Esther and Compromise

Posted on by
4

this is part of an ongoing series on issues raised in Esther. I’ll be taking a short break after today, for New Wine, but will hopefully carry on afterwards

When Daniel was taken into captivity, he decided to make a stand. He would not defile himself by eating the food that he was served (Dan 1:8). Later, his friends would make a stand in refusing to bow down to a golden image (Dan 3:12), risking being thrown into a fiery furnace. Later, Daniel risked being thrown into a lion’s den, by insisting on continuing praying to Yahweh even though the law forbade it (Dan 6:13).

Doubtless Mordecai and Esther will have heard the stories of these Jewish heroes of the faith. So why is it that when Esther is taken into the harem, does Mordecai instruct her to keep her Jewish identity hidden (Esther 2:10)?

It seems almost inevitable that in doing so she would have to make certain compromises. For starters, she would almost have eaten unclean food, and failed to observe the Sabbath. And then there was the matter of being expected to sleep with the king, a pagan she was not even married to.

Why did Esther not choose to make a stand like Daniel did, and refuse to do what went against God’s law? It would seem that Mordecai was trying to protect her. It seems likely that she was still a young girl, maybe a teenager. Would it be fair or right to ask her to risk her own life by non-compliance with the king’s orders? (As we will see in chapter 3, Mordecai was not averse to risking his own safety, so he may have seen acting to protect his adopted daughter as the lesser of two evils in this case).

The author of the book of Esther does not make a moral judgement on Mordecai or Esther. This leaves us with our own challenge. Where do we draw the line? Is it ever OK to do something that is morally dubious because it is expected of you and you are threatened with punishment if you don’t?

My perspective on this is that we should live our lives with a settled determination to do what is right in every situation. To refuse to compromise when we are clear what God’s Word says we should do. This is how Jesus lived his life, and how we too, are empowered to live by the Holy Spirit.

Maybe, like Mordecai in his role as parent we may find ourselves in situations where we have to choose between two options that both seem to be wrong in some way. Not every situation is as black and white as we would like it to be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt in the advice that he gave Esther. But let us have the same spirit of “no compromise” that we see in the life of Daniel, and most of all, Jesus, our great example.

Esther and Modesty

Posted on by
3

Time for a really controversial topic in this ongoing series on issues relating to the book of Esther. Not sure if I’ll dare bring it up in my forthcoming seminar series on Esther, but here’s a few brief thoughts and as usual I welcome any feedback in the comments.

So Esther was really beautiful and ended up getting selected for Xerxes’ harem. It might raise the question, should she have hidden or suppressed her beauty in some way? I don’t think so. The beauty of a woman, just like the beauty of anything else in creation, is another demonstration of the glory of our creator God.

Having said that, there does seem have been a mainstreaming of increasingly risqué clothing in recent decades. MTV for example is more or less a soft porn channel. Whilst the clothes sold in the high street don’t quite have the shock factor of Lady Gaga or Katie Price’s wardrobe, the trend does seem to be in the “less is more” direction.

Now unlike Muslims or the Amish, modern evangelicals generally have no problem with wearing the same sorts of clothes as everyone else. There isn’t some kind of special Christian uniform (except perhaps checked shirts for elders of newfrontiers churches). But let me be provocative for a moment and briefly describe four trends in female attire that I have “noticed” (or, more to the point, tried hard not to notice).

1. Bare flesh – rather ironically, the cloth is being cut so economically at the moment that women are resorting to buying additional panels to preserve their own modesty. The current trend seems to be tops that have already fallen off one shoulder and look precariously like they are about to cause a “wardrobe malfunction” at any moment.
2. See through – another trend seems to be clothing made out of such thin material that it is essentially see-through leaving little (or nothing) to the imagination. My wife frequently has to buy a second garment to wear underneath another (is this a cunning marketing ploy to make women buy double the amount of clothes?)
3. Tight fitting – again, the imagination has little to do when the clothing offers little more modesty than a layer of paint would.
4. Look at me – the final trend is to have a message emblazoned on your breasts, drawing the eye and inviting attention.

There is of course a sliding scale from the deliberately frumpish at one end to the provocatively raunchy at the other end. Neither end is helpful, and so it is a matter of conscience and wisdom for each person to decide the appropriate place. It would be foolish to claim that the issue of modest dress is an exclusively modern one. Paul takes it up in 1 Timothy (perhaps with the focus a little more on not flaunting your wealth rather than flaunting your other “assets”, although the principle remains the same):

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 1 Tim 2:9-10

But why does this matter? Some say that Christian women should dress modestly as a courtesy to their brothers in Christ, to prevent them unnecessary temptation. This would certainly be one good reason to rethink your dress habits. But to be honest, Christian men need to stop blame-shifting and take responsibility for the purity of their thought life.

I think there is a deeper question to be addressed. And it goes back to yesterday’s post on beauty. There is a real danger that Christian women buy into a cultural idol that promises happiness if only you can look “hot”, or be complimented on your appearance by women, or get lots of attention from men, or “feel good about yourself”, or “look good naked”. This idol is the reason why so many women, Christians included, seem to look to fashion or dieting or designer labels or “makeovers” as their functional saviour.

Why do I bring this subject up? Simply because it is one that is rarely addressed since it is embarrassing and controversial to talk about. Having said that, I think modesty is probably best dealt with in the context of a discipleship relation such as described in Titus 2:4-5.

As Tim Keller has shown in his outstanding book Counterfeit Gods, identifying idols is an important first step in order to be set free from their destructive power in our lives. Once we have done so we are in a position to stop believing their lies and instead turning our affections to God himself, the only one who offers genuine peace and joy.

Esther and Beauty

Posted on by
1

This is part of an ongoing series where I explore some of the issues raised by the book of Esther. Today’s is one that can be particularly sensitive, and I have quite deliberately narrowed the focus down to consider young women only (since that is what Esther was).

We all know that beautiful women invariably find themselves at the centre of attention. Twelve Russian spies were captured in America recently, but it was the “hot one” that got the news coverage. Television producers task camera men at sporting events to scour the spectators for beauties to zoom in on.

We are told that Esther “was lovely in form and features” (Esther 2:7). In modern day parlance, she was “fit”. Given that her physical beauty resulted in her being selected for the king’s harem, which in all likelihood was not something she would have wanted, we might be tempted to ask the question of whether possessing such beauty was a blessing or a curse.

We might observe that great beauty always seems to attract attention from the wrong sort of men. Christian young women need to beware of ungodly men trying to charm them into a relationship that will end in disaster. They need to be accountable to other good friends who will help them discern whether a particular relationship is a wise one or not.

Nevertheless, women should understand their beauty as a positive gift from God. It is not spiritual to attempt to hide or suppress that beauty (perhaps more on that tomorrow). However, we live in a culture where we are bombarded with images of beautiful women (often “photoshopped” to perfection). They feature in most adverts, music videos, magazines and movies we see. The net effect seems to be a growing number of women who feel desperately inadequate and lacking in self-confidence all because they do not measure up to an impossible ideal.

Chris Jordan reports that breast enlargements are rapidly becoming the most common high school graduation gift to teenage girls in America. Ironically, the parents in seeking to boost their daughter’s self-esteem are actually reinforcing the message that she is in some way inadequate. Whilst the “gift” may boost self-esteem in the short-term, I can’t imagine it does much good in the long-term.

Of course, this obsession with beauty is nothing new. Women in the first century needed a gentle reminder that real beauty is more than skin deep:

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 1 Pet 3:3-4

Ultimately I think that the real solution is for Christian women (and men for that matter) to really know, believe and delight in their new identity in Christ. This is a deeply counter-cultural mindset, but it is vital that we educate ourselves to think biblically about our identity rather than being shaped by the value system of a world alienated from its creator.

Rather sneakily, I had a listen to one of the women’s seminars from this year’s Together on a Mission conference, as part of my preparation for teaching through Esther, and I thought Wendy Virgo’s talk on “The Battle for Identity – From Victim to Victor” was outstanding (download available here, or use the player below). It is well worth a listen. She identifies “fear of not looking beautiful” as one of several “strongholds” that can affect women, and also points us to the solid ground of knowing our identity in Christ and the power of the gospel as the keys to breaking free.

[audio:http://nf1.2xstreamhosting.com/~newfrontiers/TOAM2010/TOAM2010_LT11_01.mp3]

Esther and Legislating Morality

Posted on by
5

This post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love your feedback in the comments

Esther chapter 1 ends with Xerxes passing a law that men should be rulers in their own homes (Esther 1:22) with the intention that this would make wives respect their husbands (Esther 1:20). Of course, this is highly ironic, since if wives only respect their husbands because the law says so, then they don’t really respect them at all.

Xerxes heavy-handed approach of passing a law to deal with marital conflict raises the tricky issue of what things ought to be covered by the law of the land, and what things should just be left for people to sort out amongst themselves.

There are all sorts of things that the Bible calls out as sin, but are perfectly legal in our culture. Swearing, getting drunk, and committing adultery would be examples. And on the whole, most Christians agree that while we should do what we can to discourage and minimise such things, the passing of laws against them is probably not appropriate.

Of course, there are people pushing for tighter laws in all kinds of directions. Many Christians, myself included, long to see the right to life of unborn children upheld in the law. Whilst on the other end of the spectrum, some want laws to control what opinions may not be expressed in public which could leave Christians open to prosecution for holding to biblical points of view.

And then there are issues where a mediating line might need to be drawn. I support legislation that puts limits on the way that cigarettes and pornography are promoted, for example, without necessarily wanting to campaign for a total ban.

So how do we decide what should be illegal, and what should just be disapproved of? The trend amongst many evangelicals is towards a more libertarian view of law, observing that you cannot legislate morality, since it is a problem of the heart that only the gospel can truly address. Yet no one would suggest that theft, rape or murder shouldn’t be illegal. So we all acknowledge that there is some role for law to play in restraining evil.

This is actually a topic that I am not going to offer my own position on, since I feel that I need to read and think more deeply about it first. John Stott’s “Issues Facing Christians” is the best book I have read that deals with this type of issue. So let me throw it out to you in the comments. Which sinful behaviours that are not illegal would you like to see a law against? And which should be left unlegislated for? And what are the principles involved in making such distinctions? Would an ideal society’s laws be close to or completely different from, the laws of Israel as found in the Pentateuch?

Esther and Advice

Posted on by
Reply

This post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love your feedback in the comments

I’ve noticed that several commentators pick up on the fact that king Xerxes can’t seem to do anything without his advisers. He is an indecisive man, and his reliance on advisers leave him open to being manipulated. But hang on a minute. Isn’t there wisdom in seeking out advice from other people?

Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. Prov 15:22 (NIV)

Here’s my advice on how to take advice…

1. Choose advisers wisely. Rehoboam is the classic example of getting this wrong. Instead of listening to the wise advisers of his father, he followed his friends advice (see 1 Kings 12:8) and the kingdom spectacularly imploded. It’s not enough to take advice, we need to take it from the right people. “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Ps 1:1) This means seeking out advice from those who are spiritually mature, who know God’s Word and who are not prone to flattery or promoting their own agendas.

2. Take responsibility for your own decisions. Just because somebody you respect gave you advice doesn’t mean you can abdicate responsibility for your own decisions. Sometimes after hearing advice we may have to graciously and firmly refuse to take it. And once we’ve made our choice, there is no place for blame shifting. “Each of us must give an account of himself to God” (Rom 14:12).

3. Take time. There may be rare occasions where we have to instantaneously make a decision, but most of the time it should be possible to delay a decision until we have heard the advice of others and prayed about the situation. Xerxes had the bad habit of making decisions while drunk. We are repeatedly called in the scriptures to be “sober-minded” (e.g. 1 Pet 1:13), to be those who can think clearly about a situation, using the principles of God’s Word and sensitive to the leading of his Spirit.

Esther and Enough

Posted on by
2

this post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love you to add your own comments to the discussion

The book of Esther opens with an glimpse of the opulent luxury that king Xerxes enjoyed. He lays on a lavish feast that lasts a full six months, with the wine freely flowing the whole time (apparently his cure for a hangover was to just keep on drinking). His wealth was vast, and he fully intended to enjoy himself with it.

Recently, there has been much public indignation as the generous salaries of top public sector workers have been revealed. We look down on those who greedily grab far more than they need. But which of us would say no to a 20% increase on our own income? It always seems as if we need just a little bit more than we currently have before we can truly say that we have “enough”.

But at some point, we say to ourselves, we surely would be satisfied. Xerxes’ example suggests otherwise. In looking for a new wife, he was not just content to find the most beautiful woman alive. Rather, he wanted to stockpile all the beautiful virgins in the entire empire, and keep them exclusively for himself. (Jobes reports that those women in the harem who did not please the king would not be free to marry someone else, but forced to live out their days in seclusion).

It raises the issue of how much is too much? At what point should the Christian be content with what they have and stop seeking for more? OK, with wives its fairly obvious. Stop at one. But what about houses and cars and televisions and mobile phones. When do we stop wanting more and better and be content with what we have?

I’ve blogged about the upgrader and collector mentality before. Let me quote myself …

Jesus said that the person who has two tunics should share with him who has none (Luke 3:11). There were doubtless some very good and pragmatic reasons for having more than one tunic in those days – two is hardly extravagant. But where there are people with nothing, hoarding an abundance is selfish and greedy.

 

Paul says “But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content” (1 Tim 6:8) and the author of Hebrews says “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have” (Heb 13:5). At the heart of the “upgrader” mentality is dissatisfaction with what we have and the foolish belief that the problem is merely that what we’ve got isn’t quite good enough. The fact is, that possessions can never satisfy at the deepest level, so the cycle of upgrading will never end (perhaps unless you are a millionaire and actually own the best of everything – at which point you’ll just get depressed).

Is it just me, or are we as Western Christians really bad at obeying these verses? We have good intentions, but maybe we are short on ideas of how we can resist the allure of more, and become content with merely enough. Here’s a few practical suggestions that might help. Feel free to disagree or add your own suggestions in the comments…

  • Whenever you buy a newer or better version of something, how about giving the old one away, rather than storing it “just in case” it’s needed, or having it as a “spare” or even selling it on ebay.
  • How about really being willing to share resources like books or movies (accepting the inconvenience and loss of doing so). What if the people in your church only owned one copy of Lord of the Rings between them, rather than one per person. How might the money saved be put to better use?
  • How about not buying something just because it is on special offer. I suspect that doing so will save you money in the long run, even if it means you end up buying some items at full price later. Many “bargains” turn out to be things we don’t really need or use.
  • How about actually letting things wear out before replacing them? Yes it might mean that you have to suffer a brief period where you have none, but usually this isn’t quite as much of a hardship as we imagine it will be. And maybe we need to rediscover the lost art of fixing broken stuff, and “making do” with imperfect things.
  • How about selling something on ebay and giving the proceeds away?

Esther and Divorce

Posted on by
Reply

This post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love your feedback in the comments

Because Vashti refused to come when he called, Xerxes (or Ahaseurus) decided to ditch her in favour of a new, more compliant wife. One would think that no preacher would be so crass as to suggest that Xerxes was justified in divorcing his wife for such a minor misdemeanour, although this astonishing quote from Luther (cited by Jobes) suggests otherwise…

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person… Here it is time for the husband to say “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahaseurus did.

Much as I think Luther was something of a genius, I think he’s dead wrong here. At the very least, using Ahaseurus and Vashti as an example was a mistake. And his remedy of a series of warnings is hardly a gospel-centred approach to marriage difficulties.

I did a study of the biblical teaching on divorce earlier this year. I don’t have the space or time to summarise all my findings, but the basic takeaway is that Jesus took the marriage covenant very seriously indeed. So in the style of Luther (i.e. bluntly) let me present a brief Q and A on divorce:

Q: My wife refused to come when I called her, can I divorce her?
A: No.

Q: My wife isn’t hot any more. Can I get a divorce and upgrade to a sexier model?
A: No.

Q: My wife is cranky and bad tempered. Can I divorce her?
A: No. Do whatever you can to bring her pleasure.

Q: I am no longer in love with my wife. Can I get a divorce?
A: No. You were never in love with your wife. You were, and still are, in love with yourself.

But why not? Why labour on with a marriage that just “isn’t working”? We need to understand two things. First, marriage is a covenant – that is to say, it’s a promise that we ought to take very seriously. Second, true love presupposes commitment. “I’ll love you and leave you” is an oxymoron. Craig Blomberg sums it up brilliantly in his recent post “marriage is for life”:

It’s time to return to basics. Love is a commitment, not a feeling. Feelings follow from godly actions, not vice-versa. Wedding vows are promises: “till death do us part.” A divorcee by definition is a promise-breaker. Occasionally, it is impossible to keep promises no matter how much one wants to do so, because “it takes two to tango.” I cannot stay married if my spouse refuses to do so. But taking the initiative to divorce, and for no better reason than lack of personal fulfilment, simply cannot by any stretch of the Christian imagination ever be right.

Husbands – make it one of your chief life ambitions to remain faithful to your wife (second only to remaining faithful to the Lord). If things are not going well in your relationship, take responsibility for it and be willing make whatever changes are necessary to for your marriage to thrive.

Esther and Submission

Posted on by
2

this post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. Today’s is one which is potentially controversial. Please feel free to weigh in with your comments.

Very few preachers make it through Esther chapter 1 without some kind of comment on the place of submission in the husband and wife relationship. Queen Vashti humiliates king Xerxes by her refusal to appear before him when he wants to display his beautiful wife to his guests. The occasion may even have been a “war council”, in which Xerxes sought to impress various military leaders. If this was indeed the case, then Vashti’s snub would have seriously dented Xerxes’ reputation as a leader.

The temptation for many expositors is to jump directly to quoting from Ephesians …

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Eph 5:22 (NIV)

… so there we have it, naughty Vashti for disobeying her husband – she deserved what was coming to her. Right? Except for us to try to identify who was in the right and wrong here would be foolish. We have no way of knowing Vashti’s reasons for declining to attend. In any case, Xerxes and Vashti hardly function as a paradigm for Christian marriage.

In any case, the type of submission called for in Eph 5:22 is one that flows out of love and respect. This is a submission that is not onerous, but joyful. And the type of loving respect that results in submission is not one that can be demanded or coerced. There are occasions when we may have to submit to those over us out of duty rather than respect (e.g. bosses at work, governments etc), but this can never be thought of as an ideal for Christian marriage.

In her commentary on Esther Karen Jobes offers an interesting quote from an unnamed Christian leader:

“I believe in a wife submitting to her husband, but I don’t believe the husband ever has the right to demand it. In fact, I know that when I am worthy of submission, my wife submits, and when I am not worthy of it, she does not. My responsibility as a husband is to be worthy.”

So neither Xerxes nor Vashti should be selected as the one who was in the “wrong”. They both contribute to the failure of the marriage, with the husband issuing orders to a wife he doesn’t genuinely love and who in turn has no respect for him. The challenge for those of us who are married, is to model a radically different type of relationship, that truly mirrors the sacrificial love and joyful submission seen in the relationship between Christ and his church.

Esther and the Land

Posted on by
Reply

this post continues a series reflecting on various issues raised in the book of Esther.

Into Exile

In around 590 B.C., the prophet Jeremiah wrote a letter to the God’s people who had been taken into exile in Babylon. He told them to settle down, because they were going to be there for the long haul:

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jer 29:4-7 ESV)

Return from Exile

However, the exile was not to be permanent. God had a future for his people beyond exile, and in 70 years time, the door would open for them to return to the land:

This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. (Jer 29:10-11 ESV)

And sure enough, in 538 B.C., the Persians overthrew the Babylonian empire and king Cyrus issued a decree freeing the Jewish exiles to return. Over the next 20 years Ezra oversaw the reconstruction of the temple. The 70 years were finally up, and it was time for people to return to the the land God had promised them.

Still in Exile?

But the book of Esther is set over 120 years after the original exile. What are Mordecai and Esther doing living in Persia? And unlike Nehemiah, why do they never seem to show any hint of desire to to get back to the Jewish homeland, and worship at the rebuilt temple?

Of course, these questions are hard to answer with any certainty, but perhaps Esther and Mordecai are examples of Jews who now felt “at home” in a pagan culture. They had taken Jeremiah’s advice to “settle down”. Susa was the only home they had ever known, and Mordecai even has a good job in the Persian empire (Est 2:21 “sitting at the gate” indicates an official position in court), allowing him to act for “the peace and prosperity” of the city in which he lived.

Missional or Holy?

In some ways the contrast between the approach of Mordecai and Esther with that of those who returned to Jerusalem like Ezra and Nehemiah is analogous to two competing approaches to cultural engagement.

Traditionally the evangelical church has stressed the need to be “separate” from our culture – to be distinctively different and avoid being polluted by the world. The emphasis is on being a “holy” people, who gather together as a church which seeks to shine as a light on a hill. This approach however has come under criticism in recent years. Believers have retreated into a Christian ghetto and failed to make any kind of evangelistic impact on the culture at all. And historically this proved to be the case with Israel. They prided themselves on their separateness from the Gentiles and failed miserably to fulfil their mandate to be a “light to the nations” (Isa 60:3)

On the other hand, there are those who emphasise a “missional” approach. Believers are to seek to transform the culture from within, to be fully engaged and involved with the society in which they live. We are told that there should be no “sacred-secular” divide and so life as a pagan court official in Persia can be just as much an act of worship as life as a priest in Jerusalem. But it would be foolish to imagine that this approach has no dangers. Perhaps the biggest temptation for missional believers is to slowly conform to our surroundings, taking on their values and failing to be noticeably different. Maybe this had happened to Mordecai and Esther. At the start of the story, it does not seem that anyone knows they are Jews at all.

Esther and 24

Posted on by
4

This is the first in a series of posts on the book of Esther, which I am preparing to teach a summer seminar series on. I put them out here not as completed works, but as half-developed ideas seeking feedback. Please chip in with your own criticisms and additions in the comments. This first one is not to be taken too seriously, but I hope to follow up with a few more that explore various theological and practical issues raised by the book of Esther.

Made for Television

There are few stories in the Bible as suitable for movie adaptation as the book of Esther. It has all the elements of a good Hollywood movie – a tough non-conformist hero, a beautiful young heroine, an ego-centric murderous villain, and a foolish and easily manipulated ruler. There are several unexpected plot twists, a tense climax, and some comedy thrown in for good measure.

In fact, I got thinking about who the various characters in the book of Esther would be if they were in the “24” television series. Here’s my suggestions (although I still think I need to pick a better villain to be Haman).

Elisha Cuthbert as Kimberly Bauer on 24. ª©2002 FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY. CR: Aaron Rapaport/FOX. Mordecai is Jack Bauer – he’s fiercely loyal to the king (even if he is a bit of an idiot), but he always does what he believes is right, no matter what the consequences. He won’t take orders from fools either.

Esther is Kim Bauer. At first she seems to be in the story just for being beautiful and her relationship to the chief protagonist, but as the drama unfolds, we discover that, like it or not, she will have  a crucial role to play requiring courage and wisdom.

Ahaseurus (Xerxes) is President Charles Logan. He’s the most powerful ruler in the world, yet we find it hard to be impressed by him. A morally ambiguous man, easily manipulated, unable to make his own decisions without the aid of advisors.

Vashti is Sherry Palmer. Wife of the most powerful man alive, she is not content to just stand at his side and smile sweetly. She is her own woman, who does her own thing, and ends up being divorced as a result.

Haman is Jonas Hodges. He is a powerful and influential man, who knows how to manipulate the king to get what he wants. He has his own agenda and will stop at nothing to get it. In the end his pride becomes his downfall

Hegai is Aaron Pierce. On the staff in the palace, he’s not necessarily on anyone’s “side”, but he is honourable and reliable. Charged with the care of queens and princesses, he is made a eunuch to prevent him from overstepping his bounds (no affairs with the first lady for Hegai).

Harbona is Mike Novik – a trusted advisor who knows when to keep his mouth shut and when to speak and as such is able to maintain his own position and influence policy making.