Ecclesiastes Essay part 4

Structure and message

Commentators seem unable to interpret the relationship between structure and message in Ecclesiastes far beyond identifying separate voices and significant words.[1] Critics agree that the frame narrator provides an introductory summary to the book (1:1-11[2]), a concluding epilogue (12:8-14[3]), and a lone verse in the centre of the book (7:27a[4]). De Jong further identifies an alternating pattern of observation and instruction[5] in the core. This reader finds a loose extended chiastic (ring) structure in Ecclesiastes, of which the frame is merely one element. Hence it must be understood that Ecclesiastes’ message is not found exclusively within the frame[6], or entirely within the speech. De Jong’s structure[7] is adapted and expanded below:

A 1:1 introductory prologue
B 1:2 motto
C 1:3-11 Song of cycles of nature and society
D 1:12-4:16 observations: wisdom, pleasure, oppression, toil, loneliness, succession: hebel
E 5:1-9 instructions: fear God – listen to God; fulfill vows
F 5:10 - 6:12 observations: wealth; common problem to lack contentment: hebel
G 7:1-22 instructions: keep the end in mind; God’s sovereignty; fear God, not man
H 7:23-8:1 central observations including frame narrator’s voice at 7:27
G’ 8:2-8 instructions: be cautious in relations with king and regarding the future
F’ 8:9-9:6 observations: injustice; common destiny to join the dead: hebel
E’ 9:7-10 instructions: be joyful for God has approved what you do; do what you find to do
D’ 9:11-11:8 observations and instructions: be prudent applying wisdom to overcome hebel
C’ 11:9-12:7 Song of youth and death
B’ 12:8 motto
A’ 12:9-14 epilogue and conclusion

One example must suffice as evidence for these claims of structural parallels, although more could be given if space permitted. In section F, Qohelet observes (6:3),

‘A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.’

Then in section F’, he observes (8:12),

‘Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him.’

These are the only uses of the word ‘hundred’ in Ecclesiastes, distinguishing the parallel sections: the first exposes the futility of long life without joy, the second examines the futility of long life without justice; both consider the effect of death; both provide a ‘better’ option. Significantly, they also provide structural grounds for excluding an overall pessimistic interpretation. In his early observations[8], Qohelet complains of the meaninglessness of a life cut short by death, but here he shows that death is not the real problem: it is a lack of joy or a lack of justice. In his surrounding instructions, Qohelet solves this problem, instructing the reader to find joy in God’s gifts (E’)[9], to be satisfied that there will be a proper time for all judgment (G’), and to fear God and respect his sovereignty (E and G).

This structure helps us interpret the flow of Qohelet’s argument. The beginning, end and central passages of this chiasm serve to define the structure and to emphasize the message. This is vital for understanding the message of Ecclesiastes, because it provides the author’s counsel regarding Qohelet’s words.

The prologue gives the reader a foretaste of Qohelet’s speech[10], beginning with his motto (1:2),

‘ “Meaningless! Meaningless!”

  says the Teacher.’

and the first question Qohelet attempts to answer (1:3),

‘What do people gain from all their labors

  at which they toil under the sun?’

These verses delineate the direction and scope of Qohelet’s speech. He will look for gain obtainable through toil. The following verses typify Qohelet’s observations: the cycles of nature (1:4-7) and society (1:8b-11) are ‘wearisome’ (1:8a). The prologue elucidates his pessimism, but the prologue is not the epilogue: while these verses introduce the content of Qohelet’s speech, they do not show the conclusion.

Sections D through G balance observations of life as futile and fleeting with instructions to take God seriously. We do not go to God’s house to barter with sacrifices, but to listen to his word (5:1). Whatever vows we make to God, we must keep quickly (5:4). We look not for the gain we might get (5:10-12; 6:7, 9) but occupy ourselves with the good we have already been given (5:18-20). Qohelet’s preoccupation with death leads us to fear the sovereign God (7:14). In fearing God we will ‘avoid all extremes’ of Qohelet’s pessimistic observations, ‘grasp’ the point of his condemnation of earthly idols and ‘not let go’ of his recognition of joy’s source (7:18).

A tighter chiastic structure is observed in the central passage (H) immediately surrounding the frame narrator’s comment at 7:27a, elucidating the significance of the seemingly random frame narrator interjection.

A 7:23-24 Wisdom’s explanations are beyond Qohelet’s reach
B 7:25 Qohelet determines ‘to search out … the scheme of things’
C 7:26 Qohelet finds bitterness contemplating the woman who is a snare
D 7:27a Frame narrator quotes Qohelet identifying his discoveries
C’ 7:27b-28 Qohelet searched but did not find, contemplating the lack of upright women
B’ 7:29 Though created upright, men have gone ‘in search of many schemes’
A’ 8:1 Wisdom’s explanations brighten the face of the wise

Qohelet’s discoveries are important, but flawed. The reader is reminded of the ostensible Solomonic authorship with the ensnaring woman, reminiscent of Woman Folly from Proverbs 9:13-18[11]; and with the absence of righteous women, a possible reference to Solomon’s pagan wives (1 Ki. 11:1-6)[12]. The passage warns of corruption, matching Qohelet’s search for the scheme of things with mankind’s search for many schemes. Wisdom has brought frustration to Qohelet but provides a cheery countenance to the wise. Hence, in this climactic passage the frame narrator’s voice draws our attention to Qohelet’s dilemma: embedded in the centerpiece of the book we find criticism of Qohelet and his more negative observations, accompanied by a simple promise of the joyous benefits of true wisdom.

In sections G’ to D’ we find Qohelet’s pessimistic observations decreasing in intensity and frequency (hebel only occurs six times, compared to 21 times in the earlier parallel sections). These negative observations are mitigated by instructions to be prudent in relations with the king (8:2-5) and in making choices regarding the future (2:5-8). They are also allayed in the final carpe diem passage, an instruction: ‘Go… with a joyful heart,’ because ‘God has already approved what you do,’ so ‘always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil’ (9:7-8). Our joy is based in God’s attitude towards us, an expression of our righteousness before God and our holiness through his grace. This beautiful instruction is given, paradoxically, in proximity the refrain, ‘all the days of this meaningless life … under the sun … all your meaningless days’ (9:9). Again we see Qohelet’s negativity with regard to earthly idols. Some critics interpret these enjoyment texts as signs of resignation.[13] However, 9:7-10 is an assurance that joy is possible despite Qohelet’s discoveries, even as one admits their validity (11:8):

‘However many years anyone may live,

  let them enjoy them all.

But let them remember the days of darkness.’

This is confirmed in the song of youth and death (section C’) by the repeated instruction to ‘be happy’ and receive ‘joy’ while young.[14]

Unfortunately, the meaning of the concluding epilogue, particularly 12:9-12, is disputed. Qohelet is described as wise (12:9), his written words are ‘just… right’, ‘upright’ and ‘true’ (12:10). While apparently a positive description, some see this as damning with faint praise, given Qohelet’s earlier self-criticism (7:23)[15]. The above analysis of the central passage provides weight to this negative critique. The ‘words of the wise are like goads’ (12:11);[16] but the simile may be interpreted positively as a motivating incentive[17] or negatively as that which tears the flesh[18]. Qohelet’s speech likewise contains uncomfortable words, but if understood correctly it will motivate us in a godly direction.

The conclusion of 12:13-14 is clear:

‘Now all has been heard…

Fear God and keep his commandments,

  for this is the duty of all mankind.’

These verses cannot be dismissed as the postscript of a pious editor since they conform to the instructions in the first half. According to Delitzsch, the command to fear God is ‘the kernel and the star of the whole book … which mitigates its pessimism.’[19] We must conclude – with the frame narrator’s benediction upon us – that the essential message to take from Ecclesiastes is to live in reverent fear and humble obedience – to enjoy life under God, rather than under the sun. Ecclesiastes teaches us ‘how to enjoy well.’[20] This is ‘positive teaching’[21], an ultimately optimistic, joyous message.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 completes the message with a reminder that God’s judgment, though inscrutable and beyond human wisdom, is sure and final:

‘God will bring every deed into judgment

  … whether it is good or evil.’

This is the same message that Jesus took up in his Parable of the Rich Fool[22], when he warned, “Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” (Luke 12:15; cf Ecc. 2:25-26; 4:4-6; 5:10-16) and placed Qohelet’s musings into God’s mouth, ‘ “This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” ’ (Luke 12:20; cf Ecc. 1:18-19; 2:26; 5:15-16; 6:12). With the promise of personal[23], divine judgment, proffering both reward and penalty, the frame narrator answers Qohelet’s complaint of the futility of life. Death may seem the end, as Qohelet mused in his final song (C’), but the final judgment of God will show that his sovereignty prevails eternally.

---

[1] Webb is one of the few to utilize structural analysis consistently in drawing conclusions, and this reader will follow his lead.

[2] Enns p. 124-125. Some critics treat only 1:1 as the Frame narrator’s voice.

[3] Delitzsch vehemently opposes the inclusion of 12:8 in the frame (p. 808), and other critics limit the significant verses pertaining to the book’s message to 12:13-14.

[4] Dillard & Longman p. 250, Enns p. 124

[5] Webb p. 86

[6] as with Dillard and Longman’s analysis, where Qohelet’s speech is seen as merely a ‘foil’. (Dillard & Longman p. 254)

[7] Webb p. 87

[8] section A, see Appendix A

[9] Webb states that the ‘enjoyment texts’ are only within De Jong’s observation complexes (Webb p. 88), but this reader identifies slightly different passage boundaries with an instruction discourse regarding joy at 9:7-10.

[10] Enns p. 124

[11] these are the culminating verses of a wisdom passage expressly attributed to Solomon.

[12] Write relates this comparison to 7:26. Wright p. 1177

[13] Enns p. 126, Webb p. 88

[14] Since the picture of old age presented metaphorically in this song (121b-5) is one of extreme frailty, this reader considers most of the average present-day life span to be ‘youth’ in Qohelet’s terms.

[15] Dillard & Longman p. 254

[16] There is some disagreement as to whether this applies to the words of Qohelet contained in Ecclesiastes or those attributed to Solomon elsewhere. Delitzsch p. 809

[17] Eaton p. 154

[18] Dillard & Longman p. 254

[19] Delitzsch p. 814

[20] Welton p. 185

[21] Dillard & Longman p. 253, 254

[22] Luke 12:13-21

[23] Delitzsch p. 816

Ecclesiastes Essay part 3

The key term hebel

Since the frame narrator claims Qohelet chose his words with great care (12:9-10), the particular words used in Ecclesiastes are significant for interpreting the author’s message. The Hebrew term hebel occurs nearly 40 times[1] and, from its primary meaning ‘breath’[2] is translated ‘vanity’ (KJV), ‘meaningless’[3] (NIV), or ‘futility’ (HCSB). The prevalence of this word, together with multiple mentions of death[4], often sees Ecclesiastes labeled pessimistic.

Qohelet observes hebel in earthly situations: pleasure (2:1); achievements and inheritance (2:11, 19, 21, 26; 4:4); wisdom (2:15) and foolishness (7:5-6); work and striving (2:17, 23; 4:4); the fate of death (3:19; 11:8) and the days of life (9:9); loneliness, wealth and discontent (4:7-8; 5:10; 6:2, 9); succession politics (4:16); rash vows (5:7); the unknowable future (6:12; 11:8); injustice (7:15; 8:10, 14); and youth (11:10). Whether hebel means futile[5] or fleeting[6], it is Qohelet’s account of ‘everything’ (1:2; 2:11; 3:19; 12:8). But it is vital to recognize that Qohelet never applies the term to God’s gift of joy nor to fearing God. Rather, his intent appears to be ‘first, to show where happiness could not be found.’[7] Qohelet’s observations here are similar to Isaiah’s comments regarding the futility of idolatry, and may be taken as a commentary on Isaiah 57:13 (also featuring the word hebel[8]):

  ‘Let your collection of idols save you!

The wind will carry all of them off,

  a mere breath will blow them away.’

Certainly this is cynicism in a high degree, but it must also be admitted that Qohelet’s pessimism is limited in scope to specific earthly idols through which people seek meaning. It does not apply to joy found in the simple life lived in fear of God.

---

[1] Schultz p. 212

[2] Weeks p. 79-80

[3] Fox argues for a definition of ‘absurd … counter-rational.’ (Fox p. xix)

[4] Enns p. 127

[5] useless, profitless, without purpose, ‘under the impact of death’ (Webb p. 93), unproductive (Fox p. xix). Goswell relates the ‘futility’ of Ecclesiastes to its reading at the Feast of Tabernacles (Goswell p. 686).

[6] transient, temporary (Fredericks & Estes p. 32; cf Schultz p. 212); transitory, passing, of no lasting significance (Webb p. 93, 95), ephemeral (Fox, p. xix)

[7] Welton p. 186

[8] e.g. Isaiah 57:13, Weeks p. 80-81

Ecclesiastes Essay part 2

Author and voices

Ecclesiastes 1:1 describes the content of the book as ‘the words of the Teacher [Qohelet], son of David, king in Jerusalem’. Qohelet is a noun built from the Hebrew verb qhl, which means ‘to assemble, summon, gather’[1]. Qohelet is understood as a title indicating a person who assembles the people in order to speak to them[2], or perhaps a person who gathers wisdom. Hence, Qohelet is a veiled reference to Solomon.[3]

More recently, an external frame written in the third person has been identified, within which Qohelet’s speech is related in first person. Current consensus accepts that the author, speaking in his own voice as the ‘frame narrator’, uses Qohelet’s voice pseudonymously to build his argument.[4] The extent to which he is the author of Qohelet’s words is unknown,[5] with disagreement about the date of Ecclesiastes’ composition[6]. If a later author adopted the persona of Solomon, then Qohelet’s speech may be criticised for a supposed dependence upon pagan thought;[7] with Qohelet’s pessimism highlighted, and optimistic passages downplayed as orthodox redactions[8]. However, the language of Ecclesiastes is consistent throughout[9], displaying a ‘deep cohesiveness’[10], indicating the text should be studied as a unity, regardless of its date or method of composition.

---

[1] Eaton p. 23

[2] Dillard & Longman p. 248

[3] Solomon summoned the Israelite leaders to the dedication of the first temple (1 Ki. 8:1; Enns p. 123) and gathered proverbs (Prov. 1:11; 1 Ki. 4:32). Hence, King Solomon was traditionally considered the author, with some exceptions (eg Henry p. 980; Luther, per Longman p. 145). This identification ‘made possible’ the inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the Jewish canon (Fox p. xv, cf Lasor, Hubbard & Bush p. 498).

[4] Enns p. 122; Fox p. x

[5] The words may have originally been Solomon’s, passed down orally or in written form (Henry p. 980; Wright p. 1140-1141); they may be the invention of an author using Qohelet as his pseudonymous protagonist (Enns p. 122; Fredericks p. 31; Weeks p. 72); or there may be some combination of textual authorship such as redaction or incorporation of editorial glosses (contra: Eaton p. 41-43).

[6] Dating its composition variously as early as the reign of Solomon, a time of international dialogue and the rise of Chokma (Fredericks & Estes p. 31-36); or as late as the postexilic Persian or Greek eras, views espoused by Delitzsch (p. 637-641; cf Enns p. 124) and Fox (p. xiv) based upon the presence of Persian loanwords and economic terms (Enns p. 124), or perceived Hellenistic references and philosophical reasoning (Fox p. xiv), in the text. Dillard and Longman find the latter arguments ‘unpersuasive’ and ‘dubious’ (Dillard & Longman p. 249).

[7] such as the pessimism literature of Egypt and Babylonia (Eaton p. 34-36). However these end with a recommendation of suicide, a far cry from Ecclesiastes’ commendation of joy and instruction to fear God.

[8] Dillard and Longman p. 249

[9] Eaton p. 42-43

[10] Fox p. xvi

Ecclesiastes Essay part 1

The central message of Ecclesiastes: joy or pessimism?

The central message of Ecclesiastes is joy, not pessimism. Pessimism is Qohelet’s problem, not his solution: cynical observations of the apparently fleeting and futile nature of life ‘under the sun’[1] are grounds for commending prudent, pious joy[2] and satisfaction[3]. This will be demonstrated through a careful examination of the form and content of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes is not an easy book to understand. There is ‘little consensus’[4] about its interpretation. It at times appears confused[5]; it is certainly complex[6]. For example, Qohelet observes that his ‘heart took delight’ (2:10) in his labour, yet says it was ‘grevious to me’ (2:17). The reader struggles to interpret such vagaries of thought. Furthermore, we ‘cannot assume that any one statement of Koheleth’s expresses the book’s teaching.’[7] In order to construe the message of Ecclesiastes correctly, it is necessary to comprehend three things: the issue of author and voices; the key word hebel; and the link between structure and message.

---

[1] Ecclesiastes 1:3. All Bible quotations, unless otherwise specified, are from the NIV2011.

[2] Ecclesiastes 8:15; 9:7; 11:9.

[3] Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:13; 5:18.

[4] Weeks p. 72

[5] Dillard & Longman p. 251

[6] Longman p. 147

[7] italics in original. Fox p. xiii

When the church comes to work...

We had a busy bee this morning at the manse, taking the old foil insulation out of our roof and putting in some new wool batts. Jeff and I were woken up at 8am by the arrival of the first worker, and I had my shower to the intimidating thump-thump of boots on the roof.


Joshua was first of the kids to get up on the roof, and looked completely at home there:

Sam wasn't too sure at first:

But he soon began to see the upside of being so high:


Even I got up on the roof!

The back yard looks completely different from this perspective.

Abigail was very worried climbing the ladder on her own.

After we prayed for her safety and courage, she was fine, and even made her way into the roof cavity for a brief explore, equipped with her torch.


Anna was last to get up on the roof because she'd been inside working on a school project on Greece.


After all the work was done, the men all took a morning tea break - thanks to Jenny for sending along Anzac biscuits with her husband (since I am not known for my thoughtful hospitality).


Now I am looking forward to not shivering each night when I change into my pjs!

Mowing the lawn, country style

Jeff borrowed a ride-on lawn mower from one of the church families, and I took it for a "spin" in the back and front yards.



It definitely sped up the mowing process, but then I spent another hour raking the clippings into piles and spreading them in our chicken coop for the chooks to enjoy. Having gradually scratched their coop down to very bare dirt, they appreciate having something to pick through other than kitchen scraps.

School Athletics Carnival

The day began with instructions for turbo jav:

Sam wasn't exactly a 'natural':

But he gave it his best shot:

Anna tried hard as well:


Joshua, meanwhile, has not inherited my enthusiasm for the triple jump:


Samuel loved the running races:

At which Abigail also put in a good effort:

Until she was distracted by her friends in the other lanes!

Anna tried very hard in an extremely close race:

And Joshua gave his best as well:


After lunch, the junior tug-of-war was won by gold, with three of the eight gold pullers coming from our family - against a team of 12 from red!

Joshua also helped the intermediate gold team succeed in their tug.


The kids also all competed in the flag races and relays.

My kids received a few prizes:


(You can see their ribbon collections decorating shirt fronts in some of the race photos.)

Meanwhile Jeff provided commentary, only a little biased towards our kids' team.

And I timed the races, cheering on every kid whose name I knew.

Applying a canonical hermeneutic to Esther

The following relates to an article I read for my Old Testament Prophets and Writings class, by G Goswell, “The Order of the Books in the Hebrew Bible” from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. My thoughts:


Goswell’s main thesis is that ‘In almost every case, the location of a biblical book relative to other canonical books, whether in terms of the grouping in which it is placed, or the book(s) that follow or precede it, has hermeneutical significance for the reader who seeks meaning in the text.’ (p.688). In accepting this thesis, I will apply it to an understanding of the message of the book of Esther, given its canonical location in the Hebrew ‘Tanak’, and show how I come to a very different understanding of Esther than that of Goswell in this article. Goswell wrote, ‘possible principles of order [include] thematic considerations ... e.g. Proverbs followed by Ruth with the figure of Ruth providing a real-life example of the “good wife” described in Prov 31:10-31.’ (p.674-675). I will consider how thematic considerations might apply to the book of Esther, which falls after Lamentations, and before Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah in the Hebrew canon; rather than the (perhaps more simplistic) ‘storyline thread’ ordering principle (p.674).

If an ongoing, elaborated theme is indeed important to the placement of Esther after Lamentations and before Daniel, this suggests Esther may be a book of lament over the way God’s people in exile continue to rely on people (in the persons of Mordecai and Esther) to save them, as they had previously relied upon Egypt and Assyria, rather than upon God. This contrasts with Daniel who prays for God to redeem the exiles. This interpretation would explain why God is not mentioned explicitly in Esther: she becomes, not ‘someone to emulate’ (p.676), but a warning or a negative example of just how far the people have rebelled against God, even in the midst of their punishment for not trusting God previously.

This reading is in conflict with Goswell’s assertion that ‘Esther provides a happy ending’ (p.687). Rather, it shows that the people (who did not return with Ezra to Jerusalem) were still in rebellion against God. This perhaps even gives a rationale for the exclusion of diaspora Jews from the New Covenant because it demonstrates these Jews continued to choose to be self-reliant rather than trust in prophetic promises of God’s future salvation. Furthermore, Goswell notes that ‘the lesson of that book’ [ie, Esther] is ‘put in the mouth of Zeresh, the wife of Haman the archenemy of the Jews’ (p.687) in Esther 6:13, which says that Haman will surely fall if (or because) Mordecai is one of the Jews. Goswell does not, however, observe any significance of a prophecy coming from the archenemy of the Jews. However, it seems likely that since this is not God’s words through God’s prophet, it is not a prophecy coming from God, and hence the salvation that is prophesied is thus not from God either. The evidence that the author of Esther was willing to ascribe such a significant prophecy to an enemy of the Jews as rationale for Esther’s actions in calling for Haman’s death should be seen as indicative that God was not behind Esther’s action, though pagan superstition was.

Jeremiah prophesies that the temple will fall despite the people’s belief in it’s divine indestructibility, which that prophet recognises as pagan superstition rather than faith in God (Jer 7:4). It seems that Esther, (in its canonical position following after the book of Lamentations which records the coming to pass of exactly that prophesied fall,) may be read as recording the rise of the next of the Jew’s pagan superstitions – the idea of the indestructibility of the Jewish race, wholly apart from considerations of their position and designation as God’s people. These events were recorded wholly apart from (a) any mention of God and (b) any attempt by the people to return and take hold of God’s covenant promises, as testified by their refusal to leave with the returnees recorded in Ezra-Nehemiah. Esther also shows the remaining Jews were still ‘oppress[ing] the foreigner’ (Est. 8:11; 9:5-10,13-15, cf Jer. 7:5-6), the very act that Jeremiah told the people they needed to change if their trust in the invincibility of the temple was to be vindicated. Esther’s oppression of the Jews’ enemies is contrasted with the actions of Nehemiah, which are stressed in the book of his name that falls shortly after Esther in the Hebrew canon. Unlike Esther, who only appears interested in increasing her own and Mordecai’s status, Nehemiah is at pains to help the poor and provide for their needs (Neh. 5), obediently responding to the prophetic instructions of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

With respect to the placement of Esther and its ‘liturgical’ role or nature (p.686) I note that the Feast of Purim is the only festival that was not ordained by God and has no explicit divine mandate. Esther 9:29 says, ‘Esther ... wrote with full authority’ but it was the authority of a person, not God. Esther 9:27 makes it clear that ‘the Jews took it on themselves to establish the custom’ of celebrating Purim. Purim is thus a festival of the Jewish people but not a festival of God’s people, unlike the other four Israelite festivals which stem from the Mosaic/Sinai covenant.

Goswell says, ‘Daniel following Esther ... provides a theological explanation for the confidence expressed in the book of Esther concerning the survival of the Jewish race.’ (p.687) However I believe Daniel instead provides a theological explanation for confidence in the prophetic books which Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 & 2 Chronicles clearly show is not achieved in the initial return. Daniel, in hyperbolic contrast to Esther – a contrast made blatant by the Tanak juxtaposition of these texts – shows God has a plan for his salvation of his people, for ending the exile and providing restoration of his people by his own hand, for his own glory (Dan. 9-12).

Daniel may also be understood to provide a commentary of Esther through its placement immediately after Esther in the Hebrew canon. This commentary may be understood from Daniel’s use of Ezekiel’s imagery (eg Dan. 10:5-6; 12:5-7, cf Ezek. 9-10) of the man clothed in linen who was above the waters of the river. Daniel quotes the man saying, ‘”When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”’ (Dan. 12:7) This can be seen as a prophetic condemnation of Esther’s (albeit successful) attempt to increase the power of the Jews. While she increased their worldly power, she in effect delayed the coming day of the LORD. As the man observed to Daniel, ‘“the wicked will continue to be wicked.”’ (Dan. 12:10).

Goswell argues, ‘Juxtaposing Daniel-Esther-Ezra/Nehemiah suggests that all three books are being read as court tales.’ (p.688). If this is so, is it legitimate to read these books as telling how Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles with instructions for exilic life (Jer. 29:1-23) was responded to by its recipients? Daniel is the exile who seeks ‘the peace and prosperity of the city’ (Jer. 29:7) and listens to God’s words through the prophet (witness Jer 29:10 and Dan. 9:1-19). Ezra-Nehemiah shows the exiles who held to the promises of God and tried to obey God’s instructions, especially regarding the poor, though they largely failed with regards to intermarriage. Esther, by contrast, is the one of the exiles whom God condemns with the words, ‘you exiles have not listened either.’ (Jer. 29:19).

I realise that this rather negative view of Esther’s history is not that of most critics of Esther today, nor those Jews who still celebrate Purim with the same zeal that they celebrate Passover or Booths (the latter is celebrated annually in backyard tents by Jews in a Perth suburb near where I used to live). As such, feel free to comment upon and criticise my application of Goswell’s thesis of a canonical hermeneutic to the understanding and evaluation of Esther and Mordecai’s actions.