Theological Journal – June 20 When Biblical “Heroes” Aren’t

We tend to assume (not unnaturally) that biblical books named after characters in the stories they tell are “heroes” in those stories. Not perfect, to be sure, but the stories about them wouldn’t be in the Bible if we weren’t supposed to find them models or exemplars for some aspect of biblical living. And most of the time that’s a good instinct. Even Job who is as daring as can be imagined in challenging God has that challenge honored and though rebuked for his arrogance ends up back in right relation to God, The narrator of Ecclesiastes accepts Qoheleth’s stringent critique of meaning and purpose in life lived “under the sun” (without God) and though he finds that critique finally inadequate never says it is wrong on its own terms or denies that God’s people may experience life as meaningless to if they attempt to live it Qoheleth’s way. Even if we live from our commitment to Yahweh and his covenant life never falls into place like a jig saw puzzle but contains seemingly endless conundrums, perplexities, existential knots, and frustrating dead ends to simply stamp “solved” over them. Qoheleth captures something true and real about human life that even relation to God does not efface.

I have in mind a few particular Old Testament books to consider: Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. We usually read and teach these stories for their presumed positive contributions to biblical principles of faithful living. And we have shown it can be done. Numerous studies of leadership from Nehemiah, the necessity and value of separation from pagan influences in Ezra and Nehemiah, and feminist lessons from Esther and about the inscrutable providence of God have come forth from theses books. But just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be. My feelings about these studies are that they are akin to watching dogs walk on their hind legs. We’re not surprised they don’t do it well. We’re rather amazed they can do it all!

Perhaps the Hebrew Bible helps us a bit by placing these books among the writings rather than the prophetic books. This peculiar collection of not-Torah and not-prophetic writings form the third section of the Hebrew Bible and contain the Wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon), the Psalms, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, Daniel, Ruth, and Lamentations. This collection seems designed to provide guidance for Jews living beyond the Exile in the new world beyond it.

Thus Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther belong to the post-exilic life of Israel as they try to put their lives back together after the catastrophe of banishment to Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This period was not a good time for Israel. They basically continued to live under the conditions of exile even though back in their land (though under the heel of the Persians) and had rebuilt the temple (a shabby facsimile of Solomon’s great structure to which God’s presence never returned!). Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther relate Jewish experience under these continuing exilic conditions in the land (Ezra-Nehemiah) and outside it (Esther).

To determine how these books should read we must look at the full picture these stories tell and not just cherry-pick various features to wring “Christian” truths out of. Craig Bartholomew does that for us in his essay “Hearing the Historical Books” in the book Hearing the Old Testament. He notes “curiosities” in these books we must take account of.

-life back in the land enjoys nothing of the blessing and fulfilment promised in texts like in Isa.40-55. There is “no trace of the Abrahamic notion of Israel blessing other nations.” Rather the Israel we find here is cramped, constricted, and decidedly closed to other peoples. ”They repel and aggravate others rather than blessing them (Ezra 4:1-4; 10:9-12).”

-though the people claim their foreign marriages have corrupted the people, the narrator never claims as much. It is simply these marriages themselves not any supposed effects on the religious life of the people that accounts for their dissolution and break up of families. “We are a long way here,” writes Batholomew, “from the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt, and from Moses, who married a Cushite. We are a long way from the story of Ruth, the Moabite ancestor of King David, and a very long way from Isaiah 56:4-8 which envisages a time after the Exile in which the law of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 will no longer apply - precisely the section of Old Testament law cited in Ezra-Nehemiah regarding mixed marriages. We are finally, a long way from Chronicles, with its “inclusive” view of Israel’s community of faith, that all who want to belong to the worshipping community may do so.”

-further, in this whole story God remains silent and the narrator simply tells his story, not commending it for readers’ emulation. He intends us to exercise our judgment based on what we know God intends for his people to be and do. Bartholomew’s conclusion: “the people of God fell short of their calling in the promised land in the postexilic period, just as much as they did in the preexilic period. . . In Ezra-Nehemiah the great onward movement of the redemptive history is stalled.” And when it is resumed with Jesus of Nazareth it is the Abrahamic and Isaianic vision that he rejuvenates with its inclusive thrust leaves the dynamics of the Ezra-Nehemiah period behind.

That then, is what we must learn from these stories. The continuing failure of the people even after experiencing God’s New Exodus out of Babylon and back to the land to embrace to values and visions of a genuine covenantal faith and practice.

Similarly, with Esther. Here the setting is outside the land n Persia. It is widely noted that the name of God is not mentioned in Esther (the only Old Testament book in which this is true). There is a story of providence here, of God working through the ordinary actions the human actors. But many of these actions hardly stand up to moral, covenantal scrutiny.

-why is Esther in the king’s harem anyway?

-is her hiding her Jewishness (2:10,20) a positive?

-how about revenge? (8:11-12; 9:5-10,16)

“The way the story is told,” observes Bartholomew, “reminds us of the conquest narratives in Joshua, but the situation is not really the same. It is very difficult, in fact, to read the book of Esther as anything other than a parody of the concept of peoplehood the book of Genesis has in mind . . . this people has decided to stay in exile, to merge into the fabric of existence with no special identity, to survive through dependence on their own resources, and to hold on to a narrow and nationalistic . . .  view of peoplehood, which brings only destruction to others rather than blessing.”

Thus, neither Ezra and Nehemiah, nor Esther, are heroes and heroines for faithful Israel. They do not call God’s people to the true vision of peoplehood, universality, and inclusivity of the Abrahamic covenant and the Isaianic visions that carry the true “gospel” weight of God’s work through Jesus in the world. They are not dogs trying to walk on their hind legs to be something they are not. They are sad and somber tales of Israel’s continuing resistance to God’s call and vocation, setting in stone (as it were) the national judgment coming upon them through Jesus at the hands of Rome in 70 a.d.  These books teach us how not to be God’s Abrahamic people in or out of the land. A hard lesson, to be sure, but the one we must hear to read this section of scripture aright as a part of the Writings of the Hebrew Bible and the essential prelude to the life and work of Jesus.