If Esther Had Not Been That Beautiful:
Dealing with a Hidden God in the (Hebrew) Book of Esther
Sabine M. L. Van Den E p k
Abstract
The Hebrew story of Esther seems to be a story without God. God does not intervene, is not present as a
character in the hook, is even never referred to (Fox: 235-47; Beal 1999: xix-xxii). Yet, the religious overtones
are present throughout the book. The present article studies some of these religious hints, with special atten-
tion to the (reversal of the) power relationships.
T he story of Esther starts with a great celebration. The
intent is clear: the power and wealth of the Persian king
Ahasuerus should be celebrated for 180 days-six full
months. Ahasuerus offers a banquet to all the inhabitants
of his capital city, moreover, with drinks available accord-
ing to everyone’s desire. This feast thus reveals much
about the king’s character. According to Fox, he has “an
obsession for power,” which will lead to a n attempt “to buy
honor by ostentatious generosity” (172).
The decision that everything should happen as every-
one desires, is the first of a series of events in which
Ahasuerus does not exercise his power, but has others do
as they please. For, as Fox demonstrates, the king never
says no. Whoever knows how to manipulate him, be it his
servants, Haman, Mordecai or Esther, the king will give
him or her the power and responsibility to act (Fox: 173).
Although the text never explicitly condemns whatever
Ahasuerus does, there is, according to Fox, a n implicit
condemnation (176; cf. Klein: 154-55).
T h e inherent reasoning seems to be that foreign rule
is like that: hardly worthy of contempt. But such a dernon-
stration of power is not typical for foreign rulers only. King
Hezekiah, for instance, shows the envoys of Babel his
entire palace, his storehouses and his kingdom (2 Kings
20:12-21). Isaiah prophesises that the king of Babel will
plunder everything he showed them. If the Jewish listeners
pay attention to the description of Ahasuerus’ wealth, they
will n o doubt remember all the goods stolen by the
Babylonians and conquered by the Persian kings.
Moreover, some of the Persian wealth stems from bribes
(cf. Esth 3:9) and taxes (cf. Esth 1O:l). Ahasuerus is show-
ing off with the riches of others, a behavior in sharp con-
trast with the Bible’s critical attitude toward wealth. Moses
warns the people (Deut 8: 11-14, 18):
Take heed lest you forget the LORDyour God . . . lest, when
you have eaten and are full, and have built goodly houses
and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply,
and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have
is multiplied, then your heart he lifted up, and you forget the
LORDyour God [ RSV].
For it is God who gives the people the power to get
wealth (v. 18). A similar critical attitude is present in some
biblical passages concerning the king, texts probably writ-
ten when the people already had a king who misbehaved
and exploited the people..Samuel, for instance, warns the
people that a king will demand that their sons and daugh-
ters work for him, that he will take their possessions to give
them to his favorite servants, and that he will raise taxes (1
Sam 8:11-18). Deuteronomy 17 provides that a king not
have too many horses nor too many women, and that he
not gather silver and gold. O n the contrary, the king
Sabine M. L. Van Den Eynde, PbD. (University of Leuven,
Belgium) is Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund for Scientific
Research (Flanders) and a member of the Old Testament
Department of the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University
of Leuven, Belgium. Address: Elfnovemberlaan 36, B-3010 Kessel-
lo Belgium (e-mail: Sabine.VanDenEynde@theo.Kuleuven.
ache).
145
should respect God and keep his commandments.
Another aspect of the biblical criticism of kings, is the
idea that when all is said and done, God is king of his peo-
ple. Psalm 145 praises the glorious splendor of God’s king-
dom, his power and mighty deeds. In 1 Chronicles 29: 11,
David ascribes to God the greatness, and the power, and
the glory, and the victory, and the majesty. God’s kingdom
protects the rights of the weak (Ps 146), and this is an
example to be followed by the earthly kings (cf. Ps 72).
Ahasuerus is the prototype of the worst kind of king: a
heathen who gathers possessions and wastes them, for his
royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his majesty. He
seeks to be a king of divine allure. T h e people are clearly
under the power of a king with completely different values
and behavior than that accepted and valued in their own
tradition. This, however, also prompts a question: if God is
truly king, will this kind of injustice persist?
Power and Contra-Power
The first step in thwarting Ahasuerus’ lust for expos-
ing power is taken by an unexpected figure. T h e celebra-
tion of Ahasuerus had to have a special climax: the
appearance of the queen. Yet Vashti refuses to appear, and
this refusal is the start of the story. The king is furious and
calls his advisers. They exaggerate what Vashti did, main-
taining that she has wronged not only the king, but also all
the princes of the kingdom. Her act has been transformed
from a personal fault to a national crisis (cf. Beal 1999: 13)
and a threat to the existing social order (Beal 1995: 97;
Fox: 21). All women will hear what happened, will follow
her example and look down upon their husbands.
Therefore, Vashti’s royal power should be given to some-
one else, who is better than she. Literally: may the king
give her royal power to her neighbor, mho is better than
she-the wording is very similar to that of 1 Samuel 15:28
(YHWHwill take from you the royal power over Israel and
give it to your neighbor, who is better than you). Just as
David will be a better king than Saul, Esther will be a bet-
ter queen than Vashti. T h e similarity iniplicitly suggests
that God is involved in the replacement of the queen.
Though the servants’ advice is still in line with the
queen’s disobedience, the actual royal letter has a differ-
ent, more generalized tone. Each man should be lord and
master in his house and speak his own language. There is
a shift of attention from the behavior of the queen and the
women towards the attitude desired in the men. Nothing
is said about the events that led to such a strange decree,
though the story of Vashti’s refusal will n o doubt become
well known all over the reign. Only the first part of the
royal letter has a direct link with what was said before. The
146
risk that all women would look down upon their husbands
is “avoided” by pointing out that the husbands are lord and
master in their houses. That the letter is addressed “to
each nation in its own own language” has nothing to do
with the Vashti incident, but it does give some insight into
the meaning of the royal letter. That is, what is actually at
stake is power and power relations. T h e relation between
man and woman is the model for power relations in the
whole kingdom. Just as the king has power over his queen
and just as he can issue orders in many languages to many
nations, so also must men-of-lesser power exercise their
power over their women, each in his own language. With
this royal letter, the,power relations are set once and for all:
unequal and open to exploita;ion, to further enhance the
glory and power of the powerful. Glory and power are what
Ahasuerus wants to achieve with his demonstration of his
wealth and the beauty of his queen. According to his
advisers, honor will be giGen to every man if the deed of
the queen is condemned (cf. Esth 1:20). The power should
stay in the center, with the man in his house, with the king
and his advisers in his reign.
Vashti, having dared to challenge the existing power
structure, pays the price: never will she see her husband
again; her royal status is taken away. The queen is gone,
long live the (new) queen! Yet, apart from opening the way
for Esther to become queen, this scene also portrays the
circumstances in which she mill have to operate. She will
be in the hands of a king who can easily be manipulated,
arbitrary decisions will be made, and any sign of personal
initiative will be severely punished.
Mordecai, Esther and Haman: A Struggle for
Power between Good and Evil
Vashti is n o longer queen. Before the king can change
his mind, the king’s servant suggests a kind of beauty con-
test. After a beauty treatment lasting one full year, the can-
didates are brought to the king, each to become his woman
for one night. At this point in the story, Mordecai is intro-
duced as one of the exiles who were captured by Nebu-
kadnessar (or, depending on the interpretation: as a
descendant of a person taken into exile). Mordecai had
prior experience of the power exercized by the powerful.
Taken into exile, away from his country, he came to Susa
and stayed there, even after the edict of Cyrus allowed the
people to return to Jerusalem (537). Moreover, the names
of Mordecai’s ancestors can be linked to King Saul (1 Sam
9:l-3), a fact that already hints at the function of
Mordecai in the story. As Saul fought against the Agagites,
Mordecai will have to confront Haman the Agagite.
After her uncle, Esther is also mentioned. She is beau-
tiful and “good to look at” (v 7). This description indicates
that she is a possible candidate for the beauty contest,
especially since Vashti was described with the same expres-
sion (Esth 1:ll) and since the primary qualification for
entry into the harem was comeliness (Esth 2:2-4, RSV:
“beautiful”). That the queenship is vacant, that Esther
meets the standards for being elected, is indeed taken to
the court, and pleases the king, are but a few of the many
coincidences that lead to the salvation of the Jews. If
Esther had not been that beautiful, she would not be
brought to the court, she would never have met the king,
certainly not have become queen, would have been in no
position to save her people. Coincidence? Or should’we
read divine activity between the lines (cf. Fox: 24&41)?-
But there is more. The “beautiful appearance” motif can
be found in many prior stories, in which it seems to spot-
light the hero or heroine, as well as the divine favor. So
Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, and Judith are all “beautiful to
look at” (Gen 39:6; Exod 2:2; 1 Sam 9:2; 1 Sam 16:12; Jdt
8:7). It can hardly be a coincidence that Esther is de-
scribed in the same way as other biblical characters, who
all have a similar function: to save their people. In the
same may as the handsome David replaced the good-look-
ing Saul, Esther replaced Vashti. She is the “better one.”
Esther is taken as one of the many to the royal harem. The
king falls in love and chooses her to become queen instead
of Vashti, since Esther “is good in his eyes” (Esth 2:9).
~
Esther’s task resembles the task of
Moses: go to the king to save the
people.
Now Haman appears on stage. He is presented as an
Agagite, one of the born enemies of the Jews (Agag was
king of Amalek, the perennial enemy of Israel). During the
Exodus (cf. Deut 25:17-19) the Amalekites would have
attacked the weak from behind, without any respect for
God. Therefore, the people should erase the remembrance
of Amalek forever. The book of Exodus emphasizes that
God wars continually against Amalek, from generation to
generation (Exod 17: 16). The Amalekites therefore sym-
bolize the evil that threatens the people of Israel during
each generation, against which both the people and God
fight.
For our purposes here, the story of Saul is particularly
important (1 Sam 15). God proclaims that he will deal
with Amelek once and for all. Saul should fight and
destroy everything, even the animals. Saul wins his battle,
but spares the king, Agag. Moreover, he keeps the most
valuable animals. This disobedience to God costs him his
kingship, which will be given to another, better than he.
The story of Esther alludes clearly to this tradition, since
the rule of Vashti will be given to another, better than she,
namely Esther. Just as Saul had to fight Agag, so the peo-
ple should do in every generation. Saul, however, did not
succeed. Now Mordecai, the Jew, descended from Saul,
has to deal with Haman, the descendant of Agag. \Vill he
succeed where his ancestor failed, now that he can rely
upon Esther, who has become queen? Or will someone else
ultimately defeat Haman, just as in fact it was Samuel and
not Saul who kiIled Agag (Esther? cf. Beal, 1999: 45)?
Though Haman is faiored by’ Ahasuerus, Mordecai
refuses to give him honor. When the servants ask him why,
he declares that he is a Jew. This could be interpreted as a
sign that Mordecai refuses to bow for anyone else than
God. This is, hckever, not very plausible. Bowing is a par-
ticularly prevalent way of greeting an important person
(such as the king). It is not very likely that Mordecai, who
“was sitting in the King’s Gate” adamantly refused to bow,
even to the king (cf. Fox: 44). The “obeisance”is also done
to kings (1 Sam 24:9), but often this verb indicates weak-
ness, being forced: bending the knees because one is not
able to stand any more. Maybe Mordecai decided not to
kneel for the enemy of his people. Anyway, as in the case
of Vashti, a refusal to pay the honor a mighty person
desires is dangerous. Just as Vashti, and indeed all women
should be under the thumb of their husbands, so in this
case, Haman’s reaction goes much further than a reaction
against Mordecai alone. The man second in power only to
the king is out for revenge. He decrees a day of destruction
and accuses the Jews of being a danger to the kingdom:
they would follow their own laws and disobey those of the
king.
God at Work in the Reversal
When their fate becomes known, the people fast.
Though God is-again-not mentioned, this is a relie‘
CJIOUS
activity, which can be interpreted ,as a cry (to God) for
help. Mordecai swings into action. He goes to the palace to
inform Esther, whose task resembles that of Moses: go to
the king to save the people. The dialogue of Esther and
Mordecai reminds one of a vocation story. Like Moses, (Ex
3-4), Esther objects to her tasks. She points out that she
risks the death penalty by going to the king without invi-
tation. It is not God, however, but Mordecai, who counters
her arguments. He is convinced that even without Esther,
the people will be saved, though if it be literally without
her, she will not survive.
147
 Esther’s story seems like a vocation story without God.
In Exodus, God informs Moses of his intentions, God sends
Moses, God counters Moses’ objections, God promises to
be with Moses. None of this is found in the book of Esther.
Never is it said that God, having heard the cry of his peo-
ple, comes to the rescue. It is not God, but Mordecai who
sends Esther to the king, and she has to go alone, even
though it may cost her her life. A vocation story without
God. Or not?
At this point, it is interesting to analgse the name
“Esther.” This non-Jewish name probably refers to a
Persian word for “star,” or to the goddess of Love Ishtar
(Moore: 20). Yet, when read as a Hebrew word, it means “I
am hiding” or ‘‘I am hidden.” In Deuteronomy 31:16b-18,
God speaks about a time in which the people will leave
God and his laws and God will consequently hide his face
(or his presence) from them. The result of this hiding is
that the people become an easy prey, and troubles come
upon them. According to Beal, a link to Deuteronomy 3 1
would indicate that God will remain absent, and that the
people are the cause of their own troubles. He therefore
suggests an interpretation that considers the name Esther
as an allusion to God invisibly at work in the story (Beal
1999: xx-xxii). In fact, Beal considers the period of
Persian rule precisely as the time of God’s hiddenness due
to the people’s disobedience to his l a w . Yet, the story of
Esther suggests otherwise. Haman reproaches the Jews for
following their own laws rather than those of the king. But
the Jews’ “own” laws are, precisely, God’s laws. I would
argue, therefore, that it is not the period of Esther as such
that is the period of the judgment, but rather that of the
exile.
The exile is often interpreted as God’s judgment
brought to bear upon the people for their faults. Hence, it
is the period of God’s absence. Something has changed,
though: the people once again obey the laws of their tradi-
tion. There is a glimpse of hope. For the same prophets
who doomed the people, pointing to the exile in confirma-
tion of their position, also offered the people hope-hope
that God will not forever forsake them. That is, in my view,
the religious background of the book of Esther. Esther’s
name is more than a reminder of God’s doom. The same
God who threatens to hide his face, also resolves not to let
the people be destroyed completely (Deut 3220, 26-27).
The God who hides his face from the people will restore
their fortunes. Then God will never again hide his face
from them (Ezek 3924-29). Esther is a n ambiguous name,
hinting at a goddess and at the absence of God, but ulti-
mately laden with the hope-filled meaning: “I am hidden-
1y present.”
In his appeal to Esther, Mordecai mentions a possible
148
salvation “from another place.” As Fox argues (63), this
must mean another person or persons who may come to
the rescue. This profound confidence in the salvation of
the people must be based upon the belief that God will not
have his people destroyed completely. O n the other hand,
it is also possible that Mordecai is confident that the Jews
are survivors, who can help themselves whatever happens
to them. Fox concludes that the author of the book of
Esther is creating a “theology of possibility (of provi-
dence)” (247). The reader must decide whether God is
active in the events of Esther’s (or hisher own) life.
Mordecai’s words clearly indicate that salvation will
come. That salvation, howeyer, can come in several ways.
His plea, formulated in a manner redolent of the book of
Judith, is that it will come through Esther. Of course, the
setting in Judith is entirely religious. The importance of
fighting the enemy lies i n t h e protection of the temple. Yet,
when the leaders of the people decide to surrender unless
God has helped them within a few days, Judith reacts. In
her view, God is free to deliver his people when and by
whom he chooses (Jdt 8:15-16). She can but pray that she
will be God’s instrument. T h e same mixture of personal
initiative combined with the possibility that God is acting
in this human intervention seems to be present in Esther.
Mordecai’s words retain an appeal to human responsibility
without absolutizing any individual person. Esther should
act, but even if she does not, one may expect salvation
from God.
Purim: The Celebration of the Change
Esther takes the risk. Instead of pleading for her peo-
ple, she invites the king for an intimate celebration. This
delay offers the opportunity for an ever sharper conflict
between Haman and the Jews. Ahasuerus asks Haman,
who has come to seek Mordecai’s execution, how he can
honor a man. Haman is so confident that he cannot even
imagine somebody else being the intended man. Yet, the
king has him fulfill everything he suggests for Mordecai.
Haman, increasingly filled with hatred, obeys. Esther even-
tually asks for the life of her people. When the king hears
that Haman has planned the execution of Mordecai, he
has Haman hanged o n the gibbet Haman had prepared for
Mordecai and, moreover, appoints Mordecai in Haman’s
place. This, however, does not yet mean that the people
are saved. T h e previous decree cannot be revoked.
The letters that are sent by Esther and Mordecai allow
the Jews to defend themselves and to destroy their attack-
ers. The wording resembles Haman’s decree, but some
important changes are made (Fox: 102). The Jews may
defend themselves, and the people risking slaughter are
precisely those who afflict the Jews. The context for all this
is the whole reign of Ahasuerus, and the people who
should be ready for the day are the Jews. The non-Jewish
people of the Persian kingdom are now brought into a dif-
ficult position. The Greek version of the text avoids the
problem by offering them no choice: the letter of Esther
and Mordecai annuls the one of Haman and orders the
Persians to help the Jews. But the Hebrew text retains the
idea that a law of the Medes and the Persians cannot be
annulled. Legally, the Persians are therefore obligated to
destroy the Jews, but at the same time they risk their lives
doing so since the Jews may defend themselves. In this sit-
uation of injustice, no easy choices can be made. Scared to
death, many of the Persians become Jews. Their leaders
make another choice and support the Jews in their fight.
O n the day when the Jews should have been killed, they
triumph over their enemies. The day of doom becomes a
day of joy. Mordecai and Esther even make of it an official
day of celebration. The celebration of Purim is the feast of
the drawing of the lot, Pur-in the plural, Purim-when
fortunes are reversed.
Change: More Than Merely Reversal
At this point, I come back to the theme of power and
wealth. The celebration of the change mould be incom-
plete if the power relations remained the same. But the
changes in the story do not mean that the persons merely
assume another role: Esther queen instead of Vashti,
Mordecai as the second man instead of Haman, the
nations victims instead of the Jews. Within the limits of
what they dare and think to be possible, people resist the
ruling and the exploitative power relations: Vashti against
Ahasuerus, Mordecai against Haman, Esther against
Haman and Ahasuerus. It may be noticed that Ahasuerus
remains in his powerful position all the time. He is as easy
to manipulate at the end of the story as at the beginning.
Esther and Mordecai can therefore make the difference.
Like Vashti before her, Esther too resists the king. Unlike
Vashti, however, Esther is personally involved with her
people. Whereas Vashti’s choice not to obey the king was
her own decision, Esther went because her uncle urged her
to do so, and moreover, she sought the support of her peo-
ple, asking them to fast for her (Esth 4:16). Esther’s actions
are intended to save her people (Esth 8:6). Also the
man-woman relations undergo a transformation: Esther
obeys and disobeys Mordecai’s orders according to her own
best lights by making her family relationships known.
Mordecai, refusing to capitulate to the evil con-
fronting him in Haman, sends Esther to act on behalf of his
people. When he is in a position to do this himself, he
becomes a mighty person, feared by the other leaders. But
at the same time, Mordecai is dear to his people; the quest
for his people’s happiness and the plea for peace for his
descendants guide his ruling (Esth 10:3).
The Persian people can no longer have parties with
the powerful, but must choose. Those who take the side of
the oppressed can celebrate with them after the battle, and
this time, it will be a celebration of solidarity.
-The Jewish people obey the letter of Mordecai and kill
whoever tries to destrdy them, together with their women
and children. Modern Bible translations can be somewhat
misleading in this regard,\Vhen both letters are compared
in Hebrew,,the wording is exactly’the same, but with one
important change: the people are not allowed to plunder.
They may indeed kill whoever tries to plunder them, but
according to the stoT):,the people themselves do not plun-
der. Whereas Ahasuirus and Haman sought power and
wealth, the motivation of the Jews is different: they want
only to defend theniselves against evil and against those
who attack them. In biblical language, this is presented (as
in the story of Saul and Amalek) as a struggle from gener-
ation to generation. In this story too, the successful strug-
gle is presented as a literal obedience to the same com-
mand God had given to Saul: destroy without plundering.
The story of Esther is a lesson on how to live and fight
in a world ruled by other norms and values, while still
keeping one’s own identity as a people. Though God is
never mentioned, many hints draw the attention of the
reader to the possibility that God is at work here. \Vill God
allow a foreign king to present himself as divinely favored?
Is the replacement of Vashti by Esther not in God’s hands,
as mas the replacement 6f Saul by David? Is the conflict
between Mordecai and Haman not the never-ending
struggle that YHWH will wage, together with his people,
from generation to generation? Is the fasting not also a cry
to God for help? Is Mordecai’s appeal not constructed as a
vocation story in line with that of Moses? Is his conviction
that the Jews will be saved not based upon the experience
that God never let his people down? Is Esther not por-
trayed as the heroine, chosen by God, destined to save her
people? Is the name “Esther,” (“I am hidden”), not more
than a reminder of God’s judgment-also hinting at the
possibility that God is hiddenly present and active in the
story? The story of Esther is the story of the destruction of
evil and the story of God’s dream for his people. From gen-
eration to generation, even until today, it should be cele-
brated that God is present in situations of injustice, in peo-
ple who act, reversing the fate of the people to save them.
Works Cited
149
 Companion to the Bible, vol. 7, edited by A. Brenner. Moore, Carey A. 1971. ESTHER.The Anchor Bible Commentary,
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. vol. 7B. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

Fox, Michael V 1991. CHARACTER AXD IDEOLOGY IN THE BOOK

OF ESTHER.Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament.
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Klein, Lillian R. 1995. Honor arid S h m e in Esther. Pp. 149-75 in
A FEMINIST cO\fPANON TO ESTHER, JUDITH AND SUSASSA.
Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol. 7, edited by A.
Brenner. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

150