Mordecai Persuades Esther to Help (4:1–17)

Tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes (4:1). In the ancient Near East, strong feelings were often externalized in dramatic fashion. Grief could be expressed by tearing one’s clothes, and this behavior was expected under certain circumstances (e.g., the death of a great person; 2 Sam. 1:11–12). According to rabbinic tradition, judges who were witnesses to blasphemy were required to rend their garments.129 Thus, it was both a formal action and (perhaps) a spontaneous response to shocking news.130

Mourning woman puts dust on head.

The Yorck Project/Wikimedia Commons

The custom of wearing sackcloth in times of grief or mourning is attested throughout the Near East. Sackcloth was a dark colored, coarse material woven from camel or goat hair. This cheap, durable material takes its name from the fact that it was usually used for making sacks, but sometimes shepherds used the material for clothing.131 When worn in mourning, an entire garment could be made from sackcloth, but sometimes only a swatch was worn as a belt or girdle (Isa. 32:11). As a garment, it was worn next to the skin without undergarments. The rough, unadorned material perhaps demonstrated the wearers’ preoccupation with their pain, showing how they took no thought of comfort or fancy dress. Wearing ashes similarly made the mourners’ internal pain an external, visible thing. People experiencing grief might roll in ashes, covering both their face and body with the black substance.132

As far as the king’s gate (4:2). The prohibition of coming before the king in mourning garb is unattested elsewhere, but it is entirely possible. Given the self-indulgence of the Persian monarchs, it seems in character that they would prohibit their subjects from imposing grief on them. Herodotus writes of people with complaints gathering outside the king’s gate and wailing without bringing their trouble within the palace.133 In one instance, the wife of a condemned noble stood outside the palace gate, weeping until Darius relented and agreed to spare her husband.134 Also, Nehemiah, cupbearer of King Artaxerxes I, expresses fear when the Persian king notes that Nehemiah has come before him with a sad look on his face (Neh. 2:2). Possibly, Nehemiah expected to be punished for bringing his sorrow before the king.

Open square of the city (4:6). The square before the king’s gate has been excavated by archaeologists. Such city squares often served as markets and public meeting places in ancient times.135

To show Esther and explain it to her (4:8). Perhaps the edict was written in Persian and had to be translated into Aramaic for Esther’s benefit.136 Another possibility is that Esther was illiterate and could not read the edict for herself. The extent of literacy in ancient Israel has been the subject of extensive debate, but most scholars agree that less than 5 percent of ancient Israelites could actually read.137 (The number was probably significantly lower for Jewish women, who enjoyed few rights and little social status in this era.)

More to the point, however, is the issue of whether the queen of Persia would have been taught to read. Greek sources tell us that the royal women were trained in horsemanship, martial arts, and other skills, but they make no mention of literary training.138 Some women possessed the literary skills necessary for their occupations (Persian tablets demonstrate that women were employed as record keepers), but they were barred from the role of scribe.139 There is no reason to believe that the Persians considered general literacy a desirable goal. Likely, then, Esther could not have read the decree for herself.

Any man or woman who approaches the king … put to death (4:11). Additional evidence for such a policy is scant. Herodotus makes the point that access to the king was limited, with only the seven noble families of Persia allowed free passage into his presence.140 Other ancient authors write that no one could enter the king’s presence without the permission of the chiliarch, who would demand to know their business.141 There is clear evidence that few people could march into the king’s chamber uninvited. Even so, the text gives us no clues as to why Esther did not simply request an audience with the king, especially since Haman’s edict would not be carried out for another eleven months. One possible explanation is that if Haman were, indeed, Xerxes’ chiliarch, Esther would have had to make an appeal to Haman in order to be admitted into the throne room.142 Revealing her plans to Haman would have put her in a difficult position, to say the least.

For the king to extend the gold scepter (4:11). The custom of the king extending his scepter in this manner is unattested outside the book of Esther. Many Persian reliefs, however, depict the king holding a scepter, a thin staff about the length of his body with a knob on one end. It seems to have had some function when he was holding court, since the scepter is prominent in scenes of royal audiences.143

There is still controversy concerning which king is shown enthroned. Most consider the seated king to be Darius, with Xerxes the crown prince standing behind him. Others consider Xerxes to be seated with the crown prince standing behind. Either way, Xerxes is pictured here.

Rob Verhoeven, courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum in Teheran

Thirty days have passed since I was called to go to the king (4:11). Greek authors, perhaps to defame the Persian kings, depict the queens as having easy access and great influence over their husbands.144 But inconsistencies in these accounts, as well as evidence from Persian records and inscriptions, put this picture in doubt.145 The queen’s contact with the king was physically limited by the fact that she had her own private chamber in the palace and did not regularly dine with the king. Furthermore, since the king had his choice of many concubines, the queen shared his bed infrequently. Nonetheless, the statement that the queen had not been in the king’s company for thirty days seems somewhat unusual. It may imply that Esther had fallen out of the king’s favor, which could explain her reluctance to appear before him unannounced.

Relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place (4:14). Ultimately, this phrase is an expression of faith in God, who will not allow his people to perish. God’s ability to deliver the Jews is not dependent on any individual but his own power (2 Chron. 20:1–30; Isa. 59:15–20; Hos. 11:8–9). Even so, this declaration may reflect political and social realities of the times. Perhaps God could use another Jewish individual who had access to the king, like Nehemiah, the king’s cupbearer (a position of considerable power) in the reign of Artaxerxes I (465–425/4). There were powerful Jews living in the Persian Empire at the time who could have intervened with the king. There were also other kingdoms (like the Greeks) to whom appeals could have been made. When Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to abolish Judaism in his realm in 167 B.C., the leaders of the Jewish resistance made alliances with Rome (1 Macc. 8:17–18; 12:1). While in that case, the alliance seems to have delivered little actual benefit, such covenants could prove beneficial. The Gibeonites were saved from destruction when the Israelites, bound by covenant, delivered them from the king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1–15).

Fast for me (4:16). Fasting, abstaining from food and/or drink, was observed throughout the ancient world (and of course, into our own day) in times of grief or crisis. Ancient Babylonian and Egyptian texts speak of people fasting in times of emotional distress, apparently because of a natural lack of appetite or interest in food and drink. Perhaps from this natural beginning fasting became formalized, and mourners were expected to fast to demonstrate grief over their lost loved ones. In Greek sources, fasting was recommended as a spiritual exercise and was veritably essential before one could participate in magical rites.146 Fasting was practiced in Persia, but Zoroastrianism, the official religion of the Persian Empire, discouraged it as despising the good gifts of heaven.147

In Israel, the Mosaic laws required fasting only on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29, 31; 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11), but both public and individual fasts occurred at other times. Corporate fasts occurred when Israel was in mourning (1 Sam. 31:13), during seasons of repentance (1 Kings 21:27; Neh. 9:1), and in situations where the people desired to demonstrate their sincerity to God (2 Chron. 20:1–4; Dan. 9:3). Fasting often accompanied prayer, to demonstrate the deep concern of those making petitions to the Lord (2 Sam. 7:6; 12:16–22; Ezra 8:21, 23; Jonah 3:3–8).148 In Esther’s case, the fast she calls is designed to implore God’s favor on her behalf, even though (keeping with the book’s “secular” approach) prayer is never actually mentioned.