wordandspirit

We’re more or less at the end of the book of Esther now. It closes with a postscript that describes how both Esther and Mordecai worked together to write letters and create legislation (e.g. Esth 9:29). Esther has of course grown up from being a girl to a woman during the course of the story. Her relationship to Mordecai is no longer primarily as a submissive daughter, but she now works side by side with him as an equal. It’s hard to deduce exactly which of the two had the most clout in terms of authority – Esther was “royalty”, but it was Mordecai who had the signet ring, and so he probably gave the rubber stamp to new laws. Nevertheless, we don’t see them competing with each other but working as a team.

Now it would be rather dodgy hermeneutics to attempt to extrapolate from this story some kind of Biblical principle for women in church leadership. For one thing, Esther’s role was not ecclesiastical but civil. But we do see here an example of how the genders can work together harmoniously, rather than being at odds with each other.

I believe that Scripture teaches both equality and complementarity. This should not surprise us, since “complementarians” and “egalitarians” are eager to affirm both. The differences between the two camps lie in exactly where the emphasis should be placed. Both concepts can sometimes be pushed to mean more than they ought to.

Equality

To start with, the Bible clearly teaches “equality” between men and women. But to say two people are “equal” is meaningless unless you define in which way they are equal. Common sense tells us that people are not equal in every conceivable way – we have different heights and weights, different skin colours, different aptitudes. Men and women even have some different body parts. Women get to bear and nurse children, while men get to, um, pee standing up.

Equality also should not be made to mean that everything must be a perfect “50-50” split. Some feminists have criticised Jesus for picking 12 male disciples. Shouldn’t he have picked at least 6 women if he believed in “equality”? A husband and wife whose idea of equality dictated that they each do no more than exactly 50% of the housework would probably end up fighting all the time because they would always think that other’s contribution was less than half. This approach to equality is actually self-centred, since it is all about me getting “my fair share”.

So how are men and women equal? We are equal in worth and dignity. We are equally bearers of God’s image (Gen 1:27). We are equal in our capacity to be loved and used by God. There is also equality in how we are to be saved (Gal 3:28) and our capacity to be Spirit-filled (Joel 2:29) and recipients of his power. There is no excuse for feelings of superiority then, over the opposite gender.

Complementarity

Complementarity can be misunderstood too. It doesn’t mean that there is a list of strengths that characterise all women which correspond exactly to a list of weaknesses that characterise all men. Women are a diverse group and men are a diverse group. You can make generalisations (e.g. “men like buying gadgets, women like buying clothes”), but they are only generally true. Those who don’t fit the stereotype are not necessarily any less feminine or masculine as a result.

We should also note that just because women complement men, doesn’t mean that harmony is automatic. In fact, the opposite can be true. People with different personalities, strengths, and perspectives can often clash horribly.

So it is not enough to merely say that men and women complement each other. We must actively seek to promote harmony within that diversity. It means male leaders being willing to empower and include women in the life and ministry of the church, recognising that they can contribute something that is lacking in an exclusively male dominated environment. (The reverse is also true, given that in many churches, the women outnumber the men).

An example of this might be the benefit it brings to a small group or youth group to have a mixture of male and female leaders. Not only might they bring different styles of leading or giftings to the group, but one-on-one discipleship or counselling is more effective and appropriate in same-sex pairings (this may be one reason behind Jesus’ choosing 12 male disciples). Aquila and Priscila seem to be a good example of a husband-wife team who worked so effectively together that they are always mentioned as a pair.

A right understanding of the Biblical principles of equality and complementarity should eliminate jealousy and competitiveness between the genders, as we learn to appreciate the unique and valuable contributions that those who are not like us can offer.

Naturally the great deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s wicked plot was the cause of much celebration and feasting (Esth 9:17-18). But Mordecai and Esther were determined that the story should not be forgotten, so they instituted an annual holiday to commemorate it – the festival of Purim (Esth 9:20-21).

Although Christians do not celebrate Purim, we do have our own annual celebrations of Christmas and Easter, where we remember different parts of the story of the great deliverance we have experienced through the incarnation, sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus. And we have the communion meal, specifically instituted by Jesus himself as a “remembrance” of him (Luke 22:19).

I want to briefly consider a few elements of the way the Jews observed Purim and how they relate to our own times of “remembering”.

First, Purim involved giving. In some ways, Purim is similar to our Christmas, as it was a winter holiday in which they they gave gifts to one another (Esth 9:22). Note however that giving to the poor was explicitly part of it. Sadly Christmas has become a holiday all about giving to those who will give presents back to us.

Second, they told the story. In Esth 9:24-25 we have what some have called a creedal statement, summing up the essence of the story of Esther. We tend to do this well at Christmas, with our nativity plays and carol services rehearsing much of the Biblical account. However, I am not sure we are always so good at this when it comes to communion and Easter. Often we skip past telling the story of the cross and resurrection in favour of teaching the theology of the cross and resurrection. Of course, theology is vitally important, but it is worth considering why each of the four gospel writers devote almost half their books to simply recounting the events of the final days of Jesus earthly life.

Third, it was a celebration. Sometimes our way of remembering can be overly sombre and introspective, such as when we observe a minute of silence held to commemorate the dead. And indeed the Jews did have times of fasting (Esth 9:31), but the overall feel of Purim was a one of joy since their mourning had been turned to joy (Esth 9:22). It is important that when we celebrate the Lord’s supper, it is a genuinely joyful occasion, even if there is an appropriate solemnity to it as we consider the gravity of what Christ endured on our behalf. Like the early church, we should eat with “glad and sincere hearts” (Acts 2:46).

Fourth, it was a community affair – everyone gathered together and celebrated as a community. Though we do have this emphasis on family at Christmas, often the way we do communion is very individualistic, simply due to the logistics of being sat in rows. Maybe we would do well to celebrate communion more often in our homes at meal-times, gathered with small groups of believers, in order that we may remember together.

Esth 8:11 is one of the most troubling verses in the book of Esther for many Christian readers. Not only does Mordecai’s counter-edict effectively authorize a civil war, but its provisions seem unnecessarily barbaric. Although many English translations smooth things over somewhat, many commentators agree that the edict permits the Jews to kill the women and children of their enemies as well as plundering their property. Have Esther and Mordecai become corrupted by power? Have they sunk to the level of their enemies?

There are a few considerations that help us understand why the edict was framed in this particular way.

First, it was a mirror edict. The laws of Persians were irrevocable – to repeal a law would be tantamount to admitting that the king had made a mistake, which was unthinkable (much like modern-day politicians are derided if they make “u-turns”). Therefore, to counteract Haman’s edict, Mordecai’s edict had to be at least as strong, if not stronger. In other words, everything you can do, we can do too. To compare and contrast the edicts look at Esth 3:13 and Esth 8:11, and you will see that the provisions of the counter-edict are equal and opposite to the provisions of the original edict.

Second, because of its strength, the edict served as a deterrent. Anyone thinking that he might be able to target a wealthy and vulnerable Jewish family and take their home from them would now think twice, since his own family and home would come under threat as a result.

Third, it is important to note that the retribution is permitted against attackers only. In other words, Mordecai’s edict didn’t allow the wholesale slaughter of Haman’s people (the Agagites), but only against those who acted on Haman’s edict and attempted to annihilate the Jews.

But fourth, and most significantly, there seems to be a good chance that Esther and Mordecai see this as an occasion to wage holy war. The very concept of holy war is of course not easy for us to stomach. I will first explain why I think it applies here.

When we are first introduced to Haman, we are told that he is an Agagite (Esth 3:1). To most modern Bible readers, this seems like an irrelevant detail, but it is crucial to understanding the story. By identifying Haman as an Agagite, the author of Esther points his readers to the events of 1 Samuel 15.

In 1 Samuel 15, Israel’s first king, Saul, is commanded by God to wage holy war against the Amalekites and destroy them completely, taking no plunder (1 Sam 15:3). Saul does attack and defeat the Amalekites, but spares the best of the cattle and their king, Agag (1 Sam 15:9). The prophet Samuel famously tells Saul that “to obey is better than sacrifice” and that God will remove the kingdom from Saul as a result of his disobedience (1 Sam 15:22-23).

In fact, the hostility between Israel and the Amalekites stretches even further back. They were the first nation to attack the Israelites, while they were still wandering in the desert. In Ex 17:16 we are told that “the LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation” and in Deut 25:19 specific instructions are given to the generation that would enter the land that they should wipe out the Amalekites:

When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25:19)

In other words, Saul had missed the opportunity to end a long-running conflict between the two nations and now in Esther’s day it had come back to haunt them. That is why she was so determined to finish the job properly this time.

As distasteful as we may find the concept of holy war, the Old Testament does present it as one of God’s means of bringing judgment on the nations. It certainly was not a reward for Israel being righteous as Deut 9:4-6 makes plain.

For us living in the new covenant, the coming of Jesus has changed everything. We now no longer live in an age where holy war is to be practised or tolerated. Karen Jobes sums up this transition in her commentary on Esther:

The death of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, provides the only basis for the cessation of holy war, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit provides the only power by which one may love one’s enemies as oneself.

We’ll return to holy war in a couple of blog posts time when we consider the distinct lack of mercy found in the story of Esther