Esther and the Song of Hannah

Introduction

Modern interpreters have had a challenge when presented with the book of Esther for a valid reason. This divine comedy lacks the name of God and His clear direction. Due to this omission, some have questioned the place of Esther in the canon of Scripture. There are no visions of angels or flaming mountain-top experiences. Rather, it contains a drama of individuals living ordinary lives that come into “coincidental” providence. However, woven throughout the book of Esther is a reversal motif prominently displayed in the Song of Hannah from the book of Samuel. Consequently, the characters in this comedy are not guided by coincidence but by the hidden hand of Yahweh. The author of the book of Esther writes it best, “on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them” (Esther 9:1).[1] This paper will argue how the book of Esther contains evidence of divine sovereignty in relation to the author’s allusions to the reversal motif of the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1–10.

The Methodology

Much concern has been raised over the use of intertextuality in biblical interpretation. Some scholars like Samuel Sandmel argue that this method can lead to “parallelomania,” in which the reader can find parallels and similarities within the biblical texts no matter how insignificant or out of context.[2] Concerns regarding intertextuality are also raised by Russell Meek, who says that the method is “unconcerned with developing criteria for determining intertextual relationships between texts.”[3]

Instead, Meek proposes using the method of inner-biblical exegesis. This method is a narrower version of the intertextual approach that focuses on defending “directionality of influence and to demonstrate through objective criteria that a later text is intentionally using a previous text for a particular purpose.”[4] However, one must not underestimate or undermine the parallels throughout the Old Testament. Michael Fishbane mentions that the perceived correlations between biblical texts will not be identical but will present themselves in a “hermeneutical relationship.”[5] Thus, the process and method of intertextuality can enrich one’s reading and understanding of the biblical texts.

When utilizing inner-biblical exegesis, the expositor must analyze authorial intent for possible allusions to qualify as valid comparisons in biblical interpretation. There must be evidence of the author’s intentionality when connecting a perceived allusion to a past biblical text. One way to recognize the author’s intent to create an allusion is through shared language and vocabulary, themes and contexts, and theological and historical facts.[6] Without this evidence, the perceived allusion in the biblical text can only be regarded as speculation on the part of the expositor. This paper will utilize this narrowed method of intertextuality to establish the use of the reversal motif in Hannah’s Song within the book of Esther.

The Song of Hannah

To understand the reversal motif in the book of Esther, one must go back to the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1–10. Although this is not the first occurrence of the theme of reversal, it is where the theme is prominently displayed in the Old Testament. Hannah’s Song is a beautiful song of thanksgiving to God for what He had done for her by giving her a child. Moreover, it is a hymn of what God will do for those who are humble on a grand scale. Augustine once said, “There speaks, in fact, the grace of God itself, from which the proud are estranged so that they fall, with which the humble are filled so that they rise up, which was in fact the chief theme that rang out in her hymn of praise.”[7]

In verses 1 through 3, Hannah proclaims the Lord as her “horn,” a symbol of strength throughout the Scriptures that depicts an animal carrying its head high and conscious of its strength.[8] She also announces a preliminary warning to the proud: “Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and with Him actions are weighed” (1 Sam. 2:3). The word used for “proudly” is the Hebrew גָּבֹהַּ (gaboah, literally “high”) to evoke the depiction of self-exaltation. Noting that this word is utilized twice גְּבֹהָ֣ה גְבֹהָ֔ה (translated as “so very proudly”), it emphasizes the extent of the proud individual’s pride. Verses 4 through 8 depict seven divine reversals that the Lord will accomplish: strong and weak, full and hungry, barren and fertile, dead and alive, sick and well, poor and rich, humble and exalted.[9] The self-exalted ones will be brought low, while the lowly ones will be exalted through the Lord’s divine reversal.

Verse 8 of the Song of Hannah is of particular interest in the book of Esther. “He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles, and inherit a seat of honor.” One can see this same pattern in Psalm 113:7–8, “He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of His people.” The word translated as “poor” (דַּל, dal) does not solely refer to those who do not have enough financially. Alternatively, it depicts those who are helpless and powerless. The poor are portrayed as inheriting a seat of honor, which is an expression that was used for a high administrative office or for the ark of the covenant, God’s glorious seat in the temple.[10] Hannah further proclaims the Lord’s sovereignty in verse 8, “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He set the world on them.” The central emphasis in this final portion of the verse focuses on “God’s role as creator in order to ground his reversing role in history.”[11] The Lord founded the world, and thus he has the right “to intervene in the social order.”[12] Hannah understood that reversal is a direct expression of the sovereignty of the Lord.

Throughout the book of Samuel, one can see that the reversal motif is evident through the fall and rising of its prominent characters: the fall of Eli and the raising of Samuel; the fall of the Philistines and their god Dagon; the fall of Goliath and Saul and the raising up of David to the throne as king of Israel. Thus, the theme of reversals is demonstrated in the fall of the proud and the exaltation of the humble and faithful people of God. These demonstrations are excellent examples of how God’s sovereignty is revealed in the book of Esther without explicitly mentioning the name of God. From danger to deliverance and lowly beginnings to ultimate success, the interwoven reversal motif points to the hand of the Lord and His divine sovereignty.[13] Alexander and Rosner go as far as to say that it “reveals the hand of a God who is infinitely more powerful than the whole Persian Empire, a God who is truly the King of kings.”[14]

The Sons of Kish and Agag

While the Song of Hannah provides a theological background for Esther, the book of 1 Samuel offers a historical background for the conflict woven throughout the book of Esther. The dominant figure of the book besides Esther herself is her cousin and foster father, Mordecai. Michael Fox states well that “Mordecai is the dominant figure in the book. He is introduced first (2:5) and praised last (10:2–3), and his glorification lies at the book’s turning point and presages the Jews’ victory.”[15] The prominent roles of Mordecai and Haman in no way diminish the role of Esther (also known as Hadassah, her Hebrew name) but instead highlights the history behind the book.

The first description of Mordecai the reader is introduced to is in Esther 2:5, “Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite.” Haman is also first introduced as “Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite” (Esth. 3:1). The conflict that takes center stage within the book of Esther is between Mordecai the Jew and Haman the Agagite, “heirs to a longstanding and bitter tradition of ethnic enmity and antagonism” that stemmed back to the book of Deuteronomy and was most infamously illustrated in 1 Samuel 15.[16]

With this conflict at the forefront, the author points to the historical backdrop in 1 Samuel between Saul and his failed war with King Agag and the Amalekites. The Amalekites were portrayed throughout the Old Testament as “vigorous enemies of Israel and of Yahweh” and served as a representation of any nation or group who defied God and His purposes.[17] In 1 Samuel 15, Saul is given the direct command from the Lord through Samuel to “go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3). Saul was to engage in “holy war,” in which he carried out the judgment of God on His behalf with no material advantage for the army since all the spoils of war were considered holy to the Lord.[18]

This directive goes back to Deuteronomy and Joshua. The word הַֽחֲרַמ (heherim, translated as “utterly destroy”) refers to being “put under the ban,” a practice of “dedicating the enemy or his goods to the deity by killing the people and burning the animals and property.”[19] Arnold further defines this term as “a special act of consecration to God; when related to warfare it designates the consecration of a city or its population to destruction.”[20] Tsumura notes how חרמ is sometimes translated as “curse” to mean “a thing banned or made off-limits from society, thus bringing a curse upon the person who breaks the ban and makes contact with it.”[21] From the time of Deuteronomy, the ban was used to rid the Promised Land of pagan Canaanite influence. God promised a coming day when the Israelites “shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Deut. 25:19). Therefore, the concept of the word חרם is essential to understand God’s rejection of Saul.

Saul became proud at the height of his reign in Israel. Gregory the Great said well, “for his humility he was preferred, for his pride rejected.”[22] Because Saul failed to carry out the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites and their property, repeating Israel’s sins of the past would result in the descendants of the Amalekites becoming thorns in their sides (cf. Judg. 2:3). Saul’s disobedience allowed the seed of Agag to carry on, climaxing in Haman the Agagite as the thorn in Israel’s side during the time of Esther.

These evident parallels between the conflict of the sons of Kish and Agag emphasize the book of Samuel as the lens through which to view the book of Esther. Suffice to say that the author intended for his readers to understand the themes in Esther in light of the conflict initiated in 1 Samuel, especially the reversal motif that is intertwined throughout both books. The Lord’s sovereignty is displayed in the rise of the humble and fall of the proud in the book of Samuel and the book of Esther.

The Divine Comedy

The book of Esther has often been attributed as a form of comedy, a particular theatrical flair unique to the book. Adele Berlin suggests that the book is of a specific type of comedy called “burlesque,” a style that “naturally incorporates a tone of mock dignity, exaggerated descriptions, a series of ludicrous coincidences, underdeveloped characters and caricatures, and universal reversals.”[23] Nevertheless, one should not take Esther as pure entertainment. Merrill says that “an argument from silence should never be used in serious historiography. Unless irrefutable evidence to the contrary surfaces, one must on principle assume that Esther is a reliable historical document originating in and faithfully recounting the era it professes to record.”[24] With this in mind, one can say that Esther is a biblical book with a profound message presented with comedic panache designed to be an entertaining retelling of history.

Scholars have taken a particular interest in the book of Esther because there is no mention of God, His commands, or His prophets. However, there is excellent evidence of the Lord’s methods and sovereignty hidden within the reversal motif. A simple definition of the principle of reversal or peripety “expresses the frustration of human expectations and demonstrates that the course of human lives is influenced by forces beyond human control.”[25] Fox notes how reversals denote the understanding as a manifestation of God’s control throughout the Scriptures.[26] Berg adds that “God’s control of events, while assumed, probably is not stated precisely so that the roles of Mordecai, Esther and the other Jews might take center stage.”[27] Bush also recognizes the importance of these reversals by saying, “The careful reader cannot help but note that the narrator in a number of instances consciously draws attention to the reversals by using identical, or nearly identical, phraseology in both the vent and its opposite.”[28]

Each character in the book is part of the grand reversal scheme described in the Song of Hannah. Vashti and Esther experience this reversal for themselves, switching roles with each other. Haman and Mordecai experience a dramatic reversal of roles. The Persians and the Jews also exchange positions in the book of Esther. Even the finale of the Feast of Purim celebrates the reversal of death to life for the Jews in the Persian empire. Rather than being evidence against the historicity of the book, Laniak states well that the events that happen in Esther implicate God in history.[29]

The Tale of Two Queens

One of the reversals within the book of Esther is between the two queens, Vashti and Esther. Vashti, the once noble queen of Persia, defied the king and was dethroned (1:13–22). In the reversal, an unknown Jewish orphan named Hadassah was crowned Queen Esther of Persia (2:17). Wells and Sumner summarize this difference between the two queens by saying, “The book of Esther is a story of two queens, one who refused and one who complied. And yet the one who apparently complied retained her integrity, her influence, and her legacy in a way that the one who refused did not.”[30]

Vashti

Vashti has become a woman known for one prime action, saying no. Not much else is known about this former queen of Persia. As a minor character in the story of Esther, she is primarily portrayed as the queen who defied her king’s order. She was summoned to parade herself with her crown on her head in front of a hall full of drunken men but refused to appear (1:11–12). While scholars debate the exact reasoning behind her refusal, her disobedience and a possible insult to the king’s ego resulted in her immediate removal from the royal throne.

Her dethroning was the precursor of the proclamation that declared that men of the kingdom should be masters of their own households (1:16–22), possibly as an over-reaction to the fear of a “female revolution” in Persia.[31] Through this proclamation, women were put in a place of minimal power within the Persian empire. Fox asserts that Vashti is the example of “how not to do things, as well as a demonstration of the dangers of running afoul of the king.”[32] Although there is much unknown about this woman, she could certainly be an example of the prideful opposite of her humble successor.

Esther

In the reversal, Esther is the one deemed “more worthy” (1:19) than Vashti. The humble Jewish girl took the royal place of her predecessor. One can see that Hadassah, Esther’s Hebrew name, is the opposite of Vashti in many ways. The author clearly states that “the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she found favor and kindness with him more than all the virgins, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti” (2:17). As one of the main characters of the story, her role is more developed than that of the former Queen Vashti. As one of the memorable female heroines in the Scriptures, Esther indelibly leaves her mark on the readers.

Compared to the pride of Vashti to refuse the king’s summons, Esther risked her life by approaching the king even though she was unsummoned (4:10–11; 5:1–8). While the king’s “wrath burned within him” against Vashti (1:12), Esther “obtained favor in his sight” (5:2). This wise woman also utilized the crown to her advantage. Sidnie White Crawford notes how Esther relied on her qualities of beauty and agreeableness that gained the favor of the king in the first place.[33] One might say that Esther became a master within the palace, gaining much favor in the court (5:1–8; 7:2–3; 8:1–8; 9:12–13).

It is of significance that a Jewish woman gained significant power within the kingdom. There can even be a consideration that there is a reversal of gender roles.[34] The proclamation brought on by Vashti’s actions put women in a place of minimal power. However, Esther gained great control within the kingdom. She also took on the role of a religious and national leader of the Jews. She gave Mordecai instructions, declared a fast for the Jewish people, and acted contrary to the law (4:15–17). As Fox states, “Her resolute behavior marks a woman determined to work her way through a crisis, not one cowed into obedience.”[35]

The Vizier and the Jew

The Song of Hannah is remarkably demonstrated in the central conflict of the story, the continuation of the clash between the house of Kish and the house of Agag. Mordecai and Haman continue the plot of the centuries-long family feud between these two houses that started in 1 Samuel 15. One parallel of particular interest between the Song of Hannah and the book of Esther is that of the “poor in the dust” (1 Sam. 2:8). This parallel is significant when analyzing the events surrounding Mordecai and Haman.

Haman

This twisted and cunning vizier is the antagonist of the story. His motives, emotions, and attitudes were transparent and in no need of further investigation. The reader can also see his egotistical and overconfident perception of life (5:9–14; 6:1–11). In proper comedic fashion, Haman’s name may mean “celebrated one” in Hebrew.[36] He who desired to be celebrated became the defeated one over whom his enemies celebrated.

Haman is a personification of the proud oppressor in the Song of Hannah in every way. Promoted by the king of Persia, Haman the Agagite was set to govern the princes of the kingdom (3:1). Thus, all within the king’s gate were to bow and pay him homage (3:2). However, one Jew who refused to bow got under Haman’s skin. More appropriately, Mordecai became a thorn in Haman’s side (cf. 5:13). Mordecai the Jew obviously did not harbor a rejection of the royal administration itself due to his loyalty to the king as one of the king’s servants (3:2) and when he learned of an assassination plot earlier in the story. If Mordecai kept closely with his Jewish roots during his exile in Persia, connecting their reactions to their ancient ancestries may be rational. Haman’s rage cast a new shadow of destruction upon the Jewish people, determined to exterminate the thorn in his side.

To accomplish this plan, Haman casts lots to determine the date the Jews were to be executed. However, the irony that Haman was unaware of is how “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33). Through careful manipulation, Haman was given the power of the king (represented by the king’s signet ring) to do as he willed regarding the “immediate danger” to the kingdom from an unspecified group of people. The month of Adar was chosen as the destined execution date. He erected a gallows to hang Mordecai the Jew. He became puffed up after being invited by Queen Esther to her banquet in chapter 5. In chapter 6, his arrogance clouded his vision and made him believe that he was the man the king wished to honor. However, his celebrations were premature, and his pride was his downfall. In a series of fast-paced events, Haman’s vanity led to his humiliation, deposition, and ultimately his death. This vizier thus became the ideal character to model the humbling of the proud in the Song of Hannah.

Mordecai

In stark contrast to Haman, the reader encounters the humble man of God in the character of Mordecai. Hannah’s words come to fruition in the life of Mordecai, “He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles, and inherit a seat of honor” (1 Sam. 2:8). Mordecai, who once sat in the dust in mourning (4:1), later becomes the king’s right-hand man (8:1–2, 9–10, 15; 9:4; 10:2–3). He exchanges his sackcloth of mourning while in the king’s gate for royal robes and a place within the king’s court.

Although his name may have been originally Persian, Mordecai proved that he was a faithful Jew in exile. Mordecai is a dominant figure in the book of Esther. Fox states well that “he is introduced first (2:5) and praised last (10:2–3), and his glorification lies at the book’s turning point and presages the Jews’ victory.”[37] Mordecai fully identified as a Jew when asked why he would not bow before Haman (3:4). From that point on, he was called “Mordecai the Jew” (5:13; 6:10; 8:7; 9:29, 31; 10:3). Mordecai took on the role of a hero in the book of Esther. He served as an advisor to Esther, uncovered a plot to assassinate the king, refused to bow to a man who was an enemy of God’s people, led the Jews in a fast, and was promoted to the highest position in the king’s court.

While he was a hero of the story, he also took on the role of the poor in the dust from the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:8). “When Mordecai learned all that had been done, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city and wailed loudly and bitterly” (4:1). Although the lexical forms of “the poor from the dust (עָפָר)” (1 Sam. 2:8) and the Jews who “lay on sackcloth and ashes (אֵפֶר)” (4:1, 3) are not identical, both represent mourning and suffering while also creating a metaphor of weakness and emptiness.[38] Ryken further notes how “though the biblical use of ashes imagery centers primarily on the fragility of life, [the] aspect of sacrificial cleansing transforms that emphasis from one of potential pessimism into one of humble hope.”[39] This language further foreshadows the reversal to come.

The Tipping Point

Chapter 6 has been noted as the climax of the plot and the narrative center of the book, with the threat to the life of Mordecai hanging in the balance at the end of chapter 5.[40] It seems to be the most comical and satirical chapter of the entire book. Amusing coincidences start to take place that foretell coming events, falling within “the realm of possibility but nevertheless straining the laws of probability.”[41]. Unable to sleep, Ahasuerus “coincidentally” has the royal annals read that describe Mordecai’s loyalty by uncovering the plot to take the king’s life. Haman “coincidentally” walks into the king’s court at the exact moment that Ahasuerus is contemplating how to reward Mordecai.

Knowing that his advisor was present, the king asked, “What is to be done for the man whom the king desires to honor?” (6:6). The phrase “the man whom the king delights to honor” is repeated six times in this chapter alone. However, it further propagates the irony of a mysterious figure that Haman does not expect. Out of Haman’s egotistical pride and self-absorption, he “unwittingly volunteers the method by which his arch-enemy, Mordecai, is honored by the king. Yet Haman had come to court to seek the death of Mordecai!”[42]

The exaltation of Mordecai and the downfall of Haman had begun. The man who once refused royal garments from Esther (4:4) was now dressed in the king’s royal robes by his enemy. Haman longed for the crown but was commissioned as a herald to his nemesis. In humiliating defeat, the once-proud Haman “hurried home, mourning, with his head covered” (6:12). This head covering might be an implication of Haman’s face being covered when the king commands his execution (7:8). This tipping point in chapter 6 accelerates the reversal in the book of Esther.

How the Mighty Fall

The concept of the “fall” (נָפַל) is typical within the reversal motif throughout 1 Samuel. In its figurative sense, a “fall” means to “go to ruin” or “perish.” It is a physical representation of the proud being brought low because of their self-exaltation. This concept is presented within the life of Haman. He set himself up to perish because of his self-exaltation and pride. Haman’s wife Zeresh seemed to be a woman of insight, even though she might have been ignorant of the Song of Hannah. “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish origin, you will not overcome him, but will surely fall before him” (6:13). The use of the word “fall” (נָפַל) twice indicates the certainty of Haman’s coming demise, which is provided in advance. David Firth notes, “Zeresh can see this only as something inscrutable about the Jews of the empire, but by situating the story within the traditions of Samuel, the narrative fills that out to point to Yahweh’s concern for the weak.”[43]

Soon after this prediction of impending doom, Haman was escorted to the very banquet where his plot to destroy the Jews was revealed before the king. With a hint of irony, “they drank their wine at the banquet” (7:2) is a subtle marker of a reversal of events that previously occurred when Haman prematurely “sat down to drink” (3:15) in victory over his plan to eliminate the Jews. When exposed, the same man infuriated by one Jew who refused to tremble sat trembling before the king and his Jewish queen.

As Haman begged for his life, he fell before the queen in defeat and humiliation. However, “the irony is that it is pleading for his life that costs Haman his life.”[44] The king interpreted Haman’s action of falling as an assault upon the queen, which leads to Haman’s immediate shame (7:8). His head covering became a death shroud as he was led away to hang on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai (7:10). The hanging of Haman artfully alludes to Deuteronomy 21:23, “he who is hanged is accursed of God.” Craigie notes well, “The body was not accursed of God because it was hanging on a tree; it was hanging on the tree because it was accursed of God.”[45] The proud descendant of Agag falls before him who sat in the dust. The power and glory that Haman amassed as a prince in the empire are swallowed by the pride that commanded his death. Thus, Haman’s execution made way for the one in the dust to be exalted to the king’s court and reverse the irreversible.

Raised from the Dust

The reversal motif of Esther would be incomplete with the mere death of Haman. All the coincidences that lead to this point demonstrate the truth of Mordecai’s assurance that assistance for the Jews would appear.[46] Here, the power and wealth given to the villain of the story were given to Esther and Mordecai. Mordecai’s loyalty to the king and Yahweh was rewarded after the execution of Haman. The same power that Haman possessed and craved was given to the same Jew he sought to destroy.

Mordecai was promoted to grand vizier and given the king’s signet ring that Haman once possessed, representing the prominent position Haman once held and an important symbol of Haman’s fallen rule.[47] Mordecai was set “over the house of Haman” (8:1), meaning he was set over all Haman owned, including his real estate, movable goods, and possibly his family.[48] He was also robed in “royal robes of blue and white, with a large crown of gold and a garment of fine linen and purple” (8:15). This power given to Mordecai allowed for the reversal of Haman’s edict to destroy the Jewish people throughout the Persian empire.

The Persians and the Jews

As the bigger picture emerges, the reversal between Haman and Mordecai culminates in the reversal between the Persians and the Jews. At the beginning of the story, Mordecai felt it necessary for Hadassah to hide her Jewish identity (2:20). After Haman’s execution, the truth was revealed that she was of Jewish descent and a relative of Mordecai (8:1). With the power of the king, Mordecai issued a decree to counteract the edict declared by their enemy Haman. This edict “granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil” (8:11). In the end, it was good to be a Jew in Persia, so that “many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them” (8:17). The Septuagint (LXX) goes so far as to say that many Gentiles became circumcised.[49] Although the Persian Empire is still standing, the second in command of the entire kingdom was a Jew (10:3).

The finale of the reversal theme in the book of Esther draws on the origins of the Feast of Purim, commemorating the defeat of the ones who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. The name is derived from the lots cast by Haman to determine the annihilation date of the Jews (3:7, 13). Wolfe notes how the Hebrew text of Esther utilizes “the ban” (חרם) to make a dramatic connection to Saul and the Amalekites, correcting the Jews’ ancestral error by destroying Haman and his sons without taking for themselves the plunder (9:10, 16).[50] Fox writes how the Jews’ refusal to take plunder was “a sort of free-will offering, by which the Jews wipe away the stain of greed of the Israelites who defeated the Amalekites in Saul’s time,” undoing the failure of their ancestors[51]

Bush states well when he says, “The pur was to determine the day for the Jews’ extermination, but it actually was a pur that produced the day of their vindication and victory.”[52] On the same day, “when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them” (9:1). However, the Feast of Purim was not to commemorate military victory but rather commemorate the days of rest and joyful feasting that followed the battle.[53] The author of Esther explicitly mentions the reversal of events by writing again, “it was a month which was turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday” (9:22).

The Feast of Purim thus becomes a reminder to the Jews that situations that seem hopeless can be transformed into triumph, where the odds are reversed. A day of death turned into a day of celebration. Due to this magnificent reversal, the Feast of Purim was to be a perpetual feast day on the Jewish Calendar, “remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, every family, every province and every city; and these days of Purim were not to fail from among the Jews, or their memory fade from their descendants” (9:28).

The Lord’s Sovereignty

Exploring the multiple examples of the reversal motif within the book of Esther prompts the question of what theological implications the author intended. At face value, the book of Esther is seemingly devoid of the presence of God. However, the great theme of reversal points directly to His sovereignty. Even though He is not the main character in this book, He is working behind the scenes to bring about the salvation of His people. Fisch says best, “In the end there is only one ruler whose commands, never officially promulgated, are unchanging and whose will prevails. He lurks behind the costly hangings of the court and whispers in the ear of Ahasuerus in the night. It is of him that the subtext speaks and whose deeds it records.”[54]

Esther is full of incidents that evoke the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel. The clash between the house of Kish and the house of Agag has finally ended. It contains the great “fall” of the proud similar to the book of Samuel. The pinnacle of the Song of Hannah hinges upon the Lord’s sovereignty, “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and He set the world on them” (1 Sam. 2:8). Thus, the humbling of the proud and the exaltation of the humble bear witness that Yahweh is Lord of all and that He determines the outcome of those faithful to Him. Peter Lee states well, “The book of Esther testifies again that there is nothing that can halt the Lord from accomplishing his divine plan.”[55]

The literal rising from the dust and ashes of Mordecai is evidence of the Lord’s sovereignty over the circumstances of His people. Even when Yahweh appears to be silent or absent, His extraordinary work interwoven into the ordinary demonstrates His sovereignty and providence. This unique comedy of Scripture proves “that even the most powerful figure of the earth, whose wealth is unmatched in a kingdom that reaches to the farthest points of the world, cannot be compared to the God of the Jews, whose authority is established even without mentioning his name.”[56] God was silently preserving His people, so the ultimate purposes of redemption come to pass in the supreme reversal found in Christ. Clines writes well that all the coincidences that take place in the book of Esther “converge upon one point; one supplements the other. The whole course of events is shaped by the guiding hand of the Great Unnamed.”[57]

Conclusion

Although the name of God is nowhere to be found in the book of Esther, it does not do the book justice to say that the author does not allude to God’s sovereign hand. There may have been a deeper purpose in omitting the explicit mention of Yahweh. The author’s use of the reversal motif moves the sovereignty of God to the forefront of the story, just as it is presented in the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2. Thus, the book of Esther becomes one of theatre and comedy, comically moving through the reversal motif found in the Song of Hannah to give the reader a chance to laugh with God. Lee says well that “the thought that any creature is capable of undermining the sovereign will of God is so ridiculous, it is comic. We cannot help but laugh - and to laugh with the Lord.”[58] The proud vizier is brought low, and the humble Jew is exalted as a prince. The pur cast to determine a day of death for the Jews is turned into a day of feasting and celebration in the Feast of Purim.

From Vashti to Esther, Haman to Mordecai, and the Persians to the Jews, the fantastic reversal theme in this book showcases Yahweh as the omnipresent deliverer of His people. Therefore, it serves as a petition for the people of God to remain humble and faithful in their dependence upon the One who works even behind the scenes. By utilizing the reversal theme prominently displayed in the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2, the Esther comedy highlights how God can bring the extraordinary from the ordinary and daily “coincidences” to bring about a reversal of fortunes. The assumed silence of God is where His hand is plainly seen.

Bibliography

Alexander, T Desmond, and Brian S Rosner. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. La Vergne: IVP, 2020.

Allen, Leslie C., and Timothy S. Laniak. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Understanding the Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Arnold, Bill T. 1 and 2 Samuel. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2003.

Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 and 2 Samuel. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Beale, Gregory K. Redemptive Reversals and the Ironic Overturning of Human Wisdom. Wheaton: Crossway, 2019.

Berg, Sandra Beth. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 44, 1979.

Bush, Frederic W. Ruth-Esther. Edited by David Allen Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Vol. 9. Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015.

Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. Vol. 6B. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002.

Clines, David J. A., and Richard T. White. Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2009.

Crawford, Sidnie White. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: Esther. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019.

Firth, David G. The Message of Esther. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010.

———. “When Samuel Met Esther: Narrative Focalisation, Intertextuality, and Theology.” Southeastern Theological Review 1, no. 1 (2010): 15–28.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1985.

Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Franke, John R. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. 2nd ed. Vol. 10. Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014.

Meek, Russell L. “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology.” Biblica 95, no. 2 (2014): 280–91.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Reid, Debra. Esther: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1–13.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.

Van Pelt, Miles V., ed. A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament: The Gospel Promised. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.

Wells, Samuel, and George Sumner. Esther and Daniel. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2013.

Wolfe, Lisa M. Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, and Judith. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011.

Youngblood, Ronald F. 1 and 2 Samuel. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2017.

End Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995). [2]Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1, 7. [3]Russell L. Meek, “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology,” Biblica 95, no. 2 (2014): 284. [4]Ibid., 288–89. [5]Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1985), 351. [6]Meek, “Intertextuality,” 287, 290. [7]John R. Franke, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), 202. [8]Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, 2nd ed., vol. 10, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), 15. [9]Ronald F. Youngblood, 1 and 2 Samuel, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2017), 54o. [10]Klein, 1 Samuel, 10:18. [11]Ibid. [12]David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 116. [13]David J. A. Clines and Richard T. White, Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2009), 155. [14]T Desmond Alexander and Brian S Rosner, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (La Vergne: IVP, 2020), 21a. [15]Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 185. [16]Frederic W. Bush, Ruth-Esther, ed. David Allen Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 384. [17]Bill T. Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2003), 219. [18]Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 123. [19]Klein, 1 Samuel, 10:148. [20]Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel, 220. [21]Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 282. [22]Franke, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 256. [23]Debra Reid, Esther: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 31. [24]Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 354. [25]Sandra Beth Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 44, 1979, 105. [26]Fox, Character and Ideology, 243. [27]Berg, The Book of Esther, 111. [28]Bush, Ruth-Esther, 9:323. [29]Leslie C. Allen and Timothy S. Laniak, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Understanding the Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 285. [30]Samuel Wells and George Sumner, Esther and Daniel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2013), 33. [31]Lisa M. Wolfe, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, and Judith (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 83. [32]Fox, Character and Ideology, 169. [33]Sidnie White Crawford, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: Esther, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 16. [34]Wolfe, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, and Judith, 74. [35]Fox, Character and Ideology, 199. [36]Gregory K. Beale, Redemptive Reversals and the Ironic Overturning of Human Wisdom (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 20. [37]Fox, Character and Ideology, 184. [38]Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 50. [39]Ibid. [40]David G. Firth, The Message of Esther, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 90. [41]Berg, The Book of Esther, 104. [42]Ibid., 105. [43]David G. Firth, “When Samuel Met Esther: Narrative Focalisation, Intertextuality, and Theology,” Southeastern Theological Review 1, no. 1 (2010): 25. [44]Firth, The Message of Esther, 107. [45]Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, vol. 6B, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 489. [46]Berg, The Book of Esther, 104. [47]Wolfe, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, and Judith, 110. [48]Bush, Ruth-Esther, 9:444. [49]Wolfe, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, and Judith, 113. [50]Ibid. [51]Fox, Character and Ideology, 115. [52]Bush, Ruth-Esther, 9:483. [53]Ibid., 9:326. [54]Fox, Character and Ideology, 237. [55]Peter Y. Lee, “Esther,” in A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament: The Gospel Promised, ed. Miles V. Van Pelt (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 620. [56]Ibid. [57]Clines and White, Esther Scroll, 155. [58]Van Pelt, A Biblical-Theological Introduction, 622.

* This post was originally submitted as an assignment for BIBL715: Hermeneutics on April 27, 2022.