Esther and Divorce

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

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

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

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.

Book Review – NIVAC Esther (Karen Jobes)

The NIV Application Commentary series takes a unique approach. It contains the full text of the NIV for the passage under commentary, but then deals with it under three headings. First is “original meaning”, which is essentially the material that would be found in a traditional commentary. This seeks to explain the meaning of the text, explaining the historical situation and meaning of words. The second is called “bridging contexts”. This section seeks to build a bridge between the world of the original hearers, and ours, separating what we might call the “timeless” principles or truths, from that which was tied to a specific point in history. Then in the section entitled “contemporary significance” the commentator is given free rein to give contemporary application of one or more of the principles identified in the bridging contexts section. Essentially this section serves as an example of how a preacher might apply the text to a modern congregation.

In a 30 page introduction Jobes outlines some of the unique features of the book of Esther, including its notable lack of reference to God or anything explicitly religious, and the enigma of why some Jews had chosen not to return to Jerusalem at this point. She identifies “reversal of destiny” (or “peripety”) as a key theme of the book, and the providence of God as the main theological lesson. The book of Esther teaches that the Jews still are God’s covenant people, even with no temple, no city and no prophet.

For the most part, Jobes deals with a chapter at a time, although some are broken into smaller chunks. She is cautious in her approach to application, rightly noting the dangers of an “exemplary” approach to hermeneutics (i.e. deciding that everything Esther or Mordecai does is there as a good example for us to follow). Indeed, she shows that there is a good deal of moral ambiguity about their actions, and they may show signs that the Jews in Persia have become secularised to some extent. In any case, the point of the story is not to say whether Esther and Mordecai did right or not, but that God’s covenant purposes were providentially fulfilled through them.

She picks up an idea from Ryken that Esther’s two names suggest a dual identity – she is the king’s wife and a Jew. As the story progresses, these two identities must merge into one. She discusses the challenges of how as Christians we attempt to live within our culture without compromising our values.

As with several other commentators, Jobes shows the link between Mordecai and Haman’s conflict and that of Saul and Agag. She argues persuasively that we are to see the counter-decree as an example of “holy war”. This explains why no plunder was taken, despite it being permitted.

The death of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, provides the only basis for the cessation of holy war, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit provides the only power by which one may love one’s enemies as oneself

One strength of the bridging contexts sections, is how Jobes always seeks to interpret the events of Esther in the light of the gospel. She never uses allegories or even suggests that the events foreshadow the gospel, but she does nevertheless keep approaching topics in the light of the cross and new covenant.

Much of the discussion relates to “providence”, and Jobes shows how “God works mysteriously, patiently, and inexorably through a series of ‘coincidental’ events and human decisions, even those based on questionable motives and evil intents.” She includes a ten page postscript examining the doctrine of divine providence in a bit more detail.

Her analysis of the structure of Esther is very interesting. She shows how feasts are central to the narrative, and that the book starts with a pair of feasts, has another pair of feasts in the middle and ends with a pair of feasts. This leads her to conclude that the “pivot point” of the book is the king’s sleepless night. In other words, neither Esther nor Mordecai do anything to “turn” events into their favour – it is the providential work of God in a seemingly insignificant occurrence that changes everything. She also shows how the reversal of fortunes of both Haman and Mordecai are arranged in a chiastic structure.

Obviously, the book of Esther brings up various issues relating to women in particular. Jobes does not see this as central to the book’s message, noting that the main adversarial relationship in the book is not between male and female but between the Jews and their enemies. However, she does give some helpful thoughts in the final chapter on male and female partnerships, noting how Esther and Mordecai worked together as “lay leaders” in “secular vocations”. She also emphasises that being a wife or mother on one hand, or being ordained on the other, by no means exhaust the possibilities of vocations, and that much of the debate has been too narrowly focused.

Overall I have to say this is an outstanding contribution to the NIV application series, and I found it very helpful and thought provoking. This is the second of Jobes’ commentaries I have read (the first being her BEC commentary on 1 Peter which was also excellent) and I will be eagerly looking out for any forthcoming volumes from her.

Book Review – The Message of Esther (David Firth)

The Bible Speaks Today series is still missing a few Old Testament volumes, and it has been a while since a new one came out, but it looks as if they are rectifying this, with this volume on Esther being published recently and a couple more due to come out later in the year (Obadiah, Nahum & Zephaniah by Gordon Bridger and Ezra & Haggai by Robert Fyall).

Introduction

The introduction fills us in on the historical background to Esther, and tells us about the three versions there are of the book. Firth describes the book of Esther as a ’dramatized history’. He introduces us to each of the main characters, and explains the significance of Haman being an ‘Agagite’.

Commentary

Though the book of Esther is notable for its lack of explicit mention of God, Firth does think we can detect various allusions to other Biblical passages. He is cautious not to read more into the text than the author says, but on the whole interprets Mordecai and Esther’s decisions positively – e.g. “Esther neither sought entry to the harem, nor advancement within it, yet both came to her”. He does however think it likely that her failure to reveal her Jewish identity would inevitably mean that she could not retain a kosher lifestyle.

He draws out lessons of remaining faithful to God’s purposes, even in an antagonistic culture, and it is as we do this that we see his providence at work. He picks up on the foolishness of alcohol-fueled decision making. He also reflects on the need for God’s people to challenge evil when we see it, and to speak out from a biblical perspective, taking the risks of faith that God has led us to.

He sees Esther as embodying wisdom in contrast to Haman’s folly. As one would expect there is plenty of discussion of the providence of God, working in ways and with timing that are not what we would expect. He attempts to soften the rather bloodthirsty sounding edicts issued by Esther, by proposing that they were only to be fulfilled in self-defence against those who explicitly attacked the Jews.

Verdict

I found this an interesting read and a good guide to the book of Esther. It fulfils the goals of the Bible Speaks Today series as it both illuminates the text and draws out principles for application. Sometimes I wondered whether he overlooked some of the moral ambiguities surrounding Mordecai and Esther’s behaviour. There was no real attempt to find echoes of the gospel story in the book. Arguably that may be a good thing, as those who do so often seem to need to put a lot of “spin” on various characters and events to make it fit, but I would have appreciated some discussion of where Jesus is to be found within the book. My favourite Esther commentary is Karen Jobes’ NIVAC commentary, but this one has a slightly different perspective so complements it well.