Surprises in Esther

Jews around the world celebrate Purim every year at this time, a festival founded on the story told in the book of Esther. It’s an awesome record of God’s deliverance of his people, yet his name is not mentioned in the book nor is there any explicit reference to him. In the Hebrew Bible, only Song of Songs and Esther don’t mention God's name directly. Esther doesn't directly mention God at all. This is a bit of a mystery for us. Was the omission of references to God a rhetorical device intended to elicit a particular response from the readers? Was it to demonstrate that God is always at work behind the scenes? Was the author at risk of persecution or having his work destroyed if he mentioned the God of Israel? We don’t know the answer for certain, but we can see that he wrote very deliberately. For instance, the narrative has a symmetric structure, with a sleepless night for the king (Achashverosh/Ahaseurus/Xerxes) in the middle leading to a turnaround for the Judeans; danger mounts progressively through the first half of the book, but deliverance unfolds in the second.
Similarly, the author of Esther uses ironies and even ‘coincidences’ (implicitly God-ordained). He also seems to love presenting the historical elements in pairs, e.g. two queens, two fasts, two occasions where Zeresh speaks to Haman, two royal edicts, and so on.

Incidentally, Ruth and Esther are the only two books of the Bible named after women.

Symmetry

From danger (first half) to deliverance (second half), the text can be summarised symmetrically, as follows:

Prologue

Ahasuerus’ first decree, spelling death for the Jews

Haman's anger toward Mordecai

Ahasuerus gets no sleep

Modecai is exalted over Haman

Ahasuerus second decree, spelling deliverance for the Jews

Epilogue

Two-by-two

Many of these points have been borrowed from the NIV Study Bible:

• The 3 pairs of key banquets in a symmetric structure
• Two lists of the king's servants (1:10,14)
• Two reports of Esther concealing her Jewish identity (2:10,20)
• Two gatherings of the women (2:8,19)
• Two houses for the women (2:12-14)
• Two fasts (4:3,16)
• Two times when Haman speaks to his wife and friends (5:14, 6:13)
• Haman's wife, Zeresh, speaks twice:
  • the first time her advice is bad but Haman takes it: hang Mordecai (5:14)
  • the second time gives a good warning (don't try to destroy the Jews, 6:13), but Haman ignores it
• Two unannounced appearances of Esther before the king at the risk of her life (5:2, 8:3)
• Two investitures for Mordecai with royal garments and a crown (6:7-11, 8:15)
• Two coverings of Haman's face (6:12, 7:8)
• Two passages referring to Haman's 10 sons (5:11, 9:6-14)
• Possibly two appearances of Harbona (1:10, 7:9) – if these refer to the same person (Hebrew spelling differs)
• Two royal edicts (3:12-14, 8:1-13)
• Two references to the king's subsiding anger (2:1, 7:10)
• Two references to the irrevocability of Persian laws (1:19, 8:8)
• Two days for the Jews to take vengeance (9:5-15)
• Two letters to institute the commemoration of Purim (9:22-28, 9:29-31)
• Twice the king gives over his ring to an official (firstly to Haman, then to Mordecai; 3:10, 8:2)
• Twice Esther spoke to Hathach and sent him to Mordecai (4:5, 4:10)

Ironies and ‘coincidences’

• Vashti refused to appear before Ahasuerus, so he forbad her from seeing him ever again
• Haman hated the Jews, but was working under Esther and alongside Mordecai
• The king agreed to Haman's plot not knowing that it would kill his own wife and his prime minister, Mordecai
• Haman's suggestion to the king on how to commend and reward himself led to his own humiliation: having to do it for his enemy Mordecai
• Haman was accused of trying to attack or molest Esther, when he was actually pleading with her for his life
• Haman's body was hanged out on the gallows he made for Mordecai
• Like Saul, Esther was a Benjamite; Haman was an Agagite and thus an Amalekite. Samuel sent Saul to finish off Agag because of God's promise to destroy the Amalekites, but Saul didn't and Samuel had to do it himself. Now Esther and the Jews finally wiped out the Amalekites - Haman and his tribe
• Right before Haman was to charge Mordecai before Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus had a sleepless night and got his attendants to read to him; they read the story of how Mordecai had saved his life
• The irony of Haman taking his wife's bad advice but ignoring her wise warning

Contrasts and turn-arounds

• Vashti refused to appear before the king; Esther appeared unannounced before the king
• Exiled orphan becomes queen of a vast empire
• The victims become the victors; the oppressors are wiped out
• In Haman’s anger toward one Jew, Mordecai, he decided to kill all the Jews. In the end, Haman and all his kin, the descendants of the Amalek, were killed
• Instead of Haman getting everything of Mordecai, Mordecai ends up with Haman's whole estate

The Name of the LORD

Now for an even bigger surprise. The name of the LORD is encoded four times in the text of Esther. Twice in the text it is encoded forwards when a Jew is speaking, and twice backwards when a Gentile is speaking. It is twice the first letter of each of four successive words, and twice the last letter of each of four successive words, once by the Queen, once about the Queen, once by Haman, once about Haman.

Verse	Speaker	Topic: honour/dishonour	Reading	Letter position
Est 1:20	Gentile	About the Queen (Vashti), dishonours her (Est 1:19-20)	Backwards	First
Est 5:4	Jew	Esther speaking, supposedly honours Haman	Forwards	First
Est 5:13	Gentile	Haman speaking, dishonouring Mordecai after boasting in Est 5:12	Backwards	Last
Est 7:7	Jew	About Haman humbling himself	Forwards	Last

A random outcome? I don’t think so. Acrostics are not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible; authors used them deliberately for various purposes, including memorisation. Remember that there were no punctuation marks or even spaces between words (!) in the original Hebrew, so the readers were keenly aware of the first and last letters of each word. Also, the pairing revealed in the table above is in keeping with the writer’s use of pairs.

Look for God’s Name in the text below, according to the reading direction and letter of each word indicated in the table above.

Text	Esther
ונשׁמע פתגם המלך אשׁר־יעשׂה בכל־מלכותו כי רבה היא וכל־הנשׁים יתנו יקר לבעליהן למגדול ועד־קטן	1:20
ותאמר אסתר אם־על־המלך טוב יבוא המלך והמן היום אל־המשׁתה אשׁר־עשׂיתי לו	5:4
וכל־זה איננו שׁוה לי בכל־עת אשׁר אני ראה את־מרדכי היהודי יושׁב בשׁער המלך	5:13
והמלך קם בחמתו ממשׁתה היין אל־גנת הביתן והמן עמד לבקשׁ על־נפשׁו מאסתר המלכה כי ראה כי־כלתה אליו הרעה מאת המלך	7:7

Esther’s inclusion in the canon may have been controversial, but it was no mistake!

A type of Messiah

Finally, parallels may be drawn between Esther and Messiah. Esther left her home with her godly father and dwelt among a common people. She was used and profaned by the position she was called to. Esther did not want to ‘drink the cup’ before her but when the crucial moment came, she chose to lay down her life if need be (4:16, even as Isaac accepted that he was to be the sacrifice). In so doing, Esther proved herself, gained the favour of the king, and interceded with him for her people, pleading for their deliverance. In the end, the Jews and all who joined them (9:27), will forever rejoice in God’s salvation through Esther, the ‘shadow’ of the coming Messiah.

Here we have a female image of Messiah, a true saviour, and we are reminded that male and female together were created in God’s image. Indeed, only after Eve’s creation did the LORD call creation ‘very good’. Esther had a beautiful figure and was good looking (2:7)—she was the most beautiful woman from north Africa to Pakistan. Now that’s something to think about!

Another paper on Jew-Gentile distinction: One New Man

In another paper published in Conspectus 18, I presented two views regarding the composition of the "one new man" in Ephesians 2:15. After some analysis, I determined that the new entity, the ekklēsia, is comprised of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus, and whose Jewish and non-Jewish identities respectively are not compromised by their membership in it. The unity and peace emphasized in Ephesians is specifically between Israel and the nations, not Christians in general.

Abstract

Two contradictory views of the ‘one new man’ metaphor in Ephesians 2:15 are presented, one arguing that it denies any distinction between Jewish and Gentile Jesus-believers, and the other insisting that it confirms the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction. This paper explores the meaning of the ‘one new man’ with special attention to the question of making distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the ekklēsia. The study focuses in turn on each of the three keywords in the metaphor, reviewing their meaning and use in the canon and providing some theological commentary alongside. Supply of the phrase, ‘in place of,’ in some translations is evaluated. Internal evidence in the form of personal pronouns is examined to determine whether it sustains or contradicts distinction theory.
The study concludes unequivocally that the ‘one new man’ in Ephesians 2:15 is a composite unity of Jews and Gentiles who retain their ethnic identities even after spiritual regeneration in Christ. The classification of individuals as believers or unbelievers in Jesus does not erase the biblical distinction between Israel and the nations, even within the ekklēsia. The usage of personal pronouns in Ephesians confirms this finding. To assert that the ‘one new man’ is created ‘in place of’ Jews and Gentiles is therefore misleading. Major theological implications include the validation of Jewish tradition and practice among Jewish Jesus-believers, and their recognition as the living connection between the nations and Israel. The peace Christ made by creating Jew and Gentile in himself into ‘one new man’ is currently most evident in Messianic Jewish synagogues where members of each party worship together and have table fellowship in unity, whilst retaining their own distinctive faith traditions.

The full text of the article is freely available here: https://www.academia.edu/9108922/Jew-Gentile_Distinction_in_the_One_New_Man_of_Ephesians_2_15. 

New paper: Diakrinō and Jew-Gentile distinction in Acts 11:12

Conspectus 18 recently published a paper of mine which critiques the translation of diakrinō as "distinction" in some English Bibles. I found that the text should not be used to argue that there is "no distinction" between Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

Abstract

A textual analysis of the word diakrinō in Acts 11:12 was undertaken to establish whether the verse contradicts the theory that Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus remain distinct in a theologically significant manner, as some English translations imply. The study finds no clear evidence in the text to sustain the translation that there is ‘no distinction’ between the two. Diakrinō in Acts 11:12 is very unlikely to denote distinction in the sense of differentiation, and even less likely to indicate wavering or doubting on account of the distinction which observant Jews like Peter made between fellow Jews and Gentiles. Instead, diakrinō in this text is most likely intended to denote contestation or dispute: Peter was told to obey without dispute, not without making distinction between Gentiles and Jews.

 The full article is freely available here: https://www.academia.edu/9108869/Diakrin%C5%8D_and_Jew-Gentile_distinction_in_Acts_11_12.

Passover arrests - James and Peter

Drawing on biblical and other historical sources, including Clement of Alexandria, D. Thomas Lancaster [1] draws some interesting parallels between events of 44 in the early church and those of Jesus' death.

Around the time of the Passover of 44, both James and Simon Peter were separately arrested and tried before Herod Agrippa. A backslidden believer betrayed James, who was beheaded for his loyalty to another king, Jesus. James had known for some time that he would ultimately be executed (Matthew 20:22-23), but may have anticipated a more brutal means.

Simon Peter was Agrippa's next target; he was arrested during the Passover celebration (Acts 12:3). Because his public execution in Jerusalem during the feast may have caused social disorder (compare with Matthew 26:5), Agrippa held him in prison for a few days. The night before Simon Peter's certain execution, he was released from prison by divine intervention (Acts 12:6-10). The last-minute deliverance, the haste required, and even the angel's instructions to Peter to gird himself and put on his sandals, all remind one of the Passover exodus (Exodus 12, especially verse 11).

Lancaster suggests that the time (around Passover) and betrayal of James reflect Jesus' betrayal and execution. And the time and deliverance of Simon Peter reflect Jesus' resurrection and, I would add, the redemption of his people.

[1] Lancaster, DT 2013. The Passover Arrests, Messiah Magazine #2, Spring 2013. First Fruits of Zion.

Faith in biblical context: part 2

The previous post provided a word study of the various words in the original languages of the Bible for faith, noting in particular how the Hebrew scriptures generally speak of faithfulness rather than faith.

The Word of Faith movement "emphasizes speaking, stating, or confessing verses found in the Bible, called the Word of God. The belief is that if one believes the Word of God and confesses it then the believer shall receive what they confess" [1]. This appears to be strongly supported by Mark 11:22-24, but I think the Word of Faith folk are missing some important points. Firstly, this is not meant to be a formula used as a magic wand to get what you want. We are to yield our desires to God, and then ask and trust (πιστις, pistis) God to fulfill them in our lives. If we really believe, we can rest in him, in "trusting faith" that he will provide. We don't have to wind ourselves up to believe, cranking up our levels of faith to some high, often elusive, level. We don't have to repeat certain words over and over to persuade our spirits to believe; that's brainwashing and it's based on a wrong interpretation of Romans 10:17. This verse does not state that faith comes "by hearing the word," but that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by (or through) the word." It's not about hearing the word spoken again and again; it's about our ability to "hear" coming through the Word. Hearing, in this case, suggests perceiving something spiritually, not simply hearing an audible message. That is, receiving the Word enables us to perceive God's revelation. (Nevertheless, to hear spiritually does require one to hear the Gospel audibly -- or to read it.)

The ESV says, "faith comes from hearing" (emphasis added), not "by hearing" because the Greek is εξ (ex, meaning out of, or from). Moreover, the text says "the word of Christ", though the King James Bible used a manuscript that said "God," not "Christ". Textual criticism suggests "Christ" was the original word. So, thus far, we have, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by/through the word of Christ." What word of Christ is the text talking about? All his words? One of his commandments in particular? No, "the word of Christ" is not Christ's word, but rather "the word about Christ" -- that is, the Gospel. If you are not convinced, try reading the verse in context: verse 14 speaks of someone preaching the Gospel to unbelievers; verse 15 speaks of sending people who proclaim the Gospel; verse 16 indicates that not everyone believes the Gospel. Verse 18, following our verse, says that the Gospel has been proclaimed abroad. So taking the word of Christ to mean the Gospel makes perfect sense. Thus we have come from: "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (often wrongly shortened to "faith comes by hearing the word of God"), to "faith comes from hearing, and hearing [comes] through the word about Christ [i.e. the Gospel]."

Finally, the word in this case is not λόγος (logos) in the Greek manuscripts, but ῥῆμα (rhema). It's not just talking about a single word, but rather a statement. I believe the statement it refers to is the Gospel -- the good news about Jesus' life, death and resurrection, making a way for the forgiveness of sin for all who believe (and go on believing) in Him. Putting it all together, my understanding of Romans 10:17 is that faith comes from spiritually perceiving [a divine revelation], and spiritually perceiving [this revelation] comes through the proclamation of the good news about Christ.

This has nothing to do with picking a verse from the Bible that contains a promise we have to meditate on in order to get God to deliver it! It's about hearing "the word of Christ" (Gospel). The Word of Faith people often claim the promises of blessing for themselves, not acknowledging that they are usually assuming they can take the conditional blessings of God's covenant with Israel and apply them unconditionally to themselves -- without any of the curses, of course! They argue that "all promises of God are yes and amen in him [Christ]" (2 Corinthians 1:20). However, this is not a licence Christians to adopt every blessing in the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, it means that every time God fulfills a promise, he does so through Christ.

That said, if we receive a genuine prophetic word (perhaps even through reading the Bible) about a specific response God will make to our prayers, we can rest in that. We don't need to wind ourselves up to a certain level of faith; the revelation itself brings a "knowing" that God will do it, and this allows us to rest (not strive to believe) in that word. This is a far cry from speaking a promise to oneself again and again like a mantra in order to generate sufficient faith to receive it.

---

[1] Word of Faith. (2011, October 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:13, October 29, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Word_of_Faith&oldid=455301677

Faith, faithfulness and trust in biblical context: 2

Oops! The page you're looking for is here: http://templeswallow.blogspot.com/2012/01/faith-in-biblical-context-part-2.html

Faith in biblical context: part 1

Something valuable that I have learned over the past two years concerns the concept of faith in the Bible. The gist of it is that very often the Bible is speaking of faithfulness and trust, rather than the kind of 'faith' so strongly and widely emphasized in charismatic churches and the Word of Faith movement. Faithfulness is about being faithful on an ongoing basis. Trust is what I would call a 'resting belief'; it's not about winding oneself up to believe harder, it's about resting in the belief that the LORD will answer one's prayer.

In the Hebrew scriptures, there is no word that corresponds exactly to our English word 'faith'. Rather, the words used to convey a similar meaning are the verb אָמַן (aman, roughly pronounced uh-mun) and its cognates -- related words from the same root. Aman, in one of its forms (hifil), means 'to believe, put faith, trust, have confidence... believe to be true, be confident of' [1]. It is related to the word 'amen', which we typically use to affirm our prayers. The cognates of aman are אֵמוּן emun: eh-muhn) and אֱמוּנָה (emunah: eh-moo-nah). Emun can be an adjective meaning 'faithful, reliable, trustworthy', or a noun meaning 'faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness', and emunah is a noun primarily meaning 'faithfulness, trustworthiness, steadiness' [2]. And there is yet another word with essentially the same meaning, אֱמֶת (emet: eh-met): 'faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness' [2]. Emet and emunah occur 'in the context of moral language (steadfast love, righteousness, justice, etc.) and [are] used to reveal God's character, often in the language of praise.' There are many worship songs which praise God's faithfulness to us, or his faithfulness to his promises or covenants, with scriptures to support them like Lamentations 3:23 and Deuteronomy 32:4. Habakkuk 2:4 is worthy of special mention, as it is quoted three times in the New Testament (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Traditionally the second half of the verse is translated 'the just [or righteous] shall live by his faith', but some newer translations are using 'faithfulness'. The NET is one example, as its translators' notes explain,

Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.”... In this case the LORD is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. [3, colour added]

Interestingly, the word 'faith' is hardly found in English translations of the Hebrew scriptures: 10 times in the NET, 28 times in the ESV. (The difference is largely explained in the ESV's preference to say 'breach of faith' or 'break faith' instead of 'unfaithful' (NET), for example, and 'acted in good faith' (ESV) instead of 'shown loyalty' (NET).)

The New Testament writers (except perhaps Luke) were living, thinking, and writing from a foundation of the Hebrew scriptures, even when writing in Greek, so there ought to be a continuity of meaning that flows into the New Testament. That is, the three quotations made of Habakkuk 2:4 I mentioned above should likely be interpreted, 'the righteous [person] shall live by his faithfulness'. In the NET it is, 'the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness.' Certainly faith is needed, but the emphasis is on faithfulness.

The biblical Greek word for faith is πίστις (pistis), meaning trust, trustworthiness, belief, confidence, faith or faithfulness. So, are we saved by faith or by faithfulness? And if by faithfulness, whose faithfulness -- ours, or the Lords? The answer to both questions is: Yes! Amen! If that doesn't make sense to you, consider that we are saved by faith in Jesus, which is expressed through faithfulness to him throughout the rest of our days; yet we are also saved by his faithfulness to us, and to the covenant that binds us to him. Consider Romans 3:22; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 3:12 and Philippians 3:9 which all speak of the faithfulness of Jesus. Many Bibles have translated the phrase as 'faith in Jesus' which has merit in that we are required to believe in him, but it doesn't seem to be what the text is saying in those places. Rather, it is saying 'that we may be justified... by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ' (Galatians 2:16 NET).

The next post will discuss what I think is the wrong use of the concept of faith promoted in many churches today, particularly those aligned with the Word of Faith movement.

---

[1] Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[2] Mounce, W. D. (2006). Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Hab 2:4). Biblical Studies Press.