Esther 6:13 and a "Biblical Theology" of the Bible's Least Appreciated Book

I am grateful that the latest issue of JETS contains my second article on the book of Esther:

Paul A. Himes, "A Touch of Wisdom: The Literary Role of Esther 6:13 in Bridging to a Biblical Theology of Scripture's Least 'Theological' Book," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 68, no. 3 (2025): 495–507. 

Anybody wishing for a PDF copy may email me at phimes@gmail.com.

The paper originally received a split decision with an invitation to "revise-and-resubmit," but ironically a comment by the peer-reviewer who had not recommended publication spurred me on to what was almost a total rewrite (except for the first couple pages), which was then recommended for publication by the next two reviewers.

Here is the abstract: 

“The lack of constructive discussion in Old Testament theologies on the book of Esther is lamentable yet understandable, given its status as the only canonical book not to mention God. Those few scholars who discuss Esther theologically generally focus on the theme of hidden sovereignty or the virtues or vices of its characters, while a few also note the significance of the survival of the Jewish people. In support of that latter theme, this article proposes that the theological center of the book can be found in Esther 6:13b, a sentence that stands out both in its intense alliteration and in the odd relabeling of Haman’s “friends” as “wise men.” Esther 6:13 deliberately evokes echoes of sapiential material to put a theological spin on the story, namely, that those seeking to destroy the Jewish people will fall into the pit that they themselves have dug. This article focuses on how Esther 6:13 within its literary context can legitimately be said to fashion a biblical theology for the book with practical significance even today.”

Genocide in Esther? My Response in JSOT to a Recent Attempt to Defend Haman (and my first ever tier-1 article!)

This post modified on 8/11/2026, and shortened somewhat.

**Note that I have personally corresponded via email with the author of the original article and do not believe that he meant to be antisemitic or cause grief to any particular people group. All of us, myself included, have written stuff that we could have phrased differently, and we can all learn and improve from that.**

The Lord has a sense of humor, or at least irony. I am a New Testament specialist, with multiple academic publications on 1 Peter, yet I have striven in vain to get published in a tier-1 journal! And now, suddenly, I have an article in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament on Esther, which until a few years ago was my least favorite book of the Bible, if having a "least favorite book" is not heretical for somebody committed to the inerrancy of all 66 books! (Click here to see the article and abstract on JSOT's website; email me personally at phimes@gmail.com if you would like a copy).

Here is the abstract:

"A 2021 article in HTS Teologiese Studies advances the thesis that in the book of Esther ‘lawlessness by the Jewish diaspora community triggered genocide in the Persian Empire’ and that ‘Jews provoked the Persian authorities by disobeying the laws of the land’. Much of that article is devoted to a defense of Haman in responding to what the author portrays as the ‘lawlessness’ of the Jewish diaspora community. This article offers a three-fold response: (1) a critical analysis of both Haman and his accusation of ‘lawlessness’ against the Jewish diaspora minority, along with that article’s affirmation of that lawlessness; (2) a critique of that article’s accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Jewish diaspora community along with a discussion of the alleged violent vengeance of that same community vis-à-vis Esther 8–9; (3) a warning that the attempted vindication of Haman is nothing new, but possesses a disturbing Wirkungsgeschichte."

For the record, one of the anonymous peer-reviewers of my article for JSOT spoke of "the almost explicit antisemitism" in the HTS article. It is indeed extremely troubling.

The journey to this, my first and so far only tier-1 publication, is bizarre. In 2021, and article was published about the book of Esther in HTS Teologiese Studies. (click here to read this open access article). I was aware of this article by 2022, and was "stirred up," so to speak, but did not at first commit to a course of action until a guest speaker at our college spoke on the plight throughout history of the Jewish people. I wrote the article and initially sent it to a different journal, which was not interested in it (no peer review), and after their response sent it in to JSOT. I received a "heavy revision" decision. Both initial peer-reviewers were overall favorable (though one of them wondered if the article really needed to be written), but both had some good recommendations for revision, which I almost completely implemented. The third reviewer, after revision, was also favorable, and had just a few more suggestions, which I implemented. The process only took 2 months from submission of the paper to the decision to "heavily revise," and then it took 9 months for revision and publication (most of that was the time I needed to revise).

A closing thought: JSOT, of course, does not charge its authors for publication. Almost no respectable journal does this in biblical studies (I can't speak for journals in other disciplines)! I cannot help but wonder if the extremely high price HTS charges its authors (click here to see their "Article Processing Charge"), combined with the fact that they are putting out an extremely high number of digital articles per issue (click here to see the list of 100+ articles they published in vol. 77 issue 4), might cause some issues. A thought for further discussion.

Rethinking Esther

**Note: a decade after the publication of this post, and two published journal articles later, I am no longer in total agreement with what I wrote below (but I'll keep it hear in case anybody wants to compare it with what I wrote more recently).** 8/11/2026.

The discussion below does not question the divine inspiration, the accuracy, or the place in the canon of the book of Esther. Indeed, as Randall Bush points out in his Bulletin for Biblical Research article (vol. 8, 1998), it is a shame that Esther has by-and-large been neglected (click here to read Bush's article). What I'm asking below is not whether Esther belongs in the Bible and in our pulpit, but whether or not it has more in common with Judges than Joshua--i.e., not "look at the awesome faith-filled hero/heroine" but rather "God saving Israel in spite of her disloyalty to the Torah." Much of my thinking in this post was stimulated by the excellent An Old Testament Theology by Bruce Waltke and Charles Yu, though I do not quote or paraphrase from it directly. In addition, I draw some from the fascinating article by Ronald W. Pierce, "The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?" also in Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 2 (1992). Click here to read Pierce's article.

Without a doubt (lack of direct mention notwithstanding), the hand of God is evident throughout Esther. Bush, in his BBR article puts it best: "The book nonetheless predicates the providence of God, as does the rest of the OT, for the deliverance of the Jews is effected not only by the loyalty of Mordecai and the courage of Esther but also by the series of truly remarkable and dramatic coincidences with which the story abounds" (Bush, 49). 

Yet as to the human protagonists, evangelical Christians generally have a "rosy" view of queen Esther--heroine, faith-filled, persevering in the midst of adversity, savior of her people, etc. Indeed, the courage of both her and Mordecai cannot be disputed. Yet doubts persist, and these doubts persist not because some of us are evil revisionists, asking with forked tongues "Has God really said?" Rather, these doubts persist because of the centrality of the Torah in Old Testament theology. In other words, when Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the king's meat, they do so because of their loyalty to the Torah and the God who wrote it. The problem with Esther, then, is first and foremost that she violates the Torah, and this is the center of the wheel around which the entire plot revolves around.

To be clear, Haman is a villain of horrible proportions (though I doubt he was seeking divine worship when he demanded others bow to him)--seeking the genocide of an entire race puts him on a level with Hitler and other modern tyrants. Furthermore, clearly the Jewish people are the "good guys" [and gals] of the plot--we are meant to root for them, and we rightfully breathe a sigh of relief when they are delivered.

However, this is no different from the book of Judges (it's not as if a reader/listener during the first century AD would be rooting against the people of Israel in Judges!). Yet the protagonists in Judges (with the exception of Deborah), at least those with an extended section, are not role models! (For any pastors reading--please, someday preach the "second half" of the Gideon story; it's just as much inspired as the first half, but greatly neglected). The point, then, is this: the author can make a negative point about the protagonists while still making a positive point about the graciousness of God.

This, indeed, would seem to me what is happening in Esther. As  Pierce states in his BBR article, "It is not the book of Esther that is secular, but its characters" (page 77). That Esther is secular, or at least does not revere the Torah, is seen in the fact that she is violating it by marrying a pagan--remember, this is the very point that was such a big deal at the end of Ezra and Nehemiah! 

It is, of course, possible that Esther was dragged away against her will and had no choice in the matter, in which case she is a victim and blameless in this matter. While this is possible, it does not follow from the tone of the narrative (see Pierce, 83-84). Furthermore, I firmly believe that most pious Jews, men and women, would have said, "It is better to die (and be tortured) than to violate the Torah" (This is the whole point of 4 Maccabees, after all!) I need not point out that "marrying a non-believer" is hardly a minor issue in the Torah (remember: the issue was never inter-racial marriage, but inter-"faith" marriage. I.e., as seen with Moses, Boaz, etc., marrying somebody of a different ethnicity, nationality, or skin color is not a problem if they are a believer in the one true God. Marrying somebody who is not a believer is a huge deal, however).

Consequently, the divinely-inspired point of Esther is not "may our daughters be like that faith-filled heroine [who just so happens to be named after the Babylonian goddess of love, Ishtar]," but rather, "God rescues the Jewish race in spite of their failure to honor him; behold the graciousness of God!" I close with this excellent quote from Pierce:
"Sometimes it is easy to take as normative situations that in fact require immediate and radical change. So it was with the secular direction in which the Jewish people were heading at this time in their history. The events in the Book of Esther are carefully structured so as to communicate not only such a failure on the part of Esther and Mordecai, but also the providential activity meant to shake them from their lethargy and to make them more fully aware of their calling as God's people" (Pierce, 89).