The book of Esther and the Song of Solomon are the only two works contained in the Hebrew or New Testament Scriptures that neglect to explicitly name God or the covenant. Instead, Esther’s story is a cleverly written comedy focused on human initiative and courage. This story deals with something every believer will, at some point, grapple with – the silence of God. Where is God when Esther, already in exile, is taken into the royal harem with no ability to grant consent to this life or her sexual encounters with the king? Where is God when Haman seeks to humiliate them murder Mordecai? Where is God when wicked, foolish men hold absolute power over the dignity and lives of others, indeed an entire people group?
There is no burning bush in Esther. No march around Jericho or angelic messenger. Like most of life, there is God who appears to be silent, but is implicitly working in unanticipated ways likely only recognized in hindsight. Like most of life, faithful people are seeking to do what is right, trusting (hoping) that God remembers his people.
In the end, God is an unnamed hero.
This three-part series is not a paraphrased recitation of Esther’s story, but an exploration of the Persian culture in which she and her people are forced to survive and thrive. While I do not underestimate the plain reading of our sacred stories, the cultural context of this story is vital to unlocking the true depths of this story and the character inhabiting it.
The Persian culture, particularly the royal court, operates within an honor-shame dynamic that underlies nearly every interaction in this story.1 Every male, Persian character is attempting to preserve or regain their sense of honor and their honorable status in the eyes of their contemporaries. Paying attention to this dynamic will also evoke the author’s sense of humor and subtle mocking of Persian royalty, especially Ahasuerus and Haman. The joyous feast of Purim follows the tone of this story – for all their bluster, the wicked are absurd while the fear of the Lord produces honor and integrity.
The antagonists, primarily represented by Ahasuerus and Haman, in this book are the wicked who are attempting to regain and maintain their shallow sense of honor and status. The protagonists, represented by Esther and Mordecai, are the faithful who appear shamed but are more honorable than the powerful who have brought them low.
We will work through these conflicts, examining the honor-shame dichotomy in three parts addressing first Ahasuerus’ banquet, then Esther’s life in the harem and with the king, ascension, and concluding with her thwarting Haman’s attempted ethnic cleansing of the Jewish exiles.
We open with King Ahasuerus2 hosting a lavish banquet, displaying his wealth and majesty before his kingdom. He has recently returned from a failed campaign to advance his kingdom west intending to conquer Greece. However, it was an unmitigated disaster. While Ahasuerus did defeat the Spartans at Themopylyle, he also sustained massive losses. Then his navy was nearly destroyed at the Battle of Salamis, his mercenary army left him, and his general Mardonius suffered continual setbacks until dying at the Battle of Plataea.
According to Herodotus, Ahasuerus returned home after his defeats to focus on “domestic matters.” In other words, having failed at his military exploits, he returned to enjoy his harem and generally a life of licentious indulgence.3 Having been defeated, Ahasuerus needs to assert his honor and authority in the eyes of his court and people.
This is no victory celebration; this is a defeated king saving face to his court and kingdom. When he summons Queen Vashti to his banquet to show her beauty, she adds insult to injury by refusing to obey. A feminine voice refusing to submit to the fickle demands of a masculine, absolute power, Vashti is the OG “nasty woman.” However, Ahasuerus is already tender from his defeats, he cannot brook a rebellious woman.
There are various views on why Ahasuerus called Vashti away from her own banquet and why she refused. It is possible Ahasuerus intended a humiliating entrance for Vashti, some Midrashic sources suggest his instructions implied she ought to enter the banquet wearing only the crown. Others suggest she was in fact attempting to preserve the honor of the king anticipating that he might regret his drunken antics in sober hindsight. Another possibility is that Vashti recognized the king’s fragile honorable status, choosing an opportune moment to challenge Ahasuerus’ authority. However, she would have little to gain from this challenge and was sure to know that there would be severe consequences for any calculated usurpation.
However, this summons is more likely another opportunity for Ahasuerus to assert his status among the noblemen. By calling his beautiful queen into the banquet he is both inviting his guests to objectify her while also reminding them that what he possesses is inaccessible to them. Any deference given to her is not because of her own qualities but because of her relationship to the man/king in her life.
There is no scenario in which a woman alone commanded into a room full of drunk, boisterous men can preserve her own sense of personhood and dignity. There are no good options for Vashti. She will be humiliated and used either way.
This is seen even more clearly when Ahasuerus takes counsel with his sages on what to do with this insolent queen. This is the first of many instances demonstrating that Ahasuerus defined himself and was defined by his splendor and honorable status.4 In the Persian court, authority is interwoven with honor further stressing the importance for Ahasuerus to maintain his honorable status and sheds light on his rage when his absolute authority was threatened.
They agree that Vashti’s shocking defiance has not only challenged Ahasuerus’ authority and tainted his honor before the court but risked the status of every high-class male in the kingdom. Memucan’s (one of the sages) speech anticipates that news of Vashti’s rebellion will quickly spread through the kingdom inspiring other women to defy male authority bringing rampant disgrace to the male honor.5 In order to restore and maintain male honor through the women’s obedience, Vashti would be removed from her royal position and banished from court in an attempt to compel other women to pay the men due honor and respect.6 Ahasuerus’ rage and Memucan’s speech clearly indicate that the women, particularly noblewomen, were to act and speak in such a way that honored all men, not only the king.
The women in the kingdom, particularly the royal queen and harem, are not seen as possessing their own honor but exist to reflect the honor of the men.
A life existing for the pleasure and status of another is a life devoid of individual personhood or dignity. It is the opposite of the life lived in covenant with God. The pagan gods of human mythology and the near divine status of pagan kings is constantly manipulated by the simping of their various subjects. If a people or nation is defeated, then their god is also brought low.7 However, God’s status and power is never affected by the actions or competency of his people.
In other words, a Persian king’s status and power is vulnerable to collapse should his wife say “no.” His is a throne made of straw.
Yet God remains all-powerful, all-present, all-loving, whether his people are free or in exile, thriving or suffering. God cannot be shamed, God cannot be removed. We who are made in God’s image have infinite value and dignity that cannot be changed by what has been done to us or what we have experienced.
God is not named in this story, yet the fingerprints of God’s providential will is at work at every turn in the lives of Esther, Mordecai, and every exile. God’s honor cannot be defiled therefore their, our, honor cannot be taken.
Did you love this post? Tell your friends!
In the next installment of this series on Esther I will explore the dynamics of the harem and the intricacies of Esther’s relationship to the king. We will also continue to explore the constant presence of God, and how God’s power is an incarnated presence in the suffering of his people.
Do you like this post and would like to keep learning about Esther’s story? Subscribe!
yeqār, “honor,” repeatedly appears throughout the narrative stressing the importance of honor for the Persian nobility.
This is his Hebrew name; he is also known by his Persian name, Xerxes.
Allen Ross, Biblical Archaeology Class Notes, “The Persian Period,” 336. Merrill, 511.
Elaine Phillips, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, “Esther,” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 572.
#fragilemasculinity
Phillips, 608.
It was a common, ancient practice to remove defeated gods from their temples and place them in the conquering god’s temple as subservients. For example, when the Philistines conquered the Israelites and captured the Ark of the Covenant they placed the Ark in the temple of Dagon to demonstrated Dagon’s victory over the LORD. Instead, they discovered Dagon’s image prostrate in front of the Ark when they returned to the temple (See I Samuel 5-6). They returned Dagaon to his place, but the following morning he was again prostrate. This time his hands and feet were cut off. God cannot be defeated.
Esther and the Silence of God
Mmm. Interested to see where this goes. I like God’s presence in God’s absence as motif. It’s “on brand” for the God whose presence was in God’s absence in the space between the cherubim…