Ruth & Esther (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary) (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary series) 1641730471, 9781641730471

Citation preview

Ruth & Esther

Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Ruth & Esther Publication Staff Publisher & Executive Vice President Keith Gammons Book Editor Leslie Andres Graphic Designers Daniel Emerson Dave Jones Assistant Editors Katie Brookins Kelley F. Land

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2016 by Smyth & Helwys Publishing All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-573128-927-5

SMYTH & HELWYS BIBLE COMMENTARY

Ruth & Esther kandy queen-sutherland

Project Editor R. Scott Nash Mercer University Macon, Georgia

Old Testament General Editor Samuel E. Balentine Union Presbyterian Seminary Richmond, Virginia Area Old Testament Editors Mark E. Biddle Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia Kandy Queen-Sutherland Stetson University DeLand, Florida Paul L. Redditt Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Georgetown, Kentucky

New Testament General Editor R. Alan Culpepper McAfee School of Theology Mercer University Atlanta, Georgia Area New Testament Editors R. Scott Nash Mercer University Macon, Georgia Richard B. Vinson Salem College Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Contents author’s preface xiii series preface xvii how to use this commentary xxi introduction to ruth & esther

1



Introduction to the Scroll of Ruth

27



Ruth: An Outline

41



Turning Back

Ruth 1:1-22 43



Life on the Edge

Ruth 2:1-23 79



Securing the Future

Ruth 3:1-18 111



Redeeming Land and Family

Ruth 4:1-22 145

Selected Bibliography for Ruth

181



Introduction to the Scroll of Esther

187



Esther: An Outline

213



Power and Risk

Esth 1:1–2:4 215



Living with the Enemy

Esth 2:5-23 245



Power, Pride, and Prejudice

Esth 3:1-15 271

Lamentations

Esth 4:1-17 299



Confronting Evil

Esth 5:1-14 325



Honor and Shame

Esth 6:1-14 345



Naming the Enemy

Esth 7:1-10 375



Change of Fortune

Esth 8:1-17 417



A Good Day!

Esth 9:1–10:3 453

Selected Bibliography for Esther

491

index of modern authors 495

index of scriptures 497



index of sidebars and illustrations

503

index of topics 509

Dedication

To my mother, Lois J. Queen On the occasion of her 90th birthday No one has taught me, loved me, or inspired me more.

U

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS COMMENTARY Books of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament are generally abbreviated in the Sidebars, parenthetical references, and notes according to the following system. The Old Testament Genesis Gen Exodus Exod Leviticus Lev Numbers Num Deuteronomy Deut Joshua Josh Judges Judg Ruth Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kings 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chronicles 1–2 Chr Ezra Ezra Nehemiah Neh Esther Esth Job Job Psalm (Psalms) Ps (Pss) Proverbs Prov Ecclesiastes Eccl or Qoheleth Qoh Song of Solomon Song or Song of Songs Song or Canticles Cant Isaiah Isa Jeremiah Jer Lamentations Lam Ezekiel Ezek Daniel Dan Hosea Hos Joel Joel Amos Amos Obadiah Obad Jonah Jonah Micah Mic

viii

Abbreviations Nahum Nah Habakkuk Hab Zephaniah Zeph Haggai Hag Zechariah Zech Malachi Mal The Apocrypha 1–2 Esdras 1–2 Esdr Tobit Tob Judith Jdt Additions to Esther Add Esth Wisdom of Solomon Wis Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom Sir of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruch Bar Epistle (or Letter) of Jeremiah Ep Jer Prayer of Azariah and the Song Pr Azar of the Three Daniel and Susanna Sus Daniel, Bel, and the Dragon Bel Prayer of Manasseh Pr Man 1–4 Maccabees 1–4 Macc The New Testament Matthew Matt Mark Mark Luke Luke John John Acts Acts Romans Rom 1–2 Corinthians 1–2 Cor Galatians Gal Ephesians Eph Philippians Phil Colossians Col 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Thess 1–2 Timothy 1–2 Tim Titus Titus Philemon Phlm Hebrews Heb James Jas 1–2 Peter 1–2 Pet 1–2–3 John 1–2–3 John Jude Jude Revelation Rev

Abbreviations Other commonly used abbreviations include: ad  Anno Domini (“in the year of the Lord”) (also commonly referred to as ce = the Common Era) bc Before Christ (also commonly referred to as bce = Before the Common Era) C. century c. circa (around “that time”) cf. confer (compare) ch. chapter chs. chapters d. died ed. edition or edited by or editor eds. editors e.g. exempli gratia (for example) et al. et alii (and others) f./ff. and the following one(s) gen. ed. general editor Gk. Greek Heb. Hebrew ibid. ibidem (in the same place) i.e. id est (that is) LCL Loeb Classical Library lit. literally n.d. no date OG Old Greek rev. and exp. ed. revised and expanded edition sg. singular trans. translated by or translator(s) vol(s). volume(s) v. verse vv. verses Selected additional written works cited by abbreviations include the following. A complete listing of abbreviations can be referenced in The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999): AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture AJSR Association of Jewish Studies Review ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers Ant. Jewish Antiquities

ix

x

Abbreviations ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentary ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute AT Alpha Text ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch AYB The Anchor Yale Bible b. Babylonian Talmud BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHHB Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin CBAT Edition C Bibelkommentar Altes Testament CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IB Interpreter’s Bible IBC Interpretation Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary IDB Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JHNES John Hopkins Near East Studies JNSH Journal of Northwest Semitic Language JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JR Journal Religion JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series KJV King James Version LXX Septuagint = Greek Translation of Hebrew Bible MDB Mercer Dictionary of the Bible Meg. Megillah (Esther Scroll) MT Masoretic Text NASB New American Standard Bible NCB New Century Bible NEB New English Bible

Abbreviations NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIV New International Version NovT Novum Testamentum NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTS New Testament Studies OBT Overtures to Bible Theology OGIS Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae OTL Old Testament Library PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina. PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevExp Review and Expositor RSV Revised Standard Version SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SemeiaSt Semeia Studies SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SP Sacra pagina TDNT  Theological Dictionary of the New Testament TEV Today’s English Version VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary y. Palestinian Talmud ZAW Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xi

Author’s Preface This volume is a lifetime in the making. Those who know me will vouch for this truthfulness. I cannot remember a time when I was not working on Ruth and Esther, or more importantly, when the stories of Ruth and Esther were not shaping me. Their stories, along with countless other biblical stories told me as a child of Baptist upbringing, combined with the popular fables of childhood, and the stories that undergird our family consciousness convinced me long ago that we live our lives as story. The books of Ruth and Esther that make up this volume are millennia old, yet as fresh and significant as if they had been penned yesterday. On the surface, they are deceptively simple—survival tales that end happily. Yet, each is a masterpiece of human drama that struggles through the darkest elements of our existence when life itself is threatened. Each in its own way raises the God-question— whether as the distant God of Ruth who finally remembers the people (Ruth 1:6) or the God who is absent in Esther. There was a point in the writing when the sheer magnitude of doing justice to the voices exposed in Ruth and Esther, and to the voices suppressed in the text, nearly paralyzed me. The task of biblical interpretation can weigh heavily. If I have a debt to pay, it is to those professor-scholar-preachers who years ago pushed me to wrestle with the text. In particular, I am grateful to Dr. Page H. Kelley, my “doctor-father,” whose excitement over the Hebrew text was unequaled; George A. Buttrick, for whom I wrote my first sermon and whose words never left me, “You have something to say and the right to say it . . . ”; and his son, David Buttrick. As chance would have it, a snowstorm left my husband and me stranded in David and Betty Buttrick’s home for three days in southern Indiana when David was teaching homiletics at St. Meinrad Seminary and we were his students. Every day was spent analyzing biblical texts, moving through possible intentionality to how the text could best be heard again. David Buttrick taught me to speak through the text, not merely about it. Reading another author’s preface to a volume in this series, I was impressed by how similar our stories are. His citations and thanks named many of the same professors and colleagues who are a part of my history, by only a few years later. In reading his list of mentors and encouragers, I recognized names of people who stood as

xiv

Author’s Preface

obstacles to a woman teaching Hebrew, pastoring a church, or earning a PhD. I will not dwell on their identities. Most were simply unready to see beyond the limitations of patriarchy. More important than their sexism were the voices that saw in me someone worth championing. They have my gratitude: the professors who welcomed me into their classes and taught me Hebrew, Greek, theology when others questioned female ability, the dean of theology questioned my motives (“You must be looking for a husband”), and the placement office refused to include my résumé among applicants seeking church ministry positions; Jim Smith, deacon of Ebenezer (American) Baptist Church in Aurora, Indiana, who persuaded the church to change its requirements for calling an interim pastor from a unanimous pulpit search committee vote to a majority vote of the congregation when a fellow deacon declared that no women would pastor their church; Bobby Brown, deacon of Port Royal Baptist Church in Port Royal, Kentucky, who asked the deacons and then church to call me to serve as their pastor alongside their pastor and my husband, Dixon Sutherland; Dr. Frank Stagg, who taught me Greek and encouraged me on a dark day of graduate studies not to lose hope—“Get your doctorate,” he said, “then when they try to stop you because you are a woman, you can fight them”; Dr. Kelley, who restored my confidence when a biased professor graded me unjustly. Not only did Page Kelley supervise my dissertation, but he preached the sermon at my ordination in 1982, three years before Southern Baptists decided a woman must not be ordained. It has been my honor to teach on two of the finest faculties I know—the faculty of the international Baptist Theological Seminary in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, 1984–1991, and now in the Department of Religious Studies at Stetson University since 1991. No one can surpass their collegiality, integrity, and passion for teaching. Along the way I have been challenged to think in new ways by students who brought their own rich traditions and world views to the classroom. To the students of Rüschlikon, there were none like you, and to my Stetson students, I am grateful for your intellectual and spiritual quests that continue to inspire and intrigue me. I owe more than appreciation to Sam Balentine as the editor of the Old Testament volumes. Sam, you are a prince and dear friend. Your insight and intuition helped shape this work in profound ways. What a pleasure it has been to work with Paul Redditt and other editorial board members across the years, equally true for

Author’s Preface

the professional staff at Smyth & Helwys, naming especially Keith Gammons and in this final stage, Leslie Andres. I know the story of women and widows. I dedicate this to my mother, Lois Queen, a widow of 57 years. She, together with my sister, Penny Queen Ribelin, pushed me farther than I could have ever gone on my own. They are part of the women who surround me and for whom I am forever grateful—family members, colleagues, and friends. I know as well the company of men who have opened the doors of acceptance and paved the way when there were no female models to follow—none more important than D. Dixon Sutherland. We met during graduate school. For those who know Clyde Edgerton’s work Raney—you will understand the connection. He was a philosophy and religion major from Atlanta, Georgia. I was a special education major from Lancaster, South Carolina—then home to the largest cotton mill under one roof. The Dean of Theology was correct: I did get a husband, and together Dixon and I completed our PhDs then moved through our professional careers together. This volume should read With Dixon Sutherland, for without his selfless efforts to bring it to completion, the book would remain unfinished. Our best accomplishments are seen in the lives of our children, Christa Queen-Sutherland and Caleb Sutherland. They especially will celebrate with us in the completion of this book and my return from “Kandy-world”—their name for when my body was present but my mind was working on a detail of Ruth or Esther. I have told you my story. Allow me to tell you the stories of Ruth and Esther. Kandy Queen-Sutherland DeLand, Florida August 2016

xv

SERIES PREFACE The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is a visually stimulating and user-friendly series that is as close to multimedia in print as possible. Written by accomplished scholars with all students of Scripture in mind, the primary goal of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is to make available serious, credible biblical scholarship in an accessible and less intimidating format. Far too many Bible commentaries fall short of bridging the gap between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of students of God’s written word. In an unprecedented way, the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary brings insightful commentary to bear on the lives of contemporary Christians. Using a multimedia format, the volumes employ a stunning array of art, photographs, maps, and drawings to illustrate the truths of the Bible for a visual generation of believers. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is built upon the idea that meaningful Bible study can occur when the insights of contemporary biblical scholars blend with sensitivity to the needs of lifelong students of Scripture. Some persons within local faith communities, however, struggle with potentially informative biblical scholarship for several reasons. Oftentimes, such scholarship is cast in technical lan­ guage easily grasped by other scholars, but not by the general reader. For example, lengthy, technical discussions on every detail of a partic­ ular scriptural text can hinder the quest for a clear grasp of the whole. Also, the format for presenting scholarly insights has often been confusing to the general reader, rendering the work less than helpful. Unfortunately, responses to the hurdles of reading extensive commentaries have led some publishers to produce works for a general readership that merely skim the surface of the rich resources of biblical scholarship. This commentary series incorporates works of fine art in an accurate and scholarly manner, yet the format remains “userfriendly.” An important facet is the presentation and explanation of images of art, which interpret the biblical material or illustrate how the biblical material has been understood and interpreted in the past. A visual generation of believers deserves a commentary series that contains not only the all-important textual commentary on Scripture, but images, photographs, maps, works of fine art, and drawings that bring the text to life.

xviii

Series Preface

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary makes serious, credible biblical scholarship more accessible to a wider audience. Writers and editors alike present information in ways that encourage readers to gain a better understanding of the Bible. The editorial board has worked to develop a format that is useful and usable, informative and pleasing to the eye. Our writers are reputable scholars who participate in the community of faith and sense a calling to communicate the results of their scholarship to their faith community. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary addresses Christians and the larger church. While both respect for and sensitivity to the needs and contributions of other faith communities are reflected in the work of the series authors, the authors speak primarily to Christians. Thus the reader can note a confessional tone throughout the volumes. No particular “confession of faith” guides the authors, and diverse perspectives are observed in the various volumes. Each writer, though, brings to the biblical text the best scholarly tools available and expresses the results of their studies in commentary and visuals that assist readers seeking a word from the Lord for the church. To accomplish this goal, writers in this series have drawn from numerous streams in the rich tradition of biblical interpretation. The basic focus is the biblical text itself, and considerable attention is given to the wording and structure of texts. Each particular text, however, is also considered in the light of the entire canon of Christian Scriptures. Beyond this, attention is given to the cultural context of the biblical writings. Information from archaeology, ancient history, geography, comparative literature, history of reli­ gions, politics, sociology, and even economics is used to illuminate the culture of the people who produced the Bible. In addition, the writers have drawn from the history of interpretation, not only as it is found in traditional commentary on the Bible but also in litera­ ture, theater, church history, and the visual arts. Finally, the Commentary on Scripture is joined with Connections to the world of the contemporary church. Here again, the writers draw on scholarship in many fields as well as relevant issues in the popular culture. This wealth of information might easily overwhelm a reader if not presented in a “user-friendly” format. Thus the heavier discus­ sions of detail and the treatments of other helpful topics are presented in special-interest boxes, or Sidebars, clearly connected to the passages under discussion so as not to interrupt the flow of the basic interpretation. The result is a commentary on Scripture that focuses on the theological significance of a text while also offering

Series Preface

the reader a rich array of additional information related to the text and its interpretation. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource is a distinctive feature of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Combining credible biblical scholarship, user-friendly study features, and sensitivity to the needs of a visually oriented genera­ tion of believers creates a unique and unprecedented type of commentary series. With insight from many of today’s finest biblical scholars and a stunning visual format, it is our hope that the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary will be a welcome addition to the personal libraries of all students of Scripture. The Editors

xix

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is written by accomplished biblical scholars with a wide array of readers in mind. Whether engaged in the study of Scripture in a church setting or in a college or seminary classroom, all students of the Bible will find a number of useful features throughout the commentary that are helpful for interpreting the Bible. Basic Design of the Volumes

Each volume features an Introduction to a particular book of the Bible, providing a brief guide to information that is necessary for reading and interpreting the text: the historical setting, literary design, and theological significance. Each Introduction also includes a comprehensive outline of the particular book under study. Each chapter of the commentary investigates the text according to logical divisions in a particular book of the Bible. Sometimes these divisions follow the traditional chapter segmentation, while at other times the textual units consist of sections of chapters or portions of more than one chapter. The divisions reflect the literary structure of a book and offer a guide for selecting passages that are useful in preaching and teaching. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource also allows unprecedented flexibility and freedom for the reader. Carry the text version to locations you most enjoy doing research while knowing that the CD offers a portable alternative for travel from the office, church, classroom, and your home. Commentary and Connections

As each chapter explores a textual unit, the discussion centers around two basic sections: Commentary and Connections. The analysis of a passage, including the details of its language, the history reflected in the text, and the literary forms found in the text, are the main focus

xxii

How to Use This Commentary

of the Commentary section. The primary concern of the Commentary section is to explore the theological issues presented by the Scripture passage. Connections presents potential applications of the insights provided in the Commentary section. The Connections portion of each chapter considers what issues are relevant for teaching and suggests useful methods and resources. Connections also identifies themes suitable for sermon planning and suggests helpful approaches for preaching on the Scripture text. Sidebars

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary provides a unique hyperlink format that quickly guides the reader to additional insights. Since other more technical or supplementary information is vital for understanding a text and its implications, the volumes feature distinctive Sidebars, or special-interest boxes, that provide a wealth of information on such matters as: • Historical information (such as chronological charts, lists of kings or rulers, maps, descriptions of monetary systems, descriptions of special groups, descriptions of archaeological sites or geographical settings). • Graphic outlines of literary structure (including such items as poetry, chiasm, repetition, epistolary form). • Definition or brief discussions of technical or theological terms and issues. • Insightful quotations that are not integrated into the running text but are relevant to the passage under discussion. • Notes on the history of interpretation (Augustine on the Good Samaritan, Luther on James, Stendahl on Romans, etc.). • Line drawings, photographs, and other illustrations relevant for understanding the historical context or interpretive significance of the text. • P resentation and discussion of works of fine art that have interpreted a Scripture passage.

How to Use This Commentary

Each Sidebar is printed in color and is referenced at the appropriate place in the Commentary or Connections section with a color-coded title that directs the reader to the relevant Sidebar. In addition, helpful icons appear in the Sidebars, which provide the reader with visual cues to the type of material that is explained in each Sidebar. Throughout the commentary, these four distinct hyperlinks provide useful links in an easily recognizable design.

Alpha & Omega Language

This icon identifies the information as a language-based tool that offers further exploration of the Scripture selection. This could include syntactical information, word studies, popular or additional uses of the word(s) in question, additional contexts in which the term appears, and the history of the term’s translation. All nonEnglish terms are transliterated into the appropriate English characters. Culture/Context

This icon introduces further comment on contextual or cultural details that shed light on the Scripture selection. Describing the place and time to which a Scripture passage refers is often vital to the task of biblical interpretation. Sidebar items introduced with this icon could include geographical, historical, political, social, topographical, or economic information. Here, the reader may find an excerpt of an ancient text or inscription that sheds light on the text. Or one may find a description of some element of ancient religion such as Baalism in Canaan or the Hero cult in the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.

Interpretation

Sidebars that appear under this icon serve a general interpretive function in terms of both historical and contemporary renderings. Under this heading, the reader might find a selection from classic or contemporary literature that illuminates the Scripture text or a significant quotation from a famous sermon that addresses the passage. Insights are drawn from various sources, including literature, worship, theater, church history, and sociology.

xxiii

xxiv

How to Use This Commentary

Additional Resources Study

Here, the reader finds a convenient list of useful resources for further investigation of the selected Scripture text, including books, journals, websites, special collections, organizations, and societies. Specialized discussions of works not often associated with biblical studies may also appear here. Additional Features

Each volume also includes a basic Bibliography on the biblical book under study. Other bibliographies on selected issues are often included that point the reader to other helpful resources. Notes at the end of each chapter provide full documentation of sources used and contain additional discussions of related matters. Abbreviations used in each volume are explained in a list of abbreviations found after the Table of Contents. Readers of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary can regularly visit the Internet support site for news, information, updates, and enhancements to the series at www.helwys.com/commentary. Several thorough indexes enable the reader to locate information quickly. These indexes include: • An Index of Sidebars groups content from the special-interest boxes by category (maps, fine art, photographs, drawings, etc.). • An Index of Scriptures lists citations to particular biblical texts. • An Index of Topics lists alphabetically the major subjects, names, topics, and locations referenced or discussed in the volume. • An Index of Modern Authors organizes contemporary authors whose works are cited in the volume.

Introduction to Ruth & Esther In the Jewish Bible, the books of Ruth and Esther are found in the Ketuvim (that is, Hagiographa or Writings). Both are included in what is known as the Hamesh Megillot, meaning “Five Scrolls,” or more commonly, simply the Megillot. Collectively, the Megillot includes Ruth, Song of Songs (Canticles), Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, and Esther. Likely, the Megillot was not always considered a single collection, and the books within it were produced individually. A reconstruction of how and when the five were put together as the Megillot remains uncertain, yet interest in the collection’s “compilation history” is growing. Following the lines of recent scholarship on the shape and shaping of the Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets) and the Psalter, the Megillot invites examination for intertextual links and connections that bind these books together. Such examination is underway. One example, Timothy J. Stone’s work, The Compilational History of the Megilloth: Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings, explores the canonical shape of the Writings, with particular attention given to the books of Ruth and Esther.1 Stone regards the occurrence of catchwords at the seams of adjoining books, framing devices, superscriptions, and theme development as evidence for conscious literary connections used to bind the individual books to one another. Such connections may help to unravel an individual book’s textual history or offer insight into how the books were read through centuries of interpretation. The canonical positioning of the book of Ruth is a good case in point. In the Septuagint (LXX), Ruth is placed after the book of Judges, following the chronological sequence suggested by the opening line of Ruth, “In the days that the judges ruled.”2 Likewise, Ruth stands before 1 Samuel, which describes the rise of David. Since Ruth ends by naming David twice (4:17, 22) and the climax of the story announces David’s entrance into the narrative, the LXX translators may have thought it was logical to place it there. We do not know if the translators were simply following the order of the Hebrew scrolls that they possessed, or were themselves attempting to position Ruth as segue from the book of Judges to 1 Samuel.

2

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

Another alternative could be that the translators were linking the shocking climax about David’s Moabite ancestry at the end of the book of Ruth to the story of his rise to power in 1 Samuel. The Babylonian Talmud of the sixth century ce does not claim a Megillot collection. Its ordering of the Ketuvim (Writings) is Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles (b. Bat. 14b). [Rabbinic Order of the Writings] The rabbis’ discussion on the ordering indicates that they intended a chronological listing based on Rabbinic Order of the Writings their beliefs about the authorship and hisIn the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis discuss the placement of the Ketuvim (Hagiographa) in the torical setting of the scrolls. The reason we canon. They note that the book of Ruth is placed first know this is that the rabbis argued over because it begins with suffering. Rabbi Johanan reminds the placement of Job. Since they thought the other rabbis, however, that Ruth also ends with happithat Job lived in the days of Moses, a ness on account of its tie to David, thus implying its proper rabbi suggested that it should come first. placement before the book of Psalms: The decision was made, however, that The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of the Ketuvim should not begin with sufPsalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, fering. Someone countered that Ruth also Lamentations, Daniel and the scroll of Esther, Ezra is a record of suffering (v. 1 begins with and Chronicles. Now on the view that Job lived in “There was a famine in the land”), but the the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come rejoinder was given that Ruth contains first? We do not begin with a record of suffering. But a sequel of happiness. The sequel was Ruth also is a record of suffering? It is a suffering with a sequel [of happiness], as R. Johanan said: that from Ruth’s offspring came David, Why was her name called Ruth? Because there who contributed the hymns and praises issued from her David who replenished the Holy of the Psalms. Believing that Ruth and One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises. (Baba Judges were written by Samuel, the rabbis Bathra 14b) thought the order made sense.3 The earliest surviving Masoretic manuscripts, the Aleppo Codex (10th century) and the Leningrad Codex B19A (11th century), collect the five scrolls into a defined Megillot, arranged in chronological order according to traditional rabbinic beliefs about authorship.4 These two codices arrange the Megillot as follows: Ruth (by Samuel), Song of Songs (youthful Solomon), Qoheleth (elder Solomon), Lamentations (Jeremiah with the destruction of the temple in 586 bce), and Esther (Mordecai, during the Persian period, post 538 bce). This sequence also places Ruth immediately following Proverbs instead of Judges as in Christian Bibles. Proverbs 31:1-31 concludes with praise for “a woman of valor” (>∑šet-˙ayil ). Ruth is called a >∑šet-˙ayil in Ruth 3:11, possibly linking the two books. This is the order retained by the scholarly editions of the Masoretic texts Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Thus, Ruth is the first scroll and Esther

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

the last, put together in what the Masoretes discerned to be a chronological order.5 Many medieval manuscripts adopt an alternative order of the Megillot focused not on concerns for chronology or authorship but on the liturgical year. Following Exodus 12:2, the liturgical year begins with the spring New Year: Song of Songs (tied to Passover or deliverance from Egypt in April), Ruth (to Shavuot or first fruits and giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai in May-June), Lamentations (to the ninth of Av or destruction of the temple and the exile in July-August), Ecclesiastes (to Sukkot or wandering in the wilderness and final harvest in September-October), and Esther (to Pûrim, deliverance from Persia in March). In medieval Judaism, therefore, the Megillot corresponded to the agricultural and historical calendars. Based on the limited sources currently available, it seems likely that the Megillot developed formally in order to provide synagogue readings for the liturgical year. Except for the scroll of Esther, connection to the particular festival associated with each book is not mentioned in the content Five Megillot of its story. Esther is unique in that it contains an etiological explanation of the festival of Purim. Purim is also unique because it is the only festival of these five scrolls that does not have its basis in the Torah. Although the order varies within its textual tradition, the Megillot stands as a collection of writings probably put together in such a way as to meet the liturgical A cabinet containing the five Megillot. (Esther is in the wooden case on the needs of Jewish worship left.) throughout the year. (Credit: Daniel Ventura / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

Observations on the Megillot

As already noted, the Leningrad and Aleppo codices order the Megillot as follows: Ruth, Song of Songs (or Canticles), Qoheleth, Lamentations, and Esther. [The Placement of Ruth and Esther] Thus the earliest Masoretic manuscripts place the scrolls of Ruth and Esther first and last, respectively, within the Megillot. As Tamara Eskenazi

3

4

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

states, these two scrolls function like bookends.6 This is not only by canonical placement but also because the story settings for Ruth and Esther bracket ancient Israel’s history, with Ruth set before kingship and the formation of Aleppo and Leningrad Codices (designated Megillot) the nation and Esther’s story placed after Ruth, Song of Songs (Canticles), Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), the national existence of Israel or Judah. Lamentations, Esther With Ruth and Esther positioned at the beginning and end, Ecclesiastes sits Medieval Manuscripts (Liturgical Year) in the middle, presenting the wisdom Song of Songs (Canticles), Ruth, Lamentations, Qoheleth teacher, Qoheleth, as a son of David, (Ecclesiastes), Esther king in Jerusalem (Qoh 1:1). The use of Stichworte, i.e., catchwords or themes, creates linkages across the scrolls. The genealogical ending of Ruth with David as the last name and word of the book, and Canticles whose title is “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s” (Song/Cant 1:1) connects with the opening of Qoheleth (also called Ecclesiastes in Latin). By inference, Qoheleth 1:1 brings to mind Solomon as the master gatherer of wealth and wisdom as well as the preeminent seeker of pleasure. Positioned on the other side of Qoheleth, Lamentations describes Jerusalem as a fallen woman, raped and humiliated, with none to comfort her. The nation and her rulers are destroyed. The personified “City Woman” of Lamentations 1:1, once a princess among the provinces (m≥dînâ), has become like a widow, calling to mind the female widows of Ruth and echoing the opening verse of Esther with its mention of 127 Persian provinces (m≥dînâ). On either side of Qoheleth, Song of Songs and Lamentations are counter opposites. Canticles sings the songs of human love with all love’s erotic beauty while Lamentations cries from the depths of human despair. As joyful as the lovers in Song of Songs sound, the voices of hate and anger in Lamentations are miserable. Taken together, Ruth sees human experience as the action of God; Canticles celebrates life for life itself; Qoheleth wonders at the inconsistencies of human behavior and divine response; Lamentations cries out to a God who rejects and wills harm to God’s own people, even refusing to answer; Esther opts for human action when faced with human evil. All five books thus enter the theological foray into divine and human action, the mystery of God and anomalies of human experience. Of the five, two leave God out of the story, Esther and Song of Songs. Ruth credits God for bad and good (Ruth 1:6, 21; 4:13). The Placement of Ruth and Esther Babylonian Talmud (no Megillot) Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Song of Songs (Canticles), Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

5

Lamentations names God as the enemy and challenges God’s rejection of God’s people (Lam 2:1-8). Qoheleth questions the futility of human action and throws in the cards before an incomprehensible God (Qoh 3:16-22). Esther lets God off the hook, naming a human enemy and ordering the Jews to thwart a Persian law aimed at Jewish annihilation. In Ruth, whatever Festival Scrolls happens, God is named. In Esther, whatThe five scrolls are read during the festivals to ever happens, humans are accountable. which they are tied. Each reading keeps the memory of these ancient texts alive, drawing from the As festival scrolls, the five cross the full past and moving forward into a more hopeful future. range of human experience and call God’s people to live life as party as well as prayer. Ruth (Shavuot: Pentecost, First Fruits) Kindness Ruth celebrates kindness, and Song of Songs revels in love. For all its struggles Song of Songs (Pesach: Passover) Love with unpredictability, Qoheleth celebrates Qoheleth (Sukkot: Tabernacles) Life life. Lamentations honors loss. Esther celebrates justice, a fitting conclusion to the Lamentations (Tishah B’Av: ninth of Av) Loss Megillot.7 [Festival Scrolls] Esther (Purim: Festival of Lots)

Ruth and Esther

The present volume focuses on the bookends in the Megillot: the Scrolls of Ruth and Esther. Ruth and Esther are the only two women for whom books of the Hebrew Bible are named. This distinction in itself sets the books apart from other biblical texts that bear male names, address the community through its male members, recall the workings of God and human history through a predominately male perspective, and look to the future through male heirs. These two books are particularly stories of survival. The story of Ruth focuses on the survival of a family, while Esther focuses on the survival of a people. As biblical characters, Ruth and Esther are women of their time. They are likewise women for all time. Each conforms to the cultural norms of their story’s setting, while simultaneously pressing against boundaries of domination and privilege that limit female and outsider participation. Both Ruth and Esther personify “otherness” in a world that either pushes the stranger outside the margins of society (Ruth) or draws her into a world of hiddenness, where one’s true identity must not be known (Esther). In comparing the two stories, Ruth is the foreigner among Jews, and Esther the Jew among foreigners. Ruth’s questionable ethnicity is out in the open, yet suspicious. The story names her “Ruth the Moabite” over and over again, as if a large M is imprinted on her forehead. [Ruth the Moabite] Likewise, Esther’s heritage is a

Justice

6

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

troubling detail of the Esther story. Rather than the openness with which Ruth lives, Esther must hide her Jewishness, revealing it only when the threat of death hangs over all the Jews (Esth 2:10; 7:3-4; 8:1). She is the Queen, the enforced title she carries as Ruth carries her ethnic past.8 Ruth lives her life among women, interacting with only one male in the story, Boaz. All other males pose potential risk (Ruth 2:9, 22). Esther’s world is the world of men. She comes into the story among the king’s women but never speaks to a woman in the story. Women are, after all, her rivals (Esth 2:17). All conversation is with or directed to male characters. Both stories have a female character who disappears from the action, Orpah in Ruth 1 and Vashti in Esther 1. The spotlight then shifts to the book’s main female character(s). Each story, likewise, includes a “pretender” who poses a threat to future security, the so-called “nearer redeemer” in Ruth who stands between Boaz and Ruth should he choose to act as redeemer (3:12-13; 4:1-6), and Haman, the “wannabe king” in Esther. In both stories, the “pretender” is removed in order to cancel the threat he poses. Read together—women, foreigners, Jews—all are outsiders who face a world hostile to their survival. Ruth works from outside the power structures of Judah to gain benevolent male protection. Esther works from inside the Persian court to thwart injurious male power. Ruth’s story setting is in the days of the judges, before there was a king in Israel. Esther’s setting in the Persian Empire is post-kingship in Israel. (See the introductions to each scroll for a more detailed treatment of the historicity Recasting Old Law and genre.) As female characters, they share Irmtraud Fischer argues that the actions contexts of instability, whether economic or of Ruth on the threshing floor set up the political, in which they are forced to work out connection of two separate legal institutions, the law of redemption and Levirate marriage. Ruth the future themselves. No expected markings of requests marriage of Boaz, naming him the Jewish identity—temple, law, ritual, or diet— redeemer. Her request and Boaz’s acceptance at are found in either story, although the legal the gate results in a halakhah, an interpretation of requirements of redemption and Levirate marlaw. Fischer argues that the book of Ruth therefore riage play an important role in Ruth. [Recasting functions as exegetical literature, updating old laws Old Law] Both are stories that pay close attention and recasting community perceptions of Moabites. to the lives of women, yet there is little talk Irmtraud Fischer, “The Book of Ruth as Exegetical Literature,” Ruth the Moabite Ruth 1:4 introduces Ruth as a Moabite, and on six other occasions she is named “Ruth the Moabite”: Ruth 1:22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10. Neil Glover, “Your People, My People: An Exploration of Ethnicity in Ruth,” JSOT 33 (2009): 293–313 explores the use of names in the book of Ruth. He contends that three instances in the book when Ruth is not identified by the Moabite tag signal her re-situation within Israel: 2:8 with Boaz, 2:22 with Naomi, and 4:13 with the entire assembly. The naming of Ruth is occasioned by a threefold re-situation, and Ruth enters the Israelite ethnie as her ethnic status is effectively changed (p. 302).

European Judaism 40 (2007): 140–49.

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

7

about babies in the story of Ruth and none in Esther. Not once is there mention of childbirth in Esther. Even in the book of Ruth, Ruth’s choice to accompany her mother-in-law, Naomi, back to Bethlehem is a choice against motherhood. It is also telling that when Ruth births a son, she is not called the child’s mother. That honor is given to Naomi. Ruth’s honor is found in the appellation “more than seven sons” (Ruth 4:15-17). Among others, Kirsten Nielsen concludes that Ruth most resembles the ancestral narratives in the Hebrew Bible combining narrative and genealogy.9 Structurally, that is true. There is, however, a decided difference in focus. Unlike the multiple birth stories of Genesis, the prospect of children, of genealogy, does not control the story until the last half of Ruth’s last chapter. That is the surprise. Naomi’s sons have died. She sees no way forward for her family line. The story focuses on two women trying to survive outside the customary expectations of childbearing. In that vein, the story of Ruth more closely follows the outline of Job: the Lord gives, the Lord takes away (Job 1:21), and Gender and Leadership in Israel the Lord gives again in fuller measure (Job Tal Ilan presents compelling research on Jewish 42:10-17). women of the Second Temple. Her work with the books of Esther, Judith, and Susanna leads her to see Connections to other biblical stories are the three as participatory works within a larger theoretical apparent. Ruth must be read in light of debate on the nature of women and their competence as the Tamar story of Genesis 38, and Esther leaders. Ilan does not regard any of the three to be actively has strong affinities with the Joseph story promoting female political leadership nor does she regard in Genesis 37–50. Further connections them as revolutionary works. They do, however, in subtle are made between Esther and the apocryways challenge the prevailing view that women are weak and the subordination of women to male hierarchy is the phal books of Judith and Susanna, both natural order. By promoting female heroes, the authors of of which feature female heroes. [Gender these three works question gender relationships current in and Leadership in Israel] As female characters, their day as well as present positive models for women to Ruth and Esther stand in a long line of follow. Traditional models that limit and subjugate women biblical women who emerge as heroes in are thus undermined. their stories. Commentary discussion pays Tal Ilan, “‘And Who Knows Whether You have not Come to Dominion for a Time Like This?’ (Esther 4:14): Esther, Judith and Susanna as Propaganda attention to intertextual links between for Shelamzion’s Queenship,” in Integrating Women into Second Temple Ruth and Esther as well as to other texts History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999) 127–53. within the biblical tradition. Neither book developed in a vacuum. Each is a part of ancient Israel’s larger story of what it means to be and live as people of God. Intertextual Readings of Biblical Texts

The possibility of multiple layers of meaning and differing intertextual connections is true for a variety of biblical texts and particularly true of story. For instance, readers without any

8

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

knowledge of Ruth might hear the blessing offered by the townspeople and elders at the gate, “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel” (Ruth 4:11), and guess that the two women were mothers, but they may know nothing of the Jacob stories in Genesis that Ruth is citing here. On the other hand, readers who grew up on the biblical story of Ruth may read a text and think, “That reminds me of . . . ,” recalling not only the ancestral traditions of Genesis but also other stories and texts that seem in some way to connect. The reader who has no concept of the big picture may enjoy the story as it is, but the reader with a wider biblical view may grasp nuances of a text that validate, extend, or challenge other texts. As an example, Mieke Bal, in analyzing Ruth from a literary perspective, contends that the elders in Ruth are affirming the subversive nature of the Rachel/Leah story in Genesis 30, in which the two sisters work together to overcome Rachel’s childlessness and Leah’s lack of access to Jacob, their husband. Leah gives mandrakes to Rachel and Rachel opens the way to Jacob for Leah; thus both women free themselves from the male-assigned categories that separate them, beauty (Ruth) and fertility (Leah). For Bal, the words of the elders in comparing Ruth to Leah and Rachel restore these two aspects of femininity and acknowledge the two sisters’ subversive actions as right. A second example of intertextuality is the relationship of the Tamar story in Genesis 38 to Ruth. A direct link occurs in 4:12 with the phrase, “may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.” A connection is thus made between Boaz and Perez. For André LaCocque, the parallels between the two stories are a deliberate artistic design. Tamar the Canaanite becomes Ruth the Moabite. Judah’s sons or Judah himself become the nearer-redeemer who refuses to buy Naomi’s field. Within a context of postexilic Judaism, the symbolism is transparent and subversive, the story of Ruth mocking a ruling elite who would exclude foreigners from the Israelite community. For Bal, the troubling comparison of Boaz and Perez evidences two connections, the role of mediator that both Perez and Boaz play and, more significant, the act of transgressing. Bal sees Boaz, like Perez (whose name means “break”), as a transgressor in a decidedly new way. Boaz bends the rules to integrate two laws, levirate marriage and redemption of property, and in so doing establishes a higher justice.

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

By laying claim to earlier traditions and recasting them, the book of Ruth relocates a Moabite, whom the law would exclude, into the community of Israel. (See [Recasting Old Law].) One need not, however, wait until the end of Ruth to think of Tamar. Ruth and Tamar are female characters, both foreign and widows. Neither controls her circumstances, but each creates a future that stretches for generations to come. More broadly, they are part of a larger spectrum of women’s stories that move from barrenness to fertility. For those familiar with the Bible, it is hard to read Ruth and not think of Tamar or, for that matter, Sarah and Hagar, Lot’s daughters, and Esther. An epilogue in Ruth 4:18-22 is, as they say, the end of the story—only not for Christians. The gospel traditions of the Matthean community insert the names of Tamar and Ruth into the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:2-16), an intertextual connection that honors the two foreign women. This intertextual connection links the two testaments, showing that the traditions of Christianity are grounded in the faith stories of ancient Israel and Judaism. To read the Bible with an eye toward intertextuality is to think of it as a network of texts that developed over time in a variety of settings. Thus a particular text or tradition might validate, broaden, or contest another text as the biblical witness stretches across centuries of adherents. Numerous connections tie the story of Esther to the Joseph story (Gen 37–50). Both narratives are diaspora stories in which a Hebrew (Joseph) or Jew (Esther and Mordecai) rise to prominence in a foreign court. The characters are “change agents” who reverse situations of futility into blessing and salvation. The result of intertextual linkages is a dialogue of meanings as texts use and reuse earlier traditions to reach new understandings in differing settings and circumstances. The art of interpretation is to follow the direct links that a text provides as well as to unearth new connections within and between biblical texts. The goal is to understand as best we can the ancient communities that produced and transmitted the texts and to open up meaning for each new generation of readers. Acknowledging that a text might have multiple meanings or multiple connections is not saying that all perceived meanings or connections are equally valid. The meaning of individual texts must be evaluated against the larger biblical story. There are times when the best we can say is that this is the most likely meaning of the text. Such acknowledgment respects the text and cautions us against reading preconceived meanings into the biblical text. [Intertextual Readings]

9

10

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

Intertextual Readings For helpful discussions on intertextuality, see Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 8–17; see as well André LaCocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 84–116; Mieke Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names or the

Fruits of Analogy,” Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 68–103; Alice Ogden Bellis, “Subversive Women in Subversive Books: Ruth, Esther, Susanna, and Judith,” Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 183–202.

Stories of Human Agency Although both the stories of Ruth and Esther end in celebration, happy endings are not reached easily or quickly. In their own way, each story challenges oppressive systems of domination that consign the powerless to lives of uncertainty. Both use comedy, even burlesque, as a medium. Both use mockery as protest against a world that shuts out the outsider—the female, the foreigner, the “other.” Each woman uses her body to survive as both Ruth and Esther are prepped for “her night” with a leading male character, which radically changes these women’s lives and the lives of other people. Both stories hinge on a night where female sexuality awakens male generosity, on the threshing floor in Ruth 3:7-11 and in the king’s bedchamber in Esther 2:16-18. The story of Ruth invests its characters with contrived names that fit their roles in the story. Naomi is “Mrs. Pleasant” made “Ms. Bitter.” Boaz (bø>az, one of two massive columns at the temple entrance in 1 Kgs 7:21) is “Mr. Strong.” The names convey the story’s plot as well as mock a legal system structured to leave Ruth and Naomi dependent on circumstances beyond their control. The man expected to act as redeemer is “P’loni Almoni,” a nonsensical name that in street jargon would translate as “Phony Baloney.” Other named characters fill out the story line. In Esther, caricatured figures create a heightened sense of the dramatic as life spins out of control. Mordecai the Jew lives on the edge of the structures of power. He is politically powerless yet functionally powerful. He hears and knows everything. The Persian king Ahasuerus is a drunk yet the ruler of an empire. Haman is the enemy, bloated with power and filled with hate. He embodies evil in the story of Esther. What the story of Ruth does with names, Esther does with caricatures. The book of Ruth is excessive in its use of religious language; multiple characters in the story invoke the name of the Lord time and again. The scroll of Esther omits reference to God altogether. Yet it would be a mistake to assume that Ruth is more theological than Esther or Esther more focused on human action than Ruth. Both are decidedly human stories, dependent on human action.

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

11

In speaking about Esther, Linda Day observes, “whether one finds in the story an active deity or not, an active humanity is certainly present. Action begins with people, not with God, and the book places high emphasis upon human initiative, responsibility, and accountability.” 10 Such sentiment resonates with Ruth as well. God, in Ruth, is behind the scenes, given credit for breaking a famine (1:6), blamed for Naomi’s bitterness (1:20-21), and credited with Ruth’s fecundity (4:13). Still, it is human action that moves the story along. Rather than accepting God’s embitterment as final, Ruth and Naomi push against patriarchal and theological boundaries that leave them impoverished widows struggling for survival. God is not named as enemy, but God is blamed for the hardship and shame of Naomi’s life (Ruth 1:21). Without Naomi’s guidance and Ruth’s spunk, the story remains impoverished. God is named in the story, but the image is not flattering. The two women will their own personal survival, with God only reappearing to guarantee a future generation. The story of Esther deals with human action alone. God simply is not in the picture. Neither are the icons of Judaism present— covenant, temple, Torah. Yet there is an overshadowing certainty of survival. Ruth is certain of her loyalty to Naomi, professing her faithfulness unto death (Ruth 1:17); the actions of Esther, Mordecai, and all Jews are rooted in a deep sense of sur vival. Must Esther Include God? Whether God is named or not, Timothy Stone judges the characters of Esther and Mordecai negatively. Stone bases his arguments on the they will act as if God is there. In connective tissues he finds in the canonical placement of Esther Esther, the essence of Jewish idenbetween Lamentations and Daniel 1–6. He sees the absence of God tity becomes the struggle and will in Esther to be the result of Esther and Mordecai forgetting the God of to survive. The same can be said Israel. Canonically, by their unfaithfulness, Esther and Mordecai are for the book of Ruth. Any force foils for Daniel and his friends in their faithfulness. On the other hand, that seeks to destroy life, whether Stone argues, the God of Lamentations and Daniel works providentially in Esther to preserve God’s people and to destroy enemies, even a heavy-handed God of famine if Esther and Mordecai do not realize it: “God’s promises are not and death in the opening scenes dependent on the faithfulness of his people . . .” (Stone, 210–11). of Ruth or the evil Haman of Likewise, John Anthony Dunne reads Esther and Mordecai as faithEsther, must be named and challess characters assimilated into Persian culture with God the real hero lenged. Indeed, Ruth the Moabite of the story. claims Naomi’s God as her own. While this position seems logical canonically, it runs counter to internal characterizations and theme development in the scroll of In Esther, they are Jews and they Esther. Both Stone and Dunne effectively read God back into the remain Jews, publicly as in the story. Doing so robs Esther of its emphasis on human agency when case of Mordecai or hidden like God is seemingly absent. Esther, even if God is not named. [Must Esther Include God?]

Timothy J. Stone, The Compilational History of the Megilloth: Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

John Anthony Dunne, Esther and her Elusive God: How a Secular Story Functions as Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014).

12

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

Reading Ruth and Esther as Parables Although debate continues on the identifiable genre of both books, these two books are read and reread not because they are historical accounts of actual events but because they are stories freed from the confines of history or the constraints of a specific genre. [A Two-source Hypothesis] Generally, Ruth and Esther function like parables that draw their audiences into their stories. They show affinity to wisdom writing such as Job, but, similar to the Joseph novella, they are couched in narrative structure. Both wisdom sayings and parables draw audiences into the world that the saying or Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell parable (måšål ) creates. They command University Press, 1995). active engagement with a story that reads its hearers as much as its hearers read the text. Yet neither book conforms to the strict stylistic demands of wisdom Gattung or is limited solely to the form of parables. Each is unique in its own way, although bearing traits that allow for multiple connections between the two as well as to other biblical texts. Debate over Genre

A Two-source Hypothesis For arguments that the book of Esther combines two sources, a Mordecai source that describes a rivalry between two courtiers with an Esther source that describes a harem intrigue, see E. J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible (New York: Schocken, 1984) 172–88; H. Cazalles, “Notes sur la composition de roleau d’Esther,” in H. Gross and F. Mussner, eds., Lex tua veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1961) 18–29; both works cited in Tal Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999) 143. Lawrence Wills counters the two-source hypothesis but suggests that the story of Esther as a female hero was imposed onto what was an all-male story. He finds the same to be true for the apocryphal stories of Judith and Susanna as well as the stories of Aseneth and the martyred mother of 2 Maccabees 7 (p. 188). Wills dates Esther to the Hasmonean period (p. 109–11).

For further reading on the longstanding debate, especially regarding the literary genre of the scroll of Esther, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther,” VT 13 (1963): 419– 455, and James L. Crenshaw, “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical Literature,’” JBL 88 (1969): 129–42. For an instructive understanding of parables in Judaism, see Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod, eds., Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1990).

[Debate over Genre]

In assessing the dating and genre of Ruth, André LaCocque reasons, “Either the tale is a preexilic apologue or it is a postexilic parable. Apologue sets an ethical model; its purpose is edification and confirmation of world. Parable questions ideology; it subverts world.”11 Based on the peculiarities of vocabulary and syntax, the poetic skill of the book’s author, stylistic features typical of the postexilic period, and a theology almost devoid of religious jargon, LaCocque concludes that Ruth is no apologue. He sees the book rather as kin to the Joseph novella, to Job, to Jonah, and particularly to Esther. All are similarly “areligious” and occur in a foreign place or among foreigners.12 John Dominic Crossan’s assessment is similar. Crossan refers to Ruth and Esther as example parables. He understands Esther to be similar to the Joseph story in Genesis, to the story of David and Bathsheba, and to Daniel and the Lion’s Den. Each story is a model for conduct, exemplifying either “do this” or “don’t do this” behavior. Ruth, on the other hand, resembles the stories of Jonah

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

and Job. Crossan reads these three as challenge parables. He argues that a challenge parable takes what is most treasured and then asks, what if there is an exception? At issue is the postexilic question of Jewish identity. Will Judaism base itself on exclusionary policies such as those found in Ezra 9–10 that rid the community of foreign marriages, or will it be an inclusive community that welcomes strangers? Even if one accepts the argument that the policies of Ezra-Nehemiah were not anti-foreign in general, but were designed to distinguish those who returned from exile from those who remained in the land, the result is still one of exclusivity.13 In fact, attitudes toward foreigners would likely be harsher. In the case of Ruth, “Ruth T. Moabitess” of unacceptable origin is the ancestress of David no less—scandalous on any terms! For Crossan, the book of Ruth is not a counter myth to exclusionary policies but “a tiny pin next to a big balloon.” The exception that the story of Ruth confronts is absolutist understandings about who could be in the community and who could not, thus challenging all who would champion “foreign” exclusion.14 The result is a paradox of Jewish identity that becomes not “either/or” but “both/and.” Reading a story as parable highlights a call to justice that parables often demand. Parables demand justice by pulling the reader or listener into the parable’s story. In effect, the person or audience becomes a participant in the story.15 Nathan’s story of the rich man/poor man in 2 Samuel 12:1-6 is a powerful example for understanding the ethical demand of parables. The callous greed of a rich man, who takes the one ewe a poor man cherishes as if it were his child, evokes sympathy for both the lamb and its owner. Told as an analogy of King David’s abuse of power and misdeeds, the parable does what it is intended to do—to engage David’s attention and provoke a response.16 True to the parable’s intention, David reacts immediately. He jumps into the gap between the rich man and the poor man that the parable creates in order to restore justice to the oppressed. He empathizes with the poor victim and sees himself as the just judge who can right all wrongs. David acts from within the parable and, in so doing, misses the context of the parable: his own guilt in the killing of Uriah and the taking of that man’s wife, Bathsheba.17 Failing to see the analogy to his own life, Nathan is forced to point out that David is the oppressor. Nathan names him with the words, “You are the man,” and passes judgment on him (2 Sam 12:7-15). David is called to accountability, and his confession opens the way to restorative justice. In Ruth and Esther, the act of naming is internal to the stories and a key for breaking through the barriers of injustice that

13

14

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

marginalize and oppress. Ruth names Boaz as a redeemer (Ruth 3:9), and Esther names Haman as the enemy (Esth 7:6). As in Nathan’s parable, the inherent power in naming triggers reactions that radically change the worldview of each story. Boaz acts on behalf of Ruth, opening the door for a new generation, and Haman is killed, paving the way for salvation for the Jews. Whether Ruth as the outsider to Judaism or the Jews as outsiders to Persian domination, the power of naming the one who holds life or death in his hands allows those on the underside of history a shot at life. Acceptance of the outsider by The Act of Naming the powers that be and freedom from the The act of naming is important in all five of the threat of death conclude each story. [The Festival Scrolls. Within Hebrew tradition, naming establishes a relationship between the named and the one doing the naming. There is an inherently transformative power in the act of naming as each of the scrolls shows:

Act of Naming]

To read the stories of Ruth and Esther in the way one reads parables is to step beyond the examination of the texts as • Ruth—Ruth names Boaz a redeemer (Ruth 3:9); Boaz relics of a bygone past and to view them names the nearer redeemer P’loni Almoni, and P’loni as living stories whose meaning impacts Almoni relinquishes his right to redeem (4:6). • Song of Songs—Naming love drives the poetry of Song hearers over and over again. As readings of Songs. Two lovers, male and female, explore the fullfor the festival observances of Shavuot or ness of love and give warning: “do not stir up or awaken First Fruits (Ruth) and Purim (Esther), the love before it is ready!” (Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). two books are integral to the worship and • Ecclesiastes—Qoheleth names life, the entire expericelebration cycle of Judaism. The rabbis ence of life, hebel (vanity, empty and pointless; Eccl/Qoh stipulate that they are not merely to be 1:2-14). • Lamentations—Yhwh is named the enemy (Lam 2:1-8) read silently but must be read aloud. They and called to reconsider—“unless you have utterly are stories to be heard, and their impact rejected us . . .” (5:22). is tied to the ear. Although Christianity • Esther—Esther names Haman as the enemy (Esth 7:6), does not give the same importance to and the plot of the story changes from destruction of the either the books or the Jewish festivals, Jews to salvation of them. the two scrolls nonetheless call Jews and Christians alike to hear repeatedly the stories and to ponder again their meanings. Each story is as fresh today as it has been to successive generations of hearers throughout the centuries. The massive migration of peoples fleeing poverty, hunger, and violence in the beginning of the twenty-first century rivals that of the Second World War. Will the lands to which they travel treat them as enemies? Will they be allowed admittance, only to remain outsiders? Or will they be welcomed into the community? Ruth has something to say to the “haves” who exclude the “have-nots.” Attacks on synagogues, shootings, and hate speech pose a new existential threat to European Jewry and leads one writer to ask, “Is it time for the Jews to leave Europe?” Esther speaks to the afflicted and calls out the

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

perpetrators of hate and violence. [Time to Leave?]

15

Time to Leave? Jeffrey Goldberg’s assessment of overt anti-Semitism that is on the rise in Europe captured the cover of The Atlantic after the Paris shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the attack on the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket that killed four Jews on January 9, 2015. The article chronicles the increased violence against Jews over the last two decades and offers critique of its causes. See Jeffrey Goldberg, “Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?” The Atlantic 315/3 (April 2015): 62–75.

The books of Ruth and Esther personify the struggles of real-life situations, challenging tradition and custom, and pushing the boundaries of law and wisdom.18 That is not to say that they depict ancient reality per se. LaCocque makes this point with Esther—it is a satire. 19 The story of Esther contrasts a king who is weak and stupid with the king’s edicts that are irrevocable. The point is not simply to mock Persian law but to condemn the way the law had come to be thought of at the time. Ruth has a similar need. Laws that push the outsider to the margins find challenge in the actions and words of a Moabite woman. Whether acceptance and full integration of a poor foreign woman into Israel are possible is an internal struggle within the book of Ruth. The same is true for present readers trying to decipher the conflicting voices across religious and political spectrums for the acceptance or rejection of migrants and refugees. [On Controlling Our Borders] [Subverting Sacred Laws]

Both books are subversive and each brings new insight into what it means to be part of the human community, and especially to be people of God. They share themes of honor and shame, the art of silence, listening to wisdom’s voices, the power of naming, what it means to find favor and show grace. All of these ancient themes involve present readers in the biblical stories’ concerns. Scholars who accentuate ways that biblical stories speak to contemporary systems of oppression often frame their efforts under the term “intersectionality.”

On Controlling Our Borders Jesus—crucified and risen—draws us into his presence again, the one who had nowhere to lay his head, no safe place, no secure home, no passport or visa, no certified citizenship. We gather around him in our safety, security, and wellbeing, and fret about “illegal immigrants.” We fret because they are not like us and refuse our language. We worry that there are so many of them and their crossings do not stop. We are unsettled because it is our tax dollars that sustain them and provide services. We feel the hype about closing borders and heavy fines, because we imagine that our life is under threat. And yet, as you know very well, we, all of us—early or late—are immigrants from elsewhere; we are all glad for cheap labor and seasonal workers who do tomatoes and apples and oranges to our savoring delight. And beyond that, even while we are beset by fears and aware of pragmatic costs, we know very well that you are the God who welcomes strangers, who loves aliens and protects sojourners. As always, we feel the tension and the slippage between the deep truth of our faith and the easier settlements of our society . . . . Excerpted from Walter Brueggemann, “On Controlling Our Borders,” in Prayers for a Privileged People (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008) 95–96.

16

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

Subverting Sacred Laws In his study of Esther as a subversive work, André LaCocque writes, [Esther] is the story of the clash between two laws and, beyond that, between two worldviews. One could also define the problem as a contest between two inviolabilities. The denouement of the story will show that what is inviolable is the Jewish people, not an abstraction such as the “Persian law” (6:13; cf. 4:14). When ideology prevails over humanity, the machine indiscriminately crushes friends and foes. Danna Fewell in her work on intertextuality makes a similar point about Esther: One might also see in “the law that cannot be changed” a veiled reference to Torah. As authoritative scripture, Torah holds pride of place in Jewish tradition. As such its text must be preserved. On the other hand, texts that cannot change are stagnant texts. They become absurd, like those in the story world of Esther, creating massive instability despite their attempt to stabilize. One way to introduce change without changing the text itself is to add another

voice to the dialogue. Esther, as it were, elbows its way into the canon of authoritative texts, demanding a hearing and making room for the new holiday of Purim. This text, like rabbinic commentary, keeps the canon from becoming a law that cannot change; it helps to keep the canon alive and talking. Mieke Bal joins this argument with her work on Ruth. The recasting of earlier traditions allows the Moabite Ruth to become part of the Israelite community. (See above, “Intertextual Readings of Biblical Texts.”) Thus, the necessity of reinterpreting old laws is a central part of both Ruth and Esther. André LaCocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 54–55. Danna Nolan Fewell, “Introduction: Reading, Writing, and Relating,” in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 14. Mieke Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names or the Fruits of Analogy,” Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 68–103. Alice Ogden Bellis, “Subversive Women in Subversive Books: Ruth, Esther, Susanna, and Judith,” in Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 183–202. See especially pp. 183–95 and her overview of scholarship on Ruth and Esther.

Intersectional Readings of Biblical Texts

Intersectionality refers to interlocking forms of oppression that define the experience of people marginalized by multidimensional systems of domination. The concept of intersectionality is stressed by womanist approaches that seek to unravel and expose overlapping dimensions of experiences along gender, race/ethnicity, and class lines. “Womanist” is a term Alice Walker appropriated and redefined in her collection of nonfiction essays, In Search of our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose. In archaic usage, a “womanist” was a “womanizer.” Walker redefined the term to mean “a black feminist or feminist of color,” offering the analogy that “womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender” (p. xi–xii). Womanist approaches continue to draw debate, but what can be said in the context of this commentary is that womanist approaches take seriously the lived experiences of African-American women. Womanist scholars initially challenged traditional feminism because it focused primarily on the experience and interests of white women. Womanism includes the experience of being black. Womanist scholarship likewise finds insight in black liberation

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

17

theology, but takes the call for liberation to include black women; the black community too often focused on the liberation of black males. Clarice Martin applies this critique to the Haustafeln (Household Codes) in African-American biblical interpretation. She calls for a dismantling of the gender hierarchy within the black church and the promotion of “more equitable, just, and liberative faith communities.”20 Thus Indigenous Readings of Ruth and Esther womanist approaches combine Laura Donaldson and Musa W. Dube take issue with the chargender and race in their analyses, acter of Ruth. Donaldson writes from her perspective as a as well as political, economic, woman of Cherokee Indian descent, and Dube views the story as an African-South African. Both identify with Orpah. Their own social locasocial, and religious subjugation tions and ethnic identities form the bases of critique for the actions of of people of color. Ruth, who assimilates with the then-dominant culture, abandoning her Intersectionality recognizes the own people. Orpah, on the other hand, chooses home. When Ruth complexity of life experiences leaves, Orpah stays. For Donaldson as well as Dube, Orpah embodies that shape individuals as well as the positive characteristics of female identity with one’s aboriginal communities. It seeks to avoid culture. Ruth exemplifies the negative. Donaldson’s hope in reading Orpah from an American Indian context is to find “a meaning that the fragmentation that is the resists Imperial exegesis and contributes to the empowerment of result of focusing on one aspect aboriginal peoples everywhere” (144). of human experience alone, The African-South African biblical scholar Maipoane Masenya is say gender, at the exclusion of disturbed by the upper-class nature of the story of Esther. Calling her other experiences, such as race, way of reading Bosadi (womanhood), Masenya finds the story of Esther class, religion, age, education, of little help for most African women. She is further troubled by the slaughter of the Persians by the Jews, the brutalization of indigenous and sexual orientation. Nyasha South Africans by Christian Europeans too similar for comfort. Junior, in writing on womanist On the other hand, Dorothy Bea Akoto (née Abutiate) finds themes biblical interpretation, makes in Esther that resonate with those relevant to some indigenous this point: “Intersectionality Africana contexts. She construes two annual festivals, Glidzi and highlights the interdependence Hogbetsotso, as a type of Purim celebration practiced among the Ewe of one’s various positions in life peoples of southeastern Ghana. Esther’s story resonates with the Africana royal contexts, which is thoroughly patriarchal and entrenched rather than their fragmenta21 in ethnic battles (Akoto, 269). Esther provides an ancient model for tion.” [Indigenous Readings of Ruth and Esther]

Paying attention to intersectional realities, readers of Ruth and Esther are aware of the multidimensional layers of interpretation that result from new readings of the text. As voices once excluded from the dialogue, intersectional readings are now welcome. Regardless of where a reader locates herself or himself along the interpretive spectrum, the intersectionality

women’s wisdom and shrewdness of Africana women in outwitting a despot king and his government. The two festivals commemorate deliverance of minority ethnic groups from domination and oppression. Esther mirrors a response to ethnic feuds, minority/majority power conflicts that result in massive destruction of life and property, as well as class and gender inequities prevalent in African cultures (Akoto, 271).

Laura E. Donaldson, “The Sign of Orpah: Reading Ruth through Native Eyes,” and Musa W. Dube, “The Unpublished Letters of Orpah to Ruth,” in A Feminist Companion to the Bible, ed. Athalya Brenner (2nd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Madipoane (Nfwana’ Mphahlele) Masenya, “Esther and Northern Sotho Stories: An AfricanSouth African Woman’s Commentary,” in Other Ways of Reading: African Women and the Bible, ed. Musa W. Dube (Shomanah), Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 2 (Atlanta: SBL Press; 2001) 27–49. Work cited in Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 195. Dorothy Bea Akoto (née Abutiate), “Esther,” in The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora, ed. Hugh R. Page (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010) 268–72.

18

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

of lived experience recognizes that “my lived experience” is not necessarily “your lived experience.” None of us can claim the exact experiences of the women and men of Ruth or the Jews and non-Jews of Esther. Yet attention to intersectional realities moves beyond this recognition. What matters are the connections that open up the stories to speak in new and challenging ways when they are read in light of the multiplicity of human experiences. No one group of readers owns a story’s meaning. Traditional readings might applaud the developing relationship between Boaz and Ruth that results in marriage, and see Esther’s being crowned queen as a beauty contest to be Miss Persia. Feminist and queer readings might highlight the Ruth-Naomi relationship and question the harm that results from a single woman forced to use her body to guarantee survival. Therefore, readers of the books of Ruth and Esther must attend not only to the historical and social location of the story but also to their own. [Asian Readings of Ruth] Likewise, readers must be willing to hear a diversity of voices, all of whom seek to find meaning in the text. Those who own land and have the potential to welcome the stranger read Ruth and Esther from different vantage points than the person fleeing war or poverty, or people trapped within the borders of another nation where host and guest alike are uncertain of the future. The recognition of the multiplicity of human experience and the willingness to allow for a diversity of voices in reading Ruth and Esther can be a step toward bridging life’s differences. [Intersectionality]

Qoheleth in the Middle

Throughout the commentary and particularly in Esther, similarities between the two books will be noted. Likewise, a third scroll of the Megillot, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), will enter into consideration. Accepted as part of the Wisdom literature of ancient Israel, Qoheleth questions the dominant view of practical wisdom that touts a divine order to the world that awards obedience and punishes disobedience. [Wisdom Literature in the Hebrew Bible] As skeptical wisdom, Qoheleth ponders the fleeting nature of life and wonders what meaning there is in life’s contradictions and uncertainties. Seeing the righteous suffer and the wicked rewarded leads Qoheleth, the scroll’s teacher of wisdom, to throw up his hands in dismay: “Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Qoh 1:2). The disasters of life are unpredictable, nothing more than “time and chance” (Qoh 9:11). For Qoheleth,

Introduction to Ruth & Esther Asian Readings of Ruth Not all readings of Ruth are positive. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld expresses concern for the possible harm a traditional reading of Ruth might cause to Asian women, particularly the poor. The sexual exploitation of young women is far too real in Asian cultures, and the “happy ending” of Ruth can be elusive. The selling of the female body, by necessity or through another’s trickery, does harm to women. Sakenfeld is concerned by the risk involved in Ruth’s actions toward Boaz. Marriage, security, and a boy baby is the ending for Ruth. Life is not story, however, and “women cannot always realistically count on such an ending” (28). Roi Nu has similar concern for Asian women who are widowed. “A Reinterpretation of Levirate Marriage in Ruth 4:1-12 for Kachin Society” examines the custom of karat hta ai, a form of Levirate marriage practiced by Kachins. An ethnic group in Myanmar, the Kachin tribe is 99 percent Christian. The name karat hta ai literally means “picking up a widow left behind by his brother” (57). As practiced by Kachins, a widow becomes the responsibility of her dead husband’s brother. She may not return to her family or marry a man of her choosing. She is at the disposal of her deceased husband’s family. The brother-in-law may be single, widowed, or divorced. The family may also arrange marriage to a cousin. Any children produced by the union are named for the deceased brother. If no brother-in-law or cousin marries her, an agreement might be reached with her family for her return, but her family must return the “bride-price” to her deceased husband’s family. Should there be a man outside the family who wants to marry her,

19

he must pay the bride-price, take the family name of the deceased man, and give the family name to children born from the union. The custom of karat hta ai ensures the survival of the family name, protects widows, and preserves family property. It likewise denies women worth in their own right. They are unable to inherit or make marriage choices of their own. The practice also affects men negatively, granting them no right of refusal. Nu compares the Kachin practice to the story of Ruth, critiques the practice for its possible harm to widows and brothers alike, and calls for a new understanding of the levirate marriage. For Nu, Ruth 4:1-12 describes the custom of redemption, not the levirate marriage described in Deut 25:5-10. Ruth should not be used to support the Kachin custom of karat hta ai, which Nu argues is a tradition, not sacred law as it is often preached in Kachin Christian churches. Nu’s hope is that women will resist abuses associated with the practice and that Kachin society will appreciate the value and abilities of all women. The above examples challenge traditional readings of Ruth and Esther. Each calls for reflection and action. The hope is that readings that add to the oppression of women or any marginalized people will be reexamined and new meanings found. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, “Ruth and Naomi: Economic Survival and Family Values,” in Just Wives: Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003). Roi Nu, “A Reinterpretation of Levirate Marriage in Ruth 4:1-12 for Kachin Society,” in Reading Ruth in Asia, ed. Jione Havea and Peter H. W. Lau, International Voices in Biblical Studies 7 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015) 57–72. Nu’s work is one of a collection of essays that interprets Ruth within the lived context of Asia.

there is little to do but accept the vagaries of life and, in the end, to fear God (Qoh 3:14; 5:7; 8:12-13). In Ruth, traditional wisdom prevails. God has a hand in national disaster (famine) and personal tragedy (death). Likewise, God cancels famine and restores fertility of land and womb. Whatever happens—God. Thus Naomi blames God for her circumstances and names God as the cause of her bitterness in the first dialogue sequence of the story (1:13). If Qoheleth cannot understand the ways of God, Naomi wonders if God can be trusted. She knows full well what she considers the malevolent side of God. She questions God’s ˙esed, a word denoting covenantal loyalty and kindness, which she has not seen. When ordering Orpah and Ruth, her daughters-in-law, to turn back to Moab and not follow her to Judah, Naomi asks that Yhwh show ˙esed to them in the same way

20

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

Intersectionality Representative of formative thinkers who have influenced intersectional readings in biblical texts are Alice Walker, In Search of our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983); Nyasha Junior, “Womanist Biblical Interpretation,” in Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Katharine

Doob Sakenfeld, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 37–46; Clarice J. Martin, “The Haustafeln (Household Codes) in AfricanAmerican Biblical Interpretation: ‘Free Slaves’ and ‘Subordinate Women,’” in Cain Hope Felder, ed., Stony the Road We Trod: African-American Biblical Interpretation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991) 206–31 (see esp. 228).

Wisdom Literature in the Hebrew Bible Wisdom writings are rooted in the concrete experiences of everyday life. From as early as the third millennium bce into the Common Era, wisdom traditions were part of the cultural experience of the ancient Near East. Wisdom literature stretched from Egypt to southern Mesopotamia. Focused on the practical questions of the meaning of life, Wisdom offers commonsense advice for success. Its universal character is seen in the similarity of sayings and genre from different eras and different cultures. For example, the “thirty sayings” of Proverbs 22:17–24:22 closely parallel the content of the Egyptian Instruction of Amen-em-opet. Hebrew Wisdom literature includes the books of Proverbs, Job, and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). Some Psalms are designated as wisdom psalms (1; 32; 34; 37; 49; 73; 112; 128) with other parts of the Bible showing evidence of Wisdom’s influence. In the Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus are designated as Wisdom literature. Distinctive from other parts of the Hebrew Bible, Wisdom shows no interest in themes and topics that dominate other canonical books. There is no mention of Israel’s ancestors, the Exodus, or Wilderness Wanderings. Wisdom writings do not speak of the covenant at Sinai or the conquest of the land. Nor is there mention of any of the prophets. Instead, Wisdom is concerned with the present, with how best to live this life as it is experienced day to day. The themes of the book of Proverbs highlight Wisdom’s general optimism: the sage advice of the old to the young, of parents to children; the relationship of wealth to poverty; the advantages of personal self-control; and the value of seeking wisdom. Adherence to wisdom’s knowledge brought the blessings of health, wealth, and longevity—the rewards the ancients believed God intends when humans live harmoniously in the divine order of creation. Both the books of Job and Qoheleth question the commonsense philosophy of Proverbs. As skeptical wisdom,

they doubt the orthodoxy of practical wisdom. Like Proverbs, Job accepts practical wisdom as a fact, but puts it to a test. An orthodox theology of rewards and punishment is redefined in light of the nature of God, who is both known and yet hidden (Job 13:24). Rather than material wealth, blessing is reinterpreted in Job as God’s presence (chs. 38–41). In the end, orthodoxy prevails and Job receives double for what he had lost (42:7-17), perhaps scribal vindication for Job’s undeserved suffering. Proverbs defines and commends practical wisdom as a fact, Job tests it, and Qoheleth relentlessly questions it. For Qoheleth, the search for wisdom is no more than a chasing after the wind. Seeking wisdom accomplishes little and in the end brings no satisfaction. Knowledge of God has limits and may in fact be impossible. The wise should therefore find pleasure in food, drink, work, and marriage. Still, at day’s or life’s end, the best one can do is “fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone” (Qoh 12:13b). The stories of Ruth and Esther would love for practical wisdom to prevail, but each is skeptical of conventional arguments that equate goodness with justice. They are likewise skeptical of Qoheleth’s skepticism. There may be no rhyme or reason to the ways of the world, but happenstance and human action can work together for good even against extreme odds. Each story brings unique challenges to traditional views that seek to control life (Proverbs) or are dismayed when life spins out of control (Job). Both Ruth and Esther challenge traditional truth claims, but they never give up on life. If wisdom has anything to say about survival, Ruth and Esther are wisdom’s witnesses. For good, brief treatment of “Wisdom in the Old Testament” as well as “Wisdom Literature” generally, see the articles by James L. Crenshaw in the MDB, ed. Watson E. Mills (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 961–65.

Introduction to Ruth & Esther

21

that they have treated her (1:8). Two Moabite women are thus the examples of ˙esed that hopefully Yhwh will model.22 Human beings are not, however, pawns at the disposal of an angry or benevolent God. Ruth and Naomi push the story toward survival and a future of blessing. Qoheleth speaks of human futility faced with the randomness of reward and punishment and admits to a lack of understanding when it comes to the actions of God. As already mentioned, God is simply not in the story of Esther. Human action is named as the cause of suffering and human action is required for change. Again, a woman pushes the story toward survival. Qoheleth may doubt the effectiveness of human activity and particularly feminine activity (Qoh 7:26-28), but the Teacher best look to his left and to his right—Ruth and Esther know otherwise!23 These three writings struggle with life’s big questions, and they answer in varying ways. They work with rhetorical questions to search out the meaning of life, grapple with ethnic identity within human community, and ponder human versus divine action. The question mî yôd∑a>—“Who knows?”—is important to Qoheleth and to Esther (Qoh 2:19; 3:21; 6:11; Esth 4:14). (See [Who Knows?].) The question, mî-åzab is used in 1:16 bring justice to life. when Ruth asks Naomi not to press her to Derrick Bell, And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest For Racial Justice abandon her, in 2:11 by Boaz to describe (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence Of Racism (New York: BasicBooks, 1993); Gospel Choirs: the action that Ruth has taken in leaving Psalms of Survival for an Alien Land Called Home (New York: BasicBooks, 1996). her own family and land to come to a new

Ruth 2:1-23

97

Keeping Faith people, and here in 2:20 to speak of Boaz’s In Ruth 1:8, Naomi praises her two daughnot abandoning his good-faith (˙esed) to ters-in-law by way of a blessing. In 2:20, the living (Naomi and Ruth in ch. 2) and speaking to Ruth, she praises Boaz, although yet unnamed the dead (ch. 1). [Keeping Faith] to her, in similar fashion. All three are commended for the While Ruth unknowingly revealed the kindness (˙esed) they have shown to the living—that is, surprise of the identity of her benefactor’s to Naomi—and to the dead, Naomi’s husband and sons. With Orpah out of the picture, Ruth and Boaz are drawn name, Naomi throws out her own surtogether and to Naomi by their acts of keeping faith. To prise. He is kin, a “relative [qårôb, adj. = keep faith with the living implies acts of kindness. To keep “near”] to us.” By using the first common faith with the dead is to remember. Naomi’s statement plural pronoun, “us,” Naomi ties Boaz to poses a challenge to Qoheleth, who speaks of how both women, drawing Ruth closer to her. fleeting life is and of those who have died: “there is no In Moab, Naomi had spoken of Ruth’s enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten” return to her mother’s house (1:8). Now (Qoh/Eccl 2:16). Naomi is alive, yet tied to the dead. What she uses language that binds Ruth to her is done for her is done for her family who preceded her in and Boaz to the two of them. Indeed, the death. She is of the past and must be brought back to life, man now known to both is identified as as Ruth 4:15-17 will show. a “redeemer” (Heb., Qal act. ptc. from gåebed for Lot, šip˙åh for Ruth; “kindness” is ˙esed in the Lot text, a mainstay of the book of Ruth) underscore a similar but not identical situation. Lot stands on the edge of Sodom with heavenly messengers protecting him from destruction. Ruth stands on the edge of Bethlehem in fields belonging to Boaz. While the angels tell Lot to flee, Boaz tells Ruth to stay. In the latter case, however, the question, “Where is God?” has no answer. There are no divine messengers here. A man named Boaz, the owner of the fields, shows up in Ruth’s story. Her security lies in his fields. She is to stick close to his young women. Lot is told not to look back. Ruth is told to look forward. [Survival Skills (or the Beginning of Courtship?)] So vulnerable as to be even without water, Ruth is told when (if you get thirsty) and where (go to the vessels from what the young Survival Skills (or the Beginning of men have drawn) to drink. Boaz’s order that Courtship?) his young men not touch her counters the 1. Don’t go . . . to other fields. 2. Don’t leave . . . Boaz’s field. possibility of harm that lurks in the text. In 3. Stay close . . . to Boaz (or his female workers). offering water, food (vv. 14-6), and protection, 4. Look ahead. Boaz extends hospitality to Ruth, the foreigner 5. Follow behind. (v. 10). All that is missing is lodging, and one 6. Take care of yourself . . . drink lots of water. has to wonder when that might come. Not yet, as the story goes. Throughout the harvesting, “she lived with her mother-in-law” (v. 23) is the tag line of Ruth 2. What’s for Lunch? 2:14-16

The scene at lunchtime offers a microcosm of larger themes working in the book. At its core, Ruth is a story of survival. Fertility of field and womb is the key to life. The tension in the story is that the two are never combined. When Naomi enjoys the fullness that comes with being a wife and mother of two sons, there is famine in the land. When she experiences the bareness that comes with the deaths of her husband and sons, the fields are once again fertile and the first issue to resolve is hunger. There will be no life or hope of wombs swelling again unless there is bread in the belly. Food and water are necessary for human survival, and Boaz offers both to Ruth, who in turn shares what she receives with Naomi. The break at mealtime plays out across rural societies as a simple meal of substance nourishes people enough to return to the task at hand. The narrative makes no distinction between the haves and the have-nots as Ruth is invited to share the common meal. Society is not always so egalitarian. [Same Kind of Different as Me] In households and restaurants where portions are biggie size, food

Ruth 2:1-23

105

Same Kind of Different as Me is served in excess and leftovers often Ron, a Texas businessman, tells of growing up in the thrown away thoughtlessly. Yet food American South in Same Kind of Different as Me: insecurity is an ironic sign of the times. [Food Insecurity] The overconsumption of After a morning chopping cotton, we’d load up all the food and its resulting health problems workers and haul them to the filling station, which is countered on the opposite end by doubled as a grocery store. The colored workers would line up before the glass front of the white-porcelain those who struggle with undernourishmeat counter and choose a thick slice of baloney or ment. Far too many are starving. Faith pickle-loaf and a chunk of cheddar cheese. Granddaddy, communities that in the past responded standing by the cash register, would pay the bill, to hunger needs abroad now maintain throwing in a box of saltines and a couple of raw onions food closets for people in their pews or for everyone to share. They’d all take their lunches, at least their neighborhoods. Backpacks wrapped in white butcher paper, and go sit on the ground behind the store. There was a cistern out there filled with food are distributed among for drinking, with a can strapped with black tape so they school children to see them through wouldn’t mistake about which one to drink from. weekends when there is no food in With the coloreds taken care of, we’d hop back in their homes. Whether famine comes the truck and carry any whites who were working that from drought or armed conflict, food day back to the farmhouse for dinner. MawMaw always shortages from natural disasters or put on a spread, stuff like fried chicken, fresh black-eyed peas, homemade rolls all hot and buttery, and always a embargoes, or food simply costs too pie or a cobbler. Even as a little boy, it bothered me that much to buy when family expenses the colored workers ate lunchmeat on the ground behind outpace income, more and more people the filling station while the white workers gathered like feel the gnarl in their stomachs when family for hot, home-cooked food. Sometimes I had the the lunch table is empty. The breadlines urge to do something about it, but I never did. of the 1930s are the soup kitchens of today. Food pantries are springing up Ron Hall and Denver Moore with Lynn Vincent, Same Kind of Different as Me (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006) 23. on college campuses, and community agencies that aid the poor are bursting at the seams with the needy. The offering of first fruits, the ritual requirement tied to the celebration of the Festival of Weeks (šåvûôt) connected to the reading of the book of Ruth in Jewish observance, served as a means for a Baptist church in rural Kentucky to address the food needs of the elderly within their county. Church members dedicated one row of every ten in their vegetable gardens as first fruits. When ready, church members distributed the harvested crops through social agencies to aid in feeding senior citizens no longer able to raise their own crops. The book of Ruth reminds us that hunger is real. It uproots people from their homes and drives them to foreign lands. Hunger sends children to trash dumps and the elderly to bed on empty stomachs. Hunger drove Naomi’s family to Moab and Ruth to Boaz’s field. In such contexts, “what’s for lunch?” is a matter of human survival.

106

Ruth 2:1-23

Food Insecurity Food security is a phrase used to describe the availability of food and people’s access to it. People who are food secure live without hunger or fear of starvation. They have the physical, social, and economic means to obtain sufficient, safe, nutritious food to live a healthy life. Varying degrees of food insecurity exist that range from low insecurity to full-scale famine. Hunger may be as close as the house next door and starvation a mere continent away. Tied to the problem of food insecurity, a growing number of activists are turning their efforts to issues of food justice. Community-based movements look at the food resources in their area and create ways for the community to become food producers in an affordable, sustainable, and environmentally responsible way. In many ways, a return to a local food economy models the agricultural life of biblical times. Community gardens are farmed in co-op or divided into sections with ownership shared by a number of families. Faith-based groups are responding to the need for “our daily bread” in new and creative ways, offering hospitality to those in need by using their physical resources of buildings and grounds to shelter, feed, and protect the stranger.

Shared Living, 2:17-23

At day’s end, Ruth returns to Naomi. Before any conversation takes place, Ruth gives her mother-in-law the food she had saved from what she had herself received in the field. This scene must be savored as much as the morsels that Naomi received from Ruth’s hands. God may have remembered the people and given them food, but it is Ruth who remembers Naomi. A full day has passed. Ruth left in the morning and now it is evening. Naomi sees how much Ruth has gleaned. No doubt she is amazed at the amount. What she sees, however, is raw grain, and turning barley into edible food is labor intensive and time consuming. Naomi is hungry and Ruth knows it. Ruth’s act is not simply a matter of sharing; it is an act of sacrifice. The time that passes between Hunger for Bread and Kindness mealtime in the field and the evening encounter “There is hunger for ordinary bread, and with Naomi is determinative. Ruth was satisfied there is hunger for love, for kindness, at the daytime meal and tucked away the leftfor thoughtfulness; and this is the great poverty overs. An afternoon of gleaning in the fields and that makes people suffer so much.” beating out the grain until sundown moves time —Mother Teresa into the next meal. Arriving back in town, Ruth does not divide what she has with Naomi; she gives her all that she has. Like Boaz, Ruth is generous, but there is a decided difference. Boaz shared from a position of plenty and Ruth from a position of want. One can see Naomi as “the hungry” who wait all day for something to eat, quickly taking and consuming the bread. Only Invisible to Visible when Naomi has received the food does The question of identity is a key theme in the dialogue begin. Rapid-fire “where were scrolls of Ruth and Esther. Ruth is Ruth the you?” questions are followed by a stateMoabite throughout the story, or at least until the text ment of blessing for the man who noticed absorbs her into the life of Israel when she is taken as Ruth. [Invisible to Visible] Obviously, there Boaz’s wife (4:13) and is hidden from view. In Esther, had to be a man involved. It is after all a Mordecai is Mordecai the Jew from his entrance as a captive living in the capital of Susa (Esth 2:5) until story’s man’s world, and men control access to end when he sits next in line to King Ahasuerus (Esth the fields and the poor are often invisible. 10:3). Esther is the hidden Jew, visible in the story as the Once again, Naomi shows herself to be Persian king’s queen, but invisible until the threat of destruction forces her to reveal her true identity.

[Hunger for Bread and Kindness]

Ruth 2:1-23

wise in the ways of the world. [Naomi and Mordecai]

The delay in naming Boaz until the final word in the verse (v. 19) heightens the drama. Each woman knows something the other does not. Ruth possesses the knowledge of Boaz’s name and Naomi the knowledge that he is kin. The significance of the man however is matched if not overshadowed by the emphasis of Ruth as worker. Four times the verse speaks of Ruth’s work, once specifically as gleaning and the other three by the more general word >å∞ah, “to do or make.” There may be a man involved, but the emphasis is on the work of a woman. Unlike other biblical stories that cast women in competing roles, particularly if age and fertility are involved, there is no competition here. Sarah-Hagar nor Rachel-Leah]

107

Naomi and Mordecai Naomi and Mordecai are the watchers, and both establish their vantage point based on gender and tradition. In the scroll of Esther, Mordecai watches from the public domain of men, and Naomi, in the scroll of Ruth, watches from the private world of women. Mordecai sits by the gate to the king’s palace, a public place where he can observe the goings on of the city and influence events inside and outside royal space. He advises Esther to change her name and hide her identity. He saves the king’s life by revealing the assassin’s plot, and he energizes the Jews to lament and Esther to act in the face of their destruction. Naomi moves from the fields of Moab and the public space of the road where she is a decisive woman of action to the private space of women. She says her peace at the entrance to Bethlehem, then retreats to an evening world of conversations with Ruth. She is not, however, without influence. Her advice ranges from survival strategy in the fields (Ruth 2:22) to a step-by-step guide in the art of seduction (3:3ff.). Naomi is aware of the comings and goings of Boaz (3:2) in the same manner that Mordecai is aware of affairs at state. Mordecai knows what Haman is up to (Esth 4:1). Each hero sits on the outskirts of power—Mordecai on the basis of ethnicity when the Jews live under foreign domination and Naomi by virtue of gender and class. She is after all a widow. Together as male and female they form the totality of humankind. Separately each knows who has power and what the powerless must do to survive. Each is wise in the ways of the world, and each mentors the young. Neither controls his or her prodigy. Both Ruth and Esther have minds and act on their own, but Naomi and Mordecai are the counselors, guides, and protectors of the young heroines in each respective story. [Neither

Neither Sarah-Hagar nor Rachel-Leah Too often the biblical text pictures women in competition with each other, particularly when it comes to having babies. The young Egyptian slave-girl Hagar becomes pregnant by Abraham at Sarah’s insistence, and looks down upon her elder owner Sarah. Sarah retaliates by having Hagar thrown out of the household (Gen 16). Rachel and her older sister Leah, as wives of Jacob, compete with each other in birthing his children (Gen 29–30). Hannah, the barren wife of Elkanah, suffered from the taunts of his other wife, Peninnah, who was able to give him children (1 Sam 1).

The scroll depicts Naomi and Ruth as a couple who know how to share silence (their walk to Bethlehem, 1:8ff.) as well as companionship at the end of a day. Their difference in ethnicity is trumped by the shared fate of widowhood. They share an existence of life on the edge where poverty and hunger must be countered daily. The Canadian film Water is set in 1938 India when India remained under British rule. The opening scene depicts an eightyear-old girl, Chuyia, who becomes a widow at the death of her husband and is placed in a Hindu ashram for widows. She is to live out her life tucked away from the eyes of a society that considers her at best a burden and at worse guilty for being a widow. In this private world of widows, survival boils down to a one-meal-a-day routine of prayer and penitence that lasts until death frees the

108

Ruth 2:1-23

The Laws of Manu “A widow should be long suffering until death, self-restrained and chaste. A virtuous wife who remains chaste when her husband has died goes to heaven. A woman who is unfaithful to her husband is reborn into the womb of a jackal.” —From the opening screen of Water, which quotes from Laws of Manu, ch. 5, vv. 156, 160, and 164. An onlin version of these texts and the entire Laws of Manu are available at http://www. sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu05.htm.

widow to join her husband. [The Laws of Manu] The story has as its background both the man Gandhi and his nonviolent challenge to colonial rule that oppressed the Indian nation as well as Indian culture and religious tradition that bifurcated the nation into extreme wealth and desperate poverty. Located near the banks of the Ganges, the ashram exhibits similar hierarchies. Madhumati, a matriarchal figure in her seventies, rules supreme over the other widows. With the aid of Gulabi, a female procurer of women for wealthy clients across the river, Madhumati finds the support she needs for the ashram and enriches her own position by prostituting the beautiful young widow, Kalyani, who came to the ashram as a child herself. Bitterness raises its head from time to time, but all the women more or less accept their fate in life until Chuyia in childlike defiance questions the ways of widows. The character Shakuntala, a devout Hindu, struggles throughout the film with the dismal fate of being a widow yet wanting to be faithful. She takes Chuyia under her wing. She comes to the aid of Kalyani when Madhumati locks Kalyani in her room because she has learned that she, against all religious and social norms, has fallen in love with a young man of the upper class and agreed to his marriage proposal. Shakuntala’s own questioning of tradition plays out as dialogue with a male priest Sadananda, who offers prayers and teachings to the widows and pilgrims passing by the river. [What What Do the Scriptures Say? Do the Scriptures Say?] Her struggle and Shakuntala: You have studied the Holy Scriptures. Is it written that widows should be treated badly? enlightenment prove fortuitous when Sadananda: The scriptures say, that widows have three Kalyani, crossing the river with her options. They can burn with their dead husbands or lead a life soon-to-be-husband, Narayan, realizes of self-denial and if the family permits marry their husband’s that he is the son of a “wealthy client,” younger brother. However, a law was recently passed which and Kalyani has Narayan turn the boat favours widow remarriage. around. Back on her side of the river, Shakuntala: A law? Why don’t we know about it? Sadananda: We ignore the laws that don’t benefit us. Kalyani performs her ritual bath and —From a conversation in the film Water, drowns herself in the Ganges. Narayan, dir. Deepa Mehta, Canada a follower of the teachings and practices See [The Laws of Manu] above for of Gandhi, performs the burial rites reference to those Hindu laws. for Kalyani as Shakuntala and Chuyia watch. In the face of Kalyani’s sacrificial yet senseless death, Shakuntala openly questions the faith that occasions such action. [Why Widows?]

Ruth 2:1-23

109

With Kalyani’s death, Madhumati sets up Chuyia as Why Widows? the next prostitute for the ashram’s survival, and Chuyia Shakuntala: Why are we is taken across the river by Gulabi. Shakuntala tries deswidows sent here? There perately to intercede, but arrives too late and can only must be a reason. Narayan: One less mouth to feed. cradle Chuyia in her arms all night by the water when Four saris saved. One bed, and a the child returns so traumatized she is unable to speak. corner is saved in the family home. Hearing that Gandhi was arriving at the train station, There is no other reason why you are Shakuntala carries Chuyia to see him and hear his words. here. Disguised as religion, it’s just As the train carrying Gandhi and the throng of his folabout money. lowers pulls out of the station, Shakuntala desperately —From a conversation in the film Water, tries to find someone who will take Chuyia with them, dir. Deepa Mehta away from the desperate life of widows and the sexual abuse she has suffered. At the last possible moment, she spots Narayan and places Chuyia into his arms and care. In contexts where women are marginalized by the absence of men, women must act to secure their own survival. What looks like religion may indeed be just about money.

Notes 1. J. Maxwell Miller, “Moab,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman et al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 4:885. 2. Edward F. Campbell, Ruth (AB 7; Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1975) 90; Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, trans. Edward Broadbridge (OTL; Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 54. 3. Nielsen, Ruth, 2. 4. Hans-Georg Wünch, Das Buch Rut, ed. Helmuth Pehlke (Edition C/BAT10; Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Haenssler, 1998) 142–55. See also Murray D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos, 1992) 46–47; Frederic Bush, Ruth/Esther (WBC 9; Waco TX: Word Books, 1996) 99. 5. Ellen Davis, Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 45, translates the masculine and feminine forms of na>ar to indicate both youth and social status (= worker-lad, worker-girl). She believes it possible that the loss of family lands could account for people in such positions, either as permanent debt slaves or as seasonal agricultural workers. 6. Jonathan Grossman, “‘Gleaning among the Ears’—‘Gathering among the Sheaves’: Characterizing the Image of the Supervising Boy (Ruth 2),” JBL 126 (2007): 703–16. 7. Campbell, Ruth, 94–96 offers an extensive analysis of grammatical proposals. His summary is both amusing and apt: “Let the reader of the Bible note well, however, that a hundred conjectures about a badly disrupted text are all more likely to be wrong than any of them absolutely right!” 8. Davis, Who Are You, 45.

110

Ruth 2:1-23 9. My translation follows a more literal reading of the Hebrew. 10. See Andre LaCocque, Ruth (A Continental Commentary; trans. K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004) 72, for an ample discussion of what Ruth’s actions before Boaz may imply. 11. See Bush, Ruth/Esther, 126–27 for extensive analysis. 12. See Nielsen, Ruth, 61, who finds value in Jack Sasson’s argument that Ruth has gathered enough grain to last several weeks; also see Jack Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (JHNES; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) 57. For detailed information, see Edd Rowell, “Weights and Measures,” MDB, ed. Watson E. Mills and Roger Aubrey Bullard (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 958–59. .

Securing the Future Ruth 3:1-18 In the morning sow your seed, and at evening do not let your hands be idle; for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good. (Qoh/Eccl 11:6) The issue of survival turns from daily existence to a more permanent future. In chapter 1 Naomi saw the only possibility for herself to be her return to Judah and believed Ruth’s security lay with her own family in Moab (1:9). The events of Ruth 2, with the younger woman’s labor and the benevolence of Boaz, changed Naomi’s perspective. In chapter 3, Naomi seeks to guarantee Ruth’s survival using the only resource she has: her wisdom as an older Ruth 3 woman. She tells Ruth what action she is to take, and Setting: Threshing Ruth in turn follows Naomi’s instructions to the letter. Floor The chapter ends with the two women waiting to see if Theme: Securing the Future Revealed Name: I Am Ruth Naomi’s design has worked. [Ruth 3]

COMMENTARY Naomi as Matchmaker, 3:1-5

Ruth 3:1-5 stands as the third set of instructions that Naomi gives to Ruth. In 1:8-9, Naomi advised her two daughters-in-law to turn back to their mothers’ houses and to seek their security in the house of a Moabite husband. She had nothing to give them (1:1113). When Orpah heeds Naomi’s advice and Ruth does not, she advises Ruth to follow Orpah’s example (1:15). In Ruth 2, when Ruth returns from the fields of Boaz and tells of the permission she has received to glean, Naomi advises her to stay close to his female workers, avoiding the potential of being harassed by male workers in another field. While Ruth did not take Naomi’s first advice to leave her, the story line reports that she did follow her guidance when it came to working in the fields (2:23).

112

Ruth 3:1-18

A series of rhetorical questions in 3:1-2 opens this next set of instructions. All dialogue belongs to Naomi, with Ruth’s only reply a statement that she will do as Naomi has said (v. 5). The change in discourse is significant. On the road between Moab and Judah, both women openly voice their Home Security perceptions of the present and visions The issue of security of the home develops as a key of the future (1:8-18) and ultimately theme in the scroll of Ruth. Naomi knows what it accept each other’s silence (1:18-19a). means to leave home in hope of finding security elsewhere, only to end up worse off than when her journey began. No The second chapter opens with Ruth’s wonder she instructs her two daughters-in-law not to leave decision to glean and Naomi’s twothe land of their people. She wants the permanency of a restword response (2:2) and concludes with ing-place (1:9)—a home for them that she no longer has. a lengthy end-of-the-day conversation Ruth on the other hand commits to a life of impermanence. where each shares information with Her loyalty to Naomi pushes all talk of home into the backthe other (2:19-22). Ruth, the young ground. She will walk where Naomi walks and stay the night where Naomi stays (1:16). For Ruth, life is not permanent but foreigner, acts within the only sphere a journey, and one she is willing to take with Naomi. The of influence available to her, the act gradual move toward permanence is seen in the daily routine of gleaning, which provides for their that develops as Ruth goes back and forth between the fields daily existence. The speaking roles of and Naomi. Ruth 2 ends with “and she stayed with her mothinitiator/responder reverse with the er-in-law.” (See [What It Means to Stay].) Life has moved beginning of chapter 3. from impermanence (ch. 1) to semi-permanence (ch. 2) as the two negotiate a world that vacillates between stable and Although Ruth is mentioned by unstable. Now semi-secure, Naomi seeks permanency for name, Naomi poses questions that Ruth, a “resting-place” (3:1). sound as much like a woman thinking out loud as actual dialogue: “My What It Means to Stay daughter, shall I not seek to secure for To the question, “Where do you live?” one might you a resting-place, where it will be hear the reply, “I stay . . . .” And the remainder of good for you?” [Home Security] [What It Means the sentence might be “with my aunt,” “with a friend,” “with some people I met,” or “at the shelter.” Life experience to Stay] The very security that Naomi had stands behind slang or street language that changes tradiadvised would best be found by Ruth in tional modes of expression. One lives at home. One stays marriage to a husband in Moab (1:9) wherever “home” might be for the night. now becomes the focus of Naomi’s In the book Same Kind of Different as Me, Denver reflection and action. Her thoughts describes where he lived: advance with a second question that Right there next to the road on the other side of a wire keys in on Boaz, now spoken of as “our fence was a two-room shack looked like it was fixin to kinsman” (cf. 2:1 where he is referred fall down any minute. There was weeds crawlin up over to as the kinsman of Naomi) and a side it. Wadn’t no front door, just a yella jackets’ nest as big note reminding Ruth that he is the one as a hubcap. “That’s where I stayed,” I said, kinda quiet. with whose worker-girls Ruth has been thrown, just in case she has forgotten. Ron Hall and Denver Moore with Lynn Vincent, Same Kind of Different as Me (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006) 216. The passage of time noted by Ruth’s gleaning through two harvests (2:23) with no further mention of Boaz allows for such reminder. Naomi knows Boaz’s whereabouts! [What Naomi and Mordecai Know] No source is

Ruth 3:1-18

113

offered for Naomi’s knowledge of Boaz’s What Naomi and Mordecai Know comings and goings. The interjection, Naomi, like Mordecai in the scroll of Esther, hin∑h (= “lo! behold!”), in verse 2 is the resides on the outskirts of action. They are both “oh, my God” of Naomi’s musings. (See outsiders to power, yet each possesses knowledge to effect change. Both are aware of the comings and goings 3:8 and [The Element of Surprise in Ruth].) She of key figures in their stories. Mordecai resides outside the not only knows that he will be at the palace, but he knows what is taking place on the inside. threshing floor but is certain that he will Naomi lives inside her dwelling, yet she knows what is be there tonight! going on in the outside world. Neither story delineates the There is some difficulty in the source of their knowledge. They simply know. Both are Hebrew phrasing in 3:2, with the word aware of the ways of the world. Both understand power and powerlessness, and both dictate action that causes “barley” out of place syntactically. There the tables to turn. is further concern as to why only barley would be mentioned and not wheat, barley being the earlier of the crops and presumably already winnowed. Campbell makes the argument that “barley” (in plural form ∞∂>ørîm) might be read “gate” (plural š∂>årîm) instead, the two words composed of sibilant consonants that are written with the same Hebrew letter and were not distinguished until the Masoretic period. He supports the reading “the threshing floor near the gate” with both textual and archaeological evidence. First Kings 22:10 speaks of the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria. Second Kings 7:1-20, especially verses 1, 16-18, makes repeated use of the word play between “barley” and “gate,” and it is conceivable that threshing floors would lie close to city gates for ease of accessibility. Campbell notes as well the fondness that the storyteller of Ruth has for word-play and hinting at what is to come, thus seeing the use of the word “barley” in 2:23 and “gate” beginning in 3:11 with 3:2, “the threshing floor near the gate,” a connecting phrase between them.1 Campbell’s argument is plausible, but so is hearing Naomi in a “thinking-out-loud” moment stumbling over herself to get out the words. In any event, this is an instance where the reader can say, “I understand what you mean,” even if the phrasing is not syntactically correct! If the hin∑h alerts readers to Naomi’s moment of clarity in what must be done, the mention of the threshing floor rings loud in the ears of those who know what possibilities this setting allows. As an economic center, the threshing floor is a place of hard work. It is also a space where boundaries are blurred and barriers crossed. Workers work, then they play, a truth of which Naomi is very much aware. [Threshing Floor] The connection of a “resting-place” for Ruth and Boaz at the threshing floor is followed in verses 3-4 with Naomi’s quick instruction to Ruth. [Preparing to Meet a Man] She is to bathe, perfume

114

Ruth 3:1-18

Threshing Floor Without knowing any more detail than the text allows, readers grasp a basic understanding of the function of threshing floors in ancient agricultural societies. This was the place where the harvest was brought, threshed, and winnowed, so that the seed was separated from the grain and the chaff was swept away. An open place where wind could aid human effort was advantageous. The work was hot and the chaff dry. Workers ended the day ready for a good meal and drink to wash the taste of dust away. The threshing floor was an economic arena that garnered the attention of the entire village, a place of allotment as the grain was distributed among the owners of the field. A public place, the threshing floor might also serve as a site for legal activities. Victor Matthews, in describing the legal function of threshing floors and entranceways, notes in particular the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat. In it, Daniel (Matthews uses the Ugaritic spelling Dnil), the father of the hero, Aqhat, is said to judge the cases of widows and orphans. The place of judgment is “before the gate, beneath a mighty tree on the threshing floor” (vv. 5-8, ANET, p. 153). Matthews sees the threshing floor as a fitting place for such legal activity. Widows and orphans were to be cared for by all men in authority, which made the threshing floor the perfect place

to judge their condition and need. The threshing floor was directly tied to the food supply. Threshing was a communal activity, and the resulting seed sustained the people for one more year. There was, however, another side to the threshing floor, as different as night and day. After the hard work of day light hours, “hard” living followed. In wrestling with the meaning of life, Qoheleth observed, “there is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their toil” (Qoh 2:24; cf. 3:13, “It is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil”). The threshing floor at night reveled in the pleasure. Wine and women flowed freely—so much so that the prophet Hosea in calling Israel a whore for chasing other gods draws a comparison to what happens on the threshing floor: “You have loved a prostitute’s pay on all threshing floors” (Hos 9:1). Hard partying and lust for the company of women are often connected. Move the setting to a palace, and the opening scene of the scroll of Esther when the king is tipsy with wine and summons Queen Vashti comes to mind (Esth 1:10-12). On the legal aspects of the threshing floor, see Victor H. Matthews, “Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Significant Sites in the Ancient Near East,” Fides et Historia, 19/3 (1987): 25–40.

Preparing to Meet a Man The expressions “all gussied up” and “you clean up nicely” come to mind when thinking of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth. For Ruth to get her man, she needs the allure of a just-bathed body, the kind of unwitting enticement David succumbed to when he saw Bathsheba bathing and did not stop until he bedded her even though she was another man’s wife (2 Sam 11). Freshly clean, Ruth is to perfume herself. After all, Ruth is a field worker, and the smell of sweat mixed with grain is as distinctive as the cotton lint that clung to body and hair when the spinning mills whirred in the American South. Bathing and perfuming are preparatory acts for a bride meeting her bridegroom. In Ezek 16:8-9, God performs these tasks for Israel. They are also the tools a woman uses to gain power over a man, sometimes ending in marriage—sometimes not. Inanna, the ancient Mesopotamian goddess of love, fertility, and war, follows her mother’s suggestion to wash, perfume, and dress up before meeting the shepherd god, Dumuzi: “Inanna, at the command of her mother, / Bathed, anointed herself with goodly oil, / Covered her body with the noble pala-garment, / Took . . . her dowry, / Arranged the lapis lazuli about (her) neck, / Grasped (her) seal in her hand.” (ANET, 639) Following the protocol of Tamar, who took off her widow’s garments before her encounter with her father-in-law, Judah (Gen 38:14), Judith, the beautiful Jewish widow in the book by her name, “took off her widow’s garments, bathed her body with water, and anointed herself with precious ointment” (Jud 10:3) in her plot to conquer the Assyrian general Holofernes. Likewise, Esther underwent a yearlong beautifying process in preparation for her night with the king (Esth 2:12). Like wine, smell is intoxicating. One need only read the erotic love poetry of Song of Songs to experience just how much (Song 1:3, 13, 3:6, 4:14, 5;1, 5, 13). See Edward F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1975) 120 for discussion of textual variants that connect myrrh with the phrase “anoint yourself.” For Campbell, myrrh makes clearer the idea that Ruth is to make herself enticing, born out by the references to myrrh in Song of Songs as well as in the wedding song of Ps 45 (see v. 8, MT v. 9) and in Prov 7:17. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 639.

Ruth 3:1-18

115

Just Get Him Drunk herself, put on her cape, and go down to If the way to a man’s heart is through his the threshing floor. Four positive direcstomach, wine is the way to his penis. This is tives precede the negative admonition knowledge that women and men share. When Lot’s not to make herself known until the man daughters fear they will never have children, they get their has finished eating and drinking. Verse 3 father drunk and take turns sleeping with him (Gen 18:30 begins with the expected action that once ff.). When David learns he has impregnated Bathsheba, he brings her husband Uriah home from the battlefield and, filled with food and drink, Boaz will lie after a brief chat, sends him home to “wash his feet” (= down. Certainly, there are enough bib“have sexual intercourse”). Only Uriah doesn’t go home, lical examples to testify to this! [Just Get Him and his explanation to David showcases what the Drunk] Again, Naomi gives Ruth four direcexpected action was: “Shall I then go to my house, to eat tives: know where he is, go there, uncover and to drink, and to lie with my wife?” (2 Sam 11:11). the place of his feet, and lie down. One Even the anticipation of food and wine (and women) was enough to “turn a man on,” a fact Tamar counted on in need not know that “feet” can be used tricking the vulnerable Judah headed to his first party after euphemistically for male genitals or that the mourning period for his wife (Gen 38:12 ff.). “lie down” (the modern expression “sleep Holofernes, giddy over the anticipation that he would with” or “hook up”) often implies sexual finally be able to seduce Judith, becomes drunk, passes activity to speculate that what is proposed out, and loses his head to the sword-wielding, praying is the physical engagement that occurs Judith (Jdt 12:16–13:8). between a man and a woman given the right time and the right place. Kirsten Nielson gives good reasons to suspect that likely Ruth uncovered herself rather than uncovering Boaz. [Uncover the Feet] Either way, uncovering took place! The verb šåkab, translated as “lie” or “lay,” occurs eight times in chapter 3, leaving little doubt of the storyteller’s intentions. Sexual overtones abound. Uncover the Feet Readers surely wonder, what is all this talk about feet? The noun used is marg∂løt, which means “place of the feet” or “feet” (or in the case of Dan 10:6, “legs,” since it is paired with “arms”). It is used twice (3:4; 3:7) to speak of what Ruth “uncovers” or “reveals” (gålåh) and twice (3:8; 3:14) to speak of the place where Ruth lies (šåkab). These are the only five occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible. The noun is related etymologically to the more commonly occurring noun regel = “foot,” which in Hebrew may through circumlocution refer to male genitals. There is a certain ambiguity in the text as well as contemporary readers’ unease with the thought of Naomi telling Ruth to expose a man’s private parts, even if it is for the purpose of getting a husband! Older translations took a high road: LXX—“reveal the (place) at his feet; Vulgate—“remove the coverlet which hides the place at his feet”; and the Peshitta (Syriac)—“draw near and lie down near his feet.” Kirsten Nielsen studies these translations as well as others and looks at how “uncover” in a sexual way normally plays out in the Hebrew text. She argues that there is no other example of

a woman uncovering a man; the norm, if anything, is for a man to uncover a woman. Citing rabbinic tradition that has Ruth uncovering her face, she argues that this is a step in the right direction, only that what Ruth is uncovering are her own sexual organs. For Nielsen, Ruth does the opposite of Tamar, who hid her identity behind a veil to trick Judah into impregnating her, by uncovering herself so that Boaz might cover her. Cheryl Exum sees a different twist to the story. In Naomi’s directives to Ruth, a ketiv-qere reading in the MT occurs with the verb šåkab, lie down (3:4). The vocalized text (qere) reads as the other verbs in the verse: observe, go, uncover, and lie down. The consonantal text (ketiv) reads and I will lie down. The “I” is Naomi, who puts herself in the scene. “The consonantal text conflates Naomi with Ruth as the ‘seducer’ of Boaz on the threshing floor” (Exum, 202). J. Cheryl Exum, “Is This Naomi?” in Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012) 161–207. Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, trans. E. Broadbridge (OTL; Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 68, 70; see also Edward F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth (AB 7; Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1975) 121 for textual evidence.

116

Ruth 3:1-18

Wise Women Women are the dispensers of wisdom time and time again in Hebrew tradition. They offer guidance and give advice to kings, to husbands, and to their sons.

unnamed wife of Job (Job 2:9). Manoah’s wife proves correct, while Job considers his wife’s advice foolish. • The mother of King Lemuel seeks to guide her son in the way of wisdom (Prov 31:2-9).

• Huldah, the prophet, confirms the book of the law as the word of God for King Josiah and the people (2 Kgs 22:14-20; 2 Chr 34:14-28). • Esther, the Jewish Queen in a foreign court, advocates the cause of her people to King Ahasuerus (Esth 8:1-8; 9:11-15). • Woman of Endor, the medium, divines for Saul then seeks to calm the terrified king (1 Sam 28:7-25). • Zeresh, the wife of Haman, advises him first on how to get rid of Mordecai (Esth 5:14), then advises him that Mordecai will prevail over him (Esth 6:13). • The unnamed wife of Manoah counsels him on what his experience of God means (Judg 13:2-25) as does the

There are other texts as well: Sarah (Gen 16:1-6; 21:1-14), Deborah (Judg 4–5), Judith (Jdt 8:29 and 11:20-21, where Judith is described as “wise”), the “wise woman” of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:1-24), the “wise woman” of Abel (2 Sam 20:4-22), and the list goes on. For a more detailed overview of women’s wisdom, see the article by Linda Day, “Wisdom and the Feminine in the Hebrew Bible,” Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 114–27. For particular treatment of Job’s wife and the ambiguity of her character, see Samuel E. Balentine, Job (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006) 62–65.

Ruth and Boaz

At this point, Naomi’s instructions cease except to comment that what happens next will come as the man’s directives. [Wise Women] Two verses are given to the verification of Ruth’s obedience. Verse 5 ends the Naomi-Ruth i n t e rc h a n g e a n d g i ve s Ruth’s one-sentence reply: “Everything that you say, I will do.” Verse 6 will depict her obedient response.

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Threshing Floor, 3:6-13

In 3:6, the narrative reports that Ruth “did everything as her mother-in-law had commanded her.” Note should be taken of the Aert van Gelder (1645–1727). Ruth and Boaz. Oil on canvas. Akademie der Bildenden Kuenste, Vienna, Austria. (Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY) use of the word ßåwåh (= “command”) here. It is from this root that the noun commandment (mißwåh) derives. The phrasing itself is reminiscent of the reporting when others have done everything they were commanded—Noah when he built the ark (Gen 6:22), the Israelites in building the wilderness tabernacle (Exod 39:43). In both of these instances, God stood behind the directives. In the book of Ruth, the words that are commanded and will be obeyed [Locations in the Book of Ruth]

Ruth 3:1-18

117

come not from God but from the mouth of an old, Locations in the Book of Ruth widowed woman trying to do right by her dead Five locations set the stage for the son’s wife. story line in the Book of Ruth: If Ruth is shown to be true to her word (v. 6 Fields of Moab, 1:1-5 verifying v. 5), Naomi is validated (vv. 7-8) as a Road to Bethlehem, 1:6-22 woman who knows her stuff! Less colloquially Fields of Bethlehem, 2:2-17 stated, she is a woman who knows of what she Threshing Floor, 3:6-13 speaks. Naomi’s advice to wait until Boaz finished City Gate, 4:1-12 eating and drinking is expanded in the report at the threshing floor to give the rationale, “and his heart was good.” [A Merry Heart] Again Naomi, a woman, who has been both a wife and a mother of two sons, proves herself to know Boaz when he does exactly as she indicates Ruth A Merry Heart should expect him to do. He goes The Hebrew phrase combines the noun, heart (l∑b = to lie down, content after food and “inner man, mind, will, heart”) with the verb, be good (yå†ab = “be good, well, glad, pleasing”). The general sense is one drink. His chosen spot is “the end of well-being. When the drinking of wine occasions such feeling, of the heap,” which certainly refers one might equate the phrase with someone being a little tipsy . . . to the grain piles although the text in a pleasurable kind of way: is not so specific nor does it give a reason for his selection of the spot. “All the days of the poor are hard, but a cheerful heart has a conSome posit that Boaz needed to tinual feast.” (Prov 15:15) guard the grain and thus settled “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a beside it. No such need is presented merry heart; for God has long ago approved what you do.” in the text, but certainly it might (Qoh 9:7) be surmised. More important, however, would be the recognition The possibility is also there to speak of someone in a more that grain is what brought Ruth inebriated state, such as the drunken King Ahasuerus wanting to parade his wife, Vashti, as “arm candy” before his male guests: into Boaz’s fields, and it is what Boaz will send her away with when “On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he comshe departs the threshing room manded . . . the seven eunuchs who attended him, to bring Queen floor (3:15). Where he lies down is Vashti before the king, wearing the royal crown, in order to show no minor detail. Ruth and Boaz are the peoples and the officials her beauty . . . .” bound by the grain that one needs When Vashti refuses to go, the king becomes angry and Queen and the other owns. That their bed Vashti is vanished. See Esth 1:10-11. is made on a grain floor suggests Another text often connected to the opening lines of Ruth is the nature of their pending relaJudg 19. The story known as the Levite’s concubine begins with tionship and showcases the ancient a woman’s father delaying the departure of his daughter and view of marriage. (See commentary her “husband,” who has come to take her home after she has on 1:4 and [Biblical View of Marriage].) run away from him. The father uses food and drink as a ploy to suspend action, and in so doing occasions the man’s “merry heart” That Ruth can accomplish this feat (v. 6, in NRSV “enjoy yourself”). While an effective delaying tactic without being detected is nuanced for days, the result was one of betrayal and death. The question by the word lå† (“secrecy, mystery”). thus becomes, does Boaz’s “merry heart” bode good or evil? (See Occurring only a few times in the commentary on 1:1 and [Introducing Troubled Times].)

118

Ruth 3:1-18

Hebrew Bible, where used, lå† implies skill and subtlety. Indeed, it is David who is shown to possess such a trait, sneaking up on Saul and cutting off the hem of his garment as Saul is relieving himself in a cave. David later regrets his action (1 Sam 24:4b-5). Ruth is equally able to move in secrecy, executing Naomi’s plan with quiet precision. One wonders whether Boaz is vulnerable and whether Ruth will regret her action. Ruth is likewise a woman of “mystery,” a nuanced meaning of lå† as well. No one knows what Ruth might do; hence the constant controlling directives of Naomi and Boaz. What look like protective guidelines for Ruth the Moabite serve equally to protect Boaz and Naomi: “Stay with the women” (2:8); “Don’t let him/anyone see you” (2:3, 14). Ruth is simple and complicated at the same time: totally vulnerable, she is invincible; a widow, she “sticks” to a woman; protected by a man, she protects a woman. The diversity within Ruth’s character makes it unsurprising that she can move unnoticed through the darkness. What happened on the grain floor is part mystery as well. As audience, we are not allowed to see everything. The cover of darkness and the ambiguity of the text afford the couple at least a small amount of privacy. Much discussion exists over whether Ruth uncovered his feet (that is, his genitals), uncovered herself to expose her own genitalia, which would make her position explicit, or uncovered a spot where she could lie down beside him (see [Uncover the Feet]). In any event, what must be said is that Ruth positioned herself in such a way that what is to be inferred by her action/place is left to the man. After all, Naomi’s advice—which has held true thus far—has been that he would tell her what to do! The two subjects now in position, time passes until “the half of the night” or midnight. Both the opening phrase way∂hî (= “and it happened”) and the generic description of the two subjects as “the man” and “a woman” in the verse recall the scroll’s opening lines: “and it happened . . . there was a famine in the land, and a man . . . and his wife . . .” (Ruth 1:1). In Ruth 1:2, the characters are quickly identified by name and a family is filled out with the naming of the couple’s two sons, whereas in 3:8, the pair is simply identified by their genders. The storyteller’s employment of “man”/”woman” as opposed to Boaz/Ruth works both to set up Boaz’s question of the woman’s identity (v. 9) and also to establish that what is happening is at its crux: the anticipated interplay between a man and a woman—a staging that Naomi crafted. The verse is packed with suggestive language. What began at evening with Ruth’s preparations and will end just before dawn (3:15) reaches a climax at midnight. [Midnight] Boaz, figuratively and

Ruth 3:1-18 Midnight At midnight Yhwh struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, passing over the land in a singular act of destruction, bringing Pharaoh to his knees (Exod 12:29). At midnight Samson arose from the bed of the prostitute in Gaza, displaying his human power and might (Judg 16:30). Midnight is in Kirsten Nielsen’s words, “the hour of destiny” (Ruth, 72; see Job 34:20 as well). In fairy tales when the clock strikes twelve, Cinderellas return to rags and horse-drawn carriages to pumpkins and mice. Everyone knows something is going to happen—for better or for worse. In Jewish legend during the observance of Shavuot (the Feast of Weeks–Pentecost to which the scroll

119

of Ruth is attached), at exactly midnight the heavens open and the prayers of Jews studying Torah, an all-night observance of Shavuot, are heard with God responding favorably to all utterances. (See [Shavuot].) Midnight is the time halfway between day and night, light and darkness, work and rest. It is “other time” passing from one day into the next, still part of the past as it foreshadows the future. For Boaz and Ruth, midnight signals a time of transition. There is no way to go back to what was, and what lies ahead cannot be seen until morning. Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). On the observance of Shavuot, see Rabbi Wayne Dosick, Living Judaism (HarperSanFrancisco, 1995) 178.

physically “in the dark,” awakens with a Jolted Awake start. The Hebrew verb ˙årad means to Ron, a Texas businessman, describes the reaction of Denver, a homeless man he befriends, as tremble or be terrified.2 No specific reason the two take a road trip to Denver’s roots: is given for his waking, which allows for a wide range of speculation. [Jolted Awake] We hadn’t been driving long before Denver’s head hit Perhaps it was a chill brought on by his his chest like a rock falling off a cliff. A minute later, uncovered body, whatever part that might he started snoring. For the next three hours, the trip be! Maybe Ruth touched him, accidensounded like the scenic route through a sawmill. But once we crossed into bayou country, something in tally or intentionally. Who is to say? the air seemed to quicken his spirit: He didn’t rouse Commentator response is as amusing slowly from sleep but suddenly sat straight up. “We as the scene. Discussion among ancient nearly there,” he said. rabbis centered on the sexual needs of a man that might have “aroused” Boaz. Ron Hall and Denver Moore with Lynn Vincent, Same Kind of Different as Me (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006) 214, italics mine. Some see fear of the night demon, Lilith, lurking in the shadows. [Lilith] Like many of the details of the night, the text leaves the cause to speculation or gossip, a fact that Boaz understands (v. 14). What readers know is that nighttime allows for the tables to turn; the powerful are more vulnerable and the weak are stronger. Despite our Lilith modern moral sensibilities, In Jewish legend, Lilith is the first wife of Adam. Created like him Abraham’s nephew Lot can from dust of the earth, she is equal in all ways and protests the in drunken sleep impregnate submission Adam seeks from her. She makes her escape by fleeing to the desert, where she prefers life as the night-demon-Lilith to life with Adam. his daughters (Gen 19), and Tales of Lilith became the means for scapegoating female independence generals can lose their heads. for male sexual arousal. Male nocturnal wet dreams were attributed to Such was the case with Sisera visits by Lilith, who liked to be on top. Women, out of fear of being like on Jael’s tent floor (Judg 4) Lilith, were reminded to stay in their place, in male-female parlance . . . and of Holofernes in his tent on the bottom. attempting to seduce Judith, For the Jewish legend of Lilith, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the his assassin ( Jdt 13:15). Jews vol. I (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909) Whatever happens on the 64–69 on “Woman.” threshing floor, Boaz will be

120

Ruth 3:1-18

The Element of Surprise in Ruth The Hebrew term hinn∑h is a demonstrative particle translated as “lo! behold!” Used in a variety of ways, the interjection often functions to express an element of surprise or discovery. The three occurrences of hinn∑h in Ruth help draw the reader into each event, feeling/sensing what the speaker or character is experiencing.

fully awake. He is startled and he twists himself, a reflexive action similar to the motion Samson used in grasping the middle columns of the Philistine house and pulling it down, causing his and their deaths (Judg 16:29-30). “And behold, a woman lying at his feet!” This is the third interjection in the Ruth 2:4—“And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem . . . .” book (cf. 2:4, 3:2). [The Element of Surprise in Ruth has gone to glean in the fields that turn out to belong Ruth] Coupled this time with the participle to Boaz. And who should show up but Boaz! Readers are form of šåkab, the interjection and the left with a “now that was lucky” response. participle take the reader to the moment Ruth 3:2—“. . . behold he is winnowing at the threshing floor tonight.” Naomi decides to seek permanent secuof Boaz’s awakening and surprise disrity for Ruth, thinks of Boaz, and—would you believe covery. We may know what is going on, it?—again Boaz is at the right place at the right time, winbut the story’s teller wants us to be as starnowing at the threshing floor. tled as Boaz is! Ruth 3:8—“. . . and behold a woman lying at his feet.” For Boaz to ask the question “Who Again the element of surprise involves Boaz, but this are you?” in 3:9 seems more than logical time rather than object, he is the subject of the Oh, my! moment. under the circumstances. He worked hard, enjoyed himself after his labor, and was jolted awake in the middle of the night to discover a woman beside him. The text gives no indication of how he knew the person beside him was female. Physical contact is thus assumed to have played a part and may be indicated in the twisting/grasping motion of verse 8. It speaks well of a man, in this case Boaz, when he discovers a woman on the floor with him in what is if anything a compromising situation and asks her name. Not all men ask such questions. Not all men want to know. Judah arranged to have sex with a woman hidden behind a veil. She, of course, turned out to be Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gen 38). So many women passed through the bedchamber of King Ahasuerus in the scroll of Esther that the only way one of them got to return was if he remembered her name. The emphasis is on “if.” Yet Boaz asks, “Who are you?” This is the second time that Boaz has inquired about Ruth’s identity. Out in the fields he posed the question, “To whom does this worker-girl (belong)?” upon seeing her for the first time. She was identified to him as the foreigner, the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi (2:5-6). On the threshing floor under the cover of darkness, he asks Ruth directly to identify herself and she does: “I am Ruth.” [“I Am Ruth”] She gives her name and qualifies her identity with the appellation, “your handmaid.”

Ruth 3:1-18 “I Am Ruth” The storyline in Ruth moves along the names of its characters. My-God-King (Elimelech) and his two sons, SIckness (Mahlon) and I’m it (Kilyon) =Death (Chilion), Sweetness (Naomi) turns Bitter (Mara) and settles in Breadville (Bethlehem) with Ruth. Mr. Pillar-ofthe-Community (Boaz) steps into the role of benefactor. But who is Ruth and what does her name imply? Most telling is that Ruth identifies herself at the very point when other female characters hide their identity. In the story of Tamar and Judah (Gen 38), Tamar hides behind a veil in her effort to perpetuate the line of her dead husband. At the insistence of Mordecai, Esther hides her heritage and her Jewish name, Hadassah (Esth 2:7, 20), taking a Persian name when she is taken into the king’s palace and ultimately into Ahasuerus’s bed. The revelation of each woman’s identity comes at turning points in Tamar’s and Esther’s story. When Tamar is pregnant and Judah orders her burned alive, Tamar reveals her identity. She saves her life and that of her unborn sons—and ultimately the line of David through Ruth (4:18-22). When the Jews are threatened with extinction, Esther reveals her true identity and saves her people from destruction. Each hid her identity in her relationship with the male who held power over her until the time was right. Each engineered the circumstances that allowed her to triumph over male authority and foreign domination. One story works at the familial level (Tamar) and the other national (Esther), but each is about a female caught in male agendas that threaten life itself. The idea of hiddenness lurks in the background of Ruth’s story as well. Ruth arrives under the cover of darkness

121

and follows the instructions of Naomi not to make herself known until the time is right—that is, after Boaz has finished eating and drinking. As in Tamar’s story and the scroll of Esther, timing is of the essence. Covert operations demand that timing be exact. All three stories agree with Qohelet—there is “a time to keep silence and a time to speak” (Qoh 3:7b). Yet here the stories part ways. At the point of sexual encounter—female trickery if one chooses to view the use of sexual seduction to obtain power as such—when Tamar and Esther hid their identities, Ruth speaks loudly and clearly. Her answer to “Who are you?” is “I am Ruth your handmaid.” One wishes her name were enough to give. There is power and dignity in asserting one’s name. Ruth shows that. Ruth will not hide who she is from Boaz. Yet what the story also reveals is how female power is tempered by male dominance. What Ruth must be about is not a matter of standing on her own two feet. She has done that. She walked with Naomi from Moab to Judah, and she stood day after day gleaning in the fields. For life to move forward, Ruth must lie down. She knows it. She accepts it. She delays it as long as she can, working until the end of the barley and wheat harvest (2:23). Only when Naomi proposes the course of action that will bind Ruth to Boaz does Ruth make a move toward the traditional family structure of male-female dominance. Not before. Ruth had not sought security with any male, poor or rich (3:10)—Boaz’s words. Nor does she hide who she is from Boaz. She is Ruth, and whatever happens on the threshing floor, Boaz will know her name.

This is the first occurrence of Ruth’s name being spoken by a character in the story, and it is Ruth who names herself. Both Naomi and Boaz have called her “my daughter” (see 2:2 and 2:8), but no one besides the narrator has spoken her name. The choice of words (a noun with a pronominal suffix in Hebrew), “your handmaid,” both connects Ruth to Boaz and acknowledges the clear distinction in their positions. [Handmaids] While Ruth speaks in deference to Boaz, she does not follow Naomi’s specific advice that at this point in the encounter calls for Boaz to take charge. Rather than waiting for Boaz to tell her what to do, as Naomi stated would happen, Ruth takes the lead and tells Boaz what he should do. “Spread your wing over your handmaid” (“cloak” in NRSV) recalls the prayer that Boaz uttered upon first meeting Ruth in his fields (2:12) as he spoke of Ruth coming under the protecting wings of God. In the male-female foreplay, Ruth uses the imagery

122

Ruth 3:1-18

Handmaids The Hebrew word, anit Esther) precedes the the focus from the portended death for all festival of Purim, held from dawn to dusk on the Jews to her own possible extinction. The eve of Purim, the thirteenth of Adar. It commemorates the Jews have eleven months to ponder their events recorded in Esther 4:16 whereby Mordecai fate (3:7); Esther has three days. announces to Esther (through Hathach the courier) that Usually, fasting also includes prayers the law dictating the destruction of the Jews has been of repentance, mourning, and supplicadeclared. In response Esther orders Mordecai to hold a three-day fast in the town of Shushan (Susa), which she tion for God’s presence. One is reminded and her maidens also observe. Rabbi Acha of Shabcha in of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the eighth century ce was the first to mention the obserthe belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17), when vance of this fast by Jews. He combined interpretations of he cries out to God in praise and thanksEsther 9:18 and Megillah 2a, which understood the thirgiving (Jonah 3). The same is true for teenth of Adar as “the time of gathering” and the basis for Esther in the Greek text, which contains the legitimacy of its observance. Ta>anit Esther is the only time in the Jewish calendar the expected appeal of prayer to God. that wholly commemorates the power of a single woman [Addition C: 14:1-19, Prayer of Esther] In conto exercise courage in changing the course of Jewish trast, the Hebrew Esther neither turns history. In recent years the fast has taken on a new, conto God nor does she flee from a fate that temporary meaning in some Jewish circles. The Jewish could mean her immediate death. If her Orthodox Feminist Alliance has used Ta>anit Esther to fast included the expected prayers of the call attention to the plight of agunot, or “chained wives.” These are women who are enslaved into a marriage repentant worshiper, no indication whatbecause their husbands refuse to grant them a divorce soever appears in the text. What she certificate. Unsympathetic judges in the rabbinical high seemingly knows is that to look death in court order women to stay in the marriage. This has been the face takes planning. A year of beaua long-standing problem in the Jewish community, partictifying preceded her first night with the ularly in the Orthodox world in which women’s autonomy king. There is no time for such preparais often stifled. tion now. She instead takes the opposite Jordan Namerow, “The Fast of Esther and Marriage Enslavement,” http:// jwa.org/blog/TaanitEsther. approach, separating herself from the Mitchell First, “The Origin of Taanit Esther,” AJSR 34 (2010): 309–51. party atmosphere of the palace and Isaac Newman, “Esther, Fast of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael identifying with her people, the Jews, Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007) through a communal act of fasting. She is 519.

312

Esther 4:1-17

Addition C: 14:1-19, Prayer of Esther Immediately following the prayer of Mordecai, the LXX paints a picture of Esther not present in the Hebrew narrative: she prays. While this addition shares with the others the inclusion of components of conventional second temple Jewish piety, the prayer of Esther shows the effects with intensity. Before she prays, the narrator describes Esther as taking off her regal clothes and replacing them with the garb of the most repentant attitude—she covered her head with ashes and dung and put on “garments of distress and mourning” (v. 2). Her action correlates with the story line in the Hebrew the last time the reader heard from Esther. In MT 4:15-16 she sends a message to Mordecai that all the Jews in Susa are to fast on her behalf. She will do so as well in preparation for appearing before the king contrary to the law in an attempt to save her people. Similar actions are taken in Dan 9:3-4 before Daniel prays a similar prayer. Esther’s prayer is quite similar to Mordecai’s in tone and content. She appeals to her exclusive loyalty to God (14: 3: “You alone are our King”), God’s historical choice of Israel as “an everlasting inheritance” (14:5), and God’s righteousness. This latter acclamation is part of a confession of sin on behalf of her people. Because God is righteous, she and her people are suffering at the hands of their enemies and face not only slavery but also total destruction (14: 6-9). In 14:9 Esther reminds God again that the Persians are going to destroy “your inheritance.” Mordecai does the same in his prayer (C: 13:15), a second use of this loaded covenantal term. Esther then makes a direct appeal to God to turn Haman’s plan against him and to give her courage and eloquent speech as she approaches King Ahasuerus

(14:11-14). She is totally dependent on God (14:14, and previously stated in 14:3). Similar to Mordecai, Esther defends her Jewish devotion and loyalty, claiming that she abhors sharing a bed with Gentiles (14:15, “the uncircumcised”), and the crown she wears in public is like a filthy rag—literally, a cloth soaked in menstrual blood (Lev 15:19-24; Isa 64:6). She claims that she has neither eaten with Gentiles (“Haman’s table”) nor participated in the king’s idolatrous festivals (14:17). Esther assures God that she has kept her faith in tact despite being forced to participate in Persian life. She concludes her prayer with a similar petition to God as, “O Lord God of Abraham” (14:18), which, like Mordecai, ties her identity back to the foundations of Israel’s covenant with God. Sadly, although made righteous, the Greek Esther is turned into a good Jewish girl, prostituted in a pagan’s bed—robbed of self-respect and a queen’s dignity. The prayers of both Mordecai and of Esther function to inject a deep Jewish religious awareness and devotion into a Hebrew story where such piety is at best implicit, even overtly absent. (See [Is God in the Wings? (Probably Not)].) The deeper purpose, as David Clines concludes, is to remold the book into a story that fits more suitably into the type established by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. Such prayers can be found in Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; and Dan 9:4-19. The insertion of Esther’s prayer not only reshapes her personality into that of an exemplary Jew but also assists in providing an exemplary model to a Jewish community as to how to behave religiously in a Gentilecontrolled land or under threat. The defenses of Mordecai and Esther resonate with a second temple period of Jewish demands for observance of dietary laws and practices. David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, JSOTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984).

committed to face what comes, the words “if I perish, I perish” a statement of both resignation and determination. Esther answers Mordecai’s “perhaps” with a perhaps of her own. Who knows the why and wherefore of things? Perhaps she did come to royalty for a time like this. In any event, she is where she is. The Jews are where they are. A death threat hangs over all. She accepts Mordecai’s argument. She will go to the king, reminding herself that what she is doing is against the law (v. 16; Heb., = “not according to the law,” dåt). The reference takes readers back to verse 11 and Esther’s initial verbal response to Mordecai. Rather than repeating the law itself, the word dåt states the reality of what it means to live in a world that is ruled by dåt. There is little room for hope and no talk of grace. The law is the law. Esther’s under-

Esther 4:1-17

taking is to be an act of civil disobedience, and it could mean her death. No wonder the text offers no further response from Mordecai. The two have reached the place of silence. There are no more words to say. As Naomi and Ruth fall into silence along the road to Bethlehem after their discussion of Ruth’s fate where Ruth prevails (Ruth 1:18), Mordecai and Esther grow silent too. With the silence come a break in action and a shift in focus. Ruth took the lead in the scroll of Ruth as she went out into the fields of Bethlehem to save their lives (Ruth 2), just as Esther takes the lead in the scroll of Esther in chapter 5. In both stories, silence is the juncture that will lead to death or life.

CONNECTIONS Esther 1–3 sets the stage for the story’s named Jewish characters to move to center stage in Esther 4. Mordecai and Esther are at one and the same time outsider and insider, visible and concealed. They are both attached and detached from one another, the walls of the palace and Mordecai’s garments of lament separating them. Chapter 4 bridges the gap between them with its focus on Esther’s enlightenment to the circumstances going on outside the palace walls. In “Sounding the Cry” (4:1-3), Mordecai and Jews throughout the empire know that mourning and humiliation are bedfellows. Yet in the face of utter despair, hope can arise through the actions of many or of one who accepts the call “For a Time Such as This” (4:4-14). Bold action requires preparation and, in Esther’s design, “Grooming for Life or Death” (4:15-17). Sounding the Cry, 4:1-3

One reality of our world is the silence that too often accompanies oppression. Over and over again in cases of abuse, bullying, and victimization, the question is heard, “Why didn’t he or she speak out?” “Why didn’t they tell someone?” The context can be that of an individual, a community, or a minority people within their own nation. Although both question and answer are complex, part of the response time and again involves the relationship between subjugation and shame. To cry aloud is to admit to the helplessness of one’s situation. Examples abound. In the biblical text the guttural cry of the city in the scroll of Lamentations evinces the agony of defeat. The opening word = “touch or reach”) to royalty (malkût)” (4:14), Esther stands before the king, royal to royal. In 5:2 she “touches” (någa>, see 4:14 again) the top of the king’s golden scepter that he holds out to her. [Golden Scepter] The king’s response is immediate. While the narrator refers to Esther only by her name, the king sees her as Queen Esther, the title he will address her by in 5:3. Again she finds favor (˙∑n) in his eyes, a repetition of the king’s initial response to her in 2:17. He was, after all, the one who had placed the crown on her head. (Readers will remember that a somewhat similar phrasing is used to describe Hegai’s reaction to Esther upon her entrance to the harem in 2:9.) The tension concerning whether Esther will perish on this

Esther 5:1-14 Golden Scepter Esther 4:11 introduces the idea of the golden scepter and the symbolic role it plays in circumstances of life or death. According to the story and in Esther’s telling (vv. 10-11), everyone knows that to appear before the king in his inner sanctum without being called incurred a sentence of death. This was the law. Nothing is said of the law’s logic, but the privacy and safety of the king are guaranteed by such strict boundaries. The king is effectively off-limits, and he alone is the judge as to whether a trespasser will live or die. Twice in the story Ahasuerus extends the golden scepter to Esther. The first time is in 5:2 when she stands in the forbidden inner court and the second is in 8:4, when she pleads with the king to reverse the effects of Haman’s edict to destroy the Jews.

Johannes Kip (1653–1722). “Esther’s Request.” Engraving from Nicolas Fontaine (1625–1709), The history of the Old and New Testament: extracted out of Sacred Scripture and writings of the Fathers. . . . (Credit: Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive)

fateful day is immediately resolved. Esther will live. The movement of the narrative is quick and to the point. Unlike in the Greek Additions, nothing is said about what either Esther or the king is wearing or anything of their emotions. Addition D clothes each majestically, with Esther radiant yet fearful, and Ahasuerus terrifying. His immediate response to Esther is one of fierce anger. She faints, he melts, “and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms until she came to herself. He comforted her with soothing words . . .” (Addition D: 15:8). Even more to the point, he informs her, “You shall not die, for our law applies only to our subjects” (Addition D: 15:10). What a useful bit of information missing from the Hebrew text! [Addition D] Up to this point, no words have passed between the two; all has been symbolic action. In 5:3, however, the king puts a twoword question to Queen Esther, mah-låk, translated by Fox as, “What’s with you?”1 The question indicates the king’s awareness that something is troubling his queen. Otherwise, why would she take the risk of appearing before him uninvited? Without waiting for a reply, the king asks the question of the moment, “What is your request?” adding the tag “even to half the kingdom.”

327

328

Esther 5:1-14

Addition D The Greek editor has excised 5:1-2 of the Hebrew text and replaced it with sixteen verses that make up Addition D. The addition contains dramatic details that greatly heighten the suspense of Esther’s uninvited appearance before the king. For the LXX version of Esther, Addition D is the high point and provides the peak of intensity for the plot. In contrast to the rather subdued style of the Hebrew text, the Greek narrative is extreme to the point of being melodramatic. In a way similar to a modern-day soap opera, the narrator describes Esther as dressing in royalty. The sackcloth is replaced with extravagant adornments fit for a queen, including a train and two maids to help her as she makes her way through the portals of the palace to the king’s throne room. Face to face with the king, Esther grows faint as a result of his immediate anger. In contrast to the “radiant and perfect beauty” describing Esther’s dress and appearance, the king’s magisterial dress with his adornment of gold and precious stones makes him terrifyingly intimidating (vv. 6-7). Esther’s posture is weak, and she needs to lean on one of her maids until the king jumps up from his throne and takes her into his arms. He comforts her, reminding her that he is her husband and she has nothing to fear (vv. 8-9). Also included in this romantic scene is the author’s key to the entire Greek addition—God is in control and has changed the king’s spirit from anger to gentle-

ness (v. 8). The Greek editor has enhanced the plot of the Hebrew narrative by placing it into a framework that overtly shows God in control of crucial events. Unlike those listening to the Hebrew story, hearers of the LXX version are fully assured that their God is working behind appearances on behalf of the Jews. Esther’s character is also enhanced theologically. Whereas in the Hebrew text she wins the king’s favor as soon as he sees her (MT 5:2), Addition D instills more tension and drama into the meeting, introducing the king’s intense anger and Esther’s faltering yet courageous reliance on God. Ultimately, however, it is God’s providential direction that pulls Esther through her ordeal and motivates the king’s attitude of open and even loving acceptance of her. This Greek interlude from the fast-paced Hebrew story replaces MT 5:1-2 and sets up Esther’s request to the king that continues the story in MT 5:3. As Levenson and others have noted, the style of Addition D belies influence from the tradition of the Hellenistic novella conducive with the late Second Temple period. The book of Judith contains a similar style and plot, including an account of Judith’s initial approach to Holofernes of Assyria (Jdt 10:1-11:4). Jon D. Levenson, Esther, OTL (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 86–88.

[Questions Men Ask] Certainly readers hear the statement as extravagant, yet no less so than other exhibitions of excess by a king who lives life large. There may be boundaries for everyone else in the kingdom, but apparently few if any for the king. He holds life and death in his hand. He prevented Esther’s death by allowing her to cross the threshold and touch the golden scepter. Now he offers her life lived abundantly with a proposal: “What is mine is yours

Questions Men Ask The scrolls of Esther and Ruth each present a key moment when the story’s hero is asked a simple yet fateful question. Ruth goes to the threshing floor at the direction of Naomi. At midnight, when Boaz awakens to find Ruth beside him, he asks, “Who are you?” (mî-el = reflexive usage of verb, ˙ånan, “show favor, be gracious”) and to plead with him for her people. The second verb is båqaš, “seek,” from which the noun “request” (baqqåšåh) derives. In 5:2 all Esther does is appear at court, and she finds “favor” (˙∑n, the noun derivative of ˙ånan) in his eyes, in other words, at first sight. There is no need for Esther to plead or request anything, as the king jumps in to tell her, “your request” (baqqåšåt∑k) . . . shall be given you” (5:3). So far, so good—Mordecai again proves to know of what he speaks. We do not know what Esther will ask. She requested nothing before she entered the throne room the first time (2:15-16). [A Persian Story] True to form and in contrast to the flamboyant king, Esther is both formal and reserved in her response. She evades the question of what is troubling her. Nor does she respond to the offer of power and riches inherent in the king’s offer. Instead she addresses the king in third person, rather than directly, and she invites him and Haman to a banquet that is already prepared for him. Although readers know that planning and forethought have gone into Esther’s actions, the invitation has all the appearance of being spontaneous. The banquet is ready. Can the king and Haman come today, if that seems like something he would like? She gives him no time to consult advisers or get the opinion of others at court. Esther is inviting him and his right-hand man to a private dinner party prepared just for him. Interestingly, the pronoun used is a third person, masculine, singular form “him.” One would assume the “him” to be the king, with Haman merely included. Certainly that is the way the king would hear it. Yet one could just as well read the “him” as Haman, the villain who is being drawn into a deceptively festive trap. Rather than responding directly to Esther, the king issues a command to unspecified attendants to hustle up Haman to do Esther’s bidding, and the two men go to the feast Esther has prepared. The scene is comical, in moving so quickly from threat of death to the king and Haman scurrying off to a party. A king who sits on a throne from which he rules an empire that stretches from India to Ethiopia (1:1) and holds life and death in his hands drops everything to go to dinner. Is nothing else going on in the kingdom?

329

330

Esther 5:1-14

A Persian Story Herodotus relates a story similar in elements to Esth 5–7. In it a queen makes a request of the king during the course of a banquet. The request, which is de facto retaliation against a feigned enemy, cannot be denied. As Herodotus tells it, the Persian King Xerxes was married to Amastris, his queen, who resided with him in Susa. Away from her during time spent in Sardis, he became infatuated with the wife of his brother, Masistes. She had resisted Xerxes’ advances, and out of deference to his brother, Xerxes did not take her by force. He acted instead to arrange a marriage between their two children, his son, Darius, and her daughter, Artaynte. Thinking this would bring him closer to his brother’s wife, he took Artaynte with him to Susa. Once she was under his roof, however, his attention turned from mother to daughter, who did not resist his advances. In the meantime, Amastris, Xerxes’ wife, had woven him an elaborately embroidered robe and presented it to him as a gift. He was particularly delighted with it and wore it to visit Artaynte. His delight extended to Artaynte, and he offered to fulfill any request that she might make of him. Making sure that he meant what he was saying, she secured his oath to the promise. Xerxes did not see what was coming. Of course, what she asked for was the robe he was proudly parading. Knowing that Amastris was already suspicious of the affair and would know for certain if he gave her mantle to another woman, Xerxes did all he could to persuade Artaynte to change her request: “He offered Artaynte cities, gold in great abundance, and an army which no one but she would command (and an army is a very generous gift for a Persian to give), but he could not persuade her. Finally he gave her the robe and she, overjoyed with this gift, put it on and gloried in it” (Hist. 9.109).

Now aware of the situation, Amastris plotted her revenge, not against Artaynte but against her mother, Masistes’ wife, whom she believed to be behind the affair. Biding her time, Amastris waited until the king’s birthday when a royal feast would be held and the annual giving of gifts to the Persians would occur. “Amastris asked Xerxes to give her the wife of Masistes as her gift.” Xerxes found the request shocking and misplaced, knowing that the woman was blameless. “Finally, however, since she persevered and because he was compelled by the tradition that he could not possibly deny someone’s request when the royal banquet was served, he granted her wish, though much against his will, and gave over the woman . . .” (Hist.9.110). Xerxes attempted to assuage the situation by convincing his brother, Masistes, a good man, to put his wife aside and to marry one of Xerxes’ own daughters. Masistes refused, at which point Xerxes grew enraged and transferred the blame to Masistes. Xerxes told his brother that now he would not be given the king’s daughter to marry, nor would he live with his wife who had been given to Amastris. In the meantime, Amastris moved quickly. Using Xerxes’ bodyguards, she had the wife of Masistes brutally mutilated. Her breasts were cut off and thrown to the dogs, and her nose, ears, lips, and tongue cut out. She was returned cruelly disfigured to her home. Upon seeing his wife, Masistes plotted a revolt against Xerxes. Learning of his brother’s intentions, Xerxes sent an army against him. They overtook Masistes, killed him and his sons, and wiped out his army. Herodotus ends his story with the line, “So that is the story of Xerxes’ passion and the death of Masistes” (9.113). A queen, a request, a mistaken enemy—one hopes that the story of Esther will not end so cruelly, or at least that the correct enemy will be named! From Herodotus 9.109-113, in Robert B. Strassler, ed., The Landmark HERODOTUS; The Histories, trans. Andrea L. Purvis (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007) 718–20.

Unlike the banquet the king hosted when he sent for Vashti to appear and she had the backbone to refuse (1:11-12), Haman is not asked to come. He is ordered and he obeys, no question asked. So much for his public bravado! In a matter of verses, subjects and objects turn as the three male characters in the scroll now follow the directives of Esther and are placed center stage—Mordecai (4:17), King Ahasuerus, and Haman (5:5). Verses 6-8 are at first read exasperating. Now at the party, the king restates his offer and Esther stalls, proposing a second dinner party. The existence of the Jews hangs in the balance and the powers that be are dilly-dallying around, filling their bellies with

Esther 5:1-14

331

wine and food. Moreover, the plan is to do it a second time. How many times must Ahasuerus ask what Esther wants and offer to fulfill her request? One might quickly question Mordecai’s rationale for placing the future in Esther’s hands. Has she indeed become soft, willing to act but lacking the intellectual acumen to effect a successful end? Surely, whether intended or not, the narrator is raising the suspense of a story in which readers know more than the characters do. The king acts as readers have come to expect him to act. Overly ostentatious, the king’s language in verse 6 is similar to verse 3, yet more formal and extensive. Rather than the informal, “What’s with you?” he poses two parallel questions. The first one asks what her wish (petition) is, with the promise that it will be granted. The second asks for her request even to the half of the kingdom, with the accompanying phrase that this shall be done for her. Both questions flow from the verse’s all-important setting, “the wine-fest” (b∂mišt∑h hayyayin = “during the banquet of wine”) Esther has prepared. If Esther’s plan is to set the mood, then her mission is readily accomplished. From all accounts, when wine flows the king is generous (cf. 2:18). The trick, however, is to negotiate the opposing sides of Stalling Action: Esther and Boaz Ahasuerus’s wine-driven temperament, A delay of action occurs in both Ruth and Esther. since “merry with wine” (1:10) and Each such delay comes at a turning point in the “burning with anger” (1:12) are each story. Ruth comes to Boaz under the cover of darkness. At midnight he discovers her next to him. She states her possibilities. In narrative telling, Esther’s case, at which point he advises her to stay until morning. answer begins clearly enough as she comThe night passes until the time just before dawn when bines Ahasuerus’s two questions into one Ruth rises to return to Naomi and Boaz hurries off to the reply: “my petition and my request.” As city (Ruth 3:6-15). Action must wait until morning. if she is mulling over her answer, verse 7 In Esther, the delay comes during daylight hours. ends there. The scroll’s audience and the Hosting the first dinner party for the king and Haman, Esther stalls the action by refusing to answer the king’s king are left hanging as Esther stalls for question regarding what she wants. She instead proposes the moment, posing instead a hypotheta second dinner party for the next day. The ensuing hours ical question coquettish in sound. The prove propitious when the king cannot sleep, setting the opening phrase of verse 8, “if I have found stage for a series of reversals whereby Mordecai rises and favor in the king’s eyes,” is for all intent a Haman falls. Both Boaz and Esther prove to understand the given, restating the obvious (see 5:2) as if importance of a time-out. What looks to be stalling is in each story a tactical maneuver that positions the scene’s an unknown. lead character to act from a position of power. Boaz, by The second phrase targets Esther’s his own admission, has no right to Ruth (Ruth 3:12-13). petition and request as to what the king Morning will change that. Esther is a woman alone up would find pleasing. We are witnessing against two men who wittingly (Haman) and unwittingly a game of “footsie” through verbal word (Ahasuerus) hold a death sentence over the Jews and play that sets the stage for delayed gratifithus over her. The text gives no explanation for Esther’s delaying tactics, but the stall provides the occasion for the cation, both the king’s and Esther’s. [Stalling weakening of Haman and the strengthening of Esther as Action: Esther and Boaz] Before any response the next chapter will show. can be given, Esther quickly asks the king

332

Esther 5:1-14

and Haman to a second dinner that she will prepare for them. Posed to the king, the question specifically names Haman, lest there be any doubt as to whom Esther wants at her table. Unlike the initial invitation when the wine-fest already had been prepared (5:4), preparations must be made for the second. Verse 8 ends with Esther’s assurance that she will “do according to the word of the king,” that is, the king’s bidding, the next day. Haman’s Happiness Spoiled, 5:9-14

The interlude between Esther’s two dinner parties picks up the story thread of Haman’s hatred for Mordecai. The plot is nearly identical to the Ahasuerus/Vashti affair in Esther 1:10-22. Each scene grows out of a state of merriment that originates in a party. Each scene is a microcosm of the scroll’s larger struggle with the distortion of reality created by those with unchecked power. By his own doing, the protagonist in each creates his perceived antagonist. From their positions of power, Ahasuerus makes an enemy of Vashti and Haman makes an enemy of Mordecai. Both men exhibit mood swings from merriment to fury to being pleased again in a brief period, and both follow the advice of advisers to solve a perceived threat to their authority. Haman leaves the dinner party with the queen and king merry and glad hearted (5:6). The text is specific with regard to time. What transpires next is on “that day,” the daylight hours following the first meal to which he was invited. Everything changes, however, when he sees Mordecai in the king’s gate (v. 9). This is the same space where Haman first encountered Mordecai, only now Mordecai not only refuses to bow as all the other servants of the king do (3:2) but also neither stands nor quivers (zûa> = “tremble, quake”) before Haman. Mordecai takes no notice of him at all. Haman expects deference and fear, yet to Mordecai it is as if Haman is not there. Haman may not noticeably affect Mordecai, but Mordecai affects Haman. Merriment gives way to wrath as Haman “fills up” with burning rage against Mordecai. In the parallel Ahasuerus/Vashti event, Vashti’s refusal to come when beckoned caused Ahasuerus to seethe with rage (1:12). Rage now consumes Haman as he faces Mordecai’s failure to acknowledge his power and authority. [Burning Anger] Neither man acts on his own accord. As Ahasuerus before him had done, turning to his advisers (1:13 ff.), Haman refrains from an immediate response and goes home, summoning his friends and his wife, Zeresh. They will prove to be the advisers that Ahasuerus, as

Esther 5:1-14

333

king, has readily at hand, and Burning Anger they come when summoned, A review of the scroll of Esther indicates that “burning anger” no questions asked. A line of is a persistent characteristic of the personalities of Ahasuerus authority is thus established in and Haman. For them, rage seems to control their actions and others suffer as victims of their impetuosity. the text. The king summons Haman, and Haman jumps. Esther 1:12—But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command When Haman summons conveyed by the eunuchs. At this the king was enraged, and his anger his friends and wife, they burned within him. appear. Presumably he too has Esther 2:1—After these things, when the anger of King Ahasuerus had someone to do his bidding, abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been decreed against her. although the story gives no Esther 3:5—When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or do specifics as to who does the obeisance to him, Haman was infuriated (literally, “filled with burning work of Haman. anger”). A noted difference in the Esther 5:9—Haman went out that day happy and in good spirits. But stor y is the fact that the when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, and observed that he display of Ahasuerus’s wealth neither rose nor trembled before him, he was infuriated (“filled . . . burning anger”) with Mordecai. and power comes before the Esther 7:7—The king rose from the feast in wrath and went into the snub by Vashti in Esther 1. palace garden, but Haman stayed to beg for his life from Queen Esther, With Haman, Mordecai’s for he saw that the king had determined to destroy him. slight precedes an ostentaEsther 7:10—So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had pretious recounting of wealth pared for Mordecai. Then the anger of the king abated. and position before his friends and wife, who certainly know already what this man possesses! Verse 11 presents a boastful Haman who counts the splendor of his riches and the number of his sons to his own aggrandizement. [Mr. Big Head] He has fared well under Ahasuerus, and he understands full Mr. Big Head well what the narrator has already told us Haman would be a laughable character were he in Esther 3:1—he stands above everyone not so dangerous. Pompous, arrogant, full of else in the kingdom and he owes it all to himself to the point of incredulity, he is the counterpoint to the Mr. Big character of Ruth, Boaz. Both men are pictured the king. Great wealth and a multitude of as larger than life, but the difference abides in their charsons symbolize his success (cf. Job 1:2-3). acters. Boaz uses his position for the benefit of others, God may be absent in the text, but the while Haman uses his for destruction. If depicted side by message of God’s promise to Hagar in the side, Boaz would have a halo of light over his head and wilderness, “I will so greatly multiply your Haman storm clouds. In caricature, Haman would be picoffspring that they cannot be counted for tured with a huge head, grossly inflated to match his pretentiousness. He is the man close to power who yearns multitude” comes to mind (Gen 16:10). for more. Never sated, he must conquer the last obstacle Haman is not a self-made man. His rise he sees to his self-fulfillment and pleasure—Mordecai is tied to Ahasuerus; unknowingly, his the Jew. downfall will be as well. Within a matter of chapters, all that he has amassed will be given to Esther (8:1), and the sons that speak to his virility will be slain one by one (9:9-10).

334

Esther 5:1-14

Having begun with the known, his power and riches, Haman moves to the rest of his recitation in an “if that weren’t enough . . . listen to this” next line. He alone had been invited by Queen Esther to join her and the king for a party she had given. It was just the three of them, the queen, the king, and Haman—no one else. Furthermore, he has been invited by the queen to join the two of them again (v. 12). Yet, as high as Haman’s opinion of himself is at the moment, he is unable to move past his irrational contempt for Mordecai. Everything he has—position, possessions, status— counts for nothing as long as he sees Mordecai the Jew sitting at the palace gate. Haman does not perceive Mordecai’s action as a direct challenge to his authority. Rather the mere presence of Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate is intolerable to him. No mention is made of Mordecai’s doing anything to slight Haman. The focus instead is purely on Mordecai Vanity as a Jew. Whether or not Mordecai holds I hated all my toil in which I had toiled under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to a position at court, which could be indithose who come after me—and who knows cated by the phrase “sitting at the king’s whether they will be wise or foolish? Yet they will be gate” (here and 2:21), cannot be determaster of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom mined. The conflict is pictured as personal under the sun. This also is vanity. (Qoh/Eccl 2:18-19) dislike, so much so that everything Haman has achieved pales in comparison The reaction of Haman at the sight of Mordecai rivals the analogy drawn by the teacher of Ecclesiastes. Nothing to his disdain for Mordecai. [Vanity] No seems worse to Qoheleth than the thought of all that he reason is given here for Haman’s inability has worked for passing to someone not deserving after his to act against Mordecai, so the narrator’s death. Bad enough that you cannot take it with you, but explanation in 3:6 stands: “He thought even worse the thought of one’s life’s work falling to those it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai unworthy of the inheritance—a deeply troubling thought. alone.” Oddly enough, a man who has For Haman, the worst is Mordecai who spoils his moment of glory. Ironically, what Qoheleth fears will prove reality engineered the annihilation of an entire for Haman. The man Haman despises most in the world people in order to get at one particular foe will at story’s end take his position. is now paralyzed in the face of that same “sitting Jew.” The irony is palpable. The third named woman in the scroll of Esther now emerges in the story. Rather than speaking on her own, Zeresh, Haman’s wife, takes the lead in the chorus of friends who have been summoned to observe Haman’s basking in the limelight. The solution to his hatred for Mordecai is offered without discussion. Construct a very high stake, fifty cubits high. [Hang One!] The text uses the word “tree” (>∑ß), implying an artificial structure suitable for hanging or, in the preferred execution style of the Persians, impalement. The enormity of the proposed stake, fifty cubits high or seventy-five feet, is as preposterous as the circumstances behind the planned execution. As with all actions of those in power in the scroll, the scheme is

Esther 5:1-14

335

overkill. In response to Haman’s displeaHang One! sure with one Jew, his wife and friends “I’d only been in the school a couple of hours and come through with a plan as exaggerated by this time it was apparent that the mob was as Haman’s own plot to destroy the Jews. overrunning the school. Policemen were throwing down their badges and the mob was getting past the wooden They have his back, so to speak, buying sawhorses because the police would no longer fight their in to Haman’s inflated view of himself. own in order to protect us. We were all called into the In fact, the suggestion is that he raise the principal’s office and there was great fear that we would stake immediately, then in the morning not get out of the building . . . . Even the adults, the school tell the king to let Mordecai be impaled officials, were panicked. A couple of the black kids who on it. The assumption is that the king were with me were crying. Someone made a suggestion that if they allowed the mob to hang one kid, then will do whatever Haman asks of him, a bold and ambitious assumption. Haman they could get the rest out while they were hanging the can then go merrily along to the feast one kid.” —Melba Pattillo Beals, one of the Little Rock Nine with the king and Esther. Juan Williams, “The First Day at Central High: An Interview with Melba The counsel of Zeresh and friends Pattillo Beals,” in Eyes on the Prize: American’s Civil Rights Years 1954– 1965 (New York: Penguin, 1987) 108–109. suits Haman, as the counsel of Memucan and the princes to dispose of Vashti pleased Ahasuerus in Esther 1. Each is presented a convenient plan to do away with his offender, and each is satisfied with the solution, a telling characteristic about each man’s character. Chapters 1 and 5 end with each man executing the proposed plan: Ahasuerus sends out letters that every man should be master in his own house, effectively silencing women (1:22), and Haman takes the advice of his wife and raises the hanging tree (5:14). One has to appreciate the irony!

CONNECTIONS In Esther 5–7, evil is confronted directly. From the opening chapters, it is clear that life lived under the power of others is risky. Unchecked power can lead to a distorted view of reality where anything can happen, including the eradication of an entire people. For the oppressed, life lived under the enemy has its own set of choices and its own repercussions. One can choose not to cooperate, but noncooperation risks banishment (Vashti) or death (Mordecai). One can choose to rebel, but open rebellion when exposed and without support spells death (the two eunuchs, 2:21-23). Accommodation might work for a while, but in the end there are no guarantees (4:13-14). Deliberate planning, careful timing, even chance are necessary for survival. At some point one must name the enemy.

336

Esther 5:1-14

The right person in the right place willing to face her own death for the sake of others throws a dinner party—“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” (5:1-8). Setting the stage is critical for success, for those who have power over you may be “Blinded by Hate” (5:9-14). Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? 5:1-8

In 1967, a mere seventeen days before his death, legendary Hollywood actor Spencer Tracy completed the filming of the movie, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? with Katharine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier, and Hepburn’s niece, Katharine Houghton. The setting was 1960s San Francisco, California. Tracy and Hepburn played the roles of an upper-class married couple, Matt and Christina Drayton, he a newspaper publisher and she an art gallery owner. As parents, they raised their daughter, Joanna or “Joey,” with what was at the time a politically liberal view, the position that all races were equal. Interracial marriage was not only frowned upon but also illegal in seventeen Southern states in the US. The plot of the movie centers on daughter Joey’s unexpected early return from a holiday in Hawaii with a young black physician, Dr. John Prentice (Poitier), now her fiancé. A planned quiet dinner at home quickly turns into a momentous dinner party as the Draytons meet their white daughter’s black soon-to-be husband and his parents, who have also been invited to the gathering. With two sets of parents, white and black, and a Catholic priest (Matt Drayton’s golfing buddy) rounding out the guest list, the film’s cocktail hour becomes the setting for drinks and talk of race and societal expectations that entwine the actors and the audience. Talk of equality is one thing, challenging long-standing cultural norms another. In the end, it is the young interracial couple, passionately in love, who head off into their future while the older generation sits down to dinner. The film’s intersection of art and culture is particularly noticeable in that the United States Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia two days after Tracy’s death and six months before the film’s release. What happened on screen played out in homes across the country as bigotry and tradition came face to face with change and open-mindedness. The context of a dinner party set the table not merely for guests but also for the interaction of a story’s characters and plot development. The dinner party functions as the literary context to deal with the “elephant in the room.” The same can be seen in the scroll of Esther as Esther’s storyteller uses a series of banquets to advance the plot of the story. Three banquets open the tale—the 180-day

Esther 5:1-14

337

feast, the week-long party, and Vashti’s soiree for the women. Esther’s coronation celebration follows, and now in 5:1-8—with the extermination of the Jews hanging in the balance—not one but two dinner parties, which Esther hosts. The celebration of Purim at story’s end will round out the banquet thematic. The point is that dinner parties work. Food and drink are not only the keys to human survival but also the access to human interaction. The old adage, the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, thrives in biblical storytelling. When Lot’s daughters believe themselves to be facing a future without males and therefore without fulfillment as women, they get their father drunk and take turns sleeping with him. Two nations are born (Gen 19:30-38). Esau comes in famished from the fields and sells his birthright to Jacob, all for a bowl of stew. When it’s time for their father Isaac to pass on his deathbed blessing, again food is used to Basilica of Wilten One of the most beautiful churches in the Tyrolean part of Austria stands in the village of Wilten, an area of the city of Innsbruck. A papal basilica since 1957, the parish church traces its history back to the Middle Ages. Legend has it that among others, Roman Legionnaires were drawn there by the fame of a painting of the Madonna. The site became a place of pilgrimage and in 1140 came under the care of priests of the Praemonstratensian Order, who oversee it until today. The first church was erected on the site around 1259. Falling into disrepair, the original church was rebuilt in the mid-1700s in rich rococo style characterized by brightness and architectural elegance. The splendid stucco work is white with delicately distributed gold. Visitors and worshipers are awed by the architecture and the intricacy of the frescoes, all painted in soft colors. Dating from the first half of the fourteenth century, a sandstone figure of Mary with the infant Jesus is the centerpiece of the church. A halo of gold surrounds the figure and a crown rises above as a canopy, supported by four columns of marble, which gives its name to the high altar and to the church, “Our Dear Lady under the Four Columns.” The statue of Mary as the Mother of God answers the description in Rev 12:1: “. . . a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” as stars surround her.

Basilica Wilten. (Credit: D. Dixon Sutherland)

Esther. (Credit: D. Dixon Sutherland)

338

Esther 5:1-14

The paintings on the ceiling are magnificent frescoes by Matthäus Günther from Augsburg, depicting the Virgin Mary with her female predecessors in the Hebrew Bible. In the front cupola, Esther as the rescuer of the Jewish people stands before the Persian King Ahasuerus, who stretches out his scepter toward her as a sign of his mercy. Toward the entrance to the high altar, Judith, the national heroine of the Israelites, shows the head of the Assyrian general Holofernes to the triumphant people. The vaults of the chapels show more women of the Old Testament who exemplify the characteristics of Mary. Abishag cradles a decrepit David. She is equated with Mary as a healer of the sick. Abigail meets David with gifts, a model of reconciliation. She speaks to Mary as a refuge for the poor. In St. Catherine’s Chapel in the same church, the fresco of Jael killing the pagan military leader, Sisera, is related to Mary as the Help of Christians. The depiction of Ruth with Boaz symbolizes Mary as the Consoler of the Afflicted.

Judith. (Credit: D. Dixon Sutherland)

Together with Mary, these female heroes of the Bible speak of a salvation history that stretches into an apocalyptic future. Information from Innsbruck—Wilten: Pfarrkirche Mariae Empfängnis—Päpstliche Basilika. (Karin Hösch, Kustverlag Peda—Passau). Ruth. (Credit: D. Dixon Sutherland)

trick Isaac into giving the blessing to the younger Jacob instead of the firstborn son, Esau (Gen 27). Jael, the hero of Judges 4–5, lulls the enemy general Sisera into sleep with warm milk, then impales his head to the ground. No more fortunate is Holofernes, the Assyrian general who surrounds the Israelite city of Bethulia and demands its surrender, when the Jewish widow, Judith, severs his head following a lavish banquet of food and drink (Jdt 12–13). In the gospel traditions of the New Testament, Jesus’ ministry begins and ends with a banquet, with his turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-12) and then celebrating Passover before his arrest. Each episode takes on theological significance in the early church’s proclamation of Jesus as the Christ. “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” suggests more than food and drink. The words that pass between host and guest may be transformative, whether the blessing of a dying father on his trickster son

Esther 5:1-14

339

(Gen 27:27-29) or the final words an enemy general hears before his death from his female slayer: “I will gladly drink, my lord, because today is the greatest day in my whole life” (Jdt 12:18). [Last Lines] In the scroll of Esther the table is set and dinner talk begins. Esther, however, postpones conversation until another day when a second dinner party will gather the guests to her table. Until then, all must wait in anticipation and guess what will happen at the next dinner. Blinded by Hate, 5:9-14

In the late 1980s, a new term, “road rage,” came into the vernacular in areas where traffic overtaxed local roadways and drivers weary from sitting for hours on end gave way to the heat of frustration. Road rage causes perfect strangers to go beyond the honk of a horn or flip of a finger to harm another driver. It has become all too common and, in many cases, deadly. Take it back a few millennia, and what is encountered in Esther is a pedestrian version of the same aggressive behavior. Maybe Mordecai did not block Haman’s way or cut him off in palace foot traffic, but Haman’s reaction in the story is as irrational as the twenty-first-century driver who takes out personal frustration on someone who has Last Lines Matt Drayton: “Now Mr. Prentice, clearly a most reasonable man, says he has no wish to offend me, but wants to know if I’m some kind of a nut. And Mrs. Prentice says that like her husband I’m a burned-out old shell of a man who cannot even remember what it’s like to love a woman the way her son loves my daughter. And strange as it seems, that’s the first statement made to me all day with which I am prepared to take issue . . . ’cause I think you’re wrong, you’re as wrong as you can be. I admit that I hadn’t considered it, hadn’t even thought about it, but I know exactly how he feels about her and there is nothing, absolutely nothing that your son feels for my daughter that I didn’t feel for Christina. Old, yes. Burned-out, certainly, but I can tell you the memories are still there—clear, intact, indestructible— and they’ll be there if I live to be 110. Where John made his mistake I think was in attaching so much importance to what her mother and I might think . . . because in the final analysis it doesn’t matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel, for each other. And if it’s half of what we felt—that’s everything. As for you two and the problems you’re going to have, they seem almost unimaginable, but

you’ll have no problem with me, and I think when Christina and I and your mother have some time to work on him you’ll have no problem with your father, John. But you do know, I’m sure you know, what you’re up against. There’ll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives. You could try to ignore those people, or you could feel sorry for them and for their prejudice and their bigotry and their blind hatred and stupid fears, but where necessary you’ll just have to cling tight to each other and say ‘screw all those people!’ Anybody could make a case, a hell of a good case, against your getting married. The arguments are so obvious that nobody has to make them. But you’re two wonderful people who happened to fall in love and happened to have a pigmentation problem, and I think that now, no matter what kind of a case some bastard could make against your getting married, there would be only one thing worse, and that would be if—knowing what you two are and knowing what you two have and knowing what you two feel—you didn’t get married. Well, Tillie, when the hell are we gonna get some dinner?” Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? 1967, quotes from http://www.imdb.com/title/ tt0061735/ (accessed 10 February 2015).

340

Esther 5:1-14

little if anything to do with him. At a moment’s notice, tempers flare and the futures of victim and oppressor alike can be changed forever. If not road rage, something as random and meaningless as a bag of nuts can become an international incident. The egregious example of a Korean Air executive is a case in point: she was found guilty of “nut rage” when she ordered an airplane returned to the terminal gate to offload the chief steward because she had been presented with a bag of macadamia nuts still in the wrapper. The judge in the case chastised the airline executive for treating the flight “as if it was her own private plane” and as a case where human dignity was trampled on. At one Nut Rage point in the woman’s rage, flight perThe case of “nut rage,” as it came to be called in sonnel were said to have been forced to the press, became international news in December 2014 due to the incident that took place at bow before her and beg forgiveness. In John F. Kennedy Airport in New York and was prosecuted succeeding weeks, discussion of the case in South Korea. The reaction of the executive was so disin South Korea highlighted growing proportionate to the perceived offense that the judge in public outrage with an economic system the case questioned the affair, stating, “it is doubtful that ruled by giant family-run conglomerates the way the nuts were served was so wrong.” The defencalled chaebols. Rather than rewarding dant pleaded not guilty in the case, arguing that aviation safety had not been compromised in the incident, a violaability and hard work, family members tion with which she was charged. Although she offered a profit from a system that favors bloodlines letter of contrition to the court, the judge was not conand familial connections. A generation of vinced of her remorse. Public outrage most certainly sons and daughters are said to profit from played a part in a country long accustomed to an ecothe entitlement of birth without accountnomic and justice system that favors those born into ability for their actions. [Nut Rage] privilege. To see such bad behavior on the part of someone privileged by birth (her father is the head of In comparison with the explosive and Korean Air) acknowledged and penalized was welcomed public rage of the airline executive, one by many. As important as the prison sentence, commentamight commend Haman in the scroll of tors readily acknowledged that the humiliation she Esther for his restraint. When infuriated suffered publicly may be the heavier penalty. by Mordecai’s lack of submission, he holds his tongue and goes home. Prudence “Korean Air Executive Jailed in ‘Nut Rage’ Case,” BBC News—Asia, http:// www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31433736 (accessed 21 February 2015); seems to prevail. Yet, if human experience “Korean Air Executive Found Guilty in Air-rage Case,” Aljazeera, http:// teaches anything, it is that abusive power www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/korean-air-executive-guilty-nut-ragecase-150212071646369.html (accessed 21 February 2015). can rear its head when those in elevated positions see themselves above the ordinary strictures of life. King David fell prey to the seductive nature of power. Taking another man’s wife as if she were his own, he raped and impregnated Bathsheba. To cover his misdeeds, he arranged for her husband Uriah the Hittite to be killed in battle, then brought Bathsheba to his house (2 Sam 11). The Phoenician princess Jezebel, wife of King Ahab of Israel, acted with impunity in the story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:1-29). Learning that her husband desired

Esther 5:1-14

341

a vineyard that Naboth as owner would not sell him, Jezebel enlisted city elders and a couple of scoundrels to carry out a plan that robbed Naboth of his ancestral land and his life. When told by Jezebel that Naboth was dead, Ahab moved to claim the land, raising no query as to how the land’s owner met his demise. The biblical text bears witness that power can cloud the vision of those who possess it, creating not only false enemies but also a false sense of personal inviolability. Haman restrained himself as he passed by Mordecai, but his arrogant grasp of power allowed him to think in terms that exploded his rage into abuse. Among the many atrocities of World War II, the German obliteration of the village of Lidice near the city of Prague was particularly heinous. In late spring 1941, two members of the Czech resistance movement, Jan Kubiš and Josef Gabčik, were dropped by parachute from a British Royal Air Force plane into the area. They were to carry out an assassination plot against Reinhard Heydrich, head of the SS (Schutzstaffel ) Intelligence Service and deputy chief of the Gestapo. Tasked with overseeing the Nazi occupation of former Czechoslovakia, Heydrich earned the nickname “Hangman” through his short-lived reign of terror and death. Anyone opposed to the Third Reich was summarily imprisoned or executed. At the end of May 1942, as Arrogant Pride Heydrich was driving from his country “A certain arrogant pride and his sporting outlook estate to Hradschin Castle in Prague, the probably prompted his attitude. He really two resistance fighters ambushed him in believed that no Czech would harm him.” —Words of the Gestapo investigator on Reinhard his open Mercedes staff car. [Arrogant Pride] Heydrich’s failure to take appropriate security measures Heydrich suffered fatal injuries and died when warned of a possible attack against him within days. From Andrew Curry, “The Heydrich Equation,” World War II 26/3 (2011): News of the attack on Heydrich spread 30–39. quickly and Nazi retaliation was swift. Hitler was said to be frantic with rage and initially ordered dramatic reprisals—the murder of Czechs in the thousands. Measured restraint prevailed. Still, 3,000 Jews were sent by special trains from the ghetto-transit camp at Terezin (Theresienstadt) to extermination camps in Poland, their transport cars marked “Assassination of Heydrich.” In Berlin, Joseph Goebbels immediately executed 152 of the remaining Jews in the city. The search for the conspirators went door to door throughout the city of Prague and the surrounding countryside. More than 1,000 Czechs lost their lives. Kubiš and Gabčik went underground, hidden by a priest in the crypt of the Orthodox Church in Prague. Betrayed by a fellow paratrooper, the two fought to the death along with other resistance members when SS soldiers stormed the church.

342

Esther 5:1-14

On the day of Heydrich’s state funeral in Berlin, security police from Heydrich’s hometown in Germany carried out an operation designed to strike fear into any who dared to challenge Nazi authority. The village of Lidice was chosen to serve notice to Europe that acts of sabotage would not be tolerated, forgotten, or repeated. Ten truckloads of German police arrived on June 9, 1942, and surrounded the village. Having played no actual role in the plot against Heydrich, the town’s population was caught by surprise as the roundup of men and boys commenced. They were locked up overnight in the homestead of a family on the edge of the village; on the morning of “Lidices” June 10 the massacre began. First “There were other ‘Lidices’—in Poland, Russia, Greece, in groups of 5, then 10 when the Norway, and France. Stunned by Nazi brutality, the Czechs looked askance at overt resistance. So unpopular was the executions were taking too long, Heydrich assassination that the Czech government-in-exile denied 173 males were lined up and shot all responsibility, even after the war was over” (Shirer, 1991–93). as they stood facing the German death squads. Most of the vil“As a tribute to Heydrich, the SS command gave the code name lage’s women were sent to the Operation Reinhard (Heydrich’s first name) to the Final Solutions Ravensbrück concentration camp in carried out in the death camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka” (Berenbaum, 171). Germany. A handful of the children deemed fit by “racial experts” were Shirer and Berenbaum cited in Daily Life During the Holocaust by Eve Nussbaum sent to Germany and brought up Soumerai and Carol D. Schulz (Connecticut & London: Greenwood Press, 1998) as Germans, while the majority of 222–23. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960] and Michael Berenbaum, ed., I Never Saw Another Butterfly [New the children were sent to an exterYork: Schocken, 1993].) mination camp and gassed before summer’s end. Neither life nor property was spared. The Fate of Lidice Following the looting of belongings and livestock, Description of the Massacre of the buildings of the village were burned and the Lidice as told in the Nuremberg rubble plowed under. A village lake was filled in and Trials Friday, 22 February 1946: a stream diverted. The village of Lidice was wiped Lidice’s children were sent to families from the face of the earth, as if it had never existed. in Germany and elsewhere to be Historians debate whether Operation Anthropoid, “Germanized.” Of 104, only sixteen as the assassination plot against Heydrich was were ever traced. In the days that dubbed, should be condemned or celebrated. The followed, Lidice was erased from the loss of life that followed effectively squashed Czech face of the earth. Even its cemetery resistance even as it gained Allied support for the was desecrated, its 400 graves dug up. Jewish prisoners from the camp fate of Czechoslovakia. [“Lidices”] Perhaps all were at Terezin were brought in to sift the blinded by hate. [The Fate of Lidice] rubble. New roads were built and The scroll of Esther is a story of the heroic acts sheep sent down to graze. No trace of of a Jewish woman to save her people. It is also a the village remained. story that should serve as a sober reminder of the dangers of unchecked power in our modern world. The Massacre at Lidice from the Holocaust Research Project, www.HolocaustResearchProject.org (accessed Such power easily becomes abusive and can lead to a 15 February 2015).

Esther 5:1-14

distorted view of reality where anything can happen. It may show itself as unwarranted privilege that results in road rage, nut rage, or the eradication of an entire village or ethnic group. Esther’s story survives as a scriptural touchstone that such evil has been and still is very real.

Note 1. Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991) 68.

343

Honor and Shame Esther 6:1-14 Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a foul odor; so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. (Qoh/Eccl 10:1) In Esther 6, the author continues to take note of the time sequence of events. The counting of days started when Esther called for a three-day fast in 4:16. Beginning with Esther 5, each segment of the narrative commences with the time of its occurrence: “the third day” (5:1); “that day” (5:9); “that night” (6:1). On the third day, Esther appeared before the king, requesting that he and Haman join her for the first dinner party (5:1-4). During the banquet, Esther made her second request to the king that he and Haman join her the following day for a second banquet (5:6-8). The time between the two parties focuses first on Haman, with the remainder of “that day” (5:9) consumed by Haman’s efforts to rid his life of Mordecai (5:9-14), returning to the theme of Esther 3. Esther 6 continues the action of the third day. The spotlight focuses now on Ahasuerus. The time is “that night” (6:1) and the king is unable to sleep. Ahasuerus’s mysterious insomnia occasions the return to an earlier thread in the story, the thwarted assassination plot against him (2:21-23; 6:1-3). Chapter 6 plays out as a reversal of the honor-shame motif in Esther. The tables are turned by “Robing Mordecai” (6:1-11) and “Shaming Haman” (6:12-14).

COMMENTARY Robing Mordecai, 6:1-11

While years pass in the opening chapters, time slows down to a near hourly pace in chapters 5 and 6. The main character in each segment faces an immediate crisis, albeit a crisis that is relative to the degree of influence and power each holds. On a scale measuring from critical to trivial, Esther’s situation is critical; she faces imminent death should Ahasuerus so choose (5:2). By contrast, Haman’s

346

Esther 6:1-14

spirits are ruined by his encounter with Mordecai (5:9), and the king cannot sleep (6:1). The predicaments the three face, moving from life threatening (Esther) to annoying (Haman) to inconvenient (Ahasuerus), provide readers insight into each character’s perspective. In other words, the three characters share time and space. Their views of reality, however, are worlds apart. In the first two episodes, Esther and Haman each lay the plans to achieve their purposes. The king accepts Esther’s second invitation (5:1-8), and Haman erects Mordecai’s impalement stake (5:9-14). Further action on the part of both must wait, although readers know Haman’s intentions to enlist the cooperation of the king to execute Mordecai (5:14). The question becomes, will Haman accomplish his immediate goal of killing Mordecai before Esther can complete her plan to save the Jews? She, after all, is unaware of Haman’s new interest in seeing Mordecai die now. Readers know that Mordecai’s life is at stake and Esther must act. But how can a woman giving dinner parties be any match for the schemes of a villain like Haman? Esther’s strategy remains her knowledge alone. All readers know about Esther’s plan is that somehow it involves another banquet. The day ends Esther: Tragedie and night arrives. If one were In 1689, Jean Baptiste Racine, one of the most famous playwrights in staging this next episode as seventeenth-century France, wrote Esther, a tragedy, at the request of a play, a divided stage would Louis XIV’s wife, Françoise d’Aubigné, marquise de Maintenon. In 1718, show Esther giving orders Handel wrote the oratorio Esther based on Racine’s play. as cooks and staff scurry to prepare the next day’s banquet on one side, and on the other side of the stage Haman would be watching workers raise a gigantic pole in his backyard. The lines in the story are clear. Men work in the public domains of power and politics where the threat of violence looms as close as a nearby tree. Women work subversively to challenge authority and domination. Male action is conventional. Female action is revolutionary. Then, of all things, that night the king cannot sleep (6:1a). And if the king cannot sleep, no Title page of Esther: Tragedie. Jean Baptiste Racine. Bibliothèque nationale de France. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US)

Esther 6:1-14

347

one sleeps! He wants someone to read to him. Who would guess that the plot of Esther would hinge on a case of insomnia? Yet it does. If ever there is a place for a gut-wrenching laugh, it is here in Esther. Death looms all around, and the king reigning over all the chaos is not only totally oblivious but also juvenile. He wants to be read to. The Hebrew phrase is itself amusing: “sleep fled” the king. The choice of reading material is equally amusing—the book of memories, i.e., the yearbooks or annuals, a slightly expanded rendering of the royal annals mentioned in 2:23. One could just as well think of a student pulling out a high school yearbook and reading the comments friends wrote on the back pages. (See [Annals of the King].) As luck would have it, the passage chosen out of all the events that must have been included in the king’s records is about the assassination attempt against Ahasuerus and Mordecai’s role in his salvation (2:21-23). [On Record] Again, the impression gained is the often-heard story of someone in a life-or-death moment chancing upon a Bible in a hotel or hospital room, opening it, and reading a passage that speaks to him or her. In this instance, the passage speaks to Ahasuerus of his survival of an earlier plot against his life. The story within the story, unbeknownst to him, is that the one who had saved his life is now under threat of death, either as a Jew among all Jews slated for slaughter or on the stake raised On Record And now, if it seems good to the king, have a search made in the royal archives there in Babylon, to see whether a decree was issued by King Cyrus for the rebuilding of this house of God in Jerusalem. (Ezra 5:17) Ezra 4–6 tells of another instance when the Jews found themselves in conflict with hostile opponents. The setting is Yehud, the land of Israel as it is known during the Persian period. As a colony of the Persian Empire, the population is diverse and often at cross-purposes. At issue is the restoration of the temple. Opponents are successful in stopping the rebuilding by appealing to the Persian king Artaxerxes, who issues a decree halting construction (Ezra 4:7-23). Noteworthy is the brief mention of Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6: “In the reign of Ahasuerus, in his accession year, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.” Accusations and mischaracterizations of the Jews are common to both Esther and Ezra. The building resumes in Ezra 5. An appeal more sympathetic to the Jews is made (Ezra 5:7-17) by Persian appointees in Yehud to King Darius of Persia to ascertain his support for the project. The letter

references a decree by earlier King Cyrus of Persia that authorized the building of the temple and the return of the temple vessels that the Jewish elders of Yehud were using as their evidence for Persian sanction of the building project. The question was this: does a record of this decree exist, and if so, would Darius likewise sanction the rebuilding? The search is undertaken and the archival record of Cyrus’s decree is found (Ezra 6:1-5), authenticating the word of the Jews. King Darius issues his own decree that all opposition cease and all due effort be given to the building of the house of God using royal funds (6:6ff.). Once again, the fate of the Jews, in this instance permission to rebuild the temple, hinges on the finding of a written record. Ezra draws a picture of a deliberate search and a rational king who squashes an unwarranted threat to the Jews. Esther, on the other hand, leaves to chance the finding of the record of the assassination attempt and the role Mordecai plays in saving Ahasuerus—which proves to be the turning point in the story. The characterization of the two Persian kings could likewise not be more different. Darius is decisive while Ahasuerus teeter-totters from one influence to another, whether it be wine, women, or advisers. (See also [Annals of the King].)

348

Esther 6:1-14

Keeping Secrets, Telling All The Hebrew verb någad, “be conspicuous,” occurs at key points in the story. The hip>il or causal stem carries a meaning to tell, declare, or make known something that has been concealed or hidden. The idea of keeping secrets, telling all is a crucial theme in the development of the plot of Esther. 2:10—Esther conceals her Jewishness on the order of Mordecai: Esther did not reveal her people or kindred, for Mordecai had charged her not to tell. 2:22—Mordecai exposes the assassination plot to Esther who reports it to the king: But the matter came to the knowledge of Mordecai, and he told it to Queen Esther, and Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. (It is interesting to note that the Hebrew does not use någad when speaking of Esther’s role in the matter. She tells [ar, boy, lad) know exactly the details of the event. On the underside of power, they know that the king is oblivious, that one can save the life of the king and still go unrewarded. Such is the nature of power. Strike against domination, as Bigthana and Teresh did, and get your head cut off. Save the powerful from their enemies and go unheralded. These boys are from the same group of house servants who stepped in with the suggestion of bringing in the virgins when Ahasuerus had his first lapse of memory regarding what had been done against Vashti (2:1-2). Apparently Ahasuerus has no recall for paybacks, either as retribution against Vashti or reward for Mordecai. Still, it is Ahasuerus who raises the theme of honor and greatness, something he knows all about if speaking of material objects. He spent 180 days displaying y∂qår (n.m. “preciousness, price; honor”) and the glory of his g∂dûllâ (n.f. “greatness”) in 1:4. In 1:20 by his decree, all wives must give honor (y∂qår) to their husbands. In 3:1 he made Haman great (pi>el of gådal, “grow up, become great” = “advanced or promoted”), raising him above all other officials. Now he speaks of Mordecai. Not a word is said about Mordecai’s identity as a Jew. He is simply Mordecai, whose act of revealing the conspiracy saved the king’s life. Upon hearing that nothing has been done for him, the king’s next question begins 6:4: “The king said, ‘Who is in the court?’” One wonders at this king. It is in the dark of the night, he cannot sleep, and he has literate officials fetching the royal annals and reading to him. His house boys bring him up to speed on official action or, in the case of Mordecai, non-action, and now he is looking for someone else. Perhaps he is seeking consultation, which is the way of this king, but no specific explanation is given. It is more of an open-ended “who’s around?” query. The narrator takes over to announce that Haman has entered the court of the king’s palace, at least the outer court. The assumption is that he too is forbidden to enter the inner court without being summoned (4:11). It is also another humorous moment. Haman happens to show up, a necessity for the ironic twist about to transpire. Readers know Haman is about to ask for Ahasuerus’s approval to kill Mordecai, but Zeresh suggests that he go “in the morning” to seek the king’s consent (5:14). Esther 6:4 gives no indication of

Esther 6:1-14

351

the specific time, but the sense of the scene is that Haman cannot wait another minute to lay his hands on Mordecai and arrives at the palace while it is still night. Presumably, Haman too, cannot sleep. His actions are deliberate. Haman is there to speak to the king about one thing—to hang Mordecai on the tree-pole that he has prepared for him. His arrival is accompanied by an air of certainty, conveyed by the verb arîm Three Beholds! (pl. of na>ar, “boy, youth = worker-boy”) Ruth 2:4—“And behold, Boaz came from as the conversation partners of Boaz and Bethlehem . . .” of Ahasuerus (Ruth 2:5ff.; Esther 6:3ff.). Ruth 3:2—“. . . behold, he is winnowing at the threshing floor tonight.” Haman is said to be “standing” (>øm∑d) Ruth 3:8—“. . . and behold, a woman lying at his feet.” in the court. The verb is a participle that conveys ongoing action. If the scene In Ruth, the three occurrences of hinn∑h (“Behold!”) was enacted, one could imagine Haman focus on Boaz and the supportive role he plays in augrocking back and forth on his feet, twidmenting the efforts of Ruth and Naomi to survive. He is dling his thumbs, looking to see if the the indispensable man of the moment who shows up at the right time in the right place. sun has started to rise. After all, the story line leads readers to think that it is still Esther 6:5—“. . . behold, Haman is standing in the court night, and, to their surprise, Haman is . . .” standing in the court! [Three Beholds!] In a Esther 7:9—“. . . moreover, behold the tree which Haman similar way, Boaz’s introduction to Ruth has prepared for Mordecai . . .” presented her standing for an extended Esther 8:7—“. . . behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther and they have hanged him on the tree . . .” period (“from early morning until now”) before he speaks to her for the first time in In Esther, the three occurrences of hinn∑h focus on his fields (Ruth 2:7). Haman and his demise. Again, timing is everything as The developing scene is pure slapstick Haman arrives on the scene to call for Mordecai’s execuas the king tells the servants to let Haman tion, only to anger the king, who calls for his execution. enter. The two men face each other, Last, the king gives notice that Haman in fact has been hanged. each leaving his intentions unknown to The “beholds!” of Ruth foreshadow Boaz as hero while the other. The king speaks first, which the “beholds!” of Esther ensnare Haman as villain.

352

Esther 6:1-14

is proper. He never asks why Haman is there, nor is the reason stated, notwithstanding what can be presumed to be an unusual nighttime visit. Once again, the abnormal is normal. In fact, as soon as the king speaks, all of Haman’s intentions seemingly fly out the window. Haman cannot wait to talk to the king, but then he totally forgets the reason he is there; the prospect of reward trumps retribution. He is immediately engrossed in the king’s musings, not hesitating for a second to see himself as the object of the king’s intentions. Each man then talks past the other, leaving the audience as the only knowledgeable partners in the scene. Readers know what the king’s intentions are, and they also understand that Haman is jumping to the wrong conclusion. It is like a play in which the audience knows what is happening, but the actors do not. Should one laugh or cringe at the misunderstandings playing out in front of our eyes? There is almost gleeful delight in seeing an egomaniac setting himself up for his just deserts. Although the scene is both comical and disturbing, the topic of conversation is, of all things, honor, as if these two would know anything about true honor! (See [Honor and Shame] and [Lament Is to Shame as Justice Is to Honor].) For Ahasuerus, honor is material wealth that one uses to impress people (1:4). Honor is also regarded as something that can be decreed, as in the case of wives: “You will honor your husbands” (1:20). Haman, as his response will imply, thinks of honor as display, and he speaks in terms that more aptly describe the appearance of honor rather than honor as an entity in its own right. In fact, one might argue that Haman mishears the question of the king. The king’s question is, “What should be done with the man whom the king delights (˙åp∑ß) in his honor (bîqårô = prep + y∂qår)?” In other words, the man of whom the king speaks is someone who is prized or valued—a man of honor, y∂qår. Man and honor are thus already connected. The narrator reveals Haman’s thoughts: “Who would the king get a kick out of honoring more than me?” (6:6). For Haman, honor resides not in character but in privilege. The king speaks in generalities (“the man”), and Haman fills in the blank, twisting the question just enough to fit his selfserving needs. Surely he must be the one about whom the king speaks! He answers the king in the same half-sentence fashion that Esther answered the king’s question in 5:7 regarding her petition and request. Esther 6:7 repeats the king’s exact words: “a man whom the king delights in his honor . . .” (˙åp∑ß bîqårô). The difference between the two verses is that Esther delays her answer by inviting the king and Haman to a second dinner party. She will

Esther 6:1-14

353

then answer the king’s question to her. Haman mulls the question over, but only for a half-second. He knows exactly what the answer is and does not hesitate in giving a quick response. If typecast gender roles are at play, Esther brings to mind the woman of Genesis 3:6, who takes her time in considering her response to the serpent’s retort, while Adam replicates male gut-reaction—act first, deal with the consequences later. Speaking in the same language of anonymity as the king, Haman offers a step-by-step, let-no-detail-go-unnoticed orchestration. The third word out of his mouth is malkût, “royalty!” He sits higher than any other court official (3:1), Ashurbanipal Honors Necho is bowed to (3:2), and wears the king’s Ashurbanipal honored King Necho of Egypt in the signet ring (3:10). Haman wants more following way: than that, however. To ask for the king’s I clad him in a garment with multicolored trimmings, crown would be tantamount to treason, placed a golden chain on him (as the) insigne of his so he asks for everything just shy of that. kingship, put golden rings on his hands; I wrote my He wants royal power or at least the prename (phonetically) upon an iron dagger (to be worn tense of it. Haman choreographs a scene in) the girdle, the mounting of which was golden, and right out of ancient Near Eastern pomp gave it to him. I presented him (furthermore) with chariots, horses and mules as means of transportaand circumstance. [Ashurbanipal Honors Necho] tion (befitting) his position as ruler. (ANET, 295) He expects royal garb that the king has actually worn, no mere substitute, and a Cited in “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” trans. horse that the king has ridden. Mention A. Leo Oppenheim, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating of the “royal crown on his head” is oddly to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. with tied to the horse (6:8). The reference supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). could be to a royal diadem placed on a horse’s head that would signify its rider as the king. One might think of the flags used to mark a modern dignitary’s motorcade or a high-ranking officer’s transport in friendly territory. Anonymous, and equally abstruse, the reference could refer to setting the crown on the honoree’s head. If so, the phrasing is sufficiently ambiguous to cloak a direct move at the kingship. Still, Haman’s recipe for honoring is brazen. To put on another man’s clothes, especially a king’s clothes, is to assume his power and authority. [Putting on Power] [Pharaoh Honors Joseph] [1 Esdras 3:5-7]

Royal robes and horse alone are not enough, however. Haman wants a display where a man of nobility will serve as the honoree’s “man Friday.” This man of rank is to serve as the groomsman handling the robes and the horse, and the rest of the nobles are to clothe or dress “the man whom the king delights in his honor” (6:9). (See 1:3 where the part∂mîm, “nobles,” are guests at the king’s first banquet and the audience for the first mention of y∂qår

354

Esther 6:1-14

Putting on Power Haman’s suggestion of how to honor a man with whom the king delights reflects elements of an investiture ceremony for a new king in the ancient Near East. Plutarch reports in his “Life of Artaxerxes II”: upon entering the sanctuary, the new king “after laying aside his own proper robe, must put on that which Cyrus the Elder used to wear before he became king” (Art. 3.1-2). The new ruler also received an insignia of his power, including royal garments, shoes, a tiara, a scepter in his right hand, lotus blossom in his left, and a lance and bow (see Wiesehöfer, 31–32). Transferring power by taking the garment or possessions of one’s predecessor is also attested in biblical stories. In Num 20:25-28 the priestly office of Aaron passes to his son, Eleazar, symbolized by Eleazar’s donning of his father’s vestments. In 2 Kgs 2:13, Elisha picks up the mantle of Elijah, and in so doing takes on the prophetic office, replacing Elijah as his successor. In both instances, the passing of the apparel comes at the end of the owner’s life. Episodes from the stories of Saul and David highlight both the competition between them and David’s symbolic

taking of the kingship from Saul, as the biblical story acknowledges. In 1 Sam 24 David cuts off the corner of Saul’s cloak when Saul goes to relieve himself in a cave. David does Saul no physical harm, which proves more powerful than if he had killed him. In the words of Saul to David, “Now I know that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand” (1 Sam 24:20). Only a few chapters later, Saul dies while fighting the Philistines, who strip him of his armor, placing it in the temple of Astarte, and hang his beheaded body on the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:1-13). At the end of David’s reign, the passing of the kingship from David to Solomon likewise includes elements of Haman’s prescription for honor. David orders that Solomon be placed on David’s own mule, taken to Gihon, and anointed by Nathan the prophet. The trumpet is to be blown and the proclamation made: “Long live King Solomon!” He is then to sit on the throne of David, becoming ruler over Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 1:32-35).

Pharaoh Honors Joseph And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand; he arrayed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command; and they cried out in front of him, “Abrek—Bow the knee!” [Abrek is Egyptian similar in sound to Hebrew, “kneel,” NRSV.]

given an Egyptian name and the daughter of the priest of On as his wife. Gen 41:45 ends with the statement, “Thus Joseph gained authority over the land of Egypt.” Is Haman hoping to gain a similar authority over Persia? Jon Levenson in his commentary on Esther (97) notes not only the similarities, but also the contrasts between the two stories. Joseph is rewarded for his plan to save the kingdom, including his proposal for Pharaoh to designate a “man of discernment and wisdom” to oversee the coming seven lean years of famine. The man turns out to be himself. Joseph’s plan was to benefit everyone, while Haman seeks to benefit himself. He has done nothing to deserve a reward, but he seeks to displace “the man whom the king desires to honor.” For Levenson, “one might just suspect that Haman aspires to succeed the king and not simply to be honored for having served him well. As things turn out (Esth 6:10-11), by reaching too high, he has brought himself low. It is Mordecai who will play Joseph’s role of second-in-command, attired in majestic garb (8:15; 10:3; cf. esp. Gen 41:45b).”

Similarities between the Joseph story and the story of Esther include the giving of the signet ring to signify the representative of the pharaoh/king and the bestowal of clothing upon the honoree, although Joseph receives fine linens and Haman asks for the personal royal robes of Ahasuerus. Joseph is driven in the chariot of Pharaoh’s second-in-command while Haman asks that the honoree be placed on the king’s own horse. Both Joseph and the honoree of Esther are heralded, as Haman requests in Esth 6:9 and carries out in 6:11. The episode in Genesis reads like an installation rite that culminates with Joseph being

Plutarch, The Life of Artaxerxes 3.1-2, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Artaxerxes*.html. Josef Wiesehôfer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. Azizeh Azodi (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014).

Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) 97–98.

Esther 6:1-14

355

in 1:4 when the king displayed his price1 Esdras 3:5-7 less riches/honor.) [Clothing Mordecai] The Apocryphal Jewish writing 1 Esdras Once attired, the courtiers are to aid describes a contest that three bodyguards of him in mounting the horse (vb. råkab = King Darius of Persia design to entertain the king. Each “mount” and “ride”) in the open square young man will say what one thing they consider to be the strongest and the king is to choose who makes the wisest of the city (6:9c). The text is somewhat statement. To the winner the king is to give riches and ambiguous, not identifying specifically honor: which open square is meant. In 4:6, Hathach met Mordecai in the open Let each of us state what one thing is strongest; square, r∂˙ôb håå∞åh, “do,” “make.” While everyone knows Haman’s thoughts and actions, all are left in the dark when it comes to Esther’s plans. Readers know only that she is good at throwing drinking parties. Let Esther’s second banquet for the king and Haman begin!

CONNECTIONS By chance or circumstance, “Turning the Tables” (6:1-14) shifts the focus of honor and shame. The honoring of Mordecai is at the same time the shaming of Haman. One event must be seen in terms of the other. Honor and shame go hand in hand. Justice is the restoration of honor. True honor requires that shame be removed. Turning the Tables, 6:1-14

Unearned arrogance can be insufferable, particularly in people who set themselves above others. It is not hard to hold them in disdain, especially if they use their positions to do harm to others. It is easy to feel what the Germans call Schadenfreude, or the experience of

369

370

Esther 6:1-14

a bit of happiness when the arrogant person falls. Simply put, we want the good guys to win. Rooting for the good underdog against a bad self-important nemesis seems to be part of human nature. Whether at an athletic competition or sporting event, mock battle or real-life combat, the roar of onlookers grows, for example, as David kills Goliath, Jack climbs the beanstalk to slay the giant, and Cinderella’s foot slips into the glass slipper. In biblical text after biblical text, the story line changes when an unexpected hero gains the upper hand through wit and cunning. When Judah called for his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to be burned alive for being pregnant, assumedly from whoring around, she held out his signet, cord, and staff, naming him as the offender. She turned the tables and in so doing was judged to be in the right (Gen 38:25-26). Ruth, the Moabite, took a chance on the future with all the risk involved of a foreign woman being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the threshing floor at night. Her boldness gained Boaz’s approval and support (Ruth 3:8-11). Together, her actions and his favorable response set the stage for a reversal of fortune symbolized by the grain she carried back to Naomi (3:15-17). Sometimes the turning point of events cannot be seen until years afterwards or can be a long time in coming to fruition. In 2012, to mark the occasion of what would have been the 100th birthday of British mathematician Alan Turing, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) commissioned a weeklong series of articles that explored the many achievements of a man seminal in the foundation of modern computing. Remembered as both an eccentric and passionate mathematician, Turing played a pivotal role in the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War. Educated at Cambridge with continued research at Princeton, he joined the efforts to break the thousands of coded messages transmitted each day by Germany’s Army, Air Force, and Navy. In 1939, anticipating invasion, the Polish Cipher Bureau passed important information to Great Britain concerning “Enigma,” the German military encryption machine used to encode all its military and naval signals. When Britain declared war on Germany that September, Turing took up residency at Bletchley Park, the headquarters of Britain’s top code breakers. There he and other mathematicians pitted machine against machine with the development of “bombes,” anti-Enigma machines that were able to crack the German code. By 1943, Bletchley Park was cracking code at the rate of nearly two messages every minute. The operation was, of course, covert and tricky since the value in breaking the code

Esther 6:1-14

371

required that the Nazis neither know nor grow suspicious of this breakthrough. Using the information required a delicate balancing act by British Intelligence so as not to show their hand to the enemy. In addition to breaking Enigma, Turing added his genius to two more critical efforts in the war. He is personally credited with breaking the code used by German U-boats in the North Atlantic as they waged economic warfare against the merchant convoys bringing aid to Great Britain. With information regarding the U-boats’ whereabouts, convoys could change course and seek to avoid them. The third breakthrough came with the cracking of Tunny, the British codename for Germany’s encrypted communications network. Nicknamed Turingery at Bletchley Park, the cracking of Tunny messages provided detailed information of German military strategy helping to turn the tides of war. Some historians have estimated that the massive code-breaking operation at Bletchley Park shortened the war in Europe perhaps as much as two years. Turing was the epicenter of that effort. Weakening the U-boats’ hold on the North Atlantic aided in the arrival of the supplies and troops necessary for the D-Day landings of 1944 and the Allied invasion of Europe. Timing is everything in war. Had the codes not been broken, Allied victory could have taken much longer. [Saved Lives] Saved Lives As so often happens, the true impact “At a conservative estimate, each year of the of Turing’s efforts remained largely fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths, so the significance of Turing’s contribution can unknown during his lifetime. His be roughly quantified in terms of the number of additional interests and brilliance continued as he lives that might have been lost if he had not achieved what expanded into other areas of the scihe did. ences. Ironically and tragically, however, If U-boat Enigma had not been broken, and the war had in 1952 he fell prey to hostility at continued for another two to three years, a further 14 to 21 home when he was arrested, tried, and million people might have been killed.” convicted for an avowed homosexual Jack Copeland, “Alan Turing: The Codebreaker Who Saved ‘Millions of Lives,’” BBC News, 19 June 2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419691 relationship, which was illegal at the (accessed 3 August 2015). time in Great Britain. In lieu of prison, he underwent hormonal injections that were effectively chemical castration. His security clearance was revoked and in June 1954 he was found dead in his bed. Although still questioned, a ruling of suicide was given as cause of death. Turing was instrumental in turning the tides of war, yet his own country shamed and condemned him. Not until December 2013 were the tables turned in his favor, when Alan Turing was granted a posthumous royal pardon, overturning his criminal conviction. It had taken years of petitioning and tens of thousands of signatures

372

Esther 6:1-14

The Imitation Game In 2014 the release of the film The Imitation Game, a thriller loosely based on a biographical work by Andrew Hodges (Alan Turing: The Enigma), introduced American audiences to the victory and defeat, honor and shame, that defined the life of one of the twentieth century’s greatest thinkers. Commercially successful and critically acclaimed, the film nonetheless was criticized for its historical inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of key personalities. Still, the film’s impact should not go unnoticed. A campaign for the pardoning of the 49,000 gay men similarly convicted under the law that led to Turing’s chemical castration followed the film’s release. The call is to honor Alan Turing and to bring justice for others who experienced the same injustice. The petition reads, “Pardon all of the estimated 49,000 men who, like Alan Turing, were convicted of consenting same-sex relations under the British ‘gross indecency’ law (only repealed in 2003), and also all the other men convicted under other UK anti-gay laws” (https://www.change.org/p/demandjustice-for-the-49-000-men-who-were-wrongfully-criminalized-for-being-gay).

to restore honor to his name.11 [The Imitation Game]

It has taken decades as well to honor Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador, who was cut down by an assassin’s bullet as he offered mass on March 24, 1980. Romero was martyred for his efforts to give voice to the voiceless in his native El Salvador. For more than twenty years of his ministry, Romero was recognized as a conservative priest. He was known to question some of the reforms of Vatican II and set himself apart from the social change called for in the Latin American Bishops Conference meeting in Medellin, Columbia, in 1968. Romero’s appointment to Archbishop in 1977 was met with skepticism among socially committed clergy. He caught them by surprise when he emerged as a fearless and outspoken opponent of injustice and defender of the poor. He had seen firsthand the suffering of El Salvador’s landless poor and looked with open eyes at the ever-increasing government attacks on socially committed priests and laypersons. The assassination of his longtime friend Jesuit Father Rutilio Grande, on March 12, 1977, accelerated his calls for justice and his denunciation of the perpetrators of violence. He denounced a civil war fed by abuse and injustice and addressed an open letter to US President Jimmy Carter calling on the United States to cease military aid to a regime that turned guns on its own people. Romero gained a popular following as he championed the cause of the poor. His weekly sermons were broadcast by the archdiocesan radio station. As death squads and torture became the tools of government to weed out leftist revolutionaries, some fueled by a liberation theology that demanded justice for the poor, Romero called on members of the US-backed Salvadorian army to lay down their weapons. Some would say that his last sermon cost him his life, his murder coming the next day. [Final Homily] Following his death, the civil war that racked the nation from 1980–1992 saw countless thousands disappear and an estimated 75,000–80,000 people killed. In the following decades, the Catholic Church distanced itself from liberation theology, and

Esther 6:1-14 Final Homily Closing lines of Archbishop Oscar Romero’s sermon, The Church in the Service of Personal, Community and Transcendent Liberation, Fifth Sunday of Lent, 23 March 1980: . . . I would like to appeal in a special way to the army’s enlisted men, and in particular to the ranks of the Guardia Nacional and the police—those in the barracks. Brothers: you are of part of our own people. You kill your own campesino brothers and sisters. Before an order to kill that a man may give, God’s law must prevail: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to take back your consciences and to obey your consciences rather

373

than the orders of sin. The Church, defender of the rights of God, of the law of God, of human dignity, of the person, cannot remain silent before such abominations. We want the government to understand seriously that reforms are worth nothing if they are stained with so much blood. In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people, whose laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuous, I beg you, I beseech you, I order you in the name of God: Stop the repression! For the full text see the documents of the Romero Trust, http://www.romerotrust.org.uk/homilies/162/162_pdf. pdf. The homily was translated by Michael J. Walsh and is included in Voice of the Voiceless (New York: Orbis Books, 1985.)

conservative Latin American bishops helped Vatican skeptics stall the canonization process for the martyred archbishop. A marked change came with the election of Pope Francis in 2013 following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Talk of the poor and calls for social change has again become a part of papal language, resonating with those who remember and remain committed to a theology of liberation that demands justice. A sign of this transformation came on May 23, 2015, in a beatification ceremony for Archbishop Oscar Romero in San Salvador, with tens of thousands in attendance. (Beatification is the next to last step in the canonization process and sainthood.) The act of honoring a man often criticized by his colleagues and condemned to death by his enemies turns the tables on injustice. Romero knew the risks of challenging oppression and championing the poor of his people. “I do not believe in death without resurrection. If they kill me, I shall rise again in the Salvadoran people,” he once said. For those present in the streets of San Salvador on May 23, representations of the host and wine of the Eucharist during which Romero was killed bore witness to his life and continued presence among the people. Sometimes turning the tables can take a long time, but in the end, justice breaks through.12 In Esther, the honoring of Mordecai and the shaming of Haman signal a turning of the tables in the story. Whether the reversal continues awaits the action of Esther. Will this unlikely heroine be able to gain the upper hand against such a sinister and diabolical enemy? Eunuchs rush in and hurry Haman away. We have reached a page-turning moment, and the hope is that justice prevails.

374

Esther 6:1-14

Notes 1. Again, one of the major differences between the MT and the versions found in the LXX and the AT is causality. The LXX and AT solve this issue by the inclusion of divine causality. One of the distinguishing marks of the MT version of the Esther scroll is silence with regard to divine causality. Here, as throughout the story, happenstance functions. Repeatedly, listeners to this story hear the implied phrase, “And then it so happened.” See the section on “The Alpha Text” in the introduction to the Scroll of Esther for other places where the author of the AT appeals to divine causality to explain certain actions or events. 2. Adele Berlin, Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2001) 61, following the argument of B. Barrick,”The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 101 (1982): 481–503, understands the verb råkab (= “mount and ride,” “ride”) in this instance to mean “mount.” 3. Carey A. Moore, Esther, AB 7B (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 67. 4. Meg. 16a, cited in Jo Carruthers, Esther through the Centuries (Malden MA: Blackwell, 2008) 227–28. 5. See Carruthers, 228, found in Meg. 16a, Tg. Rishon, and other Jewish sources who employ this anecdote. 6. Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 98. 7. Levenson, Esther, 98 offers the various reversals in Esth 6 to substantiate his assessment: “The situation is looking up for the Jews.” 8. Ellen F. Davis and Margaret Adams Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 90. 9. Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, ed. James L. Crenshaw, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991) 250. 10. For example, Moore, Esther, writes, “While the skeptic may well call this series of events ‘luck’ (‘good luck’ for Mordecai, ‘bad’ for Haman), the religious person is more likely to call it ‘Providence’ or ‘the hand of God’” (67). 11. For more information on Alan Turing, see numerous articles of the BBC including Alan Turing: Creator of Modern Computing, http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/ z8bgr82 and Alan Turing – A Short Biography by Andrew Hodges at http://www.turing. org.uk/publications/dnb.html. For published and unpublished papers as well as correspondence, letters, and biographical material, see The Turing Digital Archive, King’s College, Cambridge, http://www.turingarchive.org/. 12. For coverage of the beatification of Archbishop Oscar Romero, see Jim Yardley and Simon Romero, “Pope’s Focus on Poor Revives Scorned Theology,” and Elisabeth Malkin, “Salvadorans Flock to Beatification of Much-Loved Archbishop,” The New York Times, Sunday, 24 May 2015. A brief synopsis of Romero’s life and influence can be found on the website of the United Nations, “International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims, March 24—Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero,” http://www.un.org/en/events/righttotruthday/romero.shtml (accessed 6 July 2015).

Naming the Enemy Esther 7:1-10 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. (Qoh/Eccl 6:4) Esther 7 is high drama as the text returns to Esther’s plot to save the Jews. The chapter opens with a party and ends with an execution. Characters switch places and roles reverse. Esther singles out Haman, naming him as the enemy. The party is abruptly over—“Party Over!” (7:1-6). Verses 7-10 operate from another angle, when the enemy crosses the line and onlookers can no longer look the other way. The king moves in and out of the chapter at the most untimely yet fortunate moments, adding to the inebriated mayhem that in the end abets the unraveling of Haman’s power and signals his demise. For a third time a chapter ends with one or more characters vanishing from the story: Vashti, chapter 1; Bigthan and Teresh, chapter 2; Haman, chapter 7. Haman faces public execution as they “Hang Him High” (7:7-10).

COMMENTARY Party Over! 7:1-6

The first six verses of the chapter offer a key to understanding the scroll of Esther: there is power that comes with the naming of the enemy. That power comes with great risk, even the risk of death, but in the end, naming the enemy gives power to the powerless. Esther 7:1 picks up immediately with the closing of 6:14. If the eunuchs are present, the narrator does not mention them. Only the king and Haman arrive to party with Queen Esther. The verb employed here is šåtåh, meaning “drink,” which is literally what Haman and Ahasuerus have come to do. Drinking together is nothing new for these two. When the decree was sent out for the annihilation of the Jews, they sat down to drink together (3:15). This time Queen Esther joins them. The text is careful to use her title, “The Queen.” The

376

Esther 7:1-10

title validates the status of Esther as Ahasuerus’s queen, and she charms Haman, who openly relishes his position and proximity to the king and queen (5:12). On this occasion, he and the king are seemingly on equal footing, in the sense that they are both invited guests of the queen. The verse itself is comical. The formality of the text makes it sound as if they are there for tea. Yet they have come to drink, which leaves us wondering if this is to be another drunken bash or a two-drink-limit business cocktail party. However long the drinking party was intended, it carries over to a second day. Unlike with the king’s parties, there are no descriptions of the surroundings, decorations, or drinking objects (1:6-7). The propaganda of empire that promotes the illusion of well-being through displays of power and wealth is not mentioned. The same was true for Vashti’s party for the women (1:9) and Esther’s first banquet with the king and Haman (5:1-7). Women are the adornments for men, as the calling for Vashti to appear before a crowd of drunken revelers in 1:11 and the polishing of the virgins in Esther 2 attest. Nor is there mention of conversation—until the second day. In a story where timing is everything, Esther wisely waits for the right time, the right setting, and the right audience. She has designed events within the realm of her influence. By creating a “delay of game” when the king offered to grant her petition at the first party (5:6-7), Esther has kept the king within reach but at arm’s length. In a clever ploy, Esther keeps the king interested while testing the waters as to how far she can go each time. [Forward/ Retreat: Engaging Power]

With her guests now drinking into a second day, the advantage of time is on Esther’s side. She does not want too many days to pass, knowing what can happen as it did during the story’s second party, when the king was “merry with wine” and started making demands (1:10-11). There is a delicate balancing act between serving a little wine and serving too much! Likewise, female prudence is needed to counter male rashness. All the rushing around in the story heightens a sense of restless male energy that has the potential to become reckless. Even Mordecai had pushed her to act, and to act now with his threat of what would happen to her if she did not take up the cause of her people, the Jews (4:8, 13-14). Esther’s own sense of timing created a three-day buffer zone, allowing calmer heads to reign (4:16–5:1). Through careful construction, she manages to have the king and Haman on her turf and under her hospitality for what looks to be an open-ended period of time. As readers of the story, we may wonder what her strategy is, but all seems to be going as planned. This is her party and they are her

Esther 7:1-10 Empire Propaganda: The Golden Roof The narrative of Esther resonates with the opulence and grandeur of the imperial court of the king of Persia. Its massive architecture and imposing design supported the propaganda of a wealthy and indestructible empire. A visitor to the Golden Roof (Goldene Dachl) in the medieval old town of Innsbruck, Austria, is able to imagine a similar attempt to portray such stability in a fragile empire. A part of the early fifteenth-century residence built by Archduke Friedrich IV to house the Tyrolean sovereigns, the Golden Roof is a magnificent three-storied oriel designed by Nikolaus Thüring the Elder on the occasion of Emperor Maximilian I’s marriage to Bianca Maria Sforza of Milan in 1494 and completed in 1500. Designed to serve as a royal box for viewing tournaments, games, and festivities in the square below, the Golden Roof also functioned politically as well to further the propaganda of empire. The oriel is decorated in sculpted reliefs and mural paintings. Six sculpted coats of arms representing Maximilian’s territories adorn the front of the first-floor balustrade. They are the emblems of Austria and Hungary, the double-headed eagle of the Holy Roman Empire, the German kingdom, Burgundy, and Milan. Frescoes showing two knights bearing heraldic flags represent the Habsburg Empire (which is the family of Maximilian) and Tyrol. The second-floor reliefs are more personal to Maximilian, but like the coats of arms below, they also carry political overtones. The two center reliefs depict the emperor. The one on the left shows the emperor with his second wife Bianca Maria Sforza holding an apple, perhaps an award to a contestant in a tournament pictured below her. On her right is his first wife, Maria of Burgundy, who died in a riding accident in 1482. One could interpret her inclusion as a tribute of the king’s love or as a political statement that the territory gained through his first marriage was to remain in his control.

Forward/Retreat: Engaging Power Much has been written about Esther’s handling of the task that was given to her. Is she naïve or playing coy? Is she the story’s hero or cast as a supporting character who merely does what she is told? One might see her interplay with Ahasuerus as a sensual dance. She wines and dines him until she gets the response she wants. One might more correctly see her as a brilliant strategist, in a move forward—draw back, move forward—draw back, engaging unilateral power that she must manipulate rather than overwhelm. She steps

377

The right center relief depicts Maximilian between two figures, his court jester and his chancellor. Flanking reliefs depict Moorish dancers engaged in acrobatic feats popular at the time. More than 2,600 gold-plated copper tiles decorate the roof, the effect brilliant. Together with the coats of arms, the golden roof stood as an architectural status symbol of the wealth and power of Maximilian and the Habsburg Empire. Such a display masked the discord and struggle over conquered land and disputed alliances. It furthered a “brand” of economic and political well-being. Such displays are reminiscent of the story’s setting in Esther. The author places her into the seat of one of the wealthiest and most powerful, yet fragile, empires in history. The opulence is tangible, but the structures of power are not fully in control or predictable. Within this massive setting of affluence, aristocratic arrogance, and brittle power moves, Esther gains the upper hand. The focus has narrowed exclusively to the power between herself and Haman, the personification of the empire’s propaganda of inviolable sovereignty over the fates of its subjects.

The Golden Roof with reliefs showing wives Bianca Maria Sforza of Milan and Mary of Burgundy. The reliefs on the oriel are replicas. The originals are housed in Landesmuseum, Innsbruck, Austria. (Credit: Kandy QueenSutherland)

forward before the king and invites him and Haman to dinner (5:4). She does not press too quickly, however, retreating from immediate challenge. Instead, she invites the two to a second dinner (5:8). Once the king insists on giving her what she wants, Esther steps forward again, this time naming Haman as the enemy (7:6). Shrewdly, she again steps back, keeping silent when Ahasuerus assumes Haman to be attacking her (7:8). She then attacks in 8:3 with tears and pleas, a use of female strength, not weakness. (See Connections, “Living with the Enemy” in Esth 2:19-23.)

378

Esther 7:1-10

guests. Still, Esther waits for Ahasuerus to speak first, observing a male-female protocol that is true to its Persian setting and to gender expectations in a Second Temple world. [Women’s Rights] [Women in Persian Judah] Sure enough and true to character, Ahasuerus pops the question. In contrast to its normal fast pace, the narrative slows down at this point. In words almost identical to 5:6, the king asks Esther what she wants and promises for the third time that she can have it (cf. 5:3). He addresses her as Queen Esther. He asks her to name her wish (š∂åh) defines Haman, and the plan he devised was calculated and cold-blooded. She is begging the king to get involved. Naming Haman as the Agagite and the Jews as his enemy extends the enmity farther back than even the king knows (see 3:1; 8:5; [Haman]). Part of the story’s plot, as the unfolding of the second audience reveals, is that the law is irrevocable. Esther’s pleading may also represent the need for the king to go beyond normal legalities and revoke it anyway. Esther 8:4 is a shortened version of 5:2, when Ahasuerus extended the golden scepter to Esther the first time. The differences are important. Most important, nothing has been said to indicate Ahasuerus’s reaction to the scene unfolding before him. In 5:2, the king saw Queen Esther and she found his favor instantly. No such indication is offered here, although the extension of the scepter is a positive sign. The presumption is that the king will hear what she has to say, but he does not ask her request or promise to fulfill it as he did in 5:3, 6; and 7:2. It would seem that in the king’s mind, as 8:7 shows, he has fulfilled Esther’s request and the matter is over. The sense of 8:5 is that Esther recognizes the king’s aloofness. He has been, to this point, mute. She takes nothing for granted, seeking instead to reconnect him to her and thereby to her cause—the salvation of the Jews. Four phrases demonstrate her efforts: “if it pleases the king”; “if I have won his favor”; “[if ] the thing seems right before the king”; “[if ] I have his approval.”

Esther 8:1-17

425

The opening phrase, “if it pleases the king,” was used by Haman when he sought the king’s support for the decree to destroy the Jews (3:9). Esther used the phrase in 5:4 when she invited the king and Haman to her first dinner party. Esther’s Request She coupled it with the second phrase, Xerxes extends his ring to Mordecai, as Esther pleads with him “if I have won his favor,” in 5:8 when and a scribe records. she invited the king and Haman to the second party, and then again in 7:3 when she asked for her life and for the lives of her people. The king is referenced in the third person; the language is deferential and ingratiating. 2 The king chose Esther over Haman, but she is making no assumptions. As noted above, the first two of the four phrases in Esther’s approach to Ahasuerus are standard lines. The king and readers are hearing lines three and four for the first time. The verb kåš∑r means “to be proper in someone’s view,” and its subject is hadåbår, “the word” or “the thing.”3 The sense of the phrase is, “if the king thinks what she is proposing seems proper or advantageous to him.” Of course, at this point no one knows what the “word” or “thing” is since Esther has not revealed her plan. There is, however, a hint in her words that what she is proposing is improper. She is, after all, interjecting herself into the Matthijs Pool (1676–1732). “Esther’s Request,” Taferelen der voornaamste geschiedenissen van het Oude en Nieuwe Testament en andere boeken, bij de official operations of the kingdom, heilige schrift gevoegt. 1728. Engraving. (Credit: Courtesy of the Pitts Theology as her impending request will show. Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University) Added to her argument is the final opening phrase, “and [if ] I am good in his eyes.” In other words, if the king likes her plan and likes her, then he will surely respond in the affirmative. Interestingly, Esther’s petition solicits the king’s approval based on what would be advantageous to him. Her previous tactic to win the king’s favor argued from what would be a loss or disadvantage to him (7:3-4). Esther builds a case for why the king should support her proposal before she tells him her plan. She rests her position on his judgment, or at least his interest in what is proper, and his interest in her. She interweaves how she knows the king regards her with

426

Esther 8:1-17

the idea she is about to propose. Literally, “if (my idea) pleases you, and if I please you, the idea is good, and I look good to you” (author’s translation). The last phrase, w∂†ôbâ înåyw, is the lynchpin, adding a bit of levity and flirtatiousness to her tears. She always wins his favor and certainly looks “good in his eyes.” Esther is banking on the king’s past reactions to her now! With the foundation laid for Ahasuerus to give a positive response, Esther states her request. She wants dispatches to be written (yikkåt∑b) to retract (vb. šûb, turn back) Haman’s orders to annihilate the Jews throughout the king’s provinces. The cleverness of her request is seen in the passive form of kåtab, “let be written.” The king does not have to write anything himself, rather Esther asks that he allow letters or missives (s∂pårîm) to be written to nullify Haman’s letters. Further, Esther makes clear that the plot against the Jews was Haman’s and only Haman’s idea. No one else and especially not the king is identified as culpable. The king remains unscathed, even as readers know that Haman’s plot could not exist without the full authorization of the king. Indeed, the king’s fingerprints are all over the pogrom. Haman spoke the words, but all was done in the name of King Ahasuerus, the document written and sealed with the king’s ring (3:10-12). Esther is negotiating power very, very carefully. She may be the woman whom the text says “Ahasuerus loved” (2:17), but Haman was the king’s drinking buddy and right-hand Avenging Old Wrongs man. Challenging the king’s authority Linda Day’s explanation of Haman’s symbolic role or even the pretense of such a challenge as the personification of an historical enmity is helpful: does not end well. Witness the vanishing of Vashti (1:19-21), the execution of the Haman’s crime is twofold: he is guilty both because would-be assassins (2:23), and the impaleof his ancestry and because of what he did. Esther ment of Haman (7:10). implicates Haman not solely for his decree, but also The full naming of Haman as “the son for being part of an ancient tradition of enmity. This of Hammedatha the Agagite” takes us genealogical emphasis makes one wonder how much of Esther’s and the Jewish community’s later back to the entrance of Haman into the violence is a response to Haman himself and how story (3:1) and raises the specter that much a result of a desire to avenge old wrongs. more is at stake than one man’s enmity against the Jews. [Avenging Old Wrongs] One Linda M. Day, Esther, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005) 133. might rightly think of this naming as Haman’s obituary. Haman proved to be a cog in the wheel of his own killing machine. He is eliminated, but his invention of death for the Jews rolls on. The opening words of 8:6 (kî , “but that was overturned”) 9:6-10—Battle report: 500 killed in Shushan and the Jews gain power over Ten sons of Haman killed “But they did not touch the plunder,” v. 10b their foes. 9:11-15—Battle report to king The story could end here. The Dialogue: Esther’s Request, vv. 12b-13 tension created by the nine- Second day of fighting month buildup to this day is Impale Haman’s ten sons broken immediately. The sus- King’s orders, v. 14 pense created by the issuance of Haman’s sons are impaled two edicts, the edict of Haman Jews fight on 14 Adar; 300 killed “But they did not touch the plunder,” v. 15b to destroy the Jews (3:13-14) 9:16-20—Etiology and the edict of Mordecai for 13 Adar; 75,000 killed in provinces the Jews to fight back (8:11-13), “But they did not touch the plunder,” v. 16b collapses into only one edict of 14 Adar, country Jews rested; feasting and merrymaking the king in verse 1 (dåtô, “his 15 Adar, city Jews rested; feasting and merrymaking A “Good Day” in the provinces, v. 19 edict”), the edict to destroy the Events recorded by Mordecai, v. 20 Jews. The verse makes clear that 9:20-28—Mordecai’s Letter the Jews have enemies (