of the sovereign power of God.
Even when men and women violate his revealed will, he directs their sin to fulfill his
secret will. A superficial reading of the Book of Esther might give the impression that
God is not only silent, but absent. He apparently says nothing and does nothing. But read
in the light of the rest of biblical revelation, the words and works of the Lord God of
Israel are distinctly heard and seen.

Chapter 1: Queen Vashti Dethroned and Deposed.

“This is what happened” (verses 1-9).

The setting in which the events of the story of Esther took place was a world of luxury
and power. Xerxes ruled the Persian Empire from 486 to 465 BC. Some Jews began the
return to their homeland in 537 BC. Cyrus the Great had established the dominance of
the Persian Empire over Babylon and all the ancient middle east. The decree of Cyrus
authorized the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, a project they completed by 516
BC. Haggai and Zechariah were active in promoting the project. Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Malachi came later. They were among the minority remnant. Esther and Mordecai were
among the majority of Jews who were still dispersed throughout the Persian Empire.
Few, if any of them, would have suspected the diabolical plot about to be hatched that
would put their very existence in doubt. No one among them could have known that God
would preserve their existence through a Jewish girl named Hadassah, who would
become the queen of Persia.

Persia was a vast domain extending from Africa to India. Xerxes’ father, Darius, had
organized it into 20 districts called satrapies. These were divided into 127 provinces.
Several royal residences were used by the Persian kings, of which the palace in Susa was
only one. The setting for the story of the Book of Esther is the citadel of Susa, and it
presents a picture of great power and fabulous wealth. Banquets and feasts figured
prominently in palace life, and events in the story unfolded largely in relation to these
feasts. King Xerxes launched a military campaign against Greece in 480 BC, and it is
possible that the planning for this campaign may have provided the occasion for the
banquets described in this introductory section. Persia was the great world power, while
Israel’s kings and kingdom had ceased to exist. Yet as the stage is set in the first chapter,
it turns out that even the absolute power of King Xerxes is vulnerable, because he could
not command the obedience of his wife. From the perspective of biblical revelation,
things are not always as they appear to be.

Xerxes was in the third year of his reign. The writer noted that he “sat on the throne of his
kingdom” (1:2). This means that his kingdom was established and he was firmly in
control. More than a hundred years had passed since the downfall of Jerusalem. Xerxes is
presented as all-powerful at a time when Israel had no king or kingdom. He celebrated by
giving a banquet. For 180 days the royal treasure was put on display and everyone of any
importance gathered for the occasion. The banquet itself lasted seven days with
uninhibited drinking. At the same time Queen Vashti gave a banquet for the women.
Vashti’s name could mean “the best,” “the beloved,” or “the desired,” which may in part
explain what happened next. She was the king’s most exquisite possession; he had put
everything else on display, and she alone was left.

“Vashti refused to come” (verses 10-22).

Queen Vashti's defiance of her husband set in motion a chain of events that would prove
to be nothing short of amazing. The king “was in high spirits from wine” (1:10). To say
that he was drunk would do just as well. In his drunken condition the thought came to
him to send for the queen “to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was
lovely to look at” (1:11). In other words, Queen Vashti was summoned for the express
purpose of being put on display. There is no way of knowing the precise reason for
Vashti’s refusal, but it triggered an international crisis. If we read the story from the
perspective of the providence of God, we need no explanation beyond the fact that this
crisis triggered the search for a new queen who turned out to be Esther. At the same time,
we are reminded that when the Bible tells us what happened, it does not always record
the events with approval. That is, what people should have done and what they actually
did in a given situation are two separate issues. The king’s ultimatum to his wife is not a
model approach for husbands to copy, nor is the queen’s response. This is clearly an
example of how sin has degraded the human condition and human relationships. Aside
from all this, the most important issue was the purpose of God. What was God doing?

The great king Xerxes, “who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush,”
was completely befuddled by his wife’s defiance. He referred the matter to his top
advisers, seven in number, “who understood the times” (1:13). These were reputed to be
wise men who could counsel the king about the best course of action. They were among
the privileged few, “the highest in the kingdom,” who “saw the king’s face” (1:14) and
could actually talk to him. In order to cover his embarrassment, he asked for a solution
from the law. He pointed out that Queen Vashti had not obeyed his “command.”
Interestingly, this same word will appear again at the end of the book as the “decree” of
Esther which suggests a relationship between the two. Would Vashti’s refusal to obey the
king’s command turn out to be the reason why Esther could issue a command? In the end,
it was the counsel of Memucan that won the day. Perhaps he was acting as the spokesman
for the group. Instead of recommending that the matter be contained and resolved quietly,
he portrayed it as a crisis of the whole realm. Vashti (no longer Queen Vashti) must be
dealt with severely and decisively to avoid chaos in the kingdom and the disgrace of the
king. Her wrong-doing was “crooked” or “perverse” (1:16). If she refused to appear
before the king, let her be banished from his presence forever, and replaced with
“someone else who is better than she.” Memucan’s advice was implemented by “a royal
decree,” or “a word of the kingdom” (1:19). Thus, in the providence of God, the stage
was set.

If God's purpose was to preserve the Jewish people in order to bring the Savior into the
world, events that may otherwise seem senseless and pointless begin to fall into place.
Events that may appear to have no relationship to each other may instead be seen as
components in a master plan. Read in the context of the Bible, this chapter reminds us
that God has a purpose, and that the decisions, motivations, and actions of men serve that
purpose, though they are not aware of it. The king’s decision and plans for the banquet,
his thought about Vashti, her refusal, and the counsel of his advisors were all details of
providence that contributed to God’s greater purpose. They intended it for evil, but God
intended it for good.

Chapter 2: Esther’s Rise to Power.

“Let a search be made” (verses 1-18).

The king’s advisers were ready with a proposal for selecting a new queen. Without a
doubt Esther’s experience illustrates how God brings good out of evil. In fact, God brings
the greatest good out of the greatest evil. The stories of Joseph and Job are classic
examples of this truth, not to mention the One Story that the Bible is really about – the
incarnation, sufferings, death, and exaltation of the Son of God. The record of Esther’s
rise to power is another tribute to the amazing power and wisdom of God. Esther was
caught up in a brutal and frightening system in which the autocratic word of the king
could place anyone at his disposal. What Mordecai and Esther should or could have done
in such a situation we do not know. Whether they were “saved people” is known only to
God. It is important to remember that what they did is not necessarily what they should
have done. But the story is really not about them. It is about how God preserved his
people so that he could fulfill his promise to bring the Savior into the world through
them. God can accomplish the greatest good even by using the greatest evil.

We should also be reminded that God is able to exalt the lowest and humble the highest.
In this sense Esther stood with such women as Hannah (I Samuel 2:4-8) and Mary (Luke
1:52). What happened to Esther was in the context of great international tension and
struggle. It is likely that the invasion of Greece with its series of terrible battles had taken
place during the lapse of time suggested by “Later...,” or “after these things...” (2:1). This
was a period of at least three years. It appears that Xerxes may have begun to have
second thoughts about his treatment of Vashti, and his personal aids suspected that he was
considering reinstating her. Lest that should happen, they hastily turned his thoughts to
the idea of finding a new queen. Had Vashti returned to power, she would have likely
sought revenge against the king’s counselors. Once again, their “advice appealed to the
king, and he followed it” (2:4). But if Xerxes the tyrant followed this advice, those who
know the Lord will be sure to reject it as the counsel of the ungodly. Yet God used even
such ungodly counsel to bring an unknown Jewish girl to the throne of Persia.

It is worth noticing that Mordecai is introduced in the story ahead of Esther. That he was
called “a Jew” is more literally “a man of Judah” (2:5). By this time the people of Israel
were commonly known as Jews after the tribal name, Judah. However, Mordecai’s tribal
connection was not to Judah, but to Benjamin. Mordecai belonged to the family of King
Saul (I Samuel 9:1,2), a detail the importance of which will become apparent later in the
story. At least some of his family members were probably included among the nobility
who surrendered with Jehoiachin, king of Judah, to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in
597 BC (II Kings 24:8-17). Mordecai may have become established in a position of some
influence, although we are not told why or under what circumstances he “was in the
citadel of Susa” (2:5). Esther is introduced as a “girl, who was lovely in form and
features” (KJV - “and the maid was fair and beautiful”) (2:7). She was Mordecai’s
cousin, an orphan, and he had raised her as his daughter.

We also note that God can watch, protect, and direct the lives of his people, whether in
high positions or low. The leading characters were called by their pagan names without
much comment. The name “Mordecai” was related to the Babylonian god Marduk.
“Esther,” whose given name was Hadassah, was similar to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar.
To assign a name presupposed power and authority over the thing or person named. We
remember that Joseph was given an Egyptian name, but the Bible always calls him
Joseph (Genesis 41:45). Daniel and his three friends were assigned Babylonian names
(Daniel 1:6,7) but they seemed not to wear them comfortably and Daniel at the beginning
was still Daniel at the end. Daniel drew the line on accepting special food from the king’s
table (Daniel 1:8). Esther apparently did not object to the elaborate beauty preparations
nor to the idea of being presented to the king as an object of desire. If she protested, the
Bible does not record it. Nor did she reveal her Jewish identity (2:10,20). Are we entitled
to believe that Mordecai and Esther were wearing these Persian names too comfortably?
Had they, like many other Jews in the dispersion, become too much at home in the
kingdom of the world? Was Mordecai motivated by selfish ambition or by a genuine
loyalty to the God of his fathers? Although Mordecai tried to closely monitor Esther’s
status on a daily basis (2:11), what was his goal? Was he jealous for her safety? Was he
manipulating events behind the scenes? Or both?

In the course of events, Esther “won the favor of everyone who saw her” (2:15). The
word used here describes a free gift of grace. Esther had already won the favor of Hegai,
the keeper of the harem (2:8,9). This word communicates the idea of kindness, loving
kindness, or steadfast love. When she was presented to the king, Esther secured both from
him. “She won his favor (grace) and approval (kindness) more than any of the other
virgins” (2:17). So “he made her queen instead of Vashti.” So pleased was he that he gave
yet another banquet, this time in her honor. It was “Esther’s banquet.” The king wanted
celebration throughout his domain and took steps to see that everyone shared in the
festive occasion.
“Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” (verses 19-23).

In the course of events, Mordecai learned of a plot to assassinate the king. If God
ordinarily works through men and means to accomplish his larger purpose, here was a
case in point. “Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” (2:19). The strategic importance
of this detail became clear when Mordecai learned of the intended plot against the king.
But it became significant in another sense when Mordecai refused to participate as “all
the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman” (3:2).
Mordecai’s presence at the king’s gate was providential, and it was for a purpose. His
discovery of the assassination plot put him in a position to later foil the plot to kill the
Jews. Thus God’s purpose to deliver his people is in place even before Haman’s plot to
destroy them is known. While Mordecai did not receive immediate reward or recognition
for his service to the king, his influence with the king would be much greater when it was
useful in the plan of God.

Chapter 3: Haman’s Plot to Destroy the Jews.

“But Mordecai would not kneel” (verses 1-6).

The sudden advancement of Haman was as sensational as it was inexplicable. Once again
we have an indication of the passing of an indefinite period of time in the expression,
“After these events...” Notice the reference to the seventh year of the reign of Xerxes in
2:16, and to the twelfth year in 3:7. Haman must have received his promotion sometime
in between. We should remember from the previous chapter Mordecai’s crucial role in
exposing the assassination plot against the king. But now, for some unspecified reason,
Haman was honored above all the other nobles at court. It reminds us that the people of
the world do not always honor the best and brightest among them. The worst are often
exalted while the best are sometimes ignored. The king’s decision to elevate Haman was
a case in point. Apparently it was done with great flourish. The king honored him (“made
him great”), elevated him (“raised him up”), and gave him the highest position (“seat”).
Perhaps his new position brought out the worst in him. It is worth noting that no
explanation was given for this promotion. Furthermore, the king “commanded this
concerning” Haman (3:2,3).

Mordecai’s refusal to honor Haman makes us wonder whether he was doing the right
thing for the right reason. Was Mordecai just plain stubborn and proud? Or was he
standing on principle? Or was he deliberately provoking a confrontation? The officials
who knew Mordecai apparently saw his behavior as somewhat unusual. They seemed to
consider it strange that he refused to obey the king's command and decided to test his
resolve by reporting the matter to Haman. The fact that the king gave an order about this
may indicate that Mordecai was not the only one who was reluctant to comply.

Haman's reaction was in keeping with his character. In fact, it was in keeping with his
name. Haman was enraged. The words for “Haman” and “enraged” have a similar sound.
Evil men will use any pretext for wiping out a perceived threat. Haman proved himself to
be one such evil man. He was determined not to overlook or tolerate it. The important
point is made that it had come out by now that Mordecai was a Jew. Haman's pride
suffered a terrible blow by Mordecai's refusal to “kneel down or pay him honor.” Yet he
was not willing to settle matters personally with Mordecai and be done with it. Over such
a seemingly trivial matter Haman resolved to “destroy all Mordecai’s people, the Jews,
throughout the whole kingdom of Xerxes.”

We may have a clue to the behavior of both Mordecai and Haman in the fact that Haman
was a “son of Hammedatha, the Agagite.” Mordecai, as we discovered in the previous
chapter, was a descendant of Kish of the tribe of Benjamin. In the days of King Saul, the
son of Kish, Agag was the king of the Amalakites (I Samuel 15). The Amalakites were
the first to attack the Israelites after they came out of Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16). Joshua led
the counter attack that defeated them, and Moses declared, “the Lord will be at war
against the Amalekites from generation to generation.” The prophet Samuel ordered Saul
to completely destroy them, but he spared Agag. Samuel then killed Agag himself. Both
Haman and Mordecai must have known this history. Both men may have been
determined to settle this rivalry that began a thousand years earlier.

“There is a certain people” (verses 7-11).

Haman wasted no time in securing clearance from the king to go ahead with his plan. As
a first step, the lot was cast to determine the most opportune time that would ensure
success. It reminds us that the world is often willing to wait for an opportunity to do
maximum damage to the people of God. The “pur” was the Persian equivalent of the
Hebrew “lot,” and it gave the Jewish Feast of Purim its name (9:23-28). The casting of
lots was used among the Israelites in various situations to determine the will of the Lord.
It was used when the land was divided among the tribes under the leadership of Joshua.
But Haman did not know or believe in the true God, and his use of this device was
nothing more than superstitious. That he resorted to it at all reveals that he wanted to
leave nothing to chance. He was reaching for an ambitious goal and he was determined to
succeed. As it turned out, the lot that was cast in the first month indicated that the twelfth
month was the most favorable one, but Haman was willing to wait. It is a classic example
of the principle that “man proposes but God disposes.” Haman, a slave to his spiritual
darkness and superstition, unwittingly committed himself to give Mordecai and Esther
ample time to unravel his plot. In the end, the roll of the dice was his downfall.

Notice, in the second place, how he presented the matter to the king. He approached the
king with a report and a recommendation. He laid the matter before the king in a way that
included little or no details but stressed that he only had the best interests of the king at
heart. The king was taken in by the generic references to “a certain people” who posed a
threat to the peace and security of his realm, and he did not even trouble himself to find
out who they were. He was convinced more by what Haman did not say than by what he
did say. Much of what he said was true, some was only partly true, and some was
blatantly false. It provides an example of the timeless principle that good can be evil
spoken of when someone is determined to construct a case against the good. Consider the
elements in Haman’s approach to the king.
He referred to the Jews as “a certain people,” without naming them. This in itself had a
sinister sound, insinuating that these people lived in the shadows and covered their true
identity with a cloak of secrecy. Surely this was cause for concern.

He added that they were “dispersed and scattered among the peoples in all the provinces
of your kingdom.” Haman was implying that a conspiracy was afoot among these people
to destabilize the empire. They kept to themselves, yet they were everywhere.

He furthermore declared that the customs or laws of these people were “different from
those of all other people.” The word for “custom” or “law” is used frequently in Esther,
most of the time to refer to the king’s edict or decree. So it would come as unsettling
news that a network of people throughout the empire were refusing to abide by the law of
the land.

As if that were not enough, Haman next accused them of not obeying the king’s laws. In
what ways they were specifically disobeying he did not bother to mention, and the king
did not bother to ask. The blanket accusation was enough to arouse the king’s suspicion.

Then, finally, Haman appealed to “the king’s best interest.” All things considered, Haman
believed it would be in the best interests of the king and his kingdom not to tolerate these
subversives. To “tolerate” them meant to leave them alone, or to let them rest. After this
was all over, the Jews did in fact have “rest” or “relief” (9:16,17,18,22). The word
“interest” (“profit” in the KJV) suggests comparative value. It means that one thing is of
no value in contrast to another thing. Haman used this term again when he complained
that all the wealth and honor he possessed gave him no satisfaction as long as “that Jew
Mordecai” refused to bow to him (5:13). For now, he got the king’s endorsement of a
plan that made money more valuable than people. The potential for spectacular financial
gain was there, one way or the other. As the decree was dispatched to the far reaches of
the kingdom, it included the provision to annihilate the Jews “and to plunder their goods”
(3:13).

In the third place, we note that the king consented to believe the worst about the best
people he had in his realm. His reaction to Haman’s caricature of the Jews is typical of
how the world commonly prejudges and misjudges the people of God. In his thoughtless
haste to approve the diabolical plan, the king did not even realize that when he handed
over his signet ring to Haman, he unknowingly handed over the life of Queen Esther at
the same time. The signet ring was a symbol of royal sovereignty. King Xerxes, like
many earthly rulers, thought his power was supreme. He would have scoffed at the idea
that he was only a tool in the hand of a sovereign God, that he was accountable to that
God, and that he was being used to accomplish God’s greater purpose. The signet ring
meant to him that he had absolute control, and he was giving Haman a free hand to
dispose of the troublemakers as he saw fit. It is not clear that the king refused Haman’s
money. He assured Haman that both the money and the people were in his hand. Haman
could do what he wanted with both. The KJV captures the thought in this way: “The
silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.” The
king’s ring was recognized throughout his empire, but events would show that a greater
authority rules over the empires of this world. All the while Haman’s real motive, his
desire for revenge against Mordecai, was kept from the king. In addition to his full title,
the writer now calls him “the enemy of the Jews.”

“In the name of King Xerxes” (verses 12-15).

Haman aggressively pushed his plan through and composed the decree he wanted. In a
matter of days the documents were drawn up, copied, translated, sealed and sent out to
their destinations all over the empire. Ironically, the king’s decree was dated one day
before the Jewish Passover, which began the fourteenth day of the first month (Exodus
12:6). Whether Haman was aware of this or not, we do not know. But it could not have
escaped the notice of at least many of the Jews who would be reminded of the origin of
the Passover in the great deliverance out of Egypt. They would no doubt have reason to
hope that God would deliver them again.

This edict was going out in the name of King Xerxes himself and proclaimed as law
everywhere in the realm. It was intended not only to single out the Jews for
extermination, but to incite all other groups against them so that no one would come to
their defense. The general population had to be given some reason to believe that it was
in everyone’s best interest to be rid of the Jews. Having the king’s edict published “in the
script of each province and in the language of each people” would instill a sense of
urgency throughout the empire (3:12).

Furthermore, the supposed threat was made a political issue by directing the edict to
every level of government authority. From the national to the local levels government
officials were expected to execute the king’s decree in defense of the security of the
realm. To fail in this would not only be political suicide, it would jeopardize the
supremacy of the state. They had a year in which to wage a war of propaganda and whip
up prejudice against the Jews so that when the fateful day came, there would be little
hesitation about doing what otherwise might have been unthinkable: “to destroy, kill and
annihilate all the Jews – young and old, women and little children…and to plunder their
goods” (3:13). The order was very similar to the order Samuel gave to King Saul,
Mordecai’s ancestor, to destroy the ancestors of Haman (I Samuel 15:3). The same
wording will show up again in Mordecai’s similar decree on behalf of the Jews (8:11).
Neither Mordecai nor Haman had forgotten this long-standing rivalry.

The chapter ends on a somber note. “The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city
of Susa was bewildered.” It is fair to say that the king had no idea what he had done, even
though everything had been done in his name. Not only had he unjustly decreed the
destruction of a race of people, but realities of eternal consequence were involved of
which he was totally ignorant. No wonder the people of Susa were “bewildered.” The
word can also mean “confused or perplexed.” There had to be something behind all this
that was more powerful than the king himself.
 Chapter 4: Mordecai Persuades Esther to Intervene.

Decisions and choices may have consequences we do not expect. We cannot tell whether
Mordecai was deliberately fomenting a conflict that would involve all his fellow Jews, or
whether he simply did not think about the potential consequences of his personal
challenge to Haman. He must have realized at the very least that his actions would not go
unnoticed. Did Mordecai get more than he bargained for?

“All that had been done” (verses 1-3).

The chapter begins with a description of the reaction of Mordecai and the rest of the
Jewish population when news of the king's edict reached them. They displayed the
traditional signs of mourning or grief. Tearing the clothes, putting on sackcloth or lying
on it, sitting in ashes and throwing them on oneself, loud wailing and crying, fasting and
the like, were all ways of expressing personal or national crisis. It was a sign of great
individual or collective distress. “When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that
Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes” (Genesis 37:29). Job “tore his robe and shaved
his head” when word reached him of the four-fold tragedy (Job 1:20). Later he “sat
among the ashes” (Job 2:8). The Benjamite who reported the Philistine capture of the ark
of the covenant arrived in Shiloh with “his clothes torn and dust on his head” (I Samuel
4:12). Likewise the man who brought news to David of the death of Saul and Jonathan (II
Samuel 1:2). David ordered his men to tear their clothes and put on sackcloth to mourn
for Abner (II Samuel 3:31). Tamar “put ashes on her head and tore the ornamented robe
she was wearing” after she was assaulted by Amnon (II Samuel 13:19). In response to the
preaching of Jonah the people of Nineveh “declared a fast, and all of them, from the
greatest to the least, put on sackcloth” (Jonah 3:5). We may suppose that Mordecai had a
double reason for his loud and bitter wailing. By his personal confrontation with Haman
he had brought a sentence of death upon his entire race. Whether his action was borne of
pride or principle, the result was the same. It is a lesson to God’s people at all times and
in all circumstances to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16).

“What was troubling Mordecai and why” (verses 4-8).

Usually problems are more easily created than they are resolved. It appears that Esther
was among the last to find out what was going on. “When Esther’s maids and eunuchs
came and told her about Mordecai, she was in great distress,” not about the edict, but
about Mordecai’s appearance and behavior at the king’s gate. Apparently the king had not
confided in Esther about this, a fact which suggests that, in Xerxes' mind, communication
was needed only when he said so. This is in keeping with Esther's comment in verse 11
that she had not been summoned to the king for thirty days. Esther sent clothing to
Mordecai so that he would be properly attired to go in and see her, but he refused it.
Clothes were the least of his concerns. Mordecai wanted her to know that something
serious was afoot. When Hathach was sent out to learn what was the trouble it became
clear that Mordecai had complete knowledge of the plot, including the amount of money
Haman offered to seal the agreement with the king. He even had in his possession a copy
of the edict itself. This he sent back with Hathach for Esther’s information, with
instructions for Hathach to “explain it to her” (4:8). This could only mean that the edict
had not been widely circulated inside the palace, or Esther would have already been fully
aware of it.
“If I perish, I perish” (verses 9-17).

It often takes exceptional courage to do the right thing. Doing the right thing usually
involves putting the interests of others ahead of oneself. Esther's first response to
Mordecai's plea for help was not encouraging. She knew the rules of court about
unauthorized approaches to the king. She would be putting her life on the line if she
appeared before the king without being called. This policy was for the purpose of tightly
controlling access to the king in the interests of his personal security. It also would serve
the purpose of limiting the problems that would come to his attention. The king had
hardly given Esther a thought for a month's time, and now she was asked to go to him,
unbidden, on such a momentous mission. We may assume that she understood that she
would have to reveal to the king that she also was a Jew.

Mordicai's second appeal was direct and to the point. If Esther was concerned that she
would risk death by going to the king, she should know that death was certain if she
refused. Mordecai cautioned her, “Do not think in your soul…” (4:13). The soul is the
inner being or the self. He was advising against harboring any misguided inner thoughts
about being exempted from the king’s edict. Therefore, she had nothing to lose and
everything to gain. Mordecai seemed convinced, for some unspecified reason, that one
way or the other the Jews would be spared from extermination. It is worth noticing that
“relief” (4:14) is the word for “spirit,” “wind,” or “breath.” “Deliverance” is related to a
word that can refer to a rescue or snatching away, as when the Lord said he would rescue
his flock from the mouths of the evil shepherds (Ezekiel 34:10). Joshua the high priest
was likened to “a burning stick snatched from the fire” (Zechariah 3:2). And the psalmist
assures us that the Lord “will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly
pestilence” (Psalm 91:3).

Mordecai's question is full of meaning for those who confidently trust in the providence
of God. “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as
this?” (4:14). It seems to indicate some recognition of God’s providence on Mordecai’s
part. The truth and experience of God’s superintending of world events were firmly
embedded in Israel’s history. Mordecai could not have been ignorant of the revelation
God had given his people. Did he recollect the story of Joseph and how God intended to
send him to Egypt for “the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20)?

Mordecai made his case in a way that Esther could not deny. She resolved to muster her
courage and appeal to the king, even though it was contrary to the law. She proclaimed a
fast for “all the Jews who are in Susa” with the specific directive, “fast for me” (4:15).
Fasting with prayer was a common practice on certain occasions in Israel. The Israelites
fasted and inquired of the Lord at Bethel in the midst of civil war with the tribe of
Benjamin (Judges 20:26,27). David fasted and prayed when the Lord struck his and
Bathsheba’s child with sickness (II Samuel 12:16,17). The Israelites fasted, confessed
their sins, and worshipped when they separated themselves from foreigners (Nehemiah
9:1-3). What is conspicuously absent in Esther's instructions to Mordecai is any reference
to prayer. If it was assumed or implied, but not stated, we can only speculate about the
reason.
Chapter 5: Esther Proceeds With Caution.

“So Esther approached” (verses 1-3).

It is clear that Esther planned carefully. She had asked for time, and she apparently made
good use of it by careful and thoughtful planning. She had called for fasting for three
days, and we would be surprised if prayer did not accompany the fasting. On the third
day of the fast, Esther made her appearance before the king. Verse one refers to “the
palace” and to “the king’s hall.” In the Hebrew “the house of the king” is mentioned three
times, once with a plural form of “king.” It is apparently an attempt to distinguish
between the royal residence and the throne room. Less has been learned about the palace
at Susa than a similar royal palace at Persepolis some 350 miles to the southeast in
modern Iran. The royal throne room at Persepolis had thirty-six stone pillars supporting a
ceiling sixty five feet high. Those to whom the king granted audiences were supposed to
be humbled before him by the grandeur of the surroundings. The scene confronting her
when Esther appeared “standing in the court” would have been an impressive one. She
seems to have prepared for her approach to the king down to the last detail, and it paid
huge dividends. Such was the impression she made on the king that “she obtained favor
in his sight” (5:2, KJV). Literally, “she lifted up grace in his eyes.” He was pleased by her
beauty, and the fact that she was dressed in her full royal regalia didn't hurt. In the light
of Esther’s statement in 4:11 we may imagine the thoughts passing through her mind as
she “stood in the inner court of the palace.” The king knew that she must have come on
extremely important business to risk this uninvited appearance. He had banished Vashti
when she refused to appear when summoned. Now Esther has appeared when she was not
summoned. The God who rules and overrules turned his heart to receive her kindly and
asked her to state her request.

“Then I will answer the king’s question” (verses 4-8).

We also find that Esther planned patiently. She devised an unexpected strategy. We might
have expected her to immediately begin pleading for her people and to waste no time in
letting the king know what was going on. Certainly the urgency of the situation would
have warranted such haste. Instead, she deliberately withheld her request and patiently
took a less direct approach. Esther had carefully laid her plans, including the preparation
of a banquet. She wanted the conditions to be as advantageous as possible to ensure
success. She delayed making known her request not once, but twice. Esther wanted
Haman to be present at her banquets along with the king because Haman was the real
antagonist. Furthermore, his presence would give him a false sense of security. By the
time Esther revealed her request to the king, he really was ready to grant it, “even up to
half the kingdom.”

“All this gives me no satisfaction” (verses 9-14).

The remainder of the chapter describes a man possessed of happiness and rage in the
same day. Haman exemplified the person who makes his happiness and contentment
dependent on what others are willing to do for him. Haman came away from Esther's
banquet riding a wave of “high spirits.” Literally, he was “good of heart.” He was
congratulating himself that he was the only man, other than the king himself, to be
honored with an invitation to the queen's private banquet. He imagined that Esther was so
taken with his charm and manners that she had invited him to accompany the king to her
second banquet. But just then he came upon Mordecai at the king's gate. Mordecai gave
no indication that he agreed with Haman's assessment of himself, or that he was
intimidated in Haman's presence. Mordecai “neither rose nor showed fear in his
presence” (5:9). This, of course, enraged Haman and spoiled an otherwise perfect day.

Haman's complaint about Mordecai demonstrated that he was really not a great man at
all. A truly great man could afford to overlook an insult or offense. Haman had everything
going his way, as he proudly boasted to his household, but he made his happiness depend
on one person. “But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see the Jew Mordecai
sitting at the king’s gate” (5:13). The KJV renders it, “Yet all this availeth me nothing…”
The same word was used in 3:8 when Haman spoke of “the king’s best interest.” We saw
there that it means that one thing is of no value in comparison to another thing.
Everything that should have made Haman happy was canceled out by Mordicai’s
presence at the king’s gate.

The advice of Haman’s wife, Zeresh, and his friends reveals that they had a stake in
Haman’s happiness, not to mention his advancement. Good things for Haman signaled
good things for them. They were confident that the king would go along with their plan to
do away with Mordecai and make him a public example. They proposed “hanging”
Mordecai on an exorbitantly high “gallows.” The references to hanging on gallows in
Esther may refer to impaling on a stake. The Persians preferred this method of execution.
The word for “hang” does not mean to strangle with a noose around the neck. It means to
hang in the sense of hanging something on a peg driven into a wall (Isaiah 22:23,24;
Ezekiel 27:10). The psalmist said, “There on the poplars we hung our harps” (Psalm
137:2). Haman’s vain and vengeful spirit meant that he could be persuaded that such a
horrible fate was too good for the likes of Mordecai.

Chapter 6: An Unexpected Development.

This chapter shows how a series of what seem to be trivial circumstances proved to be a
powerful movement to overturn Haman's plans. Any one of several biblical principles
would provide a good summary of what took place. Let him who thinks he stands take
heed, lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:12). Be sure your sin will find you out (Numbers
32:23). Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap (Galatians 6:7).

“That night the king could not sleep” (verses 1-11).

Verse 1 is the turning point of the whole story. It is a simple enough observation, yet it
suggests profound theological truth. “That night the king could not sleep.” It was the
evening following Esther’s first banquet. It was the same night that Haman’s wife and
friends advised him to have Mordecai executed. Also, it was the night when construction
on Haman’s gallows must have disturbed the sleep of many. For whatever reason, “the
sleep of the king fled.” The king happened to have a restless, sleepless night; he
happened to ask to have the royal record book read to him; it was discovered that the
king had happened to overlook Mordecai's reward; Haman happened to be in the palace
at just the right time. Did all these things just “happen to happen,” or did they come
about under the direction of a sovereign God?

It seems almost impossible to imagine that such a deed would go unrewarded, since it
saved the king's life. But this conspiracy of coincidences has brought it to the king's
attention. We noted in connection with Mordecai’s intervention that, while the king did
not reward him at the time, it turned out that through Mordecai’s action a plan to rescue
the Jews was put in place even before the plot was hatched to destroy them (2:21-23).
The king wanted to take immediate action to rectify the oversight because it reflected
poorly on him as matters then stood. Enter Haman. The stage was set for one of the great
ironies of the book. It was to be played out on a much larger scale when the edict against
the Jews was reversed. But for now, who should be assigned the responsibility of putting
matters right with Mordecai but his great antagonist, Haman! The fact that Haman had
arrived at court at such an unearthly hour to secure the king’s permission to execute
Mordecai only accentuates the irony of it all. This reversal of fortunes was nothing short
of remarkable for both Haman and Mordecai. Haman, who expected to be honored, was
going to be hanged! Mordecai, who was supposed to be hanged, was honored!

The word for “honor” in verses 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 refers to something rare or scarce, and
therefore to be prized or valued. According to Proverbs 20:15, “lips that speak knowledge
are a rare jewel.” The king wanted to do something special for the man in question.
Haman, already riding the crest of a wave of favor with the king, was convinced that he
was that man. He could have suggested almost anything, but it would not have made any
difference. The honor would go to Mordecai. Haman was immediately delegated as “one
of the king’s most noble princes” to carry out his own plan. We can only try to imagine
his consternation when he had to do for Mordecai, a condemned man, the honor he
craved for himself.

“Haman rushed home” (verses 12-14).

Haman’s reaction to the situation was quite predictable. It was almost more than he could
stand. He was humiliated by having to shout the praises of the very man he was trying to
bring down! “This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!” It would have
been bad enough if Mordecai had simply slipped through his fingers, but this was
devastating. When Mordecai learned of Haman’s plot he “tore his clothes, put on
sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the city, wailing loudly and bitterly” (4:1). Now
Haman “rushed home, with his head covered in grief” (6:12). His wife and friends
seemed to forget that they had helped to set him up for this great fall, and essentially
pronounced him a lost cause. Those who were called his “friends” in 5:10,14 are now
called his “advisers” or “wise men” (6:13). Wise or not, they did discern that Haman had
bitten off more than he could chew when he decided to take on Mordecai “of the seed of
the Jews.” They saw that Haman’s doom would be complete. Just then, when it seemed
that things were at their worst, Haman was hurried away “to the banquet Esther had
prepared.” He must have wondered then if he was being “hurried away” to his execution.

Chapter 7: Haman’s Plot Unravels.

God does not allow evil men to have the final word. Here is where we discover that
Esther was more than a match for Haman and his scheming designs. She was repeatedly
called “Queen Esther,” even by the king. But it is better to say that the Lord God of
Israel demonstrated his ability to rule and overrule in the affairs of men and nations to
accomplish his sovereign will. The message of Psalm 2 lies at the heart of the story of
Esther. When kings and peoples conspire and plot against the Lord and his anointed one,
“The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.” The breathtaking
reversal of the plot can only be explained in these terms. The events of chapter six remind
us that the situation has changed rapidly and radically for all concerned. Thus the stage
was set for Esther's intervention.
“So the king and Haman went to dine” (verses 1-4).

This chapter begins with Esther’s second banquet already in progress. The king was
clearly anxious to know her request. He assured her again that virtually nothing would be
denied her, "even up to half the kingdom." Clearly the king remained largely in the dark
about what had been going on. He knew nothing of the interrelation of the events that
were unfolding around him, so his friendly spirit opened the door of opportunity for
Esther.

Esther, sensing that the time was right, revealed her petition. She demonstrated tact and
skill in the way she placed it before the king. She simply asked that her life and the lives
of her people be spared. Probably the king was startled by what she said, and it was only
beginning to sink in that the people she was talking about were the Jews and that she was
one of them. Esther repeated the words used in the decree that had gone out in the king’s
name – “destroy, kill, and annihilate” (3:13). In her own way, just as Haman had appealed
to “the king’s best interest” (3:8), Esther took a similar approach. She pointed out that the
king would gain nothing and lose much if this plot were carried out (7:4).

“This vile Haman” (verses 5-10).

Here we witness the final unmasking of Haman. The king demanded the identity and the
whereabouts of the man who was behind all this. Literally, he wanted to know “who fills
his heart, or whose heart has filled him” to do such a thing (7:5). The word “fill” is too
common to cite many illustrations, but Psalm 10:7 characterizes the wicked man as one
whose “mouth is full of curses and lies and threats.” Esther was ready with her answer.
“The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman.” The terror of Haman and the rage of the
king were a microcosm of the upset this revelation caused.
For his part, King Xerxes was doubly outraged because he had been unwittingly
implicated in this sordid affair. The edict, which could not be repealed (1:19), had gone
out with his full authority. Haman, on the other hand, knew that he was finished just by
the way the king reacted. He was sure “that the king had already decided his fate” (7:7).
The KJV says that Haman “saw that there was evil determined against him by the king.”
But he still thought Esther might be able to spare his life. After all, she had successfully
intervened for the Jews. And Haman had nothing to lose. But by this time Haman was
overcome with sheer panic and he couldn't have chosen a worse thing to do. As he was
there begging Esther for his life, the king returned and, of course, put the worst possible
interpretation on what he was doing.

We may legitimately wonder about Esther’s conduct at this critical moment. If she was a
godly woman, should she have behaved differently in this situation? Should she have
tried to get the king to go easy on Haman? Should she have pleaded for mercy? At the
very least, she might have cleared up any mistaken ideas the king had about Haman’s
“falling on the couch where Esther was reclining” (7:8). But even if she had done so, it is
not likely that anything could have saved Haman. An attendant mentioned Haman’s
gallows. The king seems to have been the only one who was unaware of it. The
unhesitating order, “Hang him on it!”, must have been sparked by the fact that Haman
had prepared the gallows for Mordecai, “who spoke up (or spoke good) for the king”
(7:9). The order was immediately carried out. “Then the king’s fury subsided” (7:10), like
the waters of the great flood “receded” (Genesis 8:1).

Chapter 8: An Edict for an Edict.

God puts the right people in the right place at the right time. In this chapter we learn how
the remarkable turnabout between Haman and Mordecai was extended throughout the
empire by way of another edict proclaimed in the name of King Xerxes. The stage was
set for a complete reversal in the outlook for the Jews throughout the Persian Empire,
now that Esther and Mordecai had secured their position with the king.

“Into the presence of the king” (verses 1-8).

The humiliating disgrace of Haman was surpassed by the exaltation of Mordecai. He was
granted the highest favor of the king. Mordecai could now come “into the presence of the
king, for Esther had told how he was related to her” (8:1). The king retrieved his signet
ring from Haman and gave it to Mordecai, who was now secure in the position that
Haman had coveted for himself. Furthermore, he was made overseer of Esther's newly
acquired estate. The king had confiscated Haman's property and handed it over to her.
Literally, the “estate” was the “house” of Haman, but the house often included everything
in the house, the household, or the property. The “house” could be the physical dwelling,
as when the Lord instructed the Israelites to “take some of the blood and put it on the
sides and tops of the door frames of the houses” (Exodus 12:7). The “house” could
include what was in the house, as in the tenth commandment:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or
his man servant, or maid servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your
neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).

The “house” could also include the household or family, as when “Jacob said to his
household and to all who were with him” (Genesis 35:2), or when Joshua spared Rahab
and her household in the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6:25). In short, whatever
belonged to Haman was confiscated by the king and given to Esther.

Esther was now in a more secure position to renew her intervention for her people.
Haman's dispatch had been released and could not be called back. But Esther pleaded
with the king to do something about “the evil plan of Haman the Agagite” (8:3). Notice
how careful she was not to implicate the king in this matter. She made it entirely Haman's
doing. She tactfully pleaded for the overthrow of Haman’s plan rather than the reversal of
the king’s edict. She humbled herself before the king in every way she knew how, this
time “falling at his feet and weeping.” Then “the king extended the gold scepter to Esther
and she arose and stood before him” (8:4). Esther used the same words that she used to
appeal for her own life (7:3) and added two for good measure. She appealed both to his
sense of justice (“thinks it the right thing to do”) and to her personal standing with the
king (“and if he is pleased with me”) (8:5). It speaks well of Esther that she did not stop
short and settle for her own life while her people were left to perish. “For how can I bear
to see disaster fall on my people? How can I bear to see the destruction of my family?”
(8:6). The king was careful to point out that he had already taken significant steps to
compensate them “Because Haman attacked the Jews” (8:7). The KJV reads, “because he
laid his hand upon the Jews.” Even so, King Xerxes authorized Esther and Mordecai to
draw up “another decree in the king’s name in behalf of the Jews” (8:8).

“Mordecai wrote in the name of King Xerxes” (verses 9-14).

So the new edict was drawn up. The result was that the reversal in Mordecai’s situation
was extended to all the Jews throughout the empire. It was almost a mirror image of the
events described in chapter 3. This time Mordecai dictated the wording and he did so by
the authority of the king. Also, this time the edict was to be published in the language of
the Jews. Notice the similarity between this and the former edict (3:12-14). Mordecai’s
dispatches, sealed with the king’s signet ring, were carried “by mounted couriers, who
rode fast horses especially bred for the king” (8:10). Mordecai had full authority, not only
to dictate the edict, but also to deliver it as quickly as possible.

“The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble” (8:11). Haman’s
edict had not forbidden the Jews to assemble, but perhaps government officials would
have assumed this to be the case. If the Jews were not allowed to congregate their ability
to meet the crisis would have been severely impaired. This word is used numerous times
in the Old Testament to refer to the “congregation, assembly, or community” of Israel.
Once the decree was published, the Jews in Susa and the other cities where they lived did
gather together to defend themselves and then to celebrate the Feast of Purim (9:2, 15, 16,
18). In addition to the right of assembly, the Jews were given the right to defend
themselves against any attack, and then “to plunder the property of their enemies.” Once
again the same three words of Haman’s decree were incorporated into Mordecai’s decree
– “to destroy, kill and annihilate” (3:13; 7:4).

The big problem in this chapter, if not in the story as a whole, is the word “avenge” in
verse 13. It is a word that implied more than self-defense, and the blood bath described in
the following chapter was the result. In a similar way, Samson was determined to “get
revenge” on the Philistines (Judges 15:7). But in many cases it is clear that vengeance
belongs to God. He either executes it himself or orders it through his servants. In Romans
12:19 Paul appealed to Deuteronomy 32:35 –

“It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is
near and their doom rushes upon them.”

How the ideal principle and what actually happened fit together in the minds of Esther,
Mordecai, and the Jews of the dispersion is difficult to say. If they went wrong on this, it
appears they went very wrong as the savage brutality of the next chapter will bear out.
Mordecai’s edict did not merely restore a normal status for the Jews in the empire. And it
did not just give the Jews the right to defend themselves. It clearly tipped the scales in
their favor so that they felt at liberty to search out and destroy their enemies. As
Christians we will do well to take our lead, not from what happened in this situation, but
what should have happened. Our orders come, not from Mordecai, but from the Lord
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:27-36) and his apostles (Romans 12:9-21; 13:8-10; James 1:12; I
Peter 3:8-17).

“A joyous celebration” (verses 15-17).

Verse 14 echoes the concluding comment of chapter 3, but with a significant difference.
“The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Susa was bewildered” (3:15).
Here, “Mordecai left the king’s presence” wearing his official regalia and “the city of
Susa held a joyous celebration” (8:15). In contrast to the mourning, fasting, weeping and
wailing previously observed among the Jews (4:3), now just the opposite prevailed. “For
the Jews it was a time of happiness and joy, gladness and honor” (8:16). Not only that,
but many other people “became Jews (‘Judaized themselves’) because fear of the Jews
had seized them” (8:17).

Chapter 9: Triumph or Tragedy?

Thoughtful Christians will wonder about how to react to the concluding events of the
Book of Esther. They are presented in such a way as to vindicate the Jews and showcase
the heroic leadership of Mordecai and Esther. For the most part, the events speak for
themselves. But as they speak, what do they say? Christians will want to evaluate and
understand what is going on in the light of the complete revelation of the Bible. This
means that we must ask ourselves, Is the purpose of this record to tell us what happened,
or is it to tell us how we ought to behave in similar circumstances?
“They did what they pleased” (verses 1-10).

These verses provide a summary of how events turned out as the result of the two royal
decrees. Remember that the second edict did not make the first one null and void. It only
gave the Jews the legal right to do to their enemies what the first edict authorized their
enemies to do to them. Both decrees were to be carried out on the same day, “the
thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar” (3:7,13; 8:12). This was the last
month of the Jewish year and coincided with our February and March. Just as “the tables
were turned” in the rivalry between Haman and Mordecai, a great reversal was in
progress all across the empire. More literally, “it was turned to the contrary” so that the
expected victims became the victors. The Jews now had the right “to assemble and
protect themselves” (8:11). Gathering in strategic locations, they were in a position “to
attack those seeking their destruction” (9:2). This means they were able to “stretch out a
hand against” them, or “lay hand on” them, according to the KJV. This was not merely a
defensive strategy. They seemed to be taking the initiative against “those who hated
them” (9:1). It appears that sufficient time had elapsed for suspicions and fears to be
whipped up into universal hatred for the Jews. Widespread hatred was coupled with
widespread fear of the Jews (9:2). The Jews no doubt remembered that in the days of
Joshua and the invasion of Canaan, it was the Lord who was responsible for putting this
fear upon the Canaanite kings and peoples (Joshua 2:8-11; 5:1). In this case it was
directly tied to the fact that “fear of Mordecai had seized” their government officials
(9:3). Verse 4 leaves no doubt about the status of Mordecai both in the palace and in the
provinces. Literally, “His fame or reputation was walking in all the provinces” and “this
man Mordecai was walking and becoming greater.” Mordecai’s secure position with the
king emboldened the Jews and intimidated their enemies.

If the result was not wholesale slaughter, it was something akin to it. “The Jews struck
down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them” (9:5). “Killing and
destroying” were specifically authorized in the decrees of both Haman and Mordecai
(3:13; 7:4; 8:11). Furthermore, “they did what they pleased to those who hated them.” At
the very least, this meant that they took advantage of the free hand the king’s decree had
given them to avenge themselves on their enemies. The initial death toll in Susa alone
was “five hundred men” (9:6). The Jews spared women and children, though the decree
empowered them to attack indiscriminately (8:11). They also had clearance “to plunder
the property of their enemies,” but it is repeatedly stated that “they did not lay their hands
on the plunder” (verses 5,15,16). No explanation was offered for this, but a precedent had
been established long ago when Abram refused to take the plunder of the kings (Genesis
14:21-24). When Joshua led their ancestors into the land of Canaan, everything was to be
devoted to the Lord (Joshua 6:17,21). Perhaps more to the point for the story of Esther
was the disobedience of King Saul when he defeated the Amalekites and kept “everything
that was good” (I Samuel 15:9). The Jews were wise to rectify the error of Saul,
Mordecai’s ancestor, in the interests of settling matters with Haman, the descendant of the
Amalekites, and those associated with him.

As a further measure, the Jews killed all ten sons of Haman. This would secure Mordecai
and Esther in power without any threat of Haman’s family and sympathizers attempting
to overthrow them. In the days of Moses the family of Korah, his possessions, and his
supporters were all destroyed with him when his rebellion was put down (Numbers
16:23-35). In a similar way, the fate of Achan was shared by his family and possessions
(Joshua 7:24,25). Thus ended, at least for Mordecai and Haman, the bad blood between
the Israelites and the Amalekites. As we reflect on these events, we should not expect to
arrive at completely positive or negative conclusions. In other words, while we recognize
that God was providentially accomplishing his purpose and preserving the Jewish people
to that end, we should not find it necessary to rejoice in the shedding of blood. And while
we read in the Book of Esther God’s inspired record of what happened, we will continue
to search the Scriptures until we find in Jesus Christ and his apostles our authority for
how to treat our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Romans 12:14-21).

“This day’s edict tomorrow” (verses 11-17).

It is difficult to decide with certainty what the king had in mind when he spoke to Esther
as he did. Was he insinuating that enough was enough, and that maybe they should put a
stop to the massacre? Or was he really bending over backwards to give the Jews further
license to kill? At any rate, it is difficult not to read the account of what happened as
anything other than a record of cold-blooded revenge. On the other hand, who would
suggest that it would have been better had the Jews been abandoned to Haman’s plot?

Once again, King Xerxes was prepared to grant Esther whatever “petition” and “request”
she named (9:12). These were the same two words used on previous occasions when the
king promised to grant her “up to half the kingdom” (5:6,7,8; 7:2,3). Esther’s petition
made a distinction between “the citadel of Susa,” where five hundred lives had already
been taken, and the city of “Susa,” which referred to the area outside the palace proper.
Her request was to “give the Jews in Susa permission to carry out this day’s edict
tomorrow also” (9:13). “So the king commanded that this be done” (9:14). The result was
the slaughter of three hundred more men. In addition, Esther stipulated that the bodies of
“Haman’s ten sons be hanged on gallows.” This was also carried out, whether on the
gallows Haman had built or on some other we are not told. Amidst all of this carnage the
author was careful to repeat that the Jews “did not lay their hands on the plunder” (9:15).
In the meantime, seventy five thousand were systematically killed in the far-flung
provinces of the empire. The KJV reads that they “gathered themselves together, and
stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies.” The “rest” or “relief” that finally
came, mentioned in verses 16,17, and 18, was not the same as the Sabbath rest, which
required the cessation of activity. This rest meant that they were now safe and secure and
could return to normal life as they had known it. But even then the Jews “did not lay their
hands on the plunder” (9:16).

After the two days of systematic killing in the capital, and seventy five thousand people
slaughtered in the provinces, the Jews had “a day of feasting and joy” (9:17). Christians
should wonder, in the light of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, if they could have
heartily participated in the celebration.

“Mordecai recorded these events” (verses 18-22).

The same “feasting and joy” that was occasioned by Mordecai’s decree (8:16,17) and that
concluded the previous section (9:17) is mentioned here in verses 18, 19, and 22. Clearly
it was the purpose of the writer of Esther to brand this emphasis on the minds of the
Jewish people. For the record, the reason for the discrepancy in the days was noted here
again, reminding us that the king granted a second day of killing in Susa according to
Esther’s request (9:13). An added feature of this feasting and joy was “giving presents to
each other” or “giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (9:19 and
22). In the KJV “giving presents” is rendered “sending portions.” The same expression
was used when Esther caught the notice of Hegai, “who had charge of the harem” (2:8,9).
He gave her special attention to prepare her for her presentation to the king. There may be
a common link between these two “portions” in that it was through the special favor
given to Esther at the beginning of the story that it ended as it did. The “giving of
presents to each other” may have been intended as a way of acknowledging the special
favor of God in preserving his people, the Jews. Later there was a similar response in the
days of Ezra and Nehemiah when Ezra explained the Law (Nehemiah 8:1-12).

The authority to “celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of
Adar” came from Mordecai. Up to this time the Jews understood that all their annual
feasts were rooted in the Law of Moses. Specifically, the feasts of Passover, Pentecost,
and Tabernacles were to be observed once a year. The Day of Atonement was also an
annual observance (Leviticus 23). These and other provisions of the Law were given by
revelation from God. It is also worth noting that no feast was ever ordered in the Law of
Moses to commemorate any victory in armed conflict. It is true that Passover celebrated
the deliverance out of Egypt, but it was because of the Lord’s supernatural intervention.
The observance of Hanukkah began much later to commemorate the recovery and
cleansing of the temple in 164 BC, after it was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes. This
was never part of the Law of Moses, and what Mordecai established, as far as we can tell,
had no biblical or legal authority either. We must also remember that Mordecai and
Esther were among the Jews of the “dispersion.” They were the vast majority of Jews
whose families had chosen to remain where they were rather than return to the homeland
when King Cyrus allowed them to do so (II Chronicles 36:22,23; Ezra 1 and 2).

Nevertheless, some kind of formal authorization was needed, and at the time Mordecai
was that authority as the result of the events that had transpired. He created an official
record of those events leading up to and including the day that would now become an
annual observance. The same “relief [rest] from their enemies” mentioned in verses 16,
17, and 18 is mentioned here again as the outcome of the great struggle (9:22). But it was
also “the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of
celebration.” According to the KJV, their mourning was turned into “a good day.” The
deliverance of the Jews represented a spectacular reversal and Mordecai was determined
to keep the memory of it alive for generations to come.

“These days of Purim” (verses 23-28).

The author of Esther was careful to demonstrate that the Jews agreed to establish Purim
for perpetual observance. This section includes a concise review of the events that
culminated in the observance and the Jews’ willingness “to continue the celebration they
had begun” (9:23). Special attention was given here to how the celebration got its name.
It was not the writer’s intention to add new information as much as it was to repeat the
essential facts. These facts centered around the identity and activity of Haman, whose
role is concisely summarized in verse 24. Much was made of the fact that Haman “cast
the pur (that is, the lot),” to determine the day on which to carry out his plan against the
Jews. But “the plot came to the king’s attention” (9:25). The KJV renders it, “But when
Esther came before the king.” The reason for the discrepancy is that the pronoun in
Hebrew can mean either “she” or “it.” Either way, the result was the same. The king’s
new decree, composed by Mordecai, effectively reversed Haman’s plot. Haman was
executed (7:9,10) and he forfeited the lives of his sons (9:7-10).

In short, three elements contributed to the institution of Purim. First, “everything written
in this letter” (Mordecai’s ‘letters’ of verse 20 and ‘what Mordecai had written to them’ in
verse 23) brought order and organization to what the Jews were already doing. Second,
“because of what they had seen,” and third, because of “what had happened to them,”
they “took it upon themselves to establish the custom” in perpetuity (9:26,27). The author
was clearly trying to leave the Jews of future generations without any doubt about the
propriety of Purim. It was for the Jews and “their descendants and all who join them” to
observe “without fail.” That is, Jews and proselytes to Judaism would become obligated
to this observance as well as every stipulation in the Law of Moses. It was to be observed
“in the way prescribed and at the time appointed.” Then, as if that was not enough, the
writer added a comprehensive statement about “these days of Purim” in verse 28. It was
an exhortation for all Jews in all places at all times to keep the memory of those days
alive for their descendants or “seed.”

“Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations” (verses 29-32).

Esther had come a long way since we first met her in chapter 2. Once a young girl under
Mordecai’s watchful eye, innocent, inexperienced, and powerless, she had by now
become something of a power broker in the affairs of the Persian Empire. The concluding
paragraph of chapter 9 added yet another layer of official authority to the observance of
Purim. This time it was Esther who “wrote with full authority to confirm” what Mordecai
had already written (9:29). It is interesting to note that Queen Esther was called “the
daughter of Abihail” while Mordecai was called “the Jew.” Perhaps this had the effect of
establishing Esther’s independent identity and the fact that she no longer functioned as an
extension of Mordecai. At any rate, Esther is portrayed in these verses as playing the
leading role.

The “authority” with which she wrote is a word that appears again in 10:2 where it is
translated “power.” It is used one other time in the Old Testament, in Daniel’s challenging
prophecy of the kings of the south and the north (Daniel 11:17). The word conveys the
idea of power or authority that prevails over something or someone else. Without a doubt
Esther and Mordecai had prevailed over the enemies of the Jews, and their power and
authority were committed to written form for all time. Mordecai sent copies of “this
second letter confirming Purim” throughout the length and breadth of the empire. It was
characterized by “words of goodwill and assurance” (9:30). The KJV reads, “words of
peace and truth.” “Shalom” and “emeth” are the usual words for “peace” and “truth.”
They were used together in this way by Hezekiah (Isaiah 39:8). The word of the Lord to
Jeremiah about “peace and security” after captivity was the same formula (Jeremiah
33:6). The same words in reverse order are translated “true and sound judgment” in
Zechariah 8:16.

The meaning and significance of the words in this context can only be appreciated in the
light of what had previously transpired. The oft-repeated word for “peace” implies more
than the absence of conflict or danger. It is based on the idea of completeness or
wholeness. When there is peace, things are as they ought to be. The biblical concept of
“truth” stems from what is confirmed or established. In other words, truth is possible
because there is certainty as opposed to uncertainty. Things really are as they appear to
be. Words of peace and truth were the only fitting words to bring this terrible episode to a
conclusion. But the expression prompts us to think of the true and lasting peace and truth
that are found in Christ who is our peace (Ephesians 2:14) and who is the truth (John
14:6).

We are reminded again that the whole purpose of all this attention to detail was “to
establish these days of Purim at their designated times” (9:31). While the writer
emphasized the crucial role of Mordecai and Esther, he was also careful to add that the
Jews “had established for themselves and their descendants in regard to their times of
fasting and lamentation.” The same “fasting and lamentation” were mentioned when
Mordecai and the Jews learned of Haman’s plot (4:1-3). The closing statement of the
chapter concludes simply, “Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations about Purim, and
it was written down in the records” (9:32). “The records” were a “book” or a “scroll.”
Could this be a reference to the Book of Esther itself? It is impossible to know for certain.
As to “Esther’s decree,” we are reminded that it was Queen Vashti’s refusal to obey the
command” (same word) of King Xerxes that set in motion the chain of events that linked
the two.

Chapter 10: Mordecai the Jew.

The conclusion of the Book of Esther was clearly designed to establish the greatness of
Mordecai, but not at the expense of King Xerxes. It was greatness “to which the king had
raised him” (10:2). In fact, the author was careful to reaffirm both the name and the
authority of King Xerxes. It may have been his way of describing a return to normal life
in the empire from the perspective of the king. For the common man, however, it was a
reminder of the daily struggle for survival. When the king “imposed tribute throughout
the empire, to its distant shores,” it meant that he alone could determine the burden of
taxation the common people had to bear. Literally, he imposed tribute “upon the land and
the islands of the sea.” Tribute could be money, but not necessarily. In earlier times the
Israelites “pressed the Canaanites into forced labor,” a common form of “tribute” (Joshua
16:10; 17:13; Judges 1:28, 30, 33, 35; II Chronicles 8:8). King Xerxes reflected the usual
assumption of ancient tyrants, that he owned all the land, all the people, and everything
they produced. The author cited something called “the annals of the kings of Media and
Persia” as the official historical record of the empire (10:2). Both the king’s “acts of
power and might” and “the greatness of Mordecai” were recorded there. Media and
Persia were mentioned before but in reverse order to reflect the supremacy of Persia at
that time (1:3,14,19).

We are reminded of the status of Mordecai as being “second in rank to King Xerxes and
preeminent among the Jews” (10:3). Mordecai was “great” among the Jews and
“favored” by them. The reason was that he had earned a reputation for “seeking the good
of his brothers and speaking peace to all his seed.” “Seeking good” and “speaking peace”
are parallel expressions that emphasized Mordecai’s role in restoring stability and
security to the lives of his people. Things were pronounced “good” in Genesis 1 because
they were functioning according to God’s intended design. Earlier we saw that Mordecai
wrote with “words of peace and truth” (9:30). “Shalom” reflected the idea of
completeness or wholeness, and meant that things were as they ought to be. Such was
Mordecai’s reputation among the Jews because of his role in defeating Haman’s sinister
plan. From the wider scope of biblical revelation God’s ancient promise to Abraham,
revealed in embryonic form in Genesis 3:15, still awaited fulfillment. Whether they were
motivated by a living faith in that promise or not, Mordecai and Esther played a vital role
in keeping the promise alive.

Prepared 1989, Revised June 2005