Mark 9:38-50

Mark 9:38-50

38 John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

42 ‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. 43If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, 48where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.

49 ‘For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.’

Mark 9:38-50 gives me an opportunity to discuss what we mean when we think of the rule of God coming with power, such as a broad vision of the rule of God, simple acts of generosity, and peace. 

Mark 9:38-41 is a pronouncement story on the unknown exorcist.^[1] It gives me an opportunity to discuss proper tolerance and a vision of the rule of God coming with power.

³⁸ John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ The report presents a startling contrast to the earlier episode in which the disciples could not cast out a spirit from a young boy (vv. 14-29). The disciples believe since this person is not a member of the twelve, he has no disciple-designation, and he has no authority, therefore he has no right to use Jesus’ name when casting out demons.  The disciple’s problem with this exorcist is that he is not one of us, that is, not one of the established leadership certified by Jesus. The disciples proudly tell Jesus how they had nipped a budding heresy in their midst. The use of the phrase "in your name" suggests a technical reference (more specific than indicated in v.37): The man was practicing a sort of "word magic," invoking Jesus' name to perform healings. Mark's description makes it clear that this man had received no direct authority from Jesus ‑‑ so it would seem the disciple’s reaction might have some justification. Yet, their enthusiasm for shutting off divine compassion toward those hurting is disconcerting, to say the least. ³⁹However, Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power [(dunamiV) healing ministry here, but connects with 9:1] in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. Not only do the disciples not understand the nature of the kingdom, but they are also leaning toward exclusivism in which only those who are among the Twelve can engage in the acts of God. Jesus castigates this viewpoint, arguing that the kingdom of God includes more than just the disciples. God’s kingdom, which comes in power (9:1), is a kingdom that stands opposed to the kingdom of darkness. Those who stand against darkness are those whom God empowers to do deeds of power in the name of Jesus. Hence, the noun dunamiV links the beginning of this chapter with verse 39. The story establishes the attitude of Jesus toward helpers who were not part of his disciples. Jesus’ rebuke most likely surprised the disciples.  The Twelve saw themselves as a uniquely endowed, specially selected group privy to Jesus’ individual attentions and tutorials. Anyone who authentically acts in his name or on his behalf, Jesus asserts, is a full and legitimate participant in the power of that name.  Furthermore, Jesus’ acceptance of this un-named exorcist widens the circle of the faithful community.  While only his name imbues power, nonetheless a discipleship team must carry out this work.

⁴⁰ Whoever is not against us is for us. Such a saying is a proverbial remark. Cicero, living the first century BC, confirms the proverbial character of the remark in saying in remarking that though Caesar viewed everyone as an adherent who was not against him, in contrast to others, who held everyone to be opponents except those explicitly at their side.[2]The saying is a memory of the wisdom of Jesus regarding openness and inclusiveness. 

⁴¹ For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward. This seems to be a Christian proverb. The qualifications for acceptance into this network drop even more dramatically.  Now all that Jesus requires is only the tiniest hint of respect and interest in those who witness in his name.  Giving a “cup of water” is hardly a measure of exuberant hospitality.  Jesus’ words to his followers now take on the hue of an ominous warning — reminding the disciples that with access to tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility. Although such persons were not believers, they were also not opponents of the Christian movement. God would reward even the simple act of offering a Christian a cup of water out of respect for Christ, Jesus states, even if the person making the offer has no other involvement in the faith.  Jesus underscores his open, tolerant attitude to the work of this exorcist with two of sayings that direct his disciples to look with graciousness upon the work of those who do a deed of power in my name or the one who gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ. Jesus rejects the privatized vision of power offered by the disciples.  Jesus' response flings wide the doors of discipleship. Jesus includes within his domain individuals his own disciples would never dream of embracing. Some commentators explain Jesus' acceptance of this unknown healer's activities by claiming he must have been one of John the Baptist's disciples, or one of the 70 sent out by Jesus. Nevertheless, the text itself makes no such stipulation.

I offer a humorous story. In Belfast, Ireland, a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister and a Jewish rabbi were engaged in a heated theological discussion. Suddenly an angel appeared in their midst and said to them, “God sends you his blessings. Make one wish for peace and your wish will be fulfilled by the Almighty.” The minister said, “Let every Catholic disappear from our lovely island. Then peace will reign supreme.” The priest said, “Let there not be a single Protestant left on our sacred Irish soil. That will bring peace to this island.” “And what about you, Rabbi?” said the angel. “Do you have no wish of your own?” “No,” said the rabbi. “Just attend to the wishes of these two gentlemen and I shall be well pleased.”[3]

            Yes, the rule of God is larger than our definition of it, says Jesus. We need to take that advice seriously. Yet, one of the difficulties we face is that we live in an age that says it values tolerance. Thus, our relativistic age loves this story. Cole Porter wrote a song that celebrated this aspect of American life long ago. 

Times have changed

            And we've often rewound the clock

            Since the puritans got a shock

            When they landed on Plymouth Rock,

            If today

            Any shock they should try to stem,

            Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,

            Plymouth Rock would land on them.

 

            In olden days, a glimpse of stocking

            Was looked on as something shocking.

            But now, God knows,

            Anything goes.

            Good authors too who once knew better words

            Now only use four-letter words,

            Writing prose,

            Anything goes.

 

The song goes on like this, suggesting that the 1930's were a time when "anything goes."  

            Our relativism teaches us to count intolerance as a greater sin than actual error in what we believe or what we do. Openness is the only virtue of our time.  We have convinced ourselves that it is a virtue to be nonjudgmental and open and accept everyone and all behavior as equally valid.  Thus, we do not believe it is right to correct mistakes and really be right.  Rather, we are not to think there is anything to be right or wrong about.  For us, no boundaries suggest correct standards of thinking and behaving.[4]

            In our context, we may read this passage and think Jesus is endorsing this aspect of the culture. Yes, in his context, Jesus surprised the disciples with is openness and tolerance. The power of the rule of God was such that it moved beyond the circle of the disciples. In fact, one can see the rule of God in any act of simple kindness. Yet, can we admit that our type of tolerance can be the cowardly act of giving in to the spirit of the age? "Anything goes?"  Not really.  

Too many of us live as if we barely have enough power to get us through the day.  If the rule of God is to come with power, it will be because we have so connected ourselves to Jesus that our lives can exhibit the power of the rule of God.

Mark 9:42-50 contains the teaching of Jesus on honesty and self-examination concerning sin. Mark has gathered a collection of sayings around the theme of leading others astray. It will give me an opportunity to discuss hell, of course. In context, these sayings reflect upon the danger to which the disciples open themselves in their exclusive attitude. Mark skillfully ties all of these themes together to illustrate further what it means for the rule of God to come in power (9:1). This rule comes in power not only in the deeds of power committed in the name of God on its behalf (9:39), such as exorcisms. Rather, the rule of God comes every time a simple act, such as giving water to a believer, is performed (9:41), whenever one takes care not to harm others in the community (9:42) and whenever one realizes that to follow God is more important than possession of life itself (9:43-48). Concomitantly, the rule of God comes every time believers are who they are — the salt of the earth, living at peace with one another, thereby demonstrating that the kingdom of God transforms relationships and the way one views the world (vv. 49-50).

⁴² ‘If any of you put a stumbling-block (σκανδαλίσῃ) before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. This saying concerning the stumbling block has a proverbial character. It focuses on the danger us as individuals can be to others in the community. The disciples have authority, but the consequences of the misuse of power are so dire that Jesus uses intentionally graphic, violent language to shock his listeners into recognizing their importance.  The image of such a person cast into the sea with a millstone around the neck speaks eloquently of total annihilation. If a violent death by drowning, with a millstone attached to the neck to assure death, is better than giving scandal, one can only imagine how devastating would be the punishment for causing a member of the community to sin.[5] Sensitivity to how the larger world viewed the Christian movement seems also to be a concern in this passage. Jesus instructs the community of believers to police their own lives for sinful behavior so that they might project a right image of the early church to the world. Those who were considering the faith, or who were new to the faith, could be scandalized (literally “made to stumble”) by disjunctions they observed between Christian teaching and the ethics of individual Christians. The very act of neglecting one’s own spiritual life, so that others become disillusioned and lose their faith, is itself a serious sin.

Jesus declares that those who willfully erect "stumbling blocks," whose actions hinder the progress of "little ones," are better off at the bottom of the sea. So great is Jesus' love for these "little ones" that he counsels the ancient mechanism of pars pro toto ("partial sacrifice for the sake of survival in a situation of pursuit, of threat and anxiety") to behavior that would lead others astray.  Jesus seems to reserve his anger, emotion, and tears for those who took advantage of the "others," the "little ones" -- the poor, the weak, the young, the old, the sick, the outcast. Jesus did not try to curb his tongue when castigating those who took unfair advantage or practiced outright abuse against the "others" and "little ones" of the world. Neither was Jesus ashamed to let the fierceness of his feelings turn to tears of compassion and love for all the "others" and "little ones" who stumble and struggle in this world. 

⁴³ If your hand causes you to stumble (σκανδαλίζῃ), cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. ⁴⁵ Further, if your foot causes you to stumble (σκανδαλίζῃ), cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and have God throw you into hell. ⁴⁷ And if your eye causes you to stumble (σκανδαλίζῃ), tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, ⁴⁸ where their worm never dies, and the destroying fire (πῦρ) is never quenched [Isaiah 66:24]. We have a saying on the hand, foot, and eye.[6] Here, the focus is attention to the danger we can become to ourselves. They contrast Gehenna with God’s rule and life.  It concerns the final judgment and salvation at the end of history.  Such a radical saying, suggesting a marred, incomplete body, which was abhorrent in Jesus’ day, was to be preferred to the submission to temptation.  It was of supreme importance to remove any obstacle to entering eternal life.  Entry into the rule of God means to become a disciple and enter the community.^[7] To find access to the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation. The common reference to entering the rule of God has a future sense, referring to participation in the future fellowship of salvation.^[8] The point is ensnaring oneself rather than others. Jesus appears to reject the notion that one cannot treat the symptom and still get to true repentance. He uses humor here to make absurd the notion that one can eradicate sin performed by various parts of the body by amputating that part of the body. Sin does not arise in the body. It arises in the human soul, in the spirit or in the heart. In this way, Christ’s teaching is the exact opposite of Greek philosophies, such as Gnosticism, that attributed a degenerate nature to the human body. In a true Israelite perspective, the body and the soul are one. The body does not drag the soul down into “earthly” debaucheries. A heart and mind turned in the wrong direction uses the body in sinful ways. If sin rules your life, Jesus argues, then you are not eligible to receive new birth and enter the new life of the resurrection; therefore rooting out sin is the only way to enter into that new life. How much is it worth to be born into that life? Jesus asks. Is it worth sacrificing a limb? Alternatively, an eye? If so, consider the fact that Christ does not require such an extreme gesture. All that Jesus asks of us is that we endeavor to rid our lives of sin that arises from human will. These verses, however, are not about maiming, but more about the blessing of life; God is more important than parts of our body. Given the richness of life in the rule of God, it would be better to be without hand, foot, or eye than to live a human life without entering it. One can live without hand, foot, or eye, but one cannot truly live without entering the rule of God. To allow hand, foot, or eye to bring one to the unquenchable fires of hell is unthinkable.^[9] One could also argue that although the individual is in view in these verses, Mark weds words about the individual to his earlier words about communal offense because he wants to highlight the individual in relation to the community. Thus, the individual's sin affects the community, not only the person who commits such a sin. Therefore, the person's actions have consequences not only for self but also for others.

             “Gehenna” suggests spiritual destruction, as opposed to eternal life. The image of “hell” which appears in this passage is one adapted from ancient Israelite history to correspond with the Greek notion of Hades. Unlike the Greeks, the ancient Israelites did not have a concept of Hades, or Tartarus, namely an underworld filled with fire and brimstone in which the wicked were tortured for all eternity. Sheol, the ancient Hebrew abode of the dead, was simply a pit into which the dead disappeared, never to arise again. Gehenna, however, is the New Testament equivalent of Hades, the name of which is a graecization of the Hebrew place name ge ben Hinnom, or “valley of Ben Hinnom.” It was here, in the small valley outside the Jaffa gate, that ancient Israelite kings committed the sin of child sacrifice and constructed a tophet  or child sacrifice burial ground offered by fire to the pagan gods Moloch and Baal (Jeremiah 7:30-34, 32:35). The image of gehenna then, evoked in the minds of Jewish hearers, is a place of unimaginable horror, death and depravity.  After this practice ceased due to the reforms implemented by King Josiah (II Kings 23:10), the valley became a trash dump where fires continually burned in order to consume the garbage. It was a place where maggots constantly fed and multiplied. Eventually, in some strands of Jewish thought, this valley became associated with what the wicked would experience in the future, one in which "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (v. 48).^[10]

            How do you think of hell?

            Through me is the way to the sorrowful city. Through me is the way to eternal suffering. Through me is the way to join the lost people . . . Abandon all hope, you who enter![11]

            Hell, Madame, is to love no more.[12]

        What is hell?

        Hell is oneself,

        Hell is alone, the other figures in it

        Merely projections.[13]

 

⁴⁹ ‘For life will salt everyone with fire (πυρὶ). A quotation from Scripture, in which one can translate it back into its Aramaic form. Jesus is most likely alluding to the refining trials and tribulations of religious persecution that were the nearly constant experiences of the early church. These fires will be the defining experiences that form the church into what it will become. The odd language of “salting” with fire appears to have the same sense here that it has in Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount (5:13). It stresses the purifying nature of fire.

“Salting” appears to refer to possessing of an indefinable quality that sets one apart. Namely, salt has inseparable characteristics in its very chemical structure that makes it what it is. If it ceases to have that indefinable quality, it ceases to be salt. Thus, Mark seems to say, the ability to endure, or to have the fire of testing and trial salt one, is the essential quality that makes one worthy to be a Christian. The world will assuredly inflict this testing on the community, Jesus warns, but he also encourages the community to test itself, ridding itself of sinful behavior. Only those who have a firm understanding of themselves, who submit themselves to the test of self-examination and honesty, can truly be at peace with a world that misunderstands them, and at peace with each other, no matter what their level of sophistication in the faith.

⁵⁰ Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? This saying is not only in Mark, but also in the source that Matthew and Luke have in common. If the impurities were greater than the salt, the salt would be bland or insipid. Disciples are like salt in the world, purifying and preserving.[14] The image Jesus utilizes emphasizes the importance of the presence of believers as well as the nature of their presence. In addition, the rule of God that comes in power, to which the transfiguration in 9:2 gave evidence, is what we also see in the casting out of demons. Yet, we also see the rule of God coming with power in the inclusive nature of God’s call. We see it coming in power in the lives of those who are a part of it. Being in the rule of God salt disciples so that they receive purification. They participate in the preservation and purification of the world. Their lives through their actions of casting out demons (vv. 14-29, 38-40; cf. 6:7, 13), welcoming all, even little children (vv. 37; 10:15), and engaging in servant leadership (vv. 33-37; 10:35-45) purify the world of its own clamor for power and domination, overturning pride and the powers that operate behind such actions. 

 Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.’ Furthermore, their lives demonstrate that the rule of God has truly come, and they help preserve this reality with their own actions. As they have salt in themselves, they will realize that what is important is not who is the greatest, but who is the least and how to serve those who are the least (10:41-45). Service allows one to be at peace with others, whereas desire for recognition and prestige creates division and strife. Thus, this saying nicely rounds out the theme, even going back to verse 33. It returns to the theme with which the complex began, peace among the disciples.  They are a benediction.  However, peace was common to wish upon others and one might reasonably use the image of salt.  The purpose of salt is to season. Its use is in daily life. The way to peace is a life seasoned with salt, or perhaps with common sense, as its meaning may be. This verse makes the point that once the disciples allow pettiness, selfishness or pride to flatten their discipleship, they will never be able to regain its original sharp, distinctive, pleasing flavor.  The paradox of Christian discipleship, Jesus teaches, is that one must carry it out in a spirit of genuine humility and servanthood.

---

[1] (Francis Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 190). Bultmann said the story is a product of the early Christian community. If so, it could reflect the Christian community’s concern with drawing appropriate social boundaries, separating those inside from those outside.  Historically, this episode may also depict Mark's community of faith in which members are trying to decide who belongs to the community and whom they should exclude. Thus, Jesus' statement of inclusion would not only serve as a rebuke and a reminder to those of his time, but also to those within the Markan community.

[2] Though we held everyone to be our opponents except those on our side, Caesar counted everybody as your adherent who was not against him.  

[3] —Anthony de Mello, Taking Flight (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 79.

[4] Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.

[5] (Moloney, 190)

[6] For the Jesus Seminar, verses 43-48 reflect the apocalyptic interests of Mark, for Jesus spoke in terms of the kingdom as already present. If the body referred to is the Christian community, then the later community created the saying. In that context, it was better to excommunicate some members of the community, rather than risk injury to the whole community.

[7] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.2] 657.

[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 398, 328, referring to the emphasis of J. Weiss.

[9] (Moloney, 191).

[10] (Moloney, 191; Stephen Short, NIV Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979], 1169).

[11] – Dante, The Divine Comedy, (Inscription at the entrance to Hell.)

[12] – Georges Bernanos, writer   

[13] – T. S. Eliot, “The Cocktail Party,” 1950

[14] (Moloney, 192; Short, 1169).

James 5:13-20

James 5:13-20

¹³ Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. ¹⁴Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. ¹⁵The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. ¹⁶Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. ¹⁷Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. ¹⁸Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.

¹⁹ My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, ²⁰you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

           The theme of James 5:13-20 is providing a manual of discipline. The focus is healing at verse 14 and the apostates at verse 19. It gives me an opportunity to discuss the power of prayer, healing, and the importance of not allowing another to lead us astray.

The concluding shift to communal relationships reminds readers that the moral advice of James was not just for private individuals. It addresses members of a Christian community. How are they to deal with situations that weaken the community, with suffering and illness, sinfulness, and with members who go astray? The response to such conditions is confident prayer, exemplified by Elijah. 

There has been an increasing trend among Americans to describe themselves as “spiritual” rather than “religious.” This tendency emerges from a variety of factors, but certainly one is a focus on the private, individual life as contrasted with the public, communal life. One can never really know how a person from an ancient culture would respond to such practices, but judging from the way James concludes his letter, such a notion would puzzle him. His focus throughout this passage is on the responsibilities that Christians have toward each other within the faith community. James consistently situates the actions of the individual within a community. 

In particular, the one who suffers should pray but should pray in community just as the one who is sick calls others to join in the prayer. The one who is cheerful should likewise sing with the community and not simply hum quietly to oneself.

Whatever the circumstances of our walk with God — whether in suffering or joy, illness or discerning God’s truth for our lives and the world — James reminds us that we can call on the support of others and also challenges us to meet our responsibilities to others. Through such community, we receive God’s final blessing on our lives.

¹² Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and your "No" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. This suggests a connection with the previous text, so swearing was an expression of impatience with the present order.  Instead of bitterness, they should remain loyal.  We find a similar thought as Jesus advises that his followers not swear at all, by heaven, earth, or Jerusalem. Rather than needing to make an oath to keep a promise, they are to let their word be yes or no (Matthew 5:34-37). 

¹³ Are any among you suffering? They should pray. They will find proper help in leading the life James suggests as they pray rather than have resentment. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. We are to call upon the Lord in the day of trouble, and the Lord will deliver us and we shall glorify the Lord (Psalm 50:15). Paul also encouraged his readers to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God with gratitude in their hearts (Colossians 3:15).

James 5:14-18 concern the healing of the sick by anointing.  The division between the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church on the matter of anointing the sick is instructive. The issue is the strengthening of the recipients by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The meaning of the rite is in the easing and strengthening of the sick by a perceptible symbol of the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic Church limited anointing of the sick to “extreme unction,” while Luther argued for the central role of prayer and the remission of sins. Vatican II abandoned the restriction of unction to the dying, thereby accepting the criticism of Luther. In discussing the ambivalence of the word “sacrament,” Luther suggests that we may seek the origin and basis of this rite in in the healing work of Jesus, which the disciples continued. This passage witnesses to a primitive Christian practice. It has an historical and material connection to the mystery of Christ, especially through the act of anointing, which reminds us of the title “Christ” and of baptism. Anointing of the sick is a significant expression of the mystery.[1]

¹⁴ Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church "Elders" was an office in the early church that evolved out of the Jewish synagogue system of elders.  The church in Antioch sent aid for a famine to “the elders” in Jerusalem by means of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:30). Titus 1:5 refers to the appointment of elders in every town. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each of the congregations they founded; doing so with prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23). Paul wanted to meet the elders of the church in Ephesus (Acts 20:17).  Elders are to receive double honor, receive proper wages, and have the protection of requiring corroborating witnesses regarding any accusation against them (I Timothy 5:17-19). The apostle Peter counts himself as among the elders and as giving an exhortation to elders (I Peter 5:1). John refers to himself as “the elder” (II John 1).  It does seem likely, however, that they were the equivalent of modern clergy. James does not see these elders as having a particular charism, or spiritual gift, of healing. Rather they were respected members of the community whose prayers the community considered faithful (v. 15) and powerful and effective” (v. 16). The sick are to have the elders pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. Faith in the name of Jesus could bring healing (Acts 3:16). The oil was a kind of life elixir.  It was Jewish tradition to anoint the sick with oil. Philo, Pliny, and Galen refer to the practice.  Thus, we should find no hint of magic here.  The practice would later develop into the sacrament of extreme unction.  Early Christians expected such miracles to occur in the community.  The prayer of the elders for the sick was to accompany the ritual act of anointing with oil.  Mediterranean cultures of the time knew of the medicinal uses of oils. Famously, the Lord anoints the head of the faithful with oil (Psalm 23:5). One could soften wounds with oil (Isaiah 1:6). In the parable of Jesus, the Samaritan poured oil on the wounds of the beaten man he saw on the road (Luke 10:33-34). However, the specific language of James suggests he is not thinking about a presumed therapeutic effect. The specific practice of anointing with oil in conjunction with prayers for healing is one we find elsewhere in the NT only once in describing the ministry of the Twelve after Jesus sent them out two by two as including anointing with oil many who were sick (Mark 6:13). Yet, the general nature of that reference would indicate it was common. This shows the widespread nature of the custom. The church continued the custom. Anointing rituals in ancient Israel were associated with setting persons and things apart for God. Priests are to receive anointing (Exodus 29:7). Moses shall anoint with oil the tabernacle and all the objects within it, such as its furniture, altar, basin and stand, as well as Aaron and his sons (Exodus 40:9-15).  Zadok anointed Solomon as king (I Kings 1:39). Thus, we are to understand this ritual as setting apart the one who receives anointing to God’s particular care. ¹⁵ The prayer of faith will save [σώσει] the sick, and the Lord will raise them up [ἐγερεῖ]. This word for the restoration from illness is the one used in the New Testament to refer to the future resurrection, and so especially when used with σῴζω it must entail more than just immediate physical restoration. God’s ultimate act in “raising” us to eternal life is itself an answer to such a “prayer of faith.” Indeed, in some Christian traditions, this passage is the basis for the practice of praying for and anointing people who are about to die. In addition,anyone who has committed sins will receive forgiveness. The close connection between healing and forgiveness is one we find in the ministry of Jesus, where he saw the faith of the friends of the paralytic and forgave the sins of the sick man (Mark 9:2). However, it is far from certain that he intends by these remarks to locate the origin of all disease in sinful acts. Everywhere else in the letter where James uses the verb swzw, it is with reference to the complete redemption of the person at the end of the age (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:20). There is no reason to believe that the usage here is outside that pattern. Thus, the prayers for the sick bring both physical and spiritual wholeness to the person. While some injury and even illness may result from sinful acts, James is not arguing that all illness is a consequence of sin. In John, Jesus notes that the blindness of the man is not the result of sin (John 9:3). In fact, this mutual confession and prayer for each other is a prayer urged upon all Christians, which may suggest a separation from the prayer for the sick. One who confesses and forsakes transgressions will receive mercy (Proverbs 28:13). We are to have no shame in confessing our sin (Sirach 4:26). Confession of sin leads to our forgiveness and cleansing (I John 1:8-10). Confession and disclosing their practices led to people becoming believers (Acts 19:18). Concealing transgression (Proverbs 28:13) or claiming to have no sin (I Jon 1:8-10) is not a virtue! ¹⁶ Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may receivehealing. James is connecting sickness with sin. Ancient belief often made this association. James accepts the traditional view that there could be a connection between sin and physical illness. In John, Jesus urged one he healed to sin no more (John 5:14), but also noted that the blindness of the man was not the result of sin (John 9:1-3). The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. James states the effect of intercessory prayer. ¹⁷ Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months (I Kings 17:1 and 18:41-46 only says, "in the third year" while James and Luke 4:25 say "3 1/2 years,") it did not rain on the earth.  ¹⁸ Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest. Elijah becomes an example of such intercessory prayer. Another author says he brought famine and lessened the numbers of his opponents, as well as caused fire from heaven (Sirach 48:2-3). The point is that prayer can hasten or delay God's salvation.  They had to wait 3 1/2 years, a point of comfort.  All of this presents another challenge stemming from James’ confidence that these acts of prayer and anointing will certainly lead to restoration. His specific claim about the efficacy of the prayer of the righteous and the commonality shared between all of us and someone such as Elijah only compounds this problem. Does an absence of recovery therefore prove the absence of “righteousness” on the part of either the sick or the elders who pray for them? Two aspects of James’s teaching would suggest otherwise. The qualification of the anointing and the prayer as being offered “in the name of the Lord” serves to underscore both God’s authority and the need for our prayers to be conformed to God’s will (4:3). God hears the prayers of those who can and will believe. God is and wants people to come to God as the One who listens to the prayers of faith. God permits humanity to hear from God and worship God, thereby finding comfort, peace, and purity. In addition, humanity may call upon God in the most definite way, and expecting that God will do it. It will then be up to God to use wisdom as to how God will answer.[2]

We know the power of community. We know how important it is for us to connect with other people. Yet, when we go through challenging times, when we suffer, the tendency of some people is to isolate themselves. This might be quite natural, but what we really need is to be with others. We need their touch and warm embrace. When we sin, our tendency is also to leave those against whom we have wronged. It can be difficult to admit our culpability in injuring the relationship through our word and deed. We feel the alienation. We might avoid talking with the person. 

James mentions anointing with oil. We might think of the story of the Good Samaritan, who anointed with oil the one beaten by robbers. In the ancient world, the oil had a medical purpose. James is not referring to anything magical. One of the beauties of anointing with oil is that it can be a powerful reminder of the presence of Christ, which, in Greek, means, “anointed one.” In the Old Testament, anointing occurred as a symbol of setting something apart for God. It meant setting apart the one who receives anointing to God’s particular care.

Some of us may feel faceless, wondering who we are and why God has placed here. Some of us may feel weak in soul and body, realizing that if we are to find strength, it will need to come from beyond, in the community of faith and in God. A personal need may be in your heart and mind. The need for healing or strengthening a relationship may be uppermost in your mind. You may simply want to testify to your desire for your family to receive anointing, setting apart for God. 

The power of prayer is not that it changes disease but that it changes us -- the people who pray. It shifts the focus from self and connects us to God and to the world around us. That is real change and true healing. Prayer does not always lead to a cure, but it saves the sick by raising them into the presence of God. Prayer changes the people who pray, making them more peaceful, accepting and aligned with their Christian convictions. Prayer might make you better able to face and to overcome your health challenges. 

A poem captures the sense of single-minded devotion at the heart of prayer: 

Let us then labour for an inward stillness --

An inward stillness and an inward healing;

That perfect silence where the lips and heart

Are still, and we no longer entertain

Our own imperfect thoughts and vain opinions,

But God alone speaks in us, and we wait

In singleness of heart, that we may know

His will, and in the silence of our spirits,

That we may do His will, and do that only.[3]  

 

Here is a prayer. Lord, you are merciful. I stand in need of your healing and transforming presence in my life. I long for wholeness, but too often cannot resist the demands to compartmentalize my life. I desire true intimacy, but I am afraid to be transparent, lest others judge and reject me. I want health, but do not take care of my body and do not give my soul Sabbath rest. I need authentic and loving community, but struggle to commit myself deeply to others. Forgive me, I pray. Heal me of my shortsightedness, of my self-hatred and denial, of my illusions of control, of the fears, stresses, and anxieties that keep me from living fully as a child created in your image. Amen.

James 5: 19-20 have the theme of salvation of apostates. ¹⁹ My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, a notion that implies a serious turning away from the faith. Jesus seems concerned that the Sadducees are in such danger of this on the resurrection (Matthew 22:29). Jesus has the concern that others will lead astray those who follow Jesus (Matthew 24:4-5). While Paul has exhibited a faithful life, wicked people and impostors will deceive themselves and others (II Timothy 3:10-13). The people of the congregation are to do every good work, speak evil of no one, avoid quarreling, and be gentle and courteous, for they must remember that someone had led them astray as well (Titus 3:1-3). Yet, another brother or sister brings you back, ²⁰ you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner's soul from death.[4] Is it, then, the soul of the wanderer or of the restorer that receives salvation? The ambiguity may very well be deliberate; people who assume their responsibility for others also share in the blessing that comes from covering over the “multitude of sins” that might otherwise be committed by anyone who “wanders from the truth.” Most importantly, we need to stress the readiness to forgive.[5] Fraternal love and pardon can bring back those who have strayed. The purpose of the admonitions is to set things right.  It is our duty to bring erring brothers and sisters back to the fold.  Even if the wicked do not heed the warning of the prophet, the prophet will save his life (Ezekiel 3:19, 33:9). Those who lead others to righteous will shine like the stars forever (Daniel 12:3). Giving alms saves from death, purges sin, and leads to enjoyment of life (Tobit 12:9). Readers are to have mercy on the wavering, save others by snatching them from the fire, and have mercy combined with fear for others (Jude 22-23). God will give life to one who sins and is the object of your prayers (I John 5:16). In a similar matter of church order, if one member sins against another, deal with it privately, then bring another, and finally bring the matter before the whole community, with the intent of regaining the erring one (Matthew 18:15-17).[6] The writer offers the advice of temperance, which if followed will lead to the salvation of the one who heeds the advice and the one who gives it (II Clement 15:1).[7] It is his deepest wish that as many people as possible save themselves from the path that leads to destruction. The responsibility we have for one another’s fate before God is the point with which James concludes his letter.  Further, such behavior will cover a multitude of sins. The phrase suggests that such an act of forgiveness covers the sins of the community in the sense of preventing further spread of sin.  It may suggest a final affirmation of the mercy of God toward the returned sinner. In I Peter 4:8, we find a similar sentiment: “Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins.” The basis is in Proverbs 10:12, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.”

---

[1] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 270, 367)

[2] Barth (Church Dogmatics, II.1 [31.2], 510-511)

[3] --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, "Christus: A Mystery," in The Poetical Works of  Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, vol. 5 (Houghton Mifflin, 1851), 313-14.

[4] The generally commendable practice of the NRSV to avoid gender-exclusive language obscures an important feature of James’ Greek text. As the NRSV text note in verse 20 indicates, the statement that “whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death” is actually the more ambiguous “will save his (autou) soul.”

[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 246

[6] There are four characters in scholars. Quick to hear and quick to forget, his gain is cancelled by his loss: slow to hear and slow to forget, his loss is cancelled by his gain: quick to hear, and slow to forget, is wise: slow to hear, and quick to forget, this is an evil lot. (Pirque Aboth 5:18)

[7] |Now, I do not think that I have given advice of little importance concerning temperance, which, if a man practice, he will not repent of it, but will save both himself and me who advise him. For it is no small service to convert a wandering and perishing soul to salvation. (II Clement 15:1)

Book of Esther

Rembrandt: Ahasuerus, Haman, Esther

Esther 7:1-6, 9-10, 9:20-22

¹So the king and Haman went in to feast with Queen Esther. ²On the second day, as they were drinking wine, the king again said to Esther, ‘What is your petition, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.’ ³Then Queen Esther answered, ‘If I have won your favour, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me—that is my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request. ⁴For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as slaves, men and women, I would have held my peace; but no enemy can compensate for this damage to the king.’^{* 5}Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther, ‘Who is he, and where is he, who has presumed to do this?’ ⁶Esther said, ‘A foe and enemy, this wicked Haman!’ Then Haman was terrified before the king and the queen.

 ⁹Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, ‘Look, the very gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, stands at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.’ And the king said, ‘Hang him on that.’ ¹⁰So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the anger of the king abated.

^9:20 Mordecai recorded these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far, ²¹enjoining them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar and also the fifteenth day of the same month, year by year, ²²as the days on which the Jews gained relief from their enemies, and as the month that had been turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, days for sending gifts of food to one another and presents to the poor.

An unknown author wrote Esther around 350 BC, but it is a story about events in 485-465 BC. It gives me an occasion to discuss goodness and courage among the people of God, regardless of the hostility of culture. I also discuss the dangers inherent in the reversal theology suggested by this book. Your investment of a pleasant hour reading the whole book of Esther will reward you. Not only is it a good read, with twists and turns (it is often likened to a brief historical novel), but you will receive insights for preaching an often-ignored slice of biblical life. Some portions of Esther are troubling, but more are fascinating. And God may be travelling incognito within its pages.

            The book offers rationale for a Jewish festival. Jews continue to celebrate Purim to this day. Esther is read aloud, accompanied by cheers and jeers, depending on which character is named. Esther and Mordecai continue to be honored for their wit, bravery, and skill at maneuvering their way around court intrigue and protocol, in a setting where women and Jews had little power. Diaspora Judaism survives against the odds. Although the name Esther is very popular as a Jewish name, it is actually derived from the Persian. The rabbis of the Talmud (Chullin 139b), however, trace the name to Deuteronomy 31:18, where God says He will “surely hide His face” from the Jewish people: “Anochi hasterastir et panai.” In a play on words, the rabbis are saying that the book of Esther represents a time when God is not found, is “hidden,” when the Divine Presence seems to be obscured. Yet, in the end, the people are saved.

The story of Mordecai may well have some basis in history, while the story of Vashti has its basis in popular accounts of intrigue in the harem, and the story of Esther herself is a simple story about a young Jewess who saves her people from persecution.  

The community at Qumran may not have accepted the book as part of the canon, it being the only Old Testament book not represented. It does not explicitly mention God. Some rabbis did not accept the book as canonical, though the council of Jamnia accepted it in 90 AD.  In the church, the west accepted it around the 300's, but the east rejected it.  In antiquity, people often associated it with Tobit and Judith, a book with a similar theme.

            One can understand these doubts. 

From a contemporary perspective, many have argued that Esther is not an admirable role model. Esther competed in a beauty contest of sorts, sponsored by the king of Persia around 450 B.C. She won the Miss Persia title, married the Gentile king and had sex with him. She apparently did not live as a Jew, was a part of the king’s harem, and lived in a Persian court. This is not a girl Jewish mothers would ask their daughters to emulate. Yet, there she is in the Bible of both Jews and Christians.

From the Jewish perspective, it does not mention Yahweh or God, Law or Covenant, angels or afterlife, or the virtues of love, kindness, mercy, and forgiveness. Instead, it emphasizes a vengeful, bloodthirsty, and chauvinistic spirit. It has an absence of Jewish religious practices in Esther. One possible exception is the mention of fasting in 4:16, but the fasting here comes as a request from Esther before she appears before the king. It is more of a “wish me good luck” request than a reference to a Jewish religious practice.

So, we return now to the question: “Why include Esther in the biblical canon?” It’s an exciting story, to be sure. It’s Hollywood-worthy, and has made it to the silver screen, although not recently (Esther and the King [1960] starring Joan Collins as Esther and Richard Egan as Ahasuerus). But without a single reference to Yahweh or any mention of religious practices, why not move Esther to Jewish extra-canonical apocryphal literature where the story can take its place alongside similar narratives like Judith, for example, whose eponymous hero uses her beauty and coquettish personality to save Israel from destruction by decapitating the Assyrian General Holofernes?

From the Jewish and Christian perspective, where is God in all of this? The fact that the name of God is not mentioned in the narrative is a positive reason to exclude Esther from the Hebrew canon. That God is absent in Esther is unique to the Hebrew Bible and the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. The name of God is not only absent, but so too is the presence of God. All the action in this drama is human action. There is no divine action or guidance to rescue any of the participants in this story.

From the Christian perspective, it is not connected to any Christian purpose, and indeed it seems to be motivated by the desire to tell a story in which the Jews are able to carry out violence against Gentiles.  The fact that no Christian festival associates itself with Purim is a significant factor in the questions about this book. No surviving Christian commentary exists until 836. Even casual references in the early church fathers are rare. Martin Luther said, "I am so hostile to this book (II Maccabees) and to Esther that I could wish they did not exist at all; for they Judaize too greatly and have much pagan impropriety." 

            Yet, one need not dismiss the book too quickly. The characters in Esther are typical stereotypes found in Wisdom literature. The author did not emphasize the usual elements of Jewish piety, such as dietary laws, covenant, and the immanent God who is easily accessible in prayer and acts in Jewish history. In that sense, it is more like Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs. Further, God's presence and providence may be involved behind the scenes, such as within the multiple “coincidences“; and see 4:14 above. There are parallels to the stories of the God-aided Joseph and Daniel, who both received remarkable honors and positions in foreign lands. Further, some assert a few incidences of acrostically-combined letters which would spell out “YHWH“ [Yahweh/ the LORD] in Hebrew.

When Esther was written, Jews were not living in their homeland. They were dispersed and living in exile. So, Esther is a diaspora story, as is Daniel. This being true, the question for the exiled Jew becomes: How do I live as a Jew away from the temple, my homeland and my people? Esther offers insight, and this is why Esther is in the Bible. The purpose of Esther is to remind post-exilic Jews that one can prosper in a foreign land as an exile without giving up one’s identity as a Jew. In other words, if Esther can do it, so can you. Esther, by winning that beauty contest, and then by being smart and gutsy, saves her people and in doing so demonstrates to Jewish exiles that they, too, can not only survive but thrive if they play their cards right. The exiles also learn from Esther that they don’t need to be conspicuously religious to survive in a foreign country. God is not mentioned. Religious practices are absent from the story. So Jewish identity is essentially ethnic, not religious. Dr. Sidnie Crawford, president of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, notes, “It is who Esther is that makes her Jewish, rather than what she practices or believes.” The message to the exiles who cannot worship in the temple and therefore cannot be religious Jews is that they can certainly retain their ethnicity and avoid assimilation in the “melting pot of the ancient Near East.” Esther is a diaspora story. It is in the Bible but not because it is overtly religious as is Daniel, another diaspora narrative. Esther is in the Bible because the title character and the story itself serve as reminders that Jews could live and survive in the diaspora and throughout decades, centuries and millennia without a temple and a homeland.

Esther reminds Christians that it is possible to live as a Christian in times that are completely unfavorable, even hostile, to us as believers and followers of Jesus. Throughout history, even U.S. history, she has inspired countless, especially those seeking freedom. Consider the case of Sojourner Truth, whose very name underscores one of the lessons we glean from Esther. Sojourner Truth was an American abolitionist and women’s rights activist. Truth was born into slavery in Swartekill, N.Y., but escaped with her infant daughter to freedom in 1826. After going to court to recover her son in 1828, she became the first black woman to win such a case against a white man (Wikipedia). At a Women’s Rights Convention in New York City in 1853, Sojourner Truth was one of the speakers. Although she was illiterate, she knew her Bible stories. She told the conferees: “Queen Esther come forth, for she was oppressed, and felt there was a great wrong and she said I will die or I will bring my complaint before the king. Should the king of the United States (Presidents were Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce) be greater, or more crueler, or more harder?” Sojourner Truth and Esther are models for us to emulate regardless of our gender.

Persia (modern-day Iran) is mentioned in several later biblical texts; e.g., it is prominent in Ezra and Daniel. Emperor Cyrus the Great (500's B.C.) authorized Jewish exiles to go home and to rebuild the temple. Esther is in the third portion of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings (ketubim). It is only 10 chapters long. No explicit mention of God, torah (God's law/instruction) or Jewish religious beliefs and practices (except fasting) appear in the Hebrew. But Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches accept as canonical more than 100 additional originally Greek verses, which do mention God and Jewish religious traditions. 

The historical accuracy of Esther vis-à-vis Persian court-life, customs and history is debated, with evidence pro and con. Irrespective of that, it is an amazing piece of biblical literature, with plot developments revealing reversals of “fortune“ between Haman and Mordecai, and between those who would destroy Jews and the Jews themselves. The expressions “poetic justice“ and “being hoisted by one's own petard“ come to mind.

The vengeance-taking offends certain readers, but in Esther's biblical context, it is seen as justly righting a wrong, turning the tables on oppressors. See Psalms 7:14-16; 9:15-17; 149:5-9; 124 (all).

            The story concerns court intrigue and ethnic prejudice during the reign of Xerxes I, who lived from 519-465 BC and reigned from 486-465. History knows him as Xerxes the Great. He is a monarch with absolute power and authority. Even today, Hollywood movies like 300 (2006) immortalize him. The primary task of Xerxes left by his father Darius was to conquer Greece, at which he failed in 480 BC. His other task was to complete the royal palace at Persepolois, at which he was successful.[1] The author shows awareness of the Persian court as well. There are many historical improbabilities, such as the events recorded here occurring at the same time the king, we know from non-biblical sources, is planning an attack upon Greece, and that Mordecai came to the capitol city in 597 BC and now it is, according to the book, 482 BC.  This betrays a lack of historical knowledge by the author, likely caused by distance from the events described. Such historical questions open the possibility that the story has an association with other legends from the ancient Near East, such as A Thousand and One Nights, such as at 1:1-2:14. Herodotus, in IX, 108-113, refers to Queen Amestris rather than Vashtai. Further, one suspects that Purim has its origin in a pagan festival adopted by Jews along the way. 

            Esther is the story of several ironic reversals. She becomes the paradigm of the diaspora Jew. She successfully became part of the power structure of Persian society. She showed how a Jew could attain some comfort in a foreign environment. In the end, the reversal will involve the oppressed becoming powerful, influential, and oppressive. The reversal occurs through human action motivated by ethnic solidarity and an underlying faith in divine providence. Esther was a powerless member of a powerless group. Yet, we read of the reversal of expected outcomes. The status various parties hold undergoes sudden change. The reversals are significant:

- Vashti the queen becomes Vashti the banished.

 

- Esther the humble orphan becomes a powerful queen.

 

- Haman, who swings high and mighty, becomes the person swinging mighty high ... by his neck!

 

- Mordecai, Haman's targeted victim, becomes the grand poo-bah in the empire instead of Haman.

 

- The diaspora Jews, whose destruction the royal edict sanctioned, become the victors over their enemies, thanks to a counter-edict. Their mourning turns to rejoicing.[2]

 

The hero of the story is actually Mordecai, for he provided the brains while Esther follows his direction. The story reads more like a historical novel. There are interesting novelistic twists.  The author was more interested in plot and action, telling an interesting and lively story that would provide the basis for the festival of Purim. It is unique that the book does not mention God. The text does refer to prayer and fasting at a critical moment in the development of Esther's plan. Even if God is not mentioned, God is in the background. We might wonder if providence does not guide the story. Did God help matters along by making Esther so well liked? When Mordecai says that if Esther does not help, there will be assistance from "another quarter," one wonders if this does not refer to God.

Chapter 1 begins the story in which the means by which the king planned to establish male supremacy in the choosing of a queen ended in the new queen, Esther, controlling the king.  Esther 1:1-9 sketches briefly the opulence of the Persian court as well as a court crisis prompted by the refusal of Vashti, the Persian queen, to appear at the king’s command, resulting in her banishment (1:10-2:4). We see here his authority and power. We do not know why she refused to attend. Her actions have the effect of publicly humiliating the king. The king is infuriated. He decides that he needs a new queen, someone who will be more attentive to his royal needs. A search among the kingdom’s virgins brings Esther to court as Ahasuerus’ new queen (2:8-18), while her cousin and guardian Mordecai (whose name has the same root as the Babylonian god Marduk) foils a plot to assassinate the king (2:19-23). Mordecai thinks his young cousin should present herself as a possibility. The text says the servants of the king took her. Did she go voluntarily? Regardless, she pleases the king. Esther, a teen girl, suddenly receives the gift of elevation in status to queen of the realm. She spends a year in the harem. 

We can imagine she is enjoying this. Attendants pamper her and take care of her.  Attendants lather her with the latest in oils and cosmetics. She has a raft of maids attending to her every need. In a sense, it is a "Cinderella" "reversal-of-fortune" story. A number of such stories appear in the Bible -- reversal of fortune theology. David, for example. When the Bible introduces us to the future king of Israel, we find a kid tending sheep, playing the guitar (okay, lyre) and writing poetry. Through a series of events well-known to any preacher, Samuel anoints him as king. Shortly thereafter, he slays a giant, and his legend is secure in the history of Israel. Or Joseph. He is a favorite of his father, but despised by his brothers. His brothers toss him into a well, and then sell him to a caravan of merchants. The wife of Pharaoh falsely accuses him of taking sexual liberties with the overseer's wife. Pharaoh throws him into prison. He has no future, no life. Then -- suddenly -- he is virtually the pharaoh of Egypt! Daniel. Here is a young man who rises in favor with the king. Then, enemies accuse him of treason and toss him to the lions. However, they refuse to eat this godly man. God delivers Daniel and his accusers get what is coming to them. 

At this point in the story, here are a couple of texts I find interesting. 

Esther 2:15b (NRSV)

¹⁵ Now Esther was admired by all who saw her. 

Esther 2:17 (NRSV)

¹⁷ the king loved Esther more than all the other women; of all the virgins she won his favor and devotion, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. 

 

What I find interesting here is that, while many beautiful women rely only on their beauty, Esther also won the favor of all who encountered her. For this to occur, she would have had to eat, dress, and live like a Persian rather than an observant Jewess. Note the contrast with the story of Daniel. She wanted to be queen. She realized that goal because of the support and counsel of others. She appears as a Jew, but one wonders if she was not more like the modern "secular" Jew, where her religion was quite in the background. Yet, one also wonders if this concealment of her identity was not more for the purpose of the plot, rather than to make us think of history. 

Concurrently, as Mordecai rises in the Persian court, he runs afoul of the Persian nobleman Haman, favored by the king, by refusing to bow down to him. Showing proper respect for those in authority or honor by bowing and/or performing obeisance (a gesture somewhat more extensive than mere bowing) was not, in principle, prohibited to Jews. Abraham bowed before his guests (Genesis 18:2). Lot bowed before his angelic guests (Genesis 19:1). Abraham bowed before the Hittites (Genesis 23:7). Leah, Joseph, and Rachel bow before Esau (Genesis 33:7). The brothers of Joseph, not knowing they stood before their brother, bowed before him as an Egyptian official (Genesis 42:6). Moses bowed before his father-in-law (Exodus 18:7). Balaam bowed before the angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:31). Abigail bowed before the servants of David (I Samuel 25:41). Therefore, the conjunction of Mordecai's identification as a Jew and his refusal to bow down to Haman appears to have its basis in a personal grudge rather than on a religious precept: Mordecai simply refuses to acknowledge an undeserving cad. In an enraged response not dissimilar to the king's tendency toward overreaction (a literary device used throughout the book), Haman persuades the king (3:6-11) to kill all the Jews living in the Persian Empire (which dominated the Middle East from cc. 550 to cc. 330 B.C.). Haman vows to avenge this perceived slight by destroying not only Mordecai, but also all the Jews in the Persian realm (3:1-15). Learning of this plan to destroy his people, Mordecai enlists the aid of Queen Esther, who risks capital punishment by approaching the king unbidden (4:1-5:1). The reason that Esther did not know about the plot to kill Jews is that the author wishes to tell an interesting and fast-moving story, ignoring minor details from time to time. We do not need to look for historical answers. 

A text I find interesting at this point.

Esther 4:13-16 (NRSV)

¹³ Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not think that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. ¹⁴ For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father's family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this." ¹⁵ Then Esther said in reply to Mordecai, ¹⁶ "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish." 

             

Mordecai suggests that Esther needs to have an attitude of openness to what God wants, even when we have puzzlement. God may be leading us in a direction that God has not yet revealed. He is inviting her to take a risk. We must never be afraid to trust an unknown future to the God who has graciously given us knowledge of who God is.[3] Our little lives become great in the sense that they become part of the mysterious work of the salvation God seeks to bring to humanity. In that context, nothing is accidental, casual, or futile. The most insignificant events can speak the language of faith, hope, and love.[4] Although some people speculate that "another quarter" may refer to Nehemiah, the suggestion that it refers to God is attractive. Further, the story reinforces that Esther might have some temptation to keep her Jewish identity a secret even at this critical time. The reference to fasting and the suggestion of prayer is important, suggesting some guidance from God at a critical moment in the story. With this impending tragedy ready to fall upon the Jews, God stands in the wings, following the play and encouraging the actors, as references to sackcloth, ashes, and fasting suggest. Even when we are unsure of our situation, we can be sure that the will of God aims at our well-being at all levels. The will of God is toward help, healing, liberating, and saving. The will of God is toward life, joy, freedom, peace, and salvation.[5] We see in Esther that basic goodness orients itself toward others. She was in no immediate danger. If her goal had merely been to save herself, all she had to do was keep her mouth shut, as nobody in the court knew she was Jewish. Mordecai shows her that the unnamed God had placed her in this royal position for this moment. Esther resolves to do the right thing, regardless of the possible negative outcomes and therefore the possible cost. She shows that goodness is a powerful force and shows great courage. When you think defeat is coming before you begin, but you begin anyway, and you see it through no matter what, you display courage.[6]

Esther delays revealing her request to the king and instead invites him and Haman to a pair of banquets she hosts (5:2-9). Haman’s delight in receiving the invitation to the queen’s very exclusive banquet — only the king and Haman are present — seems spoiled by his growing jealousy of Mordecai, who by now has advanced in the king’s service and favor. Haman redoubles his efforts to destroy Mordecai (5:12-14), but before he can do so, he receives further humiliation by a royal decree forcing him to honor Mordecai before all the residents of Susa, the Persian capital (6:5-11). Haman concealed the identity of the people he wanted killed, while the king conceals the identity of the one he hopes to honor.  

The theme of 6:12-8:2 details the reversal of fortunes of Haman and Mordecai; two of the principals in this story of court intrigue and the triumph of the Jew in a foreign court (cf. similar accounts about Joseph in Genesis 39-41 and Daniel in Daniel 1-6). It is the climax of the ongoing rivalry between Haman, a high official in the Persian court (3:1-2), and Mordecai, a Jew living in exile in the Persian citadel city of Susa (2:5). The story is devoid of any direct mention of the deity. Thus, the ingenuity and strength of character of the story's protagonists reveal the divine will in the midst of historical exigencies. Esther shows us that goodness is “wise as serpents and innocent as doves,” (Matthew 10:16). Goodness, far from being a weak, doormat attribute, is a characteristic of God himself. Thus, it is both innocent and wise. After Esther took the huge risk of approaching the king on her own, he welcomed her. Then, instead of blurting out her request, she invited both her husband and Haman to a banquet. Esther is careful to make her request at the right time. Esther never lost sight of her goal.

As we consider 6:14-7:10, the story unmasks Haman in a way that leads to his execution.   

In Chapter 7, Esther asked Haman to come. She unveils the culprit who would bring about the death of her people, but she also discloses herself and her heritage for the first time.  Esther identifies with the Jewish people.  Haman appeals to a Jewess for help, even though he issued a decree for them to be exterminated. He shows himself as either stupid or vain. Mordecai receives Haman's wealth and position.  Chapter 7 is part of a larger portion of the book (6:12-8:2), the downfall of the wicked Haman and the rise of the virtuous Mordecai. Mordecai and Esther live peacefully as diaspora Jews in the Persian Empire at the time of King Ahasuerus, a monarch identified as either Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.) or, less likely, Artaxerxes II (405-359 B.C.E.). Neither the historical references in the book itself nor external witnesses such as Josephus and the Greek version of Esther allow us to date the book exactly.

¹So, based upon the preceding events, the king Ahasuerus (also mentioned in Ezra 4:6 and Daniel 9:1) and Haman, identified in 3:1 as the “son of Hammedatha the Agagite,” went in to feast with Queen Esther. The writer has depicted the king throughout the story as an impetuous and impulsive pawn of courtiers and advisers — a deliberate ironical twist on his name, which means “chief of kings.” Of Haman’s father we know nothing, and his origin as a descendant of King Agag of the Amalekites links him to one of the historic enemies of the Hebrew people (Exodus 17:8-16; Numbers 24:20; 1 Samuel 15). The meaning of Haman’s name is unknown, but his function as chief antagonist in the melodrama is clear: His overweening pride, his fragile ego and his ruthless cunning represent the antithesis of the virtues of modesty, nobility, courage and dignity embodied in Mordecai and Esther.

 ²On the second day, as they were drinking wine (literally “at the feast of wine,” suggesting the wine is flowing freely) the king again said to Esther, using poetic couplets, ‘What is your petition, Queen Esther? I shall grant it to you. What is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.’ Esther must have been relieved to hear the king's sweeping promise.  Esther waits until the right moment to explain her boldness in approaching the king earlier. Vashti has already set the precedent in this story for a queen’s banquet (1:9), who gave a banquet for the women of Susa in tandem with the banquet given by the king for its male residents (1:5). While women and men could dine together in Persia, the literary device of separating their banquets advances the story with colorful detail and suspense while also linking its several pivotal episodes (recurring at 1:7-8; 2:18; 3:15; 5:5-8; 7:1-10; 9:22). Vashti’s refusal to leave her own all-women’s banquet to attend the king was what triggered the chain of events leading to Esther’s elevation and the endangering of the Jews. In the context of the story, women’s banquets pose a variety of threats. Banquets, no doubt in part because of the influence of alcohol on the judgment of the guests, frequently function as liminal occasions in traditional literature, offering an occasion when any number of unforeseen possibilities may occur. The ingesting of wine occasioned any number of disasters in biblical literature. We could refer to Canaan's cursing after Noah's drunkenness (Genesis 9), the incestuous union of Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:32ff), Nabal's apoplectic attack (I Samuel 25:36-38), Absalom's revenge against Amnon (II Samuel 13:23-29). The dangers of strong drink were to be avoided altogether by some members of Israelite society (e.g., Nazirites, I Samuel 1:11). In such an unstable context, the final confrontation between Haman and Mordecai occurs and a second royal favorite will fall. ³Then Queen Esther also named Hadassah, “Myrrh,” 2:7, answered, also in poetic parallelism, ‘If I have won your favor, O king, the usual royal obliquity, an idiom prefacing a supplication, and if it pleases the king. Biblical authors use such phrases for requests to both human rulers (e.g., Genesis 47:29, 50:4; I Samuel 20:29, 27:5, etc.) and God (Exodus 34:9), It seems likely that the authors transferred the human usage secondarily to the divine usage. She continues with the request let my life be given me—that is my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request.[7] In spite of nervousness, Esther speaks with dignity and uses court etiquette.  Esther displays real wisdom, goodness, and courage. She has no raw physical power. For all she knew, the revelation of her identity with the Jewish people could have meant her death. She named herself first, not out of self-interest, but because she astutely knew that saving her would be more important to the king, and the rest of her people could ride to safety on the tails of her royal gown. The king, besotted with both drink and Esther's beauty, comes off badly in the tale as an unenlightened ruler easily manipulated by courtiers and favorites. ⁴For we have been sold, possibly referring to the transaction between king and Haman, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. She uses a repetitive stock phrase that forms a leitmotif in the story, also occurring in 3:13, where the decree for the destruction of the Jews announces the crisis of the story, and at 8:11, when the king reverses the fortunes of the Jews. If we had been sold merely as slaves, men and women, I would have held my peace; but no enemy can compensate for this damage to the king.’ Esther’s plea for the Jews includes reminding the king that his subjects targeted for destruction — with whom she identifies herself without specifically naming the victims or herself as Jews — will be destroyed wantonly, i.e., not even for purposes of slavery, political exchange or corvée. Had the king sold them into foreign slavery, Esther argues, there might have been opportunity for compensation for the economic and political damage done the king, but with the destruction of the people — and for a bribe, no less — the loss is permanent and an insult to the king’s majesty. Thus, the mere "transferring" of resident exiles into slavery would not have merited the king's attention; destroying the king's property, however, is a gravely different matter. ⁵Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther, ‘Who is he, and where is he, who has presumed to do this?’ Given that the life of the king was in jeopardy earlier, and now his queen, we as readers find it understandable that he is upset. ⁶Esther said, ‘A foe and enemy, this wicked Haman!’ Then Haman was terrified before the king and the queen. Esther, in unmasking Haman, also unmasks herself.  She shows oneness with her people, a trait of Jewish people down through the centuries.  The king vindicates Esther and hangs Haman.  Esther is not necessarily cold to Haman.  As long as one so cruel continued to live, the people were in danger.  He was falling, but not defeated.  

Haman is revealed to be the mastermind behind the plot and throws himself (quite literally, 7:8) on the mercy of the queen. 

⁹Then Harbona, in true turnabout fashion, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king makes a helpful suggestion, showing a characteristic of this story and beloved in Bible stories like Joseph in the court of Pharaoh and Daniel in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. The eunuch said, ‘Look, the very gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, stands at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.’ The king said, ‘Hang him on that.’ Normally, Haman would have had opportunity to defend himself, but the king seems struck by the poetic justice of it all. ¹⁰So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the anger of the king abated.

            Just as Haman had plotted to kill all the Jews to avenge himself against a single Jew, so now, with the king’s blessing, the Jews are permitted to attack their enemies in self-defense (8:11-9:19), which they do, although refraining from despoiling their victims (perhaps collectively remembering earlier difficulties with Amalekite spoil, I Samuel 15).

The theme of the Jewish festival of Purim dominates Chapter 9. Some scholars suggest that the festival may have its roots in a Persian new year’s celebration. Jews living in the Persian diaspora may have seen in the celebration of casting lots to determine individual and collective fortunes for the coming year a reflection of a Jewish legend involving the unexpected rise of a courtier named Mordecai (for whom the day receives its name in II Maccabees 15:36) and his beautiful cousin, Esther. Thus, the storyteller joined the pieces into roughly the biblical book as we have it today. I find a challenging text at this point. 

Esther 9:5 (NRSV)

⁵ So the Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering, and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them. 

Esther 9:16 (NRSV)

¹⁶ Now the other Jews who were in the king's provinces also gathered to defend their lives, and gained relief from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they laid no hands on the plunder. 

 

Such verses in the bible puzzle modern readers. We see here the beginning of ethnic hatred as it relates to Judaism. The text does not say that God commanded the people to do this. Rather, the people simply act, even though their action occurs after much prayer and fasting. Thus, the end of the story is less edifying. Not content with having saved their people and taken care of Haman, Esther and Mordecai used their new power to orchestrate the slaughter of 75,000 of their old enemies. The whole unpleasant account is contained in the book of Esther, which has the distinction of being the only book in the Bible where the name of God isn't even mentioned. There seems every reason to believe that he considered himself well out of it.[8] ^9:20 Mordecai recorded these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far. He ²¹enjoined them, in response to this unexpected reversal of fortune, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar and also the fifteenth day of the same month, year by year.  ²²On these days, the Jews gained relief from their enemies, and as the month that had been turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, days for sending gifts of food to one another and presents to the poor.  

Chapter 10 shows why there are two different dates for the festival called Purim.  The author makes it clear that the people, not God, brought about the victory against those who hated them. 

A world of caution is in order. One reason many people did not accept that Jesus was the Messiah was because he was not promoting the swap-places kind of reversal the Esther story illustrates. The danger of such a swap places reversal is that it becomes an example of the story of George Orwell in Animal Farm. The oppressed become the oppressor. Rather, Jesus' great reversal, founded on love, meant showing that the weakness demonstrated in such things as servanthood and compassion was real strength, and that the poverty shown by not holding too tightly onto possessions was the real wealth. As the apostle Paul (I Corinthians 1:27-29) explained it, God chose the foolish in the world to shame the wise. God chose the weak to shame the strong. 

Esther is an example of making a soft difference in the world. I do not mean weak. The people of God have a fundamental difference with the way the world orders itself. The difference does not involve threats or coercion. It does not involve thinking the people of God are better than the world or that they have redemption and the world does not. The world and the church are both fallen and redeemed. For the Christian, this redemption occurs through the cross. The people of God know this and seek to live their lives in the light of that knowledge. The question then becomes whether the people of God are vibrant, engaging, and enticing in their witness in the world. If the people of God are walking in the world of politics, they are walking in particularly dangerous territory. Repeatedly, the political world has co-opted the Christian faith for its ungodly purposes. Yet, even here, Esther teaches us, the people of God need to show their courage wisely, with goodness and wisdom.[9]

---

[1] Regarding Xerxes I and the Battle of Thermopylae (as retold via the movie 300 [2006]): During a lull in the battle, Xerxes personally approaches Leonidas to persuade him to surrender, offering him wealth and power in exchange for his allegiance; Leonidas declines and mocks Xerxes for the inferior quality of his fanatical warriors. In response, Xerxes sends in his elite guard, the Immortals, later that night. Despite some Spartans being killed, they heroically defeat the Immortals (with slight help from the Arcadians). On the second day, Xerxes sends in new waves of armies from Asia and other Persian city-states, including war elephants, to crush the Spartans once and for all, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Ephialtes defects to Xerxes to whom he reveals the secret path in exchange for wealth, luxury and (especially) a uniform. The Arcadians retreat upon learning of Ephialtes' betrayal, but the Spartans stay. Leonidas orders an injured but reluctant Dilios to return to Sparta and tell them of what has happened, a "tale of victory."  --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film). Retrieved April 21, 2015.

[2] Crawford, Sidnie White. “The Book of Esther -- Introduction.“ The New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. III. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 857. Sidnie Ann White, The Women's Bible Commentary, Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, eds., Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992, pp. 126-129.

[3] Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God. –Corrie ten Boom, Hiding Place.

[4] Our little lives become great -- part of the mysterious work of God's salvation. Once that happens, nothing is accidental, casual or futile any more. Even the most insignificant event speaks the language of faith, hope and, above all, love.  --Henri J. M. Nouwen, from the Conclusion to With Burning Hearts: A Meditation on the Eucharistic Life (Orbis, 2003).

[5] From the first to the last page of the Bible, it is clear that God's will is aimed at our well-being at all levels. God's will is a helpful, healing, liberating, saving will. God wills life, joy, freedom, peace, salvation ... both of the individual and of [humanity] as a whole. And this is the meaning of all that Jesus proclaims. --Hans Küng, The Christian Challenge: A Shortened Version of On Being a Christian (Doubleday, 1979), 146.

[6] I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (HarperCollins, 2006), 128.

[7] Ahasuerus introduces the two-part expression (5:6), which Esther adopts (5:8) and formalizes in 7:3. Her petition is that her life be given her and her request is that the lives of her people, the Jews, be spared. It is very likely that the splitting of the original single request into two desiderata is an over-literalization of poetic parallelism: "What is your petition - it shall be granted you - and what is your request?" is actually a single question with a parenthetical insertion, not two questions and a statement. That later transmitters of the original tale (in oral or written form) would misunderstand the poetic device should occasion no surprise; a similar misunderstanding resulted in Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on two beasts instead of one in Matthew's account of Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:5, referencing, but not quoting, Zechariah 9:9).

[8] —Frederick Buechner, Beyond Words: Daily Readings in the ABC’s of Faith (HarperOne, 2009), 417.

[9] Miroslave Volf, “Soft Difference.”  you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (HarperCollins, 2006), 128.

[7] Ahasuerus introduces the two-part expression (5:6), which Esther adopts (5:8) and formalizes in 7:3. Her petition is that her life be given her and her request is that the lives of her people, the Jews, be spared. It is very likely that the splitting of the original single request into two desiderata is an over-literalization of poetic parallelism: "What is your petition - it shall be granted you - and what is your request?" is actually a single question with a parenthetical insertion, not two questions and a statement. That later transmitters of the original tale (in oral or written form) would misunderstand the poetic device should occasion no surprise; a similar misunderstanding resulted in Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on two beasts instead of one in Matthew's account of Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:5, referencing, but not quoting, Zechariah 9:9).

[8] Miroslave Volf, “Soft Difference.”