Here’s a little exercise in advanced level hermeneutics for some of you theological thinkers out there. I came across this passage the other day, and although I have read it various times in the past, the implications of what it said struck me like never before, and quite frankly, left me a bit perplexed. The passage, in case you want to know right up front, is Esther chapters 9 and 10, though I want to set the stage a bit before diving into it.
In order to help you understand what it is about this passage that causes me such consternation, let me go over a few of my interpretational presuppositions.
1. God does not change. He is, as the Bible teaches us in various places, “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8; 1:12; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 102:12, 25–28; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17, etc.).
2. His ways of dealing with his children, and with mankind in general, however, sometimes change in accordance with the circumstances. The clearest and most significant example of this I can think of is the difference in God’s dealings with Israel in the Old Testament and with the Church in the New Testament (independently of the view one takes on the level of continuity or discontinuity of OT Israel and the NT Church as God’s people). Though, as I understand it, both OT saints and NT disciples are ultimately saved by grace through faith in Christ (with differing levels of understanding of the details), there is a real way in which OT Israel was under the law, and we as NT believers are under grace.
3. The differences between God’s dealings with his people in the OT and in the NT have important implications for the way we as NT Christians relate to earthly structures of government. OT Israel lived under a theocracy, in which the laws of the land were dictated to a large degree by God himself. As the NT people of God, though, we live as aliens and exiles in this world (1 Peter 1:1, 17; 2:11; Hebrews 11:9–10; 13:13–14, etc.). As a result, we are called to live under earthly rulers and structures of government which, though ultimately receiving their authority from God (Romans 13:1), do not receive and heed God’s instructions for the way they govern in a direct way such as Moses and the OT rulers of Israel did (or at least, were expected to do). Nevertheless, as Christians, we are to be subject to the authorities that govern us and obey them, except in those cases in which what they command directly contradicts God’s commands for us (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Timothy 2:1–2; Acts 4:18–20, etc.).
4. While our circumstances in this world as NT Christians are somewhat different with regard to our relationship to earthly government from those of OT Israel, there are, nevertheless, some models in the OT of how we as NT Christians are to relate to the earthly structures of government around us. The best examples are found in those instances in which Israel found itself living as exiles in a land other than the Promised Land. This includes the 400 years of slavery in Egypt, but especially the 70 years of Judah’s captivity in Babylon, as well as the situations of those Jews who continued to live as a diaspora scattered throughout the earth following the return of others to the Promised Land. It seems to me the words of Jeremiah to the captives of Judah in Babylon are particularly apropos to us as NT believers living as aliens and exiles in a land that is not ultimately our own:
Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (Jeremiah 29:5–7).
5. In the midst of exile, God raised up some special individuals from among the midst of his people Israel as civil servants in a regime that was not their own, and was not a theocracy, in order to have an impact for good, and to carry out in tangible and strategic ways the implications of Jeremiah’s admonition to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah are examples that readily come to mind. Based on everything up to this point, it seems reasonable to infer that Joseph, Daniel, and to some degree Nehemiah, serve as models for us as NT Christians in regard to our relationship with the governmental structures of the lands in which we live.
But what about Mordecai?
On a first read, it seems that Mordecai in many ways follows in the tradition of Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah. He is presented throughout the book of Esther as an admirable character, raised up by God as an influence for good in the midst of an ungodly society with a corrupt government. Just like Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah, as a result of his godly character, faithfulness, and the working of divine sovereignty, he came to occupy a position of considerable influence in the court of the king of a people that was not his own (Esther 10:3).
But as I read through Esther chapter 9, there are a few things that stand out to me. It seems quite clear that Mordecai, together with his niece Esther, used their newly gained influence within the court of Ahasuerus in order to exact revenge in a bloody and violent manner upon the enemies of the Jews. In some ways, the execution of Haman and of his 10 sons seems pretty much par for the course, at least from an OT perspective. They had, after all, been direct accomplices in a conspiracy to wipe out the Jews from the land. If the Bible teaches capital punishment as a general principle (and to me, it seems that it does), it appears that these men were guilty of crimes worthy of capital punishment (though this assumes some degree of co-responsibility of Haman’s sons for the deeds of their father).
What is even more troubling to me, however, is that, in addition to Haman and his sons, Esther chapter 9 narrates in an apparently approving manner the slaughter of 500 men in the palace of Shushan (v. 12), of another 300 also in Shushan (v. 15), and of another 75,000 in other provinces (v. 16), all at the hands of the Jews. Though the text does not directly state that Mordecai and Esther were directly involved in these last incidents, it is fairly clearly implied that they were in approval of what happened, and that their influence in the court was a contributing factor to what happened.
In other instances in the OT, God clearly commanded to leaders he had raised up the slaughter of other groups of people, such as the Amalekites, Canaanites, Philistines, etc. Though this has been a perennial thorn in the side for us as Christians in our apologetic efforts with our non-believing friends, I have always assumed that the specifically theocratic context in which these particular instances occurred helps to a large degree to explain what happened. God is sovereign. God is holy. God knew these pagan peoples were utterly and incorrigibly corrupt, and his purpose of establishing his holy people of Israel in the land he was giving to them demanded a cleansing of the land. It was not God’s people taking the initiative to exact vengeance upon their foes, but rather God’s servants obediently carrying out the direct command of a sovereign, holy, good, loving, all-knowing God.
Just as OT Israel, we as Christians today must in faith accept God’s commands as pure and righteous, and not argue with God, because he knows better than we do. Since we live in a different context now, though, we may rest assured that he does not intend for us to slaughter our earthly enemies in the same we he intended that OT Israel slaughter theirs. Under the NT covenant of grace, Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek. Vengeance is not ours, but the Lord’s. For similar reasons, we as Christians do not stone our rebellious teenagers to death, nor exterminate the homosexuals among us.
But where does this leave us with regard to our old friend Mordecai? Is he really such a good example for us as Christians with regard to our relationship to the state? Just like us, he wasn’t living under a theocracy, but as an exile in a land that was not his own. And if we can’t take Mordecai as a model, what basis do we have to take Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah as models with regard to how we should relate to the state?
Now I have titled this post “The Mordecai Dilemma” because I have not yet come to a satisfactory solution to the problems everything I have written up to this point present. I am hoping some of you may be able to contribute some insights as I (and any of the rest of you who share my questions regarding all this) continue to wrestle with all this.
As I see it, here are a few of the hermeneutical options we have:
1. We are not meant to take what is narrated in Esther 9 and 10 as in any way prescriptive, but merely descriptive. Though it seems as if what happened is looked upon as a good thing overall by the biblical narrator (presumably representing the perspective of God), the text itself does not absolutely demand that this is the case.
2. Mordecai is a good model for us. The 300, 500, and 75,000 enemies of the Jews who were slaughtered may be presumed to have been just as guilty of capital crimes as Haman and his 10 sons. This option, however, requires a bit of reading between the lines, and still leaves us with some troubling implications regarding how we as Christians should respond in similar circumstances today. Even if we were to find ourselves in a situation where we had the full authority of the government of the land in which we live to act in such a manner, would there ever be a time when it would be a good thing for us as Christians to round up 75,000 enemies of God’s people, even if they were guilty of capital crimes, and to have them executed en masse?
3. Though there are some positive lessons we can learn from people like Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Mordecai, the situations in which they lived, although analogous to ours as NT Christians in some respects, are not the same as the situations in which we live in the NT dispensation. The message of grace that was brought to us by Jesus changes everything, and we cannot look to the OT for models with regard to how we are to live our lives in the world today, unless we also have clear NT confirmation that these models remain in force for us as Christians today.
Perhaps you see some other options. I would be interested to hear what you think. I believe how we deal with this particular passage may have some pretty significant implications for us as Christians with relation to how we deal with the authorities and authority structures of the lands in which we live.
One part of this that I consider is Esther 8, where the Mordecai writes a new edict on behalf of the king. Since the law written by Haman could not be canceled, we see Mordecai write a law allowing the Jews to take arms and defend themselves. Then, they are allowed to go on and annihilate those who attack them, and to annihilate their families.
There’s definitely the troublesome aspect of “and their families” to deal with, but it is possible that what we see is not merely a revenge passage but the first steps were active defense. Esther 9:1 certainly sounds like the enemies of the Jews went out ready to attack and then had the tables turned on them.
I think you’re right, there are implications here for living in pluralistic society. There’s also implications here for the ideas of personal/group defense and taking up arms when necessary.
And those are definitely things that we need to get right: over-militarism would be bad, as would allowing violent people to exterminate a whole ethnic or religious group.
Honestly, I think that interpreting Esther is as difficult as any in Scripture – are Mordecai and Esther being held up as role models or not?
I was just thinking this morning that it’s been a while since I’ve read a good David Rogers post!
While I agree with you that Haman and co.’s deaths were legitimate capital crimes (and I think once the treason was proven Mordecai had little chance of stopping an execution by the Persian king), I’ve always read the slaughter by the Jews as killings in self-defense rather than proactive strikes. I interpret their assembling in the cities to attack their enemies as a group self-defense, since those eager to take advantage of the king’s earlier edict had probably formed in mobs to carry out their desires on that day. I wouldn’t read the text as rounding up vast amounts of people to be executed en masse, but as self-defense from mob violence.
I do, however, agree with your summary statements. We have to remember that a major goal behind much of the Old Testament was to produce a YHWH-worshipping people in which the promised Messiah could be born. This meant that gross idolatry (whether by the Canaanites or Israel and Judah at the times of their exiles) or plots for the extinction of the Jews (like Haman’s or Pharaoh’s) would be met with “extreme prejudice”.
Doug,
Thank you, that is a helpful comment. I just went back and re-read chapter 8, and noticed something I had not seen before (perhaps because of the version I had read it in before). Esther 8:11 infers that enemies who were to be slaughtered were armed forces, not just civilians. So you are probably right to place this in the category of a preemptive military attack in the face of immediate threat, not just exacting of vengeance upon those who didn’t like the Jews.
Perhaps even more relevant for us today than I thought at first?
Josh,
I just saw your comment after posting my reply to Doug. It looks like you are thinking along the same lines as well.
As we think through “just war” theory, there does appear to me to be something here to ponder regarding preemptive vis-a-vis retaliatory aggression.
As Christians, though, I don’t see that the teaching of the NT ever leaves us room for taking out vengeance (especially when this is vengeance for harm done to us specifically for being Christians). The text of Esther does clearly state, however, that vengeance was at least part of the motive of the Jews in their slaughter of their enemies as narrated in ch. 9 (see 8:13). In this detail, it is hard for me to see Mordecai as an example for us to follow.
There is much we shouldn’t imitate from the book of Esther. I don’t want my daughter being forced to audition for a harem!
Yes, but as I read Esther, I don’t see that she had a whole lot of choice in the matter. The bigger question, as I see it, is, if we as Christians were to be faced with the same situation, what would be the best ethical response.
In the OT in general, there are a whole lot of things we are not to imitate. A lot of these, however, can be explained away by way of my hermeneutical option #1 at the end of my post, though. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Mordecai’s actions, however, definitely seem to have the approval of the biblical narrator.
I guess another way to word my dilemma (or at least part of it) is this: Is something that was the right thing for an OT Jew to do in a given circumstance also necessarily the right thing for a NT Christian to do, if he/she were to find himself/herself in the same circumstance? Of course, this does not include Jewish rituals, such as animal sacrifices, etc. But what about purely ethical matters?
“Yes, but as I read Esther, I don’t see that she had a whole lot of choice in the matter.”
…but what a contrast to Daniel and his friends! They didn’t seem to have much choice either, yet they were willing to die rather than defy God. When I preached Esther (one sermon), I took a God uses people despite their sin approach. When compared with people like Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah, I don’t think Esther and Mordecai are good examples for us or the Jews.
The Ethics of Esther applied to today. Sounds like an interesting doctoral dissertation.
Josh Collins – You’ve been on my mind because of a comment I made about panty hose and I was concerned I might have hurt your feelings ; however , I see you have a sense of humor and might accept my concerns and explanation . Motorcycle policeman regularly wore these items because they were warm, lightweight & thin enough to fit under the jodhpurs they wore. As summer encroached and they got hot themselves they would punch holes in them . It caused a problem when a motor policeman directing traffic got bumped by a car and as he was required to get a check-up wouldn’t take off his britches in the Emergency Room in front of nurses, doctors and rescue. I apologise if I caused you any bad feelings – only a “surprise” was intended . I had to catch you on some blog to say this so now I’m free.
I think I fall into some kind of combo of 1 and 3. I do not think that either Mordecai or Esther can really be called paragons of virtue, nor role models for us today in the NT era under NT ethics defined by Jesus.
On the other hand, they were courageous, risked themselves for the sake of their people, and made a difference – so they have something to commend them.
Esther tells, first and foremost, the genesis of the feast. And it shows us how brave people served God, but not in such a way that we ought to imitate them.
Thanks for the comments, Dave.
As we are all aware, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Though I believe this applies to the NT as well, the immediate reference Paul almost certainly had in mind here is to the OT.
How, then, if Mordecai and Esther cannot really be taken as ethical models, are we to determine who, and what actions narrated in the OT, are to be taken as worthy or imitation?
In the case of someone like Abram (Abraham), when he lied to Pharaoh, and then later to Abimelech, about Sarai (Sarah), we have enough clues in the text to indicate that although Abraham is an authentic hero of the faith, he is not worthy or our imitation in this particular aspect. Apart from the NT, however, it is more difficult to reach the same conclusion regarding Mordecai and Esther.
Bottom line: I think, in general, we need to be very careful about taking our cues for ethics, especially as they regard civil service and political involvement, from the OT, unless we also have specific NT teaching to confirm or back it up. We must also look at Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah, et al, from the perspective of a NT ethical lens.
This, perhaps, muddies the water a bit, but that is how I see it at present.
Yeah, thorns abound in this hermeneutical exercise. One principle needs to be held forward. Inerrancy requires us to believe that the stories of scripture are accurately presented. It does not require us to believe that every action in Scripture was honorable, nor that it should be imitated.
“How, then, if Mordecai and Esther cannot really be taken as ethical models, are we to determine who, and what actions narrated in the OT, are to be taken as worthy or imitation? “
This is the key question. Much of the OT narrative is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. We’re not under the Law of Moses although it is instructive.
Esther, in particular, is an odd tale. I agree with Dave where he says elsewhere her that Mordecai and Esther were not paragons of virtue. In fact, this account is about the Jews who were NOT faithful to return to Canaan to rebuild. In large part, this account shows us how sin really mucks up our ability to navigate this world virtuously. I can see where God worked behind the scenes to help these Jews out, but it would have been better for them if they had returned from captivity when their time was up.
In general, the Bible shows us God’s leaders in all their sinful lack of glory. For cues as to how to interpret whether their actions are good or bad, I look to see if they are doing what God wants them to either directly or according to the Law, or to see how God behaves, and God usually gives His reasons verbally to His prophets at the time. If none of this is indicated, I don’t read anything ethical into it. Since God is not directly mentioned in Esther, they were disobedient to return to Canaan and they are suffering the fallout, that’s where I go with Esther. Perhaps God is looking out for His wayward children, but they are forced into less than lawful actions in the process of getting out of the mess they got themselves into.
David Rogers,
I dont have time to comment at length, but I just wanted to say thanks for the good, thought-provoking post.
Without (I hope) deviating too much from the theme of this post, I wanted to ask you guys a question.
Are there some things in scripture that you simply won’t defend? In other words: There it is, it says what is says, make up your own mind?
Or does the necessity of believing scripture also necessitate apologetic defense of all it contains?
For example: The purge of Caanan. Slaughter of men, women, and children, down to pregnant women and infants. I’ve pretty much given up supplying apologetic reasoning for this. It says what it says. I believe it, but that’s pretty much it. Before someone gives me their apologetic reasoning for it, please stop. I know how this is taught. I know the reasoning. I’ve read and heard it a thousand times. Academically it might be very sound. But I’m pretty much done trying to explain why God would order his people to slaughter infants. I will leave that to him.
That’s just an example to give you an idea of what I’m asking. Let’s not let it derail the post. Thanks.
Bill Mac,
I think that is a great question.
1) I think it is important for every Christian to confess, “It is in the Word, I believe it.” (as you said)
2) I also think every Christian needs to be able confess (at some point- these things take time), “It is in the Word, I embrace it.”
I hope that difference makes sense. I think it is important. We do want to just believe the Word intellectually, we want to embrace what it teaches with our hearts.
In the example you used I think it is important to get to the point where you can say, “I not only believe it because the Word says it, but I have come to embrace what it teaches me about the nature and character of God.”
Bill Mac,
No, I don’t have a lock-tite explanation of something like the purge of Canaan. What I said in the post in the following paragraphs is the best I have to offer. I don’t think that gives us the freedom, though, to either dismiss the authority of God’s Word, even in the minute details, or to quit wrestling with the thorny implications.
“In other instances in the OT, God clearly commanded to leaders he had raised up the slaughter of other groups of people, such as the Amalekites, Canaanites, Philistines, etc. Though this has been a perennial thorn in the side for us as Christians in our apologetic efforts with our non-believing friends, I have always assumed that the specifically theocratic context in which these particular instances occurred helps to a large degree to explain what happened. God is sovereign. God is holy. God knew these pagan peoples were utterly and incorrigibly corrupt, and his purpose of establishing his holy people of Israel in the land he was giving to them demanded a cleansing of the land. It was not God’s people taking the initiative to exact vengeance upon their foes, but rather God’s servants obediently carrying out the direct command of a sovereign, holy, good, loving, all-knowing God.
Just as OT Israel, we as Christians today must in faith accept God’s commands as pure and righteous, and not argue with God, because he knows better than we do. Since we live in a different context now, though, we may rest assured that he does not intend for us to slaughter our earthly enemies in the same we he intended that OT Israel slaughter theirs. Under the NT covenant of grace, Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek. Vengeance is not ours, but the Lord’s. For similar reasons, we as Christians do not stone our rebellious teenagers to death, nor exterminate the homosexuals among us.”
Esther 8:
“7 King Xerxes replied to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, “Because Haman attacked the Jews, I have given his estate to Esther, and they have impaled him on the pole he set up. 8 Now write another decree in the king’s name in behalf of the Jews as seems best to you, and seal it with the king’s signet ring—for no document written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring can be revoked.” ”
Note the “as seems best to you”
&
“11 The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate the armed men of any nationality or province who might attack them and their women and children,[b] and to plunder the property of their enemies. 12 The day appointed for the Jews to do this in all the provinces of King Xerxes was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar. 13 A copy of the text of the edict was to be issued as law in every province and made known to the people of every nationality so that the Jews would be ready on that day to avenge themselves on their enemies. ”
Note that the king’s edict not only allows protection from enemies, but the right to retaliate and avenge. It was the king’s ORDER that they do this. And he wrote this edict of his own volition. Note also that a specific day was allocated for this order to be executed. That isn’t exactly a time limit as much as the opening of a specific time to comply with the edict.
I honestly think too many Southern Baptist men read the advice from Xerxes advisers in the first chapter and conclude that because it’s in the Bible–Esther 1:15-22 by the way–we should behave the same. I’ll offer that the thing that caused the fear in Esther that she NOT speak up to the king–which Mordecai acted to convince her that God put her in the position she was in so she could act for her people–was this king’s edict.
I have other thoughts, but I’ll leave it at this direct response to Dave’s original blog for now.
David,
Good topic. Certainly the Jews killing thousands of their enemies gives pause. As you note, we see that (and have difficulty with) even in other cases of the Old Testament. But in the book of Esther, there is no command from God for this slaughter by the Jews, as with Amalekites, Canaanites, etc. In fact God is not even mentioned by name in this book. Here He is “the God in the shadows”. But even in the shadows He is at work. It is a wonderful book of God’s providence as He orchestrates events to raise Esther to the throne, thwart the designs of Hamman, place Mordecai in a position of power, and deliver the people of Israel from their enemies. So that brings us back to God being involved in these events after all, if only by providence.
Is there any reason to suppose they killed women and children during these battles? The accounting says “men” (vv. 6, 12, 15, though only “foes” in verse 16). It seems fair to believe that the people, or at least most of them, that were killed were men — men of age who “sought their hurt” (v. 2). The fighting was a means of self-defense and preservation against those who had been legally authorized to kill them. The fact that they did not take the spoil emphasizes the character of the slaughter as one of self-preservation, in my opinion. They did not kill people for their own benefit, in order to enrich themselves. This was a desperate case that required desperate measures. The Jews were a minority across the kingdom of Persia and others sought their hurt. Nevertheless, the 300 killed in Shushan the next day after the decrees and the sheer number of enemies killed across the kingdom still makes it seem like the Jews took extravagant measures. But then again, the inspired writer seems to offer no indication of condemnation in the matter.
I was particularly pleased to see this post about Esther and Mordecai, since I am about to embark on a study of the book of Esther. The events of chapter 9 present some questions to me, and it is good to think on them with you and those responding. I might word some things slightly differently, but my view comes close to your #3. There are positive lessons from not only Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah, but also Mordecai and Esther. But these lessons, as we seek to apply them, must be filtered through the ethic of the New Testament dispensation under which we live.
Jim, Greg, and Robert,
Thanks to each one of you for your additional insights. I don’t think I have any disagreement with what any of you have said. Though there are still several elements about the book of Esther, and this particular episode (ch. 8-10), that remain quite enigmatic to me, the points each of you have brought out have shed more light as to what really happened, and what the significance for us might be.
Most intriguing subject. It reminds me of the time, when a deacon asked me to preach on the issue of the execration (sp? could not find it in my old Webster’s) Psalms, the ones calling, for example, for a blessing on the one that takes the children of one’s enemies and dashes their heads on a stone. While there are many avenues of explanation to be explored, it is worthwhile to note that the writer of the Psalms had likely seen that very thing done to their children in Babylon’s sacking of Israel at the time of that captivity. People who have experienced such traumatic events are likely to feel vindictive, be given to excessive vituperation, and likely to speak and act vindictively. Then there is the issue of the Sovereignty of God who has the right to determine who shall be in this world, how long they shall be here, and when and by what means they shall exit this earthly stage. Judging God does happen…even by His own servants. Just consider Jeremiah stating that God had been false to him. Anger, frustration, color one’s experiences of the Divine. At such times it is hard to grasp the benefit of having God in charge. But, if you think that is something, consider the child bereaved of both parents, raised by whoever. I am thinking of my grandfather who raised me. He had one fellow who cooked his hand with a knife taken from the fireplace, another who knocked him unconscious with a hammer (he was unconscious for three mos.), and a third beat him with a barb wire whip (only time I ever heard of such a thing). Like my grandfather, I was deprived of both parents (but his was by death and mine was by divorce). My arguments against God, when I went through my period of atheism, was this, “How could there be a God and let little children suffer?” There are many unaswered questions in life and in the Bible. Job is a good instance of taking God as in control and of bowing to every event as at His will. There are times, when the child of God can do this. There are times, when, like Jeremiah, he or she cries out in anger and bitterness and frustration and, yes, even rage. Some would immediately exclude people for such upsets. God, however, is not quite so disturbed even as a parent dealing with a troubled child. I remember a couple taking in a child who had been abused. They use to walk the floors at night, holding him in their arms, while he screamed in rage. One nurse was hired to hold a child that had been traumatized during World War II, just hold the child, while the child struck at her. She rendered this therapy one or two hours a day for some months, then one day the child laid her head on the nurse’s shoulder and cried. It ended her striking at anyone who held her. What we have in the Bible is the most honest book in the world; it tells things like they are, not as we wish them to be. The moral and ethical nature of these writings set forth in depth and in detail a teaching and practice that defies human comprehension. Living with I Cors.13 for two years in researching that pericope in the Greek was an eye opening experience. In Moredecai and Esther’s case, there is much more of a conspiracy with active members in it who were bent upon destructive behavior. And as well-known or should be is the tendency of family members to take up a quarrel. My grandfather had a brother who was murdered, and another brother went after the murderer and as the saying in the family goes, he took care of the matter. Explanations can be multi-layered affairs, but sooner or later one has to leave the whole matter with God for an ultimate explanation in eternity. I know it was strange to me that I should have my argument about children and suffering, but when Jesus showed up in my conversion experience I never even thought of that question. There is something wonderfully distracting, when one encounters the God of Heaven and earth. It is hard to think at such times. There is an overwhelmingness to such meetings…that provide their own satisfactions to questions that are not yet answered and might not be in this world. And God is all the greater in the mind and heart of the sufferer with the issues.