Our modern experience of God is more like that of the Book of Esther than that of many Old Testament books. In Esther, God worked behind the scenes to bring about deliverance for His people. God did not bring deliverance through spectacular plagues or a miracle at the sea as in the exodus. Rather, God worked through a courageous old man who refused to abandon his principles and a courageous woman who valued the lives of her people more than her own life. The Book of Esther calls us to look at the lives of people committed to God if we want to know what God is doing to bring about deliverance in our own world.

The deliberate and rather ponderous wording lays stress, first, on the exact date, already familiar from 3:12, and second, on the overturning of events so that the Jews, instead of being the victims, became the victors on that day. The outcome of the encounter is anticipated here as though the permission to defend themselves was certain to lead to their survival.

2. The inability of their enemies to do the Jews harm is explained on a psychological level: the fear of them had fallen upon all peoples. In part this fear could be explained by the unexpected change of power in Susa, and by the right of the Jews to defend themselves against a totally unjust law. People fighting in a just cause no doubt have formidable power, but none of these factors, nor all of them together, account for the implied inevitability of Jewish victory. The fear of God’s people was explicable only in terms of fear of their God, who vindicated their righteous cause by convicting their enemies in the whole Persian empire of having backed the losing side.

3. That the highest authorities in every place had their eyes firmly fixed on political advantage for themselves is fully admitted. It was in their interests to ingratiate themselves with Mordecai if they were to remain in office, hence their readiness to help the Jews. With the leadership on their side the Jews secured powerful public support and even prestige.

4. Almost as mysterious as the fear of the Jews was the popularity of the new prime minister. Why should he have risen swiftly to such a powerful position in world politics, and why was it that people were prepared to trust him as their leader and champion his cause? A supernatural influence seems to be implied, enhancing natural tendencies to hero worship, and reinforcing self-interest.

5–6. Having explained how the Jews obtained favour, the author could go on to relate that they smote all their enemies with the sword. There are limits implied to the slaughter despite the emphasis on destruction. The victims were i. enemies, ii. those who hated them, iii. men, not women or children (Heb. ʾîš). All the casualties are on one side in this battle, but we should think in terms of fighting men and not of a defenceless population as a whole, despite the many statements to the contrary in writings on Esther. Perhaps the words did as they pleased to those who hated them suggests an orgy of indulgence in elemental vengeance because of the juxtaposition of the verbs. In the wider context, however, the inference is that the Jews were given a free hand without official interference. Human nature being what it is, to do one’s pleasure often has grim overtones, as it does in Daniel 8:4; 11:3, 16, 36; but in Esther 1:8 it is morally neutral, while in Psalm 145 God satisfies the desire of every living thing (16, 19). The word translated ‘pleasure’, ‘desire’ (Heb. raṣôn) is neutral and does not of itself imply blame.

The number of casualties, however, was high. Five hundred in the acropolis of Susa seems excessive, and has even been taken as deliberate exaggeration for humorous effect. ‘If an enemy did not attack the Jews first, he was in no danger. Who would be so foolish as to make himself subject to the second edict? It would be suicide to attack the Jews.… The answer is that 800 people in Susa and 75,000 in the provinces were so stupid! It is unfortunate that so many readers have failed to see that the account is a deliberate hyperbole.’ It is impossible to know what the death toll would have been if Haman’s edict had been carried out, but there must have been ten times that number of Jews scattered throughout the Persian empire if the relatively small number who went back to Judah in the various waves of repatriation came to something like the figure of 42,360 (Ezr. 2:64; Ne. 7:66). Of course, those who argue for exaggeration in the cause of humour also consider Haman’s edict to be exaggerated.

7–10. The killing of Haman’s ten sons forestalled any attempt on their part to avenge the death of their father or to usurp the office he had held. Their names are spelt with considerable variations in the Versions and it is impossible to establish with certainty their original form, though claims have been made that Persian originals underlie at least some of them. All the names have a characteristic ‘a’ vowel, in keeping also with the father and grandfather’s names, as though binding the family together.

But they laid no hand on the plunder. In Israel’s past there had been several incidents concerning spoils of war, and since the author makes this comment twice more (15 and 16) he clearly wants to make a point. This is especially likely in view of the express permission given to them in 8:11 to plunder the goods of their enemies. Abraham had refused to accept the spoil offered him by the king of Sodom (Gn. 14:21–23), so establishing a principle, and Saul had blatantly selected choice animals for himself while protesting his innocence, so providing a classic example of ‘rationalization’ and of the disaster that follows disobedience (1 Sa. 15:17–23). With the memory of this incident in mind the author seeks to reverse the curse on King Saul and ensure blessing for Mordecai and his contemporaries. The deliberate decision not to enrich themselves at the expense of their enemies would not go unnoticed in a culture where victors were expected to take the spoil. The very novelty of such self-denial would be remarked upon and remembered, and taken as proof of the upright motives of the Jewish communities. The incident provides an interesting example of the way Scripture exerts its influence on behaviour.

What follows is less edifying, and not meant to be an example to follow, any more than was Saul’s prevarication over the Amalekite animals (1 Sa. 15:13–15, 20–21).

What is the purpose of fasting?

What does this story teach about the care of God for His people?