Living Hope

1 Peter 1:1-12

Introduction (1:1-2)

Most of the questions that we bring to the study of any book are answered in the first few verses of 1 Peter. Immediately, the author identifies himself as Peter, the apostle of Christ. As we understand this title, the reference must be to that Peter with which we are all so familiar. There are issues, however, which make some scholars wonder if Peter could be the true author of this letter. Some of these involve matters of exegesis that are rather technical, but any serious student of the book must note that it contains no personal references to Jesus, and this seems odd given Peter’s very close relationship with our Lord. However, when we are given the witness of the scripture itself that it was written by Peter, it is hard to imagine what argument we might accept to the contrary.

The original audience of the letter is also mentioned right away: Peter is writing to a people dispersed (NIV: scattered) throughout the world. The Greek word diaspora is used to refer the the Jews who were scattered abroad since the Babylonian exile (John 7:35; James 1:1) but Peter is writing to Christians who were, as we are, aliens in this world, very far from home (John 17:15-21).

Peter identifies us as the chosen – chosen through the foreknowledge of God, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Yet we are chosen for obedience, and this is a very interesting juxtaposition of ideas: God’s choice to submit himself for our salvation, and our choice to submit ourselves to that salvation.

There are times when our focus is on God and we feel more like visitors than aliens. Conversely, there are times when we are so focused on this world that we have the mistaken idea that we belong. But there are other times when the things of this world seem to weigh us down as much as our faith would lift us up. Peter writes to us in those times, to tell us how to live in this world but obedient to Christ.

Living Hope (1:3-9)

This passage is a capsule of the letter, and is packed with ideas. Central among them is the tension between the trials of this world and the promise of the next. We always want to know why we suffer these trials, and we might understand Peter to say that they come to prove our faith – that this world is a test which we may pass or fail. But we must examine this theory in light of Peter’s earlier observation that God chose us, and has foreknown our response. What could we prove to God?

On either side of this conflict, Peter mentions hope and faith and we must be careful to note the difference. Faith, he explains quite simply: though we do not see him, we love him. Similarly, the writer of Hebrews says that, though we do not see this world as it should be, we do see Jesus, crowned with glory and honor (Hebrews 2:8b-9). This is faith. It is not a fanciful acceptance of what cannot be proved, but faith is proof itself. It is personal proof, a proof that may not be obtained through scientific method, but is revealed by God (Matthew 16:15-17).

And through faith we have hope. In our vernacular, hope is a weak idea. If I were to say that I hope the vase will not fall, you would understand that it might. If I were to say that I hope to get to your request next week, you would understand that I might not get to it at all. This feeble idea is far from the hope expressed in this passage. This hope is the certainty of a promise already fulfilled – an inheritance kept in heaven for us, that can never perish, spoil, or fade. Faith has no expectation, but submits to the will of God (Daniel 3:16-18; Luke 22:41-42). Hope looks forward to the complete fulfillment of the promise of God (2 Chronicles 7:14; John 3:16).

Things into which Angels Long to Look (1:10-12)

We children of the New Testament have a tendency to look upon the Old as a different plan for a different time, which was eclipsed and superseded by the message of Christ, and which only has lasting importance in the extent to which it foretells the birth and death of Christ. We might be shaken in this opinion, however, if we carefully considered the parable of “Poor Man Lazarus” and the importance it places on the words of the prophets (Luke 16:27-31).

Peter understood this importance, and having set our sights on the future promise, now takes us back to the origins of prophecy, which he says is a work of the Spirit of Christ. This is a mystery, that God has established our salvation from before time itself, and has secured that salvation until all else will pass away. It is a mystery into which even the angels long to look.

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory… But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:7,9 KJV)

The Thirteenth Day of the Twelfth Month

Esther Chapters 8-10

Write Another Decree (8:1-18)

The storyteller of Esther was a master of sustaining our interest in the story. It was in Chapter 3 that the date of the conflict was set (3:7) and since then the story has taken us through a conflict of sorts between Esther and Mordecai, then through Esther’s days of preparation, then through not one, but two banquets to what might seem the resolution of the story as the villain gets his just desserts.

If we were tricked into thinking that the climax had already been reached, then the ruse might be further enforced by the opening passage of Chapter 8, which has the feel of a postlude, where the good guys get the recognition they deserve. But wait! The villain may have been dispatched, but his evil plan is still in effect. Perhaps the danger to Esther was just as great the second time she came before her king, but the tension does not work as well for us, because we are now sure she will get what she wants. But wait!

The king, never a very affective figure in this story, demurred from Esther’s request on the basis that the edict has already been sent. His argument seems to be an extension of immutable Law of the Medes and Persians alluded to in the disposition of Vashti (1:19). In one of the many congruences between Esther and Daniel, this same character of the laws of Media and Persia is mentioned in Daniel (Daniel 6:1-14) where it is also used to slyly coerce the king to persecute the Jews.

It seems a strange way to run a country – having laws that could not be altered or revoked for perpetuity. It may have been meant to give the king ultimate authority that could never be shaken. But in the stories of Esther and Daniel, of course, it is used to influence and control kings who are themselves weak and ineffectual. In contrast, we know the word of God, which was from the beginning (John 1:1) will not pass away (Luke 21:33) but is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and always accomplishes the intentions of the Lord (Isaiah 55:11).

Even if it had been in the king’s power to alter the edict against the Jews, we get the sense that it was the sort of matter the king thought best left to his advisors while he, as one might assume from his description in Esther, returned to his women and wine. The story is now full of resolving doublets: the authority that was once given to the evil Haman was given to the good Mordecai; as an edict was written and dispatched that condemned the Jews, one was written and dispatched that would save them; Mordecai had been outside the king’s gate in sackcloth and ashes, but found his rightful position in the court, adorned in royal robes and a golden crown; and the Jews who had received the first edict with distress received the second with celebration.

With so much resolution we might expect the story to be over. But wait!

The Thirteenth Day of the Twelfth Month (9:1-32)

In Chapter 9, we finally reach the day of conflict. Even here we are told that Queen Esther extended the conflict, so that the resolution did not come for another day. And what a gruesome resolution it was, with 80,000 dead! We children of the New Testament tend to find the people of the Old to be a fairly bloodthirsty lot. But before we pass judgment on these Jews let us consider two things.

First, while the original edict authorized anyone to take arms against the Jews, to kill the men, women, and children, and to plunder their goods (3:13) the second was written to authorize the Jews to kill anyone who took arms against them threatening the lives of their women and children and plotting to plunder their goods (8:10-11). When we read the second edict this way, we understand that the Jews acted only to defend themselves, their families, and their livelihood.

We must also understand that, while those of us of privilege may be removed from it, in our world there is greater loss of life than ever recorded in the Bible, and the people of the Old Testament would surely be appalled to see the destruction we are able to wield with a single gun, not to mention our weapons of mass destruction.

With the crisis finally over, the Jews instituted the festival of Purim to remember the event. This festival is celebrated with enthusiasm and revelry of a carnival nature. The celebration includes a reading of the book of Esther. For this reason, even before the days of mass publication, many Jewish homes had a copy Esther, which was second in popularity only to the Torah.

Acts of Power and Might (10:1-3)

Finally we come to the postlude, where after telling us that the king imposed a tax on everyone, everywhere, the storyteller finally, grudgingly acknowledges that there may be some good things said about the king in some other place.

The story of Esther is a story well told, in which the course of a kingdom was decided by a single person who had the faith to take the right path and say “If I perish, I perish” (4:16) and in which the active will of God is evident without even being mentioned.

Hang Him on It!

Esther Chapters 5-7

A Gallows Seventy-Five Feet High (5:1-14)

When the hero has struggled valiantly for forty-five minutes, but all hope seems lost as we go into the final commercial break, we know that the hero will be victorious, not only this week, but the next and the next after that. What kind of story would it be if the beautiful queen was refused and all hope was lost? The story is beautifully told and we know that it could not end that badly, but Esther was far from such certainty.

As far as we are able to ascertain, the name “Jew” came from “Judah” which is both the name of a people and a place. Some of the people were returning to the place to reestablish their identity. To the Jews in diaspora this identity was not possible. Those in Jerusalem depended on the promised grace of God to bring them back to their land and back into covenant relationship with him (Jeremiah 3:12-14). But what promise had the Diaspora? With no confidence in the outcome, they came before the king.

Though Esther did not know what the outcome would be when she came before the king, she had prepared herself. In the previous chapter we read that this preparation included both private and communal fasting. Here we read that with the hope of a favorable reception, she had prepared a banquet for Xerxes and Haman. The comic portrayal of a king lead by his lusts and the suggestion of the moment continues as the king calls eagerly for Haman to be brought.

We might understand why Esther would want to bring the king back to the security of her own lodgings before presenting her petition, but why should she delay again? Whatever her reason might have been, it gave the storyteller an opportunity to heighten the suspense and underscore the contrast between the measured response of Esther and the wildly incongruous rage of Haman. A gallows has to have a certain hight to be effective, but seventy-five feet is somewhat excessive.

Haman Thought to Himself (6:1-14)

What are the consequences of our actions? Are the events that befall us in any way related to our actions and intentions? The characters and events in the story seem designed to make us ask these and similar questions. And because it is a Bible story, we must wonder what role God plays in the ups and downs of our lives.

In this chapter especially, Haman reminds us of ourselves. If there is an opportunity for gain, why should I not avail myself of it? If someone is to be honored, why should it not be me? Who is more deserving than me? But the story of Haman reminds us that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) and proves the mysterious principal that the first shall be last (Matthew 20:16; Luke 14:7-11).

At this point in the story, Mordecai, who represents the Jewish race, remained in grave danger from Haman, who represents all those who would threaten the people of God. But Haman’s wife reminds us of the silent character in the story. Whatever our intentions may be, whatever we have done, whatever our situation may be, God is ready to redeem us (Isaiah 35:3-4).

Hang Him on It! (7:1-10)

In the previous chapter, the fate of Mordecai and the other Jews remained suspended. Though at the end of this chapter the issue of the king’s edict remains unresolved, it is here that the plot finally turns completely. Even in this critical passage the story continues to show the king as a fickle, comical character, who did not hesitate to give the Jews into Haman’s hands until it was revealed to be a threat to his favorite queen, and who then was so enraged that he left his wine on the table!

The king portrays for us the powers of this world that may in one moment be for us, and in the next against us. As Haman exits the story, he reminds us finally that the only plans are the plans of God (Luke 12:16-21).

The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. (Proverbs 16:9 NASB)

If I Perish, I Perish

Esther Chapters 3&4

Mordecai Would Not Kneel Down (3:1-4)

The book of Esther is full of allusions to Israel’s history. The mention here that Haman is an Agagite introduces us to another. Like Saul, Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (1 Samuel 9:1-2; Esther 2:5-6). Haman was an Agagite, a descendant of Agag, and it was Saul’s treatment of Agag that doomed his reign (1 Samuel 15). The conflict between Haman and Mordecai is already suggested in the conflict between Agag and Saul.

We may wonder along with his associates why Mordecai would not kneel before Haman. The allusion to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is tempting (Daniel 3:1-16) but there is no indication here of idolatry, and kneeling as a sign of respect was not prohibited by law (Ruth 2:8-10). Did Mordecai simply refuse out of stubbornness? The book of Esther is perhaps purposely vague on this question and others like it.

They Cast the Pur (3:5-15)

Through the book of Esther we are invited to consider the the idea of consequences. We have already read a humorous tale of a queen who refused to appear before her king, an act which the kings advisors saw not only as disrespectful to the king, but dangerous to the very fabric of society. Though we may have been invited to laugh over this mockery of solemn deliberation, we are instantly sobered with Haman’s reaction to Mordecai.

If we knew what motivated Vashti, or Mordecai, or Haman, or even Xerxes, then we could analyze their motivation in the context of the historical setting and learn from this how we might better react in similar circumstances. This is an important approach in many situations, but it is not the purpose of this story. Knowing the consequences, would Vashti or Mordecai or any of the other characters reconsider their decisions? From the point of view of the story, this question does not even arise – what has been done has been done. The question is only where we may go from where we are.

Haman went to the king and, in a very veiled way which sets up later revelation, asks for the authority to eradicate a certain people who did not obey the law of the land. In an act that further exemplifies the extreme nature of his reaction to Mordecai, Haman offers to pay the king 350 tons of silver for the execution of this request. Xerxes is never shown in a positive light in Esther, and here, without any apparent investigation of the situation or any concern for the consequences, he authorized Haman to do as he pleased.

Haman and his advisors had cast a lot to determine the date at which the Jews would be annihilated. The story is that the Festival of Purim (purim is the plural of pur) is named after this very act. But with this act, the storyteller also presents us with an interesting situation. All was ready for the destruction of the Jews, but the alloted date lay almost a year hence. This tension was felt within Susa itself, where revelry, perhaps more fueled by opulence than emotion, turned to bewilderment.

Beg for Mercy (4:1-8)

As we mentioned in the previous lesson, though the audience of Esther is different than Ezra and Nehemiah, the issues they address are very similar, while their focus is very different. The returning exiles sought their future through their past – they were working towards a return to the covenant relationship with God. They had heard the promise of God that he would renew the covenant (Jeremiah 31:3-8) but they had not yet experienced it in their lives. Surely they wondered if the anger of the Lord had been abated and if they would yet be welcomed back into the covenant.

By contrast, the Diaspora remained scattered, as Haman tells us, throughout every town and province of Persia – almost all the known world. Here the ambivalence of Mordecai’s motives is paramount: is there any motive he could have had, any action he could have taken that would have justified the annihilation of the Jews?

The parallels to Jewish history continue to be vivid. The Jews were in diaspora, as they knew, because of their past actions as a nation. But those actions, like Mordecai’s, however good or bad, were in the past. Was there, in their present, some means of salvation? Quite apart from the actions of men, the providence of God used Joseph to bless the people of God in Egypt (Genesis 45:5; 50:20). Esther’s prominence in Persia parallels Joseph’s in Egypt. Could she be an instrument of their salvation?

If I Perish, I Perish (4:9-17)

It is interesting to note that it is only Esther whose motives are questioned. Was her reticence a sign of cowardice? Was it self-preservation? These questions bring into focus the fact that it is only Esther who carefully considers the consequence of her actions.

We must also notice that it is here that the action of God, though still not overtly mentioned, is most strongly suggested. Mordecai had faith that their salvation would come from some quarter, and called to Esther to be an agent of that salvation. Esther asked for communal fasting, though she did not explain that the purpose is communal supplication.

Human analogies never perfectly apply to our relationship with God, and we would not want to compare Xerxes to God. But we may see Esther’s approach to Xerxes as symbolic of the Diaspora’s approach to God. Since we know the end of the story, we might be tempted to gloss over Esther’s faith. Faith does not bring us what we want; faith brings us into alignment with the will of God.

It is Esther who provides the true parallel with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Since we know the end of the story, we may be willing to say it was their faith that brought them out of the fiery furnace, but it was actually their faith that took them in.

If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. (Daniel 3:17-18 KJV)

What Must Be Done to Queen Vashti?

Esther Chapters 1&2

Introduction (1:1-2)

The book of Esther places itself in the reign of Ahasuerus, as the name is given in the KJV and other translations. This is the English transliteration of the Hebrew transliteration of a Persian name. The same name is used in Ezra (Ezra 4:6-7) and there is some confusion as to whether the king is Xerxes or Artaxerxes, which are English transliterations of Greek transliterations of Persian names. But the consensus is that the reference is to Xerxes I.

The events take place in the court of the king at Susa and so, although they would have been roughly contemporary with the events of Ezra and Nehemiah, the focus of the book of Esther is on the Jewish Diaspora, that is, those Jews who remained dispersed throughout the nations of the world.

The author of the book had at least some familiarity with life in the court of Xerxes, so it may have been written shortly after the events it records. However, there are some details that lead us to question the historical accuracy of the book. For example, this passage states that Xerxes ruled over 127 provinces, where historical evidence indicates that the number was no more than 30.

Of course, our concern when reading the Bible is never primarily what it says to us of history, but what it says to us of the word of God. Further, the intent of the author was not primarily to record an historical event, but to present a story of the active will of God with regard to the Diaspora. The power of narrative storytelling is used often in the Bible. We may think, for example, of the story Nathan told David of the rich man who took the poor man’s one ewe lamb (2 Samuel 2:1-7a). The story moved David to great anger, but when Nathan says to David “You are the man!” we find ourselves convicted along with David. This is the power of Biblical narrative.

Esther has been very important to the Jewish faith because of its association with the festival of Purim, at which it is read with reverence and enthusiasm. We will study the text in four sections, but each student is encouraged to experience the book as a whole, reading it in one sitting or hearing it read aloud.

There is another issue which we must consider when we approach Esther. Perhaps more than any other book, we must consider the textual origins of Esther. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Bible produced in the third century, has been extremely influential in Biblical exegesis. In comparison with the Masoretic Text, a collection of Hebrew manuscripts maintained by Jewish rabis, the Esther of the Septuagint is substantially different, largely in its “additions” – passages which are in the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Text.

One affect of these passages is to speak more directly of God’s involvement in the events of the story. As no Hebrew text have been found to support these additional passages, editions from the Vulgate forward have excluded them from the cannon, and they have become a part of the Apocrypha, leaving the canonical Esther as the only book other than the Song of Solomon that makes no explicit mention of the Lord.

As always, while we should not be ignorant of textual issues or other issues regarding the origins of a book, we have the Bible we have. These issues may be of value to us in understanding the text we have, but we must have faith in the process of biblical inspiration, which began with the original authors, has continued through the years of transmission and translations, and is continued with every prayerful reading of the text.

What Must Be Done to Queen Vashti? (1:3-22)

The story begins with an improbably extravagant banquet thrown by the king. Everyone was present, even nobles from the provinces. Everything, including alcohol, was consumed to excess. The author tells us that the king’s motive was to display his wealth and the splendor and glory of his kingdom.

During this feast, but apart from it, Queen Vashti held a banquet for the women. We must first consider the issue of her name. We know from history that Xerxes’ queen was Amestris. There are several explanations for this. One which seems as acceptable as any other is that they are different transliterations of the same name.

That there were no women at the king’s feast is hard to believe. Instead, we should understand that it was the noblewomen who dined with Vashti, and at the king’s table were what we might call serving women. It may be that it was this situation which Vashti did not wish to enter, or it may be that she resented the idea of being displayed as yet another piece of property. In any case, the majesty of the proceedings came to a complete halt when it became evident that the king could not even control his queen.

With comedic impotency, the king, who had sent seven eunuchs to fetch one queen called seven lawyers to determine what might be done with her. With this episode, the storyteller has established the important themes of the story.

1. The king is continually displayed with extravagant ineffectualness.

2. The unexpected consequence of the queen’s choice foreshadows the consequences of Mordecai’s choice.

3. The extreme reaction to Vashti’s defiance precedes Haman’s reaction to Mordecai.

4. The mention of the law of the Medes and Persians is also important to later developments.

5. The fall of Vashti sets the stage for the rise of Esther.

The King Was Attracted to Esther (2:1-18)

When the king found himself depressed after Vashti’s dismissal, the “young men” around him made a suggestion that quickened his interest. Though the story may sound as charming and innocuous as Cinderella, the fate of the young women in this story is hardly the same. Certainly the plight of these women, taken from their homes against their will and carried off to the court of the king, is intended to parallel the condition of the Jews exiled in Persia.

Here we are introduced to a Jew named Mordecai and his adopted daughter Hadassah, whose Persian name was Esther. After unbelievably elaborate preparation, Esther came before the king and was selected as his new queen. As banquets are used to mark all important points of the story, a banquet is given in honor of the new queen.

Mordecai Found Out about the Plot (2:19-23)

We do not know what sort of position Mordecai held, but he must have had at least some recognition in the area around the court which allowed him to bide his time at the gates and occasionally communicate with Queen Esther. We know very little about the plot against Xerxes, or how Mordecai came to know of it. The Apocryphal account has it that Mordecai was warned in a dream of the plot, but the canonical account, always absent of any explicit mention of the action of God, tells us only that Mordecai discovered the plot.

The story of Esther is eloquently told, with all its parts interacting with the others. This action of Mordecai’s and the annals of the king will feature prominently as the story continues.