moral ambiguity in Hebrew Bible Esther 1-10. (editing of draft)

Name

Professor

Course

Date

Moral Ambiguity in the Book of Esther

One of the moral ambiguities which come out in the story of Esther concerns the way Esther responded to how the enemies of the Jews were to be treated. A close reading of chapter nine shows that the King had issued an edict reversing his earlier law that Jews were to be killed. Consequently, the governors of the provinces and all the land officials were only willing to help the Jews gain control over their enemies. However, while it makes sense that on the 13th day, the Jews mobilized themselves to fight against their enemies. A moral ambiguity arises in Esther's request to the King to have the Jews in Susa do the same to their enemies. The reason for this is because Esther chapter nine, verse six states that "In Susa, the citadel the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men."[endnoteRef:1] The additional verses also show that the Jews killed Haman's ten sons, who were the enemy of the Jews. Therefore, it becomes morally ambiguous for Esther to ask the King to allow the Jews on Susa to be allowed to carry the same edict on the 14th day. One of the key questions that arise from this situation is, was Esther vengeful, or was she being instructed by Morcedai, or did she want to vanquish the Jews' enemies? [1: Esther 9:6]

Thus, the situation is morally ambiguous because the bible always emphasizes the need to extend love and mercy to our enemies. Furthermore, even though the Jews lived in warlike periods, it makes sense for the Jews to mobilize themselves to attack on 13th Adar. Furthermore, their victory on that day was comprehensive since they were able to kill Haman's sons, who had issued the edict that Jews were to be exterminated from the land. Besides, the Jews were being protected by the governors, satraps, and the King's officials were aiding the jews. However, even after the comprehensive victory, Esther still requests the King to have the same edict extended to Susa. This can be shown in her request in chapter nine verse thirteen, where Esther replied, "If the king is so inclined, let the Jews who are in Susa be permitted to act tomorrow also according to today's law, and let them hang the ten sons of Haman on the gallows."[endnoteRef:2] Consequently, on the 14th day, the Jews would go ahead and kill another 300 people in Susa. The situation shows that Esther was more inclined to act out of revenge and that she was unwilling to be just, even though the King was willing to be just in the way he disseminated justice in his land. [2: Esther 9:13]

One of the things that come out in Esther's request, especially when she asks for Haman sons, who had already been killed, to be hanged, is her vengeful nature. It becomes morally ambiguous that an individual who is supposed to be honorable and protect all her subjects' rights, since she was a queen to all the people in the kingdom of Persia, and not to jews alone, would be willing to extend her savagery to such a level. Even though it can be argued that she wanted to ensure that the Jews vanquished all the enemies when she requested for the Jews in Susa to extend the rampage on 14th Adar still, it does not make logical sense to have the sons of Haman hanged at the gallows after they had been killed. Her actions and efforts illustrate her vengeful nature and show that she was willing to act unjustly towards individuals she perceived to be her enemies. What makes the situation ambiguous is that there are no direct divine commands that she ought to do this. Consequently, unlike in Exodus, where God commanded the Israelites to drive out the local populations in areas they move into, no divine commands can be seen in how Esther carries out her plan. It is only shown that she uses her wit and influence to ensure that the people plotting against members of her race come to an untimely end. Her requests indicate unjust behavior and show that she has an excessive need to exact revenge on people she feels have wronged the Jewish race.

Therefore, Esther seems to act unjustly since she is the impetus behind the decision to have the jews fight their enemies on an additional day in Susa. Furthermore, she is the one clamouring for the public humiliation of the sons of Haman, asking that they be hanged publicly even after they have been killed. This is despite her people having been granted the reprieve to fight off against their enemies and the earlier edict that ordered their killings being reversed. Furthermore, even though Morcedai has risen to occupy the position that Haman previously held in the kingdom, it seems cantankerous that Esther is only willing to extend vengeance instead of extending grace and favor to the enemies of the Jews in the kingdom. It seems out of character that Esther would be willing to go to these lengths, yet she was a humble girl that had been picked to become queen. It raises key questions on whether power had corrupted Esther to the point where she had forgotten that extending mercy and grace is an important attribute of the God of Israel. Furthermore, it seems ambiguous that Esther was willing to humiliate the enemies of Jews, even though her people had found favor in the King's eyes.