The Book of Esther Reexamined: Addressing Misinterpretations and Claims

I spent a considerable time preparing a Bible study for the book of Esther. In that process, I came across some pretty interesting theories, opinions, and debates on Esther. And then I ran into this article and couldn’t let such a travesty go unchallenged. To view the original article, click here.

The article starts with a question from an individual directed to Prof. Herman Hanko to answer. (For reference, anything blue is me)

Original Question: How can it have been acceptable for Mordecai to give Esther first as a concubine to King Ahasuerus (Esth. 2:8) and later to marry him (Esth. 2:17)? Yet this event is evidently blessed of God in that the deliverance of the Jews turns on it. How can God’s blessing on Esther’s unequally yoked marriage to a heathen king be explained?

I’m going to start with the poster’s question.

For context, Esther 2:8 says, “When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many young women were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther was also taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.”

In the original Hebrew, specifically referencing Esther, it says, וַתִּלָּקַ֤ח (Laqach). Meaning: “accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold.”

“A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications) — accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive(-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.”

What we are told in the Bible doesn’t state or hint that Mordecai “gave” Esther to anyone.

Mordecai instructed Esther not to reveal her heritage and family background (Esther 2:10), and every day he went to check on her because he wanted to know how she was doing. (Esther 2:11)

The word “welfare” is used. Mordecai was concerned about her welfare, enough that he went every day to see what was happening with her. Quite the fascinating little word, šə·lō·wm. It means “completeness, soundness, welfare, peace.” Click here to learn more about this word, what it means, and how it is used in the Bible.

I may be “untrained” compared to an ordained individual, scholar, or theologian, but I do not see the “to give Esther” part that the questioner is referencing. And it’s not the person’s question that’s the heart of the issue; it is the response he received from Hanko that is the problem.

Hanko’s response begins here: The book of Esther tells a stirring story, the theme of which, as the question indicates, is the salvation of the church from Haman’s plot to commit genocide. It is, therefore, the story of God’s sovereign preservation of Israel, from which nation Christ was destined to come. It is a remarkable and astonishing display of the mysterious and wonderful ways of God’s providence. The whole coming of Christ, through the preservation of the church in the Old Testament, rested upon one sleepless night of Ahasuerus ( Esth. 6)!

I will admit I do like how the responder framed that point. “One sleepless night” — Oh, the wonders that God can do.

Hanko: Vashti had, for moral reasons, refused to appear at a banquet her husband had prepared for all his government officials throughout the vast Persian Empire. Although she was not a member of the Jewish nation and was not a child of God, she had higher moral standards than Esther, the Jewess.

1. “Moral reasons” and “Higher moral standards.” Now that is something we don’t actually know without knowing Vashti’s full story; we weren’t there to know her moral compass, reasoning, or religious beliefs. But historically, noble women were raised to be potential Queens, and they expected to be treated with the respect due to them, especially if they became a Queen. Royal and noble Persian women were respected, that’s a historical fact, and Queens held their own court, signed agreements with their own seal, had their own properties, went where they wished, and participated in meetings with the King. Women of nobility were highly respected women (yes, still “property” and considered expendable at times, or used to bolster alliances, which is evident everywhere in ancient societies, but also in a peculiar way, very respected in their culture)

2. For the King to call her in such a manner was actually an insult to her royal station; it wasn’t necessarily the moral judgment call that this author is trying to insinuate. This action by the King put her on the same level as a concubine. The responder neglects historical facts of the Achaemenid Period, Persian culture, and the respect due to Queen Vashti based on her royal position.

3. The King was drunk, seven days of drinking. Let’s be real, one night of drinking can induce all sorts of stupid ideas to happen. This guy celebrated for seven nights in a row, and they were most likely engaging in some “celebrating” with other women as well, which was a common practice in ancient societies.

4. Her “beauty” being noted, is of importance as to the reason she refused the King. Hebrew writing doesn’t mince words when stating a point and doesn’t use a word or phrase like that for no reason. She could have potentially been walking into a really bad situation, on top of the insult to her station. Her refusal was justified.

5. “Although she was not a member of the Jewish nation, and was not a child of God, she had higher moral standards than Esther, the Jewess.” When I was reading this article, I wrote the words “wow” beside this part. What an insulting slap to Esther. Let’s take a moment here — God loved this woman for what she did for her people, He made sure HER story was included in the Bible and had it titled Book of Esther.

Mordecai is also a prominent figure in this book and a male. He could have easily been the subject of inspiration from God with him as the main character, yet he wasn’t; it is Esther’s story, and God made that happen.

There is a gender bias and attitude that this author is clearly attempting to convey. He appears to be attempting to create a point of view based on his feelings, which is a red flag right there.

Hanko: Because Vashti refused to show her beauty to a host of drunken government officials, she was divorced and deposed from being queen.

So, that’s a half-truth.

Are we reading the same Bible? Because the other half of his statement is false. It may seem little, but a little can become a lot very quickly. We should not be adding to the word of God. Let’s look at Esther 1:19 closer.

I don’t see where divorce is mentioned; in fact, it’s very clear what happened to her. She was no longer to come before the King. This was actually a cultural norm, especially since she publicly embarrassed him; she most likely went to live in the King’s Harem or on her own property. To divorce a person of noble blood was to potentially start a war and, at the very least, create “bad blood.” It wasn’t something a King would or could do lightly with a Queen from a noble family.

Also in verse 18, as they are discussing what is to be done with Vashti, they are clearly concerned about other “noble” women as well doing the same thing; they had to make a decree because of this situation. There was no debate on divorce, just on how to handle the situation. About my opinion, and I’m not stating any facts here — Vashti’s demotion within the king’s hierarchy of women is simply based on studying the history and different cultures of the time, and how harems and royal women’s ability to own their property worked.

My opinion aside on where she went afterward, there is still the nagging issue that there was no divorce written about in any of the verses where they discussed what was to happen to Vashti or afterward.

Hanko: In a sort of beauty contest, which involved at least one night in bed with the king, Esther the Jewess was chosen to be the new queen.

“Historically, Biblical interpreters frame the exploitation of the “virgin girls” as a harmless, even “fun,” beauty pageant. Defining the exploitation as a “beauty contest,” however, ignores the elements of capture, captivity, and forced displacement and prevents the analysis of such experiences as exploitative and trauma- inducing trafficking. -Ericka S. Dunbar: A command from the King. A decree was actually issued for these young, beautiful virgins. (Esther 2:8) They were “gathered.”

To read the Book of Esther and not see the sex trafficking that happened is mind-blowing to me.

Quote from the Layman’s Bible: “During Israel’s time in exile, a law among the Medes and Persians comes up a couple of times that is really inconvenient and honestly quite annoying. According to this law, any laws or proclamations that are made cannot be repealed. This means that once it is written, the law stands. It generally ends up being a stumbling block for God’s people after the king of the time makes a stupid law."

Fact check time:

1. An edict was issued for virgins.

2. Officers were appointed with the specific task to go out “that they may gather.”

3. The best “pleaser” got the crown.

4. It could not be ignored by the people without severe penalty, and the phrases “when were gathered” and “also was taken” were the words used.

Also, how do you think they became “pleasers”? It was very common in ancient cultures for young girls to be trained in sexual knowledge.

This was sex trafficking.

They may have had great food, wonderful skin treatments, beautiful clothing, amazing quarters, and personal servants, but they did not have their freedom. Sex trafficking with a pretty bow slapped on it. To be blunt, the author’s use of the phrase “beauty contest” in such a manner demonstrates his lack of knowledge both biblically and historically, and paints him in an interesting light. I’d be curious about his day-to-day interactions with women.

Hanko: She had entered the contest at the prompting of her uncle, Mordecai, also a Jew.

See above, I addressed this issue from the questioner, but now we should be questioning the responder’s understanding of the Book of Esther with his response.

Both were in Shushan, the capital of the Persian Empire, because they or their ancestors had been taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and had moved from Babylon to Shushan when the Babylonian Empire had been conquered by the Medes and Persians.

Through a marvelous sequence of events, God used Esther, in her position of power, to save the Jewish nation, and Haman, the Jews’ enemy, was hanged on the gallows that he had built to hang Mordecai. It is well our readers read the story once again to refresh their minds.

The questioner asks how Esther can marry Ahasuerus and receive the blessing of God. The assumption in the question is, of course, that, because God used Esther’s marriage to Ahasuerus to save Israel, God blessed that adulterous union. That assumption is wrong, although many commentators take the same position.

The Bible doesn’t claim to bless their union; in fact, nothing about their union is mentioned. We don’t even know if they were legally married. But he sure blessed Esther and Mordecai, along with a lot of other people, because of it.

Many have been the discussions (and sometimes arguments) I have had with saints who have taken the position that Esther was a true child of God. The book of Esther is itself the proof that she was not.

We are all children of God, no matter what we may do, or what situation is forced on us.

“Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”Esther 4:16.

She was scared, and I don’t blame her. Mordecai had to point out the obvious to her, but look what’s recorded next. She said, “fast ye for me” and “if I perish, I perish”. Three days later, after she had fasted, she went to the King and found favor in his sight.

I would like to note here that the Bible is clear that she and her maids also fasted. That is valuable context for a couple of reasons.

1. This is an indication she had done this before. She knew she needed to go to God and humble herself before God in this time of great need.

2. She did not come up with other ideas to try; she went straight to God.

3. Her maids were either converted or Jewish and were familiar with this Christian custom, which means the use of prayer during fasting.

4. She wanted everyone to fast, including those closest to her.

Prove to me responder that she was not a believer in God or a “true child of God” as the author puts it when she fasted and prayed for three days. To do this action, she knew God, she went to Him, humbled herself before Him, and most importantly, she TRUSTED Him.

The author’s declaration that she was not a true child of God as a “factual” reason to back his opinion doesn’t logically work. I’d be curious to know what the responder’s definition of a “true child of God” is. Because, based on the author’s logic, there would be a WHOLE LOT of people and books of the Bible that shouldn’t be in there or read very differently.

But the Bible says fasting, not prayer. I know this is where this question will come in. This is quite often used as a ding against the book of Esther.

But…..

1. We don’t know who wrote the book, and what their linguistic approach to things were.

2. Using the word “fast” actually incorporates a lot of context with just one word, and it does not detract anything from this book or from the Jews and their faith.

3. As followers of Christ, we should all be aware of the connection between fasting and prayer. The two are absolutely connected. Letting us know they fasted is a direct statement that they were believers.

Here are a couple of links on fasting and why it’s important: DailyVerses.net, Biblestudytools.com & C.S. Lewis Institute.

Hanko: Think of her sins and the sins of her uncle.

This statement just kind of hangs out there without any connecting context. It’s a weird stand-alone statement meant to steer a person towards the author’s point of view. I want to emphasize this: we are all sinners, that’s nothing new, and God has beautifully used many imperfect people in the Bible. Elijah, Samson, Rahab, Jacob, Jonah, Peter, David, Saul etc.….

Mordecai’s and Esther’s families had refused to return to the promised land when Cyrus ordered and encouraged the captives to return. Their refusal was simply due to the fact that they far preferred life in captivity to a return to the land of promise. The reason was that they had no interest in the coming of Christ.

1. “ordered”? Wrong — this is what the responder wants to interpret. He created this to back his opinion, and the use of “encouraged” with “ordered” is an attempt to conceal it as a truth. The truth is that both Ezra and 2 Chronicles tell us Cyrus told the Jews they were allowed to leave, and the words “and let him go up” were used. They were given a choice. Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:3 & 2 Chron 36:23. 

The only thing that even borders on an “order” would be the instruction for those who stayed to provide silver, gold, goods, livestock, and a freewill offering.“And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.” Ezra 1:4. This was never an order.

2. We don’t know why some stayed and shouldn’t assume anything. That’s what these statements are: assumptions. Assumptions that are used to back up a point of view, and again, try to use it as “truth.”Here are a couple of legitimate reasons to take into account as to why some people didn’t leave: Some would have been too old to return, and seventy years had passed. It was a 900-mile journey in front of them. It was dangerous; safety would have been a huge concern. Some did not know anything other than Babylon. Some may not have been able to survive that journey, such as pregnant women, infants, and children, someone sick, an injured or disabled person etc.

Obviously, some didn’t want to return because they preferred their lives in Babylon; every society has that. But we should also be wise enough to know that that doesn’t indicate a people as a whole.

3. Hanko's claim: “The reason was that they had no interest in the coming of Christ.”

See above, and wow, that’s one heck of an assumption by Hanko. The Book of Esther has not backed up any of the responder’s feelings or claims.

Hanko: Esther, at Mordecai’s promptings, entered a royally-sponsored beauty contest, which involved fornication with the king. What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest in the first place? What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest, thereby agreeing to fornication with the one sponsoring it? It was a gross violation of the seventh commandment. She showed that her moral standards, even though a Jewess, were lower than the heathen, Vashti.

Already addressed this author’s point of view on this topic.

I think that Vashti is introduced by God into history simply to demonstrate the moral decay that the Jewish captives had fallen.

I’ve never read it that way and legitimately tried to read it again with that mindset. It didn’t work. I also took a mini poll among the Christian men I know, and they also never read it that way. Queen Vashti is mentioned for a couple of reasons, on purpose, I’d like to add.

1. We had to know her story to understand Esther’s.

2. It showed us the King’s character.

3. The King wanted beautiful women.

4. It also makes perfect sense to mention her since what she did led the way for Esther.

Hanko: By agreeing to marry Ahasuerus, Esther violated the marriage ordinance God had established in paradise, for she contradicted the purpose of marriage by being unequally yoked to an unbeliever.

Again, not a choice. Also, a person’s choice is commonly referenced in the Bible, but in this case, it is not. I do believe that is significant.

Hanko: The book of Esther is the only book in Scripture which does not mention the name of God. This omission of God’s name is intended to demonstrate to us how wicked everything that happened in Shushan was — a wickedness providentially used by God for good.

It takes a lot of ignorance to say “only book in Scripture which does not mention the name of God." Esther is not the only book in the Bible without a direct reference to God.- Song of Solomon.

Hanko: “This omission of God’s name is intended to demonstrate to us how wicked everything that happened in Shushan was”

Hanko claims with this statement to know God’s intentions for why His name is left out. How can he assume God’s intentions when he is a false teacher, twisting the word of God? He lacks any authority at this point to be teaching anything.

He is making inferences, then using that as a “fact”, then building upon it to make his opinions look like truth. It does not work that way; your personal issues should never twist or replace the word of God.

Hanko: Did God bless the union of Esther and Ahasuerus? He most emphatically did not! It was an abomination in His sight and the curse of the Lord was in the palace in Shushan (Prov. 3:33).

I guess the first thing I’ll bring up here is if it was such a truly horrible abomination, why didn’t God emphasize or even touch on that in some way? The fact that it is not is important and adds interesting context to Esther’s story that is worth investigating. Proverbs 3:33 — Not denying this verse exists, however, there are two things to consider.

1. The way the responder has written his article and then placed this verse here, he is using it as though the verse was directed explicitly at Esther. This verse was written by Solomon, it was advice for his son.

2. Here is what the WHOLE verse says: “The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous.” "but he blesses the home of the righteous.”

If Esther, Mordecai, and the Jews were all unjust, why did God save them? And I will admit to not fully understanding this next part yet, but I feel it is relevant. For the wicked: “house” is used. For the just: “home” is used. I’ll have to look into that later, but it is significant that the two are separated.

Hanko: But it may be argued that God used the marriage to save Israel and preserve His Christ, who was in the loins of the nation. Indeed He did! The salvation of the nation and the remarkable events that led up to it were surely under the guidance of God’s sovereign control.

Agree. But the responder still did a horrid job with his response. He infers a lot, is driven by feelings, and states many false and misleading teachings.

Hanko: But we may not conclude from this that God blessed Esther and that she was a true believer.

Wrong, please see above. This is merely an uninspired opinion based on personal feelings, packaged to look like the truth. A principle is at stake here.

In a very broad sense of the word, it is the principle laid down by Paul in Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good to them that love God. The “all things” include the whole wicked world and everything they do. It is by no means a strange idea in Scripture that God uses wicked men to accomplish His purpose.

I find this statement by the responder particularly interesting and honestly almost comical because the author emphasized and used the “all things” part, but ignored the next part, “good to them that love God.”

Hanko: He did so pre-eminently in the cross of Christ (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). God is completely sovereign. He rules sovereignly in all the lives of the wicked (although in such a way that they remain accountable for their sins). He uses the wickedness of the ungodly to serve the good of His church, as reprobation must and does serve election. Even persecution is the means to purify and save those who suffer with Christ. All things are yours, Paul writes to the Corinthians, for “ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (I Cor. 3:22–23)!

Let us together marvel at God’s wonderful providence and bow in worship before Him who governs all things for us and for our salvation!”

Who is it you truly bow to sir?

The Bible is not what we want it to be, it is what we need it to be. Your feelings are irrelevant and you sir, need to go back to seminary school.

© 2026 Jane Isely. Want more content like this? Explore more articles in Rethinking Doctrine.

Thank you for reading if you made it this far! I know it was a lot, but I didn’t want to break it up. First published July 2024 in Never Stop Writng on Medium.com. Since publishing my original Herman Hanko has added to his article. I have not done a response to his follow up.

Sources:

When I started preparing for my Bible study, I didn’t anticipate doing this response article, I did not track every source I read, here’s what I saved online.

1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Bible Gateway-Public Domain

Bible Hub-Translations

Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.