Dragon Posts

THE BOOK OF RUTH 2

A Study By Reverend Christopher Cooke

Boaz and Ruth-William Hole (1846 – 1917)

Week 2

Genre

J.M. Sasson = a folktale which is not burdened by its historical background.
R.L. Hubbard = a short story with much historical accuracy.
E.F. Campbell = historical fiction about those on the historical margins and how they are provided for: gleaning, responsibility of the family.
Frederic Bush = “an edifying short story”.
Gerald West = marginalised communities have found much consolation in Ruth.

Frederic Bush = the writer of Ruth very effectively employs contrasts between the principal protagonists and the minor characters or agents i.e.

  • Ruth and Orpah
  • Boaz and the “nearer redeemer” (who is not named)
  • Naomi and the women of Bethlehem

These devices are used by the writer to portray Ruth, Boaz and Naomi as the virtual enfleshment of hesed – kindness, graciousness and loyalty that goes beyond the call of duty (and is typical of God).

E.F. Campbell: “The Ruth story does not represent the style of life which exercises caring responsibility as a forgone conclusion for God’s people. It is portrayed as attainable but elusive”.

Theology

Frederic Bush = The Book of Ruth is very different from the stress in much of the rest of OT literature on the overt, and at times supernatural, nature of the divine guidance. “Thus, the book of Ruth affirms that God often effects his purposes in the world through the ordinary motivations and events of his people – ordinary people like Ruth and Boaz, or like you and me, the ripple of whose lives stir little beyond the pool of their own community – and in particular through their acts of gracious and loving kindness that go beyond the call of duty”.
Although God is not a character in the story, God is nonetheless present in the story. This is evidenced by the way the name of Yahweh so frequently rushes to the lips of the participants. “Clearly, at every level of the story the author affirms the uniform OT conviction that the world is fully and uniformly under the control of an all-powerful and all-knowing God.”
Patricia Tull = the books of Esther & Ruth reflect a subtlety of divine presence that resembles much more closely life in our own world than the pyrotechnics of Mount Sinai.

FEEDING A FAMILY

Boaz is introduced

2:1

How is Boaz introduced?

What is he like?

Ruth and Naomi

2:2-3

Why did Naomi stay at home and let Ruth go to the fields on her own?

Boaz and Ruth

2:4-17

Boaz enquires about Ruth (2:4-7)

Was it chance that Ruth happened on Boaz’s part of the village field?

What right did Ruth have to be there?

Why didn’t Boaz reveal his relationship to Naomi when he first met Ruth?

Boaz’s Conversation with Ruth (2:8-17)

What do you make of Boaz’s extremely generous treatment of Ruth?

Was it because Naomi was kin?

Was it because he wanted to act as a “redeemer”?

Was he interested in Ruth? Was he attracted to her?

Ruth and Naomi

2:18-23

Why did Naomi caution Ruth to stick with the women and not the men in verse 22?

What is Naomi’s judgement of God now?

How does that compare with that in the first chapter? [verses 13, 20 &21]

Has there been a time in your life when your anger with God has given way to great joy?

Naomi has returned home because she has heard “that the Lord had considered his people and given them food” [1:6]. But the presence of food in general does not necessarily supply sustenance for any particular family. The second chapter of Ruth narrates a single day filled with events and speeches.

Comments from Reverend Christopher

Ruth in Boas field Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld 1828

FEEDING A FAMILY

Boaz is introduced

2:1

Of prime importance is the fact that Boaz is related to Naomi on her husband’s side. He is of the same clan as Elimelech. He is not described as “next-of-kin” here (that Hebrew term will appear later).

The narrator describes Boaz literally as a “mighty man of power, a worthy man”. It is a term more associated with warriors than landlords. This indicates his high standing in the Bethlehem community. Boaz is at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum of that community to Naomi and Ruth.

Ruth and Naomi

2:2-3

Ruth is introduced again as a Moabite as she is often to be so in the book of Ruth. She is the foreign outsider. Ruth, by contrast to Naomi, dares to take the initiative to support the two of them.

Gleaning is a primary means of support for the destitute prescribed in Israelite law [Leviticus and Deuteronomy]. The edges of the fields are not to be harvested and the gleanings (i.e. what is not picked up in the first pass-through) also shall be left behind for the alien, the poor, the orphan and the widow. As a poor non-Israelite widow, Ruth seeks out the means of survival for her designated by Israelite law. Ruth does not know about Boaz and is relying upon the kindness of strangers.

We should imagine a communal village field with certain parts designated as belonging to individuals.

God is working behind the scenes. What might be seen as chance is really divine providence.

Boaz and Ruth

2:4-17

Boaz enquires about Ruth (2:4-7)

The third principal character, Boaz appears on stage giving and receiving divine blessing. Boaz assumes that Ruth belongs to some man. There was no such thing as an independent woman. The head reaper replies that she is a Moabite who came from Moab with Naomi. She is described twice in one sentence as “the foreigner”. The head reaper has more to say but this is the corrupt verse in Hebrew. Whether Ruth is gleaning, resting from gleaning, or still awaiting permission to glean at the moment Boaz first sees her, the initiative is now his, and he approaches Ruth.

Boaz’s Conversation with Ruth (2:8-17)

Boaz urges Ruth to stick to his part of the field. In fact, Boaz gives five instructions. The man is used to giving orders! A foreigner from a disliked ethnic group could be easily victimized. It is quite probable that the offer of water was an extra perk. However, he had already instructed the young men not to bother Ruth. Boaz would be seen as Ruth’s male protector. Boaz may have been attracted to her as well.

Ruth’s reply recognizes the special privileges that she has been offered. This is much more than she could have hoped for. Is Ruth’s question rhetorical? Is she confused?

Boaz’s reply suggests he views Ruth’s behaviour towards Naomi as exceptional. Although Boaz does not use the term hesed here, it is implied. This is confirmed by Boaz’s prayer over Ruth. Boaz draws parallels between Ruth’s conduct and that of Abraham. Naomi has previously blessed Ruth. But Naomi’s God who Naomi claimed had deserted her, is now called upon to bless Ruth! Ruth has sought refuge under Yahweh’s wings and Boaz prays that this will be fulfilled. This is a beautiful prayer – another side to the man who gives orders.

Ruth’s prostration shows the humble deferential demeanour of a woman who has a technical legal right to glean but who also needs the goodwill of the overseer or owner to carry this out. Ruth does not yet know that Boaz is related to Naomi.

Boaz approaches Ruth again at the midday meal. This is not a private tryst but a gesture of inclusion in the larger community. Not only is Ruth fed but her status is much improved. As the meal concludes, Boaz instructs his workers to offer Ruth further privileges beyond those usually offered to gleaners. Through this Ruth gleans enough to feed two people for two people for about five or seven days. This reminds us that gleaning was only the flimsiest of safety nets and it was only a short-term solution. Gleaning would only last as long as the barley harvest followed by the wheat harvest i.e. about seven weeks.

Boaz fails to mention he is related to Naomi and yet showers Ruth with attention and help. Like Naomi, he addresses Ruth as “my daughter” (verse 8) – a title which will be found on their lips frequently as the story progresses. Boaz’s concern for her welfare and his concern that she may be molested by the men, suggest his interest may not be wholly paternal.

Ruth and Naomi

2:18-23

At home with Naomi, Ruth shows her mother-in-law first the harvested grain and then the parched grain left over from her meal with Boaz. Naomi is impressed and asks where Ruth has worked. The storyteller withholds Boaz’s name until the last moment. When Boaz’s name is mentioned, we have reached the turning point theologically and rhetorically in the book. Naomi links all the dots!

Naomi invokes a blessing upon Boaz – the hesed she mentions could be referring to Boaz or, more conventionally, to Yahweh – there is an ambiguity (purposely?) in the Hebrew. God has surely shown kindness: Ruth through providence has come into Boaz’s field. God’s kindness has been shown to the living (Naomi and Ruth) and to the dead (Elimelech and their sons). What a change around in Naomi’s view of God! And if God has not deserted her, she is a new relationship with him. Naomi has begun a healing journey. Like many people Naomi has experienced calamity but now she knows that God has not abandoned her.

What Ruth understood as a favour, Naomi understands as loyalty. Naomi uses the technical term for “nearest male relative” who has the right to be a redeemer.

With regard to land, we see this in the book of Jeremiah when Jeremiah redeems land that Hanamel needs to sell even though the Babylonians are about to overrun the land.

We know that Boaz has instructed his male servants not to bother Ruth so Ruth uses the male version for servants. Naomi however instructs her to stick close to the women and this is what Ruth did.

If chapter 1 describes a series of disasters which embittered Naomi and disagreements about which course the women should take, chapter 2 is increasingly overfilled with good-will, good-fortune and well-being.

THE BOOK OF RUTH 1

A Study By Reverend Christopher Cooke (Edited 7th June 14.18 by RichardE)

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of Moab by William Blake, 1795

Patricia Tull points out that of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, 38 have names of men. Only two have the names of women: Esther and Ruth.

Esther and Ruth are not only distinguished by the names of the books but also by being free-standing narratives springing from Judean history.

The characters, Esther and Ruth, are “women in alien lands”.

Authorship and Date.

When we read a book, we usually want to know who wrote it and when it was written. This is difficult for books of the Bible.

W. Lambert: “Biblical narrative exhibits such a rage for impersonality as must lead to the conclusion that its writers actively sought anonymity…Its culture’s and its own remarkable powers of memory encompass everything but the names that produced it”. The writer never refers to himself or herself.

At one time, there were two schools of thought about the dating of the book of Ruth.

  • Some felt that the interest in David and levirate marriage pointed to it being written at an early date during the monarchy well before the Exile. Edward Campbell still favours this.
  • The other extreme was to argue that the book’s positive attitude to foreigners and foreign marriage was a counterblast to the views of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah which forbade foreign marriages in the Fourth Century BC.

Language does change and develop over time. Frederic Bush has an excellent summary of this. The book of Ruth exhibits 10 features of Standard Biblical Hebrew and 8 features of Late Biblical Hebrew.

This suggests that the writer must have lived no earlier than the transitional period between SBT and LBT i.e. from just before the Exile in Babylon to the beginning of the return from Exile. Therefore Ruth’s writing is contemporaneous with the writing of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The Second Isaiah (from the Exile) and the book of Jonah also show positive attitudes to foreigners.

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld agrees with Frederic Bush. She suggests that the book of Ruth emphasizes instruction concerning the community’s view of outsiders. David is foregrounded as a means of legitimizing an inclusive attitude towards foreigners and foreign women.

It could have been written

  • Just before the Exile when the Deuteronomic History (Judges-Kings) was being written to counter its emphasis against relationships with Canaanites, or
  • Just after the Exile when it addresses tensions between Jewish returnees from Babylon and those who remained in the land after the fall of Jerusalem.

Text and Unity.

The Book of Ruth has always been included in the Hebrew Scriptures but there is some debate about its positioning.

The text has been very well preserved – only the last eight words of 2:7 present a conundrum.

All who have worked on Ruth think it is a unity. At one time, there was a consensus that the genealogy was a later addition. However, now most commentators believe that the genealogy, with which the book ends, is an integral part of the Book of Ruth.

THE BOOK OF RUTH CHAPTER ONE.

THE BOOK OF RUTH: WEEK ONE

Questions

Patricia Tull points out that of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, 38 have names of men.

How many bear the names of women?

1:1-5

What is the Book of Judges like?

What do we know about Moab and the Moabites?

Departure for Bethlehem

1:6-18

Can you think of any other passages where women discuss amongst themselves in the Bible?

First Speech and Response Cycle (1:6-10)

Why might Orpah and Ruth choose not to return to Moab?

Second Speech and Response Cycle (1:11-14)

What do you think about the reactions of Orpah and Ruth?

Third Speech and Response Cycle (1:15-18)

What do you think about Ruth’s commitment?

Does it compare with that of Abraham’s?

Do you know of anyone who has made a comparable life-changing choice?

Why does Naomi stay silent?

Arrival in Bethlehem

1:19-22

Does Naomi’s lament remind you of other such reactions in the Bible?

Who is the most important character in this chapter?

Are there any signs for Naomi to hope in this chapter? (verses 6 & 22).

Comments from Reverend Christopher

FROM JUDAH TO MOAB TO JUDAH

NAOMI NO MORE

Prologue

1:1-5

The book of Judges presents this era as one of repeated bloody battles between Israel and its Canaanite, Philistine and other enemies. There was also warfare among the various Israelite tribes.

The entire story of Ruth serves as a counterpoint to this picture of the era of the Judges. We move from the level of the tribe to the level of the family.

Famine in the land. Famine and migration because of famine are recorded elsewhere in the Bible but the destination is Egypt (Abraham; Joseph story).

Irony as Bethlehem means “house of bread” or “house of food”.

Moab was among the oppressors of Israel in the era of the Judges.

Moab = “would have been freighted with meaning”. Close but difficult, often hostile, relations. [England & Ireland]. The Moabites are presented in the Bible as descendants of Lot’s incestuous relationship with one of his daughters. They are hostile to Israelites in Numbers. In Deuteronomy Moabites and Ammonites were not admitted to the worshipping assembly.

The choice of Moab by Elimelech is strange and the consequences quite unsurprising.

“A reader or hearer is even more quickly drawn in when the story’s character makes an improbable decision or takes improbable action in the very first line”.

The long-standing negative view of Moab influences everything that happens in the story and explains the negative attitude of the field workers to Ruth as well as the refusal of the nearer redeemer to get involved. It magnifies Ruth’s decision and Boaz’s behaviour.

Ephrathite can mean someone from the northern area of Ephraim, but here it refers to the geographical or sub-tribe unit that Elimelech’s family falls into. 1 Samuel 17:12 describes this as David’s heritage as does Micah 5:2.

This Bethlehemite family is on the verge of extinction: three women from different homes and two different countries are now a household of widows.

Departure for Bethlehem

1:6-18

Part of the appeal of the Book of Ruth is the woman-to-woman relationship. Conversations between women are extremely rare in the Bible. The book of Ruth devotes more verses to speech between women than the rest of the Bible combined. The first words are Naomi’s to Ruth and Orpah. The last are those of the townswomen to Naomi. [The other extended conversation is in the NT = Mary and Elizabeth. There is also Mary and Martha].

First Speech and Response Cycle (1:6-10)

Naomi is both displaced and bereft. She seems to have second thoughts on the journey.

Naomi instructs Ruth and Orpah to return to Moab and blesses them. The blessing incorporates the first of many references to hesed = kindness, lovingkindness, faithfulness, loyalty. It is the most important theme of the book. It may have been a general wish but it is probably a benedictory invocation of divine faithfulness.

Naomi alludes to their kindness to her and to the dead men of the family.

Verse 9 is a prayer. Although the story of Ruth is one of women making decisions and taking action on their own, their action takes place in the context of this traditional assumption about women’s place in socio-economic structure.

It ends with Naomi’s farewell kiss, weeping and Ruth and Orpah’s rejection of Naomi’s proposal.

Interestingly Ruth and Orpah talk about “returning” with her to her people even though, of course, they have never been to Judah.

Second Speech and Response Cycle (1:11-14)

Naomi reiterates her exhortation and elaborates upon her arguments. She picks up on “return” and uses it in its more expected way i.e. return to Moab.

Scholars have long discussed Naomi’s rhetoric and its relevance to levirate marriage. They probably do not relate to the latter. They are just a heightened rhetorical expression of pain and frustration about her inability to care for her daughters-in-law.

Verse 13 = Naomi speaks of her bitterness because God’s hand is against her. She seems to argue that she is worse off than her daughters in law because if they return to Moab, they could marry again.

Finally, Naomi’s outcry blames God for what has happened in her life. Unlike Job, she is not portrayed as being interested why calamity has struck. Unlike the laments in the psalms, she is not portrayed as asking God for a change in her condition. Her spirit has been crushed beyond the point of prayer.

The second cycle concludes with another time of weeping, followed by Orpah’s departure. Although the narrator contrasts Orpah’s separation kiss with Ruth’s clinging to Naomi, there is no negative judgement on Orpah’s action. Indeed, she is, after all, doing Naomi’s bidding. She is the obedient one and Ruth the disobedient one. Ruth’s power of feeling to leave behind her birth family and nation for a new loyalty is extraordinary.

Third Speech and Response Cycle (1:15-18)

A third time Naomi speaks to Ruth. This time, she argues that Ruth should stick to the Moabites and the Moabite religion. Naomi seems convinced that Ruth should save herself by leaving this God-forsaken household.

Then we have Ruth’s truly remarkable commitment. If she could easily have married in Moab, Ruth has chosen an old woman over a young man. Even if the prospects were not good in Moab in Ruth’s view, it is still a striking decision.

Ruth promises that Naomi’s people and Naomi’s God will be hers as well. Ruth must have been aware that the people of Judah would not readily accept her. Ruth’s decision offers encouragement to present day migrants. Ruth’s formal commitment to a different religion would involve a difficult process. Jews see Ruth as the great example of conversion to Judaism and her statement is the basis for those who wish to convert to Judaism today. For life-long Jews and Christians, Ruth’s decision may be hard to understand. On the other hand, for those who regard all religions as “basically alike” will also find her decision difficult. Finally, Ruth says she will live, die and be buried with Naomi. That is a life-long commitment and burial away from home is a momentous decision in the Middle East. Ruth’s promise concludes with an oath before the Lord = Naomi’s God. There was no belief in an afterlife at the time of writing, so Ruth commits herself permanently and with strength – to even beyond Naomi’s death. Rabbis therefore set Ruth alongside Abraham. Phyllis Trible argues that Ruth’s commitment is even greater because there has been no specific promise or revelation from God.

However, we do not know what the attitude of Ruth’s family to her was like. In the Middle East, the relationship between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law is very strong. Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi is a model of loyalty in other relationships.

Once Naomi realized that Ruth would not be moved, “she said no more to her”. Ruth has not followed her advice and Naomi makes no mention of Ruth in the next scene. “Ruth’s presence is as much a reminder of tragedy as it is of potential comfort”.

Arrival in Bethlehem

1:19-22

At their arrival, the whole town is excited. Travellers would not have been common perhaps – and two women arriving alone was a strange sight. Naomi is recognized but Naomi responds with irony. Her name means pleasantness but Naomi says she should be called bitterness. Like Job, Naomi can see no reason and no way forward. Like Jeremiah, in his laments, she lays her plight as God’s doing: God has caused the calamity. Unlike Job and Jeremiah, Naomi does not ask why and she does not ask for redress. Naomi talks of leaving Bethlehem “full” and coming back “empty”. The presence of Ruth goes totally unremarked.

Those who have grieved deeply, or accompanied those who have grieved, can argue that this book is about Naomi as much as Ruth.

[Frederic Bush believes Naomi is the main character of the book]. Kathleen Robertson Farmer argues that Naomi is the character who “ most closely mirrors the attitudes and experiences of the people of God, including both Israel and the church”. She is a character who is redeemed by the actions of other people. The Parable of the Good Samaritan. No-one ever chides Naomi for her honesty = psalms.

However, the final words of the narrator hold some hope: “They came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest”.

June 2020

From the Dragons’ Den

Little Dragon Members are still ‘resting’ due to Covid-19 but we hope that one of these fine days we will be able to pick up the threads and recommence our very enjoyable sessions.  We miss those little people so much but manage to keep in touch with several of them and their families through social media.  We have sent birthday cards out to those who have celebrated their special day and, when we hold our future sessions, we are going to have to spend a long time catching up with the Happy Birthday ritual which is quite complex – candles, singing, choosing whether to hold George, Uncle Sam or Idris! So far, during lockdown we have sent cards to 9 LDs and there are 2 to come in June, 2 in July and a whole bunch in August so, if lockdown continues,  we could have to hold a special ‘Birthday Event’ in order to see that everyone gets their ‘moment in the sun’.

Today, as I write,  Frank is celebrating his birthday, so perhaps I will pop a few candles on his cake (not the full total as there isn’t a cake big enough!), get a spare dragon that lives with us in a box full of LD story props, so that when, later this evening, we do a face-to-face with the family, he will feel that he hasn’t missed out. Maybe, maybe not! 

Our church dragons send best wishes and hope for a speedy return of all their little friends.                      

Every good wish, Val

Best wishes from we three:  – George     Uncle Sam   and Idris.

May 2020

From the Dragons Den.

George, Uncle Sam and Idris writing:   Well, here we are, all alone and pleased to note that we are looking after this place, our home, as well as we can, given that we are supposed to stay in our cupboard, in our basket!

Val did tell us that we would have to give Little Dragons a rest for a little while because something called a virus was happening in the ‘big world’, and that means that all our Little Dragons won’t be safe to come for a while.  We, and the Senior Dragons, the Carers and the little people are all very sad about this, but know that it is the sensible thing to do.

So, even though we are supposed to stay put, we have taken it upon ourselves to do our best to take care of this place, called Church, that we really love.  Each day, we pop out and about to check that things are safe.  We check the Chancel which is so peaceful and we try to scare away any bats that may be hanging around as they do make such a mess. We aren’t always successful in this task but we have noticed that sometimes the man and the women called Church Wardens and their Assistants pop in and check everything and we are hoping that they can sort out that problem.  We noticed that they check everywhere and make a note in a book to say that they have been.  We always hide when we hear them coming in as we don’t want to scare them, as although they know about us, they haven’t actually met us. Perhaps one of these days…………..!

We love to sit in the place called the Quiet area, or the Lady Chapel.  We would love to light a candle but daren’t do that as we think it wouldn’t be safe.  So we sit together and think about all the people who come to this place, our home, who like to sit quietly here, light a candle and say a few quiet words.  They must really be missing it but hope that they know that we are keeping everything safe until they are able to return.

We love this place.  It is our home and we once heard someone call it a sanctuary.  Perhaps soon, whatever it is that is troubling the world outside will sort itself and everyone will be able to come back. We we see all our Little Dragon friends again and we can all light lots of candles to show how glad we are.

Best wishes from we three:  – George,     Uncle Sam   and Idris. We know that Val would write, ‘Every good wish, Val’

ESTHER THEOLOGICAL THEMES

Carol Bechtel identifies three Theological Themes in the Book of Esther.

  1. The Importance of Proportion.

In the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament – Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, certain Psalms – it is a healthy sense of proportion that distinguishes the wise from the foolish. Shemarayahu Talmon has argued that Esther is a Wisdom tale. This is to take the argument too far. However, the importance of proportion is reflected prominently throughout the book. Ahasuerus and Haman often display a shocking lack of proportion. There are stupendous feasts and displays of pomp, decisions that affect the whole empire are made in an off-hand way and the royal signet ring is passed around without due recognition of the power it gives the wearer. But if Ahasuerus acts because he does not think deeply about things, Haman has a gift for disproportion worthy of a scheming despot. In contrast to these, Esther emerges as the epitome of proportion. Mordecai, although viewed by Jews as the hero, is less easy to grade.

Esther and Haman are clear counterparts. Mordecai and Ahasuerus are a less easy match but there are similarities. Ahasuerus does not mean any real evil but he leaves himself open to be manipulated by Haman. Mordecai does not intend to doom his own people to death but because of his relationship with Haman, this is the result.

Carey Moore represents a long tradition of commentators when he claims “between Mordecai and Esther the greater hero in the Hebrew is Mordecai who supplied the brains while Esther simply followed his instructions.”

Carol Bechtel strongly disagrees with this: “it is Mordecai who – however unwittingly – gets the people of God into this mess. It is left to Esther – with a lot of help from God and a little help from Mordecai – to get them out.”

  1. The Challenge of Living a Faithful Life in an Unfaithful Culture.

It is one thing to live a life faithful to God when one is surrounded by a culture that supports such efforts. It is quite different to live a faithful life in an indifferent or hostile situation. Sidnie Ann White writes: “the tale clearly is meant to entertain… it has a didactic purpose as well,” namely, “to teach Jews how to live a productive life in the Diaspora”.

The one unalterable fact of life for the Jews in the Book of Esther is limited power.

But the Jews are not the only ones with limited power.

There is Queen Vashti. She is a fascinating character. Ahasuerus and Vashti are like two immovable forces that clash – and there can be only one winner. Her resistance to Ahasuerus is an important foil for Esther’s progress. Esther opts, in contrast, for critical compromise. Mordecai’s actions can veer between those of Vashti and Esther.

The Eunuchs are often overlooked in Esther. Most of the interventions by eunuchs are positive such as Hegai’s favour and advice or Harbona’s timely suggestion. There is one negative intervention and that is Bigthan and Teresh’s foiled assassination attempt. Bigthan and Teresh, choose open rebellion and, like Vashti, pay dearly for it. Hegai and Harbona get what they want by being patient and waiting for the right moment.

And then there is God. His name is never mentioned. This fact as Carey Moore notes caused Esther some difficulty in being accepted into the Christian Canon of Scripture. Carol Bechtel writes: “In a manner quite similar to the stories of Joseph and Ruth, God’s presence also is felt in the book’s ‘coincidences’.” “All of this is to say that God is very much a character in this book, though one who evidently prefers to remain anonymous”.

Like the Jews, the women, and the eunuchs in the Book of Esther, we must make difficult decisions about whether to adopt, reject or adapt to our situation.
Yet God is with us in the midst of that struggle. We may wish at times God’s presence and power were a little more obvious. Carol Bechtel.
  1. The Power of the Written Word.

Seen from a slightly different angle, the Book of Esther could also be considered an extended meditation on the power of the written word.

There are, at least, sixty-three references to writing or written texts.

Haman’s whole strategy revolves around the relationship between the written and the oral word. He is often ambiguous when he speaks with Ahasuerus but there is no ambiguity in the decrees he drafts.

The King keeps his own book of days and he has his royal annals read out to him when he cannot sleep. He was “sleepless in Susa” when Mordecai’ part in the foiled assassination is read out. Written texts lose their power when they remain unread.

That is why Jews take the Book of Esther to heart at Purim in accordance with the two sets of letters sent out in Chapter 9.

That an extended meditation on the power of the written word – and the importance of reading it – should arise at this this period is not surprising. This was a time when the people of God sought to collect and edit what would become Scripture, and to redefine themselves as “a people of the book”.

What is surprising is that Christians should be so little interested and engaged. R. Plunkett in a private communication wrote: “every text is a dead letter unless the writer and the reader collaborate to keep it alive”. As long as Esther’s word goes unread, its truth will lie buried.

Patricia Tull makes the interesting point that in the Old Testament, “heroes” are usually presented as complex and morally ambiguous personalities. We just have to consider David to appreciate this. Mordecai, I suggest, may be rather similar to these complex “heroes”.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER 5

By Rev Christopher Cooke

WEEK 5

Chapters 8,9 and 10

8:1-2: King Ahasuerus Makes Some Changes.

Is this poetic justice?
Is this what we expected to happen earlier in the story?

“There is a kind of ‘all’s well that ends well’ feeling at the end of verse 2. Perhaps Ahasuerus thinks he has done enough for one day, or indeed, has done all that needs to be done. Esther has Haman’s house, after all, and Mordecai has the king’s own signet ring. What more could they want”. Carol Bechtel.
Esther and Mordechai-Aert de Gelder (1645-1727

8:3-8: Queen Esther Pleads for Her People.

What is the unfinished business?

“Mordecai and Esther are being heaped with rewards, but their lives are still in danger”. Patricia Tull.

“More striking even than Ahasuerus’s lack of imagination is his lack of power. One cannot help but compare the ‘Mighty Man’ of the book’s introduction with the weak and ineffectual monarch pictured here… One thing, at least, is clear. Esther and Mordecai cannot rely on Ahasuerus for much help. The words of a dead traitor have proven more powerful than the commands of a living king. Their only option is to fight fire with fire – edict with edict”. Carol Bechtel.

Esther throws herself on the King’s mercy once again to show him the seriousness of the situation. Have you ever had to throw yourself on someone’s mercy to open their eyes to a case of injustice?

8:9-17: Mordecai Sends Out Another Edict.

What do you make of Mordecai’s Edict?
How does it compare with Haman’s?

The decree gives the Jews permission to defend themselves; that right may seem self-evident to modern readers but in the world of the Persian court in Esther, where everything is done according to the law, even self-defence must be legislated. The parallelism with the previous decrees emphasizes the wisdom doctrine of retributive justice, but Mordecai’s inclusion of women and children in his counter decree has made him vulnerable to a charge of ‘bloodthirstiness’”. Sidnie Ann White.

Patricia Tull believes the Book of Esther could end here with hardly any damage to its substance. Do you agree?

9:1-19: The Battles.

Does the violence that occurs in this chapter trouble you, given that some of it is requested by Esther? Why or why not?
Would it have troubled you less if Mordecai had been the one to make the request? Why or why not?

“Esther is true to real life as it is lived messily with loose ends and threads coming undone”. Johanna Van Wijk-Bos.

“The conclusion of Esther causes many people uneasiness. Its style and vision are so different from the rest of the book that many scholars think it may have been added by someone other than the author of the previous chapters. The earlier chapters’ keen sense of justice and aesthetics are not so distinct in the book’s conclusion. Yet theological gold can be mined from its very complexity”. Patricia Tull.

9:20-32: The Letters of Purim.

Should the Jews celebrate Purim?
Should Christians read the Book of Esther?

“The purpose of these letters is to give official sanction to the non-Mosaic festival of Purim. Purim, an essentially secular festival originating in the diaspora…” Sidnie Ann White.
“[Christians] would do well to remember, however, the main event of that celebration [Purim]; namely the reading of the book of Esther. Surely, we can manage that much. Indeed, we should more than ‘manage’ it, because there is a sense in which this book may have come into our canon ‘for just a time as this’. It is a book, after all, about the struggle to be faithful in the midst of an increasingly unfaithful culture.” Carol Bechtel.

10:1-3: Where has Esther Gone?

“But like Esther, rather than remaining children, rather than ignoring what is overwhelming to us, each of us had a God-given grace within us to step forward on behalf of people we care for, to engage in small acts of courage, even when we can hardly see what good they will do. And very often, when we do step forward, forces beyond our power will help us, as they helped Esther, in carrying out God’s good purposes”. Patricia Tull.

Reverend Christopher’s comments are shown below

8:1-2: King Ahasuerus Makes Some Changes.

Is this poetic justice?
Is this what we expected to happen earlier in the story?

The multiple silences of the story are brought to an end. Haman is revealed as the enemy of the Jews. Esther is revealed as a Jewess. Mordecai is revealed as Esther’s cousin. Esther is rewarded with Haman’s house (but how will she use it as she is in the harem?) King Ahasuerus remains much the same and hands over his signet ring which he took from Haman, and gives it to his new favourite: Mordecai. The signet ring is like a hot potato (Patricia Tull).

“There is a kind of ‘all’s well that ends well’ feeling at the end of verse 2. Perhaps Ahasuerus thinks he has done enough for one day, or indeed, has done all that needs to be done. Esther has Haman’s house, after all, and Mordecai has the king’s own signet ring. What more could they want”. Carol Bechtel.

8:3-8: Queen Esther Pleads for Her People.

What is the unfinished business?

“Mordecai and Esther are being heaped with rewards, but their lives are still in danger”. Patricia Tull.

Haman’s edict still stands and it cannot be revoked. Esther and Mordecai have to find a way to neutralize Haman’s edict. Esther must first, by her charms, obtain the king’s permission to circumvent the decree. Esther has never been as dramatic or melodramatic as this before. Her appeal is based on her personal favour with the King and not about the ethics of mass murder. We notice that Esther puts all the blame on Haman. She also argues that the loss of the Jews would result in a loss of property for the King. Nevertheless, Esther’s ploy works and Ahasuerus, characteristically, gives her carte blanche. He avoids responsibility once again by putting things in her hands. Ahasuerus displays a basic indifference to the fate of the Jews. Esther absolutely identifies with her people the Jews. Ahasuerus absolutely refuses to take any initiative. It is up to Esther and Mordecai to try and set things right.

“More striking even than Ahasuerus’s lack of imagination is his lack of power. One cannot help but compare the ‘Mighty Man’ of the book’s introduction with the weak and ineffectual monarch pictured here… One thing, at least, is clear. Esther and Mordecai cannot rely on Ahasuerus for much help. The words of a dead traitor have proven more powerful than the commands of a living king. Their only option is to fight fire with fire – edict with edict”. Carol Bechtel.

Esther throws herself on the King’s mercy once again to show him the seriousness of the situation. Have you ever had to throw yourself on someone’s mercy to open their eyes to a case of injustice?

8:9-17: Mordecai Sends Out Another Edict.

What do you make of Mordecai’s Edict?
How does it compare with Haman’s?

Esther calls on Mordecai to help draw up this important document. We have had an edict following Vashti’s rebellion and we have had Haman’s edict. Not surprisingly, Mordecai’s edict follows Haman’s in form quite closely. There are considerable parallels with Haman’s edict in chapter 3. Mordecai does not see this as a case for creative writing. It is very much modelled on Haman’s so that this counter-edict can be as effective as possible. Then there are the differences. Mordecai’s edict gives permission to destroy, kill, annihilate and plunder whereas Haman’s gives orders for the same. Mordecai’s is framed to allow self-defence while Haman’s was undisguised aggression.

“The decree gives the Jews permission to defend themselves; that right may seem self-evident to modern readers but in the world of the Persian court in Esther, where everything is done according to the law, even self-defence must be legislated. The parallelism with the previous decrees emphasizes the wisdom doctrine of retributive justice, but Mordecai’s inclusion of women and children in his counter decree has made him vulnerable to a charge of ‘bloodthirstiness’”. Sidnie Ann White.

This may well fit in with the concept of ‘holy war’ as this is what got King Saul in trouble when he did not carry this out against Agag. However, the verse ending is different in the Hebrew version. In that case, as Carol Bechtel argues, it would be Jewish women and children who are liable to be attacked. (In what follows, the Jews do not take plunder and there is no indication that anyone other than the attackers were harmed). There are two more contrasts between the edicts. Mordecai’s is also sent to the Jews who were excluded from Haman’s circulation list even though they were the victims. Haman’s edict was sent by couriers probably because there was no great urgency. Mordecai’s is sent by express mounted couriers – the pony express. After Haman’s edict, the King and Haman sat down to eat and drink. Mordecai leaves the King alone and appears in splendour in Susa. Now it is the Jews who eat and drink. It is a long way from the sackcloth and ashes and the fasting.

Patricia Tull believes the Book of Esther could end here with hardly any damage to its substance. Do you agree?

9:1-19: The Battles.

Does the violence that occurs in this chapter trouble you, given that some of it is requested by Esther? Why or why not?
Would it have troubled you less if Mordecai had been the one to make the request? Why or why not?

“Esther is true to real life as it is lived messily with loose ends and threads coming undone”. Johanna Van Wijk-Bos.
“The conclusion of Esther causes many people uneasiness. Its style and vision are so different from the rest of the book that many scholars think it may have been added by someone other than the author of the previous chapters. The earlier chapters’ keen sense of justice and aesthetics are not so distinct in the book’s conclusion. Yet theological gold can be mined from its very complexity”. Patricia Tull.

This chapter is full of inconsistences and redundancies. Esther’s appeal to the King seems more routine and less heartfelt than earlier. She is definitely more bloodthirsty than we have seen her earlier. Carol Bechtel would just say that Esther has become more determined. It is not clear why a second day of fighting was necessary other than that the feast of Purim as celebrated is a two-day festival. Haman’s ten sons were killed in the melee, and not executed, which suggests that they were among the attackers. There dead bodies are to be displayed on the gallows. The Jews take no plunder and spare women and children. What happens here is sometimes compared with the Warsaw ghetto in the Second World War when Polish Jews rose up to defend themselves from the Nazis. The battles at the end of Esther remind us that violence can be rooted in the desire for peace and security. The celebration is not in the slaughter itself but in the deliverance of the Jewish people.

9:20-32: The Letters of Purim.

Should the Jews celebrate Purim?
Should Christians read the Book of Esther?

“The purpose of these letters is to give official sanction to the non-Mosaic festival of Purim. Purim, an essentially secular festival originating in the diaspora…” Sidnie Ann White.

Mordecai’s letter is not a royal decree but a request to the Jews that they mark this annual celebration. We notice that are to be presents for the poor. Verses 24 to 26 give a synopsis of the book, severely telescoped, and in some cases in disagreement with the main plot. For instance, Ahasuerus is seen in a better light than elsewhere in the book. It reads as if he were the saviour of the Jews. Despite the author’s best attempts, the connection between Purim the pur (Haman’s casting of lots) remains tenuous and murky. There follows a letter from Queen Esther giving it all royal sanction. Although, Purim was not universally celebrated (the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest it wasn’t at Qumran), it soon became a very important festival. At the heart of this festival is the reading of the Book of Esther.

“[Christians] would do well to remember, however, the main event of that celebration [Purim]; namely the reading of the book of Esther. Surely, we can manage that much. Indeed, we should more than ‘manage’ it, because there is a sense in which this book may have come into our canon ‘for just a time as this’. It is a book, after all, about the struggle to be faithful in the midst of an increasingly unfaithful culture.” Carol Bechtel.

10:1-3: Where has Esther Gone?

These verses glory in the greatness of Ahasuerus and Mordecai. What a great king! Mordecai is said to have governed well, looked after the Jews but benefitted the whole of that great kingdom. In this way he is compared to Joseph in the Book of Genesis. This contrasts with the descriptions of Ahasuerus and Mordecai in the main part of the book. And Esther is written out of the story.

“But like Esther, rather than remaining children, rather than ignoring what is overwhelming to us, each of us had a God-given grace within us to step forward on behalf of people we care for, to engage in small acts of courage, even when we can hardly see what good they will do. And very often, when we do step forward, forces beyond our power will help us, as they helped Esther, in carrying out God’s good purposes”. Patricia Tull.

Elizabeth and Rubens

By Jackie Winwood

I attach a picture of our rather large Montana clematis (Elizabeth) and found this appropriate poem which I thought was rather nice-

Photo by Jackie Winwood

Ode to“Elizabeth and Rubens” Clematis Montana

Elizabeth and Rubens were a good pair
until I went and cut down all Rubens hair
now Rubens in my garden is no longer there
and Elizabeth looks like she needs some care

Lamsdorf POW Camp

By Mary Worall

Lamsdorf in the 1940’s

My uncle was a prisoner of war , He was taken at Dunkirk and was then in different camps over the next four plus years,
This I found near the end of his recordings, I was taken with it, I reread it on VE day,
This was written on the end of one bed in Stalag V111B. (Lamsdorf Silesia)

(1) Now I’ll tell you of a tale of some prisoners of war,
who were captured not far from St. Valeris Shore.
On the 12th June as you will recall,
we were battered to hell by the Dutch conger balls

(2) They took us to Langsdorf, our home to be.
Where instead of our grub we got 2 hours of PT
Two loaves between ten, and a bowl of coffee,
Oh! I’ll never forget that place called Stalag V111B.

(3) From Langsdorf they sent us to work in the mines,
At first it all looked good and so fine,
The people and miners , they all looked so glam
and all the words spoke were ‘come Englanders come’

(4) And for our pay they gave us two Marks
Oh how we cursed the dirty old sharks
cigarettes and tobacco we could not get
the boys haven’t got over it yet.

(5) But there come a day when prisoners no more
and we shall board the ship for dear old Blightey’s shore.
To drink wine and whisky not forgetting the rum.
and no more to hear them say ‘come Englanders come’

I put this into my book on May 14th, when waiting to go to work.
I wonder who wrote this and which camp they were moved to.

He added other poems that he collected from people and used a tiny little bit of pencil to put it all into a small children’s note book.

The spellings and English are just as it was. It did me good to reread this precious diary.

N.B. Ed. There’s a huge amount of very interesting information about this camp, and the ‘Long March’ across Europe endured by the prisoners. You can find it here.