Summer Reading: Esther 3-5
In these chapters we meet the villain of the story, Haman, and see the conflict. Haman is the second in command next to King Ahasuerus, and as such is entitled to respect in the form of bowing down to him, as ordered by the king (3:2). When Mordecai does not bow, the plot to exterminate not only him
but all the Jews is hatched.
We also
discover the origin of the name of the holiday which results from the story
(3:7). Pur is an Akkadian word for “lot”[1], and the holiday is called
Purim (plural form). (More on the
holiday in the concluding chapters.) The day of the pogrom is chosen randomly
by casting lots. Other times lots are cast in Bible stories include the sailors
discovering Jonah’s guilt (Jonah 1:7), the soldiers dividing Jesus’ clothes
(Mark 15:24), and the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas as the 12th
disciple (Acts 1:26).
Notice
how legislation happens in this story; we’ll see it again in Daniel. A single
person or small interest group convinces the king that there is a dangerous
faction of foreigners who must be controlled for national security. A sum of
money is paid and an irreversible edict is decreed and sealed by the king. As
the story develops, the king will be directly affected by his own unjust (and
unjustifiable) law, but is powerless to reverse, alter, or make exception to
it. This lack of power on the king’s part is not historically verifiable, but
serves the story.
Mordecai’s
response is one of a faithful Jewish person: sackcloth and ashes are recognized
as signs of mourning and repentance throughout scripture, as found in stories
of the kings and prophets, and Psalms.

Some
questions:
This is a late story about Jews living in the
Diaspora (away from Jerusalem/Judah) and probably by and for Jews living in the
Diaspora. If you’re living away from the homeland, can you imagine why having
all these familiar story elements that hint at other, older biblical stories,
might be comforting?
What do you think about the implication that
justice, even God’s justice, is a reversal of fortune, with one side against
the other, in a win-lose situation? Is there a different way to think about
salvation and justification that doesn’t require “losing”, especially the loss
of life?
Comments
Post a Comment