Esther Takes Over (Esther 4)

This chapter describes the response of a people in trouble, but who were not the cause of the trouble by doing something that offended God or an earthly ruler. They were also in a situation that seemed totally hopeless because their genocide was now included in an unchangeable decree of the Persian government. Perhaps they could have prayed for God to remove the government and replace it with one that would have other plans. It was a dark time, but often such occasions are the making of a person. And in this chapter from the Book of Esther we see how she came out of the shadows as far as God’s kingdom was concerned and played a vital role in its ongoing existence.

Personal humiliation of Mordecai

The first response that is described is that of Mordecai and we are told about four details. We can call them (1) symbolic actions, (2) public awareness, (3) emotional distress and (4) bravery.

The symbolic actions included tearing his clothes and wearing instead sackcloth and ashes. What was the point of this exchange of garments? We know that external actions in themselves can be merely hypocritical. Yet sometimes they are appropriate. There are situations in which attire indicating joy is necessary in order to prevent a wrong message being conveyed. What would people have thought if Mordecai did not respond in the way that he did? They would have assumed that he did not care about the threatened danger.

The author points out that Mordecai showed his response in a manner and in a place where everyone could see his reaction. In addition to giving clarity to his response by the way that he dressed, he also made himself conspicuous. He made no attempt to conceal or water down what he thought of the decision of the government. It was important to him that people knew his response.

Moreover, Mordecai made no attempt to hide his feelings of distress. We may imagine that this was only a feature of his racial identity – Middle Eastern people are very emotional and wear their joys and sorrows on their sleeves. Yet we should ask ourselves why we hide our emotions. Is it because of embarrassment? Or is it because we are indifferent to and unmoved by what we face? After all, our Master wept when he spoke about what would happen to Jerusalem.

The fourth detail of Mordecai’s response is that he took it as high as he could. No one was allowed to show sorrow in the Persian court, in the presence of the monarch who imagined that he brought endless joy to his subjects. It was not possible for Mordecai to get into the court wearing sackcloth and weeping, but he went dressed with sad attire and crying to the gate of the court. Inevitably, those who worked in the court would see that he was distressed at what was going on. No doubt, he also wanted to make contact with Esther, and involve her is any response that would be made to the situation.

What can we say about his response? It was an individual response – he would respond whether others did or not. It was an immediate response – he did not delay or dither in doing what he should do. It was an intelligent response – he worked out how he should respond and then did so. It was an intense response – it involved all his personality. 

National humiliation

The author points out that the Jews in general responded similarly to the king’s decree. It is obviously an appeal to God, yet the author does not mention that they prayed to the Lord. Why does the author omit saying that they prayed? He is not suggesting that prayer is unimportant. Instead, he is highlighting what accompanies true prayer. 

In themselves, the various practices he mentions are of little value in a spiritual sense unless they are accompanied by and create opportunities for true prayer. Fasting gives space and time for people to pray. Weeping and lamenting are features sometimes appropriate, indeed to be expected, when praying in times of calamity. And as we noted with the description given of Mordecai, the wearing of sackcloth and ashes revealed publicly that the Jews were carrying an enormous burden. 

This all raises the question, ‘How do people know we are spiritually concerned about a situation and are praying about it?’

Esther’s dilemma and strategy

Initially, Esther seems to have imagined that Mordecai had fallen on hard times and was now poor. So she must have been unaware of the king’s decision about her race. Mordecai’s refusal to accept her provision of clothes led her to make further enquiries about what was wrong with her cousin. He told her the situation through Hathach. Moreover, he told her to engage in a very difficult task, which was to plead on behalf of those whom the king had determined to destroy.

There was an obvious difficulty with the suggestion of Mordecai, and that was that it was not wise to approach the inner court of the king without being called by him. This prohibition was common knowledge and applied to Esther as much as to anyone else, even although she had the title of queen. Death could be the outcome for anyone who tried to do so without permission. It is possible to assume that Mordecai was being unreasonable in his request, but a better explanation is to regard him as being a prophet who had the mind of the Lord in the matter. So although his instruction seemed dangerous, it was also a path of safety.

The likelihood of Mordecai being a prophet is confirmed by his reply to her concern. He was aware that the Lord would deliver the Jews from the genocide of Haman, but he was also willing to inform his relative that she would undergo divine judgement if she failed to do what he had requested her to do. His comments were not merely a meaningless threat, but came from an awareness of the involvement of God in the situation. Rather extraordinarily, when the judgement came, she and her father’s family would be the only Jews who would not experience divine deliverance.

Mordecai also gave her a challenge when he said to her, ‘And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?’ It is not difficult for us to see the application of this statement to her situation. She was in a unique position to serve God in this particular way. Yet what she was told to do was but an example of a basic biblical principle, which is that God has created the circumstances in which we are and given to us all the gifts that are needed for our specific situation. To think otherwise is to doubt the wisdom of divine providence. 

Esther now found herself in a real dilemma. Whichever option she would choose had great danger for her. If she went to the king unannounced, she could die; if she refused to go to the king, she would definitely die through divine judgement. She was hemmed in by divine providence. Not only was Haman against her people, but God seemed to be keeping himself away. After all, he had the power to rescue the Jews without her involvement, but that was not an option.  

Esther revealed that she understood the necessity of divine help. She instructed Mordecai to arrange for all the Jews in Susa to hold a fast for three days and nights, and that she and her female attendants would do the same. There would be no help from a mere fast by itself, but from the spiritual exercises that accompanied it. There are two details that come out of this request. First, Esther recognised the power of prayer. Perhaps she had prayed over many issues that had risen while she was queen in a pagan environment and discovered that God heard her prayers. Second, she had been able to influence her attendants to share her faith and its practices. Maybe it was obligatory on them to do so because she was queen. Yet since she was willing to have them share in spiritual disciplines, it suggests that they had adopted her religious practices. 

An obvious question that arises from her response is why she wanted the Jews in Susa to engage in prayer and fasting for three days and three nights. Did the length of time make any difference? Certainly, it would indicate the seriousness with which they focussed on the matter in hand. In addition, ceasing from all other activities would enable the Jews to concentrate on praying for success in Esther’s mission.

There is one final detail to note about her response and that was her willingness to die for her people. Her well-known response, ‘If I perish, I perish,’ is often understood that dying was only a possibility. Her words, however, indicate that she regarded death as probable. She had made a profound choice that she was willing to die in order to further God’s cause.

Six applications

We see in the response of the Jews to the threatened judgement a picture of how we should we respond to the threatened judgement of God against us because of our sins. They responded with wholehearted distress to what seemed certain, but which could only not occur through a more powerful law replacing the decree of Ahasuerus. In a higher way, we can only be forgiven through a more powerful law that overturns the sentence of divine condemnation that we face. The more powerful law is the law of divine mercy based on what Jesus did on the cross.

A second response concerns the reason why the Jews responded in the way that they did. The reason is that the Holy Spirit was working in the hearts. As we have observed, the name of God is not mentioned in this book. Yet his activities are everywhere in it. And the Spirit’s work in bringing sorrow to his people is evidence that he was using political turmoil to bring about deep repentance. 

There is a third application to observe and that is that divine providence can trap the highest as well as the lowest in society. Who was entrapped in the chapter’s account? The emperor was entrapped in his own decree, Esther was entrapped in the limitations connected to her position, Mordecai was entrapped by the intended action of the authorities, Haman was entrapped in his own desires.

A fourth application is that the Lord can quickly change a situation. At the close of the third chapter, the inhabitants of Susa are confused and agitated by the king’s decree, whereas at the close of the fourth chapter, the Jewish citizens of Susa are engaged in a time of corporate prayer and fasting. The change has been brought about, humanly speaking, by the desires of Esther. It was her that made the call to prayer, not Mordecai.

A fifth application is that Esther’s determination challenges the extent of our commitment to become living sacrifices. We have lost the realisation that following Jesus is costly. When something goes wrong, we regard it as a barrier rather than a door to go through. Esther could have chosen to be a pampered queen, and so become a nobody. But she chose to become a dedicated servant, and so she became an inspiration and example to many.

We can close with a sixth application, which is, ‘Why have you come to the kingdom as such a time as this?’ There must be a divine reason because wherever we are is a result of divine providence. God has tasks before us that we can do, and perhaps only we can do. We have to be very careful in deciding whether to refuse or accept. At if we are serious, we will ask others to pray about the task facing us.