[This is a pre-publication version of the chapter submission for the 87th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2023), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the lectureship book: For Such a Time as This: Restoring God’s People in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

---

In 483 B.C., Esther (Hadassah, Esth. 2:7) and her adoptive Jewish father-figure Mordecai rise to the innermost court of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I, 486–465 B.C.) only to face the malcontent Haman who desires to eliminate the Jews spread across the vast Persian empire[1] through a state-sanctioned “pogrom” (Esth. 3:1–15, 5:9–14).[2] In chapter eight, Esther and Mordecai take advantage of Haman’s missteps and execution (cf. Esth. 6:13; 7:1–10).

The ascendant Mordecai uses his newly minted authority to issue a “self-defense” law protecting these diaspora Jews from this state-sanctioned genocide. They may now protect themselves from Haman’s pogrom across the Persian empire (Esth. 8:9). Esther inaugurates the Feast of Purim to commemorate their deliverance (Esth. 9:20–32). Since ancient times, the book is read as part of this spring feast along with “noisy, merry and secular” merriment (Webb 111).

The narrative of Esther leads the reader to reflect on the interplay between “coincidence,” human evil, divine sovereignty, and Israel’s preservation through its conflict-resolution story-arch. Esther 8 continues to speak to God’s people who must often live in hostile, secular, or unfavorable societies, calling on the faithful to endure the “Hamans” of their own time and to trust in God who can reverse the fate of his people.

EXEGESIS

Genre and Literary Movement

Esther is written in historical prose and outlines this history in dilemma-resolution format: how will the Jews of the Persian diaspora survive a state-sanctioned pogrom? The answer provides the historical foundation for the celebration of Purim. The narrative moves forward through a series of unfolding “coincidences” within the Persian court of Ahasuerus quickly immersing the reader into the crux of the story (Arnold and Beyer 272).[3] The artistry and realism of this story rely heavily on humor (satire), irony, and recurring motifs (Longman and Dillard 219–20). Clearly, Esther offers a unique kind of historical storytelling, one which forces the reader to conclude God is at work protecting his people from genocide.

Esther 8:1–17 is critical to the literary progression of the book’s plot as it functions as a bridge to the resolution of the narrative (LaSor, Hubbard, Bush 534–37). Haman’s plot to “destroy” the Jews by decree in a year’s time is introduced (3:1–15), and Mordecai successfully enlists Queen Esther to intercede (4:1–5:8). Matters complicate when an infuriated Haman plans to kill Mordecai on the “gallows” (5:9–6:14). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

During a feast, the effect of Haman’s pogrom on Esther and against her people is revealed to the king; then, by a colossal misunderstanding, Haman is executed on the gallows built for Mordecai (7:1–10). Mordecai ascends to Haman’s position, with his estate, and then writes an edict authorizing the provincial Jews to protect themselves (8:1–17). This only partially resolves the problem. The full resolution takes place later in the “battle” of Purim (9:1–19).

Exegetical Analysis

Esther 8:1–17 reports how Mordecai and Esther “revoke” the disgraced Haman’s pogrom by authorizing the diaspora Jews across the Persian empire to protect themselves.

The Succession of Mordecai (Esth. 8:1–2)

Haman is treated as an “enemy of the state.” Following Haman’s execution (Esth. 7:10), the “foe and enemy” of the Jews is treated as “an enemy of the state” by the confiscation and transference of his estate and his position to Mordecai (Esth. 7:6; 8:1–2). Zeresh, Haman’s wife, had previously given him an ominous prediction of his impending failure (6:13). King Ahasuerus moves quickly to settle the custody of Haman’s estate, his position, and the royal signet ring.

According to ancient custom, traitors and other enemies of the state would have their wealth confiscated by the state. Haman himself included this element in his plan, likely to remunerate the potential taxes lost with the elimination of the Jews (Esth. 3:9, 13; Berlin 41). Limiting the evidence to ancient historians aware of this practice in Persia, consider two examples. Herodotus reports a comparable story that King Darius I (521–486 BC) avenged the wrongful “destruction” of Mitrobates and his son by executing Oroetes (Satrap of Lydia), confiscating his estate and returning it to Susa (Histories 3.127–129).[4] Josephus published a letter from Cyrus II (559–529 BC) to the returning Jewish exiles under governor Zerubbabel, cautioning that any Jews who violate his “injunctions” for the rededication of the temple would be crucified and “their substance brought into the king’s treasury” (Antiquities 11.17; Ezra 6:11).[5]

The second movement is the promotion of Mordecai to Haman’s role as “vizier.”[6] Interestingly, Herodotus recounts the promotion to “ruler of Cilicia” of a relatively unknown Persian figure named Xenagoras, for saving King Xerxes’ brother Masistes (Histories 9.107.3). The event is comparable, but not exact, in that Mordecai was already known and honored by the King; further, Mordecai is elevated much higher (Esth. 3:1–2).

Wasting no time, on the second day of the feast (Esth. 7:2; 8:1), Mordecai receives the king’s signet ring previously entrusted to Haman (Esth. 3:10; 8:1). This is a significant move of power reversal. Apparently, the ring remained with Haman until his execution, but now it is entrusted to Mordecai (Esth. 8:2). This brief “ceremony” mirrors the problem-solution pattern of Haman’s edict, finalizing with Mordecai’s public recognition as the king’s “vizier” (8:15–17). Progress toward a resolution continues, and hope is taking root.

The Countermand of Haman’s Pogrom (Esth. 8:3–8)

Haman’s death has not annulled his pogrom, however, since it is irrevocable (Esth. 3:12). Clearly, the narrative has shifted in the right direction but not far enough. All is not lost, but all is not gained. Queen Esther and the newly minted vizier must continue to find a way to realize the hope of “relief and deliverance” the Jews desperately need as the pogrom looms nine months away (Esth. 8:9, 12). Will it come from “another place” (Esth. 4:14)—i.e., God—or will Esther and Mordecai sense the urgency to use their high position to preserve their fellow Jews (Kaiser, et al. 252)? Will these series of fortunate events continue?

Esther initiates a dialogue with King Ahasuerus by daringly asserting herself through humble intercession (fell to his feet, weeping, pleading; Esth. 8:3). Esther is still committed to her resolve, “if I perish, I perish” (Esth. 4:16), as her words were about a week’s time old (Esth. 4:16; 5:1, 4, 8, 9; 6:1; 7:1; 8:1). Esther’s gamble proved successful again (cf. Esth. 5:2), as the king grants her another unbidden audience by “holding out the golden scepter to Esther” (Esth. 8:4). This was a necessary risk, nothing had been truly gained since the pogrom was an unalterable law (Esth. 3:6). In the words of Cline, “How can an unalterable law be altered?” (Cline 393). This will prove to be the wrong question to ask. The king is asked to act one more time against Haman’s “plot” (Esth. 8:3). The solution does not prove to be straightforward.

The dialogue is framed as a short problem-solution interaction (Esth. 8:5–8). The king seems not to understand that Esther is representing more than just herself and Mordecai (Esth. 7:3–6). It is clear that Esther uses it all (her ancestry, her marriage, her favor) to her advantage as she seemly goes beyond court language. The rhetoric is loaded with this history in mind and she has not been afraid to use it on behalf of her people (Esth. 5:8; 7:3). She presumes on the “eye” of the king which she has gained (Esth. 8:5). Gaining the king’s favor has been her path from her time in the harem and nights with the king (Esth. 2:3, 12, 14), to gain his favor, love, and the crown (Esth. 2:15, 17).

The king himself will not personally “revoke” Haman’s letters with the plot against the Jews (Esth 8:5, 8). The word translated “revoke” (shūb), with a basic sense of “turn, return,” carries a wide spectrum of meanings in different contexts and relationships (BDB 996–99). This is apparent in Esther, such as a spatial “return” to a person (Esth. 2:14; 6:12; 7:8; 9:25), a verbal “response” (Esth. 4:13, 15), and politically to “reverse” a law (Esth. 8:5). The problem, again, is the law is an official irrevocable edict of the king (Esth. 8:8; cf. 1:9).

The king’s move is to delegate to another to write the law. Esther and Mordecai may use the authority of his name and his seal to “write” as they “please with regard to the Jews” (Esth. 8:8). Although a number of critical scholars balk at the supposed flippant way these irrevocable laws and their despotic use of power are enacted in Esther, the narrator’s historical knowledge of the inner workings of the Persian court commend good reason to believe its realism (Longman and Dillard 216, Archer 464–67, Kaiser, et al. 254). There is a subtle wrinkle in Ahasuerus’ words to Esther and Mordecai, as he seems to imply there is a way to countermand a law in such a way as to make it powerless (Esth. 8:10–12). They received authority, but not a map, highlighting that this could have gone as bad as it went well.

The Ascendency of Mordecai (Esth. 8:9–17)

Esther 8:9a timestamps Mordecai’s “self-defense law” to Sivan, twenty-third, 472/1 BC. This is about two months after Haman had enacted his pogrom on Nisan, the thirteenth of the same year (Esth. 3:7, 12). Looking forward, Mordecai only had about nine months to protect the Jews in Susa and across the Persian empire from genocide (Esth 8:12).

Esther 8:9b–14 reports how Mordecai commanded the king’s scribes to write the countermand “self-defense” edict and to dispatch its copies across the vast terrain of the Persian empire in a hurry. It is seemingly Mordecai’s first act of business. Little did Mordecai expect that when he exchanged messages with Esther to take her newfound position to protect the Jews (Esth. 4:11–17), he himself would also be God’s providential instrument. He looked for “relief and deliverance” from “another place,” even from Esther. This was perhaps an unexpected turn of events, as are all moments when God places “us” into the heart of the story.

Cline describes Mordecai’s countermand as “ingenious” (393). The king provided no direct advice but seemingly implied there was a loophole. Mordecai, then, read between the lines of power and “effectively” annulled it. Seemingly, he concluded that if a law cannot be revoked, it can be countermanded. The narrative mirrors Haman’s enactment of his pogrom (Esth. 3:12–15; 8:9b–14).[7] Mordecai’s decree is a revised duplicate of Haman’s original, but with significant differences. He adds the permission of the Jews to defend themselves with lethal force, even permitting them to plunder their aggressor’s goods (Esth. 8:11). Again, there has been movement but no final resolution. Two Persian laws exist, one which allows the Persians to attack the Jews, and another authorizing the Jews to protect themselves.

This new decree is sent out by “couriers, mounted on their swift horses that were used in the king’s service…” (Esth. 8: 10, 14). There was a courier road system established by Darius I, known as the “Royal Road” which extended from Susa to Sardis in the west (Yaumachi 1:343). On average, a route of 1,700 miles could be covered by the average person in ninety days (19 miles a day), but royal couriers (rākibum) could cover the same mileage in a week (243 miles a day) as they traded horses and rode through the night (Herodotus, Histories, 8.98; 5.52–53). Additionally, the “swift horses” (rékesh) are specialized horses used in the king’s royal dispatch systems (1 Kings 4:28; Mic. 1:13; BDB 940). In the course of about nine months (Sivan to Adar), these riders would carry multiple copies of the decree, likely engraved clay tablets, from Susa to all the provinces from India to Ethiopia.

The narrative quickly fades and opens to the public presentation of Mordecai in Susa, the capital, arrayed as a member of the royal court (fine royal garments, a great golden crown; Esth. 8:15). This is quite a turn of events for what initially seemed to be a “tag along” figure to his adoptive daughter. Only through a series of fortunate events, interwoven with despair, had he come to this point as the “invisible” hand of God protected his people in the diaspora of Persia. Mordecai’s presentation to the public is likely the first sign to the Jewish community in Susa that things in Persia have truly changed in their favor (Esth. 8:17).

What had become his ascendency story, quickly became the cause of the city of Susa to rejoice; but now more importantly this transition of power gifted the Jewish people four things: light, gladness, joy, and honor (Esth. 8:16). Additionally, the favor now given to Mordecai and his people led many citizens of Persia to “declared” (or “professed”) “themselves Jews” as well (Esth. 8:17). The form (miteyahadim) is unique in the Hebrew Bible. It is not clear if this is a “conversion” to Jewish beliefs, customs, or practices; or, pragmatically, aligning with the Jews for advantage (Berlin, 80; Mangano 110). Berlin is right, however, “there was no middle ground” (80). Much had been gained, but things still wait to play out. The glow of hope is on the horizon.

Finally, there is some “unfinished business” to round out this discussion. Since ancient rabbinic times, it has been suggested that the tension between Haman, the Agagite (Esth. 3:1), and the Jews in Persia materialized an extended hostility between God and the Amalekites (Webb 126–28). Exodus 17:14b reads, “that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” The notation that Haman is a descendent of Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:8), seems to lend support to this view, though other possibilities may exist. In parody to the various nations with long-held grudges against Israel (Ammon, Edom, Moab, etc.; Ezek. 25:1–17), Mordecai seemingly only inflames Haman’s preexisting hostility toward all the Jews. This ancient tension seems like a likely explanation for the roots of Haman’s anti-Semitism.

Again, what are the odds that the chief antagonist and architect for the genocide was a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites the enemies of God (Deut. 25:17–18)? What are the odds, that the man who replaces him is Mordecai, a descendant from the same clan of King Saul (Esth. 2:5; 1 Sam. 9:1–2)? The demise of Haman and the ascendency of Mordecai seem to play out as part of God’s continued protection of Israel even if they are in Persia (Gen. 12:3).

ILLUSTRATIONS

The Hiddenness of God

In the original Quantum Leap series (1989–1993), a fictional Dr. Samuel Beckett created the technology to time travel within his own lifetime. The opening narrator to the show says Beckett was

driven by an unknown force to change history for the better… leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong…[8]

It was the first show I watched where a Sci-Fi show made God a subtle but hidden main character, who was significantly aligned with Beckett’s desire to do good. Even in the reboot, they raised the potential of God again,

Something supernatural is not entirely impossible. Sam Beckett believed that God was guiding the quantum accelerator.[9]

There are times in our lives when all we know is that God is doing something in our lives, but we must live in faithful service to God with the hope that we may one day learn what that “something” is.

The Corruption of Power

Although humanity was created to subdue the earth and have dominion over it for good (Gen. 1:28), history is replete of individuals amassing and abusing their power. These regimes have brought tremendous human evil into the world. Clay Jones outlines a short but appalling list (49–56):

• Russia’s starving to death of 5–7 million people to quell an uprising of Ukrainians between 1932–1933;
• Nazi Germany’s genocide of 6 million Jews and an equal amount of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Gypsies, and the handicapped;
• in December 1937, 300,000 people were raped, tortured, and murdered by the Japanese army in an event known as “The Rape of Nanking”;
• Mao Tse-tung (d. 1976) is known to have buried alive 46,000 scholars in China;
• since 1973, the legal system of the United States has permitted us and our neighbors to put to death more than 58 million babies through abortion.

Esther 8 reminds us of the importance to use opportunities of power to protect, with force if necessary, the vulnerable against evil forces (Creach 96).[10]

APPLICATIONS

Timeless Applications

First, Let us pray for our civic and religious leaders “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). Imperfect people of God can be used as part of God’s sovereign economy over world affairs. The portrayals of Esther and Mordecai are not always flattering; in fact, they are very compromising.

Esther works her way through the harem to win the king’s favor. Mordecai is an arrogant man, whose spite likely accelerated Haman’s attack on the Jews. Nevertheless, they accepted that God is working through their rise to the royal court and used their opportunity to be God’s instruments to protect his people (Esth. 4:14; 8:1–17).

Second, let us live with confidence that God intervenes in our lives. Divine providence is purposeful intervention. A definition of providence defined by the “natural law” of deism is a dead end, as it fails to account for the supernatural nature of an interventional God. Providence is by definition a supernatural manipulation of the human story to accomplish God’s will.

The ascendency of Mordecai and the “self-defense” law of Esther 8 do not happen without a series of seemingly disconnected events orchestrated together for the common good of the diaspora Jews. Perhaps, providence may be described as a “nudge” (Philm. 15), but that nudge is the result of supernatural intervention.

Timely Applications

First, let us embrace the “exile” and “pilgrim” components of our faith. We do not have a border-bound nation as such, we are pilgrims and our citizenship is in heaven (1 Pet. 1:1, 17; 2:11). Most commentaries highlight the secular nature of Esther and the Jews in Persia, and yet, it is rich with faith, divine providence, divine faithfulness, and feasting and fasting. Western Christians are facing the overt secularization of the culture and our youth. Every generation needs to learn how to navigate the societies of our birth with love and godly concern to share the gospel, with the knowledge that our citizenship lies in the heavens (Phil. 3:20).

Second, let us use wisdom and prayerful patience when deciding when to use force to protect the vulnerable. Not every issue is genocide, nor is every social figure a Haman. As “social justice” issues reemerge as a cultural touchstone in the United States, the church must take on its challenge with wisdom, awareness of the issues, and humble approaches that empower every Christian with the confidence to speak truthfully and to act graciously against injustice in our communities.

Christians must not only distinguish between the obligations owed to the government and to God (Matt. 22:21) but also distinguish between what is just and unjust (Rom. 12:1–2). Martin Luther King, Jr., following Augustine, rightly observed, “an unjust law is no law at all” (lex iniusta non est lex).[11] God’s people must not fall prey to the fallacy, “it’s the law of the land,” when we have a higher law, “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).

ENDNOTES

1. The “decree” and “edict” which Haman organized to “destroy” the Jews and seize their wealth is often described as an ancient pogrom. A pogrom is “an organized massacre” and is particularly associated with the historical persecution of the Jews. For the purpose of this study, the term will be used alongside genocide.
2. The story reflected in Esther is unique in that it is the only canonical text which provides information about the Jews between the return under Zerubbabel (538 B.C.) and Ezra (458 B.C.). The Jews living among the “127 provinces” represent the third group of Jews, those who did not return with Zerubbabel (Provan, Long, and Longman 295).
3. David Allan Hubbard in his chapter on Esther notes, “Coincidences in Esther are the fingerprints of God’s hand at work” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush 538).
4. This follows A. D. Godley’s translation of Herodotus, Histories.
5. This follows William Whiston’s translation of Josephus, Antiquities.
6. The type of figure Haman held described as being “advanced” and a throne “set” “above all of the officials with him” (Esth. 3:1–2), has given cause to describe him as the king’s vizier, or something along the lines of a Prime Minister. This is the role Mordecai now holds. A cuneiform tablet in Borsippa mentions the name Marduka, a financial official of King Xerxes I (cf. Ahasuerus), which is an Akkadian equivalent to Mordecai. Although it cannot be proved to be Esther’s Mordecai, the “coincidence, if only that, is very interesting” (Báez-Camargo 137).
7. The parallels: the timestamp, the date for the law, the language of the edict, the use of the king’s scribes, the same recipients (satraps and governors), provincial languages and scripts, in the name of the king, the use of the king’s signet ring (with its unique crest), and dispatched by couriers.
8. Words from the season one prologue of the original Quantum Leap series.
9. Quote from the reboot season 1, episode 7, “O Ye of Little Faith.”
10. Jerome F. D. Creach addresses the symbolic theology of God warring against “the enemies of God” (Sodom, Egypt, Amalek) while largely dismissing the historical reliability of Esther. Immaterial to his approach is his astute observation that the legacy of human evil “makes understandable other parts of the Bible that seem to permit violence in defense of the powerless and vulnerable” (96).
11. “An Unjust Law is no Law at All: Excerpts from ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Intercollegiate Studies Institute, January 18, 2021, November 24, 2022.

WORKS CITED

“An Unjust Law is no Law at All: Excerpts from ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Intercollegiate Studies Institute. January 18, 2021. Accessed: November 24, 2022.

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 3rd edition. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Báez-Camargo, Gonzalo. Archaeological Commentary on the Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

Berlin, Adele. Esther. The JPS Bible Commentary. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2001. Logos electronic edition.

(BDB) Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Logos electronic edition.

Cline, David J. A. “Esther.” Pages 387–94 in Harper’s Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays. New York: Harper, 1988.

Creach, Jerome F. D. Violence in Scripture. Interpretation. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Kindle edition.

Herodotus. The Histories. Trans. by A. D. Godley. Ed. A. D. Godley. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. Logos electronic edition.

Jones, Clay. Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions. Eugene: Harvest House, 2017. Kindle edition.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans. William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Logos electronic edition.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Longman, Tremper, III., and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Mangano, Mark. Esther and Daniel. CPNIVC. Edited by Terry Briley and Paul Kissling. Joplin: College Press, 2001.

Provan, Ian, V. Phillips Long, Tremper Longman, III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Webb, Barry G. Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Communications and Messengers.” Pages 337–57 in vol. 1 of Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2014–2016.

---